Monday, 5 October 2015
Survival of the heroic?
Could We All Get Together and Evolve as a Group?
Denyse O'Leary October 5, 2015 3:21 AM
In our quest to understand how evolution happens, we have looked at horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics, each of which gives a small amount of genuine, though generally unheralded, change.
Talk to the Fossils.jpgNatural selection and sexual selection are widely publicized theories, developed in detail by Darwin. They became iconic, in part one must think, because of the instant media recognition. The subtle self-flattery that comes of thinking that one is naturally or sexually selected to survive.
The evidence is sparse.
But what if it is not individuals, but groups that are selected to somehow survive?
No subject apart from religion has vexed Darwin's followers more than why people sacrifice themselves for others. They have embraced the ambiguous term "altruism" because it does not clearly mean "compassion" or "heroism." Rather, it is to be seen as the same natural force that causes worker ants to pass on their genes by serving their queen, who lays lots of eggs, instead of reproducing themselves (kin selection). Maybe this force creates the change we are looking for.
Altruism has been described as "an anomalous thorn in Darwin's side" and a "conundrum that Darwinians would need to solve, given their view of the ruthless struggle among living beings for survival." One outcome has been the curious recent paper war between Darwinian evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson and those Darwinists who had espoused his earlier theories.
Wilson deserves an introduction. He is widely hailed as the founder of sociobiology (about 1975), which morphed into evolutionary psychology.
Christians have long been encouraged to look up to Wilson (once an evangelical Christian) as the gentlemanly author of The Creation (2006), which begins "Dear Pastor, We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend." (The fact that Wilson attempted to undermine everything the pastors believe was, apparently, irrelevant.)
His group selection theory has a history. It stretches back to 1955 when British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane said, we are told, that he would risk his life for two brothers or eight cousins, to preserve enough of his own genes to justify his death (kin selection). Evolutionist William Hamilton described the idea mathematically, calling it inclusive fitness. His calculations have been used ever since, and were a key inspiration for Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, "The evolution of eusociality," co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection) "provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations," dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model "unscholarly," "transparently wrong," and "misguided."
What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model?
New atheist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has also weighed in, saying that Wilson et al. are "wrong--dead wrong." Curiously, he admitted, "The "textbook" explanation, based on a higher relatedness of workers to their sisters than to their own potential offspring, no longer seems feasible. ... But we've known all this for years!"
If so, he and fellow evolutionary biologists have been very economical with their accounts of the failures.
How else to account for the -- to most people, incomprehensible -- uproar?
Evolutionary psychologist David Sloan Wilson, defending E. O. Wilson, scolded, "This degree of illiteracy about foundational issues is an embarrassment for the field of evolutionary biology."
He is perhaps telling us more than he realizes there. Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, attempting to defend E.O. Wilson, writes:
In the end, Mr. Wilson comes down on the side of what is called multi-level selection--the view that evolution involves a combination of gene selection, individual selection, kin selection and group selection. Although he says his new theory opposes the idea of kin selection, in another sense he is simply maintaining that everybody is right. Genes are being selected to benefit the individual and their kin. Genes are also being selected that encourage the individual to participate in a group.
So if Wilson thinks everybody is right, why is Wilson sowrong? As John Gray put the matter at The New Republic,the debate is "an exercise in sectarian intellectual warfare of the kind that is so often fought in and around Darwinism."
It sounds so much like a family row. But if we are not part of the family, why be involved? Maybe the rest of us should continue to look for answers elsewhere.
How about life forms that do not evolve at all, or not significantly? We might learn something there. What happens when evolution doesn't happen?
See the rest of the series to date at "Talk to the Fossils: Let's See What They Say Back."
Denyse O'Leary October 5, 2015 3:21 AM
In our quest to understand how evolution happens, we have looked at horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics, each of which gives a small amount of genuine, though generally unheralded, change.
Talk to the Fossils.jpgNatural selection and sexual selection are widely publicized theories, developed in detail by Darwin. They became iconic, in part one must think, because of the instant media recognition. The subtle self-flattery that comes of thinking that one is naturally or sexually selected to survive.
