1 Samuel 15 and justice

An example that I have seen cited many times throughout the forum (most recently in the Islam does not hate christianity thread) regarding God's sense of justice or condoning of murder/genocide is 1 Samuel 15. Since it would be, in all cases I've encountered, off-topic to delve further into it within the existing conversation, I felt that a new thread to discuss it would be appropriate.1 Samuel 15:1-3 (from the King James Version*) states: In the above-mentioned thread's Message 25, Faith states: ...and... My question is the very same presented so often in such threads: How is it just to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass", even when not all are guilty of the crime they are to be punished for? How is it ever just to punish the innocent for the crimes of those close to them?Furthermore, how would it be detrimental to the lesson Faith describes if the "infant and suckling" had not been punished, but only those guilty of the original crime? In the one case, one may be punished simply for existing in the wrong place at the wrong time; wouldn't it send a stronger message about the "nature and consequences of sin" if only those actually guilty of that specific sin were punished - if punishment were a direct result of sinning rather than a possible result of something as uncontrollable as one's heritage?(Sorry for the vaguery about the nature of the sin... I am unclear - I've heard both argued - as to whether the sin was the attack itself or the failure to repent, the latter of which I believe is used to explain the centuries between the crime and the punishment. In either case, however, many who were innocent of the crime appear to have received punishment; the only difference lies in how many.)*From BibleGateway.com's Passage Lookup feature for this, in case you'd like to see the same passage from another version.{Edited to slightly - but significantly, in terms of meaning - change the phrasing of one sentence.This message has been edited by Morte, 02-24-2005 01:26 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi, I would say that this is more a historical practicality than a theological aspect of justice.This is essentially what is know as the 'ban', where the invading force would wipe out everything living in the invaded settlement. it was essentially making a statement 'don't mess with us'.The Mesha Stele is an external source that reflects the use of the 'ban'.And Kemosh said to me, "Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kemosh. Of course, the Israelites never do anything without yahweh being involved so they justify the ban of Jericho for instance to Yahweh's command to Joshua.The Mesha Stele illustrates the existence of this action in other cultures quite well, Mesha even dedicates the ban to Kemosh.It was not unusual for the type of slaughter described in 1 Samuel to occur in the ancient near east, and it wasn't unique to the Israelites at all.Brian.

More from the Islam does not hate christianity thread: So then, how many acts of good must one do before all actions one commits are automatically good in nature? The demonstration that God commits good, merciful, and reasonable deeds proves only that God can commit good, merciful, and reasonable deeds - not that everything He does is inherently good, merciful, or reasonable. I would argue that the adoration of this God in the psalms of David as a God of kindness, mercy, and justice, expressed also by Moses and the prophets, is inconsistent with the idea of a God who slaughters "infant and suckling" for a crime they played no part in. What is inconsistent about claiming that a kind, merciful, just God would not punish someone for a crime they did not commit?(Faith, if you do happen upon this thread, I would actually be much more interested in your answer to the second question in the original post ("Furthermore, how would..."), if the moral lesson were the reason for God's actions in this case.)

But what I'm questioning is the claim that God's order of such acts was just or moral. Practicality is irrelevant - morality is what's in question. Similar to the recent (it might have been a few months ago) debate about God's "instructions for slavery".If it had not been a direct statement from God and the killing of innocents had been a mistake on their part, I could see where what you say comes into play. But in the verses cited, God clearly stated, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

I'd like to inject two things into this threaad.First, I hope you'll remember that the Bible must be read with an understanding of the time and culture of the writers and the contemporary audience. For example, the slaughter that we find so egregious would not have been seen in the same light at the time.A second point is that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It is a series of morality stories as well as history and social comment. Not only did the people of the time view those things differently (similar to the attitude differences between the photographer and the painter), but various plot devices were used to make a point.Please consider the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. The moral of the tale is that you must keep your word and value family over wealth, but the plot device is that all of the children are carried off. The punishment is way in excess of the harm done to the Piper.So there are two considerations. It's not inconceivable that acts that we consider barbaric today really happened and would not have seemed as barbaric to the people of the time. Second, it is also possible that what actually happened (if it happened at all) is being exaggerated to provide a plot device to present a morality play.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you then, for the purpose of this discussion, assuming that there is a God who actually said those words?I was suggesting that God's command was invented by the author to justify the action.But the standard answer you will get is that God is just and is not subject to our idea of morality. If God said to slaughter everyone then he would have a just reason for doing so.Silly isn't it?But we'll see how the theists deal with it, sorry for the misunderstanding.Brian.

quote:

---

Are you then, for the purpose of this discussion, assuming that there is a God who actually said those words?

