WHY DID GOD COMMAND THE SLAYING OF CHILDREN AND BABIES?

[Eddie Ramos]

[JehovahsWitness]

.... God describes that which was killed as " vile and refuse".

Not everything that was killed was "vile and refuse" NOTICE:

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good

AGAG was part of the things described as "all that was good" - but God had condemned AGAG and Samuel eventually put him to death. So good things were killed that day too.





JW

[2timothy316]

There were certain nations where no one was to be left alive. (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2,; 20:17) These are the ones that JW pointed to as particularly vile people. Yet for the other nations that were not to be completely destroyed where was a process. First peace was offered. If they surrendered, everyone lived. Though becoming forced labor, they got to keep their lives. If peace was refused then war came upon the city. All males were killed. It also worth noting that revenge was heavily taught in pagan nations around Israel. While Israel was taught that vengeance belongs to Jehovah. (Deut 32:35) Leaving the male children alive that were old enough to remember the judgement on their parents by way of Israel would have likely sought revenge against Israel leading to revolt and more bloodshed. Young children and virgin woman were spared. Virgins were likely allowed to live because they didn't carry sexually transmitted diseases. (Deuteronomy 20:10-15,)

We must always keep in mind, as we read any biblical text, that the Bible is first and foremost a spiritual book (Rom 7:14). Therefore if the conclusion we arrive at is merely historical in nature, then we have missed the most important meaning of the scriptures and have failed to understand what God is trying to teach us in these historical parables. If virgins were spared from death, it was because of what they represented spiritually. They represented true believers who have been presented to Christ as chaste virgins.

2 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV 1900)
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

You are free to read the Bible your way. I do not share your hermeneutics as I find it unscriptural.

I do not see 2 Corinthians 11:2 having anything do with why God commanded the slaying of children. There is nothing in the Bible that says we should. Paul doesn't even mention the wars Israel fought in all of the 2nd letter to the Corinthians. There is no reason why I should accept the virgins that Paul was speaking about to the Corinthian congregation is an anti-type for the sparing of virgins hundreds of years before. What you have presented is a personal interpretation which uses an interpretation method I do not accept.

[Eddie Ramos]

There were certain nations where no one was to be left alive. (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2,; 20:17) These are the ones that JW pointed to as particularly vile people. Yet for the other nations that were not to be completely destroyed where was a process. First peace was offered. If they surrendered, everyone lived. Though becoming forced labor, they got to keep their lives. If peace was refused then war came upon the city. All males were killed. It also worth noting that revenge was heavily taught in pagan nations around Israel. While Israel was taught that vengeance belongs to Jehovah. (Deut 32:35) Leaving the male children alive that were old enough to remember the judgement on their parents by way of Israel would have likely sought revenge against Israel leading to revolt and more bloodshed. Young children and virgin woman were spared. Virgins were likely allowed to live because they didn't carry sexually transmitted diseases. (Deuteronomy 20:10-15,)

We must always keep in mind, as we read any biblical text, that the Bible is first and foremost a spiritual book (Rom 7:14). Therefore if the conclusion we arrive at is merely historical in nature, then we have missed the most important meaning of the scriptures and have failed to understand what God is trying to teach us in these historical parables. If virgins were spared from death, it was because of what they represented spiritually. They represented true believers who have been presented to Christ as chaste virgins.

2 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV 1900)
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

You are free to read the Bible your way. I do not share your hermeneutics as I find it unscriptural.

I do not see 2 Corinthians 11:2 having anything do with why God commanded the slaying of children. There is nothing in the Bible that says we should. Paul doesn't even mention the wars Israel fought in all of the 2nd letter to the Corinthians. There is no reason why I should accept the virgins that Paul was speaking about to the Corinthian congregation is an anti-type for the sparing of virgins hundreds of years before. What you have presented is a personal interpretation which uses an interpretation method I do not accept.

It's never my place to try and convince, much less force or expect, anyone to accept anything I declare from the scriptures. My only reason for sharing is a desire that whatever is presented, might be examined in light of the scriptures as a whole to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11).

The reference I gave in 2 Corinthians 11:2 (along with my entire response) had noithing to do with God's commandment to slay the children, it was given to demonstrate how a virgin can be viewed accordoing to the Word of God, and the Bible teaches us that they can be seen to represent a child of God. So, when God sends to kill anyone, it's because that is His judgment against them for their sin, yet when He tells us that the virgin women are to be spared, we have to look into the Bible for the reason why, not historical probabilities. And the reason only reason which harmonizes with the Bible is because of what virgins represented, the true children of God which were spared from death.

Lastly, the letter to the Corinthians were not Paul's own words, they were God's. There is only 1 author but many scribes. So, God can and does (often enough for us to get it) uses the New Testament to help us understand why things took place in the Old Testament. And this helps us see the spiritual picture concealed in the historical account.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Eddie Ramos]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Eddie Ramos]

[JehovahsWitness]

. So what about ...

.... God describes that which was killed as " vile and refuse".

Not everything that was killed was "vile and refuse" NOTICE:

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good

AGAG was part of the things described as "all that was good" - but God had condemned AGAG and Samuel eventually put him to death. So good things were killed that day too.


JW

..... I hope this helps.

Or helps me understand you didn't see your error. You said that which God ordered killed was "vile" but the scripture described someone that was killed as "good". How do you explain your contradicting scripture?



JW

[Eddie Ramos]

. So what about ...

.... God describes that which was killed as " vile and refuse".

Not everything that was killed was "vile and refuse" NOTICE:

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good

AGAG was part of the things described as "all that was good" - but God had condemned AGAG and Samuel eventually put him to death. So good things were killed that day too.


JW

..... I hope this helps.

Or helps me understand you didn't see your error. You said that which God ordered killed was "vile" but the scripture described someone that was killed as "good". How do you explain your contradicting scripture?



JW

I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any clearer than my previous post. If Agag was good, can you tell me why he was chopped in pieces? And if you're convinced that this "someONE" (Agag) was good, then why are you ignoring the category that everyone else fell under (which was vile and refuse), including the babies? Why does the account of the flood agree perfectly with this account insofar as whom God did not spare, but rather condemned? Does the flood account teach more than 1 way to be saved? Does it teach anywhere in the Bible that those outside the ark were NOT condemned to death, which the Bible declares, is the penalty for sin?

Please use the scriptures in your replies so we can all compare how your responses line up with the scriptures.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm sorry, but I can't explain it any clearer than my previous post. ...

The thing is You have not addressed the word "good" as seen in the passage YOU quoted a SINGLE time in this entire thread. Indeed You have not types the word at all. Much less write "AGAG is described as good because ...." You have made no comment on why "good" appears in verse 9. So your explanation is not only making it is nonexistent!

The problem is, when one ignores parts of the bible , cutting out the context, one ends up with faulty hermeneutics. I'm giving you the opportunity now to address a point you have thus far made no comment on, namely why is the word "good" found in verse 9.

If Agag was good, can you tell me why he was chopped in pieces?

Don't argue with me, your argument is with the bible because, like it or not the word GOOD is right there in black and white. Do you just pick the words you like and ignore the words you cannot explain? you've discussed at length the words "vile" and "destroy" but right next to those words , in the same passage is the word "good" which , as I said you have entirely ignored.

So I ask you, since you started a discussion based on 1 Samuel 15 :1-9 If AGAG was not good why is that word "good" right there in the passage used to describe him and all that was spared?

1 SAMUEL 15:9 KJV

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly

It's perfectly acceptable to state that one does not understand the description or that you (general "you") have no idea why the bible describes AGAG as "good". There's no shame in not knowing something.


JW