by jimwalton » Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:29 am
> It's still your personal opinion that that's what the Bible meant by 'image'; a book is incapable interpreting anything at all, much less itself.
With this kind of reasoning we must discard all books, because all writing must be interpreted, and according to what you say, all interpretation is mere opinion, and it can't be counted on. Therefore, throw them all away as useless drivel. I take a different approach: the consistency in books, and their concordance with reality, and reasonable principles of interpretation can yield the true and intended meaning of writing. Such is the case with what "image of God" means.
> Why punish the innocent?
You misunderstand. Jesus gave his life freely. A mother who rushes into a burning building to save her child isn't ridiculed as "disgusting," but as noble. She wasn't being punished in her innocence, but sacrificed herself freely out of love. That's what Jesus did. It was an act of self-sacrifice from a heart of love.
> Numbers 31
Again, you misunderstand. 90% of the population of Canaan, and places like Midian, lived out in the countryside. Only 10% lived in the cities, and those were the political officers (kings and their families, treasurer, etc., and soldiers, and a staff of workers to serve them, like food preparation). When Moses attacked "the Midianites," he attacked some of the cities. God was more concerned about the destruction of the Canaanite religion than the people. God repeatedly said that any who would repent and surrender could be incorporated peacefully into the nation of Israel. Any attacked city was given a chance to surrender (Deut. 20.10). Any city that didn't surrender was given a chance to leave the region (the repeated "drive them out" language all through these books). If they wouldn't surrender and wouldn't leave, they were engaged in battle.
Moses attacked the cities. This is not genocide. The Midianites were a large confederation of nomadic tribes. They roamed all through the areas of Sinai, the Negev, and the Transjordan. They were Bedouin by practice and culture, though there were some villages and a few walled cities that were populated by Midianites. The Israelites are not riding through the entire Middle East slaughtering innocents. Here is it those particular Midianites associated with Moab that are targeted. This particular collection of villages and been hostile to Israel, and they had been a moral detriment to the people. They had instigated hostility against them, and it was time for military action. The Israelites did execute the 5 kings of Midian (Num. 31.8), but this is by no means a genocide. The Midianites show up later in the times of the Judges (Judges 6.1), to confirm for us that the ethnic group was not wiped from the face of the earth. Gideon defeated them in Judges 7, but they're still around as a people group. The prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 3.7) mentions them in about 600 BC, so they're still around then.
The males of those cities were killed, because they are a military threat (Num. 31.17). All non-virgins must be killed because moral contamination was more a threat to Israel's demise than military threat. These women were also guilty of seducing Israel's men earlier (Num. 25). The young girls could be kept alive and incorporated into Israelite families. The young women were also innocent of the seduction of Israelite men.
The rest of the Midianite nomads, scattered all about the region in small family groups, were not a threat and were left alone, as mentioned above. The Midianites continued on in existence. This was no genocide.
> 1 Samuel 15
Same story. I don't know where you get your information, but you must read more carefully than just skimming Internet links. Just as before, the cities of the ancient Near East were mostly military strongholds and governmental centers. The general population mostly didn't live in the cities, but only traded there on occasion or went there for governmental business. Small businesses were also in the cities to service the political and military populations there, but they were largely inhabited by professional personnel. (This is confirmed by the Amarna letters.) When the command was given to attack a city, what was being attacked were not the innocents, but the perpetrators: the governing officials and their armies. "Totally destroying" the Amalekites was not logistically or militarily possible. The idea here was to punish concentrated populations of military power and regional leadership, not to destroy an entire people group. To make an analogy, they were like the "al Qaeda" of their day. You can’t just attack and wipe them out. The call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not of genocide.
Saul's target would have been the Amalekite strongholds, not the population centers. The sweeping words "all," "young and old" and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, not brutality. They would use those words even if women and children weren't present. You'll even notice in 1 Sam. 15.5 that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.
