Audio restored with Diffio. Diffio processed the original archive recording to reduce noise and produce a cleaner listening version; the original stays available.
Speech quality score (model-estimated, SCOREQ): before 3.26 → restored 4.63
Use the player's Original switch to compare.How Diffio restores old speech recordings
And so a very good morning to you. This is an open discussion session, and the topic suggested for our discussion is as follows. If someone said to you that the Israelite conquest of the Canaanites, with its apparently merciless slaughter, not only of soldiers, but men, women, and children. If someone said to you that that conquest and that slaughter was merely an example, a similar kind of thing to an Islamic holy war jihad.
What would you reply? What should we reply? And secondly, if someone said to uh, to you, I'm a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. But surely, the slaughter that went on of innocent people in Canaan under Joshua was contrary, clean contrary, and is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And therefore, while I do believe in him, I cannot accept that part of the Old Testament as being the word of God. What would you, what should we reply to such a person? So let's take those two questions, if we can in that order, and help each other to come up with things that we could profitably reply to such questions. I grant you that some people that ask the first question are not really wanting an answer.
If you satisfied them on that, they would have three or four more questions waiting to get to you because they want excuses not to believe. On the other hand, it seems to me there are many i- uh, genuine people, and I met them, who find this whole thing troubling and an obstacle in their way to faith. Now, apologetics don't convert anybody, but they do serve a very healthy purpose of taking some stumbling blocks out of the road of people who otherwise stumble on them and do not come to faith.
It's in that, uh, context, with that motivation, that I invite your cooperation and help this morning, that together the Lord will show us what kind of answers are appropriate to this kind of question. So let's take the first one, that the account of the extermination of the Canaanites under Joshua is merely an example of a primitive idea, a holy war jihad in the name of a god against people who worship other gods.
It's our god against your gods, and is altogether disreputable. So, forthwith, I'm anxious to get all the help I can, and there's a hand already over there. This is a very good sign. I, um, thought a lot about this question over the years, and I have a partial answer, but still a very good question in my own mind. Partial answer is that as far as the Israelites being just bloodthirsty marauders, the evidence of scripture is the contrary.
They had to be motivated oftentimes to get about the business of doing what God wanted them to do as executors of his wrath, or executors of his wrath. They sometimes didn't do, uh, exterminate the enemy in full as they should have. Coupled with that is the fact that, that, um, the text, the Bible also indicates that God waited, that the judgment didn't come until evidence had been given and light had been given and testimony had been given, evidence by Rahab and the Gibeonites and so on.
That part I understand. At least that's the way I understand. But I would like to, I know this is the time for questions and contributions, so I've made my contribution, now I put my question forward. My question has to do with the, what I guess, I'm not even sure how to frame it, the morality of the method of execution. And what I mean by that is, today, if the jihadists, the Al-Qaeda, takes someone and beheads them, we, for the most part, cry about the horrible brutality of the deed.
One thing to kill a man, another thing to behead him and parade the head around. When David executes Goliath and parades the head around, we applaud. In the mind of the jihadist, there's no difference. They're doing what they feel their God would have them to do. In other words, that- that's my struggle, and I put that forth for help. I come back to question you just to elucidate one or two things, so while we move on. Um, taking the last bit first, would you also feel that applies to the two occasions mentioned?
First, the hanging of the king of Ai on a tree, and then the hanging of the five kings from the south, likewise. And that that the same thing has happened even in recent times. One thing to take an enemy in combat. It's another thing when, as has happened recently in Iraq, when they take the bodies of the soldiers and hang them from a bridge in public humiliation in that way. Uh, the morality of the one as opposed to the morality of the other. Did God sanction the one while condemning the other?
Mm. Yes, yes. Very good. So far, uh, the questions and the answers, the hand up and then you, sir. Hand over here somewhere. I would, I'm going to table Larry's question, that's a difficult question. Uh, I would appeal to the, the historical, uh, written word, perhaps beginning at the time of the prophecy of Noah concerning his grandson Canaan, and moving as the Lord sees it in his mind, as the phrase in Genesis fifteen, until the iniquities of the Amorites are full.
