Numbers 31 = kill kids for revenge

[Poster]

Bold and size added for ease of reference:


Numbers 25
16 The LORD said to Moses,
17 "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them,
18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."

Numbers 31:1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
...
9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.
...
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ€â€the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsâ€â€who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

[background: The Midianite women tempted a few Israelites to sleep with them, God sent a plague to those Israelites. It is in retaliation for this plague *that God sent* Moses commands the killing of the young children for revenge. Some of those killed could have even been the children of the earlier event, depending on the timing.]


After reading that, I stopped believing in the bible. I stopped my family from believing in the bible. I still like to believe in God and morality, just not that we - at any time - were supposed to murder young boys and girls to get back at their dead, or soon to be dead, mothers.

I believe that if there is a God, and if He is testing us, He is testing us to see if we will follow lock step with men speaking evil in His name.

I know all the Christians I meet are good people. I don't think any of them would have obeyed "God" if they now were taken back to then, and all we had to go on is someone telling us that God said to kill tens of thousands of boys for revenge. What kind of Justice and Mercy is that?

Even in the face of miracles, I would never kill a child. That's just another test, even the Bible itself says not to go by miracles in some cases (Deut 13)

Even if God took me to heaven, made out of nothing a baby right in front of me, with a floating golden knife, again, I would refuse. Looks like a test to see if I would do the right thing, or murder an innocent child just for my own gain.

Even if God really really wanted me to kill the child! I would have to refuse, the baby is innocent, and I would only hope that the side of God which is Justice and Mercy would judge me on my refusal to be unJust.

And finally even if God really really wanted me to kill the child, and hell was the clear result, perhaps I might do the wrong thing, out of lack of free will, but I have free will now and protest, respectfully, against such a "God".

And how likely is it that God really really wanted us, ever, to kill a baby boy to get back at it's mother? It's much more likely a test to see if we will choose the good over the evil... even today the next time you see a bible: Kiss it or take from it the good that it has and refuse the genocides within.

I understand all civilizations have the bad in their histories. We just admit it was bad and would not do that again, even if put in the same situation, we would not do the same again. We now know better.

Hitler invented the highway system, I take that good and reject his evil, genocide.

I've spent many years of my life being religious. However, in the back of my mind, I've always had this sort of thing as a 'reality test'. If any religion has me killing babies, I'm getting off the train, I don't care how certain they are that this or that scripture 'proves' this or that. It's all a complicated chain of reasoning, whereas nobody has any excuse to kill a baby for God. As far as I'm concerned, Abraham FAILED the test of sacrificing Isaac. What kind of 'blessing' is it anyway to have your people wiped out every generation, from Babylon to Rome to the Crusades to Berlin.

I can't believe God would tell me to really kill a child, let alone tens of thousands of them for an absurd reason, revenge to get back at their dead mothers because of something God Himself did, send a plague. We now know how plagues are caused, by the way.

Would you want to live next door to someone who would, under any vision, real or not, follow through and kill a child due to a logical conclusion?

And we now know about brain diseases too, by the way, I've met two people who have them.

How can you tell the difference? I asked.

When what I see doesn't make sense given the context, I just ignore it.

Wise advice from someone who really sees things, really really sees things...

that are not there.

It's a brain disease, and the morality of the situation should stop anyone who can think from killing a baby because, God said so.

Why not just try to be moral, take from the bible what is moral, stick with our best guess at morality? We do that when we have sick people, we do our best. I don't have to kill a child because morality is sometimes a difficult or unclear path. That does not follow.

What, after all, is our complaint against those who blow up children in the name of Allah?
They should somehow have known better, regardless of their religious calculations.

Very respectfully and sincerely submitted.

I would like to know if any Christians have resolved this problem of Numbers 31 specifically.

Christians are good people. The bible has great good in it. Do not Kill.

 

[St Francis]

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Paidion]

Here's one from Numbers 5:

11 ¶ And the LORD said to Moses,
12 "Say to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and acts unfaithfully against him,
13 if a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act;
14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself;
15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 "And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD;
17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and unbind the hair of the woman’s head, and place in her hands the cereal offering of remembrance, which is the cereal offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.
19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness, while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.
20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you,
21 then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the LORD make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell;
22 may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’
23 "Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into the water of bitterness;
24 and he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain.
25 And the priest shall take the cereal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the cereal offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar;
26 and the priest shall take a handful of the cereal offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people.
28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.
29 "This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself,
30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity."

