š§µšHistorical Examples of Christians Using the āOld Testamentā to Justify Violence & Genocide
Christians apologists often claim that the violent commands of YHWH in the āOTā were only for āthat timeā & that they have a ānew covenantā that doesnt allow for barbaric violence.
Christians apologists often claim that the violent commands of YHWH in the āOTā were only for āthat timeā & that they have a ānew covenantā that doesnt allow for barbaric violence.
However, most Christians still believe that violence can be used when needed (e.g., fighting against an aggressive enemy army). But what rules of war would they follow? Historically, Christians have used the OT for inspiration, resulting in horrific acts of genocide.
This thread will provide some examples as mentioned in the book āLaying Down the Swordā by Philip Jenkins.
Historically, both Jews and Christians believed that they were the āchosen peopleā who had to usher in the messianic age. This would involves occasionally fighting against Godās enemies (p. 123).
But Christian apologists like to point out that the early church largely eschewed violence & adopted pacifism. However, as Jenkins points out, this was when Christians were the minority in the Roman Empire (p. 125).
Once the empire became Christian, āChristian rulers began waging war in the name of Godā, often using the OT for inspiration. One of the most common stories used for such inspiration were the battles with Amalek.
Due to the emphasis on the āparallelsā between Jesus & Moses, Christians used Mosesā fight against the Amalekites as a parallel to Jesus on the cross. The analogy of fighting Amalek was used by clergy.
One example is Pope Urban II calling for the Crusades against Muslims, who were identified as āAmalekitesā (p. 125).
But different groups could take on the role of the Amalekites. Protestants caricatured Catholics as āMoabites, Amalekitesā¦whom they deemed it their duty to extirpate [i.e., destroy]ā (p. 127). This was also done with Jews and other Protestants.
During the religious wars with Catholics, Protestants frequently used the OT for inspiration, again invoking the story of the Amalekites (including the mass murder of children and infants).
Assassinating Catholic leaders was frequently preached. John Know, a Scottish protestant, hoped for the assassination of Queen Mary, using the example of Phinehas from the OT to inspire his followers (Phinehas killed an Israelite and his Midianite wife in Numbers 25).
When it suited them, Christians abandoned ājust warā theories and adopted a more extreme view. The Swiss protestant āreformerā Heinrich Bullinger wanted to revive the practice of herem, the ritualistic slaughter of āidolaters and enemies of the true and catholic faithā (p. 128)
This would entail killing āwithout pity or mercyā. For Bullinger, the OT could be used to develop rules of warfare. He referred to the instructions in Deut 20 as āboth profitable and necessaryā (p. 128). He stated that āthese laws of war are still bidden to be keptā in scripture.
Keep in mind that Bullinger was not some fringe extremist. He was extremely influential in Europe among Protestants. Other leaders, such as the English Puritan William Gouge, also wanted to revive the practice of herem (neo-herem).
To Gouge, it wasnāt just āpermissibleā but ārequiredā of Christians to engage in religious wars (p. 128).
These teachings also reached the New World as Christians found āAmalekitesā to kill in America & used the ācovenant relationshipā between God & āNew Englandā as inspiration.
These teachings also reached the New World as Christians found āAmalekitesā to kill in America & used the ācovenant relationshipā between God & āNew Englandā as inspiration.
John Winthrop warned Christians that refusing to follow through with this covenant, which would entail destroying āAmalekā, would result in losing the ākingdomā as Saul did (p. 133).
These teachings would be used against the Native Americans. Cotton Mather referred to the Pequot Indians as āAmmonitesā, not āAmalekitesā (which mercifully meant not totally destroying them). Mather praised Winthrop & would inspire soldiers using the examples of Moses & Joshua.
The British also used the Bible to justify destroying āprimitive racesā such as the Australian aborigines (p. 136). In India, during the mutiny of 1857, memories of such heroes as Joshua and Oliver Cromwell were invoked & language pertaining to a āChristian holy warā was used.
Wiping out āprimitive racesā was also attempted by Christian Europeans in Africa. In 1838, the Dutch Afrikaaners defeated the Zulus in the Battle of Blood River & interpreted this as a sign of ādivine rescueā like that of God rescuing Israel (p. 137).
Not surprisingly, the Dutch referred to the black Africans as āAmalekitesā, thus justifying their destruction.
This led to the belief that the conquest of āCanaanā (in Africa) was due to a ādivine covenantā (p. 137). It also eventually led to the belief of āstrict separationā from the āheathen peoplesā (black Africans), which became known as apartheid.
In South Africa, the white Nationalist Party ruled from 1948 to 1994 and enjoyed support from āReformedā (Calvinist) churchesā.
The Irish also could not escape being condemned to destruction. In 1870, Friedrich Engels claimed that the Irish resistance to England could only be suppressed by āexterminationā (p. 139). Other people came to the same conclusion and used the Bible for support.
Germany too was on the war path, long before the WWI or WWII. Like the British and Dutch, it had an empire in Africa to maintain. The German colonialists worked closely with churches to justify their acts using Biblical imagery (p. 139).
In 1904, when the Herero and Nama peoples in SW Africa rebelled, the Germans killed 80% of the former, including women and children.
However, in Africa, even Christian Africans would come to use the Bible to justify killing other Africans. In 1994, during the Rwandan genocide (which killed 800,000 people), Hutu leaders used āChristian inspirationā and saw the Tutsis as āAmalekitesā who needed to be destroyed.
One pastor claimed that if Hutus did not kill Tutsis, they would ārejectedā by God (pp. 140-141).
To conclude, history is full of examples of Christians conveniently developing theories of war that fit their situations. Whether fighting for survival against Catholic persecution or expanding their empires, Christians has no qualms against using the Tanakh for inspiration.
And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!
Loading suggestions...