The evidence is sparse.
But what if it is not individuals, but groups that are selected to somehow survive?
No subject apart from religion has vexed Darwin's followers more than why people sacrifice themselves for others. They have embraced the ambiguous term "altruism" because it does not clearly mean "compassion" or "heroism." Rather, it is to be seen as the same natural force that causes worker ants to pass on their genes by serving their queen, who lays lots of eggs, instead of reproducing themselves (kin selection). Maybe this force creates the change we are looking for.
Altruism has been described as "an anomalous thorn in Darwin's side" and a "conundrum that Darwinians would need to solve, given their view of the ruthless struggle among living beings for survival." One outcome has been the curious recent paper war between Darwinian evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson and those Darwinists who had espoused his earlier theories.
Wilson deserves an introduction. He is widely hailed as the founder of sociobiology (about 1975), which morphed into evolutionary psychology.
Christians have long been encouraged to look up to Wilson (once an evangelical Christian) as the gentlemanly author of The Creation (2006), which begins "Dear Pastor, We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend." (The fact that Wilson attempted to undermine everything the pastors believe was, apparently, irrelevant.)
His group selection theory has a history. It stretches back to 1955 when British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane said, we are told, that he would risk his life for two brothers or eight cousins, to preserve enough of his own genes to justify his death (kin selection). Evolutionist William Hamilton described the idea mathematically, calling it inclusive fitness. His calculations have been used ever since, and were a key inspiration for Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
But then Wilson dramatically abandoned kin selection in 2010 in a Nature paper, "The evolution of eusociality," co-authored with mathematicians. He argued that strict Darwinism (natural selection) "provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations," dispensing with the other theories he had promoted for decades. Over 140 leading biologists signed a letter to Nature, attacking the 2010 paper. Some called his new, strictly Darwin model "unscholarly," "transparently wrong," and "misguided."
What? All this is said of a Darwin-only model?
New atheist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has also weighed in, saying that Wilson et al. are "wrong--dead wrong." Curiously, he admitted, "The "textbook" explanation, based on a higher relatedness of workers to their sisters than to their own potential offspring, no longer seems feasible. ... But we've known all this for years!"
If so, he and fellow evolutionary biologists have been very economical with their accounts of the failures.
How else to account for the -- to most people, incomprehensible -- uproar?
Evolutionary psychologist David Sloan Wilson, defending E. O. Wilson, scolded, "This degree of illiteracy about foundational issues is an embarrassment for the field of evolutionary biology."
He is perhaps telling us more than he realizes there. Neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, attempting to defend E.O. Wilson, writes:
In the end, Mr. Wilson comes down on the side of what is called multi-level selection--the view that evolution involves a combination of gene selection, individual selection, kin selection and group selection. Although he says his new theory opposes the idea of kin selection, in another sense he is simply maintaining that everybody is right. Genes are being selected to benefit the individual and their kin. Genes are also being selected that encourage the individual to participate in a group.
So if Wilson thinks everybody is right, why is Wilson sowrong? As John Gray put the matter at The New Republic,the debate is "an exercise in sectarian intellectual warfare of the kind that is so often fought in and around Darwinism."
It sounds so much like a family row. But if we are not part of the family, why be involved? Maybe the rest of us should continue to look for answers elsewhere.
How about life forms that do not evolve at all, or not significantly? We might learn something there. What happens when evolution doesn't happen?
See the rest of the series to date at "Talk to the Fossils: Let's See What They Say Back."
Christendom continues to be unclear on the concept of separation from the world.
John18:36NASB"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
Let's think about this for a minute Jesus' servants were forbidden to fight in aid of what would have been the worthiest cause in human history.Why?Because Jesus' kingdom was to be no part of the present civilisation,Jesus did not come into the world to patch up or prop up human rule.He himself pointed out the folly of any such attempt :Matthew9:16,17NASB"“But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. 17“Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Jesus was no reformer he was here for a far more radical purpose i.e to preside over the dissolution of the discredited present civilisation and its supplanting by an entirely new civilisation of Jehovah God's making:Daniel2:44NASB“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."