You may be wondering why Saul was censured for not killing all the animals too. Doesn't that imply pretty clearly that he had indeed killed women and children, and was castigated for sparing the poor animals? Verse 24 says Saul "violated the Lord's command and your [Samuel's] instructions." Saul's offenses were those of improper conduct in a holy war. He had failed in his role as king, being the administrator of the nation for YHWH. His job was to make sure that the Lord was properly represented: (1) make sure the people keep the covenant of the Law, (2) seek the Lord in battle, and give God credit for victory. Instead we see Saul keeping the best stuff for himself (9) and setting up a monument in his own honor (12), setting himself up as, essentially, the God of Israel (17). This is the problem. He was making himself God and taking matters into his own hands, calling honor to himself. That's the sin here.
- Verse 5: The city of Amalek was the target of the herem: their governmental and military center, and the persons who have been set up as leaders of the people group. It’s like the U.S. military taking out the al Qaeda leaders. You don’t set an ambush in a ravine for a nomadic people scattered over an entire region.
- Verse 7-9: Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let the animals go, and kept the best animals for himself and his men. The idea was not that everything be slaughtered, but that none of it be taken by the soldiers as plunder.
- Verse 12: If Saul was going to “utterly destroy” all of the Amalekites, spread out from the Brook of Egypt to Havilah, a nomadic group all over the Negev and the area of Edom, he could not possibly have accomplished this all in one night. All he did was conquer a small city.
- Verse 13: Saul felt that he had done what was expected: the herem. He did conquer the city, kill the perpetrators, take the king captive, and scatter everything else. This shows us what he felt the expectations to be. The problems at hand were his self-glorification in it, and having the kept the best of the plunder for gain.
And finally, we find that the Amalekites remain as a people group (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They weren't wiped out either. That was never the point. Samuel is using the same rhetorical warfare bravado that was their cultural frame. The Amalekites were even still around 250 years later during the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman in the story of Esther (Esth. 3.1) was an Amalekite descendant. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for almost 1000 years afterward. God had told them never to let up on their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17) because of their false religion and the fierce ways. Unlike other Canaanites and Canaanite groups, the Amalekites couldn't (wouldn't) just be assimilated into Israel life.
It's all just warfare bravado and warfare rhetoric. There was no genocide.
> It's still your personal opinion that that's what the Bible meant by 'image'; a book is incapable interpreting anything at all, much less itself.
With this kind of reasoning we must discard all books, because all writing must be interpreted, and according to what you say, all interpretation is mere opinion, and it can't be counted on. Therefore, throw them all away as useless drivel. I take a different approach: the consistency in books, and their concordance with reality, and reasonable principles of interpretation can yield the true and intended meaning of writing. Such is the case with what "image of God" means.
> Why punish the innocent?
You misunderstand. Jesus gave his life freely. A mother who rushes into a burning building to save her child isn't ridiculed as "disgusting," but as noble. She wasn't being punished in her innocence, but sacrificed herself freely out of love. That's what Jesus did. It was an act of self-sacrifice from a heart of love.
> Numbers 31
Again, you misunderstand. 90% of the population of Canaan, and places like Midian, lived out in the countryside. Only 10% lived in the cities, and those were the political officers (kings and their families, treasurer, etc., and soldiers, and a staff of workers to serve them, like food preparation). When Moses attacked "the Midianites," he attacked some of the cities. God was more concerned about the destruction of the Canaanite religion than the people. God repeatedly said that any who would repent and surrender could be incorporated peacefully into the nation of Israel. Any attacked city was given a chance to surrender (Deut. 20.10). Any city that didn't surrender was given a chance to leave the region (the repeated "drive them out" language all through these books). If they wouldn't surrender and wouldn't leave, they were engaged in battle.
Moses attacked the cities. This is not genocide. The Midianites were a large confederation of nomadic tribes. They roamed all through the areas of Sinai, the Negev, and the Transjordan. They were Bedouin by practice and culture, though there were some villages and a few walled cities that were populated by Midianites. The Israelites are not riding through the entire Middle East slaughtering innocents. Here is it those particular Midianites associated with Moab that are targeted. This particular collection of villages and been hostile to Israel, and they had been a moral detriment to the people. They had instigated hostility against them, and it was time for military action. The Israelites did execute the 5 kings of Midian (Num. 31.8), but this is by no means a genocide. The Midianites show up later in the times of the Judges (Judges 6.1), to confirm for us that the ethnic group was not wiped from the face of the earth. Gideon defeated them in Judges 7, but they're still around as a people group. The prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 3.7) mentions them in about 600 BC, so they're still around then.
