I'm not a researcher, so I'm not getting paid for this, so I won't be
too motivated to give a real in depth answer. I haven't read your
other questions yet, so I'm a bit confused, the title says the
question is about Islam, but you talk about the Bible, which isn't
seen by Muslims to be the result of plenary inspiration from Allah.
The statement you give is indeed true for the New Testament.
Christian theologians, basically since Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
have based their ideas of "just war" on philosophy, and on the New
Testament. Personally I think this is largely because the Old
Testament contains so many problems for modern Christians, that its
ideas about war have generally been seen in the context of larger
problems of interpreting the Old Testament (e.g. as well as the
references to war in the Old Testament - see below - it also advocates
the death penalty for homosexuality, rebellious sons, witchcraft,
worshipping "false gods", etc.).
One thing that many people nowadays are starting to realise is that
Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, appears to have been a pacifist.
However, the problem with Christianity is that it has come to
understand Jesus through 1600 years of institutionalised power (as an
aside - not relevant to the bible, just Christianity's interpretation
of it - it might be interesting for you to read up about Constantine,
who consolidated Christianity, largely for political reasons, after a
military slaughter which he attributed to the power of Christ - his
actions still affect our understanding of Christianity today). The
New Testament does tell us that governments are given by God, and that
we should be good citizens. It also does not say anything against
war. These two facts together would tend to leave early christians
believing that war could be OK.
References that illustrate what I said above, about being good
citizens:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ROM+13:1-2
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+22:20-22
(for all references I give, click "This Chapter" to see the verses in
context)
Perhaps more telling, there is much imagery of war, in the New
Testament. As evidence, there is just about the whole of Revelation!
Remember, that Christianity, while it was being established, did not
see itself at first as a new religion, but as a reforming of the
Jewish faith (particularly those converted by apostles other than St
Paul!) Therefore, their scriptures, for the first century or three,
were still the Old Testament.
In the military imagery employed in the New Testament, the metaphor is
always that true believers are the army of good, and that no quarter
must be given. This is NOT a physical fight (my limited understanding
of Islam would say that the idea of "jihad", although it too is seen
to be metaphorical, by many muslims, is much more open to being taken
literally). Passages (besides those in revelation) that come to mind
are:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=ephesians+6:10-18
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1PET+5:8
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+10:34-38
(note that these lists are not comprehensive!)
Realise that these passages must be understood in their context. I am
not suggesting that they at all support (or refute) military action.
The main problem that early Christians had with military action was
not the killing of other human beings, per se, but the involvement
with other pagans, that was necessary to actually be part of an army.
This of course ceased to be a problem once Christianity became the
powerful Roman religion (that led to much of the crusades, and later
the inquisitions).
The idea of warfare in the New Testament says nothing about whether it
is against believers or non-believers. While the New Testament was
being written, Christianity was still a comparatively minor sect, so
that was a non-issue. Certainly, however, the idea was of political
struggles, as in wars today, not the idea of killing non-believers
because they did not believe. The emphasis regarding non-believers
was on converting them.
However, to answer your question, there is much in the Old Testament
that promotes killing non-believers. Fundamentalist/Evangelical
Christians of course say that this is not what is intended, but when
you ask them more, most
will say that this is because we are under a different "covenant" in
the New Testament times. But the question isn't about that, it's
about the Bible per se.
When the Israelites left Egypt, and (according to the Bible) invaded
the "promised land", they were supposedly told by God to kill all the
inhabitants, because they did not believe. This is, I believe,
repeated several times.
Basically all the book of Joshua is about their military conquests and
their ethnic cleansing of the locals. With many references stating
that God had condoned or ordered this. Some of the examples that
stick out (since I'm not getting paid, I'm not researching the
passages too well)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=joshua+8:1-28
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+23:23-25
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=NUM+21:1-3
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+7:1-3
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+7:1-5
All the above (and there are many more) relate to the Israelite
conquest of Palestine. However, we have examples of God-given
military conquests in later times too. Indeed, many Bible scholars
feel that the bible hints that one of the problems leading to King
David's downfall (adultery, murder, lies, etc.) was that he wasn't out
fighting when he should have been.
Just flick through the book of Judges and you'll find plenty of this,
including times that invaders or local uprisings, were seen to be the
punishment of God. The books of Kings are just as full of it.
The Bible also decrees capital punishment for a wide range of sins,
including not believing:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+22:20
Therefore, the Old Testament is full of blood. It is clear throughout
much of it, that God condoned, and in many cases, ordered, the
complete military annilation of their enemies (not just when attacked,
remember that in the invasion of the "promised land" they were in fact
the attackers). Indeed, there were times in which God made clear to
them that they had sinned, because they had not totally destroyed some
of the local tribes.
Of course, it is correct that this doesn't say that it is right for us
to go to war today. But it certainly does promote war against
non-believers. Christians, who of course don't want to slaughter
people any more than anyone else, say that the difference is that the
Jewish nation was a Theocracy .. ie a whole nation completely run by
God, whereas no nation is like that nowadays. Also, as I mentioned
before, they say that the New Testament era is different.
I'm not saying that Christianity, or even the bible, promotes war.
It's the way it is interpreted (it certainly did seem to promote war
during the times of the crusades, or even the European expansion to
Asia, the Americas, India, Africa, and Australia). In the end, people
believe what their heart tells them. The bible (both testaments) also
condone slavery.
Hope this gave you something to think about. |
