Old Testament "Atrocities"

The Old Testament is a tough pill to swallow. People are often shocked and confused by what they see in the Old Testament and some turn away from the faith when they read it without a proper explanation. Let's address this...

Discretion should be advised for the content discussed down below, particularly that of the Canaanite societies.

Genesis 34
Genesis 34 is often called "The Defiling of Dinah." In the narrative, Dinah, one of daughters of Jacob and Leah, is raped by Shechem the Hivite. Jacob and Shechem's father Hamor subsequently negotiate a peace agreement. However, Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah's brothers, later take up arms against the Hivite city and slaughter them, including Hamor and Shechem.

We can see the obvious use of hyperbole in the passage. The text states that only Simeon and Levi went into the city and "slaughtered every male." Then the other brothers (10 more men) helped plunder the city. Do you really think that 12 people could plunder an entire city? There was no Israelite army here. It was only 12 men. There is no way that they killed literally every male in the whole city.

Later, Jacob arrives and chastises Simeon and Levi for their actions, saying in verse 30:


 * “You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.”

Remember, Jacob is the patriarch here. It is he who's judgement is final in the situation. He did not condone their actions in any way. Just because the Bible records horrible events taking place, does not mean God condones it.

It is also important to note that the conversation between Jacob and his sons ends abruptly, with them saying back to him, “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” Something like this required more than just a short back and forth. Knowing Jacob disapproved of his son's actions, it is likely he would have done something to rectify it, seeing as Jacob knew there would be war between the people because of his son's reckless actions.

The writers of the Sceptics Annotated Bible have claimed that Dinah's opinions were not taken into account and that she may have loved Shechem and wanted to stay with him. What do you mean she may have loved Shechem?! She was raped by him! This just shows the level that some sceptics are willing to stoop to in order to attack the Bible by implying a woman who was raped would harbour feelings for her rapist in some sort of masochistic stockholm syndrome.

Exodus 21:20-21

 * “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”

It is important to note what the word "slave" actually means in this passage, as well as in the majority of the Torah laws. The Hebrew word for "slave" is ebed (עֶבֶד) which can be used interchangeably with "slave" and "servant." It can also be used for "bondman/woman" or even "official."

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states that if a "slave" escapes an abusive master, he is free to go where he pleases and he should not be oppressed. Not only does this imply that Israelites who owned "slaves" were not allowed to actually beat their "slaves," but also suggests that slaves of other nations would escape from their masters and come to the Israelites, as servitude under an Israelite nobleman/woman was in much preferable conditions that any of the surrounding nations. This verse is simply addressing the punishment to the master if a situation like this should occur and actually condemns beating their "slaves."

Exodus 22:21-23 says the Israelites are not to "oppress" any foreigner, and if they are oppressed God will "surely hear their cry." Deuteronomy 24:7 states the same thing about Israelites "oppressing" each other.

Just 10 verses prior to this passage, a "slave" is free to remain with his master if he so wishes, indicating an enormous amount of personal freedom for the individual (Read below on Leviticus 25:44-46 for more on the many freedoms these supposed "slaves" had).

In verses 26 and 27, it states that is a master causes any intentional physical damage to their "slave," the wounded individual is to go free.

Leviticus 25:44-46

 * "As for your male and females slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule one over another ruthlessly."

It is curious how sceptics ignore the verses after this passage, which state:


 * "If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan, then after he is sold he may be redeemed. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. He shall calculate with his buyer from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as the time of a hired worker."

The individual who is under servitude is not forced to stay, but has come to that position under their own free will. It also states that the "slave" can become rich, meaning he is able to own property of his own to the point of extreme wealth. Does that sound like the slavery we are familiar with in the west?

This is what is known as indentured servitude, where an individual, with no way of paying debts, sells himself to work off what is owed. This was very common in the ancient world. Under historical context, "slaves" in Israel would have been people who were freely giving themselves over to be bondservants because they had no other way of paying back their debts. (See Exodus 21:2-11)

Numbers 31:17

 * "Now therefore kill all the males among the little ones and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him. But all the females who have not known intimacy with a man, keep alive for yourselves. Encamp outside the camp for seven days. Whoever has killed any person or whosoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third and seventh days"

Beginning with verse 17, recent DNA testing has found that the Canaanites lived and are ancestors of 93% of modern Lebanese people. Sceptics hailed this discovery as affirmation that the Bible is false as the Canaanites were described in the Bible as "utterly destroyed." However, this discovery actually affirms the real narrative of the text: that the people were not all killed, but the language used in this verse (as well as that of Deuteronomy and Joshua) are hyperbolic in nature. The Canaanites were not completely annihilated.

