Sorry for the lengthy introduction that was the first blog. Here is the first real post.
In my early 30s, I began to look with increasing skepticism at the Bible. In particular, my studies in the philosophy of ethics and justice seemed to be at odds with certain Bible stories and principles. The story of Achan, from the book of Joshua, stood out to me as an especially blatant miscarriage of justice that is deemed God's justice, as read by the majority of Christians. According to the story, Achan, a common Israelite citizen, took bounty from one of the cities the Israelites vanquished. This practice was permitted in some instances and forbidden in others as Israel made it's way through the desert, slaughtering people in the cities on their way to the promised land. The leaders of Israel (who spoke for God), made an announcement before each conquest to let the Israelite fighters know whether it was permitted in each case to take the spoils from their fallen enemies. Thus, the act of taking spoils was not inherently wrong, but was determined by whatever the was dictated in that particular circumstance. In this instance, it was forbidden. Achan was aware of the ban, but he decided to attempt to get away with it anyhow.
When the Israelite army attacked the next city, they only sent 3000 men to attack the city and marched right up to the gates thinking the people would run away terrified. The attack failed miserably. God informed Joshua that the reason for this catastrophe was not due to the lack of adequate force or strategy, but rather because someone had disobeyed his command regarding the spoils following the previous conquest. The leaders began to inquire family by family to find the guilty party, is singled out and confesses his crime (which again was permissible on other occasions, so it wasn't inherently sinful). Joshua hands down the punishment; Achan and his whole family were stoned and their bodies were burned.
Joshua then returned to the goal of conquering the city of Ai.The new plan of attack included employing 30,000 of Israel's best warriors, a deception, and an ambush. According to the Bible, God was happy with them because they stoned and burned Achan, so he gave them the victory (and, by the way, this time it was alright for the Israelite soldiers to take the spoils of their dead enemies). The Bible attributes the failure entirely to Achan's disobedience and the success the second time to the attrition through his punishment. It's also interesting to note that there are other circumstances in which God forbids the Israelites to fight with too large an army because he doesn't want them to become too proud or forget that their victory comes from God.
The whole account seems absurd and tragic. Imagine the what the population of Israel must have been if they had 30,000 superior warriors. They must have also had many warriors that were inferior, but let's say the there were 20,000 additional lousy warriors. Most of these warriors likely had wives and children, so a very conservative estimate of the population would be 150,000. In reality, it was probably much more than that, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine a population of 150,000 people wandering in the desert. I'm also not sure how long it was between the city of Jericho, where Achan took the silver and gold, and the time Israel was poised to strike the city of Ai. However, I imagine it would have taken a matter of days if not weeks to travel any distance with a population of that size. It seems unlikely to me that Achan would be the only one among those thousands who came across some bit of treasure in the ruined city of Jericho and pocketed it. I also wonder how many other sins were committed in that crowd of people. These people were uprooted and living in the desert. I would be shocked if there wasn't at least one other sin during that time; a marital infidelity, incest, theft, rape, murder or assault, or fornication. Yet, little Achan and his theft of booty from dead people was the cause of their defeat at Ai...
Here's my take. The scouts that Joshua sent to scope out Ai, grossly misjudged the situation. Joshua sent in a force with no strategy, and, no surprise, they were clobbered. The Bible says his people were terrified. Joshua doesn't want to look bad, so he blames it on a scapegoat. "But how could he have found the 1 man who was guilty among so many people?" If, as I suggested, there were many people who were guilty of one sin or another, it wouldn't have been hard to sniff out one guy who was quaking in his boots as your gestapo approached his camp. I'm sure many of the people were relieved that Achan was found and confessed before the probe came their way. All of this just leads me to conclude that Joshua wasn't interested in justice, or pleasing God, but in saving face. If Achan's sin was the only problem, why not go back to Ai with 300 men? Joshua should be confident to lead them into the fray, right? No, he sends 10 times the number of warriors, makes sure he sends better fighters, he actually employs some strategy. Joshua's actions appear to me to be more like a tyrant and coward, than a man who is closely in tune with a just and all powerful god.
