Are Some Bible Passages Immoral?

There are some Biblical passages which do not seem to match our ethical standards.  In particular, this is in response to those found on http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm on Jan. 15, 2008.  The author made some convincing arguments--at least on the surface.

(Please read any relevant Notes before the discussion on the passage of interest.  The Notes include Notes on God Murdering, Notes on Sin, Notes on Killing Children, Notes on Justice, Notes on Absolute Holiness Rules, and Notes on Slavery.)



Notes on God Murdering

God's justice represents a different way of thinking.  Even the overlooked fall of man from grace presents the idea that to choose any evil over pleasing God warrants a revocation of one's right to life, an idea that by today's standards seems extreme and even immoral.  This is also an example for which we have evidence today.  However, God does not view death as this scary end of existence that we see it as, because our spirits continue to exist.  God sees it as taking away a possession that we failed to use properly, albeit a very important possession, and from this perspective any sin justifies death; even premature death, as aging is just one of God's methods of killing us.  A body is seen as just a physical possession.  After all, are we not taught that the body is a gift from God, and we will someday have to return it?  It is clear then, that as long as death is given by God or an audially spoken to messenger as punishment for sin, it is not murder.

However, this form of justice (death for sin) cannot be governed by us because we are not God, and therefore we do not have the same rights, making it difficult to empathize with God's actions.  We view sin from the perspective of our own rights, not from the perspective of God's rights.  We do not have the right to punish sin according to the effect it has on God, only according to the effect it has on us (though many governments even waive this right, forbidding capital punishment--understanding and accepting what Scripture says is easier if one is for the death penalty, especially since the Law advocates it).

Also, being completely holy, God has the right to remove evil from his presence, and the just punishment for doing something to God that He considers bad is for Him to give us something we consider bad to the same degree, which may explain why He would send us to hell, a move that many today, according to our standards of criminal justice, would consider completely immoral and evil.  Most of us desire to live in a completely good place, and most of us desire justice, so He may have good reasons.  We cannot rightfully apply our ethical standards to God, just as we cannot rightfully apply God's ethical standards to ourselves.

Note that just because God had people killing for strange reasons, that does not mean that it is okay for us to kill for these same reasons.  Such instances may be the result of loopholes, not of rules.  God made exceptions in instructing them to do these things.  There is nothing in the Bible that suggests these things are normally justified unless He specifically made a rule about it that applies to everyone.  We are not to act on God's behalf without His permission.

Note also that acts of genocide, by the definition of "genocide", are not necessarily killing with race, political affiliation, or culture as the reason (it is the destruction of these things, not because of them), and is not necessarily murder (unjust killing), though these are things normally associated with genocide.  Therefore, instead of asking whether God committed genocide, it is more important to ask whether He committed murder in those cases and why (this question is answered case-by-case throughout this paper).



Notes on Sin

Sin is disobedience to God, but what does this mean?  There are two possibilities: sin is related to knowing right and wrong, or sin is related to knowing God's will.  Doing what you know is wrong does not apply to the Canaanites refusing to leave, and doing what you know is not God's will does not apply to those who have never heard of God.  Therefore, both must be considered sin (if sin A does not apply, then sin B must apply).  This makes sense since God can speak to us in either of these ways.

However, this only covers the sin of a spirit, sin that our spirit is responsible for.  Leviticus 18:25 says that the land became defiled and was punished for its sin (sin involving sexual perversion and child sacrifice).  It is likely that the land was not in control of this sin, which suggests that God can punish a physical body for sin that it did not know that it committed.  If an object, or even the ground, can be considered holy or unholy for reasons that it is not responsible for, it follows that a person's body can, too.  An example of this is rape.  The woman's body is defiled by it, yet she is not responsible for it.  A physical body can be defiled by sin that its spirit is not responsible for.  This creates a distinction that is important to understanding why God would punish children for their fathers' sins: that punishing a physical body is not necessarily punishment for a spirit when God is the one doing it.  In other words, there is spiritual guilt, and bodily guilt.  A thief has both bodily guilt and spiritual guilt, and a raped woman has only bodily guilt.

Note that this is not a distinction between kinds of sin here, only between what it affects.  A single sin can affect the spirit and the body, but this does not create a distinction between kinds of sin.

Physical death is never the punishment for a spirit's guilt.  God punishes the body for what the body does, and the spirit for what the spirit does, and punishes each separately.  Each is punished based on how it is defiled by sin.

