| Chapter 7 | |
| Summary: | The Israelites however disregarded the command against the cursed items, as Achan - son of Camri, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah - of the tribe of Judah, took some cursed objects, which resulted in God's anger toward the Israelites. Joshua sent some men from there camp outside of Jericho to the city of Ai, which is beside Bethaven, on the east of Bethel. He told the men to go up and view the country, and after they had done so they returned to Joshua and said to him, "Don't send the entire army, but instead about two or three thousand men to smite Ai. Let's not put the entire army to work, as there aren't many in Ai." About three thousand men were sent, but retreated after the men of Ai smote thirty six soldiers. The men from Ai chased them from the city gates to Shebarim, and smote them as they descended. The hearts of the Israelites melted and became like water. Joshua tore at his clothes and fell on his face before the ark of the covenant and stayed there until the evening. The elders of Israel also fell on their faces before the ark and put dust on their heads. Joshua said, "Lord, why have you brought our people across the Jordan River, merely to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us? Would you have been content for us to stay on the other side of the Jordan River? Lord, what shall I say when the people of Israel turn their backs before their enemies. For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of this, surround us and blot us out from this earth - what will you do for your great name?" God replied to Joshua, "Get up! Why are you lying on the ground on your face? Israel has sinned and has violated my covenant - for they have taken cursed items, and have stolen, deceived, and put them amongst their own belongings. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but fled before them, because they were cursed - neither will I be with you anymore unless you destroy the accursed from among you. "Get up, sanctify the people and tell them, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, for the Lord God of Israel has said that there is a cursed thing in your midst, and you cannot stand before your enemies until you remove the cursed thing from among you. In the morning you shall be brought forward according to your tribes: the tribe that the Lord picks shall come forward according to their families; the family which the Lord picks shall come forward by their households; and the household which the Lord picks shall come forth man by man. "'He that has taken the cursed object shall be burnt with fire, himself and everything he has, because he broke the covenant of the Lord and brought folly upon Israel.'" Joshua rose early in the morning and gathered the Israelites by tribe. After the tribe of Judah was selected, the family of the Zarhites were selected, the Zahrites were brought forth man by man until the household of Zabdi was selected, and the household of Zabdi was brought forth man by man until Achan (son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah) was selected. Joshua said to Achan, "My son, give, I pray of you, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and confess to him. Tell me what you have done and don't hide it from me." Achan replied, "Indeed I have sinned against the Lord, and I shall explain what I had done. When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a piece of gold worth fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. I hid them in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath it." Joshua sent messengers to investigate, and they found the items hidden in the ground of Achan's tent, with the silver underneath it, and brought them before Joshua, the people of Israel, and God. Joshua, along with the rest of Israel, took Achan, the silver, the garment, the piece of gold, Achan's sons and daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and everything he owned and brought them out to the valley of Achor. Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The Lord will now trouble you today."The Israelites stoned Achan, his family, and his livestock to death and set their remains on fire along with his belongings. They placed a great heap of stones over the charred remains, and God relented from his anger. The place was then named the Valley of Achor*. |
| Notes: | 1.) "Achor" is a Hebrew word for "trouble". |
| Thoughts: | The chapter begins with the revelation that a man named Achan, decided not to heed God's command and warning from the previous chapter about not taking any of the "accursed" items, and that all the gold and silver was to be given to God. This of course made God angry with all of the Israelites, not just Achan. Conveniently, the next city that the Israelites happened to have next on their list to massacre was a small one, so it was suggested to Joshua by the men he selected to scope out their intended target that he should only send two or three thousand soldiers. After thirty six soldiers were killed by the enemy soldiers of Ai, the Israelites turned tail and ran. Joshua tore at his clothes and fell on his face, and remained there on the ground in front of the ark of the covenant until evening. The elders of the tribes of Israel joined Joshua, also "falling on their faces" in front of the ark and additionally "poured dust on their heads". (Admittedly, I was a bit unfamiliar with the "pouring of dust on one's head" ritual practiced in Judaism to express grief, and I still fail to see much practical purpose behind such a bizarre ritual.) Joshua then whines to God about the Israelites' loss, complaining that when the Canaanites hear about the defeat at Ai, that they in turn will attack and wipe out the Israelites. God replies to Joshua in an apparently condescending tone, telling him to get up, and explains that the reason the Israelites lost this battle is due to them taking cursed items from the spoils of Jericho and hiding them amongst their own belongings. He explains to Joshua that the Israelites therefore won't have God on their side anymore until and unless they destroy the accursed from amongst them. Instead of informing Joshua who it is among them that must be destroyed, like an omniscient being should be wholly capable of doing, God tells Joshua to stage an elaborate production of assembling the entire population of Israel together and having God one by one pick out the tribe, the family, the household, and finally the guilty party, sifting them out man by man. Again, an omniscient being shouldn't need to orchestrate such an elaborate production, however, it's likely that the intent of this display was to intimidate and serve as a reminder as to what could happen to them if they don't keep in line. God then tells Joshua that whomever has taken the cursed items must be set on fire - along with all of his possessions, which includes the members of his entire household. The way "sins" and "curses" are treated by God in the bible are akin to the childhood game of "cooties", in which the child "infected with cooties" is stigmatized without any real discernible affliction or real symptoms while either simultaneously lacking any sort of "cure", or if there is a "cure", that it is just as ridiculous and rife with nonsense as is the "affliction". While one could make the rationalization that Achan committed an offense against God and perhaps deserves punishment, there simply is no rational justification for also punishing Achan's children and livestock, and setting every single item of his possessions on fire. In a modern context, it's baffling to me how we can recognize the unjust barbarism when a person in the Islamic world is stoned to death for a non-violent offense, yet simultaneously not see the same brutality in a biblical story like this that not only targets the offender, but the innocent lives of his children and livestock as well. Our story continues with Joshua parading out the tribe of Judah, paring them down to the Zahrites, paring them down further to the Zabdi household, until Achan was finally brought out. Joshua then goads Achan to "give glory" to God by confessing, and demanding that Achan not try to hide what he has done. Achan confesses that he stole a Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a piece of gold worth fifty shekels, and also tells Joshua where he hid them in his tent. After Joshua's messengers search Achan's tent and find the items he took, Joshua has the Israelites take Achan, along with his sons and daughters, oxen, sheep, donkeys, his tent, and all of his possessions out to the valley of Achor. Hauntingly, Joshua rhetorically asks Achan why he has he caused so much trouble for Israel, and retorts that now God will "trouble" Achan today. With those words, the Israelites stoned Achan, his children, and his livestock to death, set the remains on fire along with the rest of Achan's possessions, and placed a big heap of stones on top of the charred remains. The death and destruction of Achan and all that he owned, including the innocent lives of his children and his livestock, was sufficient to quell God's anger toward the Israelites. |
