Love your enemies? Seriously?

[Homie]

One of the hardest commands in the Bible, IMO, is the command of Jesus when he tells us to love our enemies. It is really difficult, but that is not the point of this thread. This is:
How is the Son's command to love our enemies consistent with the Father's command to annihilate some enemies of the Israelites. Am I missing something? Context, background information, anything?

[Homie]

None? Am I posting this in the wrong sub-forum?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 02:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92901#post92901)
Homie:

None? Am I posting this in the wrong sub-forum?

The Q&A Liberal Arts section will probably provide you with more answers. Just a hunch though.

Anyway, my take is simple: God commanded specific people to carry out His wrath on His enemies. This has little to nothing to do with the commandment to all people to love our enemies.

~Matt

[Homie]

INQUISITORKIND
Anyway, my take is simple: God commanded specific people to carry out His wrath on His enemies. This has little to nothing to do with the commandment to all people to love our enemies.

First of all, it seems that God (according to your theory) sets higher standards for men that for himself.

Secondly, he commanded the Israelites to carry out His and their wrath on their enemies. They (the Israelites) were the ones who had been attacked by these people, so they were the enemies of the Israelites. So they attacked and wiped out a people because they were their enemies, is that loving them?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 01:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93525#post93525)
Homie:

First of all, it seems that God (according to your theory) sets higher standards for men that for himself.
If God gave life, why should He be exempt from taking it when He desires?

Secondly, he commanded the Israelites to carry out His and their wrath on their enemies. They (the Israelites) were the ones who had been attacked by these people, so they were the enemies of the Israelites. So they attacked and wiped out a people because they were their enemies, is that loving them?
As far as my limited reading of the OT accounts go, Israel invaded the Promised Land. I don't recall them ever being attacked by the people they were commanded to wipe out. Do you have any examples of what you are suggesting?

~Matt

[Homie]

INQUISITORKIND
If God gave life, why should He be exempt from taking it when He desires?

HOMIE
I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is that the command of the Father (to annihilate ones enemies) does not seem (without further study of course) to be consistent with the command of the Son (to love ones enemies).

INQUISITORKIND
As far as my limited reading of the OT accounts go, Israel invaded the Promised Land. I don't recall them ever being attacked by the people they were commanded to wipe out. Do you have any examples of what you are suggesting?

HOMIE
I do know the stories of the OT but I seldomly remember where they are located, what books, chapters and verses. So I am afraid I cannot give you the scriptures. But Socrates has given me links to articles that handle the issue of the annihilation of the Amalekites and the Canaanites. The one I am thinking of is the annihilation of the Amalekites, a people who stood in the way of the Israelites.

[sacre]

What I have a problem with is that the command of the Father (to annihilate ones enemies) does not seem (without further study of course) to be consistent with the command of the Son (to love ones enemies).

Perhaps the problem can be cleared up by a few simple definitions. Israel had limited authority to punish breaches of the moral law, dependant only upon the voice of God through the prophets. Israel had unlimited authority to punish breaches of the civil law, and it regularly did so within it's own lands. Without geting into the dispensational/covenantal argument again, let me say this: The last prophet has spoken (the eternal Prophet), and has said that He will avenge His Law. The eternal Priest has spoken, and given us remission of sins. The eternal King has spoken, and retained the State for the purpose of punishing the wicked violators of the civil law. Our (the Church's) battle is no longer with flesh and blood, but with spiritual matters (and we have been given spiritual weapons for the right hand and the left).

Also, we must note that love does not contradict justice. If God did not act justly to punish the wicked in their way, He would also not be loving. This is a very deep issue that will take much explanation.

To sum up, when Israel attacked their enemies, they were acting as the State, defending their people. The State now still has that authority. When Israel went on the offensive, as with the promised land, they were acting as the moral justice of God, in accordance with the explicit Word of God, as given to the prophets. When they attacked without the Word of God, they were simply slaughtered. The main point is that "mercy" and "love" do not always coincide, but justice will always be had of God.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 09:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94183#post94183)
Homie:

INQUISITORKIND
If God gave life, why should He be exempt from taking it when He desires?

HOMIE
I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is that the command of the Father (to annihilate ones enemies) does not seem (without further study of course) to be consistent with the command of the Son (to love ones enemies).
The operative word here is "seem."

INQUISITORKIND
As far as my limited reading of the OT accounts go, Israel invaded the Promised Land. I don't recall them ever being attacked by the people they were commanded to wipe out. Do you have any examples of what you are suggesting?

