Questions:

1. May 3rd: What were Micah and his mother thinking to make an idol and an image to worship and a sacred ephod for his son to act as a priest? The passing Levite who then became the family priest seems more acceptable but then the end of the story seems very strange with the Levite going off, with the idol and image and ephod, with men from the tribe of Dan. Verse 31 of chapter 18 says Micah’s carved image was worshipped by the tribe of Dan as long as the tabernacle of God remained at Shiloh?

2. May 4th: This Levite pushes his concubine out to a raging mob to abuse her as they wish, then stirs up all the tribes of Israel to attack the people of Gibeah who had ravaged her. This results in the tribe of Benjamin being massacred and the few men remaining without potential brides so they “steal” young girls at an annual celebration. From the reading it would appear that the Levite feels justified in urging the war against Gibeah yet what I want to ask is “Why did he sacrifice his concubine so readily to her fate”? It would seem an inhuman act and not one that would meet with God’s approval.

Any thoughts? What do they teach us?

Answer:

These are very troubling passages for Christian readers. How can a Levite set up an idol and lead an entire tribe of Israel in idolatry? How can another Levite send his concubine to her death to save his own skin?

Part of the point of these passages is their shock value. These stories were intended to produce the same recoil in their original audience as you are feeling - perhaps even more so. One of the things we have to remember in reading these narratives is that just because they are part of Scripture does not make them prescriptive. Often they are descriptive only - in order to make a point.

So, how do we know when this is happening, and where to find the greater 'point'? Context. When you look at this story, don't think of it merely in its own right, but where is it set? For instance, it is set in the book of Judges, whose recurring theme is expressed in our own passage:

Judges 17:6 (See also Judges 21:25)

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

In other words, the book of Judges, in part, shows the need for a king. That is, there was no centralised religious system nor was there a centralised judicial system of courts. Part of the effect of this situation was that those who lived far from the tabernacle (at this point it was in Shiloh, not Jerusalem) often worshipped in aberrant ways. Likely, the Levite and the tribe of Dan were still worshipping 'Yahweh', but using an idol to do so. This represents a dilution of their faith, as the 2nd of the 10 commandments stressed how Israel was not to represent God with and idol made by human hands. In fact, Deuteronomy 4 emphasises how the Israelites had heard a voice at Sinai, but saw no form, and were thus not to make one. This is because they did not know what form to make, and would inevitably substitute part of the created order for the Creator.

Being the second commandment, this would have stood out to the early audience of Judges immediately. It may even have been an explanation of why the northern tribes seemed to have more proclivity to falling away from God, even after the monarchy began. (Note that King Jeroboam also sets up a Yahwistic idol in Dan) Thus, though the Danites might have even thought they were following Yahweh, both they and the Levite were not obeying Yahweh's own prescription on how He was to be worshipped.

This raises questions such as 'do we worship God according to how we feel or what is convenient for us, rather than how He commands?

Furthermore, as we read through Judges as a whole, we see a steady deterioration both in piety and politics. At the beginning, we find the Israelites conquering Canaan, though parts are mentioned as not having been completely taken. This is then said to be a thorn in their side and a test. We follow this through the book as the initial Judges saved Israel rather fully, but as we read on, the heroes have moral and faith failures, such as Gideon who ends up creating an idol causing many to stumble, and Jephthah kills his own daughter! The effects of their 'salvation' are also increasingly fleeting. Finally, we end up with Samson who seems like a loose cannon, sleeping around with Philistine girls and going into rages where he kills Philistines almost indiscriminately. After his undoing, he does get a last hurrah, but he is nevertheless a tragic hero, leaving the reader to wonder, "If the 'saviours' of the people are deteriorating so quickly, is there any hope?"

Then we read of the parallel religious maverick mentality with Micah and Dan, and in the episode with the concubine, the moral decay (even evidenced in the callousness of the supposedly devout Levite). This exposes the political corruption as well, as it develops into a civil war. In other words, the very people of God have descended into moral, religious and political anarchy and barbarism. This is one of the main points the author of Judges is making, and he does it very graphically. Perhaps this was to shock the readers whose own moral and religious compasses had become skewed.

This leads us in our Christian Bibles up to Ruth, whose story of honour and love contains a striking contrast to Judges. However, in the original order of the books in the Hebrew Bible or Jewish Scriptures, Ruth comes later. It is Samuel (1 and 2 were combined) which follows Judges, and appropriately, describes the story of Samuel as the 'king-maker'. (Well, as Yahweh's mouthpiece, anyway.) Through an initially promising, but failed king in Saul, we gain yet further contrast with what is then heralded as Israel's ideal king - David - the man after God's own heart. It is with him that the tribes eventually become united and he and his son begin the centralisation of worship by bringing the tabernacle to Jerusalem, and preparing the temple. It is also here that we see devotion to God as a prime value. Say what you will about his failures, he is undeniably the pinnacle of Israel's nationhood, with which all others are compared. He is also presented as a type of the great King who is to come from his own line, the son of David, Jesus.

In any case, it is helpful in reading to keep the big picture in view, as it can offer a helpful relief and perspective on the purpose of a troublesome passage.

