Question about some of the OT killings

[dcalling]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am talking with some of our Muslim friends in the out reach section (the thread understanding Islam).

So there are some violent verses in Quran, and even though there are some openness in the verses (i.e. kill them, but if the repent, you can let them go), I pointed to some hadith and history to show Muhammad actually interpreted it much more like ISIS in Iraq and Syria (just not as bad).

However OT do have some verses that commands the killing of all people in a city. Even though there are many passage in OT that prevents revenge, many good rules, that one incident is hard to explain.

I even asked some of our Jewish friends on the forum, but all the answer I got is they are not sure, only God knows.

So do we have some experts on this that can have a proper explanation?

Thanks

 

[Waddler]

Yes, God commanded killings for specific purposes in the Old Testament. Other killings are cautionary tales (of what not to do), or tales regarding historical events (not necessarily a "how to" guide for christian living). There were incidents where God demanded the Hebrews slaughter entire populations, because He was giving that land to them, and did not want His Children influenced by their culture. Does that seem evil and sadistic to our minds? Perhaps, but He is God, and can do as He likes.

 

[Shadow316]

I agree w/DW. That was God's way to clean up sinful/ EVIL - such as Sodom. He isn't telling us to do that today.

know that when they say this - "(i.e. kill them, but if the repent, you can let them go), " - they mean that those people have to deny Christ and worship their Allah. That's what 'repent' means to them. Their Allah and our God are NOT the same.

 

[ALoveDivine]

There are a couple things to remember here. First, God gave the Cannanite populations 400 years to repent. If you remember, In Genesis, when God is talking to Abraham he says that the iniquity of those people is not yet complete. So there was mercy, God was very long-suffering with these people.

Second, and this is crucial, there was some genetic manipulation going on. If you read Deuteronomy, as I have been recently, you will come across this word "Rephaim" quite a bit. This is a reference to "giants", much like the "giants" in Genesis 6. You know, when the "sons of God" came in to the daughters of man and had children by them and the same became the mighty men of Old? This happened, apparently, both before and after the flood. There are some good reasons to think that the Rephaim are the post-flood version of the Nephalim. Nephalim/Rephaim were basically demonic/human hybrids which were the result of the interbreeding of fallen angels and human women.

Note that only within that Cannanite land does God command extermination, outside of that area the rules are much different. Then add to that the ubiquitous presence of these hybrids/giants within those Cananite tribes and you have a good answer as to why God would command this. The gene-pool of these populations was corrupted and the image of God in these human beings was marred and subverted genetically by demonic infiltration. The whole populations had to be wiped out to rid the earth of this genetic abomination, which was worked by fallen angels to subvert the image of God in man.

This all sounds crazy I know, but if you take the time to do a serious study of Genesis 6 and the Rephaim in Deuteronomy, you should come to very similar conclusions. Chuck Missler has an excellent presentation on this topic available on YouTube, that's a good place to start.

Needless to say these episodes took place within a very specific and peculiar historical context, and none of what happened has any bearing whatsoever on how Christians are to behave today. Unlike the Koran I might add...

 

[Sammy-San]

There are a couple things to remember here. First, God gave the Cannanite populations 400 years to repent. If you remember, In Genesis, when God is talking to Abraham he says that the iniquity of those people is not yet complete. So there was mercy, God was very long-suffering with these people.

Second, and this is crucial, there was some genetic manipulation going on. If you read Deuteronomy, as I have been recently, you will come across this word "Rephaim" quite a bit. This is a reference to "giants", much like the "giants" in Genesis 6. You know, when the "sons of God" came in to the daughters of man and had children by them and the same became the mighty men of Old? This happened, apparently, both before and after the flood. There are some good reasons to think that the Rephaim are the post-flood version of the Nephalim. Nephalim/Rephaim were basically demonic/human hybrids which were the result of the interbreeding of fallen angels and human women.

