Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Squonk]

According to the Bible, “goodness” is not defined according to God’s commandments

Many Christians believe that “goodness” is defined according to God’s commandments. Whatever God commands is necessarily “good.” But this belief is wrong, according to the Bible.

In Exodus 22:29, God says, “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me.”

Child sacrifice was a controversial issue back in those days. We see evidence of this controversy in the Bible. Check out Ezekiel 20:25-26. In this passage, Yahweh says, “I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the LORD.”

The true story here is: Back then, some people thought sacrificing your firstborn child was the ultimate sacrifice & Yahweh would surely bless you big-time for doing something like that. Other people (like Ezekiel) thought child sacrifice was abhorrent. Both parties felt sure God was on their side. Both views are reflected in the Bible.

In Ezekiel, God acknowledges that He told the Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn children. This God-given statute was “not good” because the Israelites “could not live” according to it…here, Ezekiel is arguing that God thinks child sacrifice is wrong because it is bad for the human group. So, the interests of the human group determine whether or not God’s commandments are “good” or “not good.”

Therefore: When God commands something that isn’t good for the group (e.g. “offer up your firstborn”), God’s commandment is considered “not good” because the people “could not live” according to that rule.

[jimwalton]

I'm glad to dialogue. Thanks for asking the question. I see several places where conversation will be helpful.

> Many Christians believe that “goodness” is defined according to God’s commandments. Whatever God commands is necessarily “good.”

This isn't accurate, actually. "Goodness" for Christians is defined according to who God is. He is good by nature. Of course it's true that whatever God commands is good, but His command doesn't make it so (that's called the Divine Command Theory, and it's not biblical). So, if I can say so, right off the bat you're working with an incorrect assumption that seems to be the foundation for the argument that follows. Therefore, the argument isn't going to be valid. But let's dive into that.

> Exodus 22.29

Israelite religion forbade child sacrifice—VERBOTEN! There were many kinds of sacrifice. Our minds shouldn't default to killing children. Outside of interpreting this text as killing children, there is simply no evidence for such an interpretation of this law or for such a practice in Israel. Therefore we don't interpret Ex. 22.29 this way, either. It's simply such a greatly improbably interpretation that it just doesn't wash.

In addition, what patently does not make sense is that God would spare the firstborn of the children of Israel (Ex. 12.13) in the Passover, only to turn around a short time later and demand they all be slaughtered. There is no logic to that supposition.

It is defined and elaborated on by Ex. 13.2, 12-13 and Lev. 27.26. It means that the firstborn were dedicated to the Lord as a sign of the continuance of the covenant.

You wanted to know what a literal translation said. Here's the verse in Hebrew: מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן־לִּי. And the breakdown:

מְלֵאָתְךָ: The full produce. The fruit of. The fullness of. Like what's in granaries.

וְדִמְעֲךָ: Juice, like what's in vats.

לֹא: The negative. "Do not."

תְאַחֵר: "Hold back. Hinder."

In other words, there is no word for "offering," though that is implied (and why it is inserted in some translations).

בְּכוֹר: "The firstborn of."

בָּנֶיךָ: "Son"

תִּתֶּן: "Give." Qal imperfect, denoting a possible future action. It expresses action that is simple and incomplete (the time of action must come from the context). There's nothing in the verb or the form that conveys "must," though as a command of God, it's obviously not an option.

But there's nothing here that makes us go, "Oh, God wants you to kill your child."

> Ezekiel 20.26

This follows Ezekiel's theme of God's sovereignty. It plays off of Exodus 13.2—that all firstborns, human and animal, belong to God. It can be completed by death (Ex. 34.20), circumcision (Gn. 17.9-14), or commitment (Ex. 22.29, which might be referring to circumcision). Since some of the kings of Israel (Ahaz and Manasseh) did literally kill their children, their abominable actions could easily fit into the unlivable laws of v. 25.

> The true story here is:...

So when you say "The true story here is,..." you don't actually have the true story. Actually killing your firstborn child to honor YHWH was NEVER acceptable. YHWH calls it an abomination and absolutely forbids it.

> In Ezekiel, God acknowledges that He told the Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn children.

No He didn't. What Ezekiel is talking about is that the people were so obstinate in their sin, God eventually abandoned them to it. They were irredeemable, and God washed His hands of the whole matter. "You insist on your sin? Then go for. Knock yourselves out. It will bring your own demise and judgment."

His point is the judgment of rebellious Israel. He likens the disobedient people now (early 6thc. BC) to the disobedient people of the wilderness. He is showing that God has not changed—what was wrong then is just as wrong now. The whole chapter preceding vv. 25-26 is rehashing the wilderness wanderings and the people's sin, and how they are worthy of judgment. He particularly mentions the desecration of the Sabbaths and their idolatrous practices. At that time there were incidents where he withheld his protective hand and allowed destructive forces to come against them (disease and military incursions) so that they would repent and return to him.

