Did God tell the Jews to commit genocide?

[po18guy]

You do understand that God may do as He wishes with His creations? That to create or destroy is within His power and will?

How can one judge God by rules made to control unjust mankind?

 

[C.Ray]

I’ve been reading the OT for the first time from end to end and I don’t think I’ve seen an example of genocide. There have of course been instances of the Israelites destroying whole cities including every man, woman, child, ox, and goat, but I don’t recall any instance where God said “kill all the children of X but spare the children of Y”.

When I think of genocide, strictly speaking, I of course think of the nazis and their policy of murder of the Jews. In the holocaust, even if you only had a great-grandparent who was a Jew, no matter how “german” you were, it was enough to condemn you. But the Jewish law strictly forbids punishment of children for the sins of the parent. So I don’t think “genocide” applies.

Whole cities were condemned not because of the race of the inhabitants (which was probably mixed anyways), but because of their culture. Cities like Sodom were destroyed because of the wickedness of the people, because they caused their children to be sacrificed to idols.

The language used by the OT writers indicates we should be careful not to instantly apply modern concepts to the text. The OT often speaks in idioms that today we would label more descriptively. For example, take “child sacrifice”. I don’t think I read the words “child sacrifice” anywhere in my OT text. Instead, the idiom “made his children to pass through the fire” is used. I find I have to distance myself from the text a little when reading the OT (especially) so that I don’t project modern sensibilities on to it too quickly. Doing so can blur the meaning of the text.

 

[MNathaniel]

I struggled with the one where they convinced their enemies to become circumcised like themselves and they did only for them to kill them when it was the most painful for them. That kind of seems like asking an enemy nation to become baptised and then killing them?

Quick note about this one: That action (the circumcision and slaughter of the Shechemites, Genesis 34:1-31) is pretty explicitly condemned within the very same book where it appears. So it’s described in the book (as brothers Simeon and Levi allegedly avenging their sister Dinah after her rape, at least they present that as their motive), but this violence is not claimed, even within the context of the story, to be commanded by God. And in fact, as soon as the patriarch (Jacob: Israel himself) learns of the atrocity his sons committed, he calls it “odious” and makes it clear that he wishes they hadn’t done it. And then he wraps up the book several chapters later with a ‘moral of the story’ about the roles his sons played in it, including what seems like pretty clear disapproval of those horrifically violent and duplicitous actions of these two brothers.

And I quote (these are Israel’s words, when he blesses most of his children… but specifically uses curse language for those who perpetrated the evil you mentioned):

“Simeon and Levi are brothers—
their swords are weapons of violence.
Let me not enter their council,
let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger
and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
and disperse them in Israel."

(Genesis 49: 5-7)

So I just share that in the hopes that it assists you in your struggle to understand this particular text That this particular event is one of those the Bible describes, but explicitly does NOT approve, and even seems to pretty blatantly condemn. Like a history book that tells the truth about something the author considers an atrocity. We can struggle with the reality of human evil itself – but we don’t have to struggle with the existence of a story describing (and acknowledging) the acts as evil.

 

[franklinstower]

This is the least palatable explanation available to us that is allowed by the Catholic Church. I could not be Catholic if it were the only one but I respect your position.

 

[goout]

Is this the official Catholic teaching on the subject though?

NO. It is not.
Mainstream Catholic theologians and scripture exegesis admit the cultural context and the minds of the authors, and their particular understanding of God’s action in their lives.
They also admit the various types of genres used in biblical literature.

You can easily research Catholic thought at the highest levels on the subject of God’s attitude towards humanity.
P Benedict:
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Specificall sec’s 42 and 44
Bp Robert Barron does a great job of wading through these issues
Fr Robert Spitzer also

The foundation of all revelation is the person of Jesus Christ. If an interpretation is incompatible with God as revealed in Christ, you are de facto reading it wrong.

 

[goout]

I’m really not sure why Christians feel the need to put a spin on the question when the answer is plain.

Yes, God ordered the ancient Israelites to commit a genocide.

This is absolutely unadulterated and scandalous nonsense.