Note that only within that Cannanite land does God command extermination, outside of that area the rules are much different. Then add to that the ubiquitous presence of these hybrids/giants within those Cananite tribes and you have a good answer as to why God would command this. The gene-pool of these populations was corrupted and the image of God in these human beings was marred and subverted genetically by demonic infiltration. The whole populations had to be wiped out to rid the earth of this genetic abomination, which was worked by fallen angels to subvert the image of God in man.

This all sounds crazy I know, but if you take the time to do a serious study of Genesis 6 and the Rephaim in Deuteronomy, you should come to very similar conclusions. Chuck Missler has an excellent presentation on this topic available on YouTube, that's a good place to start.

Needless to say these episodes took place within a very specific and peculiar historical context, and none of what happened has any bearing whatsoever on how Christians are to behave today. Unlike the Koran I might add...

The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why would time period determine right and wrong and morality for God? The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran (stoning punishments for petty victimless crimes, extreme violence), yet how is the Old Testament somehow moral because it happened thousands of years ago? A lot of Christians I know criticize middle eastern countries and say that "they are so barbaric because they stone women and gays, etc", yet that is the same thing that Moses and others did in the old testament.

 

[BryanW92]

The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why would time period determine right and wrong and morality for God? The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran (stoning punishments for petty victimless crimes, extreme violence), yet how is the Old Testament somehow moral because it happened thousands of years ago? A lot of Christians I know criticize middle eastern countries and say that "they are so barbaric because they stone women and gays, etc", yet that is the same thing that Moses and others did in the old testament.

God didn't change. Humanity changed. When God was telling Israel to go out and destroy towns, humanity was polytheistic pagans. The concept of the one God was foreign to us. As you can see in Exodus (and throughout the OT), even Israel kept falling back into paganism every chance they got. Basically, God needed to create some space for his people to practice monotheism without pagan neighbors, and he needed to show the pagans that his people, with his help, could defeat them and their various gods.

The difference between then and now is that monotheism is quite common and Islam is a religion created after Christ, who showed us perfection. What improvement over the gospel does Islam offer mankind? If it is a true religion, why would God have changed the game again after the resurrection?

 

[Sammy-San]

God didn't change. Humanity changed. When God was telling Israel to go out and destroy towns, humanity was polytheistic pagans. The concept of the one God was foreign to us. As you can see in Exodus (and throughout the OT), even Israel kept falling back into paganism every chance they got. Basically, God needed to create some space for his people to practice monotheism without pagan neighbors, and he needed to show the pagans that his people, with his help, could defeat them and their various gods.

The difference between then and now is that monotheism is quite common and Islam is a religion created after Christ, who showed us perfection. What improvement over the gospel does Islam offer mankind? If it is a true religion, why would God have changed the game again after the resurrection?

How does the people being pagans justify the actions of the God of the Old Testament?

Christ is the same as the god of the old testament, and the god of the old testament ordained the Mosaic Law which said that gays, and and women who were not virgins on their wedding nights would be stoned to death. That sounds horrible to me. Sure, the Mosaic Law only applied to thousands of years ago, but morality is absolute, and it doesnt change my perspective on the old testament and the morality of it. Why do Christians say that Middle Eastern countries and governments are "evil and barbaric" for doing that kind of stuff, when God ordained very similar laws to Sharia to Moses? One of the biggest problems I have with understanding the Bible is understanding why God would ordain laws to the ancient Israelites, that are no different from the stuff that is happening in the middle east right now.

 

[ALoveDivine]

How does the people being pagans justify the actions of the God of the Old Testament?

Well I already explained the conquest of Cannan. It had to do with a prior supernatural incursion that messed up the human genome in an attempt to thwart the messianic line.

As far as the OT law goes, it demonstrates the uncompromising holiness of God. The wages of sin is death, and homosexuality and fornication are sins. In the theocracy of ancient Israel God instituted capital punishment for these sins among his people, and as the very author of morality he had the right to do this. No execution ever befell one who was not guilty of sin.

