I used to be a Calvinist for about 6-12 months. I'm not no more but I'm having trouble understanding why God would make people do things and then punishing them for it. Like telling David to take the census and then punishing him for it. "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Isreal, and he incited David against them saying 'Go number Israel and Judah'." God then punish David for this. Or why "He turned their (the egyptians) hearts to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants" (Psalm 105:25). God punish Egypt for this. How does everyone understand these verses?
I don't want to start any arguements... I really just want to be taught so I can understand this better.
Seeking to Understand...
-
_faydawg67117
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:38 pm
- Location: New York
Seeking to Understand...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
What's up faydawg? Where are you from? I'm from Louisville, Ky. But anyways, these are good questions. Me myself, I haven't studied much about these particular incidents found in Scripture. Yet, I know of a few websights that give a commendable treatment and examination of this happenings. Here is one concerning David and the census by Glenn Miller. It (the following) is part of a much greater subject, but includes this incident. Glenn is basically critiquing a skeptics websight where the skeptic brings arguments that are high and lofty, things that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The first part (in bold) is the skeptics presentation of this event.
"God also commanded David not to number the people in order to raise an army. So David didn't - until God came down and stirred up his mind and made him do it, taking away his right to make the right decision and forcing him to do something wrong. Then in order to punish David for doing it, God sends the death angel to kill seven thousand innocent men."
This shows a surprising lack of familiarity with the text and the historical event, for someone who knows the Bible "backward and forward". This passage is recorded twice in scripture. The initial account was written in 2 Sam 24, and it starts out with "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'" In other words, Israel was already under God's judgment to begin with--there were no necessarily 'innocent men'! (For example, the revolt of Israel under Sheba--against David and Yahweh-- had only recently occurred.)
The situation is much more complex than our author would lead us to believe. It is difficult even to reconstruct the order of events between 2 Sam and 1 Chron 21. But one plausible scenario has Satan "standing up against Israel" in the heavenly court, and justly demanding punishment on Israel for some unspecified sin. (They had previously been punished by three years of famine in 2 Sam 21.1, hence "again.") God is judgmentally angry with Israel (which includes David, remember!), and punishes them by allowing Satan to "unleash" David's illegitimate pride to create a rift between them. David is 'incited' against Israel, and acts irresponsibly toward them. (But remember, they are somehow guilty of some unspecified sin.)
[I should also point out that one of the leading exegetes of the passage (Sailhammer) argues that 'satan' should be taken as 'adversary' (its literal meaning) here, referring to enemies of Israel. This fits the pattern of Judges, of course, and would fit the context of David's semi-forced military enrollment here better than the traditional understanding, which I 'defend' below.]
There was no order from God to David to not count the men (contrary to your skeptic friend's assertion); indeed, the taking of a census was allowed in the law (Ex 30.11):
Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. 14 All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. 15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives. 16 Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD, making atonement for your lives."
Had the numbering been done correctly (with the census tax for atonement), then undoubtedly no plague would have been sent at all (v.12), and the people would have benefited from the atonement. The fact that Joab knew that David was doing this out of pride (and even to bolster his military ranks, 1 Chron 27.2,4) instead of out of some religious sentiment(!), gives a strong indication that the religious guidelines were not going to be followed. Joab specifically knew that what he was ordered to do was wrong (1 Chron 21.3), so the issue was not the census itself (a la Exodus 30, Numbers 1), but that it was done without regard to the religious dimension and proper process [this was not the first time David violated important public process, cf. The discussion below on the Breach against Uzzah.]. In fact, the observation made in 1 Chron 27.23-24 about God's promise to make Israel numerous, could easily be taken as a reference to the population-reducing judgment of God. Why then would we be surprised that God 'kept His promise' to send a plague?! What we might be surprised at was that He gave David a choice and spared Jerusalem...
