Mass Slaughter of Children in the Bible.

[_Steve]

I just thought I would weigh in against the tide and say that I believe Matt's points were reasonable, and I have suggested similar reasons on many occasions. Let me add a few thoughts to each of his points:

1. God has the right to determine on what day any person dies, and in what manner. A God who has no right to order the swift execution of a whole race, because this would include the babies, would have to answer even more for allowing modern babies to die gradually of starvation, cancer, or other painful and prolonged causes, when it was in His power to save them from such a fate. The same God could never justify burning up the babies of Sodom, nor drowning the antediluvian babies.

I cannot answer for God as far as what all of His reasons may have been, but God has the ability to look at the eternal picture and to judge accordingly. The fact that we judge matters primarily in terms of short-term results does not mean that God, who does not share our lack of vision, or faith, must judge with such short-sightness, in order to accommodate our benighted vision.

The same God who gives life invariably takes it away as well. The human mortality rate is 100%. Everyone dies, and after that point, for all eternity, it doesn't matter in the least how death occurred. Every Canaanite of Joshua's generation would be long-dead today, regardless whether God had left them alone or exterminated them. From the standpoint of eternity, it makes no difference whether they died of sword wounds or of old age. However, God's temporal plans for Israel might have been adversely affected had the Canaanites died of old age.

This does not argue for the cheapness or insignificance of a human life. From our point of view, we must count every life to have the same value as our own. However, God does not count human earthly life to be permanent, and He is the only one in the position to justly decide when to cancel any person's ticket. It is not ours to decide when or how another person should die. However, when God commands that one person to execute another (e.g., in Genesis 9:6), the execution cannot be regarded as unjust, unless God is Himself imputed unjust.

2. It seems true to me that the babies who died in the conquest of Canaan were spared thereby from the fate of growing-up to be demon-worshippers, like their parents. As it turned out, they died innocent. That cannot be the worst possible outcome, and in the wisdom of God, was quite probably the best.

Does this justify the modern practice of abortion or infanticide? I do not see anything remotely parallel between the divinely-commanded judgment of the Canaanite nations and the criminal disregard for human life represented by abortion and infanticide.

3. The extinction of the Canaanites would have prevented Israel from turning to the Canaanite religions. At least God seemed to believe this. The fact that the Israelites did in fact turn to those religions does not prove God wrong. It proved Him correct. Israel did not carry out God's orders. Many Canaanites remained alive and unharmed—enough to influence Israel in just the manner that God predicted.


I also do not think this resembles in any way the case of a murderer's family being brought with him to be executed. There is no reason to assume that any but the infants in the society were any more innocent than were the fathers.

As for the infants, if Israel had eliminated all the Canaanite adults, but left the infants and children alive, who would care for these surviving infants? The Canaanites, by all accounts (at least in the reckoning of Israel) greatly outnumbered Israel. If God had wished for the whole of Israel to become a Canaanite orphanage, He might well have required Israel to adopt the multitude of orphaned Canaanite babies, which would have outnumbered their own Israelite children. In such a case, when the Canaanite children would grow up to outnumber the next generation of Israelites, they might feel that Israel owed them "reparations" for the "injustices" perpetrated against their Canaanite parents and grandparents. They might well have shown an interest in the the "native spirituality" of their ancestors. Who can say what God could foresee?

In any case, the Old Testament does not indicate that God's primary purpose for the nation of Israel was to provide foster care, in order to perpetuate the Canaanite races.

With respect to the suggestion that it was not God who inspired these instructions, we might well ask, "If not God, then who?" It cannot have been the popular sentiment of the Israelites themselves that spawned the idea, since they were not willing to carry out the instructions, and left many Canaanite city-states unmolested. Was it Moses, then, who came up with the idea—the meekest man on earth? If he made these instructions up, then maybe he made up all of the laws that go against western sentiments. Perhaps it never really was an abomination for a man to have sex with another man. Moses may have simply been homophobic.

[Guest]

Steve said:

As for the infants, if Israel had eliminated all the Canaanite adults, but left the infants and children alive, who would care for these surviving infants?
( These babies are also in the care of God in his Kingdom)

I've heard you mentioned this on your tape before and this was the answer I gave to my co-worker. When I told him this he was surprise because he never thought of this and asked me to whom I learned this and I told him it was from you and he said that you must be smart.

But then he will come back again and debate with me. We will debate every time there are Christian celebration such as Holy Week, Christmas and whenever he feels like. Recently we debated for two days in a row and in the process my other co-workers who are muslim, Budhists and Hindus became aware of who Jesus is.

[Guest]

In response to various counter-points

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.

That God is our 'example' is not a point that should be taken too far. We aren't to imitate everything God does (how could we?). We are to imitate God's law (in the Old Testament, The Law, in the New Testament, the Law of Christ). There is, of course, a significant difference between us and the Judge of the world. There is a huge gap b/w us and the Giver of life.

Even in our present society children are also wicked, why God is not ordering the Christians to kill the pagans in our society....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.