This is the point of vv. 25-26. In recent history (for Ezekiel) God withheld his protective hand so that the Babylonians could come and conquer the nation. This is what is meant by "I gave them statutes that were not good." He withheld his hand (Ezk. 20.22). The statute he gave them was a judicial sentence of dispersion (See also 2 This. 2.11; Acts 7.42). He decreed events that were not in their favor and did not lead them to life and blessing.

Then in v. 26 he gives examples. The allusion is not to Ex. 13.12 but to its perversion by them in idolatry (because the words "to the Lord" that are present in Ex. 13 are not here in Ezk. 20.26).

His purpose was to excite horror in them so they would return to him. By picking the worst example of their disobedience and sin (child sacrifice, practiced by Ahaz and others against God's laws). In both cases (Exodus and Ezekiel), God judged the people by allowing their sin to take its course—the law of natural consequences.

[Squonk]

> Actually killing your firstborn child to honor YHWH was NEVER acceptable. YHWH calls it an abomination and absolutely forbids it.

No, God definitely does not absolutely forbid sacrificing your children to Him. In Judges 11, you'll find the story of Jephthah's Vow. Jephthah vows to make a burnt offering of "whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me" (v. 31) if Yahweh grants him victory over the Ammonites. In the end, Jephthah ends up sacrificing his daughter to Yahweh. This is depicted as an unfortunate event, but interestingly, it is never written that Jephthah did anything that was evil in the sight of the Lord, by sacrificing his daughter.

> What Ezekiel is talking about is that the people were so obstinate in their sin, God eventually abandoned them to it. They were irredeemable, and God washed His hands of the whole matter. "You insist on your sin? Then go for. Knock yourselves out. It will bring your own demise and judgment."

Incorrect. This interpretation relies on a mistranslation of Ezekiel, as Thom Stark explains:

Now some have argued that, rather than giving Israel bad commands, Yahweh gave them over to their depraved interpretations of Yahweh's good commands. This understanding of the text is reflected in the translation of the NIV: "I gave them over to statutes that were not good" (emphasis added). The NIV intentionally mistranslates the verb here, probably in a well-intentioned attempt to protect Yahweh's character from the implications of scripture. The Hebrew verb is nātān, "to give." In the Hebrew, the indirect object of the sentence is "them" and the direct object of the verb is "statutes." The NIV, however, makes "them" the object of the verb and makes the statutes the recipients of the action. The NIV does this with zero exegetical warrant. It is a purely theological motivated distortion of the text—a distortion of the text with which many of us could certainly sympathize. Nevertheless, the grammar is not ambiguous here, as much as we would like it to be. In no uncertain terms, Ezekiel claims that Yahweh gave bad commands to Israel, and the "bad command" Ezekiel specifically has in mind is the command to offer male children as a burnt offering to Yahweh. [The Human Faces of God, by Thom Stark, p. 98]

What amazes me is how Christians insist that the God of Christianity would NEVER, EVER want a human sacrifice...because human sacrifice is SO HORRIBLE to God...it's COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE...well, what would you call Jesus? Many passages in the Bible refer to his death as a "sacrifice," and he was a human. Human sacrifice. The whole Christian religion falls apart if you really think that God 100% disapproves of human sacrifice.

[jimwalton]

> Jephthah's vow

Jephthah's vow story is not clear cut. There are several things we know, however: There is no indication in the text that God approved of the vow that Jephthah made, nor endorsed it in any way. We should not assume that the Bible approves of Jephthah's vow or behavior. Especially in the book of Judges, which is a record of the horrible failures of Israel, and what happens when a nation goes rogue. Secondly, it is far from clear just how Jephthah fulfilled his vow. it's not even clear that he killed his child. It's just as possible that he sent his daughter off to be consecrated in a sacred place, never to be married or have children in all her life. Opinions and scholarly perceptions of the text are all over the map. It is not at all obvious that this was a case of human sacrifice.

> it is never written that Jephthah did anything that was evil in the sight of the Lord, by sacrificing his daughter.

You're right, so it's very possible he didn't kill her. Wherever there is child sacrifice, YHWH condemns it as abominable.

> Tom Stark quote

Yeah, I disagree with Stark. There are 3 texts in the OT that seem on the surface to indicate that God is doing evil and sending bad stuff, but on examination that's not what any of the 3 are saying. Daniel Block, in his NICOT commentary, proposes several different solutions to the difficult text. Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, in their IVP Bible Background Commentary, also disagree. It's certain that Stark is not the final word, and that his analysis is to be preferred over all others. I, along with many other worthy scholars, disagree with Stark.