Uh, seeing, developing the, that God is, uh, particularly with these nations, not all the nations of the world, these seven that are developing in their iniquity and their immorality, uh, not only defiling the other nations, but, uh, rejecting the Creator God and the gospel in that sense. Uh, bringing them to Sodom and Gomorrah as a foretaste of what would happen, and then ultimately as, uh, in God's mind, the removal of the nations, of the seven nations. My, my question to you is, perhaps you can elaborate on the phrase, uh, until the iniquity of the Amorites are full.
I struggle with understanding the phrase the Amorites in connection with the seven nations. Good, and uh, uh, taking that last question, uh, uh, first, are you then raising the que- same thing as, uh, uh, the first questioner here, that God waited? Uh, and this is a sign of God's long suffering. It wasn't some, uh, off the cuff reaction, but a carefully, uh, executed plan that God waited.
I think most people would say that in a cup iniquity of the Amorites not yet full. Uh, meaning that societies go from moderately good to good to bad to awful to terrible and eventually intolerable, and that their God was waiting for that nation to develop to that point, so to speak, before he, so, uh, like a surgeon, excised it. Is that what you mean? Yes. Is that what the first questioner meant by God waiting? Yeah. Yes, good. Sir, you have a a question or contribution.
I think we should really establish that there is only one true God. Mm? And this matter of intelligent design would show to us beyond any fair venture of a doubt that there is only one, there can only be one God. God who created this universe, he is the only, uh, true God. And furthermore, Elijah, he took them down to the, I think it's Carmel, and he had these oxen cut in pieces, and then the God who answers by fire, he was established as the only true God. And we know, of course, even as you read the first chapter of Genesis, that God created the earth, and he is the true God.
Now, the Jihadists, they are serving a false God, and they cannot determine what type of methodology to do as far as the control of this earth is concerned. It is only God who has the right to dispose. And it seems as if the Canaanites were cancerous in that land, with all the immorality. And if the true God says, well, get rid of them, may be difficult to understand for us even today, but if he determines that, you know, we cannot question him.
And so therefore, the jihadists, I think, are on the wrong, on the wrong leg, you know? I don't, I cannot agree that they have a right to dispose or anything of this nature. Thank you. If I may just, uh, comment on that, just to, uh, explicate it a little. Your argument would be that since there is only one true God, let's establish that first, then it's not a question of our God against your God. Absolutely not. It is the one true God, and therefore that is the position in the Old Testament.
It's not a question of Israel's God against other gods. The other gods are no gods, and therefore it is the supreme judge ordering the sentence, Absolutely. against whom there's no appeal. It's not a question of one judge against another judge. That is your case, yes. Uh, the unfortunate thing is that then, uh, the jihad man, he says his God, Allah, is the only God there is. But you cannot answer by fire. You can't answer by fire. Yes. Well, that is so, sir. Though the, the jihad man might ask you whether you could as well.
But let's see that we're collecting, uh, ideas at the moment. That's a helpful thing. We can sift them and sum them up as we proceed. Yes, your contribution. I have a, I, I think the Christian God, not the Christian God, but the Christians who follow this one true God, have complicated the matter over the last two thousand years with such things as the Crusades. Uh, and you would have to, speaking from the mind of a Muslim, you would have to answer the Crusades, and that's very difficult in light of history, that we did not do what was right, that we did go in, do nothing more than what they're doing now.
Mm. Very frankly, had nothing to do with the judgment of God. Yes, uh, yes, and that is a very good point, sir, if I may just, uh, briefly comment. Eh, it was, it is, remains an absolute scandal that in the name of Christ, Christendom has allowed itself to do things that Christ s- absolutely forbade. Either to, uh, promote or defend his kingdom, he forbade us to use force of arms in his famous, uh, uh, reply to Pontius Pilate. Christendom has found all ways of getting round that, and in the name of Christ, sent out its crusades to capture and recapture Christian holy places from the infidel, uh, Muslim, which was an absolute scandal and perversion of the message of Christ.
