Answering An Atheist
Original arguments are found in the post “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories”
On the web site “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP)
Author – Transplanted Lawyer (TL)
This post is number four in a continuing discussion on the conflict between Israel and Moab/Midian as recorded in the Book of Numbers, chapters 22-25 and 31. The original observations – complaints – regarding this event are made by TL which can be read here (number one on his list of ten). My first response is here and his first counter is here.
Because TL is widely read and has an exceptionally quick mind I consider it a privilege to have him as a sparring partner. No doubt his abilities will suit him well for the bench should his aspirations in that regard be realized. His quick thinking has made me sharpen my game.
The discussion with him is incisive without insult and firm but in a respectful way. I know you will enjoy the read also.
Suffice it to say that the event under discussion seems particularly gruesome. It was war and war is never nice even under the best of circumstances. As TL and countless others have pointed out, a certain number of deaths are expected but in the case of Midian it seems a bit extreme. The entire community was destroyed, even young boys, with the exception of virgin girls. I can’t imagine anyone not being disturbed by it.
Obviously, because God was involved in this situation – He ordered the counter attack in the first place – it is easy to assume that everything Moses ordered was exactly God’s plan. I don’t presume to understand everything God does but I do believe there are reasons He should not be implicated every time difficulties arise. He is a third party, sometimes silently so, and we must at least try to see where the fault lines lay before assuming His guilt. Previously I have suggested that Moses acted in the extreme and went beyond God’s original intent.
My primary arguments are:
- Israel was not the aggressor.
- The intentions of Moab/Midian were clearly violent but their strategy was cleverly deceptive. They tried to divine a curse on Israel and when that failed they used wile, enticing them with their sexually oriented religion, to demoralize them. The second plan worked but not sufficiently enough to destroy Israel’s or God’s resolve.
- God ordered the attack on Midian but did not specify the extent to which it should be executed.
- The women who were destroyed were frontline soldiers or spies, not collateral damage or the subjects of a genocidal frenzy. Without them the ruse would not have been effective. His order to execute them, therefore, is not completely without justification.
- I have argued that the order to destroy every male came from Moses not God. This is the real issue.
Everyone is very quick to take the Midianite side and speak of their anguish but not fair minded enough to spread that love around, ascribing to Israel (and God) a venomous nature. The truth is, Israelites were just as human as any and “rising above” was sometimes out of reach for them as well. Israel had very good reason to be hurting from this event and it doesn’t take a degree in psychology to figure it out.
It was only because Midianites were distant relatives of Moses and because Israel’s first encounter with a Midianite (Jethro – Moses’ father-in-law) was positive that the ruse was as effective as it was.
It is not unreasonable to see this was personal for Moses and it isn’t strange that his response would be so vengeful.
As mentioned previously, his worst characteristic was his anger and it had gotten him into trouble on more than one occasion. He also had a tendency to take action impulsively and God pronounced a final judgment on Moses as recent as Numbers 20. He was to die before entering the promised land and Joshua would take his place.
Even as God gave the order to counter Midian aggression He reminded Moses that he would be removed from the scene following the battle. I’m sure that reminder laid heavily on his mind. It doesn’t justify his actions but it does explain it.
In his rebuttal TL makes additional suggestions which I would like to answer here:
If God didn’t order the destruction of the Midianite boys why didn’t He say something to censure it?
TL’s exact words are:
Nowhere in the text does Jehovah call Moses out for having given that order nor can we find a single jot or line that suggests that Moses was not — as he had usually done for forty years — speaking as Jehovah’s prophet and delegate.
He is both right and wrong in this observation. One, God said absolutely nothing in response to this order but silence can be read either way, endorsement or condemnation.
And, it would have been at least condescending and at most intellectually insulting for God to give a full response to every action, faulty or otherwise, in every incident in the Bible. If He had, the Bible would be as extensive as legal journals today and no individual could possibly access the entire text.
Additionally, if Moses’ actions were so reprehensible, and we both agree they were, why would God have to tell us that.
If, as TL says, we are capable of isolating the moral ground without having it specifically pointed out – I agree with that also – then maybe we should see God’s silence as respecting that moral capacity instead of grousing about.
For the same reason, Jesus didn’t re-explain in the New Testament everything previously established in the Old.
What we understand from this, however, is that God respects every person’s ability to think through the issues individually – exactly what TL and every other unbeliever claims to want.