His followers were to show a like disinterest in political,nationalistic or otherwise worldly matters.John17:14“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
Like the modern world there was much that was morally objectionable from a Christian standpoint in the 1st century,yet rather than urging 1st century Christians to campaign for social or political reform,the apostle Paul made it clear that Christians are not to regard the morals of the world outside of the church as any of their business.
1Corinthians5:9-12NASB"9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. "
Christians are to strive to maintain the purity of the congregation but leave the judging of the world up to Jehovah.The church is the foundation of a new global civilisation that will bring due honour and glory to Jehovah's name.It has NO political mandate rather its mandate is to provide a foregleam of the coming new world that would attract those seeking something better than the present hedonistic,egocentric,materialistic culture to a relationship with Jehovah God and his Son.
:Revelation22:11“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”
When the transition to the new world arrives only those who have taken the time and effort to cultivate a intimate relationship with Jehovah will stand.That's the only way that the new World could be truly new i.e if it's populated by those with a truly new ethic.
Jesus was no reformer he was here for a far more radical purpose i.e to preside over the dissolution of the discredited present civilisation and its supplanting by an entirely new civilisation of Jehovah God's making:Daniel2:44NASB“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."
His followers were to show a like disinterest in political,nationalistic or otherwise worldly matters.John17:14“I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
Like the modern world there was much that was morally objectionable from a Christian standpoint in the 1st century,yet rather than urging 1st century Christians to campaign for social or political reform,the apostle Paul made it clear that Christians are not to regard the morals of the world outside of the church as any of their business.
1Corinthians5:9-12NASB"9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. "
Christians are to strive to maintain the purity of the congregation but leave the judging of the world up to Jehovah.The church is the foundation of a new global civilisation that will bring due honour and glory to Jehovah's name.It has NO political mandate rather its mandate is to provide a foregleam of the coming new world that would attract those seeking something better than the present hedonistic,egocentric,materialistic culture to a relationship with Jehovah God and his Son.
:Revelation22:11“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”
When the transition to the new world arrives only those who have taken the time and effort to cultivate a intimate relationship with Jehovah will stand.That's the only way that the new World could be truly new i.e if it's populated by those with a truly new ethic.
Why the God of peace must wage War.
God’s View of War in the Ancient Past
The waters of the Red Sea begin to cover Pharaoh and his army
The people were being oppressed. They repeatedly prayed to God for relief, but none came—at least not right away. The people were the Israelites, God’s people in ancient times. The oppressor was the mighty nation of Egypt. (Exodus 1:13, 14) For years, the Israelites waited for God to bring an end to the Egyptian tyranny. Eventually, God’s due time for action arrived. (Exodus 3:7-10) The Bible reports that God personally waged war against the Egyptians. He beset Egypt with a series of devastating plagues, and then he destroyed Egypt’s king and his army in the Red Sea. (Psalm 136:15) Jehovah God proved to be “a powerful warrior” in behalf of his people.—Exodus 15:3, 4.
The fact that God himself waged war against the Egyptians shows that he is not against all warfare. On other occasions, he authorized his people Israel to wage war. For example, he commanded them to wage war against the Canaanites, who were exceedingly wicked. (Deuteronomy 9:5; 20:17, 18) He directed Israel’s King David to war against the oppressive Philistines. God even provided David with a battle strategy that ensured victory.—2 Samuel 5:17-25.
Those Bible accounts reveal that when certain forms of wickedness and oppression threatened the Israelites, God authorized warfare for the protection of his people and the preservation of true worship. But note the following three key points about such God-ordained warfare.
GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN WARFARE. On one occasion, God told the Israelites: “You will not need to fight this battle.” The reason? God himself would wage war in their behalf. (2 Chronicles 20:17; 32:7, 8) He did so many times, such as on the occasion mentioned at the outset of this article. At other times, God commanded his people in ancient Israel to fight in wars that he approved, namely, those that involved securing and defending their Promised Land.—Deuteronomy 7:1, 2; Joshua 10:40.
GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHEN SUCH WARFARE WOULD TAKE PLACE. God’s servants were to wait patiently for God’s appointed time to war against the oppression and wickedness that surrounded them. Until then, they were not to take it upon themselves to engage in war. When they did, they lost divine approval. In fact, the Bible shows that when the Israelites presumed to engage in warfare that God had not authorized, the results were often disastrous.*
Rahab and her family stand amidst the ruins of Jericho
Though God waged war against the Canaanites, he spared some, such as Rahab and her family
GOD TAKES NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF HUMANS, INCLUDING THE WICKED. Jehovah God is the Source of life and the Creator of humankind. (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, he does not desire to see people die. Sadly, though, there are people who wickedly scheme to oppress and even kill others. (Psalm 37:12, 14) To halt such evil, God has at times authorized warfare against the wicked. And yet, throughout the years that he had the Israelites engage in such wars, he was still “merciful” and “slow to anger” toward Israel’s oppressors. (Psalm 86:15) For example, he decreed that before the Israelites warred against a city, they were to “announce to it terms of peace,” in order to give the inhabitants an opportunity to change their ways and avoid war. (Deuteronomy 20:10-13) In this way, God showed that he takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living.”—Ezekiel 33:11, 14-16.*
From the foregoing we see that in the ancient past, God viewed warfare as a legitimate means of bringing an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. But it was God—not humans—who rightfully determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved. And did God wage war eagerly, in a bloodthirsty way? Quite the contrary. He actually hates violence. (Psalm 11:5) Did God’s view of war change when his Son, Jesus Christ, began his ministry in the first century?
*For example, on one occasion, the Israelites suffered defeat when they engaged in war with the Amalekites and Canaanites after God had ordered them not to do so. (Numbers 14:41-45) Many years later, faithful King Josiah engaged in a battle without divine approval, and this rash action cost him his life.—2 Chronicles 35:20-24.
*The Israelites did not announce terms of peace before warring against the Canaanites. Why not? Because the Canaanites had been given 400 years to correct their wicked ways. By the time the Israelites came to war against them, the Canaanites, as a group, were incorrigibly wicked. (Genesis 15:13-16) Thus, they were to be completely annihilated. However, individual Canaanites who changed their ways were spared.—Joshua 6:25; 9:3-27.
God’s View of War in the First Century
The people were being oppressed. Like their ancestors, first-century Jews no doubt prayed repeatedly to God for relief, this time from the oppressive yoke of the Roman Empire. Then they heard of Jesus. Would he prove to be the foretold Messiah? Not surprisingly, many “were hoping that this man was the one who was going to deliver Israel” from their Roman oppressors. (Luke 24:21) But no relief came. Instead, in 70 C.E., Roman armies came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
What happened? Why did God not fight for the Jews, as he had in the past? Or why did he not authorize them to engage in warfare to free themselves from oppression? Had God’s view of war changed? No. But something had drastically changed regarding the Jews. They had rejected God’s Son, Jesus, as the Messiah. (Acts 2:36) Therefore, as a nation, they lost their special relationship with God.—Matthew 23:37, 38.
The Jewish nation and its Promised Land no longer enjoyed divine protection, nor could the Jews ever again rightly claim to engage in warfare that had God’s approval or backing. As Jesus foretold, the blessings associated with having God’s favor had been transferred from the fleshly nation of Israel to a new nation, a spiritual nation, later referred to in the Bible as “the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:16; Matthew 21:43) The congregation of spirit-anointed Christians proved to be the spiritual Israel of God. Pointedly, in the first century, they were told: “Now you are God’s people.”—1 Peter 2:9, 10.
Since first-century Christians were now “God’s people,” did God fight in their behalf, so as to free them from Roman oppression? Or did he authorize them to wage war against their oppressors? No, he did not. Why not? When it comes to God-ordained warfare, God alone determines when such warfare is to take place, as the preceding article showed. God did not fight battles for first-century Christians, nor did he authorize them to engage in secular warfare. Clearly, the first century was not God’s time to war against wickedness and oppression.
