why can we eat pork?

[vaman]

The short answer is no.

You don't have to be circumcised or keep the food laws to be 'saved'.

But the whole point about Christianity for ADULTS is that being 'saved' is only square one.

How about being useful, as well as being saved?

Are Christians supposed to stand around like a bunch of idiots after they are saved? No.

They are supposed to (motivated by gratitude from God's loving mercy etc., see Luke 7:36-50 for instance) be USEFUL, and WORKING, and SOBER...

Producing good fruits of repentance and the Spirit of the Lord, which would be a life of service, not a life of pleasing oneself.

The point is, we can get BEYOND spiritual MILK, and get into something helpful and useful to others.

The food laws are a case in point.

Jesus said a well instructed scribe is able to bring forth good things, both old and new.

To put it bluntly, if I as a Christian Leader, and preacher tell thousands of people that they can do anything they like, and eat anything they like, and 20 years from now, at the age of 60 or so they are all dying of diabetes and stomach cancer, I HAVE FAILED THEM. Who is God going to hold accountable for that horrific stupidity? My victims, or me?

On the other hand, if I tell people of the benefits of God's instruction, and prove those benefits to others by living them myself, I may instead save thousands from needless ill-health and suffering, (not to mention public health costs), and they will be ready and able to do GOOD WORK for God's Kingdom.

You choose.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.

I posed my question in the manner I did in order to see what the response would be to it. Just because I said I was a newbie here did not necessarily imply that I was a new Christian.

If as you say…”the short answer is no” to keeping the food laws or being circumcised to be saved, then by the same logic, observing them will not keep me saved or make me more righteous.

It is by Grace that I am saved. Gal. 2:16 says:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We have to be very careful in what we put our trust in. I am no more righteous if I eat pork than if I don’t or if I am circumcised or not. I can call Him Jesus Christ or Messiah Yeshu'a it doesn’t matter because I am saved by Grace. We can hold onto things that make us feel more pious and more righteous than someone else but it can’t add one bit more to our salvation. Christ paid the price and nailed it all to the Cross.

Galatians 5:1-12:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Your response…not mine was “the short answer is no” to having to be circumcised. If it is no to that then it is no to food restrictions by default. You can’t have it both ways.

Peace in Christ,
Ted

 

[intricatic]

The short answer is no.

You don't have to be circumcised or keep the food laws to be 'saved'.

But the whole point about Christianity for ADULTS is that being 'saved' is only square one.

How about being useful, as well as being saved?

Are Christians supposed to stand around like a bunch of idiots after they are saved? No.

They are supposed to (motivated by gratitude from God's loving mercy etc., see Luke 7:36-50 for instance) be USEFUL, and WORKING, and SOBER...

Producing good fruits of repentance and the Spirit of the Lord, which would be a life of service, not a life of pleasing oneself.

The point is, we can get BEYOND spiritual MILK, and get into something helpful and useful to others.

The food laws are a case in point.

Jesus said a well instructed scribe is able to bring forth good things, both old and new.

To put it bluntly, if I as a Christian Leader, and preacher tell thousands of people that they can do anything they like, and eat anything they like, and 20 years from now, at the age of 60 or so they are all dying of diabetes and stomach cancer, I HAVE FAILED THEM. Who is God going to hold accountable for that horrific stupidity? My victims, or me?

On the other hand, if I tell people of the benefits of God's instruction, and prove those benefits to others by living them myself, I may instead save thousands from needless ill-health and suffering, (not to mention public health costs), and they will be ready and able to do GOOD WORK for God's Kingdom.

You choose.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.

If they die, in general, from a hereditary illness, did you also fail them?

You're absolutely right about everything but this point. Why is it no longer required for them to ritually follow a dietary standard to attain salvation, but it's somehow still required for them to do it? Does it matter? Or is this another legalism by which to do the Pharisitical ritual banter with in the modern age? From the points you've made in previous posts, I have to wonder.

 

[OObi]

Your response…not mine was “the short answer is no” to having to be circumcised. If it is no to that then it is no to food restrictions by default. You can’t have it both ways.

Peace in Christ,
Ted

Circumcision was dealt with specifically in the New Testament. That one was changed, the rest of the Law wasn't.

Galatians 5:1-12:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

EVERY time the New Testament mentions the law and grace in the context as it is above, it is talking about trying to get salvation through the law. Not keeping the law.

 

[intricatic]

Circumcision was dealt with specifically in the New Testament. That one was changed, the rest of the Law wasn't.