That is so. Uh, uh, that is an important point. Let's come back to it. It just raises the second question, of course, doesn't it? We, uh, uh, uh, in talking, would have to say at once to a, a, a Muslim, a reasonable Muslim or anybody else, uh, confess that the Crusades were a disaster and anti and non-Christian. You see, that we would have to confess. That will raise our second question, however, of the, uh, is, uh, the teaching of Christ quite inconsistent with what went on in the Old Testament. In a recent book published on this very topic, a paperback, uh, entitled Show Them No Mercy, the first contributor to the book argues strongly, as he says he is an evangelical and believes in Christ, but the, uh, Old Testament must be understood in the sense that what went on under Joshua is clean contrary to the, uh, word of God in the New Testament and mustn't be taken as the authoritative word of God.
You see, so that second question that w- will raise is it inconsistent with Christ? Uh, it's, it's part of the whole argument, but it is sort of the second feature, if I might put it that way. Yes? Any further contributions? There was one over here before I forget it. Two over there, in fact. Yeah, the, the thing I was noticing that in kind of concert, trying to clarify with the questions of Larry and some of the other brothers, it, when it comes to the whole idea of whether this is was a jihad of sorts, and what is funny, like hanging the kings on the trees and things like that, is I think if we look back, first of all, and realize that God in his mercy gave the the nations of Canaan four hundred years to do what the Gibeonites and Rahab and her family would do when Joshua came into the land, and the fact that when you look back at Abraham, when they gave this, this story, that there were people that believed in the true God in the land at the time.
When you look at the case of Melchizedek, king of Salem, that he waited and gave them four hundred years to repent, but that they didn't, that especially since that God gave that land to Abraham, promised it to his descendants, that when they came back into the land, that they were having to execute the wrath of God against people that had despised his message, which is completely in line with what will happen in Revelations to those that despise the message, message of Christ. Down in the future, this is, this is not any way inconsistent with the Lord. The other thing that I noticed with the idea of the hanging of the kings on the tree was that was to show the fact that they were the accursed of God, according to Deuteronomy, that that was what you were supposed to do with someone who had gone against the Lord and was counted worthy of death, and that it was a great picture that the Lord Jesus Christ would also become the accursed of God when he would take our sin upon himself.
Thank you very much, yes. That is a, a, a, a, a, a factual comment. Eh, just let's underline that, that last bit that you said. In the law of the Old Testament, not all criminals were hung on a tree. Secondly, they weren't hung on t- a tree as a method of execution. They were first executed and then hung on the tree. But the hanging on the tree was done in cases where the crime had been especially heinous, and therefore as a warning. That warning also, however, was limited.
It must not remain on the tree after sunset. And so the book of Joshua very carefully points out, in both cases, that the corpse was taken down at sunset and buried properly. So, yes, that begins, that doesn't completely answer the question that was raised about the brutality of the method of execution. Eh, you'll see. Let's come back to it again. And a question over there to take them in order somewhere. Yes. Yes. Uh, does it help to mention the fact that Satan always has his, one of his methods is to imitate the one true God.
He did it in the Garden of Eden. Whatever he does, he distorts, makes it harsher. Uh, he distorts the judgment. Uh, what we have in, what we have in Joshua is an isolated act of judgment by God, isolated in geography and isolated in time. It's not a blanket, um, command for all of God's people everywhere in all time to wage war against God's enemies. It was a specific, isolated act of God in judgment against those nations using the nation of Israel uses other nations in other times to execute judgment upon corrupt nations.