This certainly APPEARS to be discrimination toward women. If a man even SUSPECTS his wife of infidelity, she is given polluted water that will normally "bring the curse", that is these horrid conditions described. However, if she is innocent, she supposedly will not be harmed.

I often wonder whether Moses sometimes didn't hear Yahweh correctly. I wonder whether some of his laws had emerged from his own mind. Because he had heard so much from God, he may have believed all of his own ideas were given to him by God.

But even if that were the case, does that give us sufficient reason to discard the rest of the Bible, Poster? I am sure you know that the collection of writings known as "the Bible" were written by many different authors throughout many ages.

I believe that Jesus the Messiah was the Son of God and that He revealed to the people what God was REALLY like! He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father". In the book of Hebrews, we read that Jesus "bore the very imprint of [God's] essence". Jesus was moved with compassion on people, and through Him, God healed many. Since Jesus is compassionate, therefore His Father is compassionate. This I believe to be the character of God ---- LOVE and compassion ---- no matter what the 5 books of Moses say about Himm.

 

[The Call]

After reading that, I stopped believing in the bible. I stopped my family from believing in the bible. I still like to believe in God and morality, just not that we - at any time - were supposed to murder young boys and girls to get back at their dead, or soon to be dead, mothers.

You believe in a God that is more like you. God's ways are not our ways. How can we presume our morality on a perfect and Holy Creator? How can we, limited by time and our perspective limited to only what we observe judge God's actions? God see's all things and knows all things and He is perfect in all His ways because He is Holy. God owes man nothing, yet He gave us everything we need.

I believe that if there is a God, and if He is testing us, He is testing us to see if we will follow lock step with men speaking evil in His name.

To be frank, you sound as if you believe in nothing. Until you establish if there is a God or not, why presume any action upon Him? Also, He gave us His written Word to know His will so that we wouldn't be deceived.

I know all the Christians I meet are good people. I don't think any of them would have obeyed "God" if they now were taken back to then, and all we had to go on is someone telling us that God said to kill tens of thousands of boys for revenge. What kind of Justice and Mercy is that?

God proved over and over that He was with them and that Moses was His true prophet. It's not as if Moses was Jim Jones or something. As a matter of fact, God let a generation of His own people die in the wilderness for not believe in His Word which He gave through Moses.

Even in the face of miracles, I would never kill a child. That's just another test, even the Bible itself says not to go by miracles in some cases (Deut 13)

No person is innocent. We all have inherited the God hating nature of sin through Adam. But because of my sin and yours, the only truely innocent person in the history of humanity, Christ Jesus, was killed. You have the blood of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, on your hands. Will you confess and be washed by that blood, or will you trample it and damn yourself to hell?

Even if God took me to heaven, made out of nothing a baby right in front of me, with a floating golden knife, again, I would refuse. Looks like a test to see if I would do the right thing, or murder an innocent child just for my own gain.

Even if God really really wanted me to kill the child! I would have to refuse, the baby is innocent, and I would only hope that the side of God which is Justice and Mercy would judge me on my refusal to be unJust.

And finally even if God really really wanted me to kill the child, and hell was the clear result, perhaps I might do the wrong thing, out of lack of free will, but I have free will now and protest, respectfully, against such a "God".

If God took you to heaven His Holy presence would slay you where you stood. That is the testimony of every person who ever encountered His Holiness. You have such a small, man-centric view of God I wonder if you ever read the Bible.

And how likely is it that God really really wanted us, ever, to kill a baby boy to get back at it's mother? It's much more likely a test to see if we will choose the good over the evil... even today the next time you see a bible: Kiss it or take from it the good that it has and refuse the genocides within.

I cling to it, as Its truth will be my only defense when I stand before Him after death.

I understand all civilizations have the bad in their histories. We just admit it was bad and would not do that again, even if put in the same situation, we would not do the same again. We now know better.

Yet human history repeats itself over and over again, testifying to the truth that humanity is completely sinful, and if not for the common grace of God we would destroy ourselves.

I've spent many years of my life being religious.

More people will go to hell with that attitude than people who openly hate God. If you really understood God's standard of righteousness, you would see the absolute beauty of the Cross and the God who went there for the creation who hated Him.