​

I was suggesting that God's command was invented by the author to justify the action.

---

Ah, I see now. I have quite a knack for missing the obvious.I believe similarly, and am making such an assumption for the sake of discussion.

quote:

---

But the standard answer you will get is that God is just and is not subject to our idea of morality. If God said to slaughter everyone then he would have a just reason for doing so.

---

Yes, that's pretty much what I expect. But I'm hoping that at least some might understand why I (or berberry, who I believe is the one who brought it up in the first place) can't believe in a just, benevolent God who would commit such an atrocity - and why I find it horrifying that so many would try to defend such a crime on the basis of the being that perpetrated it.

quote:

---

First, I hope you'll remember that the Bible must be read with an understanding of the time and culture of the writers and the contemporary audience. For example, the slaughter that we find so egregious would not have been seen in the same light at the time.

---

But even so, isn't the morality of God Himself supposed to be constant?

quote:

---

A second point is that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. It is a series of morality stories as well as history and social comment. Not only did the people of the time view those things differently (similar to the attitude differences between the photographer and the painter), but various plot devices were used to make a point.

---

Again, I share a similar view but am taking the view of a literal Bible as granted for the sake of discussion with those who make claims such as "God ordered specific annihilations for specific purposes of justice." (Message 12)

I can't help you then. I can't understand their position either. LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I finally got to your post on the Islam thread and read your post here where you say you'd be most interested in my answer to the following

quote:

---

Furthermore, how would it be detrimental to the lesson Faith describes if the "infant and suckling" had not been punished, but only those guilty of the original crime? In the one case, one may be punished simply for existing in the wrong place at the wrong time; wouldn't it send a stronger message about the "nature and consequences of sin" if only those actually guilty of that specific sin were punished - if punishment were a direct result of sinning rather than a possible result of something as uncontrollable as one's heritage?

---

I think it has to do with what God said in the ten commandments about visiting the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generations of the children, which I said on that thread too.This is about temporal judgments, however. We ARE judged individually when it comes to salvation and the Final Judgment.Also, I don't claim to understand the passage myself completely, though I understand the main idea. But then I'm a believer who is thoroughly convinced that we are talking about the God who made all things and who is a wise God to be absolutely trusted. Therefore I don't judge Him when I encounter something that bothers or offends me, I assume I don't know enough to understand it and that maybe I never will either, but that God is always righteous and just. The wisdom of God is way above us.I looked up some commentaries on the verse but none of them discusses the issue you are raising, which is a bit odd since of course the idea of such a punishment generally upsets people. You can go to Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible and when you get to the verse click on "L" among the blue boxes to the left of the verse to get the commentaries. I read through Matthew Henry, Jamieson Fausset and Brown and David Guzik's commentaries on that verse and none mentions people's typical moral outrage at this command. They all do discuss the reason for the action, however, and David Guzik quotes another commentator about how they had been warned hundreds of years before and didn't repent so one shouldn't feel sorry for them.As for how would it be detrimental to the lesson, it wouldn't be the same lesson if the lesson is that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children.Overall, as I was saying to somebody on that other thread, you can't start out by subjecting God in certain of his actions to your untutored judgements, but must start by getting to know God in His overall character which you can only do with much study. At least read all the history UP TO 1 Samuel 15 to get the background. So many seem to trust their own impulsive reactions on first encountering a difficult passage, with no sense of the overall context of the Bible. Of course that is not always true, some people learn the whole Bible and still have their same reactions, and I suppose ultimately you do have to be a believer, you have to believe that God is God and that God is good and that God inspired the Bible. If you don't believe that then you are going to trust your own reactions instead, and there's really no way to talk anyone out of them, but at least I can present the other view of it.I was put off by many things in the Bible when I first became a believer, but I WAS a believer so as I continued to learn over the next few years more and more of the Bible made sense to me. For instance I disliked the Book of Proverbs at first encounter, and I couldn't make sense out of the Book of Esther or Ruth. Now Proverbs is one of my favorites, wonderful wisdom about how to live one's life which I'd been far from living up to before becoming a believer, which is why I had disliked the book. Esther and Ruth made sense after studying commentaries on them. Point is that God's wisdom is not exactly our wisdom. It has to be learned.