I would be thrilled if a seeker or skeptic asked me that question b/c it would open the door to talk about the progressive nature of God's revelation. God acted very differently toward mankind prior to the coming of Christ, and for good reason. Seemingly everything prior to Jesus was in preparation for His Coming. At the fullness of time, Jesus came. This changed everything.

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.

Once again, the idea that God is our example in all things is, to me, ridiculous. Kavorkian takes life into HIS hands instead of letting God be God. Huge difference. God has every right. Jack has no right.

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

That would be a very weak usage of that point. I'm surprised any thorough thinker would use it. Too many differences b/w the 2 situations to count. First and foremost, though, is the obvious fact that God directly ordained the defeat of certain people groups, but has, in contrast, commanded us to defend the most innocent members of our society.

[Guest]

Good point Matt.

[Guest]

"I cannot answer for God as far as what all of His reasons may have been, but God has the ability to look at the eternal picture and to judge accordingly"

Steve:

The most honest answer and reply yet. The scope of "eternity" or reality with out time cages the human mind because it is beyond our perception. The different views of the state of the wicked in the after life all seem to run in conjunction with these thoughts and ideas. I am not trying to open a discussion on those views but it is food for thought.

In view of logic most answers play like this:

God is just and eternal.
Man is finite and unjust
God's action are just by definition
Man cannot understand God and cannot understand is actions.

"As for the infants, if Israel had eliminated all the Canaanite adults, but left the infants and children alive, who would care for these surviving infants?

Having been an orphan and coming from an orphanage and seeing the masses of homeless children starving and unloved in third world countries I can't help but find this view repugnant. In light of all the other miracles performed in those days a solution to the problem of "who will care for them???
......................KILL EM ALL attitude is rather stunning.

I apologize if this is a bad representation of this view and i realize that all "logical" answer in this playing field have some rather nasty holes in them.

Don't get me wrong for my rather edgy tone. Its just a subject that hits home for me in a personal way. I do appreciate ALL the responses and views. Ironically I have no answers of my own on this subject.

seeking.......

[Guest]

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.

Does this justify the modern practice of abortion or infanticide? I do not see anything remotely parallel between the divinely-commanded judgment of the Canaanite nations and the criminal disregard for human life represented by abortion and infanticide.

Then let me spell out the remote parallel in relation to Matt's statements:

Any children growing up in these wicked societies would have almost certainly become extremely wicked themselves.

Will not many children growing up in the wicked societies of our nation almost certainly become extremely wicked themselves? Could this not have been prevented by having aborted them before they were born?

Perhaps it was an act of mercy to save them from themselves.

Might not aborting such children be a 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.

Would not the same argument apply to aborting babies of wicked people in our day?

What I was implying by this argument is not, of course, the aborting of babies, but that Matt's attempt to justify what he believes to have been the action of God is weak at best and ludicrous at worst.

This idea that God commanded the Israelites to destroy people in horrible ways is another denigration of God's holy character. Why cling to a false concept of God's character for no other reason than the psychological need to accept all that Moses ordered as a revelation from God?

Some people also ascribe the holocaust as an act of God to punish the Jews for their rebellion against the Messiah, just as He supposedly did in 70 A.D. God's nature is to give life and to support the suffering, even as He commands us to do, not to destroy life and add to the pains of the suffering. The scripture states that he even does good toward evil people, and that we should do the same, so that we may be sons of the Heavenly Father.

Contrary to popular opinion, God is not responsible for the 100% mortality rate among man. Rather, Adam and Eve fell, and passed on mortality to every person. The fact that everyone will die (with the exception of those who are alive at the time of Christ's return) does not imply that human life is cheap and that God takes it whenever He wishes, and that it is all right for us to take it too and kill our enemies as the Israelites did theirs.

I choose to hold onto the totally righteous, holy, and loving character of God rather than to Moses' words that God told him to destroy his enemies including children and babies.

I notice that Jesus didn't tell his followers to kill their enemies including babies, and He is the revelation of the true character of God. He was the living WORD (expression) of the Father. The Father's true character was revealed through Christ.

"This is my beloved Son. Hear ye Him!"

[_Steve]

Paidion,

Your points do not seem to require refutation. As long as we can say, "Regardless what scripture says, God must be as I perceive Him," there can be no argument on a topic like this. If each man's own sentiments trump the testimony of Moses and the prophets (and Jesus and the apostles, who believed in Moses and the prophets), then there is no common starting point from which to discuss biblical theology.

When Paul said that the law is holy, just and good, he had the same Torah in his hand (and mind) as we have—including all of the commands that some here find so repugnant. On this matter, I must begin where Paul began, just as Jesus did ("Not one jot or tittle shall pass...till all be fufilled"). When I defend God's actions, I am not expressing my sentiments or preferences, but I am taking His word for what it says, and considering the possible logic behind it. If I cannot see or appreciate the logic behind it, I am not thereby released to say that God must think as I do, and cannot have inspired the scriptures.