However, in the back of my mind, I've always had this sort of thing as a 'reality test'. If any religion has me killing babies, I'm getting off the train, I don't care how certain they are that this or that scripture 'proves' this or that. It's all a complicated chain of reasoning, whereas nobody has any excuse to kill a baby for God. As far as I'm concerned, Abraham FAILED the test of sacrificing Isaac. What kind of 'blessing' is it anyway to have your people wiped out every generation, from Babylon to Rome to the Crusades to Berlin.

We kill over 4,000 babies a day out of the religion of conveinence. Do you hate those people as much as you hate God?

I pray that you will throw yourself at the feet of Jesus and cling to Him and what He has done for us. God never asked us to understand or explain His every action. He ask's us to believe in the name of Jesus Christ and His work at Calvary.

 

[Poster]

St Francis, The point of this thread is that there are a lot of Christians out there. I didn't want to assume that none of them had a perspective justifying killing children. For instance, if someone had said, 'They had a contagious disease which would have killed even more children.' That's an argument that would make sense. However, that particular reply doesn't fit the particular facts. I was hoping for some other answer I hadn't thought of. Zeno's paradoxes of motion stood for 1900 years before being solved. Fermat's last theorem was solved. I was hoping for an angle I had not considered.


Paidion, Thank you for taking me seriously and sincerely.

I think we both essentially agree on the lack of perfection in the bible's words, and we also agree that there is great good in it.

However, I think we disagree on the following point: Jesus' words arguing that he is God are few and far between, usually in the dark (not very clear), and require precise use to extract his claims from them. He doesn't ever spell it out, and much of the NT argues logically against the notion. Since we both agree that the bible was written by men, perhaps inexact, then I think that makes it less certain that Jesus is actually claiming to be God than if ever word were guaranteed perfect divinely.

Since the quotes / writing of the bible are via the hand of man, subject to error, then one problem is that you could be praying to a man, subject to whatever, if any, problems with praying to a tree as God, no? The most critical aspects of being a Christian are vaguely stated (re my thread on Jesus formula for forgiveness). If the words are not precise in the first place, then what few glances on the subject of Jesus being God, sin atonement sacrifice, are potentially completely off. Contrast with the fact that Jesus was extremely clear, redundant, and said it different ways that if you forgive others you will be forgiven. Respectfully suggested.

When you state that God is good, God is full of love, the bible got it wrong if it contradicts those things, we're holding hands on that one.

The Call, two points:

1. I didn't say I hated God. I implied I hated killing children. That's two different things.

2. How do you justify the killing of children? On what basis? The bible? Miracles?

Neither of those would justify killing a child.

In other words, when we both go to heaven and stand before God to be judged, I'd rather not have killed a child in the name of God than having upheld doing so.

That's also a way to care about God, doing what is Just and Merciful.

What defense will you offer if it turns out you were wrong to support the bible, which, historically, has been, amongst other factors, a moral foundation for the Holocaust and wiping out the American Indians?

I have as a defense that the children had no trials, had done no capital crimes, were not accused of any capital crimes, and the logic for killing them was unfair... it's not fair to kill a baby for something it's mother did, even according to the bible itself!

What would be your defense? What is your reasoning for killing those children at Numbers 31?
Do you really think it's correct to kill babies to get back at their dead parents?

Numbers 31, kill a child for vengeance, is like saying, 'Kill Bob because 1+3 =5.
That's another way of saying there is no valid reason to do so, don't kill the child.

Deut 13 argues that miracles will be used by false prophets.

What logical chain of reasoning justifies killing a baby for vengeance?

If there is a God, surely we should be concerned about doing what is right, correct?

That's not hating him at all.

I think that's the bigger complaint God would have, that we kill children to save our souls from Him. I'd be horrified if my own kids did that.

That's a lack of trust in Him, a lack of faith if you will.

And I checked the original Hebrew personally to make sure the English translation of Numbers 31 was correct. The word for 'kill' at verse 25 is not the direct Hebrew for 'kill', more like 'smite', so at verse 25 alone it's not conclusive, verse 25 by itself could mean just kill the adults. But with verse 31 any doubt is removed, both the English and Hebrew clearly say to kill all the boys, and I don't want to guess at what was done to the girls. What kind of trial is that? If a soldier wants her, she's not guilty and can live? But if a soldier doesn't 'want' her, she, retroactively, is guilty of a capital crime and must be put to death, despite being a baby?

