I think that the issue you are dealing with, applying what was done and said then to us now, is creating confusion because of a difference in "economies."  Israel really was God's people, and only Israel, at this time.  Only Israel was His nation and God Himself was its civil king and absolute ruler.  I don't think that one baby of itself is more innocent or evil than the next baby, however thay can belong to different kingdoms and the blood sprinkled on the altar on the day of attonement was not sprinkled for those outside of Israel.  This blood covered the sins of Israel's babies and those without the covering were exposed.  In a different place this is shown even clearer, the Passover.  Here the only reason that ALL the firstborn of Israel weren't slain along with ALL the babies of the Egyptians was the blood of the lamb.  No blood and even Israel's babies died.  And it was God who sent His angel to kill babies.  It is alos the same God who sent His son as the Lamb to offer his blood for the whole world.  If we repent and believe we are covered.  If we refuse to believe, we will die like the babies of Sihon or Egypt.

When Israel chose to have a human king instead of God Himself directly, this somewhat diminished and was altogether lost at the captivity.  The civil kingdom of God has not existed since then.

We know that it will come again, at the Lord's return and all who are not covered with the righteous garments that have been washed pure in the blood of the lamb, they will be judged and condemned.  There is a coming time of vengence of God that will make the time of Deuteronomy seem trite.  Read Revelation 19 and the marriage supper of the lamb in which all nations become a carrion feast.  It is gruesome and the only reason that some are not included is that they found shelter in the blood of the Lamb.

Sahid, check out this book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310245680/qid=1112791399/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4169324-3570264?v=glance&s=books

Post Edited (Laika) : 4/6/2005 8:04:43 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/6/2005 4:52:31 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid said:

Reader, I grant that this was not an isolated event, God kills plenty of innocent people. Doesn't that make the problem worse? Or are you saying that babies are born inherently guilty? Personally, I can buy original sin but not original guilt (original in the sense of every person being born with it). I don't understand how guilt can exist without volition. I know this is interpretation but it seems to me that Rev 19 shows God's judgement of evil people. How can a newborn be evil?

“If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome name, the LORD your God, then the LORD will bring extraordinary plagues on you and your descendants, even severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses. “He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt of which you were afraid, and they will cling to you. “Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

That's a great idea!  Why not?  Later in Deuteronomy (21) God makes provision for taking captives as wives.  He assumes that captives will be taken.  Its not just the brutality; its the inconsistency.

God is there in a pillar of fire.  He's brought water from a stone, parted a sea, brought an entire nation from an infertile womb, confused an entire city's language, flooded the world, created the universe in six days, and found a way to punish Israelite adults without the children.  Is he now unable to summon the courage to ask Israel to show mercy?  The God of the Old Testament can be pretty confusing - repenting but never repenting, sparing the guilty and killing the innocent, driving out nations but slowly because he can't drive out the wild beasts.  One thing, however, is clear: God is mighty.  If He wanted to save them he could have.  It would be much easier than pulling off the Exodus.

Sahid to Reader:

You have gotten right to the core problem: trust.  Why do you trust God?  I don't think we can honestly ignore the unplesant characteristics of God if we are to place our trust in him.  Let me put it to you this way:  What could Hitler do to make you trust him with your child (assuming the child doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes)?  Is killing babies of those who are not redeemed something that inspires trust?

God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.

Sahid to Reader:

But there's something else about Jesus: Matt 5:17, 18. I agree with what you said about Jesus. But Jesus also, in some manner of speaking, put his stamp of approval on the law and the prophets which tell of God killing innocent people despite the fact that he is sovereign and has demonstrated his ability to pick up people and move them great distances. There's something about God's power or character that we must be missing. I don't claim to know what it is. I'm just making some crazy guesses that will hopefully stretch me to learn. Why is it that God can and will destroy men, women, and children, but cannot/will not remove the wild beasts? We must be missing something.

Good discussion everyone.

I can think of one more reason for God's order of genocide here. Similar to the preventing idol worship/preventing apostasy in that it is God doing the old ends justify the means type thing.

After the fall God chooses to set in motion a plan of redemption and reconcilliation for humanity and all of creation via Gen 3:15. So God's highest and final "end" is the reconcilliation of God and creation, through the redemption offered and accomplished in the Messiah. So everything God does from Gen 3:15 onward (his "means" of interaction with the creation) has THE goal in mind, the higher good. So Gen 12 and Abraham, and the land promise and favored nation status are "means" to the Messianic "end". All further developments, the Exodus, the Law at Sinai, the Canaanite genocide, the allowance of an Israelite king as a type of Christ, the preservation of the lineage from Abraham to David to Mary/Joseph; all of it God uses and allows and puts up with and requires to the Messiah can accomplish what God desires.

(I say all this understanding that Sahid has a good point in saying there are still glaring inconsistancies in all this and all this is very muddled. Why O God is this so confusing?)

Oh, just thought of another argument...this one a bit more conspiracy theory-like.

The Nephilim of course! See Num 13:33 and related passages. As the story goes Satan's team sees God's agreement with Abraham. Satan is bent on thwarting in any and all ways God's plans and purposes in Gen 3:15, he does not want to see any reconcillation, redemption, renewal, rewards. He wants blood. So Satan sends in some of his peeps to interbreed with the homo sapiens to produce a race of half-breed of pure evil. The goal is to inhabit the promise land before Ab's kids get back and prevent them from realizing God's promise. (All Satan knows at this point is that God's overall plan is closely tied with Abraham.) Not much is know about the Nephilim and related peoples but it is possible that the 6 nations that are in Canaan that God commands wiped out and shown no mercy are infact Nephilim blood NOT human at all. What little we may speculate about these things is that they are of great size and strength. Og and Goliath are good examples.

Hi Jeff.

I still think the 1st born in Eygpt presents difficulties esp because of the baby's innocence. One can only trust that God will be fair/just with the babies after death.

One slight distinction is that in the Eygpt situation a) we had God acting in a "last resort" or "final straw" after about 11 warnings and commands by the Lord through Moses/Aaron, and b) so here at least God gave the parents a chance to repent and obey. In the Canaanite situation they were not given chance to obey and withdraw from the land, no matter how unlikely actual obedience was.

So I think a major difficulty is that from our finite perspective even the OT history is not clear, not to mention what Jesus did, said and represented.