Aside from this, lets assume there was a God closely watching and intervening in the affairs of the Israelites. Why wouldn't he have communicated the problem to Joshua before the battle to alert him of the problem, thereby preventing the death of 36 people? If nothing else, the blame could be placed in part on Joshua for not consulting with God before he sent 3000 men into battle. It makes as much sense for Joshua and his family to be stoned for Joshua's arrogance and willingness to endanger the lives of his people, sending them into battle while one individual (among the population of hundreds of thousands) had sinned and not repented. But the leaders in the Bible never seem to be subjected the the same kind of scrutiny or punishment as the little people.
Interestingly enough, while visiting a Sunday School as I was struggling with my faith and beginning to falter, the class was studying the story of King David's crime and punishment in the same lesson as they looked at Achan's story. Considering these stories in juxtaposition really brings into focus the degree to which the biblical sense of justice varies in mercy and severity of punishment depending on the person's social status.
In case you need a reminder, Kind David stole the wife of Uriah, one of his soldiers, while Uriah was away fighting for his king. David's victim was not only loyal to David, he was humble and dedicated to his fellow soldiers. David learned that Bathsheba was pregnant, so he needed Uriah to come back home and sleep with her for plausible deniability. Uriah refused to go home and sleep with his wife because it wouldn't be just while his fellow soldiers were on the battle field, unable to sleep in their beds or to be with their wives.
David doesn't let Uriah's loyalty and humility bother him. He gets Uriah liquored up and transferred to the front lines where the other soldiers were instructed to abandon him when the fighting began. Uriah was killed in short order. All of this is clearly and profoundly wrong. In other words, these acts, adultery, deceit, conspiring to commit murder, and abuse of one's power for personal gain, are all inherently wrong under any circumstance. None of these sins is permissible in any situation. Each one is fundamentally immoral and harm to innocent people. When the God's representative, the prophet Nathan, confronts King David, Nathan issues the strict and vengeful punishment handed to him by the same God who punished little Achan.... Someone is going to sleep with your wives and your son from Bathsheba will die. Even more ironic, when confronting David, Nathan asks David to pronounce judgement on a man in an analogy involving stealing a lamb from a man and having the man killed so he can ask David to pronounce a fitting punishment. David declares the man who committed this crime must die for his crime. Nathan says David is the one who committed the crime, but doesn't give him the punishment prescribed by David himself. David doesn't even lose his throne...!!!???
In David's case, common sense says there were enough people involved with and witness to David's deeds that it got around to Nathan, so divine revelation doesn't seem necessary. Then, when it comes time for punishment, I suspect Nathan was too chicken to challenge the sitting king, who by the king's own account, should have been severely punished. If a man who stole a lamb and killed the owner should be punished by death, how much more the man who kills a man to take his wife and cover up his adultery with said woman.
If one of the punishments in the stories of David and Achan is just, the other cannot be just. I've heard sermons that praise the story of David and Bathsheba because of God's mercy. Where was God's mercy for Achan? Where was God's mercy for Achan's family?
There are 3 possibilities I can think of to explain this.
1. Human understanding of justice and reason is so void and corrupt that we haven't the slightest grasp of either concept, and we have only the illusions of these concepts. However, this presents another problem for believers in that mankind is supposed to be able to discern God's law even without access to the Bible and failure to acknowledge God and his will and endeavor to live according to his will results in eternal pain and suffering.
2. God is the author of the Bible and He is unjust. If so, why bother even trying to please him?
3. The Bible is written by men and is full of flaws.
If the third is true, it doesn't follow that there is no god. But these two Bible stories, in my estimation, do serious damage to the credibility of the Bible as an infallible text inspired by a just god. There are other similar instances in the Old Testament. Old Testament law is also filled with arbitrary and brutal punishments that I have not been able to square with the concept of a just god. For a while, I tried to disregard the Old Testament weirdness and resolved to look to the New Testament for a just God, but there too, I found serious problems. I will detail some of those issues in my next post.
(Achan's story can be found in Joshua 7 and 8; David and Bathsheba can be found in 2 Samuel 12)
In my early 30s, I began to look with increasing skepticism at the Bible. In particular, my studies in the philosophy of ethics and justice seemed to be at odds with certain Bible stories and principles. The story of Achan, from the book of Joshua, stood out to me as an especially blatant miscarriage of justice that is deemed God's justice, as read by the majority of Christians. According to the story, Achan, a common Israelite citizen, took bounty from one of the cities the Israelites vanquished. This practice was permitted in some instances and forbidden in others as Israel made it's way through the desert, slaughtering people in the cities on their way to the promised land. The leaders of Israel (who spoke for God), made an announcement before each conquest to let the Israelite fighters know whether it was permitted in each case to take the spoils from their fallen enemies. Thus, the act of taking spoils was not inherently wrong, but was determined by whatever the was dictated in that particular circumstance. In this instance, it was forbidden. Achan was aware of the ban, but he decided to attempt to get away with it anyhow.