For example, in Genesis 20:6, God said to Abimelech "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me.  That is why I did not let you touch her."  If Abimelech had touched Sarah, it would have been sin, even though he was not responsible.  As Leviticus 4:22 put it, "'"When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the LORD his God, he is guilty."'"  (Leviticus 4:27 talks about members of the community in the same light.)  His spirit could not claim responsibility for this sin.  He would have had bodily guilt, but not spiritual guilt.  This means that he would have died for his bodily guilt, as God said in verse 3, but he would not have gone to hell for this particular sin.

God's justice is perfect.

However, note that death is not always from God.  There are lesser beings who interfere in our lives, in the same way that we interfere in each other's lives.  It is a mistake to assume that since God is perfect, everything is His doing.



Notes on Killing Children

The passages that describe the killing of children are very difficult to understand, especially the ones that describe punishing children for the sins of their parents.  Ironically, we are the ones, not those in that time period, with proof of why that was done.  We know from simple anatomy that a baby comes from the bodies of the parents.  This creates an intimate relationship between these bodies, a path through which the defiling power of sin can spread.  And one cannot completely destroy a person's body without also destroying the bodies of their children.  This also might explain why one is born with a predisposition toward sin, which God is certainly not at fault for (there is one other possible explanation--that there are no predispositions, and these feelings are a form of temptation by demons; but even so, our bodies might make us easier to tempt), and why we suffer mortality for Adam's sin.  Take note, though, that just because a body is defiled, that does not mean that a spirit is defiled.

One thing to consider here is that we punish the body on the basis of guiltiness of the spirit, while God may punish the body on the basis of bodily uncleanliness (not the kind brought about by lack of bathing, but by sin).  When we sin, the whole body carries that uncleanliness.  So even if the spirit does not carry uncleanliness, the body might, and both the body and the spirit are important to God, otherwise these bodies would become immortal after we are saved.

The problem for us is that when we punish guiltiness of the spirit, we are punishing only the body as well, so this different perspective can cunfuse us.  Deuteronomy 24:16 says that children are not to be put to death for their fathers' sin, but several other verses show that this does not apply to God.  We have differing rights and therefore differing views.

Therefore, instead of asking why God would punish children for their parents' sins, maybe we should ask why God would allow a person to be made from the body of someone else.  We may never know the answer to this question.

Something that needs to be cleared up, though, is whether children should be punished for their parents' sin that happens after they are born.  Sin that happens before birth is more intuitive, but this question can be difficult.  It seems obvious that uncleanliness should not be able to spread from person to person, but remember that children are part of their parents' bodies, so this could be possible.

Note also that the "age of accountability" does not mean that a child is without sin, it means that sin is not held against them for salvation.  It can be held against them for physical punishment, however (see "The flood of Noah", etc.).  This is because the "age of accountability" has to do with understanding salvation, not with knowing right from wrong.  Children are not innocent of everything they do, as some would have you believe.  While it is true that children are less responsible for wrongs before they have been taught right from wrong for a certain period of time (and this period grows shorter if and as they learn that their parents have authority), there is no set age, even for a single individual, where they graduate from being innocent.  This happens on a cases-by-case basis for each teaching, meaning that a child might be spiritually guilty of sin much earlier than we might think.

This all explains the verses that discuss punishing children for sin, and more specifically, punishing children for their parents' sin.  However, Ezekiel 18:17-20 and Jeremiah 31:27-30 seem to paint a very different picture about punishing children for their parents' sins.

Some think that the earlier verses refer to consequences for sin, while the later ones refer to punishment.  This view is incorrect.  The consequences for sin cannot be said to come directly from God as punishment to those who have not sinned, as the verses clearly say, but rather to come directly from our decisions.  And even if they did come from God, this view by itself would then place those verses contradictory to one another, as both would be referring to punishment from God.  Exodus 20:5 says "...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers..."  It is clearly talking about punishment, from God, for sin.  Furthermore, although God did create the universe in a certain way, since the consequences of sin is evil, only if evil can be said to come from God can these consequences also be said to come from God.  God created the potential for the consequences of sin, but not the consequences themselves.

In addition to this, God was known to actually kill children for their fathers' sins.  See Numbers 16:27-33.