Brian Howell

Question: Can anyone explain how Aaron, Moses’ brother, survived childhood when all Hebrew baby boys were to be killed by order of the government? How was Jochebed able to “cheat the system” and bring two boys into the world at such a time? Was Aaron also hidden for the first few months like his brother? But after a while he would have been obvious as part of the family. Was he perhaps much older than Moses and therefore well into childhood when the cruel edict came into force? Miriam was certainly older than Moses as she watched over the baby whilst in the bullrushes and cleverly made a way for Jochebed to continue nursing the baby Moses, but I can’t recall noticing whether Aaron was older than his brother or not?

Response: Exodus chapter 2 begins with the mention of Moses' father and mother marrying (2:1) and then having a son (2:2), so it initially seems this child (Moses) must be their first-born. Only later do we learn that he had an older sister (2:4), who watched the whole basket-in-the-Nile episode. In 4:14, we find out they had a brother, when Moses is attempting to dodge God's call to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. It is not until Exodus 7:17 that we learn Aaron is 3 years older than Moses. Hence, his birth preceeded the Egyptian genocide of the Hebrews in Exod. 1:22.

However, this also demonstrates that the writers of Biblical texts often include information only as and when it is relevant to their story. Moses is mentioned first because the story is essentially about him, and how God used him to free a people and create a nation He would call His own. Miriam is then mentioned for her role in preserving him as a child, and Aaron in his role as Moses' mouthpiece.

Brian Howell

Question: Deuteronomy 32 v51 tells us of God's anger with Aaron and Moses' reaction to the Israelites' contention about the lack of water among other things (Numbers 20 v1-13). I can totally identify with their prostrating themselves before God in exhaustion at the people's moaning. Why did God seem to be giving up on Moses for this one bit of lack of faith when he had been so good before? Moses has previously been teaching the Israelites about God's unfailing love, patience and being slow to anger etc. It doesn't seem to tie in.

Response: There were 2 occasions when the people moaned they hadn't got water. The first time God told him to strike the rock (Exodus 17:1-7). He did exactly what God said and there was water. The second time God told him to speak to the rock. In fact Moses disobeyed and repeated what he'd done before and struck the rock and water gushed out (Numbers 20:12-13).

In the book of Numbers this comes quite soon after the people had refused to trust God and go into the promised land. They looked at the size of the people and the fortified cities and refused to go in. So God said the whole of that generation were not allowed to go into the Promised Land.

Essentially Moses and Aaron had done exactly the same - very publicly refused to trust God and speak to the rock, but struck the rock, doing what they'd done before which resulted in water. Consequently, they were not allowed to go into the Promised Land either. (An interesting footnote is that Moses later met Jesus there - Matthew 17:3).

The book of Hebrews gives us the application for us today (Hebrews 3:12-15).

Jill Cheesman

Question: God (in the Old Testament) ordered many genocides (eg. Numbers 31). I would have thought that it was almost universally accepted (particularly amongst Christians) that genocide is incompatible with human rights. God (Jesus) is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). So is God/Jesus against human rights (even post-Old Testament)? I accept that not all modern-day “human rights” are necessarily compatible with Christianity, but genocide (particularly with women and children deliberately targeted) seems totally opposed to what a God of love should stand for.

Response: God's character is certainly unchanging.

He is the self confessed 'I am' (Exodus 3:14 - Old Testament). The original Hebrew verb used in this passage indicates that 'I am' is not bound by time - God is the great 'I was, I am, I will be': He is Holy and He is Good. But not only is his character unchanging, but His purposes (Hebrews 6:17). He created humans to worship Him, to manage and keep the earth, be fruitful and prosper within it: He was to be their God and they were to be his people - a prosperous, fulfilled, creative people who worshipped Him alone - who loved Him and served Him and were completely satisfied in Him. His purpose was that this prosperous, fulfilled, creative life was to be extended, through His people, to all people on the Earth (Genesis 12:2-3).

As God is Holy he cannot tolerate sin: sin and wickedness require appeasement through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). Because of God's goodness, the sins of the people of God (those who loved Him and served His purposes) could be appeased through the shedding of the blood of a sacrificial lamb once a year on the day of atonement. However, those who were the deliberate enemies of God, those who refused to accept His overtures of love, those who didn't love Him and were against His purposes, they had their wickedness appeased for by the spilling of blood - their own. And, as in Deuteronomy 2, this could be the blood of entire communities spanning many generations.

However, with Jesus, things changed. Not God's character, His holiness or His goodness, or His requirement for the spilling of blood to appease for wickedness, but the means by which that appeasement happens. Jesus shed His blood on the cross - an act that echoes throughout history, through all of space and time. It blew apart the temple - the place the animal sacrifices took place - as they were from that point onwards irrelevant. The sins of the world, past, present and future were placed on Him, and atoned for through Him. Gods unchanging holiness still demands that sins and wickedness are atoned for by the spilling of blood - only now in His goodness God looks on Jesus and His sacrifice and He is satisfied. No more spilling of blood is needed. And now His purposes are fulfilled through us, not by us destroying sinful and wicked people, but us by pointing them to Jesus.