When the Israelite army attacked the next city, they only sent 3000 men to attack the city and marched right up to the gates thinking the people would run away terrified. The attack failed miserably. God informed Joshua that the reason for this catastrophe was not due to the lack of adequate force or strategy, but rather because someone had disobeyed his command regarding the spoils following the previous conquest. The leaders began to inquire family by family to find the guilty party, is singled out and confesses his crime (which again was permissible on other occasions, so it wasn't inherently sinful). Joshua hands down the punishment; Achan and his whole family were stoned and their bodies were burned.
Joshua then returned to the goal of conquering the city of Ai.The new plan of attack included employing 30,000 of Israel's best warriors, a deception, and an ambush. According to the Bible, God was happy with them because they stoned and burned Achan, so he gave them the victory (and, by the way, this time it was alright for the Israelite soldiers to take the spoils of their dead enemies). The Bible attributes the failure entirely to Achan's disobedience and the success the second time to the attrition through his punishment. It's also interesting to note that there are other circumstances in which God forbids the Israelites to fight with too large an army because he doesn't want them to become too proud or forget that their victory comes from God.
The whole account seems absurd and tragic. Imagine the what the population of Israel must have been if they had 30,000 superior warriors. They must have also had many warriors that were inferior, but let's say the there were 20,000 additional lousy warriors. Most of these warriors likely had wives and children, so a very conservative estimate of the population would be 150,000. In reality, it was probably much more than that, but for the sake of argument, let's imagine a population of 150,000 people wandering in the desert. I'm also not sure how long it was between the city of Jericho, where Achan took the silver and gold, and the time Israel was poised to strike the city of Ai. However, I imagine it would have taken a matter of days if not weeks to travel any distance with a population of that size. It seems unlikely to me that Achan would be the only one among those thousands who came across some bit of treasure in the ruined city of Jericho and pocketed it. I also wonder how many other sins were committed in that crowd of people. These people were uprooted and living in the desert. I would be shocked if there wasn't at least one other sin during that time; a marital infidelity, incest, theft, rape, murder or assault, or fornication. Yet, little Achan and his theft of booty from dead people was the cause of their defeat at Ai...
Here's my take. The scouts that Joshua sent to scope out Ai, grossly misjudged the situation. Joshua sent in a force with no strategy, and, no surprise, they were clobbered. The Bible says his people were terrified. Joshua doesn't want to look bad, so he blames it on a scapegoat. "But how could he have found the 1 man who was guilty among so many people?" If, as I suggested, there were many people who were guilty of one sin or another, it wouldn't have been hard to sniff out one guy who was quaking in his boots as your gestapo approached his camp. I'm sure many of the people were relieved that Achan was found and confessed before the probe came their way. All of this just leads me to conclude that Joshua wasn't interested in justice, or pleasing God, but in saving face. If Achan's sin was the only problem, why not go back to Ai with 300 men? Joshua should be confident to lead them into the fray, right? No, he sends 10 times the number of warriors, makes sure he sends better fighters, he actually employs some strategy. Joshua's actions appear to me to be more like a tyrant and coward, than a man who is closely in tune with a just and all powerful god.
Aside from this, lets assume there was a God closely watching and intervening in the affairs of the Israelites. Why wouldn't he have communicated the problem to Joshua before the battle to alert him of the problem, thereby preventing the death of 36 people? If nothing else, the blame could be placed in part on Joshua for not consulting with God before he sent 3000 men into battle. It makes as much sense for Joshua and his family to be stoned for Joshua's arrogance and willingness to endanger the lives of his people, sending them into battle while one individual (among the population of hundreds of thousands) had sinned and not repented. But the leaders in the Bible never seem to be subjected the the same kind of scrutiny or punishment as the little people.
Interestingly enough, while visiting a Sunday School as I was struggling with my faith and beginning to falter, the class was studying the story of King David's crime and punishment in the same lesson as they looked at Achan's story. Considering these stories in juxtaposition really brings into focus the degree to which the biblical sense of justice varies in mercy and severity of punishment depending on the person's social status.