Respectfully submitted.

So far we have

My question: How can the bible be true if it says to kill babies for vengeance?

Answers:

1. I must hate God.
2. The bible isn't perfectly written.
3. Why are you asking?

I already agree with 2, however, I don't then turn around and pray to a man based on nuances in the very text in question.

Thanks again.

If there are any other perspectives, especially on how killing a baby for vengeance can be Just in Numbers 31, I'm all ears.

Seems to me if we start with a notion of God being Just and Merciful, the bible doesn't make the grade, at least not the chapter of Numbers 31.

If I care about our Just and Merciful God, I have no grounds for adopting the bible, excepting to pick and choose. There's lot's of good in the bible, historically, it was ahead of it's time, no question. We could do without the genocides, however. If we believe in and care about an all Good and Just and Merciful and Loving God, I see no room to believe in or uphold Numbers 31 in any way.

On the point of 'His ways are not our ways...' I'm always impressed when a Christian quotes that.

That's a quote from Isaiah 55, the whole *point* of which is that God forgives 'freely' if you do works to reform. It proves incorrect the notion that we *must* have a sacrifice. How can God possibly not require a price, a sacrifice to forgive sin? Well, I understand how that might bother you, but God's ways are not your ways, He's mysterious, He forgives 'freely', no price required.

Is 55:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

Shouldn't that be impossible? asks the Christian. Don't we need a sacrifice, don't we have to pay?

Well, there it is, in black and tan, God forgives 'freely'.
And Isaiah was written six months *before* the cross, give or take a few centuries.


Again, respectfully submitted.

 

[Free]

I think we both essentially agree on the lack of perfection in the bible's words, and we also agree that there is great good in it.

Based on what? What criteria do you use to differentiate the lack of perfection from the good? I would disagree that the Bible is imperfectly written. If it is, then we ought to throw the whole thing out. That would be the logical conclusion.

Jesus' words arguing that he is God are few and far between, usually in the dark (not very clear), and require precise use to extract his claims from them. He doesn't ever spell it out, and much of the NT argues logically against the notion.

Firstly, I think that Jesus' words as to his own divinity are quite clear. Secondly, some of the NT makes it clear that Jesus is God. In fact, some passages lose all meaning if Jesus isn't God. So when we take the NT as whole, both with the passages that mention Jesus' divinity along with those that mention his humanity, we come out with the doctrine of the Trinity. I think it is incorrect to say that "much of the NT argues logically against the notion" that Jesus is God. Mentioning Jesus' humanity is not an argument against his divinity.

Anyways, that's for another thread, of which we have had many.

Since the quotes / writing of the bible are via the hand of man, subject to error,

Why do you presume that since the Bible was written by the hands of men that it is subject to error?

When you state that God is good, God is full of love, the bible got it wrong if it contradicts those things, we're holding hands on that one.

Why? On what grounds is it wrong? At certain points in time, yes, God did command the killing of children, women, etc. But that does not mean that he is neither unloving nor not good. God is also just, is he not? In making such arguments, one divorces God's goodness from his justice but the two go hand-in-hand.

In other words, when we both go to heaven and stand before God to be judged, I'd rather not have killed a child in the name of God than having upheld doing so.

There is no biblical justification for killing a child. Just because something is recorded in the Bible as an historical account, it in no way provides justification for that something outside of that instance (killing a male child today, for example).

If there are any other perspectives, especially on how killing a baby for vengeance can be Just in Numbers 31, I'm all ears.

First, let's note that it wasn't children in general, but all the male children. It could very well be that it was about killing the Midianite seed, those who could carry on the Midianites. Or, it could be that it was to keep the Midianite males from endangering the inheritance rights of the Israelite men (note from NIV Study Bible).

There is more that could be said here but I will leave it at that for now.

Seems to me if we start with a notion of God being Just and Merciful, the bible doesn't make the grade, at least not the chapter of Numbers 31.

And it would seem to me that if we start with the notion that God is just and merciful, then he had justification for commanding the Israelites to kill the male children, whether we can see or understand that justification. Here I think the justification can be found but there is a lack of understanding, or of taking into account, the full context.


Such accounts in the Bible in no way mean that God isn't just or loving or merciful. Nor do they allow us to dismiss such accounts as man's imperfect writing based on our ideas of justness, love, and mercy.

