The possible interpretations of Ezekiel 9 are what is important. This passage has been interpreted as justification to kill those who have not be marked by God.
Hosea 13 can be an example of 'the Lord removing His protection', which were Falwell's and Robertson's argument. A better example would be Zechariah 13. Either way, here is an example of an interpretation of the Bible that is corrupted as a means of stirring up hate against a specific group of people. There are 'Christian clerics' out there that argue that Islam is evil, and as such, must be destroyed. Does that mean that all of Christianity is evil?
Pat Robertson justifies the genocide in the Bible:
The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry; they sacrifieced their children; they had all kinds of abominable sex practices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals; they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God. God told the Isrealites to kill then all - men, women, and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it? Or isn't it? Well, let us assume there are 2,000 of them, or 10,000 of them living in the land, or whaterver number there was of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.' Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? That would be 10,000 people who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50, or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be - 10,000 would go to a 100,000 - 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell! And it's far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, 'Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God,' because the abomination was there like a contagium. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change; their hearts weren't going to change; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth. So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number". Pat Robertson, on "The 700 Club", May 6, 185.
Well, no isn't that nice. Justification of genocide "in love". Hmmm, seems a little, how can I put it, anti-social?
So, whether you interpret these passages this way is up to you, but the fact is that someone is interpreting them as rational for murder and genocide. Your argument is that you don't take them as direct commands. I'm afraid that is a bit of a weak argument, because the issue is not whether *you* take them as commands, but if some radical takes them as justification for slaughter, as has been done historically. |