> In no uncertain terms, Ezekiel claims that Yahweh gave bad commands to Israel,

The question is, What does this mean? There are many ways God can give gad commands: (1) by being a liar Himself, (2), by seeking their harm, (3) by telling His true prophets to lie to the people, (4) by setting the false prophets free to do their dirty work. It is #4 that is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The other 3 don't make any sense in biblical comparison. "Gave," then, is in a judicial sense, rather than a direct one. "Good" indicates that which is ordered (a very common biblical and ANE designation), not necessarily speaking of morality (the word for evil [ra'a] is not used). The passage plausibly refers to God's judicial actions regarding Israel, judging them through their own false prophets, whom He has previously stopped. These liars, misleading unfaithful Israelites, are not acting for YHWH's good—they didn't produce order for Israel. Therefore God will let them sink and rot in their own sin.

The Hebrew terms used here are important. "Statutes" is not a referral to the Sinaitic law, and the word Torah is not used. "Statutes" is the same term that in v. 24 is translated "decrees." In other words, God is acting judicially here, judging Israel for their sin by allowing the false prophets, and the consequences of that (war, plague, famine, etc.) to devastate them.

> What amazes me is how Christians insist that the God of Christianity would NEVER, EVER want a human sacrifice...because human sacrifice is SO HORRIBLE to God...it's COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE...well, what would you call Jesus?

Jesus was not a human sacrifice, but a redemption. BIG difference. First, Jesus volunteered. He was not offering something cultic to mitigate the Great Symbiosis, but instead conquering death. Jesus's death was self-sacrifice.

Child sacrifice in the ancient world was related to divination. It was an act of necromancy and ancestor worship. It was also an act of worship to a god. If you know anything about the Bible, you can readily tell that none of these have anything to do with the death of Jesus.

Child sacrifice (from archaeological digs) was generally done on infants aged 1-2 months. This has nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

> The whole Christian religion falls apart if you really think that God 100% disapproves of human sacrifice.

Not in the least. God disapproves of human sacrifice as detestable and an abomination. Yes, a human died, and it was sacrificial. Just as one soldier will jump on a grenade to save his team (which we consider heroic, not human sacrifice), Jesus took death to save the rest of us. The death of Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice (Jn. 10.17-18), motivated by love and service. It was not an act of worship, divination, ancestor worship, or necromancy. It was to pay the penalty for sin by taking the penalty upon himself. It's what holds Christianity together.

[Squonk]

I'll just focus on Jephthah's vow, here:

I think the story of Jephthah's vow is very clear cut, and it is extremely obvious that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to Yahweh:

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering."

Who comes out of the doors of Jephthah's house to meet him, when he returns victorious from the Ammonites?

Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.”

Remember: Jephthah vowed to make a burnt offering of whoever comes out of the doors of his house to meet him. That was the vow.

How does his daughter respond?

My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has given you vengeance against your enemies, the Ammonites.

What does Jephthah do?

At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made.

Don't forget: Jephthah vowed to make a burnt offering of whoever comes out of the doors of his house to meet him. That's what the Bible says. That was the vow.

In the end, "there arose an Israelite custom that for four days every year the daughters of Israel would go out to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite." They lament her, because her father "did with her according to the vow he had made," i.e. burnt offering.

Now, you say:

There is no indication in the text that God approved of the vow that Jephthah made, nor endorsed it in any way. We should not assume that the Bible approves of Jephthah's vow or behavior.

If you flip back to Judges 10, you'll find this passage:

The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, worshiping the Baals and the Astartes, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines. Thus they abandoned the Lord, and did not worship him.

Judges is full of moral commentary. It's full of passages like this one, where individuals/groups are described as doing what is "evil in the sight of the Lord." It's not as if the author(s) of Judges impartially describes 'things that happened' without commenting on whether or not those things were good or evil according to God.

So, the fact that the author(s) of Judges never bothered to write that Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter was "evil in the sight of the Lord" tells us something important. If these author(s) had believed that what Jephthah did was so horrendously "evil in the sight of the Lord," we have every reason to think that they would have said so explicitly.

The moral of the story of Jephthah's vow is pretty obvious: If, like Jephthah, you make a vow to sacrifice whoever comes out of your house to greet you when you come home from war, you must keep your vow to Yahweh, even if it means you have to make a burnt offering of your only daughter.

