Why did God command children and babies to be killed?

[catherine]

If God's ways are higher than our ways, I wouldn't expect Him to use warfare that is brutal and evil. As he punished the Egyptians via the angel of death, why did he get the Israelites to kill the people, men women and children in such a barbarous way and not do it Himself, in a less gruesome way, or use the angel of death again ? I am really struggling to get my head around this. I understand God has to uphold His justice etc, but I can't understand why he asked man to execute His judgements in this manner. This is very hard to accept..

[FFC]

If God's ways are higher than our ways, I wouldn't expect Him to use warfare that is brutal and evil. As he punished the Egyptians via the angel of death, why did he get the Israelites to kill the people, men women and children in such a barbarous way and not do it Himself, in a less gruesome way, or use the angel of death again ? I am really struggling to get my head around this. I understand God has to uphold His justice etc, but I can't understand why he asked man to execute His judgements in this manner. This is very hard to accept..

I struggle with that too, Catherine.

[Kurieuo]

Some pages that should prove helpful to providing some understanding:

Good question…What about God's cruelty against the Midianites?
How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?
Good question...shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?

[Jac3510]

1. "God's ways are not our ways" . . . I'm assuming you are taking that from the oft-quoted Is. 55:9, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (NIV)

For the record, in context, God is not saying that He thinks differently than we do or that His ways are somehow incomprehensible. In the chapter, God is addressing people who He has accused of having wicked thoughts and wicked ways(vv. 7-8). He is saying that His ways are not evil nor wicked, like ours are, but they are holy and righteous.

2. So (1) didn't really address your question--just one of those passages that everytime I see it quoted that way I feel a need to give that quick explanation ( ), the short answer is that in all the passages where God calls for mass slaughtering of people, including children, there is always an element of judgment. That is, the people being destroyed have demonstrated a long history of wickedness and have had ample time to repent. There is no exception that I have ever found. We must recognize that even as God is a God of love, He is still more a God of Justice and Holiness. Unrepentant Sin/Evil requires judgment.

Some may object that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers and their fathers' fathers. To this, we may point out that the objection is (1) inconsistent, (2) relative, or (3) both.

(1) It is inconsistent in that children suffer for their parents mistakes in every aspect of life. A child suffers when his drunk father beats his mother and he on a daily basis. A child suffers when his mother is arrested for any given crime. A child suffers when either or both of his parents lose their jobs because the community in which he lives was irresponsible enough to create an unsustainable financial situation (i.e., when gov't's encourage banks to make bad loans, when people are greedy enough to buy houses they can't afford, and when entire economies are built on that money that doesn't exist--eventually it all comes crashing down and people lose their jobs over it).

In short, other people, children or not, suffer because of our actions. Such has always been the case. It is today, and it was then.

(2) It is relative because some will object that in the above scenarios, the loss suffered is not a loss of life. While this is true, who is to say that the loss of life is where the line should be drawn? In which cases should it be drawn there? Are there not cases where the loss of life is worth the sacrifice? If, then, children suffer as a natural part of life, to argue that the loss of a child's life is somehow some other type of suffering entirely is to simply make an argument relative to one's personal values only. If a child can suffer in one way, why not another? That is not to say that children's suffering (or more generally, the suffering of the innocent) is good, but it is to say that the suffering of the innocent is to be laid at the feet of the guilty party. In this case, the guilty party is not God. It is the evil nation whom He judges.

This arguments strikes me, then, as being similar to every other "problem of evil." It assumes that you are in possession of all the same facts that God is. The pages K provided give good explanations, or defenses, of why God had to do what God had to do. But even if you reject those, the point is that there COULD be such explanations. Does your ignorance of them mean that there is, then, NO such explanation? To claim it is is to claim omniscience!

