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.

[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]

... 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.

So if virgin were SPARED because they represented "the true children of God" why does Ezekiel record a divine command to kill virgins?

EZEKIEL 9:5

And to these [others] he said in my ears: “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.+ 6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women+ YOU should kill off—to a ruination.

[Eddie Ramos]

... 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.

So if virgin were SPARED because they represented "the true children of God" why does Ezekiel record a divine command to kill virgins?

EZEKIEL 9:5

And to these [others] he said in my ears: “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.+ 6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women+ YOU should kill off—to a ruination.

If you re-read my post #10, I did mention the fact that one spiritual application does not always apply everywhere everytime the same way in the Bible.

From Post #10: "I didn't say that only virgins were ever spared in the Bible. But God can and does paint the same picture in so many different ways throughout the Bible. So, we can't take what we learn as one type of representation and make it apply everywhere in the Bible".

The answer I gave you regarding virgins representing the true believers was for the scripture we were focusing in at the time, where God's judgment came upon the people but not upon the virgins. I then showed you that if we search the scriptures for understanding as to why God laid things out to happen that way, well then, the scriptures teach us that those who escape the wrath of God are only the true children of God, the elect, who (and not concidentally) are likened to virgins.

You are taking my statements, which were made regarding one biblical account, and are somehow making me carry that same application to every account of the scriptures, but that's something I haven't done, nor should you presume to do so on my behalf. Please re-read my post #10 to clearly understand the Bible's position on this.

The Bible certainly teaches that a virgin can and does represent a true child of God.

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.

But, along a virgin representing a true child of God, a virgin can also represent someone who outwardly identifies as a true child of God, and yet never was. We learn this from the parable of the 10 virgins, of which 5 were wise and 5 were foolish, but all 10 are referred to as virgins. And as we see this parable unfold, the 5 wise virgins represent the true children of God and the 5 foolish represent those who only outwarly identified as true children of God. In other woirds, they thought they were saved but never were.

Matthew 25:1–12 (KJV 1900)
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

The Bible gives us the same type of application for many other comparisons, like the true sheep and the wolves in sheeps clothing. Both identify as sheep, yet there is a major differrence between the two. Likewise with the virgins. So, when we read of virgins being spared from wrath, then we can be absolutely certain who they represent, the true children of God.

But (and regarding your question) what about when virgins are not spared from death?

Ezekiel 9:5–6 (KJV 1900)
And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids (virgins), and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

In this account, we can see that virgins are not spared from the judgment of God. Well, as we saw earlier, these virgins can only be those who only outwardly identified as a true child of God, but never were. These virgins who were not spared are therefore like those foolish virgins. Incidentally, this account is bringing destruction to everyone (men, women and children), except those who have a mark placed upon their foreheards. This mark identifies with God's name written upon the foreheads of his people. The mark identifies ownership, just like the mark of the beast.

Revelation 7:3 (KJV 1900)
Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Revelation 9:4 (KJV 1900)
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

This means that God's wrath Can and does come upon men, women and children alike if they are not true children of God. If they have not been sealed upon their foreheads, meaning if they have not been born again. God's righteous judgment is against sin, which has passed upon all for that all have sinned. This is why, without God's salvation having taken place, that there is no one righteous, no not one. And there is no in between stage, one is either righteous or wicked, saved or unsaved, clean or unclean, loved or hated.

Ezekiel 9:5–6 (KJV 1900)
And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids (virgins), and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.

[JehovahsWitness]

... 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.

So if virgin were SPARED because they represented "the true children of God" why does Ezekiel record a divine command to kill virgins?

EZEKIEL 9:5

And to these [others] he said in my ears: “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.+ 6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women+ YOU should kill off—to a ruination.

If you re-read my post #10, I did mention the fact that one spiritual application does not always apply everywhere everytime the same way ...

Fair enough. 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

[Eddie Ramos]

... 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.

So if virgin were SPARED because they represented "the true children of God" why does Ezekiel record a divine command to kill virgins?

EZEKIEL 9:5

And to these [others] he said in my ears: “Pass through the city after him and strike. Let not your eye feel sorry, and do not feel any compassion.+ 6 Old man, young man and virgin and little child and women+ YOU should kill off—to a ruination.

If you re-read my post #10, I did mention the fact that one spiritual application does not always apply everywhere everytime the same way ...

Fair enough. 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 am positive I answered this very question, yet when I look for it, I cannot find it. Let's read the account:

1 Samuel 15:3 (KJV 1900)
Now go and smite 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.

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. The very reason God sent for their desctruction (Amalek) was because the entire city was vile and refuse and were not to be spared.

1 Samuel 15:9 (KJV 1900)
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.

In other words, the original command was to utterly destroy all that they have. Then we read that only that which was vile and refuse was utterly destroyed. This means that if you believe that that which was spared, which consisted only of some animals for sacrificing and 1 individual (Agag), then the women and children and babies that were utterly destroyed, by default, are those which are called "vile and refuse". Later in the context, Saul reiterates that that which was spared was done so to sacrifice unto the Lord (this certainly did not include women and babies).

1 Samuel 15:13–15 (KJV 1900)
And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD (He actually didn't). 14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? 15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

"......but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly."

Had Saul obeyed the commandment of the Lord, everything would have been destroyed because all that was in the city of Amalek was vile and refuse.

This account, although hard to swallow as truth, is not an isolated event in the scriptures. What we just read in 1 Samuel 15 (God's command to utterly destroy all) was done on a worldwide scale by God himself. It was done in the flood of Noah's day. The instructions God gave Noah on the building of the ark teaches us that the ark represents salvation for those people inside. They went through the door and God shut them in when he brought his judgment upon the world. What happened to the men, women, children, babies, fetuses, etc? If you believe the babies went to heaven, then that means that this account is teaching that entering through "the door" (which is Christ) is not the only way to enter into the kingdom of God. This of course is taught no where in the Bible, but the opposite it.

John 10:1 (KJV 1900)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

We also have confirmation that all those who were destroyed in the flood (which was all of mankind except for 8) were condemned. This is not language of being heaven bound.

Hebrews 11:7 (KJV 1900)
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


I realize that the Bible has some very hard truths to accept, maily because we have been taught to believe certain things that were never biblical, but because those things which we have believed sound so pleasing to our ears, when the truth is put forth, it really does offend that which we hold dear as truth. The reason it offends is because it contradicts our belief which places us in a very difficult position. Do we simply ignore that which was presented from the scriptures, or do we examine it carefully to see if the rest of the Bible agrees? And if it does, then are we humble enough to make correction to what we once held to be true? That's what each person must answer for themselves. I hope this helps.

[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