With all due respect Poster, arguments like this typically don't take into account the complexities of how God dealt with the Israelites as a community and what it meant for them to fall into sin. This is just the so-called Problem of Evil which many atheists are fond of making. But I think that if one makes such a simple argument against God's justness, love, and mercy based on some select passages, that the argument ignores, and indeed must ignore, such complexities.

This isn't to say you haven't wrestled with this passage and thought it through. Such passages are difficult but we must take them head on and see how they fit into the grand scheme without simply dismissing them with, what turn out in the end to be, such simple arguments.

And since I have never said so: Welcome to the forums.

 

[Poster]

Free, huge thanks for your welcome.

Of course, anyone who watches vampire movies knows that the rule is that I can not enter until invited... now you've done it (lol)

Since Numbers 31 gives the reason for killing the young children, and the reason is vengeance for something their mothers did, there's no mystery why the children were killed.

I say it is simply wrong to kill a baby for the crimes it's mother committed.

Don't you agree?

What kind of Justice system is that?

If an angel of the Lord appeared before you, right not (I'm flying as fast as I can flap my wings) and waved a sword of fire and commanded you, in the name of the Almighty God, to kill this -, pause for dramatic effect - baby *a baby pops into existence*

would you kill it?

What if the angel of the Lord gave you the reason, 'Because 7+5 is 14, you are now commanded to kill this baby."

?

The 'because' is factually wrong.

If God said, "7+5 is 11" that doesn't make 7+5 = 11.

Rather, God is testing us in some way.

Now, if the test is to see if I'll kill an innocent child just for my own gain, to save my soul, then I'm not trusting God the Creator to Judge me on Just and Merciful grounds.

Failing to trust God to be Just and Merciful to us, His children, just because someone heard a voice or saw some really great magic tricks, that seems to be lacking faith in God the creator of morality.

No?

25 years ago I stopped being a Christian when I realized I was praying to a man to save my soul from God. I remember it as clear as day, I gave up Jesus as God literally in less than a minute. I had been a Christian for many years (though I know that some people think it's impossible to give up being a Christian, if you do, "you never were", that's another topic). I've never been tempted to return, though I think Christians are great people, I think Jesus taught the world a lot of important lessons, etc.

 

[Bubba]

Poster,
There is another thought in regards to what we can explain for a rationale for God killing these boys for revenge and etc. That is, that in this age there are those destined to be reprobate (Proverbs 16:4) that the Lord uses to fulfill His plans, as Judas, Pilate, the Jews yelling "crucify Him" were all used in orchestrating the way of the cross for Jesus. Thus Isaiah in chapter 53:4 we have the pronouncement "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted". My point of bringing this up is that we are caught of in this realm and do not consider the next realm where God will bring total reconciliation to those considered reprobate in the last. My suggestion is to consider the Christian Universalist position, which after 30 years of believing in what I have considered orthodox beliefs about eternal Hell and the wrath and vengeance of God, I now consider false and damaging to the character of God.
(Colossians 1:19-20, 1st Timothy 4:10, and 1John 2:2)
Grace, Bubba

 

[Poster]

Huge thanks for your insight.

Note:

1. I'm not complaining about God killing babies. He does that all the time through disease and death. God can fix anything by 'making up for it' in heaven.

2. But, from the human perspective, there's a huge procedural problem.

Imagine a trial:

"Sure I killed the baby. It must have been a good thing to do, God let it happen, after all, and if it was wrong, think how thankful the baby is to me since God is making it up to her in heaven."



My concern is with us humans killing babies without following the proper procedure of a trial establishing guilt.

Would you kill a child if you heard God tell you to do so, Kill a baby for revenge to get back at it's dead mother?

If yes, Why, exactly?

To save your soul?

Is it justice to murder an innocent baby just to save your soul?

And what kind of God are we describing, exactly?

Meaning, how did we conclude that God demands all this in the first place? Wasn't an axiom proving religion is that God is good? And here we are, killing babies to stop God from torturing us? Seems we're contradicting ourselves, we don't become religious except that we 'know' God is good (agreed) but then we end up saying we gotta kill babies because God might torture us if we don't. I don't know exactly where the train turned around, but it sure is going the wrong direction at Numbers 31.

Why not just go back to 'God is good' and stick with that, just try to be good as best we can?