As it stands, God has been gracious enough to give us hints into His reasoning. My point, though, is even if He did not, we still would have no place to stand in judgment. Remember what Jesus said to Peter when Peter insisted that Christ would not go to the Cross. He accused him of having the mind of Satan. And, as you quoted, God's ways are higher--more righteous--than our wicked ways. We may not have the stomach to do the right thing. But He does, and He will, because He is good. We, sadly, aren't.

God bless

[catherine]

1. "God's ways are not our ways" . . . I'm assuming you are taking that from the oft-quoted Is. 55:9, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (NIV)

Yes I was

For the record, in context, God is not saying that He thinks differently than we do or that His ways are somehow incomprehensible. In the chapter, God is addressing people who He has accused of having wicked thoughts and wicked ways(vv. 7-8). He is saying that His ways are not evil nor wicked, like ours are, but they are holy and righteous.

So Him commanding the brutal slaying of children is not evil?

2. So (1) didn't really address your question--just one of those passages that everytime I see it quoted that way I feel a need to give that quick explanation ( ), the short answer is that in all the passages where God calls for mass slaughtering of people, including children, there is always an element of judgment. That is, the people being destroyed have demonstrated a long history of wickedness and have had ample time to repent. There is no exception that I have ever found. We must recognize that even as God is a God of love, He is still more a God of Justice and Holiness. Unrepentant Sin/Evil requires judgment.

I haven't a problem with that. What I can't come to terms with, is why God uses such barbaric means, why not just make them drop down dead, or strike them dead? Why ask the Israelites to get swords and strike all of them in such a violent way?

Some may object that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers and their fathers' fathers. To this, we may point out that the objection is (1) inconsistent, (2) relative, or (3) both.

(1) It is inconsistent in that children suffer for their parents mistakes in every aspect of life. A child suffers when his drunk father beats his mother and he on a daily basis. A child suffers when his mother is arrested for any given crime. A child suffers when either or both of his parents lose their jobs because the community in which he lives was irresponsible enough to create an unsustainable financial situation (i.e., when gov't's encourage banks to make bad loans, when people are greedy enough to buy houses they can't afford, and when entire economies are built on that money that doesn't exist--eventually it all comes crashing down and people lose their jobs over it).

In short, other people, children or not, suffer because of our actions. Such has always been the case. It is today, and it was then.

I agree again, but could you stab a child of an evil person?

(2) It is relative because some will object that in the above scenarios, the loss suffered is not a loss of life. While this is true, who is to say that the loss of life is where the line should be drawn? In which cases should it be drawn there? Are there not cases where the loss of life is worth the sacrifice? If, then, children suffer as a natural part of life, to argue that the loss of a child's life is somehow some other type of suffering entirely is to simply make an argument relative to one's personal values only. If a child can suffer in one way, why not another? That is not to say that children's suffering (or more generally, the suffering of the innocent) is good, but it is to say that the suffering of the innocent is to be laid at the feet of the guilty party. In this case, the guilty party is not God. It is the evil nation whom He judges.

Suffering for anyone, old or young is bad. Even in our godless societies, if the parents are abusing their children we remove the children to protect them and then punish the guilty parents. One of the evil acts that is always quoted is that these nations sacrificed their children in the fire. Errr, I'm struggling to see how thrusting a sword into a suckling baby is any less evil?

This arguments strikes me, then, as being similar to every other "problem of evil." It assumes that you are in possession of all the same facts that God is. The pages K provided give good explanations, or defenses, of why God had to do what God had to do. But even if you reject those, the point is that there COULD be such explanations. Does your ignorance of them mean that there is, then, NO such explanation? To claim it is is to claim omniscience!

As it stands, God has been gracious enough to give us hints into His reasoning. My point, though, is even if He did not, we still would have no place to stand in judgment. Remember what Jesus said to Peter when Peter insisted that Christ would not go to the Cross. He accused him of having the mind of Satan. And, as you quoted, God's ways are higher--more righteous--than our wicked ways. We may not have the stomach to do the right thing. But He does, and He will, because He is good. We, sadly, aren't.