HOMIE
I do know the stories of the OT but I seldomly remember where they are located, what books, chapters and verses. So I am afraid I cannot give you the scriptures. But Socrates has given me links to articles that handle the issue of the annihilation of the Amalekites and the Canaanites. The one I am thinking of is the annihilation of the Amalekites, a people who stood in the way of the Israelites.
Were the Israelites enemies with them before hand? In other words, did the Amalekites attack Israel first, which caused Israel's retaliation, or was God commanding them to invade? (If this is answered in the article, indicate so, and I'll read it before responding again.)

Good to discuss with you.

I hope you get your questions answered,
~Matt

[Homie]

INQUISITORKIND
Were the Israelites enemies with them before hand? In other words, did the Amalekites attack Israel first, which caused Israel's retaliation, or was God commanding them to invade?

HOMIE
Both, the Amalekites were enemies of the Israelis beforehand, after all, the Amalekites attacked first. And yes, God did command the Israelis to attack. This is all gone through thoroughly in the articles:
Amalekites,
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
Caananites,
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

I haven't read through them though, they are quite long.

INQUISITORKIND
Good to discuss with you.

I hope you get your questions answered,
~Matt

HOMIE
Likewise :smile:

[AtheistArchon]

- The notions of a god of love and a god of war (or vengence) are contradictory. You can only have it one of three ways:

1. God is a god of love.
2. God is a god of war.
3. God possesses human emotions and swings both ways.

- If you choose #1, then you cannot choose #2, and vice versa, yet the bible shows us both. Perhaps the humans that invented god could not fathom a being that did not possess human emotions, and so incorporated them into him. :smile:

[Homie]

You are ignored AtheistArchon, no point in hanging around a forum trying to turn people away from God, that is pathetic. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time?

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 10:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95219#post95219)
AtheistArchon:

- The notions of a god of love and a god of war (or vengence) are contradictory. You can only have it one of three ways:

1. God is a god of love.
2. God is a god of war.
3. God possesses human emotions and swings both ways.

- If you choose #1, then you cannot choose #2, and vice versa, yet the bible shows us both. Perhaps the humans that invented god could not fathom a being that did not possess human emotions, and so incorporated them into him. :smile:
Let's try your thinking another way:

The notions of a God of life and a God of death are contradictory. You can only have it one of three ways:

1. God is a god of life.
2. God is a god of death.
3. God possesses human emotions and swings both ways.

- If you choose #1, then you cannot choose #2, and vice versa, yet the bible shows us both. Perhaps the humans that invented god could not fathom a being that did not possess human emotions, and so incorporated them into him. :smile:

...

If you understand the Biblical texts, God both gives life and takes it away. That makes Him both a God of life and a God of death, and I'm quite willing to bet that it's not governed by changing emotions, as Christians whom God loves will die and then be given life.

By the same measure, God can be a God of love and of war (vengence). Take Christ (God incarnate) for example--the embodiment of love, and the instrument by which God exercised his wrath (vengence, if you will allow).

~Matt

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm like Atheist Archon, so you might reject everything I say.

You should not expect the God of the O.T. and the N.T. to agree about us loving our enemies because they were different God-concepts. The writers of the N.T. tried to promote a religion superior to the Judaism of their day similar to how Joseph Smith tried to promote a religion superior to the Christianity of his day.

The God of the O.T. was an entity designed to fulfill the wants of its creators. The God of the N.T. had a similar origin. The difference in these God-concepts is due to improvements in ethics and scientific understanding over those hundreds of years. If you ask people today about God you might find He's even nicer.

The God of the O.T. validated genocide of adults and children in some cases and marriage rape of the captured female girls in other cases. The God of the O.T. validated hating and doing harm to your enemies. There was no eternal hell to the ancient Hebrews. God blessed you or cursed you while you lived and then you died. The God of the O.T. validated slavery and stoning for offenses such as sexual immorality, Sabbath breaking, and such things. Women and children were the property of the men. The God of the O.T. was not an omnibeing, but similar to the Gods of the pagans.

The God of the N.T. taught to love your enemies, but didn't show that love in an ideal way by creating an eternal hell for His enemies. Slavery was still validated, but it was no longer ok to stone others for minor offenses. Instead they were consigned to hell after they died. Women weren't usually the property of their husbands, but were still significantly inferior. The God of the N.T. was more of a philosophically perfect God.

The God of today doesn't like slavery and, depending on the sect, supports the rights of women, children, and homosexuals. Also depending on the sect, God might be an omnibeing or less than that.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.