It might be argued that when it says "The son will not share the guilt of the father..." (Ezekiel 18:20), it is talking only about the father and son portrayed in verses 10-17.  However, it goes on to say "...nor will the father share the guilt of the son.", and since "the son has done what is just and right" (verse 19), these two cannot be related, so it would seem to mean that any son will not share his father's guilt, regardless of what he does.  However, the examples establish an understanding that two people being talked about are different in their ways, so that could be the implication here.

However, Jeremiah 31:27-29 was written in the form of a prophecy, which suggests that a change would occur in God's future behavior, which is reflected in Ezekiel 18:2-3.  In this light, Ezekiel 18:20 probably does mean that any son will not share his father's guilt.  We can only speculate as to why God would make such a change.  It is possible that God wanted peoples' focus to shift off of their bodies and onto their spirits in preparation for the coming of Jesus, so He made a new policy for Himself.

If a teaching is in Scripture, we know that it has good value, so this is not an outdated belief of the past as some would claim, but a modern belief of the future, though if my theory is correct, it does not apply to us.  It just promotes a deeper understanding of God and what He has created.

As a side note, I believe that women could be punished with their husbands because they are "one flesh", which creates a similar situation (though I'm not entirely sure what this situation is).



Notes on Criminal Justice

People's trouble with passages about God's justice is often rooted in our understanding of it.  We should give up our backwards view of punishment--where punishment is merely for the purpose of protection, education, and a token enabler of revenge--because justice has spiritual value, too.  That backwards view defines its value to society, but not to the victim, not to the criminal, and not to God.  The victim and God have not gained justice and the criminal has not lost what the victim lost, unless the punishment fits the crime--"eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20) (note that neither did Jesus contradict this in Matthew 5:38-42, nor was it nullified by his coming).  Also, if the crime is against God, it makes sense that the punishment be more severe, just as the punishment is less severe if it is against an animal.  Again, this is supported by the fact that we are mortal as punishment for Adam's sin.



Notes on Absolute Holiness Rules

God makes some rules that pertain to holiness, and are absolute.  Not following such a rule can fit the definition of sin, but when He punishes someone for not following such a rule, sin is not only a direct cause of punishment, but an indirect cause.  Sin excludes us from certain activities related to God's holiness, such as looking at His face, entering the place where He resides without permission, and touching a holy object.  Therefore, in addition to punishing for one sin, meaning for doing such an activity, He is punishing for sin in general.  Therefore, the punishment may seem extreme for the activity when it really is not, even though extreme punishment by God is justified.



Notes on Slavery

I am against racial slavery or slavery on other unjust grounds, but people have only become poisoned against slavery because of its abuse.  I also believe that the current U.S. system is an improvement over the old slavery system of the South.

Poisoning of views aside, why would people not want slavery?  For the same reason as people do not want to be under the police during a search of their house: because they want more rights.  However, in the same way that taking away rights for a search serves a good purpose in justice, taking away rights for slavery serves the establishment of free economy by providing people a legal last resort in paying debts.  It was a way of giving people what belongs to them, because slavery was seen as a form of work, and a way of paying a debt to a nation that one has attacked, sort of like going to jail.  In fact, jail is essentially being enslaved to the state, a place for losing one's freedom.  Although they would never admit it, the state owns all of its prisoners.  Slavery has both infinite monetary value and punitive value.  However, it can be difficult to see how this could have a place in an economy that is halfway in between free economy and communism, an economy in which rights are retained except for criminals.

Note that Israelite men and women were set free after six years (see Exodus 21:2-3 and Deuteronomy 15:12), or at the Year of Jubilee (see Leviticus 25:40-41).  Scripture distinguished between slaves who were to be treated well (servants) and those for whom it did not matter using the word "servant".  Every Israelite slave was considered a "servant".  Therefore, the "woman" referred to in Exodus 21:4 was probably meant to refer to a Gentile slave in light of Deuteronomy 15:12.

Also, there were regulations regarding treatment of Hebrew slaves, or "servants".  They were only to be punished for a work-related transgression or insubordination, and were to work reasonable hours, all like a hired hand (see Leviticus 25:39-40,43).  There were supposed to be laws to this effect (see Leviticus 25:53).  Slaves who took refuge among them were not to be returned to their masters (see Deuteronomy 23:15).