In fact, he will use Babylon to execute judgment against Israel, um, in a later time. But these are isolated incidents. They're not blanket commands like the Jihad against all of the non-Muslims, forcing conversions or at the point of sword. Mm-hmm. Does that help at all? Well, thank you, ve- thank you very much. Uh, uh, uh, that point that it was, uh, a particular and in those circumstances isolated a case, the invasion of Canaan and the extreme executions, an isolated case. Eh, uh, it will be true to say that the books of Samuel, the, and particularly the books of Kings and Chronicles, record a lot of campaigns against the armies of, uh, other nations and against their gods.
But I take, personally take your point. It was a special case, was the invasion of Canaan. Yeah? Now, uh, pardon, as on the back we had, but not before. I can't, forgive my sight, I can't see too well. That the, uh, one difference is that in the world of this, they they have a phrase Dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, and so their jihad extends to the world, whereas this land was, uh, had borders that they were taking. There weren't borders here. Yes, yes. Yes. And who's uh?
I would just like to say it it it appears to be a little bit more simple, although I appreciated the comments that have been made. It is the difference between capital punishment and murder. In in a case where somebody is going to be punished capitally, if they're going to be executed, the death sentence has been placed upon them. There is evidence, there is procedure, there is demonstration of guilt, there is the execution of that punishment against the person who is guilty of something worthy of death. There's a process, and we call it due process in the legal system, right? There was due process. Evidence was presented, so on and so forth.
In the case of what is a a jihadist, there is simply anger and revenge and retaliation for, uh, contrived and spurious allegations against the world that, uh, somehow or another we have impugned the integrity of their God, and so on and so forth. But where was the due process? Here we read about Joshua and his, uh, act of of being the sword of God, if you will, to to act out the execution, the punishment of God. There was due process, there was evidence, there was witness, and it was for the whole world to see. And Rahab, of course, was very illustrative of it. She says, you know, we heard what you guys did and what you're doing. We saw the River Jordan part, we saw the Ark, you know, all of it.
So there was, where is this on the part of the jihadists? I don't see it. So I would say it's it's the difference between capital punishment and murder. That's an interesting point, uh, sir. I think I would like to hear what others have to say on the distinction. It is a valid distinction, isn't it? A due process of law with a judge acknowledged by all who participate is the, uh, authorized judge and due process of law leading to an execution. War is very rarely that, even when you have a United Nations.
War is very rarely a judicial process. In a judicial process, it would be monstrous to kill innocent people in the process of executing the guilty. In war, even though some nations try to limit the, uh, killing of innocent people, it does happen, sir. And then, of course, if we insisted that there must be miraculous evidence, uh, to, um, support, uh, such a a war. Well, as believers, we accept, of course, the Old Testament story that there were miracles attending, you see, Jordan and so forth and so on.
But to an unconverted person, to say, well, there were miracles that happened and that showed that God was the re- this was the real thing, that this was judicial process of law, uh, I think might be questioned, you see. But let's put it down on the sheet to, to as worth discussing, yes? Yeah, I think if you have your hand up, yes. Yes, I do. I just, uh, wanted to make the comment that these civilizations that were coming under judgment certainly didn't value innocent life themselves, even in their own midst. They put a lot of babies to death in the worship of their gods. And I think your point the other day of a distinction between the temporal and the eternal judgment was a good one.
That just because God looked at the civilization and said it's so decadent that it's consuming itself and therefore needs to be excised because it's corrupting the whole society and anything that touches it. That doesn't mean that the so-called innocents that were killed aren't going to get a, a just treatment at the great white throne of judgment or wherever the Lord sorts that out. Mm-hmm. You know, some people have used that same argument to say America got what they deserve for all the abortion. We hear that right after nine eleven. some people said this America got what they deserve because of all the innocent babies that we've killed.
Yes, let's come back to it. I would like, because this is, yes, this is a potent, uh, argument, and, uh, we presently must begin to draw the threads together to come up with some positive things. Keith, you laid the charge that the Canaanites, uh, murdered innocent children in the course of their religious rites. Can you cite us a definite passage of scripture that says so? Uh. Some help. Isn't that makes their children pass with the fire, Moloch?
