The Narrow Path Ministries

1) The Flood.

2) "The Ban" book of Joshua

3) 1 Samuel 15:2-4



I never understood this. I have had atheists challenge me on the authority of "the God of the Bible" based on the "God of love" vs "Killing of the innocent humans"

Having a family of my own I can't even imagine this kind of "blanket destruction" and how it relates to the God of mercy and Love that I know.

Greg Boyd is currently covering this topic on his blog. He's just getting started.

http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/

He doesn't approach the issue of children being caught in the middle of it all.

Thanks for the link though. I'll be watching his blog.

There are a few points I'd make

1) God is the author of life and He (and He alone) has the right to decide when to take a life. Who are we argue with Him?

2) Any children growing up in these wicked societies would have almost certainly become extremely wicked themselves. Perhaps it was an act of mercy to save them from themselves. What's more, if we believe in an age of accountability, having these children die before they reach that age may have been the only way to save them from a negative verdict on judgment day.

3) The annihilation of these people groups was, of course, ultimately purposed in the salvation of the world. If the Israelites would not have eliminated their wicked neighbors they would have, no doubt, blended in and, perhaps, ceased to exist as a unique people. Rescuing Israel from this conclusion was an act of grace on God's part b/c He did is so that Jesus would be born and accomplish His task of rescuing the world of people just like those who perished in these accounts.

It's always best, when we question God's choices, to think more fully about what would have happened if He didn't make the choices He made. I think that in this case we can begin to understand the wisdom behind His course of action.

Hi Guys,

I was asked by my co-workers the same question many times.

I would like to act as the BAD GUY in this thread.

1) God is the author of life and He (and He alone) has the right to decide when to take a life. Who are we argue with Him?

But I thought GOD was suppose to show us an example that we can imitate.
What GOD had shown us which many people actually copied is to kill our enemies.

2) Any children growing up in these wicked societies would have almost certainly become extremely wicked themselves. Perhaps it was an act of mercy to save them from themselves. What's more, if we believe in an age of accountability, having these children die before they reach that age may have been the only way to save them from a negative verdict on judgment day.

Even in our present society children are also wicked, why God is not ordering the Christians to kill the pagans in our society. Also we have to remember that even babies were killed by the Israelites

3) The annihilation of these people groups was, of course, ultimately purposed in the salvation of the world. If the Israelites would not have eliminated their wicked neighbors they would have, no doubt, blended in and, perhaps, ceased to exist as a unique people. Rescuing Israel from this conclusion was an act of grace on God's part b/c He did is so that Jesus would be born and accomplish His task of rescuing the world of people just like those who perished in these accounts.

As I said even in today's society God has not ordered Christians to kill the pagans. How come it has to be different with the O.T. Not only that the Gentiles and Israelites are now mixed why it has to be different in the O.T.

From the points I gathered from you: What GOD showed us is that it is okay to initiate Divine mercy killing.
But if it is Kavorkian who will initiate mercy killing, it is not okay. Again I thought God is suppose to show us an example.

Just to throw another monkey wrench into this discussion, there is a minority of Christians who hold the view that God did not order these genocidal massacres in the OT. They would say that portion of scripture was not inspired by God. I believe one of our members named Paidion holds this view. Hopefully he will join the discussion if he sees this thread.

Paul, I'd suggest you check out the link I provided. Greg Boyd gives several arguments why the OT massacre passages can't logically be used to justify any such practice today. Often times our gut reaction to something switches our brains off. But, like you, I feel sick to my stomach at the thought of a baby being run through with a sword. If that baby had grown up to be Adolf Hitler (or worse) who's to say it wasn't justified? Of course, only God can make a call like that. But to suggest that such a thing could be practiced today because of these OT verses is completely absurd as even those things had a very specific context.

The troubling thing for me is not necessarily that God wanted certain tribes/peoples wiped out, but that he expected HIS people to carry it out.

The flood was one thing-- God sent the rain and opened the fountains and the people were killed as a result.

But it is another thing to request your followers to "run a baby through with a sword," as JC so vividly puts it. I am not sure if I could run a baby through with a sword, even if ordered by God to do so. And are there not other passages that talk about hamstringing horses, and the like? Could not God have simply opened up the earth and let it swallow up the canaanites? (of course this is a rhetorical question). Why make your followers do it?

Were people less civilized then? Did brutality not bother them? I am not sure that people had the same sensibilities we have now, although I could be dead wrong.

I am curious about the "uninspired" theory. Does this mean that the people did this of their own accord, and then Moses claimed that God told them to do it? Or does it mean that Moses was simply mistaken in thinking that God told them to commit these acts?

Just wondering,

TK

mattrose wrote:2) Any children growing up in these wicked societies would have almost certainly become extremely wicked themselves. Perhaps it was an act of mercy to save them from themselves. What's more, if we believe in an age of accountability, having these children die before they reach that age may have been the only way to save them from a negative verdict on judgment day.

I have heard exactly the same argument used to justify abortion.

Thanks JC,

Actually those thoughts were my co-worker's thoughts I just paraphrase them. He reads the bible but he does not believe that the bible is literal.
He believes that there is a lesson to be learned from the bible.

Thanks for all the responses. Albeit more questions than answers IMO.

I feel a sense of dread, confusion and sometimes anger when I ponder these points.

1) God is the author of life.
- Does that "justify" the slaying of children. I am not arguing his authority JUST THE USE OF IT. I believe the psalms have plenty of passages with these kinds of retorts.

- Call me humanistic but I would be appalled if a sinful man was found guilty of murder and then executed in an electric chair. following the event his wife and his bright eyed baby daughter followed in his demise.

(Just an example so please don't read into it to much)

2) Paidion kinda put the cap on this one.

3) "If the Israelites would not have eliminated their wicked neighbors they would have, no doubt, blended in and, perhaps, ceased to exist as a unique people."

Interestingly enough that didn't stop it from HAPPENING. (1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings)
I guess they slaughtered a bunch of babies for nothing.

I recoil from the idea that a toddler or a suckling baby should be destroyed because their parents were wicked. Like their "genetics" pose a threat to an entire nation.