Regarding the "little ones" in verse 17, it is important to note that children who die, according to the scriptures, go to heaven (Deuteronomy 1:39, Matthew 19:14). God, being omniscient, would see the future of these children and, given the odds living in that society, they would undoubtedly have grown up to take part in the same heinous acts as their parents. It is also likely that these children would have been used in the sacrifices of the Canaanites, which, as we will see later down below, resulted in their gruesome deaths. So, in a sense, God is rescuing these children from their lives that would, otherwise, be filled with horror and pain. In Christianity, people don't actually die, they just change locations and, in the case of children who die, they are moved to heaven. God as the Creator of life has the right to take life (Job 1:20-21). If he decides to use men as his instrument of judgement, so be it.

Morgan and Peterson state:


 * “Although their reasons may differ depending on other theological commitments, and although some of their reasons are better than others, evangelicals generally agree that [deceased infants] will be in heaven.”

Just as a side note, it seems rather hypocritical that the people who like to use this passage as a claim that God called for infanticide are often the same ones who advocate for abortion. In the face of how many children have been aborted in the west, they would be applauded as kindred spirits to the Canaanites and have no moral justification to be upset with the events of the Old Testament when they themselves are engaging in a modern holocaust.

Moving on to verse 18, the women described here were virgins. They would have been pure and untouched by the various sex cults that were prevalent the Canaan society. When the Israelites came and defeated the Canaanites, these women would have been spared from being defiled by the Canaanite's lifestyle of debauchery. The fact they were even virgins in a society like that implied that the Canaanites had something gruesome in mind for them, which is why they kept them pure into their adulthood. So, in a sense, when the Israelites came and drove out the Canaanites, they were essentially saving these women from being corrupted and degraded by the Canaanite society. The Israelites would have spared them during the assault and, in the days that followed, assimilated them into Israelite society. Nowhere does it say the Israelite men took them as sex slaves. That behaviour is punishable by death in Deuteronomy 22:25.

The “for yourselves” phrase in verse 18 is not actually referring to “for your pleasure," but is a reference to the opposite condition of “for YHWH” which applied to all people or property which was theoretically supposed to be destroyed in such combat situations. The herem (or ‘ban’) specifically indicated that all enemy people or property which was "delivered over to YHWH" was to be killed/destroyed. By referring to "for yourselves," then, in this passage, means simply "do not kill them."

It is also very important to understand the surrounding context. The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Numbers 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead by Balaam (Numbers 24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (Numbers 25:1-9, 31:15-16, Revelation 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (Numbers 25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared. Immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (Numbers 31:19). Understanding this, rape (or even consensual sex) would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16-18).

Now, the English translations of the females being spared by the Israelites does raise some eyebrows to say the least. The ESV translates it as "young girls", the YLT translates it as "infants" and the King James Version has it as "women children." These translations are insinuating that the Israelites, under the orders of Moses and God, have taken little girls to be sex slaves.

However, the Hebrew gives us the true meaning of this verse. The Hebrew term for "women children" in this verse is hattap bannasim (בַּנָּשִׁ֔יםהַטַּ֣ף). Literally translated it means "young women", not little girls or infants. In Song of Songs, bannasim is used three times in 1:8, 5:9 and 6:1. Every time it is used, it is always talking about young, adult women. This is important as, when engaging in textual analysis, it is always useful to refer to other verses in the text that use the same term to try and understand what the term in that language actually means. When we look at the verse with historical and linguistic context, everything becomes much more clear to us.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

 * “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."

It is curious how sceptics see this verse condoning sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab, given what started all of this was sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab (Numbers 25:1). After the sorcerer Balaam fails to curse Israel on the orders of Balak, he advises Midianite leadership on how to defeat Israel - via sexual deception.

Pseudo-Philo states in the first century AD:


 * "And then Balaam said to him, 'Come and let us plan what you should do to them. Pick out the beautiful women who are amongst us and in Midian, and station them naked and adorned with gold and precious stones before them. And when they see them and lie with them, they will sin against their Lord and fall into your hands; for otherwise you cannot fight against them."

Moab, in allegiance with Midian, transports women into the area en masse and concince the Israelites to participate in vulgar acts of depravity. Subsequently, 24,000 Israelites are killed in a plague (most of whom were males). The women of Moab and Midian retreat from the area, having successfully used their sex as a weapon (with full knowledge, consent, support and encouragement from their husbands, fathers and leaders). For this atrocity, God orders Israel to attack this specific group of Midianites (not the Moabites, as they were just a puppet used the Midianites ).

The attack was to a specific sub-group of the Midianites that had orchestrated this attack on Israel, not all the Midianites in the world. Therefore, this was not a genocide.

Carol Meyers points out concerning the captive women:


 * "These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. Afterward they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behaviour, rather, it reflect the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite forces - and the prevention of death by plague - as required under the law of the herem (or ban) could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelitse weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing took precedence."