Thus, like God’s servants of the ancient past, those first-century Christians were to wait until God’s time to bring an end to wickedness and oppression. In the meantime, they were not authorized by God to take it upon themselves to engage in warfare against their enemies. Jesus Christ made this clear in his teachings. For example, he did not direct his followers to engage in warfare, but instead he told them: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) Foretelling the time when first-century Jerusalem would be attacked by Roman armies, Jesus instructed his disciples, not to stay and fight, but to flee—which they did.—Luke 21:20, 21.
Additionally, under inspiration the apostle Paul wrote: “Do not avenge yourselves, . . . for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (Romans 12:19) Paul was quoting what God had stated centuries earlier as recorded at Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 32:35. As seen in the preceding article, one way God avenged his people in ancient times was by aiding them in waging war against their enemies. Thus Paul’s words show that God’s view of warfare had not changed. In the first century, God still viewed war as a legitimate way to avenge his servants and bring an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. However, as was true in the past, God alone determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved.
Clearly, God did not authorize Christians in the first century to fight in wars. But what about today? Has God authorized any group of people today to engage in warfare? Or is now the time for God to step in and wage war in behalf of his servants? Just how does God view war today? The final article in this series will answer those questions.
God’s View of War Today
Today people are being oppressed. Many repeatedly cry out to God for relief and wonder if relief will ever come. Does God hear their cries for help? And what about those who resort to warfare to bring an end to their oppression? Does God support their efforts, viewing their warfare as justifiable?
First, take comfort in this truth: God sees the suffering in the world today, and he intends to do something about it. (Psalm 72:13, 14) In his Word, the Bible, God promises that those “who suffer tribulation will be given relief.” When? “At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels . . . as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8) This revelation of Jesus will take place in the future in what the Bible calls “the war of the great day of God the Almighty,” also known as Armageddon.—Revelation 16:14, 16.
In that future war, God will use, not humans, but his Son, Jesus Christ, along with other powerful spirit creatures to wage war against the wicked. The heavenly forces will bring an end to all oppression.—Isaiah 11:4; Revelation 19:11-16.
To this day, God’s view of war has not changed. He still views war as a legitimate means of bringing an end to oppression and wickedness. But as has been true throughout history, it is God alone who rightly determines when such warfare is to take place and who is to be involved. As we have seen, God has already determined that the war to end wickedness and to avenge the oppressed is a future war and that it will be fought by his Son, Jesus Christ. This means that the wars being fought in the earth today do not have God’s approval, no matter how noble the cause may appear to be.
To illustrate: Imagine two siblings who begin fighting while their father is away. They temporarily stop fighting and call their father on the telephone. One sibling claims that the other started the fight, while the other claims that he was being mistreated. Both appeal to their father, each hoping for his support in the dispute. However, after hearing both sides, the father tells them to stop fighting and to wait for him to settle the matter when he gets home. For a while the two siblings wait. Soon, though, they are fighting again. When the father gets home, he is not pleased with either child and punishes them both for not obeying him.
Today, warring nations often appeal to God for support. But God does not take sides in today’s wars. Instead, in his Word, the Bible, he clearly states: “Return evil for evil to no one,” and, “Do not avenge yourselves.” (Romans 12:17, 19) Moreover, he has made known that mankind should “wait patiently for him” to take action, which he will do at Armageddon. (Psalm 37:7, footnote) When the nations fail to wait for God to act and instead resort to warfare, he views such wars as presumptuous acts of aggression that bring his displeasure. Thus, at Armageddon, God will express his indignation and settle the nations’ disputes once and for all by “bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.” (Psalm 46:9; Isaiah 34:2) Indeed, Armageddon will be the war to end all wars.
The end of warfare is one of the many blessings of God’s Kingdom. Jesus spoke of that government in this well-known prayer: “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matthew 6:10) Not only will God’s Kingdom eliminate all war but it will eliminate the root cause of war, wickedness.* (Psalm 37:9, 10, 14, 15) Little wonder that Jesus’ followers eagerly look forward to the blessings of God’s Kingdom.—2 Peter 3:13.