The males of those cities were killed, because they are a military threat (Num. 31.17). All non-virgins must be killed because moral contamination was more a threat to Israel's demise than military threat. These women were also guilty of seducing Israel's men earlier (Num. 25). The young girls could be kept alive and incorporated into Israelite families. The young women were also innocent of the seduction of Israelite men.
The rest of the Midianite nomads, scattered all about the region in small family groups, were not a threat and were left alone, as mentioned above. The Midianites continued on in existence. This was no genocide.
> 1 Samuel 15
Same story. I don't know where you get your information, but you must read more carefully than just skimming Internet links. Just as before, the cities of the ancient Near East were mostly military strongholds and governmental centers. The general population mostly didn't live in the cities, but only traded there on occasion or went there for governmental business. Small businesses were also in the cities to service the political and military populations there, but they were largely inhabited by professional personnel. (This is confirmed by the Amarna letters.) When the command was given to attack a city, what was being attacked were not the innocents, but the perpetrators: the governing officials and their armies. "Totally destroying" the Amalekites was not logistically or militarily possible. The idea here was to punish concentrated populations of military power and regional leadership, not to destroy an entire people group. To make an analogy, they were like the "al Qaeda" of their day. You can’t just attack and wipe them out. The call to "kill 'em all" was language of victory, not of genocide.
Saul's target would have been the Amalekite strongholds, not the population centers. The sweeping words "all," "young and old" and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, not brutality. They would use those words even if women and children weren't present. You'll even notice in 1 Sam. 15.5 that specific action was taken so that innocents didn't get caught up in the violence and killed along with the guilty.
You may be wondering why Saul was censured for not killing all the animals too. Doesn't that imply pretty clearly that he had indeed killed women and children, and was castigated for sparing the poor animals? Verse 24 says Saul "violated the Lord's command and your [Samuel's] instructions." Saul's offenses were those of improper conduct in a holy war. He had failed in his role as king, being the administrator of the nation for YHWH. His job was to make sure that the Lord was properly represented: (1) make sure the people keep the covenant of the Law, (2) seek the Lord in battle, and give God credit for victory. Instead we see Saul keeping the best stuff for himself (9) and setting up a monument in his own honor (12), setting himself up as, essentially, the God of Israel (17). This is the problem. He was making himself God and taking matters into his own hands, calling honor to himself. That's the sin here.
- Verse 5: The city of Amalek was the target of the herem: their governmental and military center, and the persons who have been set up as leaders of the people group. It’s like the U.S. military taking out the al Qaeda leaders. You don’t set an ambush in a ravine for a nomadic people scattered over an entire region.
- Verse 7-9: Saul conquered the city and chased the governmental leaders and the soldiers through the desert to kill them. He took the king captive, most likely let the animals go, and kept the best animals for himself and his men. The idea was not that everything be slaughtered, but that none of it be taken by the soldiers as plunder.
- Verse 12: If Saul was going to “utterly destroy” all of the Amalekites, spread out from the Brook of Egypt to Havilah, a nomadic group all over the Negev and the area of Edom, he could not possibly have accomplished this all in one night. All he did was conquer a small city.
- Verse 13: Saul felt that he had done what was expected: the herem. He did conquer the city, kill the perpetrators, take the king captive, and scatter everything else. This shows us what he felt the expectations to be. The problems at hand were his self-glorification in it, and having the kept the best of the plunder for gain.
And finally, we find that the Amalekites remain as a people group (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They weren't wiped out either. That was never the point. Samuel is using the same rhetorical warfare bravado that was their cultural frame. The Amalekites were even still around 250 years later during the time of Hezekiah (1 Chr. 4.43). Even Haman in the story of Esther (Esth. 3.1) was an Amalekite descendant. So we know that the Amalekite hostility continued for almost 1000 years afterward. God had told them never to let up on their opposition to the Amalekites (Dt. 25.15-17) because of their false religion and the fierce ways. Unlike other Canaanites and Canaanite groups, the Amalekites couldn't (wouldn't) just be assimilated into Israel life.
It's all just warfare bravado and warfare rhetoric. There was no genocide.