Showing posts with label cruelty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cruelty. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
JOSHUA: Chapter 7
Labels:
Bible,
cruelty,
God,
human sacrifice,
Joshua,
Joshua (book),
Judah,
stoning,
Zadoc
Friday, March 5, 2010
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 28
| Chapter 28 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"It shall come to pass, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, and obey all of his commandments which I give to this day, that the Lord your God will place you high above all other nations of the earth. |
| Notes: | 1.) Another appearance of the mystical number 'seven' in the bible. |
| Thoughts: | This rather long chapter can basically be summed up by stating, if you don't follow God's rules he's going to do all sorts of terrible things to you. Moses begins by telling the Israelites a couple of the perks of obeying God's laws - that they'll be the best nation on the earth; that their cities and fields will be blessed; that every person, plant, and animal will be blessed with fertility; that they'll be blessed with plenty of food; and that God will curse the enemies of the Israelites. Moses says that God will also make the Israelites a "holy people" if they simply do what they're told, and states that subsequently, other nations will be afraid of them. Moses even states that if the Israelites obey, then God will open up "his treasure" - his rainwater - to give rain to the crops. He also adds that the Israelites will be rich enough to lend money to other nations and never have to borrow, stating that God will make the Israelites "the head" and not "the tail" - just so long as they obey, and don't worship other gods. Notice that just like in the ten commandments, Moses puts heavy emphasis on stressing the importance of not "go[ing] after other gods to serve them". This is obviously a crucial point toward maintaining power and control over the Israelites. One of the most common defense tactics used by believers is attempting to shift the burden of proof by claiming that "one cannot disprove the existence of God". However, if one "should" believe in God because he cannot be disproven, then by the same flawed logic we could justify the "existence" of other gods as well. Therefore it is vital to villainize other religious beliefs lest Moses and the priests lose control over governing the people. After the mention of going after other gods, Moses launches into a tirade of what will happen if the people disobey God, spending the next 52(!) verses describing all the terrible things God will do to them. First, Moses basically reverses all of the blessings in the previous verses - God will curse your cities and your fields; curse the fertility of people, animals, and crops; curse the amount of food you have; and curses upon when you leave or arrive home. Next Moses states that God will:
While on the surface it may seem to contradict what Moses states in Deuteronomy 24:16 about not punishing a child for the "sins" of his father (or vice versa), if we read that verse carefully we see that Moses meant that strictly for cases of administering capital punishment against the sins of the Israelites. This doesn't apply to God's commands to kill innocent women and children, because they belong to the wrong race, nor does it apply to God accepting Noah's curse of his grandson Canaan due to Noah's son Ham walking in on him drunk and naked, or God's declaration himself that he will visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations" in Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9. Moses asserts that "choosing" not to serve God with "joyfulness" and "gladness of heart", in spite of the abundance of things he's given you (arguably plagues top that list so far in our story), that therefore you shall serve your enemies instead until God destroys you. Threatening to destroy people and making any survivors suffer in agonizing ways is not how to define "benevolent" ruler at all. Moses continues to list more nasty things that God will do to you if you disobey him, including having a foreign nation - one of whom they have not heard of, and speaks a foreign language - come and conquer the land, and that won't show any regard to the old or favor to the young. This is rather hypocritical for Moses to state in light of his own lack of sympathy for the young and old amongst The Midianites, as well as the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites of whom Moses specifically states " thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth". Moses is using an emotional appeal, but it only works when you apply it to the Israelites - this "evil nation" won't even show sympathy to the children and the elderly, but it's okay that we slaughter "everything that breathes" in those "heathen nations". This foreign nation that no oone has ever heard of before will eat all of the crops and cattle until the Israelites are destroyed, and will leave nothing behind, forcing the Israelites to resort to cannibalism. Moses claims that even the most kind men will become "evil" and start eating babies, and not share the flesh with his wife and children. He further claims that women will secretly give birth to babies so that they can eat them as well - we've all heard of slow cooking, but growing your "dinner" for nine months? Moses then states that if the people don't observe the laws in "this book", then God will send all sorts of nasty plagues, sicknesses, and the diseases from Egypt and their population loss will be solely to blame for their disobedience. God will scatter the Israelites from one end of the earth to the other, and there they will be "forced" to worship other gods. Moses paints this whole "worshiping other gods" angle up like it should be a terrible thing for the Israelites to endure, but as we've seen, it takes little to get the Israelites to do such a thing, such as with Aaron's golden calf and "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab". Moses adds that their lives under the rule of this "foreign nation" will be taxing and sorrowful, and that their lives will hang in doubt. Finally Moses ends the chapter by stating that the Israelites will be brought into Egypt on ships - despite that God swore that they would never see the land of Egypt again - where they will be sold into slavery. He adds that the kicker is that no one will want to buy them. |
Labels:
Bible,
cruelty,
Deuteronomy,
Egypt,
God,
Moses,
numerology,
slavery,
Zadoc
Saturday, February 13, 2010
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 21