Now this law was set as God's divine standard of human behavior, the level of righteousness required of man. To even stumble in one point was to break the whole law. Yet the eternal plan was for the Messiah to come through Israel and fulfill the law perfectly, as no mere man could. In the perfect obedience of Christ, the righteous standard of human life was met.

When Christ went to the cross, the sins of his people (the elect both Jew and Gentile) were laid to his account, and he suffered divine justice in their place. When the Holy Spirit does his work of regeneration in God's people, the perfectly righteous record of Christ is laid to their account. So for the elect, their sins are expiated and Christ's righteousness is credited to them, therby making them stand justified.

Can you see now why the law was so harsh? Sin is so serious, in order to save anyone, God had to pour out his wrath on his own Son. Our problems with the law and divine justice simply reflect our underestimation of both the holiness of God and the wickedness of man.

Please note that nothing about the Mosaic law is normative for Christians. Nor does God ever command violence outside of very limited historical circumstances which regard a specific nation he himself established. However the commands in the Koran are normative for Muslims and are not likewise contextually limited. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well I already explained the conquest of Cannan. It had to do with a prior supernatural incursion that messed up the human genome in an attempt to thwart the messianic line.

As far as the OT law goes, it demonstrates the uncompromising holiness of God. The wages of sin is death, and homosexuality and fornication are sins. In the theocracy of ancient Israel God instituted capital punishment for these sins among his people, and as the very author of morality he had the right to do this. No execution ever befell one who was not guilty of sin.

Now this law was set as God's divine standard of human behavior, the level of righteousness required of man. To even stumble in one point was to break the whole law. Yet the eternal plan was for the Messiah to come through Israel and fulfill the law perfectly, as no mere man could. In the perfect obedience of Christ, the righteous standard of human life was met.

When Christ went to the cross, the sins of his people (the elect both Jew and Gentile) were laid to his account, and he suffered divine justice in their place. When the Holy Spirit does his work of regeneration in God's people, the perfectly righteous record of Christ is laid to their account. So for the elect, their sins are expiated and Christ's righteousness is credited to them, therby making them stand justified.

Can you see now why the law was so harsh? Sin is so serious, in order to save anyone, God had to pour out his wrath on his own Son. Our problems with the law and divine justice simply reflect our underestimation of both the holiness of God and the wickedness of man.

Please note that nothing about the Mosaic law is normative for Christians. Nor does God ever command violence outside of very limited historical circumstances which regard a specific nation he himself established. However the commands in the Koran are normative for Muslims and are not likewise contextually limited. Therein lies the difference.

1-I have two questions about the Mosaic Law. The first is this. Why were they so sexist? Why were women stoned for fornication, but men were not? Deuteronomy says that husbands had their wives stoned to death if they werent virgins, regardless if the woman was faithful after marriage. Why werent men punished for fornication in the same harsh way women were, in Moses law?

 

[dayhiker]

My take on these things in the OT that we find terrible are as follows.

1. As mentioned above there was a lot of idol worship to the point that the Canaanites sacrificed their children to idols. Today we think of pedophiles in these terms. So there are some things that we see as so evil that violence to stop them is needed.

2. A lot of the laws for ancient Israel aren't moral laws. In those days people groups were identified by the clothes they wear, how they prepared food, their sexual habits, birth, marriage and death customs. Every nation had these rules and its how one was faithful to their clan. These aren't moral laws but most of us and even many preachers preach them as moral laws instead of clan identity laws. This is equivalent to our residence laws and passport laws today. So think of the views expressed over Hispanics coming across out southern borders.

3. All the ancient cultures in the middle east back in Bible times were patriarchal. That means the men own (including daughters and wives) and ran everything, women had a hard time getting a say in anything. So adultery was taking another man's wife and fornication wasn't about sex but the father getting paid the highest bride price. Many things we hear about how women are treated in Muslim countries are because of those patriarchal relationships. We have moved away from that view to an egalitarian society of men and women being equal. So both men and woman can commit adultery now using the same definition. We don't think of fathers owning as property their daughters and wife any more.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Why werent men punished for fornication in the same harsh way women were, in Moses law?