Yes. Okay. Yes. Stephen's test. I don't know where the scripture is, but I've always taken that to be the Canaanite practice. I don't understand. Pardon? I don't understand. Stephen's testimony. Acts seven, I believe it is. They took up Moloch. Yes. Uh, actual, uh, uh, one actual, uh, passage is Leviticus chapter twenty. The strict forbidding. Uh, the, uh, Israel is forbidden the practice to pass their seed to Moloch, which means putting their babies to death in a sacrifice to Moloch.
There is also an accusation laid against Ahaz, king of Judah, in the book of Kings, Second Kings, that he did this abominable practice. I simply raise it because it's a matter of getting out a concordance and finding out. Deuteronomy twelve. Deuteronomy twelve, is it? Ah. Just read the passage to us while we find it. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, for every abomination to the Lord which he hated have they done unto their gods, for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Yes. Very good. Yes. I hold it myself in answer to our good brother here. I hold it a thing to be said to our modern Western world. They object to God's killing of the, uh, people, men, women, and innocent children. But the charge against the Canaanites was, among other things, as we've just heard from Deuteronomy, that they killed their innocent children, little babies, sacrificed them to the gods. Israel did at one stage under A- uh, Ahaz, king of Judah.
I hold it likewise a, a tu quoque, as they say, you as well. The modern world is highly hypocritical. In Britain, and I can only speak for Britain, the, when abortion was made legal, the legal limit was twenty eight weeks. That has now been shown to be too high on their own, uh, uh, frame of reference, because a child can survive out of the womb at twenty eight weeks. The government has therefore been obliged to reduce the thing to twenty four weeks.
That means that millions of babies were aborted that were viable. And it was legally done. Not a few Canaanite babies, but multi-millions. And it's a thing to be pondered. If one of the reasons why God brought in Israel to excise that evil society. What will God say to our modern world, America included? It is highly hypocritical. What else could God do, so to speak?
You say he ought to have got the little babies and fostered them out. Canaanite babies, I mean. That's impracticable. That is why the question of distinction between temporal judgment and eternal judgment is important. We have no basis, it seems to me, to say that because innocent babies were killed, that they will thereby suffer eternal punishment in the lake of fire. We must distinguish between the temporal judgment and the eternal. Yes, but there's a hand been long up there at the back. That man will get a heart attack if he holds it up any longer. Thank you, brother. Uh, just thought, I think David made some distinction concerning Joab, who said he shed the blood of war in the time of peace.
Thereby, he said, shedding innocent blood, so he defined a difference between a time of war and a time of peace. Now, uh, it was unlawful, therefore, whereas to David's thinking, it seemed to be a justified, lawful thing to shed the blood of war during war. Now, I think that by definition, we've got a question as to the ownership rights of this planet and who it belongs to. And it's, to me, an interesting thing that when Israel came in, Israel came in representing the rights of the one true and the living God, and I know that that's, well, a s- a a a subjective thing and open to question, but then the tactics that they use are very important because we're not taking innocent people that are being slaughtered.
We are taking people that were warned that the ground that they were on was confrontational and rebellious to the rights of the owner himself, and persisting in that would bring them into conflict with him, which would bring war, as it were. But then, having said that, there was an offer of mercy, and if that mercy was refused, then there was a warning of a judgment, but a judgment that in the end would not come by the bigger military might, by force, overcoming the weak and the defenseless, but by in fact, these civilizations or cities that have superior technology, superior armies, and in their own mind then trusted in these things and thought themselves to be able with their carnal weapons, they could destroy Israel.
They, they persisted, kind of like Goliath when he faced David. And so they themselves, it seems, will be held accountable for that very position they put themselves in to come under that judgment, which in the end was executed by an evident supernatural force, and not, as we have, the jihad of today that takes people subtly or takes people in weakness and overcomes them with brute human means and power. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Um, I, I think it would be useful to unravel of, uh, uh, some of those, uh, arguments.