Besides, no worse punishment could be levied. Moses was about to die and be taken out of the picture. A slap on the hand would serve no purpose. By the way, the fact that God allows us to see the faults of His primary servants speaks for the Bible not against it. If Moses was the primary author I doubt he would have included the bad parts.
Additionally, there isn’t one spiritual leader in the Bible who was one hundred percent compliant with God or the Bible or our opinions about morality and there isn’t one who got away with his failure, premeditated or not.
Further, there isn’t a person who has the ability to comply completely with morality. Understanding what is morally acceptable – the easy part – is not the same as living with it. All people are imperfect – not equally – so God worked with people whose actions were not always agreeable. We shouldn’t blame God for the wrong these people do.
Next TL gets to what he refers to as the “core of the issue” and, based on Plato’s Euthyphro, offers only two possibilities:
- We are moral because we obey the command of God (arbitrary and capricious).
- Or we please God because we obey the dictates of morality (objective)
Philosophical discussion stemming from the story suggests that the second option, which most sensible people would agree is the better option, would make morality separate to and apart from God. It’s a long discussion but the logical conclusion is, because morality is objective and separate to God, then God is also subject to morality and therefore not sovereign. Or, that is the philosophical conclusion.
But, before you go to seed on this apparently enlightening discussion please remember that this is philosophical thinking at its best, which is always a bit suspect. There are hundreds of philosophical schools of thought, most of which don’t agree, some of which are diametrically opposed, all of which are fostered by brilliant people, each one aiming to disprove the other and none are absolutely conclusive. If you think I’m overstating the point please read The Free Dictionary reference to philosophy. I enjoy philosophical discussions but have sense enough not worship any.
Therefore, philosophically speaking, I see no problem with God being the architect of morality and even more, morality being the very essence of God.
TL recognizes this and says, if “objective morality exists and Jehovah always conforms to that objective morality — then we should be able to look at the Massacre of the Midianites and find, at some level of abstraction, a valid moral justification for what is described in the Bible.”
We agree but it must be allowed that “morality” is very precise and unbending while “human moral responses” are anything but. The Midianite struggle was ugly and involved rights and wrongs on both sides. The moral high ground for humanity will always be less than the moral absolute.
God must be seen as an independent person who is only one of three parties involved and He does nothing to overrule free will. Those inclined to find fault, complain when He takes action AND when He doesn’t. In this particularly case, God started the action and humans took His order to the extreme. Field soldiers, not their commanding officers, are court-martialed for violating human rights.
Of course, God is still implicated by the actions of people even though we are advanced enough legally to know that second parties are not tried for the crimes of first parties though they do suffer the ignominy of it. I am sure God is at times embarrassed.
“Slavery”
TL takes particular issue with the idea of slavery in the Old Testament – or at any time – and I actually appreciate his perspective. He says,
This war crime Ennis would domesticate because the Hebrews took all the loot and then divided it up “lawfully” amongst themselves. Lawfully? Didn’t that stuff “lawfully” belong to the Midianites? As for the young girls who survived, I’m sure it was a great consolation to them to see their families possessions divided up amongst their new owners after the niceties of procedural due process had been observed. And I’m sure it was also a great comfort to them to know that their possessions would be used to rebuild their city and they would benefit from this new exploitation of what had once been theirs — because they could rest assured that their new owners were going to be so gosh-darned benevolent to them after having slaughtered their parents and brothers.
I would never wish to give a blanket endorsement to the institution of slavery but in antiquity it did, on occasion, manifest some humane qualities. Statutes in the Law of Moses provided slaves equal rights and encouraged their eventual freedom. If the law had been observed strictly slavery would have eventually vanish, at least in Israel. Obviously, I haven’t made my point on the issue clear. Briefly stated, however, please consider the following:
- Slavery was a reality then and for a long time to come afterward. The Hebrews didn’t initiate it but they couldn’t very well avoid it. The Bible indicates they were subjected to it several times. The Roman Empire had a slave-based economy and they weren’t the first. The best way to eliminate an institution completely is to deal with it gradually and humanely.
- Secondly, and very importantly, the term “slave” was not defined in the narrow abusive way we view it today. Even in Egypt and other cultures of the day, allowances were made for the advancement of slaves.
