17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.Before going into specifics I must point out that my views on the OT are unconventional. I am not an inerrantist. Thus I do not feel duty bound to make all such verses right with the reader.I do not intend to try and prove that God makes killing infants ok. Here's a quick overview of my take on the OT:
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.(all quotes NIV unless otherwise noted).
The author of Hebrews tells us:
1:1 "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.""Various ways" might well include mixtures of human and divine. This passage suggests to me that Jesus is the standard through which we should read the OT. This is backwards historically.It nakes more exigetical sence than does inerrency.
Ihe traditional inerantist view sees the Bible as a memo from the boss to be read to the entire company on the shop floor. In my view the OT is a record of divine/human encounter. Thus it is a mixture of both human and divine outlook. It is written by humans and thus is stained with their cultural outlook.The truth of God breaks through here and there but amid a sea of human perspective.
The purpose of the OT is to crate a framework in which the meaning of Messiah makes sense beyond it's ethnographic borders and in which the mission of Messiah makes sense.
Obviously if we take Jesus as the lens through which to read the OT we can't accept the notion that the God of love would order the killing of infants. we need not accept this as God's command.That was the scribes making assumptions based upon the barbarus culture of the day.
Turning to the specific passage there are a couple of points I would like to make.
First, some scholars think v18 "But all the women and children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" carries the connotation that these young girls would be sex slaves for Israelite warriors. One could look at it through Mary Poppins sunglasses and say they were to raise them as daughters and then marry them off as adults to repectable Israelite gentelemen, but the vast perpondrence of scholarship sees it as sex slave, at least in connotation. Even the traditional believers embrace this view among its major scholars.[1]
Secondly, one might think the reason for killing the woman was to punish them for having sex.The real reason whch does not justify the act, is because these women lured men of Israel to worhip other Gods throgh their sexual favors.This caused a plague in Israel,thousands died.[2]
notes
[1]"A detailed Historical Examination of numbers 31:18."Discover the Truth, Aug 7,2016. https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
[2]"What do Christans Think About Bible verses numbers 31:17-18." Quora., Jan 7/2030.https://www.quora.com/What-do-Christians-think-about-Bible-verses-Numbers-31-17-18
14 comments:
I had a longer post but it disappeared?
Neither of your links work.
The reason the women who were not virgins were killed is because the Israelites wanted virgins. They did not want second-hand goods. This is seen elsewhere in the Bible, and was very common is across many cultures to modern times.
Pix
Anonymous said...
I had a longer post but it disappeared?
sorry. I hate when that happens,
Neither of your links work.
Thanks. I just put URL people can make their own links
The reason the women who were not virgins were killed is because the Israelites wanted virgins. They did not want second-hand goods. This is seen elsewhere in the Bible, and was very common is across many cultures to modern times.
no doubt
It was this passage which eventually led me to seek a more nuanced way of reading the Bible, because I just don't see how anyone who professes Christianity can read this and still claim inerrancy. Inerrancy is not a required doctrine for orthodoxy, no matter what some Christians say. God never commanded this. It was the ancient Israelites' idea that they adopted and projected onto God.
yes that's right Kristen,
The parts that are deeply inconsistent with the teachings of Christ are not from the Father. That's not a matter of personal likes or dislikes, it's a matter of following the faith we claim to profess.
"The parts that are deeply inconsistent with the teachings of Christ are not from the Father."
How do you know. Sounds very revisionist.
It is a matter of personal likes and dislikes. You prefer the version of God presented in the NT.
I can read what Jesus taught. Jesus was revisionist, unapologetically so. "You have heard, 'an eye for an eye,' but I say, turn the other cheek."
"You have heard, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemies,' but I say, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 5:18 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
One doesn't sound very loving nor the other very revisionist.
It seems your choice, of what God is, still comes down to personal preference.
What you're doing is called "proof texting." You have taken 2 passages that appear to support your point, as if they proved it. The passages I quoted, on the other hand, are supported by the whole context and focus of the entire set of texts about Christ.
So These are anomalies and don't fit the "true" picture of Christ?
It still doesn't remedy the discrepancies between the God presented in the OT and the one you prefer. If anything it exacerbates the rift between the two. Two whom we are told are one.
Cuttlebones, I'm not sure what you want from me. Would you like me to become an atheist because there are discrepancies in the Bible? Or would you like me to become a fundamentalist and insist that there are actually no discrepancies, and that God actually is capricious, primitive in outlook (especially towards women), and controlling, and that Christ came only to save us from our individual sins and take us to heaven, but not to change anything about hierarchies of power and injustice in the existing world?
Neither path is going to work for me, and the fact that there are discrepancies in the Bible doesn't actually bother me. My faith is based on the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral," with its four legs of reason, tradition, experience and scripture to support my faith. The "experience" leg is an especially strong one for me, because my view of God has a lot to do with the loving, gentle, guiding Presence I have experienced since early childhood.
I might also point out that just as there are places in the New Testament that seem to support ideas of God as harsh and judgmental and even cruel, there are places in the Old Testament that show God as a loving, gentle, guiding Presence. The Old Testament also has a lot in it that's against hierarchies of power and injustice -- see the prophets!
The Bible is simply not a monolith. It's a series of texts from a variety of perspectives, and some of it certainly, to my mind, reflects human perspectives at the various times it was written, as well as divine perspectives of holiness and love. You will have to forgive me if applying my own reason and experience to tell me which is which, somehow offends your sensibilities.
I don't want anything from you Kristen. You are free to believe as you wish.
It just seems that many Christians pick the God that is to their liking.
You could as easily take all the hash parts of the OT and NT and say "this is what God is".
I don't see any reason other than personal taste for saying one is more likely than the other.
Like I said, for me it has a lot to do with personal experience. The divine as It comes to me is gentle and comforting and wise.
Post a Comment