| Chapter 21 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"If a man is found slain in the land which the Lord your God has given you to possess, his body lying in the field, and it is not known who has slain him, then the elders and judges shall measure from the body to the nearest city. The elders of that city shall take a heifer that has never been yoked or worked in a field, and bring the animal down into a valley with running water that is neither plowed or sown, and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley. |
| Thoughts: | Moses begins this chapter by stating that if the body of a murdered man is found lying in a field and it's not known who killed him, then the elders and judges of the land are to go to the nearest city and find the elders of that city. The city's elders are to take a heifer that has never been yoked or worked in the fields, and after bringing it down to a virgin stream in the valley, somehow breaking the cow's neck and decapitating it will allow the priests to bless the dead body (the man's, not the cow's) and absolve the people of Israel from the guilt of the death of an innocent man. This is probably another one of those "eye for an eye" type lines of thought, where in lieu of being able to kill a human being with capital punishment, that the Israelites have to kill something to appease their bloodthirsty God. Next up, Moses states that if and when the Israelites win a war against their enemies - as long as they're not enemies that live in the "promised land" - and if there's a pretty girl amongst the prisoners they've taken, then you can bring her into your house, have her shave her head and pare her nails, and then mourn for the next month in your house for her dead parents that you've killed. After the month is up, you can then have sex with her and you'll be her husband. If afterward you don't like your new wife, you can let her go free, but you're not allowed to sell her into slavery, because you've humiliated her. Basically, Moses is saying that if there's a pretty girl amongst the prisoners of war, you can bring her home against her will, rape her, and she gets the "privilege" of becoming your wife. Then if you later discover that you just don't like her, feel free to boot her out the door, just be sure not to sell her into slavery. How one can justify the blatant misogyny and complete disrespect of women that Moses is advocating is completely beyond me. Moses then shifts the topic to polygamy - something I discussed at length recently with a Christian "reader" of this blog. Moses says that if a man has two wives - one that he loves and one that he hates, and has sons with both of them, with the firstborn son belonging to the hated wife, he is not allowed to give the "firstborn birthright" to the firstborn son of his favored wife, just because he hates his firstborn son's mother. The birthright still goes to the oldest son, as Moses reasons that this son is the "beginning of his [father's] strength". All should work as intended unless the boy sells his birthright for a bowl of soup. Next, Moses addresses what to do with your unruly son. If your son is stubborn and rebellious and doesn't respond to being punished, then the mother and father must bring him out to the elders of the city and tell them that their son is stubborn and rebellious (and for good measure, add in that he's also a glutton and a drunk). All of the men of the city then are to stone the child to death, so that you can purge the nation of Israel from evil and frighten other children into obeying. Yes, the best way according to the bible to deal with unruly children is to kill them brutally with stones, so that you can set an example for other children and control them with fear. Finally, Moses states that if your preferred method of execution is hanging, then you have to remove the dead person's body from the tree you hanged him upon and bury them before the day is through, because a hanged body will apparently defile the "promised land" if left up for too long. |
Friday, February 12, 2010
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 20
| Chapter 20 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses, chariots, and people that outnumber you, do not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. When you go to battle, the priest shall approach and speak to the people, telling them not to be faint of heart, nor be afraid because of the strength of the enemy. For the Lord your God will go with you, to fight against your enemies and to save you from defeat. |
| Thoughts: | Moses begins this chapter by stating that even if the Israelites seem outnumbered by the amount of horses, chariots, or enemy soldiers on the battlefield, that they are not to be afraid because God will protect the Israelites. Before going out to battle, a priest will tell them this same thing. The officers of the armies will then address the troops and ask them if anyone has just built a house that hasn't been "dedicated", planted a vineyard that they haven't eaten from, or become engaged to a woman they have yet to marry, and then allow those applicable to return home to dedicate their homes, tend to their vineyard, or marry their bride to prevent someone else from doing so if they were to die in battle. Moses then says that the officers should then ask if there are any men that are afraid to fight, and if so, that they are to be sent home in order to prevent them from spreading their fears to other soldiers. Upon weeding these people out, the officers are then to appoint captains to lead the remaining troops. Next Moses explains the proper protocol for conquering cities outside of the "promised land". First, offer them a "peace treaty", and if they accept then enslave them all. If they don't accept becoming enslaved, then they've "declared war" then the Israelites are to kill every male with the edge of their swords. But the women and young girls the soldiers may keep for themselves along with the spoils of the city. When conquering the cities within the "promised land" however, the women and children must be slaughtered - along with the cattle and anything else that breathes - because those pesky women and children will apparently teach the Israelites all of their abominable customs. I guess the persuasive power of infants and children is too much of a risk to keep them alive as slaves, so the only option is to slaughter them all. At least the Midianites weren't all destroyed, Moses allowed the soldiers to keep all of the girls who were virgins for themselves. No matter how you attempt to spin this, no matter what "context" you believe this should be viewed in, there is simply no way you can justify killing "everything that breathes" - especially when included amongst this are infants and young children - as moral. Moses ends the chapter by stating that when the Israelites are invading a city, that they are not to destroy any trees that bear fruit. They can build fortresses using trees that do not bear fruit until the fighting is done, but are not to harm any fruit bearing trees. |
Thursday, November 26, 2009
DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 7
| Chapter 7 | |
| Summary: | Moses' speech continues:"When the Lord your God brings you into the land and you go to possess it, he will cast out many nations before you: the Hitites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites - seven* nations greater and mightier than you. When the Lord your God delivers them before you, you shall kill them and utterly destroy them - you are not to make any covenant with them, nor show them any mercy. |
| Notes: | 1.) Yet another reference to the number seven in the bible. |