- Benevolence was actually written in the Law of Moses. The word wasn’t used but the spirit was obviously expressed. I won’t repeat everything I’ve said previously but one thing not mentioned was the “bond servant” status. Slavery in Israel was never eternal. It was always viewed as temporary and slaves were expected to eventually earn their independence. That much is specifically stated. But, at the point of independence they could make the choice to sign on permanently as the servant of their master. That is, they could permanently seal their status with that particular master. The question is, If ill treatment and abuse were the norm why would any one choose this option?
- Also, we are still slaves today but we call it “employed” or “mortgaged.” There is little difference between employment today and much of servanthood of yesteryear. We clock in at eight and out at five. We get very little time for vacation and jobs require us to maintain standards of living which leave little for getting ahead. And we think this is the norm. Yes, we choose these things but slavery is slavery whether we choose it or not.
And I don’t think I referred to the division of the Midianite resources as “lawful.” I was merely pointing out that the usual accusation – brawling, drunken, orgy-like pillaging – imposed on the text is not there. If anything the Israelites seemed reserved, almost ceremonial.
What I didn’t point out is Israel’s immediate response to the failure. After giving in to the Midianite ruse the next five chapters (Numbers 26-30) describe them getting reorganized within themselves and realigned with God before proceeding with the counter attack. They took time to remember who they were, who they represented and what their national purpose was. Their counter was reasonable and deliberate, Moses’ order put it in a bad light.
I’ll admit that it couldn’t have been a nice experience for any of the people involved, the victors or the captives, and I do believe excesses occurred. I also admit that Christians tend to be a bit glib in discussing events of this nature but that doesn’t excuse suggesting things that aren’t really there.
Historical integrity of the text
TL makes much of my use of the word “fact” and seems to playfully jests about this. I don’t mind the jesting. Actually I enjoy a good laugh, even at my expense but I’m not sure it serves a purpose.
I understand and accept that he sees the entire text of Scripture, or at least the better part of it, as legend and I have admitted that my intent is not to argue “authenticity.” But, why have a discussion regarding the Bible if we aren’t at least going to stay true to the text.
My use of the word “fact” therefore, refers to two things: what the text actually says and what can be verified historically.
One historical point TL questions, however, concerns the violent militaristic nature of the BAME and he refers particularly to variations in dates to prove the “facts” are not substantiated. I think it’s a smoke screen.
The facts regarding violence in those days is well substantiated and scholars such as Steven Pinker have made the point very nicely and his thesis is, as bad as we are today, they were worse then. The violence may not have happened on this particular day or that but it happened the way it is described in the Bible and there is not doubt the Hebrews had to constantly watch their back. As far as I know, Steven does not believe the Bible either, though he seems conversant with the details.
What that means is, the conflicts mentioned in the Bible, even if you question the validity of the text does not misrepresent the atmosphere of the area or the manners of the people.
TL, I’m not stretching the facts and to argue otherwise just confuses the issue.
Again, TL does mention the Exodus, suggesting that there is absolutely no proof. I would say otherwise and in a previous post referred to sites that offered proofs. But, a good question to ask is, “what would you be willing to accept as proof?” Before you answer, be warned. I’m pretty sure you won’t find a stone inscribed with:
“Yes! The Exodus really happened. Believe it!”
And, as far as oral tradition goes, since the Bible has a written record of the event – and it is a recognized document of antiquity – it would be a little silly to find all the neighbors with their own version. Oral traditions usually thrive when written records don’t exist and besides there is no way to frame this event in a way that doesn’t favor Israel. I’m pretty sure none of the neighbors would want to do that.
For that reason, I’m sure the Egyptians wouldn’t have left details of their spanking by Israel lying around in the sand. If anyone thinks otherwise I would really enjoy hearing your thoughts. I promise they will be respected even if not accepted.
Diplomatic Evangelism
I really got a kick out of the next few observations. They were fun, to say the least.
TL suggests that maybe the religious engagement was, at best, a diplomatic way to develop an agreeably constructive relationship with Israel saying, “in that generally polytheistic world, the sharing of worship was a method of diplomacy.”
Well, they did have common elements in the various religious traditions but those elements were usually “imposed” not diplomatically shared. Religion in those days was forced on you. There was no choice involved and victors regularly imposed their spiritual devotions on those they conquered. They also didn’t allow “personal convictions.” The prominent religion was the only religion and the head of state represented God directly, in some cases was considered God. Moses and Israel would have been viewed as a direct threat.