The man would have to provide for the woman seeing as she was living under his household. This means a great deal in ancient near-eastern culture, which were largely subsistence based lifestyles.

Tigay states concerning the passage:


 * "This law requires a soldier who wishes to marry a captive woman to show consideration for her feelings. He must allow her to adjust to all that has happened by bringing her back to his home and waiting a month before marrying her. In case he later becomes dissatisfied with her, he may not reduce her to slavery. A significant aspect of this law is its respect for the person-hood of a captive woman and the moral obligations created by initiating a sexual relationship with her."

Merrill states that the process of assimilating the woman into Israelite society:


 * "... presupposes a degree of willingness on the part of the maiden to forsake the past and to embrace a new and different way of life, for one can hardly conceive of all this taking place coercively."

Historically, cultures in the ancient near east were not as interested in "sex-slavery" as the Greeks or Romans. Verstegg states:


 * “During the pinnacle of Sumerian culture, female slaves outnumbered male. Their owners used them primarily for spinning and weaving. Saggs maintains that their owners also used them for sex, but there is little actual evidence to support such a claim”

Even knowing this, the Hebrews were distinct in the ancient near-east with regards to how they treated their captives in war:


 * “This fidelity and exclusivity [demands on the wife] did not apply to the husband. Except among the Hebrews, where a husband’s infidelity was disparaged in the centuries after 800 BC, a double standard prevailed, and husbands were routinely expected to have sex not only with their wives, but with slavewomen and prostitutes.”

Deuteronomy 22:28

 * “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

The NIV version of this verse states that if the man rapes her, he is to marry her. This is a bad translation, as three verses beforehand, in verse 25, it states that the punishment for rape is death.

So if a man rapes a woman, according to verse 25, he is to be stoned. But then in verse 28, if a man rapes a woman, he is to marry her? It is clear that the two verses incur a different meaning.

The word used in verse 25 is "vehechezik" whilst the word in verse 28 is "utefasah." These are two fundamentally different words that have different connotations to the meanings of the passage.

Preceding Events
The Hebrews were under the lash of Egypt for 400 years (215 if you believe the Septuagint). God promised Abraham that he would deliver his descendants to a land that is not theirs (Genesis 15:13-14) and echoed that promise to Moses who would fulfil it (Exodus 3:8).

Moral of the story is this; If the God of the universe frees you from centuries of enslavement, parts a sea for you to walk across, feeds you heavenly manna, gives his prophet the power to bring forth water from a rock, and promises to bless you for generations to come if you obey his commands... you're gonna obey.

Horrors of the Canaanite Society
Before Joshua rolled into the promised land, the Canaanites were worshipping Baal. In the Canaanite myths, Baal raped his sister whilst she was in the form of a calf. Baal also had sex with his daughter Priday and also had sex with his mother on his father's urging.

Cleitarchus (3rd century BC) states concerning the Canaanites in gruesome detail:


 * "There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon teh body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the 'grin' is known as sardonic laughter since they die laughing."

Plutarch (late 1st century - early 2nd century AD) writes concerning the sacrifice of Canaanite children:


 * "With full knowledge and understanding they themselves offered up their own children, an those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were to many limbs on young birds; meanwhile, the mother stood by without a tear or moan, but should she utter a single moan or let fall a single tear, she had to forfeit the money, and her child was sacrificed nonetheless; and the whole are before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums took the cries of the wailing [so that they] should not reach the ears of the people."

Shelby Brown states:


 * “No other ancient people, however, regularly chose their own children as sacrificial victims, or equated them with animals which could sometimes be substituted for them. The Phoenician practice indicates a definition of the ‘family’ and the boundaries belonging to it and alienation from it that was incomprehensible to others in the ancient Mediterranean.”

Thus, John Day concludes:


 * “... we have independent evidence that child sacrifice was practised in the Canaanite (Carthaginian and Phoenician) world from many classical sources, Punic inscriptions and archaeological evidence, as well as Egyptian depictions of the ritual occurring in Syria-Palestine, and from a recently discovered Phoenician inscription in Turkey. There is therefore no reason to doubt the biblical testimony to Canaanite child sacrifice.”

Given what I stated earlier about everything God did and promised to do with the Hebrews, if you were in that situation, would you not be more than glad to drive out a nation that committed these terrible acts?

Who's Standard of Morality?
Even if we were to concede that there was something morally objectionable in these passages (like raping prisoners etc - which we have thoroughly debunked in the aforementioned paragraphs), who's standard is being used to judge whether God is being immoral? If there is no God, and the sceptic complains about what God does in the Old Testament as absolutely wrong, then who's standard of morality is being used? The sceptic's. But this standard is totally subjective, bears no weight to any argument and stems from an emotive reaction.

See more for the Moral Argument.

Academic Sources


Ancient Sources