 

[AlbMagno]

Cities like Sodom were destroyed because of the wickedness of the people, because they caused their children to be sacrificed to idols

But the children were also killed, no? So that was kind of a moot point.

 

[franklinstower]

I will read that link.

However please just state plainly what the official teaching is specifically regarding mass murder and genocide in the Old Testament being attributed to God’s will.

Many people seem to be unwilling to address this directly (not saying that is you in any way).

 

[franklinstower]

Are you stating what you believe Catholic teaching to be or are you sharing another perspective outside of catholicism? This matters as the thread is asking specifically about Catholic teaching on the subject and we need to keep that very straight so as to avoid scandal.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I’m really not sure why Christians feel the need to put a spin on the question when the answer is plain.

Yes, God ordered the ancient Israelites to commit a genocide. Specifically, of the Amalekites, and for a very specific reason.

And further, when Israel (specifically, King Saul) disobeyed this order, it cost him his kingdom. That’s why the kingship went to the house of David instead of continuing with the house of Saul.

And I’m not sure why this should trouble anyone.

Couldn’t agree more.

God is not bound by morality; he is the author of it

I’ll go you one further. He is morality.

I make the distinction only because the way you worded it sounds to me like God is above morality as though it is separate from Him. But for God to be immoral would be for God to deny Himself.

 

[meltzerboy2]

However, it was NOT a whole new concept. Loving thy neighbor and even thine enemy is part and parcel of the OT, in which justice and mercy are intertwined. While mankind might evolve toward a more moral dimension, G-d does not.

 

[franklinstower]

I just read those sections. I like them, especially 42 but they do not give a direct answer and I find that problematic to say the least.

 

[franklinstower]

This is catholic teaching on the subject. Read this please for the sake of the thread.

Specifically, Trent Horn suggests three potential interpretive approaches a Catholic may apply when examining such ancient texts. (The Church does not tell Catholics which to believe; I imagine you’ll feel most comfortable with approach #2 or #3 below?) Please keep in mind, by the way, that I’m massively summarizing. Trent goes into great detail and nuance and I can’t recommend his book enough.

1. 'Literal Commands, Literal History’

• Here Trent addresses the approach that takes these texts literally, and examines the argument that God – the giver of human life – has the right to take human life, and to do so in any manner He sees fit: whether He deputizes gradual cell decay, disease, or other humans to carry this out. This approach takes into account the context of, e.g., the Canaanites, who are stated to have committed such wickedness against God that they were going to be visited by divine justice no matter what (e.g. for murdering their children) – and it’s just that rather than sending fire and brimstone from the sky, he sent the Israelites with swords. Also, even on a literal reading, it’s clear that not every Canaanite was meant to be killed (e.g. Rahab, Caleb). This approach also acknowledges the horror of the temporal suffering of the innocents (e.g. children) among the Canaanites, in an ancient ‘total war’ culture between tribes of that whole region, by pointing out that God, who loves each person, is capable of making up any finite suffering with infinite joy.

2. 'Nonliteral Commands, Literal History’

• This approach involves addressing an ancient mode of speaking about reality, in which basically everything was said to be the will of God or to be commanded by God, out of recognition that technically all existence and action relies in some sense on God’s will enabling it (without distinguishing, for example, between His preferential and permissive will). E.g. someone could see a tree blossoming outside and give thanks that God ‘commanded that tree to blossom’. Under this interpretation, the ancient Israelites did kill entire groups of people, but God did not actually morally direct them to do so, and the way they told stories about their killings that framed God as commanding them, is just an ancient cultural/literary technique.

3. 'Nonliteral Commands, Nonliteral History’

• God never issued these commands, and they were never carried out. Under this approach, these ancient texts are considered part of the genre of exaggerated, non-literal ‘warfare rhetoric’ of ancient tribes – and the Canaanites are not believed to have been literally destroyed at all. There would have been regional fights, but even many details in the ancient texts make clear that (despite making exaggerated ‘total destruction’ claims) a little while later, the same people still lived there. So under this interpretation, these stories weren’t meant to be taken as literal history on either level: God’s commands, or historical destruction of groups of people. They were meant to communicate something else to Israel.