Your suggestion might be imposing on the BAME the perspective which prevails in the United States. One which champions religious freedom and has fostered one of the most pluralistic communities in the world.
We have to wonder why the Midianites of Moab got involved with the local sexual traditions. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, a Midianite, wasn’t involved in these licentious practices, why the Midianites of Moab? Was this forced on them?
Even if religion was normally used as a peaceful diplomatic tool, there is nothing in the text to suggest that their original intent, destruction, had changed.
But in stretching the point – way beyond just making it – TL refers to their efforts as “evangelism” and suggests the consequences for aggressive evangelism in that day, annihilation, should be considered for our day. His remarks are clearly hyperbole and I got a kick out of it but it just doesn’t apply.
Evangelism happens one person to another not nation to nation. Done on a national level it is viewed as undermining national security. If you don’t think so, try setting franchises in Saudi Arabia specializing in ham sandwiches and draught beer.
This was an act of war and everything in the text points in that direction. We can surmise about possibilities but the Moabites, Midianites and Balaam were in league to destroy Israel. If they wanted peace they could have said so when Israel first arrived on the scene. Others tried that approach and were honored for it. Instead they were secretive and underhanded and suffered for it in the end.
Remember this, in God’s original instructions, neither the Moabites nor Midianites had been singled out for destruction and they may have been left alone had they not manipulated the peaceful state of Israel. Instead of honoring Israelite sovereignty they chose to undermine them as a nation and EVERY PERSON AGREES THAT ONE NATION INTERFERING WITH ANOTHER EVEN RELIGIOUSLY IS NOT ON. This was not evangelism, diplomacy, peaceful relations or sharing. It was one country trying to undermine the stability of another.
These discussions, obviously, have not answered all the possible questions. Other thoughts will be gladly entertained. Please feel free to suggest ideas you think are pertinent or question those already mentioned.
Although we would like to keep the discussion respectful feel free to rant if you wish.
THINK!AboutIt
All your questions are legit and I admit that this is not an easy issue to sort out. I will think through some of your remarks and address them at a later time. I’m actually in transition right now and have little time to do any thinking. There’s also an issue TL raised that I have been mulling over for quite a while and not entirely happy yet with my response.
Anyway, go well. Hope we’ll talk again.
The problem as I see it isn’t so much that Jehovah allowed Moses to make the decision and give the order; it’s that he failed to punish the perpetrators afterwards (a duty that is implicit under the “prevent future illegal acts” prong). However, since TL already addressed that issue, I won’t rehash it here.
Of larger concern to me is the fact that war was ordered in the first place. Even if your theory is correct, and the Midianites used their women as sexual lures to demoralize the Israelites, that still doesn’t rise to the level of an “act of war” (let alone an act sufficient to justify genocide), nor would the women/children be legitimate *military* targets. Obviously, I am viewing this through the lens of post-WWII international law, and recognize that one could make a relativistic counterargument, but I would again defer to TL on that issue.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to clarify how command responsibility works. Look forward to more from both of you.
Thanks for the visit and the comment Judge Advocate.
I’m not as familiar with the details of the law as you are but I certainly see the sense of commanding officers being held responsible under the conditions you have described.
But, if God was implicated because He is omnipotent and omniscient, obviously meaning He could prevent the problems before they happened, the conflict would have never happened in the first place. Taking the idea to its logical extreme, God could have prevented Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit and no resulting problems would have occurred.
But, then we would have to throw free will and free thought out the window. We wouldn’t need it. God would do all the thinking, make all the decisions and even prevent all the problems that require us to think and make decisions.
On a side note, Ennis’ statement that “Field soldiers, not their commanding officers, are court-martialed for violating human rights” is incorrect. The doctrine of command responsibility, which is well established in international law, holds that a commander can be tried for the illegal acts of his field soldiers when (1) he has knowledge that the illegal act has occurred or will occur, and (2) has power and authority to stop the act or prevent future acts, but (3) does nothing.
Here, even if Moses ordered the slaughter of captured Midianite civilians, Jehovah would bear command responsibility for Moses’ act because Jehovah had knowledge (omniscience) and power to stop it (omnipotence).
Additionally, basic principles of jus ad bellum (legal justifications for war/use of force) bar violence as a response to non-violent acts, even if those acts are malicious, just like I cannot kill you just because you insulted me, stole my property or slept with my wife. This is common sense.