quote:

---

More from the Islam does not hate christianity thread:

​

And it is rather absurd for people to ignore the whole history of God's dealings with Abraham and his family, which demonstrate a God who is good, merciful and reasonable as well as fearsome in His power and strict moral commands, to condemn God for His standards of justice instead of having the humility to learn from Him. {Emphasis added.}

​

So then, how many acts of good must one do before all actions one commits are automatically good in nature? The demonstration that God commits good, merciful, and reasonable deeds proves only that God can commit good, merciful, and reasonable deeds - not that everything He does is inherently good, merciful, or reasonable.

---

The overall Bible teaches that God is inherently good, merciful and reasonable -- as well as a God of severe judgments against sin. It's not about how many acts, it's about coming to know God's character, believing that God is God, is our Creator; also that we are made in His image but have fallen, that is, since our first parents disobeyed we all inherit both a propensity to sin and such a distance from God that we no longer intuit His presence or understand His wisdom. This is why He gave us a written revelation, to make up for our deficits. That in itself is an act of goodness and mercy. His goodness and mercy are also shown in His very revelation of the grounds on which He makes His judgments for sin, as a warning to us.

quote:

---

The adoration of this God in the psalms of David as a God of kindness, mercy and justice, expressed also by Moses and the prophets, is inconsistent with the idea of God you denounce.
----
I would argue that the adoration of this God in the psalms of David as a God of kindness, mercy, and justice, expressed also by Moses and the prophets, is inconsistent with the idea of a God who slaughters "infant and suckling" for a crime they played no part in. What is inconsistent about claiming that a kind, merciful, just God would not punish someone for a crime they did not commit?

---

You must submit your will to His. That's the only way back to God. As long as you put your own judgments above His you'll never get it. Have you ever thought of asking Him to teach you about these things? If you sincerely want to understand He'll definitely guide you.

quote:

---

(Faith, if you do happen upon this thread, I would actually be much more interested in your answer to the second question in the original post ("Furthermore, how would..."), if the moral lesson were the reason for God's actions in this case.)

---

Done.

Think about this just for a minute or two, please. Your ancestors, Faith, were likely warned repeatedly hundreds of years ago by their religious leaders about the ills that would ensue from letting their slaves go free, or borrowing money at interest, or how man was never intended by his creator to fly or to travel faster than a horse could carry him. But you probably violate all of these warnings - I know I do. So this should suggest that our grandkids be slaughtered, correct?I've always thought apologetics was lame, but this bit of it is quadraplegic and deaf and blind, besides.

quote:

---

But I'm hoping that at least some might understand why I (or berberry, who I believe is the one who brought it up in the first place) can't believe in a just, benevolent God who would commit such an atrocity - and why I find it horrifying that so many would try to defend such a crime on the basis of the being that perpetrated it.

---

That's very easy to understand. We all have our objections to God because we're "fallen" or "fleshly." "The flesh is enmity to God" taught Paul. What's hard is overcoming our natural reactions to learn about something higher. (It's not SO hard, however, if you trust in Christ and constantly seek His enlightenment.)

quote:

---

however, and David Guzik quotes another commentator about how they had been warned hundreds of years before and didn't repent so one shouldn't feel sorry for them.

---

Well that's one totally nonBiblical list of "warnings" there. Sure there are hidebound and superstitious ideas people get from their current cultural context, but certainly not from the Bible.Amalek was guilty of murderous raids on the Israelites over centuries. Quite another kettle of fish.

quote:

---

I've always thought apologetics was lame, but this bit of it is quadraplegic and deaf and blind, besides.

---

Oh well.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-26-2005 21:54 AM