"The flood of Noah"
Genesis 6:5-9

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that it represents genocide.  Additionally, the website claims that God did not predict mankind's wickedness, and that that is why He regretted His decision to create them.

If you do a good thing and it turns out bad, was it wrong to do it?  It makes you grieve because of it, just as God did, but the answer is still no, so God may yet be all-knowing.  This passage does not actually say that God regretted doing it, meaning that He wished that He did otherwise, it just says twice that He "grieved".

This is a good example of peoples' misconceptions about genocide.  God was not killing people simply because they were human, as people would normally conclude when seeing the label "genocide", and this was not murder, either.  They were all either sinners, or at least of the body of sinners.



"Genocide of the Geshurites, Gezirites, and Amalekites"
1 Samuel 27:8-11

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that it represents genocide.

Whether this is genocide or not is not the issue.

As for whether it was murder, God did not command this, and He also may not have approved of it.  David had his own selfish motives for doing this.  He did not want anyone knowing where he had raided, and he lied about it (something God definitely does not approve of), in addition to doing this (see 1 Samuel 27:10-11).  God does not always punish sin right away.



"Mass murder of the first-born of Egypt"
Exodus 7:3,13-14,29-30

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this represents killing children.

It is difficult to understand why individuals would be punished for the sins of their nation.  However, if we can accept that the other plagues were justified, then we can also accept this one (see Notes on Killing Children above).



"Executing a whole family for the sins of the father"
Joshua 6:17-19, 7:1,4-5,10-26

The website suggests that there are three problems that some people have with this passage: that this conflicts with beliefs of those against the death penalty, that Achan was seemingly murdered for what seems like simple thievery, and that his children were killed for his sin.

This does not necessarily advocate the death penalty because God follows a different set of standards than we are supposed to, but the Law does have verses that do advocate it.  Therefore, we should ask ourselves: who is wrong, us or Scripture?

Moving on, this passage does not say how or when God commanded Joshua to devote the city to Him, but this is something that can be easily implied from reading the passage.  It does say, however, that this punishment was commanded by God.  That said, the notes above explain God's behavior, both in terms of God killing, and killing children.  Note also that this was different from normal thievery because he stole from God.



"Mass murder of the Midianite children"
Numbers 31:1-18

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that it represents genocide and seemingly murder.  The website also claims that this event never happened because the "Midianites" are mentioned again in Judges 6:1, only about "a single lifetime" later.

However, the terms "Moab" and "Midian" are used interchangeably in the Bible.  For example, it says that Moab suduced Israel, yet vengeance was taken on Midian, yet Balaam prophesied that Moab would be destroyed.  However, we know from Numbers 22:4 that there were actually two different groups by these names.  These two facts together could mean that Israel took vengeance on only one of these groups, calling it "Midian", and that the remaining group became known as "Midian" afterwards, as well.

Since Balak is not mentioned as a king that was killed by Israel (this complete listing of the kings of "Midian" is in Numbers 31:8), the most likely scenario is that the group that seduced Israel, which we will call "Midian", was the group that Balak spoke to and the group that was destroyed, while the group that later attacked Israel, which we will call "Moab", was the group that Balak was king of and the group that survived to later be called "Midian".

As for the event in question, whether this is genocide or not is not the issue.

Some believe that this was a mercy killing.  I believe that that would promote unhealthy views about life, making it unlikely.  Besides, it was not unheard of for captured enemy children to become slaves.  This is what happened to Israel on more than one occasion.

A healthier explanation is that they were punished for their parents' sins.  This explains why the boys were killed, while the girls were not.  The boys carried their family's lineage and therefore the label of enemy, while the girls did not.  God's reason for this attack was to punish the nation, after all, not just the individuals.



"Murdering people for looking at/into the Ark of the Covenant"
1 Samuel 4:11, 5:1-12, 6:19

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that these people were seemingly murdered for simply looking at/into a holy object.

However, this passage does not speak of the reason for why God killed the Philistines, only the men of Beth Shemesh.  In fact, the NIV does not speak of the deaths of the Philistines in 1 Samuel 6:19 at all.

Since the deaths corresponded to possession of the Ark, the two are probably related, meaning that wrongful possession of the Ark was the reason.  This would mean that they were killed not only for this sin (they knew that this was not God's will), but for all their sins, because if they were without sin, they would not have needed God's permission for this.  There is nothing wrong in God's eyes with a holy person possessing a holy object for a good reason, but they needed God's permission.