In summary:

• Judges 11 clearly states that Jephthah made a burnt offering of his only daughter.
• The author(s) of Judges are not shy to point out when they believe a person has done something evil.
• In the Bible, the story of Jephthah's vow is depicted as a tragedy, but Jephthah is never depicted as 'evil' for keeping his vow to Yahweh.
• The moral of the story is that "breaking a vow to Yahweh" is a greater offense than "sacrificing your child to Yahweh."

[jimwalton]

Believe it or not, I know the story, and I can read. I appreciate that you've taken time to cut and paste the text, highlighting parts you want highlighted, almost as if I haven't actually read the story. Thank you for that, but quite unnecessary. I know the story well. That's how I can say with such confidence that it's not so "clear cut."

The book of Joshua is about what happens when the nation is obedient. Judges is about a nation gone apostate. Leadership was lacking and syncretism was ubiquitous. It's the story of the tragedies that unfaithfulness brings. As you said, Judges 10.6 tells us how apostate the Israelites were. The book of Judges is showing us that God is faithful to the covenant even when the people aren't. Most of the leaders are scoundrels themselves (Samson and Gideon are the poster boys, and Jephthah isn't far behind). They lack God's ideals, but they keep the nation from disappearing. God uses them even in their weaknesses, failure, and sin. Jephthah is one of those stories. Even the introduction to the story tells us how depraved Israel is.

You'll notice that Judges 11 never says that the Lord raised Jephthah up, as it says for other judges (3.9-10, 15; 6.12). You'll notice as you read Judges 10 that it never says the Lord raised up Tola, Jair, or Jephthah. The Israelites cried out to the Lord (10.10) to save them, but the Lord replied, "You've been worshipping idols. Let them save you" (10.14). Then comes the story of Jephthah, but no mention is ever made that God raised him up, even though in His mercy He gave him victory (11.32). It was Jephthah's fighting prowess that brought him to the elders' minds, not God (11.4-8). The fact that the Lord used him is no endorsement or support of any kind. God had even used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to accomplish His purposes—and that's no suggestion of approval, affirmation, or endorsement of their attitudes or behaviors. Jephthah was as much a mixture of nobility and stupidity, of good intentions and sin, as Samson.

The exact nature of Jephthah's vow is a matter of continual debate, not a "clear cut" event. Obviously some, as yourself, see it as a human sacrifice; others, with just as cogent an argument, see it as committing his daughter to perpetual virginity. In favor of the second possibility (perpetual virginity), I offer the following evidence:

• The text emphasizes her perpetual virginity (37). His daughter and her friends mourn that she will not marry (37-39).
• Child sacrifice was contrary to the Mosaic Law, was expressly forbidden, and was virtually nonexistent in Israel (Lev. 18.21; 20.2-5; Dt. 12.31). It is inconceivable that if Jephthah were really God-fearing that he could have supposed he would please the Lord by perpetuating such a known crime and abomination. He seems to have quite a good grasp of Israelite history (vv. 14-27), so there is reason to believe he is versed in the Law.
• There is no evidence in Israel that any Israelite ever offered human sacrifice prior to the days of Ahaz (743-728 BC). At the time (c. 1100 BC), there is no evidence of human sacrifice even among the Canaanites.
• If Jephthah knew the Law of Moses (which Judges 11.30-31 might indicate), he may have been thinking of Leviticus 27—the law about vows. If he met a human being on his return: in the case of his daughter, she would be committed to lifelong service in the tabernacle (according to Lev. 27.1-8). If another person, he could redeem that individual at the appropriate price. If it were an unclean animal, it would be sold; if it were a clean animal, it would be slaughtered (Lev. 27).
• The daughter is pretty casual about being killed (Judges 11.36-39).
• It would have been impossible for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering according to the Law. Blood burnt offerings, in which the victim was slaughtered, could only be offered by priests on the altar at the tabernacle. It is untenable that a priest of God would denounce the law and kill a human.
• There is no indication in the text that Jephthah was anything but a logical, intelligent man.
• Israelite women dedicated to serving in the temple was common (Ex. 38.8; 1 Sam. 2.22).

I am also aware that a case can be made for her sacrifice. My point is: it's not clear cut. There are more problems (textually, historically, and culturally) in suggesting he killed her than in that he dedicated her.

> The moral of the story is that "breaking a vow to Yahweh" is a greater offense than "sacrificing your child to Yahweh."

This is FAR from the moral of the story. The morals of this story are more accurately:

• God may (and often does) choose unlikely people through whom to work.
• God at times lets us suffer the awful consequences of our decision, which sometimes affect others as well.
• God can bring victory despite the weaknesses of His people.
• We should seek to honor God as we serve Him so that we don't suffer the consequences of our foolishness.
• God upholds His part of the covenant despite the apostasy of people.