As were sacrifices and ritual purity for external justification. But how does one seperate the laws regarding dietary cleanliness from the rest of the regulations involved in ritual purity? This is something nobody has been able to address yet.

Romans 2
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.



He's talking about.......? outward and physical things....?



What were purity laws....? outward and physical things....?



What were dietary regulations.....? Purity laws......?

 

[Nazaroo]

First of all, rather than repeat my careful and cogent arguments about Paul and the Law here,

You can simply go to this thread I wrote in January:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2378362-paul-and-the-law-solid-foundations.html

Please give the first three messages there a shot, before asking me about Paul and the Law. I have already given a detailed analysis there.

 

[OObi]

As were sacrifices and ritual purity for external justification. But how does one seperate the laws regarding dietary cleanliness from the rest of the regulations involved in ritual purity? This is something nobody has been able to address yet.

External justification, as in salvation. That is what was done away with.

The law isn't divided. There is one law.

 

[intricatic]

External justification, as in salvation. That is what was done away with.

The law isn't divided. There is one law.

I acknowledge this fact. Purity laws were part of that external justification; dietary laws were part of the purity laws. This is what I've been getting at throughout this thread, that none of you have even addressed yet. If the law isn't divided, then we still need to remain ritually pure? Do you follow all of the purity laws and standards in Leviticus 10-16?

These things were cleaning the external man to make him justified before God.

 

[Nazaroo]

{"..."} But how does one seperate the laws regarding dietary cleanliness from the rest of the regulations involved in ritual purity? This is something nobody has been able to address yet.

The dietary 'laws' are separate and will always be separate.

One of your problems is that you don't know the various DIFFERENT COVENANTS God made with different groups of people throughout the Old Testament. There are at least FIVE important ones.

The Food Laws as far as anyone can tell were always in existance in one form or another. In the Garden of Eden, Man was even more restricted in his diet, not less. Death had not entered the world, and certainly no one had killed any animals in order to eat them.

The problem is not to 'separate' the Food Laws from the Covenant of Moses with Israel, but to realize they were never joined, except that Israelites were expected to keep the Food Laws as well, pretty much automatically.

The Food Laws were for ALL Mankind, and so those OUTSIDE the Covenant of Moses were expected to keep them. When they 'forgot' them or refused to keep them, God abandoned those people to their own ways, but set up the nation Israel to teach Mankind His ways.

Not to just sit back and watch Israel, but obviously God had expectations that Godly men all over the world would take note and IMITATE the Israelites who were following God's instructions!...

Romans 2
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.

26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?

27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.

29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Once again, the translation leaves MUCH to be desired.

Let's see if we can fix this up a bit shall we?

First note the highlighted words. These have been rendered in a misleading manner, so that English readers are once again left confused and ignorant about what Paul is saying:

Law should be 'Torah', and here by Torah Paul means the Mosaic Covenant with the Israelites, the only 'loyal' remnant left of which was the small group of Judeans who returned from the captivity in Babylon.

Also, in English 'doh-doh' land, no one has a clue about the difference between Israel and the 'Jews', (again another hopeless mistranslation here).

Paul doesn't really use the word 'Jew' at all, which was a word coined in France in the Middle Ages.

By 'Ioudaoi' Paul doesn't mean either 'Israelite', or even 'Judahite' (person descended from the tribe of Judah).

What Paul means is someone who is a member of the Southern House of 'Judah', that is, the KINGDOM of JUDAH, a Judaean.

The Judaeans were those members of the Southern Kingdom of Judea who survived the Exile and returned to rebuild the Second Temple. They included only THREE tribes, the Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Benjamin, and the Tribe of Levi (and some priests).

This is why Paul was able to call himself a 'Judaean', even though he was really of the tribe of BENJAMIN,and not physically born in Judaea. He was of the RACE of the Southern Kingdom of Judaea.

The reason why Paul here talks about 'Judaeans' rather than 'Israelites' is rather simple. The other Israelites of the Northern TEN Tribes were already cut off and KICKED OUT of the Covenant. And the Covenant (TORAH) provided no legal or moral means by which they could be restored and reconnected to God.

The Judaeans refused to let any Israelites join in the rebuilding of the Judaean Kingdom or Temple, because they could not prove their lineage, since all records were destroyed, and there would be no point anyway, since the Judaeans had already decided that the other Israelites were scum.