"Murdering a person because she looked the wrong way"
Genesis 19:12-26

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that God seems to have murdered someone for simply looking the wrong way.  Also, the website claims that the angels did not honor their agreement with Lot.

I believe that the explanation for this is that someone who regrets leaving an evil place deserves to share its fate.  In other words, it is wrong to become attached to evil.  God wanted them to turn their backs on that evil place in their hearts, and He punished body language that did not reflect this.  Therefore, she was not being punished for the act of looking back in itself, but for the reason she did it.  This is one reason that this passage is misunderstood.

Another reason that this passage is misunderstood is that most people use their feelings to discern right and wrong, causing them to empathize with the woman and not God.  However, there are such things as evil feelings.

As for the part about the agreement, the angels agreed that Lot only had to flee to Zoar, and that they would not overthrow the town, but they never said that they would be safe.  Lot is the one who said that they would be safe there, not the angels, and the angels never agreed with that particular statement.  The command to not look back could be interpreted as unconditional, as well.  I believe that if the reason that she looked back was because of a misunderstanding, God would have given the instructions differently, by including the word "never", or something like that, or at least not punished her for it.



"Murdering a person for attempting to save the Ark of the Covenant"
1 Chronicles 13:7-11
2 Samuel 6:6-11

The website suggests that the problems that some people have with this passage are that Uzzah seemed to have been punished for his leaders' mistake, and that he seemed to have been murdered for simply acting out of instinct, and possibly even respect.

First, the leaders were only responsible for the Ark falling, something that was not considered as disrespectful as touching it.  A holy object is still considered a holy object whether it is on a cart, on the ground, or on its side.

Second, this is an example of an absolute holiness rule being punished.  God was not just punishing Uzzah for the act of touching the Ark, but for all his sins.  People also have trouble with how it is called "irreverent" in 2 Samuel because saving the Ark seems like the more respectful thing to do.  However, saving the Ark from falling by touching it was not his place, so it was in fact irreverent.  The reason that God made this rule was because He wanted to separate men from Himself, to create a gap between holy and unholy.  Uzzah came closer to God than he was supposed to; he crossed this gap.

God punished Uzzah's body for what his body did.  His spirit did not have to be aware of what his body was doing for his body to be guilty in God's eyes.  This was not murder.  However, despite this, I believe that God would not have punished him unless this act stemmed from a deeper problem, unless this was truly done out of irreverence, unless Uzzah was thinking of the Ark as a religiously ordinary object when he did it.  This is not to say that he was not a good person, but he did make a grave mistake.



"Murdering people for taking a census ordered by God"
2 Samuel 24:1-15
1 Chronicles 21:1-27

The website suggests that the problems that some people have with this passage are that people have trouble understanding why God would consider obedience sin, and why God would punish David's people for his sin, when they seemingly did nothing wrong.  The website also brings up the fact that the version in 2 Samuel says God was responsible while the version in 1 Chronicles says that Satan was.

As usual, understanding why this is not a contradiction leads to insight.

So, why would God punish David for doing something that He commanded?  The only possible explanation is that David had reason to doubt that it was from God.  This is where Satan came in, because he did it anyway.  If this is the case, it may still have come from God, and yet have been wrong to do at the same time.  God and Satan worked together to test David.

However, the more serious issue is: why would God punish David's people for something that he did?  We know from the flood of Noah that God can punish two different sins with the same punishment.  We also know that God was already angry with the people of Israel at that time.  The people were punished for making God angry by being killed, and David was punished for taking a census that he believed may not be God's will by having to watch.  The fact that it says "against you" would seem to suggest that it was not the people's punishment, but this is a misinterpretation.  Also, the fact that David's sin is the focus of what is written can be misleading.  It seems clear that God would not have done this if He was not already angry with the people.

The real question is: why would God want to hide the idea that He was punishing the people for their own sins?  Unfortunately, the Bible does not say whether they knew that God was angry with them.  It does clearly indicate, however, that David did not understand what was going on.



"Murder of 450 priests"
1 Kings 18:17-40

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that murdering priests for practicing another religion is a serious crime.

If Elijah was acting alone, this would indeed be a serious crime, but he was a prophet, acting at the command of God.  As Elijah said, "'...let it be known today that... and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.'" (1 Kings 18:36).

