A passage that seems unconscionable.

[CSLewis]

First of all there are christians who are moral relativists.

Secondly the Torah was written by a war-like people who had a personal relationship with God - a theocracy. The commands of God were to keep the Israelites from being extinguished - because God's plans were to take place through Israel- the coming of the Messiah. When eye for an eye would be replaced with turn the other cheek.

peace

CSLewis

[Guest]

There must be a moral standard external to God which God's goodness can be judged against, otherwise you're just using circular logic.

"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,"

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me." (Job 38:1-3)

[Tubal-Cain]

What is the point of your post?

To point out bad reasoning.

Are you comparing the God of the Old Testament to Hitler?

No, that was merely to show that might does not make right. You can't point to God's power to defend his actions on moral grounds.

Let me make it clear that I believe that this conduct was morally permissible because God gave the orders.

Do you think something is good merely because God says it's good? In other words, is something good only because God says it's good?

I don't believe it was morally permissible just because such behavior was permissible in OT times, but because I feel God was just in his actions, plain and simple.

In what way were the actions of Numbers 31 just?

[Tubal-Cain]

forrestkc, here is my commentary on Numbers 31. The last quote from the New Jerome Bible Commentary sums things up nicely by showing that this is midrash and is not history.

[Adarian]

forrestkc, here is my commentary on Numbers 31. The last quote from the New Jerome Bible Commentary sums things up nicely by showing that this is midrash and is not history.

That was the favorite thing to say about Nineveh, and Jonah, until Nineveh was found.

[Guest]

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

(Matthew 26:28)

''In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

(Ephesians 1:7)

[Leonard]

I have not hard and fast explanation for these passages. God is God, and by definition knows more than we do, and ALWAYS acts morally and ethically. He did not see fit in His word to make any excuses or explanation for His actions. Anything we say would only be speculative.

Don't we know Him well enough to know that 'The Judge Of All the Earth' will do right?

[Floatingaxe]

Hello forrestkc, I will try to provide a more full answer to your inquiry later. For now I want to point out the errors in two ways of addressing this problem.

First, those who say that this conduct was morally permissible because it was common in OT times are appealing to moral relativism. It is hypocritical for a Christian to denounce moral relativism in modern times while employing it himself when it's convenient. Such moral relativism could conceivably justify anything. You might as well say there is no such thing as morality if this is the best you can come up with.

Second, others say that God can do whatever he wants. However, this ignores the fact that the ability to do something does not make an action morally correct. For example, Hitler had the power to kill Jews but that did not make his actions right. One has to do better in defending God's actions in Numbers 31. There must be a moral standard external to God which God's goodness can be judged against, otherwise you're just using circular logic.

What is the point of your post? Are you comparing the God of the Old Testament to Hitler? Let me make it clear that I believe that this conduct was morally permissible because God gave the orders. As I said in an earlier post, he is the potter, and we are the clay. The thing formed has no credibility attacking it's creator. I don't believe it was morally permissible just because such behavior was permissible in OT times, but because I feel God was just in his actions, plain and simple.

Though I feel like God has no need to be defended by a mortal human being, since in the end, he will be the one who judges us all, I will explain how I view the God of the Bible. I don't make the mistake of looking at God as simply a God of love. He has many other characteristics as well, such as the fact he is holy, a God of judgement, a God of mercy, a jealouse God, etc. To understand who he is, one has to read and meditate on the entire Bible. One cannot simply pull out the sections they like, such as the book of John and say this is a complete picture of the nature of God. If you do, then you will have trouble understanding him giving the orders to do something like wipe out the Midianites. It is also this type of flawed reasoning that will cause many people to wind up in hell, because they don't believe a God of love would send anyone to such a place.

The Bible warns that God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. The sad thing is that Bibles are plentiful in America today, so there is no excuse for such ignorance.

Amen!

[Tubal-Cain]

Adarian, you didn't actually deal with the arguments. If you think Numbers 31 is historical perhaps you could begin by explaining how an exterminated people managed to invade Israel in Judges 6-8.

Butero, I think deep theological issues arise when you merely define goodness as whatever God says is good. For example, how do you know the difference between God and Satan? I personally could say that the good one is God and the bad one is Satan because I believe morality is external to God, i.e., it is part of creation itself. But you would seem to be stuck because your definition of morality appears circular.

It is fine that you believe God is just but that is of no use to someone who has doubts (like forrestkc may have). We need to demonstrate how God's actions are just. My take is that Numbers 31 is not historical and so one need not evaluate the morality of God's actions in this passage.

Finally, believing that the Bible is the word of God is not the same as believing that every biblical story is historical. You can believe Numbers 31 is the word of God and also believe that it is not history.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

How do we know the difference between God and satan?

You can't be serious?

Secondly I see no contradiction between Gods charecter and the War with the Midianites in Numbers 31.

God had Married the Jewish Nation calling them His own. He had sworn by His onw name to protect them. They are His by their own accord in agreement with the Word of God. Thus when a Nation rose up against Gods own and caused them to stumble. It was a personal affront to Him.

When the Midianites injured Gods people, they injured Him. Just as someone who comes today against the Covenant we have with God. They will pay a sore price. That is why we are admonished to not stumble the brethren.

I also don't see the problem you have with the Midianites returning later on to harrass the Israelites in Judges. Midianite simply means a child of Midjan a son of Abraham through the line of Ishmael. They were all over the place there dwelling in tents and they were and remain a War like people. Raising their hands against all mankind. Especially the children of Abraham by the Promise both Physically and Spiritually.

Gods perfect Justice demands that the guilty pay a price with their Blood.

Yes the Sword of War should preserve the women and children. Especially in mans hand. However the Sword of Justice knows no distinction in the hands of God.

You are callng God unjust and demanding that His perfect Justice fit into your preconceived notion of right and wrong. However your notion of right and wrong are tainted by sin.

Gods is not.

So tell me Tubal, How do we distinguish between God and satan? What is the measure of Righteousness that you use to measure Principalities and Powers that you do not understand? Not too mention God who is above all.

What is your ultimate Authority?

Peace,

Dave