Wicked site, which template are you using if you don’t mind me asking?
I like this article too, its good info.
Cheers
Wow! Nice epic post. Thanks for the interesting facts.
If I were God and I were serious about getting rid of slavery? If I were God, I wouldn’t need to worry about a gradual process of cultural evolution — I’d simply ban the activity I wanted to prohibit for whatever reason and punish people who defied My commandments. So I’d have made buying, selling, or owning a slave punishable with a stern punishment, possibly including death, the same way I did homosexuality and adultery. Possibly with about the same degree of success until My chosen people got serious about obeying Me.
I’d have made it a requirement that any of My chosen people who somehow acquired a slave was required to immediately manumit him or her. Would this impoverish My chosen people? Hardly; they’d have to use paid labor instead of slaves but by paying for labor they’d be freed from the cost of housing, feeding, and clothing said slaves. And their land would become a gathering-place for freed or escaped slaves from around the world, bringing with them all the skills and knowledge that they had acquired elsewhere and getting them integrated into My chosen people — My chosen people would have grown strong and wealthy thanks in no small part to their commitment to freedom and human dignity. Much as free societies did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in real life.
.-= Transplanted Lawyer´s last blog ..Morning Reading =-.
You seem to be particularly hard on Moses after encouraging us in previous posts/comments to be understanding toward Pharaoh.
And the difference? Moses, in a moment of stress following several years of very difficult and trying circumstances, issues an extreme order which everyone probably felt the effects of, and in response to which everyone blanches.
Pharaoh on the other hand forces the Israelites into slave labor and to make things worse systematically murders all male born Israelite children over several decades.
Moses was being human which is forgivable. Pharaoh was calculatingly evil.
One question. You’re God and you want to develop a nation of people who are marred by distasteful but culturally entrenched institutions such as slavery. How would you remedy this?
I’ve no moral difficulty with the idea of punishment for a crime being a restriction of one’s freedom and forced labor. Punishment should be proportional to the crime, but in principle that sort of thing seems morally sanctionable. It is not “slavery” as that term is usually understood, though.
Nor do I take away any suggestion that you or any serious Christian would actually endorse slavery, genocide, or any of the other awful things we’re talking about. My experience with Christians is that those who consider their religion seriously tend to be very moral in their behavior.
Conceded that the Roman invasion of Israel is not an exact parallel, but it’s close enough for our purposes. But not conceded that the Israelites were the aggrieved party here. The Israelites were invading Canaan and now you’re telling me that they didn’t even have a right to this particular area by Jehovah’s mandate. The side that is threatening to invade is the aggressor, not the side that is preparing to defend its territory.
Also not conceded that it couldn’t have been worse for Moses than it already was. Getting to sit at Jesus’ right hand in heaven is a pretty high honor. Getting to at least see the Holy Land despite not being allowed to enter is portrayed as a consolation and solace to Moses before he dies. Moses couldn’t possibly have had faith in Jesus as the Christ, either, to have achieved forgiveness for his sins. Perhaps there was some sort of substitute available to him about which the text is equally as silent as it is when it fails to note that he had sinned at all when he ordered innocent, helpless children to be slaughtered.
Unlike previously, I believe I can offer a sur-rebuttal here with reasonable brevity. You advance two basic premises here, both of which I think deserve critical analysis.
First, you advance the premises that it ought to be patently obvious that Moses ordering the slaughter of the baby Midianite boys was a great moral wrong. So wrong that the author of the Book of Numbers need not even comment on it and we can safely assume Jehovah’s subsequent silence on the issue is indicative of Jehovah’s condemnation rather than approval.
This is not a safe assumption. First, in many other places, the Bible goes out of its way to demonstrate Jehovah’s moral condemnation of many things that are both obviously and non-obviously immoral. David is condemned by Jehovah for his sins regarding Bathsheba; we get several chapters of this in 2 Samuel — and David is ultimately punished by Jehovah inspiring David’s son to rape the king’s other concubines. Let me suggest that David’s conduct with Bathsheba and Uriah is also immoral in a patently obvious sort of way (less bloody than Moses’ conduct in the story in question, but just as clearly wrong) and this seemed to have been a point worth belaboring in the literature.