Sadly, there really wasn't much of a way to tell if a man was fornicating. Especially in that patriarchal time even if someone knew a man was fornicating, they weren't likely to tell anyone. Nevertheless God condemns the action regardless of the gender of the person perpetrating it.

how can Christians talk about how middle eastern governments like Saudi arabia and Iran are evil for stoning women and gays, when God ordained the same exact laws to Moses?

There are huge differences between the OT and Koranic laws. The OT laws tend to prohibit the same kinds of things condemned in the NT, the difference being that God instituted capital punishment for these offenses within national Israel in those times. As history reveals, force is often necessary to restrain the evil of wicked people. Some of these punishments may seem harsh to us, but we cannot ever underestimate the seriousness of sin.

Remember God ordained the nation of Israel to be a light of holiness to the surrounding nations who were real barbarians, burning their own children alive to their demonic "gods". Such practices were not to be tolerated within Israel, nor other sinful practices. The imposition of capital punishment showed just how seriously God takes such sins. Lets also not forget that God, as the author of life, can take life away whenever he chooses.

Remember the whole point of the law (ten commandments) was to reveal the righteous standard of human life expected of us, that in our failure we would recognize our sinfulness and need of salvation, and so that Christ the Messiah could fulfill the standard in our place to provide justification.

Hebrews 13 8 (paraphrased) says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Right, and he still condemns sin. He so abhors sin that he crushed Christ under the full force of his wrath in order to be able to pardon us without contradicting his eternal justice. The difference is that we in this age are under a new dispensation; God no longer deals with humanity through one theocratic nation under the law, he condemned sin in the flesh and offers us grace, calling all men to repent and believe for salvation.

His nature remains the same but the way in which he deals with mankind does in fact change. The bible, and history itself, is a progressive revelation, the climax of which is the atonement of Christ for the sins of his people. The law was the foundation upon which Christ's atonement is efficacious.

 

[Svt4Him]

The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why would time period determine right and wrong and morality for God? The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran (stoning punishments for petty victimless crimes, extreme violence), yet how is the Old Testament somehow moral because it happened thousands of years ago? A lot of Christians I know criticize middle eastern countries and say that "they are so barbaric because they stone women and gays, etc", yet that is the same thing that Moses and others did in the old testament.

Well if you look at sin as a petty victimless crime, you are correct. I'd just hope that God would at least tell us what the wages of sin were before we decided if it was petty or not. And I would also hope that He'd tell us what happened to those who sinned. It would be even greater, although not a requirement at all, if He provided a way to pay for that sin so we could still live.

Any time you cheapen sin you cheapen the consequence of it.

 

[BryanW92]

How does the people being pagans justify the actions of the God of the Old Testament?

I thought that I explained that sufficiently, but I'll try again.

God was introducing a new paradigm to the (post-Flood) human experience. He was telling a specific group of people that there are no nature gods, house gods, sky gods, or any other kind of the literally millions of pagan gods that human worshiped.

There is one God.

He needed his people to be in a place that was the crossroads of the civilized world, yet he needed them to be protected from the human desire to invent gods.

So, he explained himself to his people and then ordered them to clear some space for them to set up their culture in plain view of the world. He assisted them as necessary to clear that space.

So, God is revealed. Christ has come. Christ will come again. There is no need for someone named Mohammed, whose family worshiped the pagan moon god allah, to have a "new revelation" that supercedes Christ's gospel with orders to kill the followers of Jesus. (Yes, that is in there after the "love the People of the Book" passages, and the law of abrogation annuls those passages when conflicting ones were written later that reveal that Jesus is mad about Christianity and he will only return to smite us for the blasphemy of calling him the Son of God.)

The actions of modern Islam are not justified by the commands of God 4000 years ago. Different world. Different humanity. Same God (who is not allah).