 

[goout]

#2 seems the most reasonable and seems to be held by most, including P Benedict in the document that was referenced.

#1 makes the false assumption that God arbitrarily uses power because he has the power to use it, which is circular nonsense. God’s power is conditioned by love as demonstrated in Christ.
We don’t lock children in rooms to protect them just because we have the power to do it.
We don’t tell crowds of Christians to drink suicidal poison, just because we have the power to do it.
God doesn’t tell one human being to kill those in the way of salvation, just because he can.

Fundamentalists would constrain God to their own simplistic and puny ideations of power.

 

[C.Ray]

But the children were also killed, no? So that was kind of a moot point.

But God also killed all the children in the deluge, and the firstborn in Egypt too. So it is debatable what that means as far as ‘genocide’ goes.

But your point is noted.

 

[franklinstower]

You certainly have the right to do so however in this thread I asked about the Catholic stance on this subject and you omitted a large portion of that. That is a lie by omission. You ought to have listed the range of acceptable stances to take and then shared your preference.

 

[goout]

What you are doing is making life easy for atheists and others who need easy caricatures to cast doubt on Christianity.
Just stop please.

 

[Gripper]

So I just share that in the hopes that it assists you in your struggle to understand this particular text

Thank You.

:+1:t2:

 

[MNathaniel]

Cheers friend

I ran out of character count so I couldn’t go into more detail on my initial post, but I think something like your interpretation (that you call #4) might be consistent with the overall category of #2 (‘Nonliteral Commands, Literal History’).

Trent actually addresses your concern as well, about how such an interpretive approach, that raises the issue of Israel ‘misunderstanding’ God, may be perceived to call into question the inerrancy of Scripture.

Simplest response being, and I’m sure this has been stated different ways by different authors, but I’ll just go ahead and share an excerpt from the book already mentioned (Trent, please forgive me if direct quotes are any kind of copyright issue! I’m not sure what the standards are there):

“… After all, how can we trust Scripture if some parts represent that God’s people did not receive his message correctly? To this charge Ramage said that parts of Scripture that exhibit mistaken human worldview should not be seen as truths a writer was asserting but as details that expressed parts of the sacred author’s worldview. This would be similar to the physical details asserted about the Creation or the firmament (such as the latter being a solid, domelike structure in the sky) that we discussed in chapter 2… [This] offers one avenue by which to explain that scripture does not contain error in the sense that Catholic magisterial teaching understands it.”

Trent (quoting Ramage) refers to such an example as an “environmental glitch”, and personally I think this is a helpful way of approaching Scripture (within magisterial bounds, of course). Each specific example from Scripture may require a slightly different analysis based on the context. Environmental glitches in the communication of a reality don’t negate that a reality was unfolding between God and the Israelites. It was just a reality that the Israelites struggled (as we all do) to understand, and we need to keep that fact in mind as we delve into these texts. (Without just adopting an “I can interpret every part of Scripture any way I like!” approach.)

PS, may God bless you and your atheist friend who is currently attacking Christianity on the basis of perceived challenges in Scripture. Truly, if you anticipate more of these conversations with your friend (or others), I’ll just recommend again Trent’s book: “Hard Sayings - A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties”. It’s very readable (almost more like an introduction to each topic, but enough to at least sketch out answers that most people will find adequate), and covers so many challenges that people experience reading the Bible: from seeming scientific inaccuracies, to seeming contradictions, to seeming moral difficulties like texts about women, slavery, or genocide… I can’t see any Catholic regretting having this one on the shelf, haha.

PPS I swear I’m not Trent Horn, or his publisher, or benefitting in any way from the sales of his book (except maybe by the world becoming more educated, which I think is lovely for everyone ). I just think it’s so useful, I’d love everyone to have it.

 

[franklinstower]

I will read the book based on your recommendation. I owe it to Christ to be able to answer these kinds of questions.

Edit-- I just ordered it in fact.