Respectfully submitted.

 

[Bubba]

Poster,
Yes, it would be very difficult to carry out what God requested the Israelites to do, but in the big picture when we read in context of Numbers we understand why God made such a request. I personally believe that when God desires His will to be carried out the heart that has been change will carry the request out. The Holy Spirit works through them and they are able see at least in part the reason for the request and they trust in the God they have experienced.

I found this article which may help you see things in a different light.
Peace, Bubba

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586

 

[Poster]

Thanks for the link to the article.

cut and paste:


If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.

end cut and paste.

The problem with that is that these young children were captured. As such they could have been raised any way we see fit. A baby has no clue what it's parents did.

Should we murder the children of death row convicts? After all, they may grow up and kill also.

The article takes the notion of genocide to clear the land as legitimate.

Consider,

God told me that I own your wallet, so I must kill you.

The conclusion does not follow.

Also, the article takes it as a given that none of the young girls were killed.
1. Any young girl that had had sex would be killed.
2. Any young virgin girl who was not 'wanted' would be killed.

Why, exactly, would a soldier 'want' a girl but not 'want' a boy? Boys can sweep and cook too, especially if the alternative is death. Even I could be motivated to pull my weight if death is on the line.

Thanks for the article, I did not know that Thomas Paine also felt the same way as I do, due to the same passage.


Seriously, would you kill a baby boy if God told you to do so, 'for revenge' against it's dead mother because she made God send a plague to kill soldiers who had relations with her?

Would you?

Why, exactly? For living space? (Lebensraum?)

To save your soul?

What kind of God do we believe in?

Why not believe in a God of Justice and Mercy so much that even if God Himself ordered us to do such an unjust thing, that we would conclude that it must be a test to see if we would choose to do evil to save our souls, or on the other hand, choose to do the good and trust in God?

Why, specifically, would you kill the child?

Would you do it if God 1. commanded you to do so, AND 2. PROMISED not to do anything to you if you refused? Take away the punishment, would you still kill the child?

Why? Hoping for a blessing?

I don't have a problem with killing a child to save more children (lifeboat ethics).

Consider also the Trolley Dilemma, Google Trolley Dilemma Joshua Greene for an interesting set of moral cases and an fMRI.

Respectfully,

Poster

 

[MarkT]

Poster

Paul said, 'Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed'. 2 Cor. 3:15-16

Didn't God destroy everyone in the flood - except for eight? How do you feel about that? Under the Old Covenant, God made a people for himself. Moses tells us the women of Midian caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD. So every male child and every women who had known man by lying with him was killed. This was according to the Old Covenant. See how strict the law is!?!

You have no excuse. You know the law. You know how strict it is. If you had any sense, you would fear God.

And what is happening today? Feminism is leading men away from God. Do you think the women who are leading men astray will live? No. They will be destroyed as the women of Midian were destroyed. This should be a warning to you. Under the New Covenant, we are not to destroy our enemy, but we love those who hate us. We heap coals of fire onto their heads. The Lord will execute his judgment on them when he returns.

 

[Poster]

Hi MarkT,

First off, thanks for your post.

I think my argument is, 'Since I fear God, I'm afraid to kill children, even if I hear some Voice telling me to kill them.'

Notice I make no comment about adults, who may or may not be guilty of something, I can't prove it either way, so let's focus on the children.

How about you, if you heard a Voice, would you kill a child 'for revenge' against someone else?

Let's agree that the someone else would be disturbed by your killing of the child, my question is, How is that fair / justice for the child?

On what biblical basis (where in the OT) does it give permission for Paul to come and change the meaning?

I could use the same tack and say that the plain words of the NT don't mean what they normally mean, rather, when it says, 'Forgive others' it really means Send me half your paycheck.

Your question to me should be, 'How did you come to this conclusion?'

If Paul says that the plain meaning of the 'in the light' passages of the OT should be ignored, how does Deut 13 fail to apply to him?

How about you, if you heard a Voice, would you kill a child 'for revenge' against someone else?

That's my only real question to you, if you would kill a child for revenge because you heard a Voice tell you to do so, my question is,
Why?

Why would you kill that child?

To save your soul?

To get heaven rewards?

Would you [do anything to] a child to get to heaven?

If I heard a Voice telling me to kill a child for revenge purposes, I'd be too afraid of my Creator to do it.