 

[Sammy-San]

I thought that I explained that sufficiently, but I'll try again.

God was introducing a new paradigm to the (post-Flood) human experience. He was telling a specific group of people that there are no nature gods, house gods, sky gods, or any other kind of the literally millions of pagan gods that human worshiped.

There is one God.

He needed his people to be in a place that was the crossroads of the civilized world, yet he needed them to be protected from the human desire to invent gods.

So, he explained himself to his people and then ordered them to clear some space for them to set up their culture in plain view of the world. He assisted them as necessary to clear that space.

So, God is revealed. Christ has come. Christ will come again. There is no need for someone named Mohammed, whose family worshiped the pagan moon god allah, to have a "new revelation" that supercedes Christ's gospel with orders to kill the followers of Jesus. (Yes, that is in there after the "love the People of the Book" passages, and the law of abrogation annuls those passages when conflicting ones were written later that reveal that Jesus is mad about Christianity and he will only return to smite us for the blasphemy of calling him the Son of God.)

The actions of modern Islam are not justified by the commands of God 4000 years ago. Different world. Different humanity. Same God (who is not allah).

I agree monotheism is true and polytheism is false, but what does that have anything to do with justifying the violence of the Israelites in the Old Testament? How does "clearing up space" justify the Israelites massacring the people who lived in the holy land, such as the amalekites? Your arguement is essentially "ends justify the means", which is a logical fallacy that could justify almost anything. Ends dont justify the means.

In the book of Numbers, Moses had his soldiers kill the Midiannites (even the women) just for seducing Israelite men and making them worship different gods. Why were Moses actions okay? Why do so many Christians criticize muslims and islam because of the actions of Mohammad, when Moses acted very similar to him?

 

[RDKirk]

The Bible says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why would time period determine right and wrong and morality for God? The Old Testament is very similar to the Koran (stoning punishments for petty victimless crimes, extreme violence), yet how is the Old Testament somehow moral because it happened thousands of years ago? A lot of Christians I know criticize middle eastern countries and say that "they are so barbaric because they stone women and gays, etc", yet that is the same thing that Moses and others did in the old testament.

God does not change, but His covenants with man do.

For instance, Jacob was allowed to marry competing sisters, but the later Mosaic Law forbids it. The Mosaic Law permitted pretty liberal divorce, but our Messianic covenant essentially forbids it, insofar as it depends on you.

Are you arguing that God has a different bona fide covenant with Muslims that permits Old Testament style violence as the Islamic missionary character while at the same time setting up the Body of Christ to use love as our missionary characteristic?

 

[RDKirk]

1-I have two questions about the Mosaic Law. The first is this. Why were they so sexist? Why were women stoned for fornication, but men were not? Deuteronomy says that husbands had their wives stoned to death if they werent virgins, regardless if the woman was faithful after marriage. Why werent men punished for fornication in the same harsh way women were, in Moses law? [/qjuote]

You haven't read that very carefully.

Both the woman and the man were to be stoned for adultery.

If a groom suspected that his new bride had not been a virgin, it was up to the bride's mother to produce the proof of virginity, which was the sheet upon which the bride and groom slept on the night of consummation.

If the bride's mother could not produce a blood-stained sheet upon demand, then the bride could be stoned. But...in real life how likely was it the mother could not produce a blood-stained sheet?

Moreover, the penalty for a false accusation was extremely heavy on that groom...how many grooms would bet what was a small fortune that the bride's mother could not produce a blood-stained sheet?

This would only happen if the young woman was promiscuous--that is, having sex before marriage without reporting it to her parents. Rape and seduction--reported to the parents--was handled in ways harsh for the man.

Second of all, how can Christians talk about how middle eastern governments like Saudi arabia and Iran are evil for stoning women and gays, when God ordained the same exact laws to Moses? I know Christians who always talk about how "horrible the middle east governments are, their sharia law is evil and barbaric and vile and they are possessed by the devil", but God's OT laws were very similar to countries in the middle east today.