God bless

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Please see my comments in bold. As you can see, I'm still struggling with it. God is spirit, not human. His ways are higher than our fleshy, corruptible ways. We are prisoners of emotions, temper, hunger, etc. God is not. Why does God choose a violent, evil way to punish? I can't accept this.....

[FFC]

I agree Catherine. God gave us minds intellects and emotions, and these killings don't seem to reconcile with His charactor. He may have a good reason for killing innocent babies and children, but I don't think it is or should be acceptable. I also don't think that God will judge us for these thoughts either. no matter we how we try to sterilize the issue it still stinks.

[catherine]

I agree Catherine. God gave us minds intellects and emotions, and these killings don't seem to reconcile with His charactor. He may have a good reason for killing innocent babies and children, but I don't think it is or should be acceptable. I also don't think that God will judge us for these thoughts either. no matter we how we try to sterilize the issue it still stinks.

Yes, I agree. If there is a God I'm sure He is big enough to take it on the chin, so to speak. We do that with our children when they question our actions and motives. We know that they don't see the bigger picture, and don't have the experience. Even so, I've yet to see an explanation that will hold water not only with me, but with others who don't believe in God for precisely this sort of thing.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Maybe the dropping down and instantly dead fails to convey a lesson, so to speak...or convey a message. Maybe it is not a consequence that brings people to realize that God is God...? Much like the saying (and it came true for me and one of my children) that you can tell a child not to touch the stove, but until that child knows and feels why it is he/she shouldn't touch the stove and more so to trust the one that knows better, it sometimes works much better to let them feel the consequence of not trusting/obeying.

It could be the same reason there is a Hell Fire and not just dropping dead at the end of all this.
.
.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

.
.
Maybe the dropping down and instantly dead fails to convey a lesson, so to speak...or convey a message. Maybe it is not a consequence that brings people to realize that God is God...? Much like the saying (and it came true for me and one of my children) that you can tell a child not to touch the stove, but until that child knows and feels why it is he/she shouldn't touch the stove and more so to trust the one that knows better, it sometimes works much better to let them feel the consequence of not trusting/obeying.

It could be the same reason there is a Hell Fire and not just dropping dead at the end of all this.
.
.

BMW has a pretty good point. Read it again if you just glossed over it.

Also, In B.W.'s book, A Land Unknown, in which he recounts his Near Death Experience to Hell, there are no children or babies there. Perhaps by ordering the killing of the Amalekites, God extended His mercy to Amalekite children who would have ended up in Hell were they to have grown up in their culture.

Think about that.

FL

[catherine]

I most whole heartedly do not believe in a literal hell and will be quite happy to go through all the scriptures that seem to support this pagan belief. The word hell has been mistranslated in both the OT and the NT.

Maybe 'dropping down dead' was a bit silly, but why not 'fire from heaven'? That would teach a lesson,no? I don't understand why God uses humans to execute people in these massacres and the methods they were told to use. I can accept that humans were used to do God's will, but it's the methods I'm struggling with. The screamings, bloodshed, horror etc, must have assalted the senses of the Israelites. War is bad and will be done away with, so it seems strange that God uses it when it pleases Him to do so. Why not clear the nations away before the Israelites got there? God destroyed cities like Sodom and Gomorrah Himself. Why have a nation of warriors? If they were a nation under God's direct rule, you'd think this nation would 'shine' like a beacon to the other nations. It would represent peace, obeying God, with God 'present' with His people. Any nation rising against God's nation could be dealt with by God. I don't know........

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I most whole heartedly do not believe in a literal hell and will be quite happy to go through all the scriptures that seem to support this pagan belief.

Hell exists whether you believe in it or not. What is pagan is the belief that Hell does not exist!

The word hell has been mistranslated in both the OT and the NT.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Spiritually-dead wrong.