If the evil nature of Moses’ order is so patently obvious that it need not even be condemned, then of course, we are using our own moral judgment rather than looking to Jehovah to be the judge of morality. That, as I have argued elsewhere, is a grave sin within the context of Biblical morality. Alternatively, if we believe that this was a gravely immoral act and see that Jehovah has failed to punish it, then that calls in to question Jehovah’s competence as a judge of morality.
To that end, we have every reason to believe that according to the Bible, particularly the Bible as read by Christians, Moses is given very special honors in the next world. In three of the four canonical Gospels, we are treated to a vision of Jesus transfigured, and Moses and Elijah attending him. (Matthew 17, Mark 9, Luke 9.) That sounds like a pretty big deal, especially considering that according to the Gospels, Jesus is the Son of God Himself, and according to Paul the Evangelist, Jesus IS God Himself. Now, Jehovah either forgave Moses for his ordering mass murder or he did not. If he did forgive the sin, why are we not told about the condemnation, punishment, and subsequent forgiveness, as we are with so many other wrongful acts of others in the Bible? Did Moses gain forgiveness by sacrificing a goat, the way more ordinary sins of obviously less moral gravity could have been forgiven?
Second, you assume that evangelizing on a nation-to-nation level rather than an individual level was what was going on and that this would have been considered an act of war in the context of the story; that I am guilty of imposing my own contemporary moral standards and therefore have blinded myself to the transcendent moral issue. Indeed, you treat my suggestion that this might have been a last-ditch effort by the Midianites to avoid being invaded through non-violent means as risible.
I think that does not afford the notion that this was a form of diplomacy sufficient respect; while I have occasionally thrown in a humorous remark here and there in our dialogue, this was not intended as a joke. I am quite serious. Evangelizing a religion is not a violent act and it should not be treated like a violent act. Not by the Midianites, not by the Israelites, not by the Saudis, not by you or me. It’s an easy moral question as to whether the appropriate response to unwanted evangelism is violence and that is not something that strikes me as susceptible to alteration with a change of historical context.
But let’s think for a moment about how the story fits when oriented in the other direction and keep things in the historical and cultural context of the distant past: In 63 BCE, the Romans under Pompey show up on the Israelites’ northern border, carrying with them their cult of state religion which is used to prop up morale in the military camp. Everyone in the area knows that the Romans have just won a war against Mithridates of Pontus, who had been thought to have been the formidable military leader of the biggest and most powerful kingdom around. So the Romans are clearly not to be trifled with. Pompey asks the Israelites to admit the Romans and to submit to Roman governance. The Romans claim a right to the land by virtue of Pompey’s diplomatic settlement of the land they call “the East” with King Mithridates. The Israelites reply that they aren’t bound by anything King Mithdridates said. Pompey then issues a demand for the surrender of the fortified Israelite cities.
What’s the appropriate thing for Israel to do here? Is it fair for Israel to look around to its neighbors and make an alliance against the invading Romans? (I think it is.) Would it be fair for the Israelites to have prayed to Jehovah to deliver them from this threat? (They did it all the time.) And would it be fair for the Israelites to have tried to have convince any individual Romans that they came across about the falsity of the Roman religion? (Assuming, as you must, that Jehovah-worship is the true and valid religion and that the Romans were worshiping false idols, this would seem to have been an appropriate and moral thing for the Israelites to have done under any circumstances.) At what point in that sequence of events would Pompey have been justified in sacking the cities of Israel?
Either we have to say that the Israelites in this story are the moral equivalents of the Midianites in Numbers and the Romans are the moral equivalents of the Israelites, or we have to invoke special pleading and say that because the Israelites worship Jehovah, they are morally in the right in both stories for that reason.
And I keep on having to come back to this point since I don’t seem to be getting any reaction to it — I don’t care about how “benevolent” slavery was. A human beings is inherently not property, and therefore slavery is inherently morally wrong. Period, full stop, end of line, hit “send,” close the book. By the same token, if I were to penetrate your body with my erect penis without your consent, but I was gentle about it and not leave scars, that would not make what I’d done “kind of like” consensual sex and therefore morally acceptable. It’s not a matter of degree. You did not consent and therefore it’s rape. Same moral analysis with slavery, along with the same degree of moral shock and revulsion you should feel at the notion that such a thing might happen to you and the same understanding that the historical context of the act in question is irrelevant.
