- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,625
- 11,485
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Oh....ok.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
1-Where does Deuteronomy say that all males of the enemy nation were to be killed in warfare? It doesnt say all males including children-it only says adult males, who were obviously soldiers fighting in war. Youre taking that verse out of context.
2-But why was the entire nation of thousands punished for the actions of a few? Numbers 25 only says that one Midianite woman was with an israelite. It doesnt imply the entire nation was involved in tempting them to sin.
From a practical standpoint, we could deliberate all day as to specifically what a moral and/or ethical perspective might be in relation to Numbers 31. So, as Christians, I think the best approach in explaining this passage is to evaluate it from within a Biblical framework rather than one relying mostly on a secular or philosophical one.
Good summation of the passage, so I wont elaborate upon it.
From a Biblical standpoint, we cant really say that the children were innocent. Sure, technically, they were innocent, if by this we view it through the lens of modern, secular human rights. But, since we are instead applying the bible as our conceptual framework, we cant say that the children were innocent. It seems to me that what we see in this passage is the ramification of a national sin on the part of Midian, one which invokes the penalty of Gods wrath upon all of the offending people, as seen in the 1st Commandment, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:5 NASB). Here we see that God may apply His penalty for idolatry upon an inter-generational set of people.
What we also need to see here is that the girls did not receive differential treatment simply because they were girls, or even because they were virgins, but that even though they were ALSO under the death penalty, they could be spared willfully by Israelite men for the purpose of becoming sexually untainted wives. Otherwise, they too were under the ban.
Actually, you may be thinking of Deuteronomy 24:16, specifically, a verse that reflects the penal code for personal sins of parents wherein children are not to be inculcated along with the parents. However, in looking at Midian, we should remember that what Midian did as a nation by pulling Israel into idolatry and sexual sin was not done at merely a personal level, so everyone in Moab was subject to the penalty of the transgression. (We should keep in mind also that men of Israel who consorted with the women of Midian and Moab were also subject to the death penalty.)
Same as above, Sam. I know that from todays perspective, it seems really harsh and/or inconsistent ethically, but God still today has and expresses a personal trait of Holiness, and as a derivative of that, there also exists a Holiness code over His creation. We dont see that code applied very often in Christianity because, for the most part, Jesus absorbed those penalties for us, as long as we are walking in the New Covenant faith.
It is one explanation, but I think the ongoing presence of Gods Holy Being and His Holy code over creation is what explains the intensity and the extent of this passage the best. The young girls simply got a second chance because they had utility, which sounds crass, but their sexual purity was the *only* thing that made them valuable.
Actually, Deuteronomy 20 refers specifically to warfare limitations which Israel was to abide by when going to war with people of far off nations, and not the peoples belonging to one of the SEVEN nations nearby which God had specifically delineated for complete elimination (see Deut. 20:14-18).
Again, I agree that all of this is tragic and sad, particularly since in our modern times weve been able to articulate what seem to be superior ethics. But we should be aware that todays ethical systems are founded on principles that are either not self-evident to all, or on highly contested ideologies.
Peace
2PhiloVoid
What about the claim that the girls were spared because couldnt perpetuate the Midianite peoples?
What about the claim that the girls were spared because couldnt perpetuate the Midianite peoples?
Sam, what aspect of this "claim" are you perceiving to be ethically inconsistent, specifically? It's not clear to me what you're asking about.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
That was the explanation I read on Carm.org. Is is accurate?
That was the explanation I read on Carm.org. Is is accurate?
Ok. I've read the article at Carm.org (link here), and as far as I can tell, it serves as a general explanation.
The virgin Midianite young women and girls did not participate in the sexual and idolatrous seduction the men of Israel, and they were able to be spared the death penalty.
Do you have some thoughts that bother you about this, Sam? (I admittedly do, as I'm sure most today who live in the Westernized, English speaking world would too ...)
I just like the speculate on different issues.
I can understand that. I like to speculate too.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
The virgins were spared because they obviously had had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples."1
The virgins were spared because they obviously had had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples."
I think Carm.org needs to elaborate a little more on what they think the significance of "not perpetuating" the Midianite peoples means by this statement.
What do you mean? Arent the males the ones who the lineage is from?
Yes, the males are i the lineage. BUT, the reason the Midianites were to be "removed" was to prevent further perpetuation of aberrant, sinful actions against the chosen nation of Israel, and God had a vested interest in keeping the people of His nation holy. So, I think Carm.org needs to specify more clearly that this action had nothing to do with 'racial differences,' but rather with the subduing of a tainted culture that was trying to infiltrate the spiritual integrity of Israel.
Wasnt it a judgement on their peoples?
Yes, it was a judgment upon the Midianite peoples for attempting and partially succeeding in seducing the people of Israel into idolatry and immorality before the Face of God. By having done this act against Israel, the Midianites brought themselves under "the ban" (i.e. the Judgment of God), and they were penalized (or at least some portion of them were) for the similar reasons to those pertaining to the Seven Canaanite nations.
(Moreover, it had nothing to do with 'race.' And even though you didn't ask about this or imply it, I mention it in passing because I want to ensure we are clear on this point as well.)
What specific aspect or discrepancy are you pointing to here, Sam?Wouldnt that go along with the claim that the girls couldnt perpetuate the peoples?
I know. I didn't say that you did, Sam.Where did I say race?
What specific aspect or discrepancy are you pointing to here, Sam?
I know. I didn't say that you did, Sam.
The discrepancy in your claim.
Wouldnt that go along with the claim that the girls couldnt perpetuate the peoples?
Where did I say race?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?