The Judaeans went around calling the 'Israelites' (those of the Northern Kingdom of Israel) 'SAMARITANS', and rejected them because of their 'RACIAL' impurity, not their 'ceremonial' impurity. They protected themselves from this charge by actually ABANDONING their own wives and children. (Read Ezra and Nehemiah).

He's talking about.......? outward and physical things....?



What were purity laws....? outward and physical things....?



What were dietary regulations.....? Purity laws......?

Well, this again is so muddled, it sounds like a skit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

"How may we tell if she is a witch?"

"Burn her!" "Witches float?"

"Precisely! And what else floats?"

"Small rocks?" "wood?"

"Wood! Yes. SO....."

"Throw her in the river!"

"And?..."

"If she floats, she's made of wood?"

"And therefore..."

"She's a witch!"

"Exactly!"

 

[intricatic]

And until you can provide an example demonstrating that these are seperate and not meant for the same reason as the purity laws (as there are plenty of examples demonstrating they are the same as the rest of the purity laws), your statements have no meaning. But remember, keep it simple enough for a farmer to be able to figure out.

They were a form of ritual cleaning of mankind, to keep them pure - which is why they were added to the purity regulations in Leviticus. These are no longer required because we're baptised by the spirit, not by physical offerings and rituals. The very fact that they are seperated by "Clean" and "Unclean" literally ties them into the purity laws, and there's no way around that. The laws may have existed before Moses, or even Noah, but the fact is that they were used to the same end that the ritual purity laws were.

 

[Nazaroo]

And until you can provide an example demonstrating that these are seperate and not meant for the same reason as the purity laws (as there are plenty of examples demonstrating they are the same as the rest of the purity laws), your statements have no meaning. But remember, keep it simple enough for a farmer to be able to figure out.

They were a form of ritual cleaning of mankind, to keep them pure - which is why they were added to the purity regulations in Leviticus. These are no longer required because we're baptised by the spirit, not by physical offerings and rituals. The very fact that they are seperated by "Clean" and "Unclean" literally ties them into the purity laws, and there's no way around that. The laws may have existed before Moses, or even Noah, but the fact is that they were used to the same end that the ritual purity laws were.

This wholly artificial and naive verson of history being presented by you is the part of this thread that lacks real meaning in my view.

In the real historical world, medicine was practiced long before Moses. People had experimental knowledge of the diets of both animals and mankind. People in various cultures and civilizations did experiments and drew conclusions about what was 'safe' to eat, and how to diagnose, identify causes, and treat disease.

For instance, Egyptian medical treatises a thousand years older than Moses are on display in various museums, and hundreds of books about the practice of health and medicine among ancient peoples are freely available at the library. These Egyptian papyrii clearly show that medical and health issues were frankly kept separate and distinguishable from 'religious' issues.


Your Fantasy World, in which people existed like one-dimensional characters in Dungeons&Dragons video games and walked around in a daydream concerning themselves with 'ceremonial purity' is a complete and utter Revisionist and anachronistic presentation.


A handful of prudish Jews may have wandered about philosophizing about 'ritual purity', after taxing the people enough to discover plenty of leisure time for this activity. In the REAL WORLD where the bulk of the people of civilizaton have found themselves, people simply didn't care that much about 'ceremonial purity', if such a concept even existed before Protestant apologists coined it.

In the real world even 500 years before Christ, people were far too concerned with invading armies and famines to be thinking about esoteric concepts like 'ritual purity'.

Do you really think the ancient peoples of the world thought about things in the manner you suggest?

 

[intricatic]

This wholly artificial and naive verson of history being presented by you is the part of this thread that lacks real meaning in my view.

In the real historical world, medicine was practiced long before Moses. People had experimental knowledge of the diets of both animals and mankind. People in various cultures and civilizations did experiments and drew conclusions about what was 'safe' to eat, and how to diagnose, identify causes, and treat disease.

For instance, Egyptian medical treatises a thousand years older than Moses are on display in various museums, and hundreds of books about the practice of health and medicine among ancient peoples are freely available at the library. These Egyptian papyrii clearly show that medical and health issues were frankly kept separate and distinguishable from 'religious' issues.


Your Fantasy World, in which people existed like one-dimensional characters in Dungeons&Dragons video games and walked around in a daydream concerning themselves with 'ceremonial purity' is a complete and utter Revisionist and anachronistic presentation.


A handful of prudish Jews may have wandered about philosophizing about 'ritual purity', after taxing the people enough to discover plenty of leisure time for this activity. In the REAL WORLD where the bulk of the people of civilizaton have found themselves, people simply didn't care that much about 'ceremonial purity', if such a concept even existed before Protestant apologists coined it.