Even if the Voice was from God. Earth, stars, statues, God makes everything, yet we won't do what those other things tell us to do blindly.

Is it just possible God is testing us to see if we'd be immoral to get a heavenly gain?

Shouldn't we be self-less and do the right thing, not kill a baby for revenge against a third party, and just have faith in God?

As for your comments on feminism, I'm going to assume you mean only the radical feminist, and not the women who want the right to get a job, vote, be free from beatings, that sort of thing is repulsive to you, right?

Thanks for your post.

 

[Paidion]

Thank you poster for your kind words to me.

However, I think we disagree on the following point: Jesus' words arguing that he is God are few and far between, usually in the dark (not very clear), and require precise use to extract his claims from them. He doesn't ever spell it out, and much of the NT argues logically against the notion. Since we both agree that the bible was written by men, perhaps inexact, then I think that makes it less certain that Jesus is actually claiming to be God than if ever word were guaranteed perfect divinely.

Please read my post again. You will notice that I never claimed that Jesus was God, that is, that He was identical with His Father. Nor did I suggest that Jesus Himself claimed to be God. Rather I indicated that He was another just like God, the exact expression of God, so that anyone who knew the character of Jesus (loving and filled with compassion for people), knew also the character of God. For God begat Jesus before all ages, and thus Jesus was divine like His Father. Man begets man, and their offspring is human. Dogs beget dogs and their offspring is canine. God begets God and His offspring is divine.

 

[MarkT]

I think my argument is, 'Since I fear God, I'm afraid to kill children, even if I hear some Voice telling me to kill them.'

Notice I make no comment about adults, who may or may not be guilty of something, I can't prove it either way, so let's focus on the children.

How about you, if you heard a Voice, would you kill a child 'for revenge' against someone else?

When you ask if I heard a voice, I take it you don't believe the LORD spoke to Moses?

The LORD said, 'Avenge the people of Israel' It's not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of vengence - the LORD's vengence - God being a jealous God. I don't think you really get it. The Mid'ianite women invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So the LORD sent a plague on the people. The Scriptures say one of the men of Israel brought a Mid'ianite woman back to his family in the sight of Moses and the whole congregation. I don't know how you would react to that but Phin'ehas was jealous with the LORD's jealousy and he killed both of them.

Of course today we are under the new covenant, and we don't judge, and we wouldn't kill the women who have caused men to turn away from God. And we wouldn't kill their offspring. Still I condemn feminism and all feminists.

 

[Spiffy]

Poster,

Once you realize how very merciful God truly is and how utterly evil the Midianites were, then you will come to understand Numbers 31. These people, including male children, were destroyed due to their wickedness. These people had countless opportunities to repent, they just did not care. Their male boys would have lived a life of sin, held in bondage of what they learned from their parents and due to the nature of their age - Do you really think God would send them to hell? I do not, I believe, because of not knowing any better, these male children will go to heaven.

The Bible is filled with promises from God of what he would do to people for wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4 among countless others). These people were very much warned, even if they were not following God.

Do you think a just God would go back on his promises and change his mind about dealing with wickedness because there were children involved? No way, then He would be a liar and He is not a liar, He is a just God and the people got what He promised they would get throughout the pages of the Bible.

 

[MarkT]

Poster,

Once you realize how very merciful God truly is and how utterly evil the Midianites were, then you will come to understand Numbers 31. These people, including male children, were destroyed due to their wickedness. These people had countless opportunities to repent, they just did not care. Their male boys would have lived a life of sin, held in bondage of what they learned from their parents and due to the nature of their age - Do you really think God would send them to hell? I do not, I believe, because of not knowing any better, these male children will go to heaven.

The Bible is filled with promises from God of what he would do to people for wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4 among countless others). These people were very much warned, even if they were not following God.

Do you think a just God would go back on his promises and change his mind about dealing with wickedness because there were children involved? No way, then He would be a liar and He is not a liar, He is a just God and the people got what He promised they would get throughout the pages of the Bible.

No. You don't understand. The women caused the people to bow down to their gods. The Scriptures say the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. These women invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. You don't get the sense of betrayal. God is a jealous God. In his anger, the LORD sent a plague on Israel. Twenty-four thousand died by the plague. Numbers 25. Read the whole thing.