How long, though, must we wait for God’s Kingdom to bring an end to all suffering, oppression, and wickedness? The fulfillment of Bible prophecies indicates that we are living in “the last days” of this system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)* Soon, God’s Kingdom will bring an end to these last days with the war of Armageddon.
As noted earlier, those who perish in this final war will be those who refuse to “obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:8) But recall, God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, including the wicked. (Ezekiel 33:11) Because “he does not desire anyone to be destroyed” in this final war, he is now seeing to it that the good news about our Lord Jesus is being “preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations” before the end comes. (2 Peter 3:8, 9; Matthew 24:14; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4) Yes, by means of the global preaching work of Jehovah’s Witnesses, people today have an opportunity to get to know God, to obey the good news about Jesus, and to live to see the day when war will be no more.
God’s Kingdom will also eliminate mankind’s enemy death. As noted in the article “Bible Questions Answered” in this issue, God will resurrect countless people, including many throughout history who have been victims of war.
For more information on the last days, see chapter 9 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The waters of the Red Sea begin to cover Pharaoh and his army
The people were being oppressed. They repeatedly prayed to God for relief, but none came—at least not right away. The people were the Israelites, God’s people in ancient times. The oppressor was the mighty nation of Egypt. (Exodus 1:13, 14) For years, the Israelites waited for God to bring an end to the Egyptian tyranny. Eventually, God’s due time for action arrived. (Exodus 3:7-10) The Bible reports that God personally waged war against the Egyptians. He beset Egypt with a series of devastating plagues, and then he destroyed Egypt’s king and his army in the Red Sea. (Psalm 136:15) Jehovah God proved to be “a powerful warrior” in behalf of his people.—Exodus 15:3, 4.
The fact that God himself waged war against the Egyptians shows that he is not against all warfare. On other occasions, he authorized his people Israel to wage war. For example, he commanded them to wage war against the Canaanites, who were exceedingly wicked. (Deuteronomy 9:5; 20:17, 18) He directed Israel’s King David to war against the oppressive Philistines. God even provided David with a battle strategy that ensured victory.—2 Samuel 5:17-25.
Those Bible accounts reveal that when certain forms of wickedness and oppression threatened the Israelites, God authorized warfare for the protection of his people and the preservation of true worship. But note the following three key points about such God-ordained warfare.
GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN WARFARE. On one occasion, God told the Israelites: “You will not need to fight this battle.” The reason? God himself would wage war in their behalf. (2 Chronicles 20:17; 32:7, 8) He did so many times, such as on the occasion mentioned at the outset of this article. At other times, God commanded his people in ancient Israel to fight in wars that he approved, namely, those that involved securing and defending their Promised Land.—Deuteronomy 7:1, 2; Joshua 10:40.
GOD ALONE DETERMINED WHEN SUCH WARFARE WOULD TAKE PLACE. God’s servants were to wait patiently for God’s appointed time to war against the oppression and wickedness that surrounded them. Until then, they were not to take it upon themselves to engage in war. When they did, they lost divine approval. In fact, the Bible shows that when the Israelites presumed to engage in warfare that God had not authorized, the results were often disastrous.*
Rahab and her family stand amidst the ruins of Jericho
Though God waged war against the Canaanites, he spared some, such as Rahab and her family
GOD TAKES NO PLEASURE IN THE DEATH OF HUMANS, INCLUDING THE WICKED. Jehovah God is the Source of life and the Creator of humankind. (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, he does not desire to see people die. Sadly, though, there are people who wickedly scheme to oppress and even kill others. (Psalm 37:12, 14) To halt such evil, God has at times authorized warfare against the wicked. And yet, throughout the years that he had the Israelites engage in such wars, he was still “merciful” and “slow to anger” toward Israel’s oppressors. (Psalm 86:15) For example, he decreed that before the Israelites warred against a city, they were to “announce to it terms of peace,” in order to give the inhabitants an opportunity to change their ways and avoid war. (Deuteronomy 20:10-13) In this way, God showed that he takes “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living.”—Ezekiel 33:11, 14-16.*
From the foregoing we see that in the ancient past, God viewed warfare as a legitimate means of bringing an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. But it was God—not humans—who rightfully determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved. And did God wage war eagerly, in a bloodthirsty way? Quite the contrary. He actually hates violence. (Psalm 11:5) Did God’s view of war change when his Son, Jesus Christ, began his ministry in the first century?
