A question about Numbers 31.

[2PhiloVoid]

The discrepancy in your claim.

If you can prove me wrong on some point, or you can show me that I am incorrect and have failed to account for some loose factor, then please do, Sam. But, be specific.

 

[Sammy-San]

Anyway, virgin Midianite women and girls were not yet "perpetuating" the culture of their own people, and IF they became joined to Israel after being subjected through war, they also wouldn't be allowed to perpetuate a deviant culture within the nation of Israel itself. And when they had babies, those babies would essentially be born and raised as Israelite children, living under the admonitions of the Law given through Moses.

the claim was that the male children werent allowed to live because they perpetuated the bloodline. did you disagree with that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

the claim was that the male children werent allowed to live because they perpetuated the bloodline. did you disagree with that?

My understanding is that Midianite males, as well as most Canaanite males, are not allowed to live in the Old Testament context of war because they cannot be conjoined to Israel through a reception of the dominant cultural priority of God's Will and Holiness as expressed in Israel's moral law.

In the context of the Old Testament, Midianite males would only penetrate INTO Israel's dominance, and would in time attempt to displace Israel's dominance. They would not become incorporated. As with males, this also applies to Midianite women who have "already known a man," and they carry within themselves the corruption (from the assumed superiority of their gods) and the promotion of their cultural corruption through their filial relationships. Virgin Midianite women, on the other hand, are in a different position: They can 'receive' Israel's spiritual dominance and give birth to children in Israel without the taint of previous totalizing social acculturation.

Sam, think about how the following verses from Leviticus plays into the overall context of what we're talking about here:

Leviticus 22:24-26 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 ‘You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. 25 Nor from a foreigner’s hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.’”​

It is only when these "foreigners" willingly and completely become assimilated to Israel's Law that they can start to be considered worthy of joining into any level of social commerce with the people of Israel.

Similarly, and as an example, it's not ok for people to come to the U.S. and bring with them ideologies of either total Communism or Radical Jihadism; neither of these ideologies can fit within a democratically oriented republic. In fact, it would be foolish to think Communists or Radicals could be assimilated into our culture. It's just not going to happen ... only a naive person would think such foreigners could be 'at peace' with any of us who support democracy. Only those who are willing to adopt democratic notions of social discourse can assimilate to what we expect in our culture and society.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Sammy-San]

My understanding is that Midianite males, as well as most Canaanite males, are not allowed to live in the Old Testament context of war because they cannot be conjoined to Israel through a reception of the dominant cultural priority of God's Will and Holiness as expressed in Israel's moral law.

In the context of the Old Testament, Midianite males would only penetrate INTO Israel's dominance, and would in time attempt to displace Israel's dominance. They would not become incorporated. As with males, this also applies to Midianite women who have "already known a man," and they carry within themselves the corruption (from the assumed superiority of their gods) and the promotion of their cultural corruption through their filial relationships. Virgin Midianite women, on the other hand, are in a different position: They can 'receive' Israel's spiritual dominance and give birth to children in Israel without the taint of previous totalizing social acculturation.

Sam, think about how the following verses from Leviticus plays into the overall context of what we're talking about here:

Leviticus 22:24-26 New King James Version (NKJV)
24 ‘You shall not offer to the Lord what is bruised or crushed, or torn or cut; nor shall you make any offering of them in your land. 25 Nor from a foreigner’s hand shall you offer any of these as the bread of your God, because their corruption is in them, and defects are in them. They shall not be accepted on your behalf.’”​

It is only when these "foreigners" willingly and completely become assimilated to Israel's Law that they can start to be considered worthy of joining into any level of social commerce with the people of Israel.

Similarly, and as an example, it's not ok for people to come to the U.S. and bring with them ideologies of either total Communism or Radical Jihadism; neither of these ideologies can fit within a democratically oriented republic. In fact, it would be foolish to think Communists or Radicals could be assimilated into our culture. It's just not going to happen ... only a naive person would think such foreigners could be 'at peace' with any of us who support democracy. Only those who are willing to adopt democratic notions of social discourse can assimilate to what we expect in our culture and society.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm confused. Your wording was rather vague.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm confused. Your wording was rather vague.

Ok. (Here we go again.) What part is specifically vague, Sam?

 

[Sammy-San]

Ok. (Here we go again.) What part is specifically vague, Sam?

The dominance and cultural priority.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The dominance and cultural priority.

Ok. In the context of the Old Testament, there is ONE GOD who is true, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No other concept is true, usable, or something to be considered as worthy of human devotion.

Other cultures in the Old Testament worshiped, maintained, and perpetuated devotion to false gods.

Israel, in worshiping the ONE true God, had spiritual dominance, all of which was given to them by God due to the wickedness of the surrounding Canaanite nations.

Along the way, some Midianites also decided to act against Israel through social and spiritual corruption. That put them on God's "naughty list," especially since the Midianites had ZERO intention of adopting Israel's worship of the ONE true God, and this put them under "the ban"...............so, even the virgin female Midianites were lucky to even be alive.

Does this make more sense? Remember, as I said a few years ago in previous posts, we're not measuring whether we think this incidence in Numbers 31 comports with modern, democratic notions of "right and wrong." No, we're measuring it by the moral contexts given to us within the entire Old Testament.

So, by ancient Israelite contexts, the Israelites followed the ONE true God and had spiritual dominance and cultural priority.

 

[Sammy-San]

If you can prove me wrong on some point, or you can show me that I am incorrect and have failed to account for some loose factor, then please do, Sam. But, be specific.

Do you think the peacefulness in the NT is regarding the New Covenant?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think the peacefulness in the NT is regarding the New Covenant?

To some extent yes, but not completely. As you know, we find Jesus saying,

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [Matthew 10:34-36]

We find Jesus saying this, among other similar things.

 

[Sammy-San]

To some extent yes, but not completely. As you know, we find Jesus saying,

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ [Matthew 10:34-36]

What do you mean to some extent?

That verse isnt referring to violence at all. I found an article that proves you wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you mean to some extent?

That verse isnt referring to violence at all. I found an article that proves you wrong.

Goodness sakes, Sam! I know Jesus wasn't referring to violence, but the underlying principle in what Jesus says here still communicates a "real" principle that is problematic, just not on an immediate physical or political level like it was in the Old Testament.

So, yes .......................Jesus is all for Peace. Otherwise, we wouldn't call Him the Prince of Peace, now would we? On the other hand, Jesus did say things that, as you know, had implications for the future, literal punishment for those who defied Him, just like He did in the Old Testament.