In the real world even 500 years before Christ, people were far too concerned with invading armies and famines to be thinking about esoteric concepts like 'ritual purity'.

Uh, hello! The laws revolving around these things had dual purposes - they served as a method to cleanse the people before God while He existed on Earth - unless you think God still destroys cities and declares through His prophets we should masacre entire nations and not spare even one child for their disobedience to Him - until Jesus came as mediator to the Father, upon which time the laws of ritual Holiness were rendered unnecessary. Fantasy world? No, don't think so, it's called a Biblical theme. You can prove all day long that it's healthier, but you can't prove in any way that it's still a mandate to follow after Christ without completely removing the need for Christ in the process.

Protestant apologists? I dunno about that, afterall, it's still Jewish tradition to keep ceremonial purity. Not to mention the fact that it's an anthropological term for what they did in ritual sacrifices; they didn't seperate the secular from the spiritual, everything in Hebrew tradition was ritual based. That's where the term comes from. Even in Leviticus it's stated quite a few times that it was to keep them pure before God so they wouldn't die in His presence.

What was that, one more time?

Leviticus 15
31 " 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

Is this a different sort of "clean" and "unclean" than what relates to the dietary laws somehow?

Leviticus 10
8 Then the LORD said to Aaron, 9 "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 10 You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, 11 and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses."

Why were they to learn to differentiate between the holy and common, clean and unclean? So what wouldn't happen...? Note, this is the chapter right before the dietary laws! And it's restated throughout all the purity laws.

Leviticus 11
5 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

They were being justified before God by maintaining purity codes; cleaning impurities from themselves through ritual traditions given to them by Moses, and given to Moses by God. You remove the sacrificial element, and the need for the purity becomes nullified; it becomes human tradition itself. Not to mention, it's not bodily purity and holiness that sanctifies a person to God; it's Jesus' universal atoning sacrifice that does this. Dietary laws, for whatever intent they belong, lay right in the middle of the entire body of purity regulations, thus making them relatable to ritual purity. It feels like we're going around and around in circles here.

Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Did God change His mind on what was impure in the dietary health of man, though?

Do you really think the ancient peoples of the world thought about things in the manner you suggest?

Who instituted the laws we're discussing, man or God? Does it matter if they thought of it like this? Paul certainly thought this way when he would give exegesis of Isaiah and the Levitical sacrificial laws, for instance. Should we not?

 

[Nazaroo]

I think I may have the solution for you my friend, in the form of a simple analogy:

Imagine a world very much like our own. They have houses, clothes, cars, and even street-lights and crosswalks.

However, in this other world people have always observed their streetlights religiously, sometimes making a little cross in the air, or mumbling the briefest of prayer-like grunts to St. Christopher to protect them when they cross the road at a streetlight.

In fact, the citizens behave not only religiously, almost superstitiously about streetlights, often obeying the streetlights when there are no cars coming, or when it is obvious that there is no danger or plenty of time to cross on a red light.

More than this, even the government and police seem oddly religious, handing out tickets when someone crosses on a red light, even though there were no cars coming, and the only observer besides God was a cop. Even worse, they religiously persecute drivers who run red lights carelessly when no one is looking.

Spacemen from another planet would conclude quite easily that this is a strange and superstitious race of people who have a developed a peculiar set of 'ceremonial laws' about trafficlights, because they know God is always watching, and its naughty to cut corners or get sloppy.

One day, after some religious reformations and upheavals in this society of religious 'Pharisees', a preacher named Paul comes along. And in a series of letters argues that much religious practice is largely symbolic and in fact just a shadow of greater things up in heaven.

In fact, the 'other' Paul in this parallel world happens to choose streetlights as his example rather than foodlaws, because Jesus arrived a little late in his world, after technology had advanced somewhat.

Paul argues that there is no point hypothetically in just obeying streetlights, if one ignores all the other traffic laws and rules of the road. One is obligated to keep the whole law if one commits himself to streetlight observance, or else its all for nothing - you will get run over anyway, Paul says.

Nonetheless, Paul says, it is superstitious nonsense to say that if one happens to cross on a red light in the middle of nowhere when there's no traffic, that the world will end, or that you will go to hell. This is like asking the question, "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"

God doesn't care about streetlight colours, but about saving people's lives.

Others after hearing Paul preach, begin to spread rumours that Paul was teaching citizens to ignore the traffic conventions and cross on red lights.