Scripture does not clearly say what their spirits were guilty of, but we know that they had been defiled by idolatry, and probably by leading others astray.  Since this was a punishment of bodies by God, their spirits did not need to be guilty at all, though if they had repented, they would have been spared.

At first glance, Scripture seems to contradict my claim that they would have been spared.  1 Kings 18:39 says "When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate...".  This suggests that they did repent, because Baal's prophets should normally be included in the phrase "all the people".  However, a closer examination of what was meant by this phrase reveals that they may not have been.  1 Kings 18:21 says "Elijah went before the people and said, 'How long will you waver...'".  Note how he calls the people "you".  Then in 1 Kings 18:22-23 he says "'...Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets... Let them choose...'".  Here he is still talking to the same group, yet he calls the prophets of Baal "them".  Therefore, Baal's prophets were probably not among the people being referred to.  "the people" seem to have been a group of bystanders watching what happened.

It is highly probable that this act was commanded by God as punishment for sin.  It was not murder.



"Murder of those who do not follow Jesus"
Luke 19:21-27

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this seems to support murder for different religious beliefs.

It is questionable whether this entire parable represents a parallel with something in the real world, as the master in the parable was said to have dishonest practices (see Luke 19:21-22).  However, even if this part (verse 27) has a parallel, the passage is not merely talking about those who oppose God's will, but those who take action against it, just as those in the parable did.  Therefore, it is not about religious beliefs, but sin.



"Mass murder of fighters for democracy"
Numbers 16:1-50

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that these men were killed for fighting for democracy, a seemingly noble cause.  It also claims that the plague was Moses' idea.

First of all, it is clear from reading Scripture that the plague was the form of God's punishment of the entire assembly, and that Moses and Aaron actually saved many of the people from it.

Now, there were actually three separate killings, for three separate reasons.  The first was the killing of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram by way of the ground opening beneath them.  The second was the killing of the men who were offering incense by way of fire coming out from the LORD.  The third was the plague sent out on the entire assembly and stopped by Moses' instruction and Aaron's action.

At first glance the first two do look like the killing of innocent poeple.  However, there are a few verses that contradict this view. 

As for the second killing, Numbers 16:40 says "...no one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the LORD...".  This seems to come from Exodus 29:9 and Exodus 40:12-15.  These men had not been anointed as priests, and this priesthood was reserved for Aaron and his sons.  This is an example of God punishing sin indirectly.  Their sins prevented them from doing such an activity without permission.  However, one would think that since Moses told them to do it, he was just as responsible as them.  However, they understood that he thought that this was not what God wanted.

As for the first killing, Numbers 16:30 says "'...then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt.'".  What he predicted earlier in that verse came true, telling us that he was right.  However, Scripture only hints at their true motives, so all we can do is explore possibilities.  We do know that they were afraid to go to see God at Mount Sinai, so to suggest taking power from the one who was not afraid tells me that they wanted to make decisions for themselves instead of consulting God.  They probably just used the "The whole community is holy" (Numbers 16:3) line as a rally cry.  This is a possibility for how they showed contempt for the LORD.

These men were not just fighting for democracy.  It was clear that God had chosen Moses to do His will, and they were fighting this choice.  Not only that, but it had already been seen that these men were not loyal to God at all, choosing instead to worship other gods.  If God had wanted a democracy, He would have chosen a democracy.  (Note that this reasoning does not necessarily apply to us.)

The third killing is hard to swallow, but more straightforward.  The whole community expressed feelings of contempt after signs of God's power and will, as though they did not want God's choice, which was clearly a sin.  They also blamed Moses for the previous deaths.

You may ask: "Why did God not choose democracy?".  The answer is that God knows which men are good and which are bad, and it is better for a single good man to lead than a congregation of bad men.  He chose the government most pleasing to Himself (again, this does not necessarily apply to us).  Representing God's will is more important than representing the peoples' will.

If this still bothers us we have a serious issue.  Are we so attached to democracy that we do not want God to be our King?  Will we fight for democracy when Jesus comes again?



"Murdering a person for practicing birth control"
Genesis 38:6-10

The website suggests that the problems that some people have with this passage are that this could be considered rape and that Onan was seemingly murdered for practicing birth control (or, as some think, masturbation).