Now, where I see slavery as an inherent and immutable moral wrong, you seem willing to forgive it if it is “benevolent.” You, however, seem to see the worship of Jehovah and obedience to Jehovah’s commands as an inherent and immutable moral good. In that sense, you are being true to the transcendent moral lesson of the Bible (or at least of the Old Testament): Obedience to Jehovah is morally good regardless of what Jehovah commands, the morality of one’s action is a direct function of its obedience to Jehovah’s commands, and no other objective standard of morality exists.
I reject this notion, and I urge you to do the same.
.-= Transplanted Lawyer´s last blog ..Critter Stories For Sunday =-.
Concerning David, everything God said involved his sentence, without elaborating on the fact he did wrong, and these details were necessary because the punishment was mitigated. The standard response to adultery and murder was execution by stoning. The fact that God reduced the sentence further buttresses the idea that the Law was a general guideline and each individual case must be tried on its merits. In Moses case he had already been sentenced and it couldn’t be worse so nothing more needed to be said.
I would suggest several thoughts regarding the comparison between Rome’s invasion of Israel and Israel’s response to Midian. Unlike Rome, Israel was not attacking Moab/Midian. For all we know they would have passed them by had they not interfered. Moab was not listed with the nations to be conquered and, like Edom, were distant relatives of Israel through Lot, Abraham’s nephew. So, the comparison isn’t exactly parallel.
Evangelism is very much a Bible notion and was not a popular idea in ancient history. The Old Testament encouraged it but Israel didn’t become seriously evangelistic until the NT era and it was only exercised on a diplomatic level – they gave copies of the Bible to heads of state but usually they were very guarded in their international relations. The concept was magnified in the New Testament, Christians being told to carry the Gospel to everyone, but in antiquity the free expression of religion didn’t exist. Each state had a religion and every subject was expected to honor it.
Further, the religion of the conqueror rather than the defeated was honored following victories and compliance was a way for the defeated to express submission. The elevation of one religion over another was an expression of dominance not diplomacy. This is probably one reason there were so many common elements in religions of that era. Imposing religious ideas on each conquered community eventually led to blending of several ideas in which the gods were constantly competing for supremacy – polytheism. Today, however, because we champion individual freedom of choice, we are pluralistic rather than polytheistic.
Since Moab/Midian:
Clearly expressed their evil intent toward Israel.
Were deliberately devious in their methods.
Made no attempt at communicating on an administrative level.
Said or did nothing to express a change of heart.
And understanding that religion was generally not a diplomatic tool and that the religious practices engaged were a direct affront to Israel…
We have no reason to believe this was anything other than a device used to render Israel vulnerable to attack. That is certainly how Israel read it.
Regarding slavery, there were three ways a person became a slave: criminal activity, debt and war. The term “slave” as they employed it was obviously more broadly defined. It was never equated only with “ownership” and that is the point I have tried to make, albeit not so well.
In antiquity, strong communities were developed as one dominant person gathered subjects and servants to his leadership. As they continued to band together they grew and became stronger. The dominant person (king) was considered a sort of “master” of the community, sitting in the place of god, and maintained his leadership either by wisdom or abuse. People were willingly absorbed into these communities for safety and security even if it meant holding the worst positions – slaves. Some people sunk deeper into slavery – criminal activity and indebtedness. Others were promoted and in some rare cases given freedom.
Reducing “slavery” to “ownership” does not reflect the practice in Bible days.
Obviously, I’m not suggesting that “slavery” is an institution to be fostered. Things are different now than they were then. It was a necessary evil in those days and the best way to manage it was to legislate abuse out and God did that.
One last thought. You mentioned the honors given Moses in the next life and connect that with God’s endorsement of his actions particularly in regard to Midian. That raises a fundamental difference between most religions and Christianity.
The Bible does not teach that we earn eternal life. Rather we inherit this only by believing in God through Christ, which is to say, that no person, Moses, David, you, me or anyone else will deserve heaven. One person may be better than another but no person is good enough.
The only sin for which a person will be disallowed in heaven is the sin of not believing in Christ. In John 16 and verse 9 Jesus said, the Spirit will convict the world of sin “because they believe not on me.” Not because of murder, lying, stealing, etc. but for not believing in Christ. That doesn’t go down well with a lot of people and it is a big enough concept to fuel discussions for a long time but that is the short answer.