*For example, on one occasion, the Israelites suffered defeat when they engaged in war with the Amalekites and Canaanites after God had ordered them not to do so. (Numbers 14:41-45) Many years later, faithful King Josiah engaged in a battle without divine approval, and this rash action cost him his life.—2 Chronicles 35:20-24.
*The Israelites did not announce terms of peace before warring against the Canaanites. Why not? Because the Canaanites had been given 400 years to correct their wicked ways. By the time the Israelites came to war against them, the Canaanites, as a group, were incorrigibly wicked. (Genesis 15:13-16) Thus, they were to be completely annihilated. However, individual Canaanites who changed their ways were spared.—Joshua 6:25; 9:3-27.
God’s View of War in the First Century
The people were being oppressed. Like their ancestors, first-century Jews no doubt prayed repeatedly to God for relief, this time from the oppressive yoke of the Roman Empire. Then they heard of Jesus. Would he prove to be the foretold Messiah? Not surprisingly, many “were hoping that this man was the one who was going to deliver Israel” from their Roman oppressors. (Luke 24:21) But no relief came. Instead, in 70 C.E., Roman armies came and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
What happened? Why did God not fight for the Jews, as he had in the past? Or why did he not authorize them to engage in warfare to free themselves from oppression? Had God’s view of war changed? No. But something had drastically changed regarding the Jews. They had rejected God’s Son, Jesus, as the Messiah. (Acts 2:36) Therefore, as a nation, they lost their special relationship with God.—Matthew 23:37, 38.
The Jewish nation and its Promised Land no longer enjoyed divine protection, nor could the Jews ever again rightly claim to engage in warfare that had God’s approval or backing. As Jesus foretold, the blessings associated with having God’s favor had been transferred from the fleshly nation of Israel to a new nation, a spiritual nation, later referred to in the Bible as “the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:16; Matthew 21:43) The congregation of spirit-anointed Christians proved to be the spiritual Israel of God. Pointedly, in the first century, they were told: “Now you are God’s people.”—1 Peter 2:9, 10.
Since first-century Christians were now “God’s people,” did God fight in their behalf, so as to free them from Roman oppression? Or did he authorize them to wage war against their oppressors? No, he did not. Why not? When it comes to God-ordained warfare, God alone determines when such warfare is to take place, as the preceding article showed. God did not fight battles for first-century Christians, nor did he authorize them to engage in secular warfare. Clearly, the first century was not God’s time to war against wickedness and oppression.
Thus, like God’s servants of the ancient past, those first-century Christians were to wait until God’s time to bring an end to wickedness and oppression. In the meantime, they were not authorized by God to take it upon themselves to engage in warfare against their enemies. Jesus Christ made this clear in his teachings. For example, he did not direct his followers to engage in warfare, but instead he told them: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) Foretelling the time when first-century Jerusalem would be attacked by Roman armies, Jesus instructed his disciples, not to stay and fight, but to flee—which they did.—Luke 21:20, 21.
Additionally, under inspiration the apostle Paul wrote: “Do not avenge yourselves, . . . for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (Romans 12:19) Paul was quoting what God had stated centuries earlier as recorded at Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 32:35. As seen in the preceding article, one way God avenged his people in ancient times was by aiding them in waging war against their enemies. Thus Paul’s words show that God’s view of warfare had not changed. In the first century, God still viewed war as a legitimate way to avenge his servants and bring an end to various forms of oppression and wickedness. However, as was true in the past, God alone determined when such warfare was to take place and who was to be involved.