The verse that talks about the duty of a brother is Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

The concern that this could be considered rape is questionable because it seems from reading the passage that they did not have a problem with sex, but even if it was, if we explore the reason for this duty, it does not seem as immoral.  The reason is that the dead man's desire to have children was generally considered stronger than his brother's and his wife's repulsion.  Also, the strength of this desire may not come only from his will, but from the imortance of this desire not only in God's eyes and the man's eyes, but in the brother's eyes.  The brother and wife are therefore obligated to fulfill his wish.

As for the killing, it was not done because of birth control in itself, and definitely not because he masturbated, as some think.  It may have been just because he refused to filfill his obligation, but another reason might be because marrying one's brother's wife was only allowed for this purpose, and without this purpose behind it, it was sin (see Leviticus 18:16).



"Punishing the children, grandchildren, etc. of a sinner"
Exodus 20:5-6

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that it seems to conflict with today's standards.

Just because God's standards are different, that does not mean that they conflict.  However, the meaning of this passage may be different than what one might think.  This may refer only to children who have the same sin, as those who repent are forgiven (see 2 Chronicles 7:13-14).  If this is the case, then the children are still being punished for their fathers' sin, as that is what caused the punishment, but as soon as they turn from their wickedness the punishment stops.  Even if this is not true, though, God may punish children for their fathers' sins, and that would not be immoral (see Notes on Killing Children above).

Note, however, that not everything that could be considered punishment comes from God.



"Using torture against captives"
2 Samuel 12:26-31
1 Chronicles 20:1-3

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this passage seems to conflict with current international agreements concerning conduct in war.

However, there are some translations that do not speak of torture, but of forced labor, which indicates the possibility that the this passage has been misinterpreted.  These translations include the NIV, the Today's English Version, the Bible in Basic English, and the GOD'S WORD Translation.  This interpretation does have merit, since according to the language of the Bible, putting someone "under" someone or something indicates servitude, and also since the brick-kiln was not necessarily lit when they passed through it.

Either way, this is the most dangerous passage, as it is the most likely to be misunderstood and used for the most severe evil.

However, we can still explore the possibility that this passage represents torture.

As empathetic creatures, we do not like the idea of causing others suffering, but in a truly just criminal justice system, a criminal experiences the same amount of suffering that he caused others.  One might conclude, then, that the goodness or badness of torture lies in the reason.

For example, if one keeps a secret from an enemy, one has done nothing deserving of torture, so it is wrong.  The proof of this is that others who attack that enemy are not punished with torture.  The measures to prevent an attack should not exceed the punishment of it.  As another example, if a man tortures another man without good reason, it stands to reason that a just punishemnt would be that same torture.  In that case, the original torture was wrong, but not the second.  The justness of a punishment depends on whether there was a crime and how extreme it was.  Of course, since today torture is considered more extreme than death, this means that usually only torture should be punished with torture.  It is at least possible, however, even if this passage is interpreted to represent torture, that it is not an immoral passage.



"Legal rape of females"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this law seems to provide a way to get married through rape.

As for the punishment alone, this passage seems to propose that the only criminal aspects of rape are theft of virginity and theft of the decision to have sex, and that the decision to have sex, after one has been defiled by choosing to have sex with more than one person (see Deuteronomy 24:3-4), has little value, because the decision to have sex is only important to God in terms of the loss of virginity.  In other words, the only reason that the decision to have sex is important to God is because she is losing her virginity, or the justified potential for another spouse (this is why the Law does not provide for women other than virgins and married women).  If a woman who has already been defiled by sex with multiple people gets raped, it is not a very big deal to God.

The bride price is the earthly equivalent of a woman's virginity, which was stolen from her.  Her virginity is what she loses in marriage that needs compensation; the commonly held beliefs about the meaning of the bride price are not consistent with the fact that men who had sex were required to pay the bride price even if the father refused him marriage (Exodus 22:17).  Also, never being able to divorce her provides for the decision to have sex, in a way, which was also stolen from her.  The woman's injuries were not avenged probably because at that point the two were considered married in God's eyes, and God allows a man to injure his wife.  Therefore, those were the only things punished.  However, it is curious that the punishment was not twice the bride price, which would match the punishment of other forms of theft (see Exodus 22:4,7).

It also seems to propose that the decision to have sex really belongs to the father, which is why he was the one who was compensated (not because the daughter is his property--he just has custody of her).