And, in the light of ancient history and epidemiology, a three-day plague that only killed 70,000 people was incredibly 'light' in itself! Epidemics and plagues in ancient times lasted years and decades and centuries--not days. They killed major fractions of the population, and were never 'contained' like in our example. For samples,
1. In the Hittite kingdom, "Suppiluliuma I's victorious soldiers brought back a virulent epidemic from Syria, which decimated the population for twenty years as well as carrying off the Great King and his successor" [1370-1320 BC, OTANE3K:275]
2. In ancient Greece, at a pivotal point in its history, "Disaster struck in 430 B.C. The pestilence is supposed to have started in Ethiopia; from there it traveled to Egypt and was carried across the Mediterranean by ship to the Piraeus and Athens. It raged for only a short time, but caused an enormous mortality. No estimate of the number of deaths can be made; perhaps at least a third and possibly as much as two-thirds of the population died." [ HI:DAH:7]
3. The first great Roman epidemic was after Vesuvius (79 AD), and raged for a century, killing 10,000 people in Campagna alone [HI:DAH:12]
4. The plague of Galen (second century AD) claimed between one quarter and one third of the entire Roman empire [ROC:76].
5. A century later, in the "plague of Cyprian", as many as 5,000 people died per day in the city of Rome alone. [ROC:77]. It lasted a minimum of sixteen years [HI:DAH:15].
There is nothing trivial about any plague or epidemic; but in the context of ancient epidemics, this punishment was exceptionally light and merciful to the nation of Israel.
The passage is essentially useless for our skeptic, largely because so many more details would be needed to support some kind of 'theory' about God forcing David to sin 'against his will'(!). Punishing people by giving them over to their own will (a la Pharoah, a la Romans 1) is a standard judgment-type throughout the bible, but it is never done without plenty of prior opportunity to change and to open up to goodness and truth.
It must be noted that our author has chosen (as foundational for his character construction of God) two of the more 'odd' passages in scripture involving multiple layers of volition. The complex interactions between 'wills' of God, Satan, David, Joab, the census-takers, and sinning Israel are only glimpsed upon in passages like these. The book of Job is the classic case of the God-Satan interaction, in which God says that Satan "incited Him" to ruin Job without reason (Job 2.3). The relation of God's will/intention and non-divine will is quite mysterious (and that should be a warning to anyone about making any theories about them, much less basing an entire understanding of the character/heart of God on them!), and would need to include the likewise famous passages in which God's goodness was triumphant over the malice of men. For example, in the case of Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt, Joseph can credit God with a loving intent (Gen 50.19 and 45.5):
But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 "And now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.
These passages are much clearer about the goodness of God--in the situation of conflicting wills--than the passages chosen by your author, because the issue itself is explicitly commented on.
[This is a basic of theological method, by the way. In constructing theological statements, you start first with passages in the scripture which address or involve explicitly the topic under study. You don't start with oblique passages and try to infer aspects about the subject from it, and then use these less-certain constructs to 'constrain' the more-certain and explicit statements in the more germane passages. ]
"God also commanded David not to number the people in order to raise an army. So David didn't - until God came down and stirred up his mind and made him do it, taking away his right to make the right decision and forcing him to do something wrong. Then in order to punish David for doing it, God sends the death angel to kill seven thousand innocent men."
This shows a surprising lack of familiarity with the text and the historical event, for someone who knows the Bible "backward and forward". This passage is recorded twice in scripture. The initial account was written in 2 Sam 24, and it starts out with "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'" In other words, Israel was already under God's judgment to begin with--there were no necessarily 'innocent men'! (For example, the revolt of Israel under Sheba--against David and Yahweh-- had only recently occurred.)
The situation is much more complex than our author would lead us to believe. It is difficult even to reconstruct the order of events between 2 Sam and 1 Chron 21. But one plausible scenario has Satan "standing up against Israel" in the heavenly court, and justly demanding punishment on Israel for some unspecified sin. (They had previously been punished by three years of famine in 2 Sam 21.1, hence "again.") God is judgmentally angry with Israel (which includes David, remember!), and punishes them by allowing Satan to "unleash" David's illegitimate pride to create a rift between them. David is 'incited' against Israel, and acts irresponsibly toward them. (But remember, they are somehow guilty of some unspecified sin.)
[I should also point out that one of the leading exegetes of the passage (Sailhammer) argues that 'satan' should be taken as 'adversary' (its literal meaning) here, referring to enemies of Israel. This fits the pattern of Judges, of course, and would fit the context of David's semi-forced military enrollment here better than the traditional understanding, which I 'defend' below.]
There was no order from God to David to not count the men (contrary to your skeptic friend's assertion); indeed, the taking of a census was allowed in the law (Ex 30.11):
Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13 Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the LORD. 14 All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the LORD. 15 The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the LORD to atone for your lives. 16 Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD, making atonement for your lives."