The argument about Jesus not commanding us to kill babies and the justification for doing so because they might grow up in today's society to be wicked does not exhibit the kind of depth of thought that I am accustomed to expect from you. Their refutation would be a waste of key strokes—and would require only the repetition of points made earlier.

Since we Christians are not commanded to kill anybody today, the question of whether God gave this command in the Old Testament or not may seem moot. However, our approach to the authority of scripture has many practical ramifications.

[Guest]

Philman wrote:

God is just and eternal.
Man is finite and unjust
God's action are just by definition
Man cannot understand God and cannot understand is actions.

Steve wrote:

Your points do not seem to require refutation. As long as we can say, "Regardless what scripture says, God must be as I perceive Him," there can be no argument on a topic like this.

These observations are what drives a lot of the discussion on the eternal torment/universal reconciliation threads. Since certain persons cannot bring themselves to believe in a God that would sentence a person to eternal torment, they find the view of UR very attactive. Mind you, I have some trouble believing in eternal torment, but i am not willing to state that God could never do that.

I just have a hard time figuring out why He would ask his followers to commit atrocities in his name. I don't mean the "big picture why" (he wanted the land cleared of idol worshipers) but rather why he chose the method he did (making the israelites do it). Of course, i suppose "atrocity" is in the eye of the beholder, but killing innocents might qualify. Were the israelites allowed to feel guilty about doing it? what if one of them simply couldnt kill a child-- would they simply wait for someone else to do so? how could a person be unaffected by carrying our such carnage, even if God told them to do so?

TK

[_Steve]

Good questions, TK. I don't know the answers, but I have thought about the questions.

I have often reflected on how my sentimental nature would not permit me, even if commanded by God, to kill a baby. But then, I would also have great difficulty (to the point almost of impossibility) if I were commanded to execute a murderer, or even to slaughter a lamb (yeah, I know I'm a suburban-born-and-bred, Bambi-loving wimp! It's just the facts).

There was once a prophet who commanded a citizen, by the word of the Lord, to strike him and wound him (apparently with a sword). The citizen, being a man like myself, could not bring himself to commit such an unjust act of violence—even when commanded by the prophet of Yahweh to do so. Because of this man's failure to obey, he was killed by a lion (1 Kings 20:35-36).

Perhaps some may wish to say that this prophet (like Moses) was not really speaking by revelation (though he somehow managed to predict that a lion would kill the disobedient man). It seems safer to recognize that God is less sentimental than are we, and demands obedience from those who wish to be His subjects. Does this make God a tyrant? Only in the sight of rebellious man. A father may seem like a tyrant to his child because he sees a need to put down the family dog that the child loves. The father, in such a case, may care as much for the dog as the child does, but is in a far better position to decide what to do with the creature.

I realize that people are not animals, but if they have an eternal happiness awaiting them after death, God certainly may be acting kindly in dispatching them in whatever way He sees fitting to His overall purposes. I have always felt exactly this way about God's prerogatives in my own life. If it would suit His long-term purposes to kill me off before I have lived a lifetime, what is that to me? I am not my own. If I believe such things about my own life, it would seem inconsistent for me to think differently concerning the lives of others.

Remember, we are not here discussing the value of human life from the human perspective, nor discussing our general obligations to preserve and defend the lives of others—including our enemies. However, unless we doubt Moses' inspiration, we must acknowledge that God committed the task of ending certain lives (e.g. those of the Amalekites, Canaanites, murderers, adulterers, idolators, etc.) into the hands of others, who may or may not enjoy the assignment.

With reference to the emotional impact these slaughters had on those commanded to carry them out, I do not think that the ancient people (prior to Christianity) shared our compassion and the respect for the lives of their enemies that we have been conditioned by Christian culture to feel. Even now, there are people uninfluenced by Christian culture, who apparently have no qualms about murdering innocent children (consider the suicide bombers, and the Muslim populations that dance in the streets when they hear that innocent Israeli or American citizens have been blown to bits). We probably tend to think of the Old Testament Jews as having more-or-less similar sentiments to our own. However, they were more similar to uncivilized, warlike tribes that have been untouched by Christian civilization. I suspect that God experienced greater trauma in commanding the slaughter of the Canaanites than did the Israelites in executing the orders.

God could have destroyed every man, woman and child of the Canaanites with water, as He did the antediluvians, or with fire, as He did the Sodomites. However, this would not have left the land in a condition suitable for habitation for Israel. While I often muse and speculate about all of the factors that God may have taken into consideration in giving His orders, I have never felt myself competent to be His judge.

[Guest]

"I realize that people are not animals, but if they have an eternal happiness awaiting them after death, God certainly may be acting kindly in dispatching them in whatever way He sees fitting to His overall purposes."

This maybe the only justification for such actions. A far stretch for my feeble mind but non the less I have thought of such things before but am never the less curious.

but on the contrary i have been asked by PRO CHOICE people why I care about babies being aborted..if they go to heaven.

i even had an atheist go as far as to say that he was confused why I didn't encourage abortion. "Abortion", he said "ensures that a baby would go to heaven before the age of accountability could nix that insurance"