The fact that the land had been given to Israel is given us in the book of Genesis. Yes. And we believe this to be the inspired word of God, as it indeed is. It was God's land anyway. You'll see that, um, that by definition, uh, of of what the scripture says. Israel, therefore, were going into a land that God had sworn to give them. But to the outsider, they would say that the land was given them by their God, which I think you were making the point.
And therefore, it was a matter of who had the stronger power on his side. And that means believing that Israel's God was the real one, and taking the story as it stands of the miracles that were done, uh, to bolster that case. That is your position. Yes, I see. Um, uh, I, oh, hands going up galore, yes. Uh, we must begin to shorten, uh, uh, the contributions because it's a quarter to ten, yes? I was wondering if you agree that Israel is being used as, in quotes, a government, and that they were carrying out capital punishment.
Because... there was, there's one verse that I read, um, a time back, and after reading it, coming from, I guess, yeah, the New Testament perspective, it, it did shock me. And it was the passage in Psalm one thirty seven where it says, oh, oh daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us, happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rocks. I mean, passages like that have shocked me, and it did make me... I just took it for what it was and said, I don't understand it, but I believe it, and I did have a problem reconciling it, but at the same time, I just, uh, so my question is, is that if Israel is being used as executives to carry out God's, as a government to carry out.
Yes, as to the last question about the Psalm, uh, uh, it seems to me, uh, uh, uh, quite possible that in the Psalms you have an inspired record, but of what the psalmist himself felt. Does that necessarily mean that God approved of all the feelings thus expressed in the Psalms? Take, for instance, a similar thing in the book of Job. That is an inspired record, uh, uh, in my judgment, and therefore, uh, it is a true record. But the many statements of Job's three so-called friends that are recorded by inspiration and a true record do not carry God's approval, because God himself subsequently says that they have not spoken of me that which is right.
So maybe that same principle could apply to some of the Psalms, a true and inspired record of what the psalmist felt. But whether that was, uh, uh, his feeling or something that God himself would have approved of, I think that's another story. That Israel was the executive of God's judgment, I think is plainly said in the text. To put a, a, an argument against it, uh, do you see, I think it's good to observe, uh, to our friends, our, uh, hypothetical friends that question us, that far from Israel thinking they were automatically God's, uh, executors of his judgment, they were straightly warned, even before they went into Canaan, not to do the same practices as the Canaanites, for the land was now spewing out the Canaanites.
The land couldn't bear it anymore. If Israel did the same thing, God would do the same thing to them. He would spew them out. Now, to my mind, that is one of the powerful things to be said. This was not God's favoritism of one nation because they professed to serve Jehovah. If those who professed to serve Jehovah felt evilly, God would bring upon them the same and worse affliction. That is said in Leviticus, that is said in some terrible chapters in Deuteronomy, of the, uh, fearful things that would come upon Israel, uh, you'll see, and, uh, then, eh, history shows it.
The prophets warn Israel that they will be taken away into captivity. And finally, our blessed Lord weeping over Jerusalem. Jerusalem stands in its history. It doesn't justify Gentile persecution of Israel. But one of the marks that Israel is the chosen people of God is the discipline that God has allowed to fall upon that people, according to the Old Testament itself. It is not, therefore, some people blindly saying, because God, God is on our side, we've a right to do.
Israel was subject to the same kind of thing by God's own deliberate intervention when Israel began to behave like the Gentiles. But there's a question down there, man in the blue shirt, yes. Are we when we condemn the Zihah and the Zihah is for the East, but we take our car down to the gas station and get gas.
No. Wait, wait, let's, let's, let's go step by step, okay? Let me go translate for you. Are we being hypocrites when we condemn the jihad, but at the same time that we condemn them, we're still going to our gas stations and without control filling up our cars for our own pleasure and desire? That's your question? Is there more to it? Yes. Well, yes, I think, uh, I think we have to examine our own consciences. Because...
now let's come to wars that don't profess to be holy wars, waged by nation, but for principles. The present one, of course, is to fight for democracy. I just want to say, how is that justified? What right have we to kill innocent people, to impose a political principle. We have to be careful when we judge ancient Israel.