FL

[Cross.eyed]

I most whole heartedly do not believe in a literal hell and will be quite happy to go through all the scriptures that seem to support this pagan belief. The word hell has been mistranslated in both the OT and the NT.

Without a literal hell, God could not be who He said He is; merciful, kind, loving, and just. Anyone who doesn't love God would be miserable in Heaven worshipping God day and night.

That would teach a lesson,no?

God wants to draw all people to Him rather than just teach a lesson, God is never pleased with the pain or suffering of anyone.

I don't understand why God uses humans to execute people in these massacres and the methods they were told to use. I can accept that humans were used to do God's will, but it's the methods I'm struggling with. The screamings, bloodshed, horror etc, must have assalted the senses of the Israelites. War is bad and will be done away with, so it seems strange that God uses it when it pleases Him to do so. Why not clear the nations away before the Israelites got there? God destroyed cities like Sodom and Gomorrah Himself. Why have a nation of warriors? If they were a nation under God's direct rule, you'd think this nation would 'shine' like a beacon to the other nations. It would represent peace, obeying God, with God 'present' with His people. Any nation rising against God's nation could be dealt with by God. I don't know........

We see thing from our own very limited abilities of understanding, compassion. and justice.
God is unlimited in mercy, knowledge, and wisdom.

You're right.....We don't know. Thank you for your honesty.

[catherine]

Fürstentum Liechtenstein, I won't get into the hell debate here. There are many threads already discussing this. I will just quickly say I understand why you believe in a literal hell. Until you understand the original meanings of words like sheol and hades, coupled with the traditions of eternal torment, then you would read modern translations and conclude it was talking of a literal place.

Cross.eyed, I believe everyone will be saved, and as you say: God wants to draw all people to Him, and He will do.
1 Timothy 4:9-11
9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 11 These things command and teach.'

I can't reconcile this God with one who uses such methods of executing his judgements. I completely understand that God has to punish wrong doing and we will all be judged and receive corrective punishment. I've been thinking about how we lead a charmed life in the western world. We or speaking for myself, I have never known hunger and real suffering. So maybe this is why it is so alien to me. I live a life where I don't have to worry about what I will eat etc, I don't worry about my existence. I'll turn a tap and get as much clean water as I need. I'll open my cupboard and get a snack. Maybe I'm desensitised to 'war'? I'm still struggling though.

[Jac3510]

While I could suggest answers to your questions, Catherine, your basic condemnation of God as evil and rejection of the justice of Hell says more than anything I could, I think. Until you come to recognize that human beings absolutely and totally deserve every moment of torture in an eternal hell, you will always have a problem with the justice of God, for you see yourself (and other supposedly "innocent" people) as not REALLY being THAT bad.

You are evil. I am evil. Our best days are as filthy rags. Think of the most vile, evil men this world has ever produced. Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Nero? Manson? Think of them all, and ask yourself, do you think for one second that you are even an ounce better than they were? Imagine if any of these men had more power than they did. What they have not been still worse?

A central doctrine of Christianity is the depravity of Man that came with his Fall. Everything God does related to punishment must be understood in that light. To accuse God of being evil in any sense of the word is to deny this central tenant. It is to deny the entire reason God has gone to the incredible lengths He has in saving us in sending His One and ONLY Son to die on our behalf. In short, to deny or deemphasize the depravity of man is to reject the need for salvation.

God bless

[FFC]

While I could suggest answers to your questions, Catherine, your basic condemnation of God as evil and rejection of the justice of Hell says more than anything I could, I think.

Jac, I don't think Catherine or myself are suggesting that God is evil. Only that we are having trouble reconciling a loving, long suffering, ever merciful, God with one who would send his people into foreign nations to slay innocents. In the new testament Jesus say to allow the little children to come unto him because of such is the kingdom of God. In the old He sends His people in to slaughter them. To me the God of the old testament is in stark contrast to the God of the new (Jesus) on many issues. I would never call God evil.