Paul angrily protests: He is not teaching lawlessness at all. Just because it turns out that streetlights are not really a 'religious' law, doesn't mean that we don't need traffic conventions, or that we should break the law whenever possible to prove that the law is not a rule of eternal salvation.

On the contrary Paul says, we as Christians uphold the Law of the Streetlight, because the Law is good. If everyone agrees on a single convention, (Green = go, Red = stop),then we can have efficient flow of goods and services, and also minimize accidents and death.

All is at peace again in 'Streetlight Valley'. The intelligent people understand that Paul wants us to adopt a new and different understanding about the traffic laws, not throw them away.

Do not be deceived, Paul says: God is not mocked.

What a man sows, he reaps, and if a man chooses to ignore traffic conventions, he will eventually be run over.

 

[Nazaroo]

- unless you think God still destroys cities and declares through His prophets we should masacre entire nations and not spare even one child for their disobedience to Him -

You know, I was almost going to let this one slide by, but I thought about it again, and decided I couldn't leave the large number of readers here just sitting on a branch you are trying to saw off.

You want to group two separate questions together as though they were one and the same entity. I don't link or equate these two things together at all:



(1) Yes I think God still destroys cities, both using the forces of 'nature', and the machines of men.


The Rule of Ten

However, as far back as Abraham, God revealed His forgiving and generous nature by establishing an awfully 'soft' test for whether or not to destroy a city. It's called the Rule of Ten, and it is found in Genesis.

If there are even ten righteous people left in a city, God promises not to destroy it. You can't get God Almighty to bend over backwards further than that. Even God isn't willing to force NINE righteous men to live in a town full of gluttonous, murderous, sodomites.

This does not seem harsh in any measurable way to me. On the contrary it appears remarkably lenient.

But you know, I'd be packing my bags and moving on if it became apparent that there weren't even ten righteous men left in my town. And I wouldn't look back.



(2) Do you honestly believe that God ordered through His 'prophets' the massacre of women and children? No. I think not. The prophets that I recognize never taught that crap.



If ever there was a case of racist-revisionist rewriting to be made against the Massoretic Text, this has to be it. Obviously there was a very strong racist element in early Judaism (if we can call it that).

First off, the patriarchs were not even 'allowed' to marry very far from the tree without 'oppressing' their racist parents. But love will have its own way, as Esau and Samson demonstrated, and racists only preach to other racists and xenophobes who will listen to their tripe.

So its not surprising to find two competing elements in the Old Testament: one of the reasons to accept its basic authenticity - the dirty laundry is strung out in the sun for all to see.

Consider the even more extremely racist Jews who returned from Babylon, and who not only rejected all the other Ten Tribes of Northern Israel, but forced thousands of their own fellow Judahites to divorce their own wives and abandon their children.

Did God really command this? I think not. The Jews' xenophobia was getting out of hand again. We only need look at the bloodthirsty book of Esther to see the 'us and them' mentality entrenched in a narrowmindedness that rivals Adolf Hitler himself.

No wonder real Israelites abandoned Judaism en masse and became Christians. They saw through the xenophobic racist b.s., because they found themselves excluded and treated like 'Ethiopians' by their own 'brothers'. And in Jesus and His teaching they found a non-racist universalism worthy of the REAL GOD, not the tribal calf of the Jews.

Anybody that missed the number one appeal of Christianity, its openness and even mandate to embrace ALL peoples, has completely misread the last 2000 years of history.

To answer your question, NO I don't think God ordered the massacre of women and children. The xenophobic, ignorant and superstitiously racist Israelite leaders did. And they weren't inspired by the True God, Creator of Heavens and Earth.

In fact, once again I appeal directly to the Old Testament to find the clearest example of the teaching of one of the Greatest prophets of all time, Elisha:

And the King of Israel (the racist moron) said to Elisha,
"Shall I smite them? Shall I smite them?" (i.e., kill all the Syrians who were at their mercy),

And Elisha answered,
"Thou SHALT NOT SMITE THEM!
Would you smite those whom you have taken prisoner with your sword and bow?
Set BREAD and WATER before them, that they may eat and drink, and go back to their master."
...And the gangs of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.



​

(2nd Kings 6:21-22)

THIS is the Way of the Lord, not the clowning of Joshua and other ill-suited 'leaders' - nor were they prophets.

False prophets maybe.

If only modern 'Israel' had the Spirit of Elisha and Elijah, and the Truth and Mercy of the Lord Jesus the Christ.