| Thoughts: | Moses's speech continues, this time focusing on how to deal with the seven nations (the Hitites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites) inhabiting the "promised land". It should come as no surprise that it isn't anything pleasant, but Moses specifically states:7:2 "...thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them"He also forbids them from intermarrying, claiming that these "heathen" daughters will corrupt the Israelite males, turning them away from God, and causing them to worship pagan gods. When you deal in terms of absolutes like this, you're accepting broad sweeping generalizations - saying that marrying a non-Israelite woman will cause you to worship other gods is no different than claiming that marrying an Italian woman will cause you to eat pizza, marrying a black woman will cause you listen to rap music, or that marrying a Japanese woman will cause you become a Buddhist. The apologist can't even argue that this sort of stereotyping is somehow justified by the smaller populations of people, because the first verse describes these seven nations as "greater and mightier than" the Israelites. Again with Moses' last census count of men fit for the military totaling at 601,730, we can extrapolate that there's at least one million Israelites. With seven surrounding "heathen" nations that are greater and mightier than the Israelites, it's safe to estimate that we're at least dealing with ten million other people. How accurate could a blanket statement be that could encompass every individual in a population of 10 million? This is roughly equivalent to the current population of Ohio, and would be akin to claiming that marrying an Ohio woman would cause you to become a Christian. It is thinking like this that makes religion such a dangerous tool to justify committing acts of violence and injustice towards others based on prejudice and stereotyping. When you reduce a group of millions of individual people down to a single subset of a subhuman characteristic, it becomes a lot easier to not see them as a fellow human being unworthy of redemption. While the Israelites rebel against God numerous times throughout the bible, we simply assume that the "heathens" are fiercely loyal to their gods and wouldn't rebel and choose to serve Yahweh instead. Moses explains that if the Israelites did intermarry and therefore begin worshiping other gods, then God would become angry and have to destroy them. Instead Moses posits that the best course of action is to simply destroy all of their religious items, breaking their altars, and setting fire to their graven images. He tells the Israelites that they are God's chosen people and God, that God likes them better than everyone else on the earth. He states that God didn't choose to favor them due to their population - where Moses states here that 600,000+ Israelites were in fact the least populated group of people(!) - but simply because God loved them better than other people, and had already made a promise to their forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Moses states that God is merciful to those who love and obey him, but will retaliate against the people who despise him by destroying them outright - so therefore, it's the Israelites duty to follow God's laws and not be destroyed. In an attempt to sweeten the deal, Moses adds that if the people obey God's laws, then God will in turn bless them with increased fertility - that none, even the Israelite animals, will become barren, and that the crops will flourish. Moses claims that God will even take away everyone's illnesses - like the "evil diseases" they apparently encountered in Egypt - and will instead infect everyone who "despises" God with these "evil diseases". Moses again tells the Israelites that they are to destroy every last "heathen" whom God delivers to them, and they are not to show any mercy or sympathy towards their victims (which further dehumanizes them). He reminds the Israelites that should they doubt their ability to win a battle against these mightier "heathen" nations, they are to recall how God had taken them out of Egypt and remember the "signs and wonders" they saw (or at least that their parents saw, considering the original generation had since died off out in the desert). Moses also adds that God will send hornets to seek out any surviving "heathen" who manages to survive the Israelite's genocidal rampages and attempt to hide. Moses states that God will drive out these "heathens" little by little, explaining that if they were driven out all at once, the land would become infested with wild animals. Once again, the point is driven home that the Israelites are to completely destroy these "heathen" nations and are to blot their names out from history. Again, Moses repeats that their idols are to be burned with fire, and he warns the Israelites not to be tempted by the gold or silver they are made of, and commands that they are not to take these golden or silver idols, lest they become contaminated by them - as God considers these idols "abominations". An "abomination" is never to be brought into one's house, or you will become cursed just like it. Instead one is to utterly despise and detest any "abominable" thing, for it is a cursed thing. |
Monday, October 26, 2009
NUMBERS: An Apologist Rebuttal
In Numbers Chapter 31 we read about two verses that are absolutely appalling, where Moses tells his army to kill every male child and every non-virgin woman, but that the soldiers could keep the virgin girls for themselves.
The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:
The verses in question are Numbers 31:17-18:
31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.I find both of these verses completely beyond any rational justification, so I was curious as to how biblical apologists attempt to defend these two verses. I have chosen to address why I strongly disagree with these arguments below:
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Apologetics Press.OrgURL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/586The Killings of Numbers 31 by A.P. Staff The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan. But one story that sometimes stands out in the minds of skeptics is the one found in Numbers 31, where God seemingly gives no reason for killing defenseless women and male children.Actually, it is Moses who calls for the killing of defenseless women and male children. This chapter does not state that this is explicitly a commandment or judgment from God, although it could be argued that when God commanded the Israelites to "vex the Midianites" in Numbers Chapter 25, perhaps he meant instead to "commit genocide upon the Midianites". Secondly, the problem I as a skeptic have, is not that God "gives no reason" (most of people realize why Moses commanded the killings) it's that I simply don't find this a moral or ethical justification for rape and murder. In addition, it has been suggested that the young girls mentioned in the account were spared so that the Israelite men could rape them.If this were not the case, there would be no reason to ensure that the girls were virgins ("have not known a man by lying with him"). What other possible reason could there be to make a stipulation that a person's life was dependent on their virginity and that soldiers were to "keep [the girls] alive for [them]selves"? Such accusations are baseless, however, as is evident when they are viewed in light of other related passages.They are not baseless. The argument is based on the facts that 1) Moses laid out a stipulation for the girls' survival - their virginity, and 2) that the soldiers were told that they were to keep the virgin girls for themselves. The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”Agreed. This is the basis of my topic as well. To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor.This is incorrect. According to the first three verses of Numbers 25 it was the Moabites not the Midianites who "led the Israelites astray" into "worshiping Baal of Peor". Numbers 25:1-3 reads as follows: 25:1 "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.Strangely, the rest of the chapter shifts its attention to the Midianites without explanation. It's a popular assumption among theologians that there's a possibility that the chapter is actually two separate stories merged together. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “[N]either shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”This argument has two problems, the first being that Deuteronomy appears sequentially in the bible after the the book of Numbers. While it's a possibility that the bible could be out of sequence, or that this law was somehow known to the Israelites prior to the events in Numbers 25 there is no basis to support either explanation. Secondly, Moses' own wife Zipporah was a Midianite herself (see Exodus Chapter 2) and therefore Moses would in violation of this law himself. Therefore why did Phinehas not thrust a spear through Moses and Zipporah as well? As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18).I addressed this point in my thoughts on Numbers 25, and God is shifting the blame here. We're villainizing the Midianite women to partially excuse and soften the "sins" committed by the Israelites, because for some reason the Israelites apparently have no minds of their own and will do anything women from other cultures tell them too, even when it violates their own laws. When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy.The apologist here is completely forgetting that we're also dealing with not just women but children. Even if we were to accept the apologist's point at face value, the virgin girls that Moses tells the soldiers to "keep for themselves" would also be a "direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25". But how can we explain the destruction of the young boys? Why were they not spared along with the young girls?God does not seem very concerned about the deaths of male children as evidenced by the story of the Egyptian plagues in Exodus Chapter 11. Skeptics read of events such as the conquest of Canaan, and contend that no God could be so cruel as to call for the destruction of an entire nation.No, you're completely missing the point. If we can assume for the sake of argument that god(s) exist, then there is absolutely no argument why such a god couldn't exhibit cruelty - even if he himself claims to be "merciful". All sorts of tyrannical rulers have had inflated egos and distorted self images, and many of the people being ruled by them go along with the charade in a variant sort of Stockholm Syndrome. One only needs to examine 1930's Germany to see that Hitler had overwhelming public support despite the tyranny of his regime. The problem is that I simply don't agree that the god of the bible is either "loving" or "merciful" when those attributes are in direct contradiction to his depiction in the bible. I have no problem with saying that God is cruel, I have more of a problem defining him as "loving" and "merciful". The mere idea of the God of heaven ordering the death of women and innocent children so outraged infidel Thomas Paine...I had to interrupt here due to the humor I find in this apologist calling one of the Founding Fathers of the United States (who many evangelical christians claim founded this country on christianity) an "infidel". ...that he said such a scenario was sufficient evidence in and of itself to cause him to reject the divine origin of the Bible (1795, p. 90).(p. 95 on Google Books)Upon finding a copy of Thomas Paine's book "Age of Reason" on Google Books, I have failed to see where this apparent "fact" (the above reference corresponds to page 95 on the Google Books document) is derived from. For the sake of argument, I would agree that using the reason that "God is cruel" would not be a valid argument for not believing in the "divine origin" of the bible. There are much more compelling and stronger arguments for reaching the conclusion that the bible is man-made. However, insinuating that "the infidel" Thomas Paine does not believe in the bible's authenticity simply because he doesn't like the way God acts, is using a strawman argument to make Thomas Paine's argument seem ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me to see an apologist stoop to such a ridiculous argument and resort to name calling to further villainize their opposition. In fact, he condemned the Bible for its alleged moral atrocities,I would have to agree with our Founding Father on this point. and even went so far as to blame the Bible for virtually every moral injustice ever committed. He wrote:(p. 190 on Google Books)Claiming that Paine was blaming "the bible" for "virtually every moral injustice ever committed" is quite a bit of a stretch. In the above quote he is neither singling out the bible, nor is he encompassing "virtually every moral injustice". In the above quote he is speaking of the moral injustices specifically that plagued Europe, which mostly were fueled by religious atrocities. However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching.To justify the killing of children except for the female virgins, which we can keep for ourselves against their will, exhibits a complete lack of an understanding of morality. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption.Yes, because we know that according to the bible everything is measured in absolutes - this entire nation over here is entirely good, and that nation over there is entirely bad. No bad people live in the good nation, and no good people live in the bad nation. This is an asinine outlook that has no semblance to reality. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction).I find this to be a weak argument that God and/or the Israelites had any cares as to whether any of the surrounding tribes "repented" or not. God's commandments as they appear in the bible condoning slavery, mass killings, and beatings never are excepted with a line that says "unless they repent". Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin.And just who says that death is a better fate than slavery? If one were to put up a poll and give an entire nation a choice of either euthanasia or a life in slavery, how many do you truly believe would choose to be killed to spare themselves from a life of slavery? Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise.If it was such a blessing to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise" why not kill the virgin girls as well, or is it more of a blessing to marry them off to rapists? If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites."Most likely"? If they were allowed to live amongst the Israelites, what chance would they even have at being exposed to the "pagan ways" of their fathers? So it's morally ethical to kill people on the assumption of what "possibly" could happen? Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.How can we be certain that their parents were "abominable sinners" and not apostates in their own "pagan ways"? We're simply supposed to believe in biblical absolutes, I suppose, in order to justify our preventative killing of children who *might* grow up to be our enemies. Man hardly can blame God and His Word for the awful consequences of sin;Sure we can, just the same as we can blame any leader, dictator, ruler, or king for the consequences of their unjust and sadistic laws. When we hear about a woman being stoned to death in the Middle East for the "crime" of being a rape victim, we certainly can blame the people who made this law and those that enforce it. rather, he has only himself to blame (Romans 3:23; 5:12).Children are not to blame for where they were born and who they were born to. A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment,The problem with this analogy is using an "appropriate punishment". and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent by clear-thinking people.The problem here is that the analogy is flawed and does not fit with the context of the story. A more appropriate analogy would be: A parent who was warned about the consequences of committing a crime, was made aware of the criminal penalty, and then when commits a crime, is greeted with the police breaking down his door and shooting his entire family - except for his virgin pre-teen daughter whom the police chief takes home with him to make her his wife. Yet, critics ask us to view God as some type of ogre for following the same course of action.Again, the apologist analogy is not the same course of action - nor is it even close - to the one God has taken. The discrepancy is not with the Almighty, but with His cowering critics.I would argue that the discrepancy is actually with the apologist who can't make a proper analogy. The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge.Because obviously there's absolutely nothing telling in Moses' statement that only the virgin girls would be allowed to live. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve.This assumption is reaching. The way it is written is that it simply means "a virgin". If God wanted only twelve year old girls and younger to be spared, he surely could have stated that. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live.Virginity has nothing to do with a woman's ability to manipulate people, nor to a degree, would her age. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants.It is not logical to assume that the Israelites wanted these girls "for servants", when they specifically were spared on the basis of their virginity and not their age, or another more reasonable factor. Secondly, foreign "servants" were not by any means servants, they were slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 the following verses make it clear God's laws on enslaving surrounding "heathen" nations: 25:44 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.Trying to soften the image of slavery into "servitude" also contradicts what Exodus 21:20-21 has to say about how you can beat your slaves: 21:20 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.So, it is perfectly okay to beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die right away in a day or two after the beating. You won't receive any punishment because they're "your money" (your property). Third, why weren't these female children "spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves" and instead of allowing "these innocents" to be "ushered early into the bliss of Paradise"? This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites.Joshua Chapter 9 makes a very bad case for attempting to downplay slavery as "servitude", as evidenced in Joshua 9:23. 9:23 "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God." Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25).Deuteronomy 22:23-28 treats rape a lot differently then the apologist would like us to believe. Verses 23 through 27 deal solely with a woman who is engaged to be married, which the Midianite girls obviously wouldn't be - at least to any suitor that is alive that is. Verses 23-24 state that both the rapist and the engaged to be married, virgin, rape victim must be punished by mean of being stoned to death if the rape occurs in the city and the victim didn't cry loud enough: 22:23 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;This has more to do with the "crime" of depriving a husband of his right to consummate his marriage than it does with punishing rapists, which is why the victim is to be stoned to death along with her rapist. Verses 25-27 deal with a woman being raped out in the field where only the rapist is to be killed, simply because there wouldn't be a way to judge whether the woman screamed out or not, thereby proving whether the sex was consensual or not: 22:25 "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.Verses 28 and 29 deal with rape in the sense in which it would apply more closely to the Midianite girls, assuming they were to be given the rights of an Israeli woman. Not surprisingly the apologist doesn't include verse 29 in his references which clearly states how to handle a rapist and his victim if the victim is not engaged to be married to anyone: 22:28 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;Yes, this is what the bible says about a woman who is not engaged to anyone who gets raped - she gets the privilege of becoming her attacker's wife, and her attacker simply has to pay 50 shekels to her father. That's quite a different point of view on rape than what the apologist was attempting to portray these verses to mean. The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives.This is an attempt to shift the question into why were the prisoners of war killed, and away from what the real question is - how do we justify the killing of innocent children? As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites.A "judgment call" that hinges on whether a woman has retained her virginity or not. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things—These are baseless attributes that the bible contradicts in many chapters. I've dealt with many arguments in previous chapters about problems with God's "omniscience" and "omnipresence" and therefore I'd rather not side track from the main point of this rebuttal. so He may do whatever He wishes,This argument from apologists always bugs me. With this baseless argument we can justify God's mass genocides, his demands to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and all sorts of immoral acts "just because he's God and he can do what he wants". This is not a logical argument at all. [He may do whatever He wishes,] so long as it is not in violation of His character.And what may I ask is a violation of "his character"? If he has limits on his actions, that would also shoot a gaping hole in the claim of God being omnipotent. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us.The better argument would be that the "reason" has probably been lost due to the change of the human culture of the bronze age human authors of the bible. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice.More likely "God's reasoning" probably served as a fictional rationalization story to justify the ancient Hebrew's military conquests of other lands. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added).Just because the bible gives God certain attributes doesn't mean that contradictions are impossible - in fact, there are quite a number of contradictions about God's attributes throughout the bible. Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does.Not understanding someone's reasoning does not justify their actions. I have no idea why Germany embraced the Nazi Party and antisemitism over seventy years ago, that doesn't justify what happened simply because I don't understand why people went along with it - their actions were still immoral. As Job 4:17 asked: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added).If the bible is to be the means by which to measure God's morality, then yes, I would argue that many - and in fact most - mortal men are far more moral than the character of God in the bible. The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation).Most moral people can agree that condoning killing and raping children is not what defines "justice". Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6).Speaking from personal opinion, I do not find the death penalty to be "an acceptable means of administering justice". There are flaws in our justice system because humans cannot be perfect in our judgment, and allowing the possibility of even one innocent person to be executed due to our very human flaws of occasionally making mistakes - even if it is a rare occurrence - is a position I cannot support. While God is all loving,I find it impossible to classify God as he is presented in the bible as "all loving" for a plethora of reasons. He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death.I certainly wouldn't call immolating priests for using the wrong fire when lighting incense, then threatening the surviving family members not to grieve over their deaths, on the threat of killing them as well very "propitious" or "just". REFERENCES |
Sunday, October 25, 2009
NUMBERS: Chapter 31
| Chapter 31 | |
| Summary: | God speaks to Moses telling him to seek vengeance upon the Midianites, and in turn Moses speaks to the people of Israel and tells them to arm themselves for war against the land of Midian. Moses commands that each tribe of Israel conscripts 1,000 soldiers to send to war. Moses sent them to war - a thousand from every tribe - led by Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, carrying "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites battled the Midianites and slew all of the males. They slew the five kings of Midian - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - as well as Balaam the prophet who they slew with the sword. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive; took the spoils of their cattle, flocks, and goods; and burnt their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers brought the captives and their war spoils before Moses and Eleazar, and before the congregation of the people of Israel camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan River near Jericho. Moses however was angry with the officers of the army which emerged from battle. Moses asked them why they had let the Midianite women live, stating that these are the very women that followed Balaam's advice and committed trespass against God in the matter of Peor and caused God to send a plague amongst the Israelites*. Moses tells them: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."Moses adds that they are to keep all of the virgin female children ("that have not known a man by lying with him") for themselves. Moses instructs that anyone who had killed a person in battle or had touched a dead body must reside outside of the camp for seven days, purifying themselves and their captives on the third and seventh days. Also to be purified are all garments and anything made from leather, goat's hair, or wood. Eleazar then spoke to the soldiers, speaking an ordinance of the law of which God gave to Moses. He tells the soldiers that every metal that can withstand fire - gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, and lead - shall be passed through fire to purify it, and then further purified with the "water of separation". Anything that cannot withstand the flames must be purified with the water alone. He finishes by telling them to wash their clothes on the seventh day, and they shall then be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp. God then speaks to Moses telling him and Eleazar to take a total of all of the spoils the soldiers had looted - both people and animal - and divide them into two parts. Half is to go to the soldiers, and half is to go to the rest of the people of Israel. He tells Moses further, that the half belonging to the soldiers is to be taxed - where one out of every 500 captive, ox, donkey, and sheep is to "belong to God" and is to be given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the half belonging to the people of Israel, one portion out of fifty (2 percent) is to be given to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle. Moses and Eleazar did as God commanded, and the total booty was:
Moses and Eleazar took the jewelry from the military leaders and found its value to be worth 16,750 shekels. Moses and Eleazar took the gold to the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God. |
| Notes: | 1.) According to Numbers Chapter 25 it was the Moabite women not the Midianite women who were responisble for the incident at Mount Peor. 2.) It is unclear whether the 32 virgins became human sacrifices, or were given to the Levites to rape. |
| Thoughts: | Apparently God isn't through with the Midianites after their last encounter with the people of Israel in Chapter 25 and tells Moses that he wants to seek revenge on them. He tells Moses to mobilize an army to attack the Midianites in their home land. Moses gathers 1,000 troops from each tribe and sends them to war, appointing Phinehas (Eleazar's son who brutally killed an Israelite for bringing a Midianite woman into the camp, impaling them both together with a spear) to lead the armies with his "holy instruments" and trumpets. The Israelites triumphed in battle and slew all of the males, including the five kings of Midian, and even the prophet Balaam - although the fate of his talking donkey is uncertain. The Israelites took all of the Midianite women and children captive and looted their cattle, flocks, and goods before burning their cities and castles to the ground. The Israelite soldiers returned to camp and were met by Moses and Eleazar in the plains of Moab. Moses however was furious with the officers of the army when he found that they had let the Midianite women live stating that they had "commit[ted] trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor", causing a plague amongst the Israelites. This is not corroborated by the story in Numbers Chapter 25 as it appears in the bible. The bible clearly implicates the Moabite women in the "matter of Peor", and the "cause" of the plague is not specified at all - only that Phineas' slaying of a Midianite woman caused the plague to stop - after killing 24,000 Israelites. It's also not explained as to how or whether Balaam encouraged the women to "commit trespass" to begin with. Moses follows this up with perhaps one of the most vile and immoral verses contained in the bible: 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."The verse that follows actually more repulsive and disgusting: 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.."What Moses is saying here is for the soldier to kill every woman and male child - except for the virgin girls which the soldiers can keep for themselves. Yes, this is the same Moses whom the bible describes as the "meekest man on earth", stating that it's okay to murder women and children prisoners of war, unless you find some virgin girls amongst the bunch, then you can keep them for yourself as sex partners against their will. These two verse are so appalling and inexcusable that I had to go searching for some apologetic answers to them, to which I will be following up and rebutting in the following post. There is simply no way to excuse these two verses as anything but barbaric, disgusting, and immoral, there is just no context in which that behavior can be justified - period. Moses then makes every soldier who killed in battle or touched a corpse reside outside of the camp for a week to purify themselves, reminding them that they'd have to purify themselves and their captives (i.e. the virgin girls they were allowed to Eleazar then addresses the soldiers, telling them that any metal that they looted that can withstand fire will have to be passed through flames to purify it, and then further be purified with the bizarre "water of separation" ritual described in Numbers Chapter 19. Anything that can't withstand flame will simply have to be washed in the "water of separation" alone. He finished up by telling the soldiers to wash their clothes on the seventh day of their exile, and that they'll be "clean" and allowed to return to the camp after that. God then tells Moses and Eleazar to count up all of the spoils that the soldiers looted from the Midianites and to divide them up in half. One half is to go to the soldiers who did the looting, and the other is to go to the people of Israel, but before Moses ponies out the riches, God wants his cut. He taxes the soldiers cut a mere .20% - where one out of every 500 ox, donkey, sheep, or virgin is to "belong to God" - or more aptly, is given to Eleazar for a "heave offering". Out of the people's half, a 2% tax is levied upon them with the spoils going to the Levites. The bible gives us the totals of each half's take (675,000 sheep; 72,000 oxen; 61,000 donkeys; and 32,000 virgin girls) and what percentages are "God's portion" - where curiously it isn't explained what happens to the virgins in "God's portion". Priests are forbidden from marrying foreign women, so they couldn't have become Eleazar's concubines, so either they were just passed off for others to rape or they might have been human sacrifices(?) - the bible isn't clear here. The military leaders then decide to present Moses and Eleazar with a donation to the tabernacle of some of the gold jewelry they had looted, pointing out that not a single soldier was lost or killed in battle. Moses and Eleazar happily took the 16,750 shekels worth of gold and stashed it inside the tabernacle for a memorial for the people of Israel before God. |
