I have been examining God’s command to slay the entire population of a nation, and in my last post I responded to the defenses that suggested such an action was justified, and that God has the moral right to do such a thing. I concluded that such an argument makes sense to me when viewing the destruction of a wicked nation as a whole, but when zooming in to the level of individual children being destroyed, it is still uncomfortable.

Today we will look at another category of defense for these verses, which argues that the destruction of these innocents may actually have been an act of mercy. Here are two examples of that line of reasoning.

1. From the eternal perspective, death is simply an awakening from a painful dream into glory.
2. When a nation becomes truly depraved, their own children suffer most. Some of these children were already being killed in pagan sacrifices, and those that lived were fixed on a path of corruption. Cutting this misery short was an act of mercy.

This line of argument is taking a common principle of life and extending it to the extreme. We all know that there are things that are unpleasant, that no one wants to go through, and which under normal circumstances would be wrong to subject another person to; yet we also know that there are exceptions to this principle when it prevents the person from experiencing greater harm, or when it is a step towards greater joy.

For example, under normal circumstances it is wrong to shove another person, and wrong to advise a person to cause themselves pain. But what if you are shoving the person out of the way of a charging horse? Or what if you are encouraging someone to go through painful physical therapy so that they can walk again. Because your underlying intention is good, and because the intended outcome is good, it actually becomes an act of kindness and love to shove and to encourage painful exercise.

An important realization here is that at first thought we might think it is fundamentally wrong to cause someone pain, but clearly that isn’t the case. If all I hear is that someone caused another to feel pain, I still don’t actually know whether that person did something good or bad. Causing pain is not objectively wrong. The intent to harm is.

But does this reasoning extend all the way to death? It is more challenging for us to see the ultimately good consequence that might follow death, because for us death is the end. We do not see anyone receive any positive consequence that comes after having passed through it. Of course, we’ve all been told that there is the potential for experiencing a terrific good after death, but that is something we can only imagine for now. The degree to which death disquiets us is a metric for just how real heaven is in our minds.

Summary)

If these things are true, then it is understandable why from God’s perspective His consignment to death might be an act of great mercy, but why it seems cruel from ours. Our view of the exchange is being halted in the middle, just long enough to see the hard part of the bargain, and none of the good return.

A stronger testimony of the afterlife might improve my outlook on these passages, but I still have a lingering concern. Even if God has great enough rewards to make up for any type of death, why not subject the innocent to the most peaceful demise imaginable? Why not make all the infants die peacefully in their sleep, as opposed to by the sword? I’ll keep these questions in mind as I continue with this analysis.