Had the numbering been done correctly (with the census tax for atonement), then undoubtedly no plague would have been sent at all (v.12), and the people would have benefited from the atonement. The fact that Joab knew that David was doing this out of pride (and even to bolster his military ranks, 1 Chron 27.2,4) instead of out of some religious sentiment(!), gives a strong indication that the religious guidelines were not going to be followed. Joab specifically knew that what he was ordered to do was wrong (1 Chron 21.3), so the issue was not the census itself (a la Exodus 30, Numbers 1), but that it was done without regard to the religious dimension and proper process [this was not the first time David violated important public process, cf. The discussion below on the Breach against Uzzah.]. In fact, the observation made in 1 Chron 27.23-24 about God's promise to make Israel numerous, could easily be taken as a reference to the population-reducing judgment of God. Why then would we be surprised that God 'kept His promise' to send a plague?! What we might be surprised at was that He gave David a choice and spared Jerusalem...
And, in the light of ancient history and epidemiology, a three-day plague that only killed 70,000 people was incredibly 'light' in itself! Epidemics and plagues in ancient times lasted years and decades and centuries--not days. They killed major fractions of the population, and were never 'contained' like in our example. For samples,
1. In the Hittite kingdom, "Suppiluliuma I's victorious soldiers brought back a virulent epidemic from Syria, which decimated the population for twenty years as well as carrying off the Great King and his successor" [1370-1320 BC, OTANE3K:275]
2. In ancient Greece, at a pivotal point in its history, "Disaster struck in 430 B.C. The pestilence is supposed to have started in Ethiopia; from there it traveled to Egypt and was carried across the Mediterranean by ship to the Piraeus and Athens. It raged for only a short time, but caused an enormous mortality. No estimate of the number of deaths can be made; perhaps at least a third and possibly as much as two-thirds of the population died." [ HI:DAH:7]
3. The first great Roman epidemic was after Vesuvius (79 AD), and raged for a century, killing 10,000 people in Campagna alone [HI:DAH:12]
4. The plague of Galen (second century AD) claimed between one quarter and one third of the entire Roman empire [ROC:76].
5. A century later, in the "plague of Cyprian", as many as 5,000 people died per day in the city of Rome alone. [ROC:77]. It lasted a minimum of sixteen years [HI:DAH:15].
There is nothing trivial about any plague or epidemic; but in the context of ancient epidemics, this punishment was exceptionally light and merciful to the nation of Israel.
The passage is essentially useless for our skeptic, largely because so many more details would be needed to support some kind of 'theory' about God forcing David to sin 'against his will'(!). Punishing people by giving them over to their own will (a la Pharoah, a la Romans 1) is a standard judgment-type throughout the bible, but it is never done without plenty of prior opportunity to change and to open up to goodness and truth.
It must be noted that our author has chosen (as foundational for his character construction of God) two of the more 'odd' passages in scripture involving multiple layers of volition. The complex interactions between 'wills' of God, Satan, David, Joab, the census-takers, and sinning Israel are only glimpsed upon in passages like these. The book of Job is the classic case of the God-Satan interaction, in which God says that Satan "incited Him" to ruin Job without reason (Job 2.3). The relation of God's will/intention and non-divine will is quite mysterious (and that should be a warning to anyone about making any theories about them, much less basing an entire understanding of the character/heart of God on them!), and would need to include the likewise famous passages in which God's goodness was triumphant over the malice of men. For example, in the case of Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt, Joseph can credit God with a loving intent (Gen 50.19 and 45.5):
But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 "And now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.
These passages are much clearer about the goodness of God--in the situation of conflicting wills--than the passages chosen by your author, because the issue itself is explicitly commented on.
[This is a basic of theological method, by the way. In constructing theological statements, you start first with passages in the scripture which address or involve explicitly the topic under study. You don't start with oblique passages and try to infer aspects about the subject from it, and then use these less-certain constructs to 'constrain' the more-certain and explicit statements in the more germane passages. ]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_faydawg67117
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:38 pm
- Location: New York
Good read...
Thanks for posting that SoaringEagle!!! It was a pretty good read.
BTW, I'm from Westchester County, N.Y. about a half hour from NYC. Thanks for asking! I grew up here; it's a great place to live except for the crazy weather and all of us crazy new yorkers lol!!!
BTW, I'm from Westchester County, N.Y. about a half hour from NYC. Thanks for asking! I grew up here; it's a great place to live except for the crazy weather and all of us crazy new yorkers lol!!!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: