WHY DID GOD COMMAND THE SLAYING OF CHILDREN AND BABIES?

[Eddie Ramos]

Unless we learn to look for the spiritual meaning of every passage in the scriptures, passages like this one will never make logical sense. And so, what theologists try and do (who take the Bible at face value) is to rationalize what may have been God's reasons for commanding this to be done. But human logic is not the way to understand a spiritual book.

1 Samuel 15:1–9 (KJV 1900)
Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. (FYI, this was over 360 years ago that the city of Amalek did this to Israel in the wilderness). 3 Now go and smite (the city of) Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass....... 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 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.

Not only did God slay the Amalekites when they stood against the nation of Israel in the wilderness, but because of that battle, more than 360 years later, God gives the command to uterly slay the Amalekites once again. But this time God commands to kill everyone and everything, including the children and babies. And what's worse is that everything (people and animanls) that was killed is said to have been "vile and refuse".

Can someone harmonize the above passage with Malachi 3:6 and Luke 18:16?

Malachi 3:6 (KJV 1900)
For I am the LORD, I change not;.....

Luke 18:16 (KJV 1900)
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

[Eddie Ramos]

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.

The only thing I can say is that you must not be reading my responses carefully enough. This excerpt is from post #17:

"Now, we know that Saul did not do as God commanded, this means that Saul was rebelious to the commandment of God. And when we read the context, we can see that that which was spared was in no wise considered good by God, but by Saul and Saul's army". 


Throughout the Bible, we are given many examples of evil things being called good by wicked men (like king Saul did). This is why Saul was dethroned, because what HE considered and called "good" was in fact evil. That's the very reason that which was not to be spared was spared.

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.......

That is why the word "good" is being used in the context of the text.

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

I agree that there is no shame in not knowing something from the scriptures, and I will be the first to acknowledge that I simply don't know everything in the Bible and am still learning. But Agag's account of why the Bible uses the word "good" to describe him and the sacrificial animals that were spared, is actually very elementary to understand when we read the context alone and see that it was only good in Saul's eyes, not God's. Making the text mean that Saul spared that which HE HIMSELF considered to be good (Isa 5:20), but all was in fact was vile and refuse and to be utterly destroyed, which is why Agag was chopped in pieces.
And then is we compare that with all the other passages I provided, then we find agreement from the scriptures, and not contradictions.

[JehovahsWitness]

... when we read the context, we can see that that which was spared was in no wise considered good by God, but by Saul and Saul's army". 

I see, thank you. So.... you are saying that in view of the context, we can reasonably conclude that the value of "good" attributed in verse 9 were not those attributed by God but by Saul and his army. If so in the same verse, (same clause, same context) whose attribution of "vile" [other translations : "worthless" "useless" "inferior"] is being expressed?

New American Bible
He and his troops spared Agag and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account.

Good News Translation
...they destroyed only what was useless or worthless

International Standard Version
They were not willing to completely destroy them, but they did completely destroy everything that was worthless and inferior.

JPS Tanakh 1917 ... but every thing that was of no account and feeble, that they destroyed utterly.

[Eddie Ramos]

... when we read the context, we can see that that which was spared was in no wise considered good by God, but by Saul and Saul's army". 

I see, thank you. So.... you are saying that in view of the context, we can reasonably conclude that the value of "good" attributed in verse 9 were not those attributed by God but by Saul and his army. If so in the same verse, (same clause, same context) whose attribution of "vile" [other translations : "worthless" "useless" "inferior"] is being expressed?

New American Bible
He and his troops spared Agag and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to put under the ban anything that was worthwhile, destroying only what was worthless and of no account.

Good News Translation
...they destroyed only what was useless or worthless

International Standard Version
They were not willing to completely destroy them, but they did completely destroy everything that was worthless and inferior.

JPS Tanakh 1917 ... but every thing that was of no account and feeble, that they destroyed utterly.

The clues are found in the language of Saul's obedience and disobedience to God's command to utterly destroy all. Having already established Saul's disobedience to God's command to utterly destroy all, we can see that anything that he spared (human or animal) that in his eyes were good to spare, was in fact not, because he should have spared none. Then we can see that whatever language is used to describe obedience to God's command to "utterly destroy all", is in fact the correct description of the "all", which included animals, men, women, children and babies. This description was "vile and refuse". This is God's own description of the "all" that was to be utterly destroyed.

For our confirmation, if we look up the word "vile" (Strong's H5240), we can see that this Hebrew word comes from Strong's H959, which word is translated as "despised", "conteptible", disdained". When we look up the various contexts of where this Hebrew word is used, we can see that God uses this word to relate it to those who broken his commandments and as such, are under God's wrath.

Malachi 2:8–9 (KJV 1900)
8  But ye are departed out of the way;
Ye have caused many to stumble at the law;
Ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
9  Therefore have I also made you contemptible (vile) and base before all the people,
According as ye have not kept my ways,
But have been partial in the law.

Numbers 15:31 (KJV 1900)
Because he hath despised (made vile) the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

This word "vile" helps us to understand that this word indeed applies to that which was commanded to be utterly destroyed, which is the "all". Every inhabitant of Amalek, people of all ages and beasts, were to be utterly destroyed. This is because they were all under the wrath of God, they were all "vile", and so, utter destruction is the just and righteous punishment for sin.

Now, the word "refuse" is only translated as "refuse" here in 1 Samuel, but this Hebrew word is most comonly translated as "melt". But, I imagine that since the word "melt" didn't quite fit the context, the translators chose an entirely different English word here. But when we look up how the word "melt" is used, we find it quite often used to reffer to the melting of the heart of man due to fear of death. Again, this perfectly fits the Bible's description of those who were commanded to be utterly destroyed in 1 Samuel 15, because the same language is used here:

Joshua 2:9–11 (KJV 1900)
And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt (this is the word "refuse"), neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

Psalm 68:1–2 (KJV 1900)

1  Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered:
Let them also that hate him flee before him.
2  As smoke is driven away, so drive them away:
As wax melteth (this is the word "refuse") before the fire,
So let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

Notice that the prayer here is likening the perishing of the wicked to wax which melts in the fire.

So, the word "vile and refuse" identifies with sin and with judgment. This is why everything (all) was commanded to be utterly destroyed.

[JehovahsWitness]

The clues are found in the language of Saul's obedience and disobedience ..

Indeed and YOU correctly summarized those clues as follows.

... that which was spared was in no wise considered good by God, but by Saul and Saul's army". 

So you concluded correctly that the words in verse 9 were not how God felt but were the assessment of {to quote you} ... "Saul and Saul's army". 

Nowhere did God express his feelings about those he ordered destroyed. He simply gave the order. You failed to take that fact into account and presumed (wrongly) that the words in verse 9 expressed God's sentiment rather than {to quote YOU" } "Saul and Saul's army"..

In short God did not say anybody was "vile" or "worthless" (after all he created the sheep, and the other animals he ordered destroyed, indeed sheep were later to be accepted by Jehovah (YHWH) as sacrifices in His temple) and he certainly did not describe the children or the babies as such.


You're Welcome


JW

[Purple Knight]

Can someone harmonize the above passage with Malachi 3:6 and Luke 18:16?

Malachi 3:6 (KJV 1900)
For I am the LORD, I change not;.....

Luke 18:16 (KJV 1900)
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

I can, but it won't be pretty.

God incarnated himself into a man so he could baldface lie to Gentiles.

I'm not saying this is the correct harmonisation, but it is extremely simple, effective, explanatory, and plausible, and should at least be considered for that reason.

[Eddie Ramos]

Can someone harmonize the above passage with Malachi 3:6 and Luke 18:16?

Malachi 3:6 (KJV 1900)
For I am the LORD, I change not;.....

Luke 18:16 (KJV 1900)
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

I can, but it won't be pretty.

God incarnated himself into a man so he could baldface lie to Gentiles.

I'm not saying this is the correct harmonisation, but it is extremely simple, effective, explanatory, and plausible, and should at least be considered for that reason.

You're right, that wasn't at all pretty because that's not at all a correct harmonization. If you understand that God indeed became flesh (a man in the person of Jesus), then it would be a direct contradiction to claim that he could lie.

Hebrews 6:18 (KJV 1900)
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

John 17:17 (KJV 1900)
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

What you consider to be "lies", may actually be due to the fact that you don't understand that the Word of God does not speak without parables. And parables were meant to conceal truth.

[Purple Knight]

You're right, that wasn't at all pretty because that's not at all a correct harmonization. If you understand that God indeed became flesh (a man in the person of Jesus), then it would be a direct contradiction to claim that he could lie.

God can't poop either. Or fart. Or bleed. Or die. Or at least it's reasonable that he doesn't. But if he incarnates into a man, then he can. That's a different whole being, just like my consciousness in a cat, is a different being than my consciousness in a human vessel.

Most people seem to agree that it's not that God can't lie, but that he simply doesn't. It's more like a promise, and God always keeps his promises. There is a legitimate question as to what that promise covers, and what it does not. God also said he doesn't change, but if incarnated into a man, he is first a baby, then a child, then an adult, so he does change. It is said in the Bible that God does not lie. It is never said that Jesus does not. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I remember something about "he had done no wrong and no deceit was in his mouth" in the context of him being killed for nothing, but arguably there are times when he does lie, and I certainly see nothing that says he can't lie.

And again I'm not presenting this as something that is necessarily true, only something that is at least consistent, and bears consideration.

John 17:17 (KJV 1900)
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

This doesn't say always.