Does the Bible Justify Violence? by John J. Collins. Epiphany library section 2 B: Lutheran Writings. In this short 30 page essay published by Augsburg Fortress, the ELCA’s publisher, this renowned biblical scholar discusses, for lay people like you and me, portrayals of violence in the bible and how they have been used throughout history to justify violence. Do they actually justify violence? What does this mean for us today?
When ancient Hebrews defeated enemies, the enemies were sacrificed by the Hebrews as a gift to God. For example, in Samuel, Hebrews destroyed Amalekites including women, children and all they had. This eliminated the possibility of plunder and the arbitrary killing of soldiers or civilians; the lives of the vanquished were considered valuable enough to be worthy of sacrifice to God. Allowing any to remain living would lead to false worship and trouble in the lands the Hebrews had won – in Canaan, for example. The exodus story is ironic – the Hebrews’ liberation is one side of the coin; the destruction of the Canaanites by the Hebrews is the other. But the Bible was written by and for the Hebrews, not the Canaanites, so it stressed the legitimacy of this destruction in order for the Hebrews to enter and dwell in the Promised Land of Canaan.
Later, Briton Oliver Cromwell treated the Irish as the Canaanites were treated, and our own Puritan fathers treated the Native Americans in the same way, destroying as many as they could in order to create their “city on a hill,” the light of which could not be hid. (Tell that to the Penobscot tribe!) Similarly, the Boers were destroyed under British rule, but then the Boers turned right around and treated South African blacks with the same violence.
Most people were horrified when the terrorist plotters of 9/11 were found to have been inspired by religious ideals. But the problem is not peculiar to Islam. It is deeply embedded in the Jewish and Christian scriptures as seen above. What do we do with these texts? We could call modern-day ‘Canaanites’ sinfulness and vice, but that does not take away the fact that such violence in the bible exists. And it is central, not peripheral.
The author of this essay says that this violent material gives an unvarnished picture of human nature and the things that people do in the name of religion. It only becomes problematical when it is called the will of God without qualification. Bible stories are not paradigms for human action in all times and places. So we realize that the demand for consecrating the destruction of enemies as a sacrifice to God is morally offensive, whether found in the Bible or the Qur’an. To recognize this is to realize that the bible is not an infallible guide on ethical matters. Historically people have appealed to the bible precisely because it was assumed to hold divine authority, which gave humans a feeling of certitude to any position the Bible was shown to support. This sort of certainty ends all discussion, which makes it even more dangerous.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, used this sort of certitude to justify in his own mind his abolitionist stance regarding slavery. However, after the Civil War, he came to another realization – that certitude leads to violence (a terribly destructive war). This author posits that,
“the Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been taken to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation. Perhaps the most constructive thing a biblical critic can do toward lessening the contribution of the Bible to violence in the world is to show that such certitude is an illusion.” ( )