They weren't standing for political principles. Well, that's another, that's another story, sir. The question of international relationships, I tread on, um, uh, dangerous ground, of course, but when, uh, one, a lot of people inflict harm on another, the other's right to protect themselves is normally regarded a- as granted, the right of self-protection. But I'm thinking of the big things that have cursed our modern world in the last century.
National socialism from Germany imposing its some political principles, or Marxists, Marxism imposing political principles. Then if we ask ourselves, have we the right to impose our political principles simply as such, not in retaliation for some injury done, but imposing political principles on other nations. Because Israel was not a democracy in the time of, uh, Moses and in the time of Joshua.
They weren't fighting for political principles. And then I want to ask bigger questions of modern society, if we're going to con- uh, criticize what God did through Israel in Canaan, and that is the economic problems of the world. The prophets denounced Tyre, not for its foreign, uh, its uh, idolatrous religion. Tyre was the great empire founded on commerce. And the Babylon of Revelation eighteen is a Babylon of commerce.
And the fight for the world's resources lie behind a lot of so-called political principles. That raises questions, doesn't it, of a moral nature too. And therefore, to begin to sum up, thank you for your contributions. I realize we haven't, uh, uh, solved the problem, but it is good to have thought about it, and some very powerful arguments have come up. You'll see. Um, one, Israel were not bloodthirsty marauders.
Very often they preferred to compromise with Canaanites rather than, uh, destroy them. Secondly, God's patience with that corrupt society. He'd waited for four hundred years. Thirdly, the fearful corruption of that society. Not only, uh, uh, two things in particular, that is to say, the sacrifice of innocent babes. What would you have God do to a society that persisted in that perversion of sacrificing innocent babes to their gods, their gods being pagan deifications of the forces of nature?
That is what sparked my own question. What would you have God to do for societies who, worshiping the goddess of love, are prepared to murder viable infants in the womb by the million. What would you have God do to a society like it? And then, of course, the, uh, uh, question of Israel's part therein. They are told by their own God, even before they start the crusade into, into, uh, uh, Canaan, that they are not to behave like those people, for if Israel behaves like it, God will do the same to them.
You'll see, and that is what happened in history. Witness their prophets warning Israel of this. Witness what has happened to them. So, yes, we distinguish then between the temporal judgment and the eternal. When God acts in temporal judgments, if you like to think of the wars that have gone on, for instance, defeating Hitler. There were many believers that died as a result of Allied bombing, yes? If God allowed it to bring down Hitler, we must suppose that everybody that died under the Allied bombing has gone to hell, have we?
A distinction then between God's temporal and his eternal judgment. But then let's come on to the second part of the question. How do you reconcile the principles enunciated by our Lord Jesus. And what happened in the Old Testament. Um, this is not an answer to that question, and I'm not an evolutionist. But there has been progress in history, has there not?
So that even when it comes to warfare, things that were accepted in England in times gone by, not only in warfare, but in judicial executions. You wouldn't have been wise to come to England in the fourteen hundreds and steal a chicken, still less a steal a sheep, because you'd not only be hung, but drawn and quartered. There has been a certain development, hasn't there, in the sense of conscience, even about punishments, let alone in the methods of war.
We mustn't be unfair to Israelites merely at that level. They were people of their own time and used their own methods. You'll see. We must be careful lest we criticize them for barbarities that seem to us to be barbarities. Read the Greek classics and the famous poems of Homer and the way the Greeks exalted in disemboweling their opponents, you'll see. That was thought to be heroic warfare. But that is beside the point, uh, largely, isn't it? Because we moderns, we don't draw on quarter people. We've got far more refined tactics. Bombs on the Vietnamese, burn- burning the skin off little babies.
