Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus

[Willie Henders]

> You call the SWAT team, the DEA, the National Guard, AND the local police, and you take the school out.

This is exactly my point when I said that you as Principal have hundreds of different options to separate these classrooms. Include in these options the ability to call down fire from heaven to destroy entire cities, kill with plague, poisonous snakes, swallow with sand, or even something as simple as turning all the "bad" classrooms against each other so they wipe each other out.

The option you posted does not involve ordering the "good" kindergarten kids to slaughter all the other kids.

[jimwalton]

This is good. Now that we have the conversation to this point, I can be more specific about what actually happened in ancient Israel. Thanks for your interest to this point.

There are two points of reality to the historic situation of the conquest that are pertinent to our discussion

First and predominantly, the point of the conquest was not to kill people, but to destroy their false religion. No one really had to die—that wasn't the purpose. The problem was false and destructive religion and deity falsely construed. At the starting point, it was clear that God intended to bless all the nations of the earth, not kill them off for not being Israel (Gn. 12.3; Lev. 19.34; Dt. 10.18-19, et al.). Secondly, the Bible makes it clear that God's intent was not to wipe out people groups, but to wipe out destructive religious practices and fabricated understandings of truth as it is found in God (Dt. 7.3-5; 12.2-3Ex. 34.12-13). God repeatedly expresses a willingness to relent from punishment (killing) and preserve those who acknowledge his evident rule over the nations (Jer. 18.8, for example).

Secondly, the cities were just soldiers and governmental officials. When the Israelites conquered the cities, they weren't slaughtering populations. They were killing soldiers and kings. Here was the strategy: approach a city and make an offer of peace. If the people were willing to drop their weapons, and be integrated into Israel (viz., follow the true God), it was done. No bloodshed. If the people were determined to fight, the goal was to drive them out of the land (Num. 21.32; Dt. 9.1; 11.23; 18.14; 19.1, etc.), not kill them off. Killing only happened when killing was forced upon them. All cooperative people were spared; all rebels were at risk.

As it turns out, the Canaanites were incorrigible and incalcitrant, and they were wicked beyond imagination: incest, child sacrifice, cultic prostitution, and cultures of violence. They didn't just make peace with Israel, but were violently opposed to them. This is where the SWAT team and the military come in. Until the enemy is subdued, the enemy will strike. Your "good kids" are always in danger until the situation has been constrained. As the world is learning with ISIS, sometimes the only way to suppress violence is with justifiable force.

[Willie Henders]

If God's intent was to wipe out false religions then God failed. He was more successful in wiping out things when he did it Himself with no assistance from man. Why is God no longer interested in wiping out false religion by force?

If God knew the future or could have reasonably predicted the future, he would have known the people would die. He would have known exactly what the response would be from the Canaanites before he decided upon a course of action. If God formed this plan, with foreknowledge of the future, killing was the plan all along. "If they surrender" is not a legitimate concept for someone who knows the future.

And again, if God decided he needed to use force to protect His people or to wipe out false religion, He had hundreds of options. Directing man to kill another man is only one of those options and is counter productive to an effort to civilize His people.

[jimwalton]

> If God's intent was to wipe out false religions then God failed.

The effort did fail. The people didn't obey him. Judges 1.28-36. The book of Judges is about the corrupting presence of those people.

> Why is God no longer interested in wiping out false religion by force?

It was just related to taking the land, but the principles are good to this day (not the killing part): False religions are a corrupting influence on the truth. Don't align yourself with things that aren't true. You'll notice in the Bible that after the conquest, Israel was never again commanded by the Lord to fight an offensive battle. Ever.

Did God know people would die? Sure. But death is always the judgment for sin. None of us will live much beyond 90 years. Even natural death is the judgment for sin. But no one had to die. The Canaanites chose to fight.

[Willie Henders]

> The effort did fail. The people didn't obey him. Judges 1.28-36. The book of Judges is about the corrupting presence of those people.

If a particular effort is God's plan, and God knows the future, and the plan fails, then it had to be God's plan for the effort to fail all along. How is an omniscient God's plan twarted by man?

> " Why is God no longer interested in wiping out false religion by force?" It was just related to taking the land, but the principles are good to this day (not the killing part): False religions are a corrupting influence on the truth. Don't align yourself with things that aren't true. You'll notice in the Bible that after the conquest, Israel was never again commanded by the Lord to fight an offensive battle. Ever.

Where does free will fit into this?

> Did God know people would die? Sure. But death is always the judgment for sin. None of us will live much beyond 90 years. Even natural death is the judgment for sin. But no one had to die. The Canaanites chose to fight.

If God knew the future, then the plan was to kill the Canaanites. What actually occurred is the only thing that could have possibly occurred. God wasn't caught by surprise when the Canaanites refused to surrender. Which brings us back to God ordering "good" men to kill "bad" men when God had so many other options.