A valid question might be why Jews can talk about it. They still consider that Mosaic covenant valid. The Bronze Age Israelites were an unruly people. Even God said so:

"The Lord spoke further to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed, it is a stubborn people. "Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.'" (Deuteronomy 9:13-14).

Jesus pointed out that the moral compromises of the Mosaic Law was because the people's hearts at that time were hard. Jesus repudiated the moral compromises that God permitted the Israelites (see "Sermon on the Mount").

But Christians are under a different covenant. Christians are not responsible for what God permitted people back in the Bronze Age.

 

[BryanW92]

I agree monotheism is true and polytheism is false, but what does that have anything to do with justifying the violence of the Israelites in the Old Testament? How does "clearing up space" justify the Israelites massacring the people who lived in the holy land, such as the amalekites? Your arguement is essentially "ends justify the means", which is a logical fallacy that could justify almost anything. Ends dont justify the means.

In the book of Numbers, Moses had his soldiers kill the Midiannites (even the women) just for seducing Israelite men and making them worship different gods. Why were Moses actions okay? Why do so many Christians criticize muslims and islam because of the actions of Mohammad, when Moses acted very similar to him?

God is sovereign over all creation. It is all his to do with as he pleases. Our human sense of fairness does not apply to him because he knows what needs to be done.

I'm not justifying "almost anything". I am only explaining what God told the Israelites to do in those specific circumstances. God is not telling those evil monsters to kill children and behead journalists right now because muslims do not serve God!

But let me ask you, what do you think? Is God evil for what he did? Are muslims good since they (in your opinion) do the same things that God did?

 

[Sammy-San]

God does not change, but His covenants with man do.

For instance, Jacob was allowed to marry competing sisters, but the later Mosaic Law forbids it. The Mosaic Law permitted pretty liberal divorce, but our Messianic covenant essentially forbids it, insofar as it depends on you.

Are you arguing that God has a different bona fide covenant with Muslims that permits Old Testament style violence as the Islamic missionary character while at the same time setting up the Body of Christ to use love as our missionary characteristic?

1-God having different covenants with different standards of morality leaves us with only 2 possible explanations. 1-God commands immoral things (which doesnt make any sense) or 2-Sharia Law in countries like Saudi Arabia is not barbaric or evil (which doesnt make any sense either). In the Old Testament, husbands had their wives stoned to death for dishonoring the family, if they werent virgins when they were married. How is that any different from the "honor killings" that happen in the middle east and pakistan?

2-I dont believe every single thing is black and white, but there are some things which are universally morally wrong. The fact that God had different standards of morality with ancient Israel (commanding genocide in the Old Testament), is something that I just cant wrap my head around. It doesnt make any sense to me.

 

[RDKirk]

1-God having different covenants with different standards of morality leaves us with only 2 possible explanations. 1-God commands immoral things (which doesnt make any sense) or 2-Sharia Law in countries like Saudi Arabia is not barbaric or evil (which doesnt make any sense either). In the Old Testament, husbands had their wives stoned to death for dishonoring the family, if they werent virgins when they were married. How is that any different from the "honor killings" that happen in the middle east and pakistan?

2-I dont believe every single thing is black and white, but there are some things which are universally morally wrong. The fact that God had different standards of morality with ancient Israel (commanding genocide in the Old Testament), is something that I just cant wrap my head around. It doesnt make any sense to me.

You're not asking a question, you're just ranting.

If you're not going to actually respond to what people write to you and just keep repeating the same rant, there's not much point in attempting a discussion.

 

[Sammy-San]

You're not asking a question, you're just ranting.

If you're not going to actually respond to what people write to you and just keep repeating the same rant, there's not much point in attempting a discussion.

Okay, but what questions do you want me to answer? I read your past few comments, and I dont see what questions you are trying to ask. The only reason I rant is because the responses I get dont actually address my main arguements.