Clearly, God did not authorize Christians in the first century to fight in wars. But what about today? Has God authorized any group of people today to engage in warfare? Or is now the time for God to step in and wage war in behalf of his servants? Just how does God view war today? The final article in this series will answer those questions.
God’s View of War Today
Today people are being oppressed. Many repeatedly cry out to God for relief and wonder if relief will ever come. Does God hear their cries for help? And what about those who resort to warfare to bring an end to their oppression? Does God support their efforts, viewing their warfare as justifiable?
First, take comfort in this truth: God sees the suffering in the world today, and he intends to do something about it. (Psalm 72:13, 14) In his Word, the Bible, God promises that those “who suffer tribulation will be given relief.” When? “At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels . . . as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8) This revelation of Jesus will take place in the future in what the Bible calls “the war of the great day of God the Almighty,” also known as Armageddon.—Revelation 16:14, 16.
In that future war, God will use, not humans, but his Son, Jesus Christ, along with other powerful spirit creatures to wage war against the wicked. The heavenly forces will bring an end to all oppression.—Isaiah 11:4; Revelation 19:11-16.
To this day, God’s view of war has not changed. He still views war as a legitimate means of bringing an end to oppression and wickedness. But as has been true throughout history, it is God alone who rightly determines when such warfare is to take place and who is to be involved. As we have seen, God has already determined that the war to end wickedness and to avenge the oppressed is a future war and that it will be fought by his Son, Jesus Christ. This means that the wars being fought in the earth today do not have God’s approval, no matter how noble the cause may appear to be.
To illustrate: Imagine two siblings who begin fighting while their father is away. They temporarily stop fighting and call their father on the telephone. One sibling claims that the other started the fight, while the other claims that he was being mistreated. Both appeal to their father, each hoping for his support in the dispute. However, after hearing both sides, the father tells them to stop fighting and to wait for him to settle the matter when he gets home. For a while the two siblings wait. Soon, though, they are fighting again. When the father gets home, he is not pleased with either child and punishes them both for not obeying him.
Today, warring nations often appeal to God for support. But God does not take sides in today’s wars. Instead, in his Word, the Bible, he clearly states: “Return evil for evil to no one,” and, “Do not avenge yourselves.” (Romans 12:17, 19) Moreover, he has made known that mankind should “wait patiently for him” to take action, which he will do at Armageddon. (Psalm 37:7, footnote) When the nations fail to wait for God to act and instead resort to warfare, he views such wars as presumptuous acts of aggression that bring his displeasure. Thus, at Armageddon, God will express his indignation and settle the nations’ disputes once and for all by “bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.” (Psalm 46:9; Isaiah 34:2) Indeed, Armageddon will be the war to end all wars.
The end of warfare is one of the many blessings of God’s Kingdom. Jesus spoke of that government in this well-known prayer: “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matthew 6:10) Not only will God’s Kingdom eliminate all war but it will eliminate the root cause of war, wickedness.* (Psalm 37:9, 10, 14, 15) Little wonder that Jesus’ followers eagerly look forward to the blessings of God’s Kingdom.—2 Peter 3:13.
How long, though, must we wait for God’s Kingdom to bring an end to all suffering, oppression, and wickedness? The fulfillment of Bible prophecies indicates that we are living in “the last days” of this system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)* Soon, God’s Kingdom will bring an end to these last days with the war of Armageddon.
As noted earlier, those who perish in this final war will be those who refuse to “obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (2 Thessalonians 1:8) But recall, God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, including the wicked. (Ezekiel 33:11) Because “he does not desire anyone to be destroyed” in this final war, he is now seeing to it that the good news about our Lord Jesus is being “preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations” before the end comes. (2 Peter 3:8, 9; Matthew 24:14; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4) Yes, by means of the global preaching work of Jehovah’s Witnesses, people today have an opportunity to get to know God, to obey the good news about Jesus, and to live to see the day when war will be no more.
God’s Kingdom will also eliminate mankind’s enemy death. As noted in the article “Bible Questions Answered” in this issue, God will resurrect countless people, including many throughout history who have been victims of war.
For more information on the last days, see chapter 9 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)