[jimwalton]

> If a particular effort is God's plan, and God knows the future, and the plan fails, then it had to be God's plan for the effort to fail all along. How is an omniscient God's plan thwarted by man?

Let me try to explain it using this example. Ephesians 1.4 says, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world..." This teaches that God knew that Adam and Eve were going to fail, despite what he would have wanted alternatively, and understanding that they had complete free will in making their choice, God knew they would make the wrong choice, fail, and fall. In preparation for that choice, since he could not conscientiously interfere with their free will, had a plan in place before creation ever happened, to redeem their failure.

The difference is between planning a failure, and knowing it's going to happen. In the Lord of the Rings, King Denethor sent his son, Faramir, down to the port to battle the incoming orcs. We all, even the king, knew the plan was going to fail, but that doesn't mean anyone planned for the effort to fail all along. There is a substantial difference between the knowledge of what may be obvious and having determined the outcome.

God's plan, as you can see in Eph. 1.4, was not thwarted by man's failure. He knew of the failure and made a plan to redeem it, even before creation was begun.

> Where does free will fit into this?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll try. The Canaanites had free will to turn to the living God. Rahab did (Josh. 2.8-14; 6.22-25). The Gibeonites did (Josh. 9). Anyone could have; it was their choice. And as I mentioned, the goal was to drive them out, not to necessarily kill them (Dt. 7.1-6). Free will fits into the whole picture, but maybe I'm not understanding the direction of your question.

> If God knew the future, then the plan was to kill the Canaanites. What actually occurred is the only thing that could have possibly occurred. God wasn't caught by surprise when the Canaanites refused to surrender.

Again, Plan #1: That the Canaanites turn to the real God, be converted, and join Israel as God-fearing people. Plan #2: If they won't surrender and turn, drive them out of the land. Plan #3: If they won't convert and won't leave, but make war against you, make war back. That was the PLAN. The reality is that almost all of the Canaanite city-states jumped right to option 3. It was only the plan in the sense that it was the last alternative, but it is certainly not the only thing that could have possibly occurred. Jonah 3 is instructive in this way, and so also Jer. 18.1-10.

[Willie Henders]

> Plan #1: That the Canaanites turn to the real God, be converted, and join Israel as God-fearing people. Plan #2: If they won't surrender and turn, drive them out of the land. Plan #3: If they won't convert and won't leave, but make war against you, make war back. That was the PLAN. The reality is that almost all of the Canaanite city-states jumped right to option 3. It was only the plan in the sense that it was the last alternative, but it is certainly not the only thing that could have possibly occurred.

A plan made by an omniscient God cannot include an "if". If they do (A) or if they do (B) or if they do (C) does not exist to someone who knows the future.

An omniscient diety's plan would be I will say this and they will do this and then I will do this. There is no reaction to their response, there is only a plan.

[jimwalton]

Now this I have to disagree with this strongly on biblical terms.

Deut. 29.11-20: If you walk in God's ways, then you will... But if you turn your heart away...then I will.

Jeremiah 18.5-12: A strong statement refuting what you are claiming.

Jonah 3: the city repented, and God changed his plan.

These are three of MANY such examples. God's specific policy is to ebb and flow with human decision.

[Willie Henders]

> These are three of MANY such examples. God's specific policy is to ebb and flow with human decision.

I agree that there are many examples in the Bible indicating God does not know the future.

[jimwalton]

Interesting perspective, interpreting God's willingness to consider human changes as ignorance on his part. Suppose your boss says to you, "You've been late to work 5 times. Once more and you're fired." Now it's up to you. If you show up on time, you can build back up your cushion of trust. If you blow him off, you're out.

God says, "I will love those who come to me for a relationship, and if you rebel against me, you will be met with the harsh judgment you deserve." So, someone who has been rebelling decides to change their ways, and God says, "OK, then, as promised, I won't judge you." And you claim that's evidence of God's ignorance. After all the conversations we've had, that to me is astounding.

It seems that you misunderstand the nature of prophecy. First of all, the predictive element in biblical prophecy has to be kept distinct from causation, or else it ceases to be predictive. Prophets weren't predicting anything, but merely giving the word of the Lord. The prophecy is God's message, not the prophet's. If predicting is understood to preclude causation, then God cannot predict, for he is the first cause and the final cause. Rather than regarding prophecy as prediction, it is more helpful to consider it as "God's syllabus." The syllabus for a course doesn't "predict" what will happen in each class period of the term, but presents the instructor's plans and intentions for each period. The significance of the document is that the instructor is in a position to carry it out. Likewise, when a judge passes a sentence on a convicted criminal, he is not "predicting" what will happen to that person. Rather, he is decreeing what ought to be done and is in a position to see that it is done. In prophetic literature, God is declaring his intentions and decreeing his judgments. To accuse God of ignorance is to miss the point entirely.