So, was God a genocidal God in the Old Testament? Yes. The wickedness of people opposed to a jealous, holy, good God required the shedding of blood: their own.

Is God a genocidal God today? No. The wickedness of people opposed to God still requires the shedding of blood, but God is satisfied by looking at Jesus and the blood He shed on the cross.

Has God’s nature changed in the meantime? No. He is still holy and perfect and totally intolerant to sin and wickedness. But through His goodness, now the blood of Jesus stands in our defense and allows us to live. Are there some grey areas? Yes. We could discuss whether the allied action against the Nazis in the second world war was justified, although in this case it is arguable that the ultimate purpose was to protect lives themselves at risk. I guess this requires more discussion. Does God respect human rights? Well, probably yes and no. God certainly gives everyone choices, and because of Jesus He gives all of mankind time to turn to Him (e.g.Rev 2:21), and be drawn back into the prosperous, fulfilled, creative life He has planned all along. But whereas He gives us time, the choice is still ours and we still have to choose to receive the benefits of His goodness. But ultimately He is God, and we are not: one day all men (and women and children) will need to stand before Him and give account for those choices. Waving the human rights flag at that point may well prove to be futile. But for those who believe, the reward will be enjoying that prosperous, fulfilled, creative life forever.

Neil Bennetts

Question: God (in the Old Testament) ordered many genocides (eg. Numbers 31). I would have thought that it was almost universally accepted (particularly amongst Christians) that genocide is incompatible with human rights. God (Jesus) is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). So is God/Jesus against human rights (even post-Old Testament)? I accept that not all modern-day “human rights” are necessarily compatible with Christianity, but genocide (particularly with women and children deliberately targeted) seems totally opposed to what a God of love should stand for.

 

Response: This is a hard question indeed and I must say I found myself recoiling from what I read in Numbers 31 which is generally acknowledged to be one of the most difficult passages in the Old Testament. Clearly genocides are a total denial of human rights as we understand them but perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between a genocide perpetrated by a vindictive and brutal dictator and one which is the sovereign judgement of the one we believe to be the all righteous God of the Universe. Sometimes of course we may feel that human genocide is necessary / justifiable in order to prevent an even greater one occurring. Such I guess was the case with the carpet bombing of Eastern Germany at the end of World War II and Hiroshima in Japan.

It is noteworthy that in Deuteronomy 9:4-5 the Lord informs the people of Israel that He is not driving the Canaanites out of the land because of Israel’s righteousness or integrity but ‘on account of the wickedness of these nations’. We do, of course, also need to remember that the land was taken away from God’s people on account of their wickedness and they were punished and sent into exile in Babylon.

The background to Numbers 31 is similar to that of the Canaanites and we learn from Numbers 25 that it was the Midianites who led Israel into idolatry and immorality. In Numbers 25:16 the Lord told Moses to treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them ‘because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and Cozbi...’. I am not an Old Testament expert but I do know that even Conservative biblical scholars question the numbers in verses 32-45 (ie the 675,000 sheep and the 32,000 women who had never slept with a man etc). Some take them to be symbolic approximations and others think there may be scribal errors in the copying of the manuscripts. Whatever the actual numbers were, there seems to have been a small degree of mercy here.

There are those (among them many American fundamentalists) who have tried to assert that Christian revelation is progressive and that although God hasn’t changed He progressively revealed more of His character over time so that we see a more vengeful God in the early years of Israel’s history who deals an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This moves on so that in the time of the later prophets we catch the first glimmer of God as Father (about five OT references to God as Father I think). Then in the New Testament we have much more teaching on God as the loving heavenly Father who goes out in compassionate love to rescue the prodigals (perhaps we should underline repenting prodigals). I have found a certain amount of comfort in this idea but it doesn’t solve all the issues.

Perhaps some of these Old Testament passages challenge us that we don’t take sin as seriously as we should. Jesus certainly condemned the religious leaders of his day. He spoke sternly of everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46) and warned us of the dangers of hell on at least 12 occasions. He was also pretty straight with the inhabitants of Capernaum: ‘And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you’. (Matthew 11:23-24).Perhaps most significant of all, we have to reflect on Jesus’ prophecies of judgment (see Luke 21:20-24) that the Jerusalem temple would be brought down to the ground with not one stone left standing on another and Jerusalem surrounded by armies. This was fulfilled to the letter in AD 70 when the Roman legions under General Titus surrounded Jerusalem for 18 months and starved and crucified the inhabitants. The Jewish historian, Josephus who witnessed the destruction, recounts the whole episode in graphic detail. He tells us that one million four hundred thousand Jews died and that ninety thousand were taken away as prisoners to Rome and elsewhere. This is of course a very large scale genocide! So I think what I am suggesting is that perhaps there is more about judgment and punishment for sin and wickedness in the New Testament than we might like to think. Jesus, of course, is indeed our friend and redeemer but He is also the Holy Lord God Almighty and the coming judge of all the earth.

(Nigel Scotland)