Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Life & Breath]

Is Matthew 28:19 not encouraging us to kill people? Maybe I have chosen a somewhat clickbaity title, but let me just explain why I think so:

In this verse, Jesus is encouraging us to spread Christianity to "all nations". Being a nation "a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.:", I assume that it means to the whole world.

But encouraging people from one place to go explore the whole world is a horrible thing when they don't know almost anything about diseases. When Europeans colonized America, they killed 25–50 % of the population only by spreading the diseases to people how hadn't had contact with them before. Only it Mexico, the population went from 25 to 30 millions to 3 millions because of it!

So that's why I think this verse encourages killing, because it says "spread Christianity to the whole world" without giving the necessary information to prevent millions of deaths.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, it is a clickbaity title, but also a convoluted perspective. Jesus' point, as you must well know, is that this message of good news should be shared with as many people as possible across the globe—even every individual, as much as possible. The message of life and love is so worthy it deserves a hearing by all.

To twist this emphasis into about a malicious hidden agenda to kill off populations by the spread of disease is beyond distortion and into outright absurdity.

But we could play out your game. Remember that when the Europeans were colonizing, they were coming out of the plague in Europe that had killed off a third of the population on the continent. The plague itself had spread from Asia to Europe as a result of many factors: war (and the accumulation of dead bodies not properly disposed of), lack of medical knowledge, inadequate treatment of human and animal waste in cities and on farmlands, ignorance about washing hands, etc. Certainly you are not blaming Jesus for this, claiming that his command brought this about.

You'll remember that the Jews were not a warring people, they had rules about washing hands often, some of their laws had medical sense in them (don't eat meat that isn't fully cooked, for instance). Certainly you are not blaming Jesus for encouraging people to be reckless about personal hygiene.

I'll be honest—your question seems like baiting just to argue about a point that's nonsense. Now, maybe I'm reading you wrong, and you really really do have this question. But if that's the case, I'll bet this question is just a cover for the real question lying behind it.

Instead, this verse (Matt. 28:19) is a call to bring life to the nations. It's like telling a group to spread the word to the hungry that there is food available for free. It's like telling a group to spread the word that there is hope for the hopeless, freedom for the captive, sight for the blind, meaning for those who feel empty, and love for all. And yet somehow you have contorted this to mean it is encouraging us to kill people. It's hard to believe you're being sincere.

[Life & Breath]

I should have said "a said effect", because as you have well said, is beyond distortion and into outright absurdity, so I apologize for that. I don't blame Jesus for anything, as I don't think he is the son of any god. Only one more human. Because, if he indeed was the son of god, an all knowing, all powerful, all loving,... being, I would expect much more of him. I would blame him for not giving us all the information we could have used to build a better world, starting with the best medical advice possible. But this could be an argument for another time.
With my question, I wanted to point out what I think are the many flaws that the Bible has. I think that my example shows that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know much about the world, because, as my example shows, they commanded something with good intentions but, when carried out, could have really bad consequences.

[jimwalton]

> I wanted to point out what I think are the many flaws that the Bible has.

As it turns out, by my reading, you didn't point out any flaws that the Bible has, but only flaws in your understanding of it. We can certainly discuss this further.

> I would blame him for not giving us all the information we could have used to build a better world

God is in the business of raising the dead and redeeming sins. In the process he has given us all the resources we need to build a better world, but what the Bible is about is something totally different than hygiene education.

[Life & Breath]

You wouldn't consider it a flaw encouraging people to go all around the world spreading religion without giving the necessary information to prevent people dying in the process?

> In the process he has given us all the resources we need to build a better world, but what the Bible is about is something totally different than hygiene education.

Can I ask you which resources do you think are needed to build a better world?

[jimwalton]

You seem to have the idea that if God were really God, he would have made us all doctors so we could spread the message and habits of good health and global physical wellbeing. You seem to misunderstand what the real problem of life is: it's sin. You are separated from God by your sin, and therefore you are not only incomplete but living in spiritual darkness. Your sin has colored the way you think, and is leading down the road to inevitable death. And since I know this is the state of people who don't have spiritual life, I'm sorely mistaken if I think the most important message I have is, "Please wash your hands so you don't spread disease." But, by the way, the Bible does encourage us to practice good hygiene, to feed each other, take care of the sick, clothe the poor, provide justice for people, and seek peace.

> Can I ask you which resources do you think are needed to build a better world?

Sure. There are many. The first and most important is that people understand what truth is and to know the truth. We need morality to build a better world. We need justice for all. We have resources to do this. We need food for all people, and we have the resources for that. Between the fertile fields of America, Russia, Brazil, and other places around the globe, there is enough arable land to feed the world

We also need fair, moral, and just governments, and we have the resources to do that. We have to keep working against the abusers, greedy, power-hungry monsters who occupy places of power.

We need courts that are fair and just. We have the resources for that. We have to weed out the biased, those who can be bought off, and those who press a personal agenda instead of justice for all. We have the resources for that.

There are so many resources we have that are needed to build a better world. I'm surprised you asked.

[Icky icky]

> Jesus' point, as you must well know, is that this message of good news should be shared with as many people as possible across the globe

Well then, Jesus certainly didn't choose the best method for doing this. It took 15 centuries for the "good news" to reach the Americas and 18 centuries to reach Australia and the Pacific. Just think about the multitudes who lived and died without ever having the chance of hearing this amazing news.

Was an all-knowing god unable to come up with a better method of spreading news?

[jimwalton]

> Well then, Jesus certainly didn't choose the best method for doing this.

People sharing the good news with other people is not the only way God makes himself known. He also makes himself known through nature and its characteristics of regularity, order, precision, cause and effect, beauty, predictability, balance, and purpose. He makes himself known through our consciences—an innate sense that there is such a thing as right and wrong. He makes himself known through our capability to reason, observe, perceive, weigh alternatives and arrive at conclusions.

> It took 15 centuries for the "good news" to reach the Americas and 18 centuries to reach Australia and the Pacific.

You are not addressing the possibility that these people groups knew the good news before they migrated. According to the Bible, the knowledge of God has been around since the beginning. With that, we can assume that when hominids first crossed the Bering Strait to settle America in about 20,000 BC, they may have been taught the truth of God before they came. Religious practices, anthropologists tell us, are ancient observations. Therefore, those populations may have had an opportunity to hear this amazing news. Now, if they chose to ignore it or practice something different, that would be up to them, but Jesus is not to blame.

[Icky icky]

Absolutely none of this makes sense when we are talking about Jesus and the Gospel. Can you address that?

[jimwalton]

I guess it depends on where the point of confusion is.

God reveals himself in more than one way. As far as God revealing himself in nature, that comes from places like Romans 1.20 and Psalm 19.1. Jesus himself admitted in several places that nature was one of the ways God revealed Himself (Mt. 5.11; 6.25-34; 14.19, et al.) Paul also connects God revealing himself in nature with the gospel in 2 Cor. 9.10 and 1 Cor. 3.6-7.

Pertaining to God revealing himself through our consciences, Paul mentions it in connection with the gospel in Romans 2.15. Jesus often spoke of the conscience when he spoke of the heart (Mt. 5.28, 9.4, 12.34, 13.15, et al.)

Regarding reason, the Bible encourages us to be thinking people, making decisions with our whole beings (reason, emotions, experience, and faith), not just with closed minds and blind trust. Romans 12.2, Acts 17.11, to name just a few, and Jesus in places like Matthew 15.10 and John 3.