 

[Spiffy]

Poster,

Once you realize how very merciful God truly is and how utterly evil the Midianites were, then you will come to understand Numbers 31. These people, including male children, were destroyed due to their wickedness. These people had countless opportunities to repent, they just did not care. Their male boys would have lived a life of sin, held in bondage of what they learned from their parents and due to the nature of their age - Do you really think God would send them to hell? I do not, I believe, because of not knowing any better, these male children will go to heaven.

The Bible is filled with promises from God of what he would do to people for wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4 among countless others). These people were very much warned, even if they were not following God.

Do you think a just God would go back on his promises and change his mind about dealing with wickedness because there were children involved? No way, then He would be a liar and He is not a liar, He is a just God and the people got what He promised they would get throughout the pages of the Bible.

No. You don't understand. The women caused the people to bow down to their gods. The Scriptures say the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. These women invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. You don't get the sense of betrayal. God is a jealous God. In his anger, the LORD sent a plague on Israel. Twenty-four thousand died by the plague. Numbers 25. Read the whole thing.

MarkT,

Thanks for your response. In my post, I was only touching on Numbers 31, as the author of the original thread wanted to know why God would allow male children to be murdered. The Israelites, concerning Numbers 25, are blatantly guilty as they knew the truth yet chose to sacrifice to other gods - they were even more guilty than the Midianites. I am not denying God is a jealous God, I know He is, however, I still believe God is a merciful God and when reading Exodus through Numbers you can see His mercy shown towards the Israelites. This could very well have been the final straw, after doing all He did for the Israelites, then they turned on Him once AGAIN.

I am in agreement with you, I do not disagree with anything you said. I don't see where I have misunderstood anything. God bless.

 

[Veritas]

The precedent is larger than Numbers 31. It is set in Deuteronomy 20. For nations in the promised land, this is what the Lord commanded:

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Deuteronomy 20:16

...this is a different set of rules than what God gave them for waging war with nations outside the promised land. “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.†Deuteronomy 20:10. People outside the promised land were not as nasty and not as likely to ensnare the Israelites into sin.

God was not only giving this land to the Israelites, He was also judging the peoples that were there. God foresaw what was going to happened and mentioned it to Abraham hundreds of years before:

In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites (people of the promised land) has not yet reached its full measure." Geneisis 15:16

And yes.. the judgement was drastic.

But this should be thought of in perspective to the entire outcome of our world. What happened back then has direct implications now. Israel was God's pocket of people and the only light in the world. Check out how these other nations in the promised land lived back then. It makes Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 20:16 look like peanuts. Israel held the spiritual desitiny of the entire world. God was going to bless and save the world through his people. What God did and what God commanded was the only way the worship of the one true God could survive.

Think of a medical analogy. A surgeon would not hesitate to amputate one part of your body to save your life. This amputation will cause real pain and enormous loss. But when a life is at stake, a doctor won’t hesitate. God was doing drastic surgery at that time in the promised land. Ensuring the Israelite eternal lives and our eternal lives.

 

[MarkT]

MarkT,

Thanks for your response. In my post, I was only touching on Numbers 31, as the author of the original thread wanted to know why God would allow male children to be murdered. The Israelites, concerning Numbers 25, are blatantly guilty as they knew the truth yet chose to sacrifice to other gods - they were even more guilty than the Midianites. I am not denying God is a jealous God, I know He is, however, I still believe God is a merciful God and when reading Exodus through Numbers you can see His mercy shown towards the Israelites. This could very well have been the final straw, after doing all He did for the Israelites, then they turned on Him once AGAIN.

I am in agreement with you, I do not disagree with anything you said. I don't see where I have misunderstood anything. God bless.

Right. Well, the LORD said, Phin'ehas 'has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy'. So the LORD was jealous in a manner - as a bridegroom would be jealous, and his anger would be kindled, to discover his bride has been with another man; that is, the LORD chose Israel to be his bride, and she went after another. We know the Lord Jesus is the bridegroom. So the LORD and the Lord Jesus are one.

You're right. The LORD did spare Israel because of what one man did. But he didn't spare the Medians. But they were not slain simply because they were wicked. They were killed for what they caused the people of Israel to do. In this we see the same judgment awaits them who cause us to sin. As Jesus said, 'whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.' Mt. 18:6

As for the male children and the women who had known man, they were considered as one flesh as the men of Median.