Saturday, October 3, 2009
NUMBERS: Chapter 25
| Chapter 25 | |
| Summary: | While the people of Israel were camped in the land of Shittim, they began to "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab. The Moabites invited the Israelites to their sacrifices to their gods, and the Israelites feasted with them and bowed down to their gods. The Israelites had "joined themselves unto Baalpeor", and the anger of God was kindled against the people of Israel. God tells Moses to execute the leaders of the Israelite tribes and to hang their corpses up "before the Lord against the sun", so that God's anger will be diverted away from the people of Israel. Moses ordered the judges to slay "every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor". One of the Israelite men however snuck in a Midianite woman, "in sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel", who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle. When Phinehas (Eleazar's son, and Aaron's grandson) saw this, he grabbed a javelin and rushed into the man's tent. He barged into the man's tent and thrust the javelin through him, and through the belly of the Midianite woman. God's plague was then stopped, after the deaths of 24,000 Israelites. God tells Moses that Phinehas had turned God's anger away from the people of Israel, explaining that Phinehas' zealous slaying of the Israelite and his Midianite wife showed that he was as angry as God was, and that this deed was the reason why God stopped killing the Israelites. God continues, stating that he shall give unto Phinehas his "covenant of peace", rewarding Phinehas for his zealous slaying which made atonement for the Israelites. Phinehas and his descendants are rewarded with an everlasting priesthood. The name of the Israelite that Phinehas killed was Zimri - son of Salu, a prince of a chief house amongst the tribe of Simeon; the woman who was slain with him was named Cozbi, who was the daughter of a Midianite prince named Zur. God tells Moses to "vex the Midianites" and to destroy them, because they are destroying Israel with their wiles, where they had "beguiled" them in the "matter of Peor" and in the "matter of Cozbi". |
| Notes: | 1.) "Baalpeor" is a portemanteau of the title "baal" (a Semitic title meaning "master" or "lord") and "Peor" (after the location of Mount Peor), loosely meaning "the god of Mount Peor". |
| Thoughts: | This brief and extremely violent chapter of the book of Numbers is interesting in the context of the chapter it proceeds. In the previous chapter the prophetic Balaam stood atop Mount Peor looking over the Israeli camp, marveling at their organization, and blesses them in the name of God due to their righteousness, and prophesying the destruction of Moab. This chapter however shows the Israelites at the base of Mount Peor feasting with the Moabites, sleeping with Moabite women, and sacrificing and worshiping their gods. Of course, God is violently angered over this behavior, so he tells Moses to go round up the tribe leaders and execute them, and to set an example he commands Moses to hang their corpses up in the daylight for all to see - this, God explains, will divert his anger away from the people of Israel. Moses orders the judges of Israel to kill any and everyone who was sacrificing and worshiping the god of Mount Peor (Baalpeor). One of the Israelites however snuck in a Midianite woman into the Israeli camp site, in plain view of Moses and the entire congregation of Israel. Aaron's grandson (Eleazar's son) Phinehas saw this, grabbed a spear, rushed into the man's tent and impaled both the Israelite and the Midianite woman with his spear. (It is thought that the two were in the act of copulation when Phinehas killed them.) Before we continue, we have to address two problems: first, the beginning of this chapter deals with the Israelites "committing whoredom" with the Moabites, the rest of the chapter then abruptly shifts its attention to the Midianites. Secondly, Phinehas slays an Israelite man (who is later identified as Zimri) and his Midianite wife Cozbi, for the apparent reason that she is simply a Midianite woman. The problem with this reasoning, is that Moses' wife Zipporah is also a Midianite - as is Moses' father-in-law Reuel/Jethro (and his possible brother-in-law Hobab). Simply slaying Zimri and Cozbi for Cozbi's Midianite heritage doesn't make sense and is obviously hypocritical in light of Moses' own Midianite wife and in-laws. Biblical scholars theorize that this chapter originated from two different source materials woven together (which also explains the baffling mention of a plague being stopped after Cozbi and Zimri's slaying, which isn't mentioned prior) in a rather complex theory called the "Documentary hypothesis", in which the Torah (or the first five books of the Old Testament) was assembled from several independent yet parallel sources. Phinehas' slaying of Zimri and Cozbi pleases God and he puts a halt to a plague he had brought upon the Israelites - but not before 24,000 Israelites succumbed and died from it. God tells Moses that he's happy with Phinehas' handiwork because it apparently proved that Phinehas was just as ticked off and angry as God was. He states that Phinehas' murdering rampage of Zimri and Cozbi made atonement for the "sins" of Israel and rewards Phinehas with a promotion in the priesthood. Let's review this again: Zimri sneaks a Midianite girl into the Israeli camp, this angers Phinehas (despite the fact that his uncle Moses is also married to a Midianite woman), Phinehas violently murders them both - impaling them with a spear while they're supposedly having sex, God is pleased enough to stop killing people - after killing a whopping 24,000 Israelites himself, and he then gives Phinehas his seal of approval and a promotion at his job. Zimri's crime apparently being taking a wife from outside his race of people (something Moses has done himself with the same foreign tribe - the Midianites) and murdering them both violently with a spear is the right course of action and punishment to take? After Phinehas kills them both, the bible finally gives us the names of Zimri (the son of Salu, a Simeon prince) and Cozbi (the daughter of a Midianite prince named Zur). God then tells Moses to "vex" the Midianites and utterly destroy them all, since their women are corrupting the Israelite men - totally ignoring the fact that Moses also has a Midianite wife and Midianite offspring. God claims that the Midianite women led to the "matter at Peor" (which was the Moabite women) and the "matter of Cozbi". Once again, the God plays the misogyny card and blames the Midianite women for what ultimately should be "sins" of the Israelite men. The Israelites are bound by God's commandments not to worship other gods or idols, yet God implies that it's actually the fault of the Midianite women - as if the Israelite men simply have no mind of their own and are somehow not able to resist the temptations of Midianite women. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Joshua, along with the rest of Israel, took Achan, the silver, the garment, the piece of gold, Achan's sons and daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and everything he owned and brought them out to the valley of Achor. Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The Lord will now trouble you today."
Hauntingly, Joshua rhetorically asks Achan why he has he caused so much trouble for Israel, and retorts that now God will "trouble" Achan today. With those words, the Israelites stoned Achan, his children, and his livestock to death, set the remains on fire along with the rest of Achan's possessions, and placed a big heap of stones on top of the charred remains. The death and destruction of Achan and all that he owned, including the innocent lives of his children and his livestock, was sufficient to quell God's anger toward the Israelites.