What about that for barbarism? But you see, is there a dispen- excuse the term, but a dispensational difference? Would you say that the methods in the Old Testament were Christian? They were sanctioned by God. But is there truth in the suggestion that the coming of Christ and the Christian standards that Christ has raised put us in a va- a a different position from people in the Old Testament? Is that true or not true?
Somebody here says it's true. John nineteen, My kingdom is not of this world. Yes. If it, if it was, then my servant would fight. Now my kingdom is not of this world. Yes, from now. And I also think, if I may, that there is a very important issue at the heart of, of our faith in the Lord Jesus, the conquering, risen, triumphant Lord and Christ of the universe. Mm-hmm. He saves us. We need not save. That's right. He's coming back.
He's bringing in the judgment. He will put down evil. We don't need to be like the Muslim that needs to put down the evil to keep our God up. Our confidence is the one that died, conquered death, rose again, sits down at the right hand of God for the purpose that his enemies today might be saved by the proclamation of his message of peace, gospel, until that day closes, and he'll be the one that himself saves us and puts down evil. Well, thank you, be- yes. Christians in his name. Mm-hmm. Attempt to put down evil by carnal weapons, by fighting, by military operations, by political system is a very denial of the faith that we hold.
Well, let me just comment, and now our time is up. Uh... Christendom was guilty not only of crusades against the, uh, uh, uh, Muslims, but as a matter of policy, Christendom made its converts by persuading this king or that king to become Christians, and he lined up his citizens. They had the choice. You got baptized, and that made them Christian by sprinkling a bit of water on them, that made them Christians, you see. You got the choice. You could become Christian, or if you didn't, you got executed. That is a very rapid way for making converts.
It happened not once or twice, it happened all over the place, with a ghastly thing. So we need, uh, uh, uh, to emphasize the fact that Christianity, through the Christian gospel, does not approve of making converts by force. Secondly, Christianity does not approve, if it, uh, goes into a country, uh, juicy, that all who are non-Christians would be second rate citizens.
Islam does, of course. It will allow Christians and Jews to survive, and sometimes, as by the Moors in Spain, they were treated very handsomely, but they were always second rate citizens and paid more taxes than the others did, and didn't have the same rights as others on the basis of religion. Christianity does not approve of that, surely. Non-Christians are not second rate citizens, according to Christianity. And, uh, therefore, uh, we should listen as Christians when it comes to the propagation of Christianity, to our Lord's own teaching.
He had not come to root out evil. The famous parable of tares and wheat. Let the tares grow together until harvest. That is not directions for elders of a church, forbidding them to exercise godly self-discipline, forbidding them to excommunicate people of outrageous behavior. That has nothing to do with that. It's to do with the question of evil in the world. Had Christ come to deal with Herod and cut him down, or with Tiberius Caesar and cut him down, or any other such tyrant or opposer of the gospel.
And the answer is no, of course. According to Christ, let the tares grow together until the judgment, the coming of Christ, the end of the age. That said, if you say, are the executions of the Old Testament inconsistent with Christ, we'll have to say with Christ of what period in the plans of God. For Christ is not now executing the ungodly and rooting up the tares, but when he comes. The New Testament is very clear on it.
He will execute the judgments of God in an extreme form on this world, will he not? So the question of does Christ approve of the judgment of God? Well, of course he does. We live in a time of grace where Christ was himself crucified, a time when we are not to retaliate for persecution. But that is until Christ comes again. When he comes, he will execute the judgments of God on a sinful world.
Judgment is not in that sense inconsistent with the teaching of Christ. But thank you very much, since I instig- instigated the, the discussion. Thank you very much. I find it very helpful listening to you. It is not, uh, for me at least, it is not just an empty, arid, philosophical or theological discussion. It relates to people's hearts, and we need answers that are not going to sound arbitrary when we talk to our, uh, friends who find these things difficult. Yes? I, I, a comment with really the first question that Larry asked, in a sense, where does the morality of it lie?