Therefore, it seems that in that legal system causing someone stress was not in itself illegal, so the stress of taking away the decision to have sex was not punished, meaning that the decision to have sex had less value in the eyes of the law.

The part about how the man marries her does still seem shocking, though.  However, absorbing some of this shock is the idea that this passage resembles Exodus 22:16, in which the father can still deny marriage to the groom despite the loss of the daughter's virginity, so there is no reason to think that the same does not apply here.  Therefore, the law is not condoning rape, it is putting that decision in the hands of the father (and if the father loves his daughter, he will consider how she feels).  Note also that the woman is not necessarily being punished.  Part of the reason for this law is that women could not normally get married unless they were virgins, so the rapist would be her only chance.

In fact, 2 Samuel 13:16 shows what women of the time thought of this law.  In it, Ammon rapes Tamar, and when Ammon tries to send her away, she objects, saying "No!  Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me."

Women, not just men, found nothing shocking or undesireable about this law, because they understood the importance and meaning of marriage to God.



"Passages relating to female slaves"
Exodus 21:4

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this could represent rape.  The website also claims that women were enslaved for life, whereas men were not.

First of all, as I have already pointed out, all Israelite people served only six years.  It was the gentile women (and men) only who were slaves for life.  This fact implies that a slave owner would never arrange a marriage between two Israelites, because the woman's status as gentile is not mentioned.

That said, the issue is not one of rape, but of rights.  In that society, slave owners had rights similar to that of a father, so marriages could legally be arranged, just as they were under normal conditions.  Note that just because God allowed rape legally, that does not mean that He approves of it.  The Law also allows for fathers and slave owners to consider the woman's feelings out of love, which He commands of us (see the Silver Rule, Leviticus 19:18).



"Raping female prisoners of war"
Numbers 31:1-18

The website suggests that the problem that some people have with this passage is that this could represent rape.

Given the beliefs about marriage of the time, they would probably have consented, but this passage does indeed conflict with today's standards.  Most today consider marriage to represent no agreement of any sort (at least deep down): it does not mean that one has to have sex, it does not mean that one must raise the children, and it does not even mean that sex is exclusive, because the contract can be legally ignored on a whim.  This is not God's way.  God intended for marriage to be an agreement, for the act of becoming one flesh to symbolize a deeper spiritual bond (so not of love, but of commitment; the true spiritual realm consists not of conditions as seen by us, but of conditions as seen by God).  We should seriously question our straying beliefs, or else come to the conclusion that our way is better than God's way.

God also does not approve of remarrying after a divorce (see Deuteronomy 24:3-4), or even of the divorce itself.  God may allow divorce, making it legitimate, but God does not approve of it (see Malachi 2:16).  Divorce is the equivalent of God allowing Satan to torment Job.  As Jesus put it, "'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.'" (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5).  We were bent on something that does not please God, so He allowed it.  So, we see that Scripture clearly contradicts our views of marriage.

Therefore, since sex was considered a mandatory part of marriage, and rightfully so (see 1 Corinthians 7:3-5), the issue is whether marriage should be arranged.  This is a matter of the right to make one's own legal decisions.  I think Scripture teaches that in a family a man has authority over his wife and daughters legally in the ancient Hebrew legal system, so she had this right only if he gave it to her.  In the event that there was no father (any more), and that the woman was a prisoner, the government can make this choice for him.  (Today, our governments would not make the same choice, and fathers would choose to give their daughters this right, partly because of views of marriage and childbirth as less important to the parents.)  In other words, a government holding a woman captive can take over the rights of the father over his daughter, just as a slave master can.  It is a different legal system, based on different views about rights.

The main thing to remember here is that these women were not taught from a very young age that sex should only be done out of love, they were taught to do it only after marriage, and that was it.  So, although it may have been an unpleasant experience for some of them, it probably would not have felt wrong to them.  I think it was the men who decided who married who even under normal circumstances, and marriages were sometimes arranged between the groom and the father of the bride without consulting the bride, as was likely done in the case of Jacob, Laban, Leah, and Rachel, starting at Genesis 29:14.

A prime example of this difference in feelings about marriage is Genesis 16:1-2.  Sarai wanted Abram to have Hagar as a second wife so that he could have children (in other words, so that Sarai could build a family through her maidservant; the children would be thought of as belonging to Sarai).  Desires to have children were greater than jealousy or the need to be attracted to someone.