In case you need a reminder, Kind David stole the wife of Uriah, one of his soldiers, while Uriah was away fighting for his king. David's victim was not only loyal to David, he was humble and dedicated to his fellow soldiers. David learned that Bathsheba was pregnant, so he needed Uriah to come back home and sleep with her for plausible deniability. Uriah refused to go home and sleep with his wife because it wouldn't be just while his fellow soldiers were on the battle field, unable to sleep in their beds or to be with their wives.
David doesn't let Uriah's loyalty and humility bother him. He gets Uriah liquored up and transferred to the front lines where the other soldiers were instructed to abandon him when the fighting began. Uriah was killed in short order. All of this is clearly and profoundly wrong. In other words, these acts, adultery, deceit, conspiring to commit murder, and abuse of one's power for personal gain, are all inherently wrong under any circumstance. None of these sins is permissible in any situation. Each one is fundamentally immoral and harm to innocent people. When the God's representative, the prophet Nathan, confronts King David, Nathan issues the strict and vengeful punishment handed to him by the same God who punished little Achan.... Someone is going to sleep with your wives and your son from Bathsheba will die. Even more ironic, when confronting David, Nathan asks David to pronounce judgement on a man in an analogy involving stealing a lamb from a man and having the man killed so he can ask David to pronounce a fitting punishment. David declares the man who committed this crime must die for his crime. Nathan says David is the one who committed the crime, but doesn't give him the punishment prescribed by David himself. David doesn't even lose his throne...!!!???
 |
| Shame shame... but you can still be King. |
In David's case, common sense says there were enough people involved with and witness to David's deeds that it got around to Nathan, so divine revelation doesn't seem necessary. Then, when it comes time for punishment, I suspect Nathan was too chicken to challenge the sitting king, who by the king's own account, should have been severely punished. If a man who stole a lamb and killed the owner should be punished by death, how much more the man who kills a man to take his wife and cover up his adultery with said woman.
If one of the punishments in the stories of David and Achan is just, the other cannot be just. I've heard sermons that praise the story of David and Bathsheba because of God's mercy. Where was God's mercy for Achan? Where was God's mercy for Achan's family?
There are 3 possibilities I can think of to explain this.
1. Human understanding of justice and reason is so void and corrupt that we haven't the slightest grasp of either concept, and we have only the illusions of these concepts. However, this presents another problem for believers in that mankind is supposed to be able to discern God's law even without access to the Bible and failure to acknowledge God and his will and endeavor to live according to his will results in eternal pain and suffering.
2. God is the author of the Bible and He is unjust. If so, why bother even trying to please him?
3. The Bible is written by men and is full of flaws.
If the third is true, it doesn't follow that there is no god. But these two Bible stories, in my estimation, do serious damage to the credibility of the Bible as an infallible text inspired by a just god. There are other similar instances in the Old Testament. Old Testament law is also filled with arbitrary and brutal punishments that I have not been able to square with the concept of a just god. For a while, I tried to disregard the Old Testament weirdness and resolved to look to the New Testament for a just God, but there too, I found serious problems. I will detail some of those issues in my next post.
(Achan's story can be found in Joshua 7 and 8; David and Bathsheba can be found in 2 Samuel 12)
Just one correction I wanted to give you. You said "The leaders began to inquire family by family to find the guilty party, is singled out and confesses his crime".The account says something ver different:
ReplyDelete"And the clan that the Lord takes shall come near by households. And the household that the Lord takes shall come near man by man. And he who is taken" Joshua 7:14-15. It was the Lord who took out Achan. Your accounting seems to airbrush God out of the story as if he's not real. This may be your intention but it's a bit selfish to tailor a story to fit your personal beliefs. Neverthelss I was correct in guessing it would come down to autonomy, and what YOU consider to be just and reasonable.
How do you think Yahweh was involved in the scenario? Do you think he was manifest as a corporeal figure who walked and spoke in an audible voice to let everyone know what he was doing?
DeleteYou may have been a "Christian" but you weren't truly born again or a Follower of Christ. What you've done to discredit the Bible has no basis of proof and is proof that you have never been born again and are a pawn of Satan.
ReplyDeleteHi Unknown commenter,
DeleteWhat do you think I got wrong in my analysis of these passages? Can you name anything specifically that you disagree with?
Gavagai