Divine Sanction for Killing Innocents in Old Testament

[Nullasalus]

What kind of answer is that? That sounds really unkind. This poster brings up some valid points for which I haven’t heard a good response. Your response sounds angry. Steak and Potatoes has been polite here, but your response is unkind.

Frankly, ‘I too would be interested in God’s explanation here.’ is what was replied to, and it’s pretty smug and goading. Especially in a single post.

This forum as a whole treats nonbelievers and believers both with some incredible respect, especially compared to other ‘free thinking’ forums on the web. If a regular gets irritated at empty, jeering posts, it’s pretty understandable.

 

[Explorer]

Frankly, ‘I too would be interested in God’s explanation here.’ is what was replied to, and it’s pretty smug and goading. Especially in a single post.

This forum as a whole treats nonbelievers and believers both with some incredible respect, especially compared to other ‘free thinking’ forums on the web. If a regular gets irritated at empty, jeering posts, it’s pretty understandable.

I didn’t see that as goading. The response to his comment was very immature sounding however. He’s entitiled to ask the question, this is the section where people are supposed to defend our faith, which they should do without being immature and saying “blah, blah, blah”. We Christians are held to a higher standard. We should mirror Jesus and be a lamp on the hill.

 

[RyanL]

…The response to his comment was very immature sounding however…

It was far more than immature *sounding *-- it was decidedly immature. I tend to have exceedingly little patience for questions which are asked simply to be difficult; if he actually desired to know so that he might gain wisdom and understanding regarding the will of God, I would not have responded in that way. Since he has professed a confirmed lack of belief in God and confusedly ridicules the complex as convoluted, I didn’t see the sense in giving any other reply.

But perhaps you are right nonetheless. S&P, I would humbly ask that you please accept my apologies. I will try to refrain from such juvenile responses in the future.

On to other business…

Well…what can be seen by my prior post on the logical possibility of moral justifications for killing? We can see that killing in and of itself *for us humans *is not intrinsically evil. Great. This shows us that for the right reasons, killing by us is not intrinsically evil – this means that it’s not an “evil” means, intrinsically.

What of the death of innocents by our hand? Can that be morally justified? I believe it can, though not if it’s an end sought by our own will. I talk about that more here. Great. This shows us that the death of an innocent by our hands is not necessarily evil.

But this still doesn’t get us to the question as to whether or not it can be morally justified for us to kill innocent humans as an ends.

I believe we can, but the key here is authority. Killing the guilty may be morally justified because we have the authority to do so based in our Natural Law (NL) rights (explained supra – self-defense, defense of others, Just War, various penal theories). We do not, however, have a NL right to intentionally kill the innocent as an ends. Therefore, the willful/intentional and direct killing of innocents, as pertaining to the scope of our NL rights, is never morally justifiable. The Church is very much right on this, and this is seen most clearly in her teachings on abortion.

**2258 **“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

We don’t have the authority to claim this right for ourselves under NL – it belongs to God alone. This is the teaching of the Church.

But that’s only within our NL rights. What about outside of our NL rights? This is where I believe the justification for the killing of the idolatrous/sinful tribes is found. It is a killing outside of our NL rights. Can we, by our own authority, go outside of our NL rights? No. Can we be given authority outside of our NL rights by God? Yes. God may grant to us authority to be agents of His will if He so desires, and it would not be an immoral act for Him to do so.

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the vengeance of God such as that shown in 1 Sam 15 in the *Summa Theologica, *IIb, 108, 4, newadvent.org/summa/310804.htm. It’s highly instructive, but I must caution you that it’s not light reading. This is to say that you must read slowly, and perhaps re-read several times, in order to grasp what he’s saying. If you do so and still can’t understand it, you might seek outside sources (like the Summa of the Summa) or you might have to read some of the other questions in the Summa.

But why wouldn’t God just do it on His own? Why use human instruments? Why not the “go get 'em, tiger” approach (which is exceedingly shallow, BTW)? Well, there are a couple of reasons…

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

First, God wants to remain hidden, so He typically uses instrumental and/or secondary causes rather than directly acting. (This is, in part, why I have no trouble with the theory of evolution.) In this instance, the OT Jews were that instrumental cause – it’s just as moral acting in this way as is God’s use of rain (flood) or earthquakes to accomplish their deaths. As to why God wants to remain hidden…that’s for a different thread. This is why I said that we don’t need the OT to attempt to condemn God for killing innocents – disease does it every day, and one instrument seems as good as another in regard.

Second, God wanted to teach the OT Jews something. There’s a pedagogical (teaching) aspect to this that’s lost on people who focus strictly on what they perceive as the atrocity of killing – it’s little different than the pedagogical aspect of several other things in Levitical Law. Take, for example, the following prohibition:

Deuteronomy 22:11

** Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.**

Rather silly prohibition, right? Wrong. There’s a pedagogical aspect which is lost on people who focus on the rule. The teaching is that you do not mix the sacred and the profane, and this law helps people to live that teaching concretely. There are plenty of verses to support this interpretation, but that’s not the point. The point is that God was trying to teach the Jews something – it wasn’t just about the morality (or lack thereof) of polyester. We’re humans, which means we’re physical. Doing something strengthens the teaching far more than simply being told. Living out the separation of the sacred and the profane is far more effective a teaching tool than simply being told not to do it.

Here, the teaching is not about the morality of killing innocents. It’s about driving out sinfulness from among your people. Lose sight of that, and you’ll lose sight of the big picture. The annihilations are judgments and family members share in the temporal consequences. The first is a precursory teaching on the final judgment, and the second can be seen as a teaching on the Communion of Saints/Indulgences. Good acts can bring blessings on others, bad acts can bring harm on others. Sufficiently bad acts result in judgment and condemnation.

But is this fair? Again, God is just, and will not bring punishment without (1) just reason or (2) more-than-just reparation. Temporal punishments, however great, are absurdly small in comparison to the eternal (and eternal punishment is based exclusively on your own good/bad deeds in light of Christ’s sacrifice - that’s also more than just). If temporal death is deserved, it it not an immoral act. If temporal death is undeserved, God is more-than-just by making infinite and eternal reparation for a finite harm.

Does that help?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Yeah, but we all agree over there…

So then is it your stated purpose that you desire only conflict and contention?

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

So then is it your stated purpose that you desire only conflict and contention?

That’s silly, Ryan. I am here because I like a vigorous debate occasionally (don’t you?). Even though I am no longer Catholic (or Christian), I am still fascinated by belief, believers, and religion. If I sounded flippant in my response, I apologize. It’s true that I was, however, attempting to “goad” a response; no one likes to be ignored, even unbelievers.

And by the way, I accept your humble apology. I was not offended by your “blah blah” response. It gave me a chuckle.

Further, I thank you for offering up what I take to be “God’s explanation”, although I still reject it as being far too convoluted. I still prefer my previous explanations (see above as I’m tired of repeating myself) as simpler, more likely, and in keeping with human nature.

Frankly, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me (Explorer, that was a total surprise - thanks for the support!), but vigorous debate helps me clarify my positions, as I’m sure it does for everyone else as well.

Finally, this is the “Apologetics” forum is it not? One would expect some measure of “conflict and contention” here. But if you really think I am being contentious, you should read some Origen.

At any rate, I’ve said my piece, and offered my opinions clearly enough on this thread, so barring any new information, I’m outta here…

See you in other threads…

 

[Saint_Michael]

On the one hand, you have Almighty God conveying His will to human beings, and on the other you have humans who are notoriously bad about communication, regardless of the original source.

I’ve actually heard this argument from Protestants to argue against Oral Tradition.

Anyway if you believe this where does that leave the Bible? If so many portions of it are simply humans losing the divine message?

 

[RyanL]

That’s silly, Ryan. I am here because I like a vigorous debate occasionally (don’t you?).

I enjoy seeking truth, and would readily do so without debate if it could be avoided. If I could sit at the feet of Wisdom and actively learn, that would be preferred. Picking fights just for the sake of picking fights is simply not cool.

And by the way, I accept your humble apology.

Thank you.

I was not offended by your “blah blah” response. It gave me a chuckle.

I’m glad – I had a chuckle writing it. It was wrong of me nevertheless, and again I thank you for accepting my apology.

Further, I thank you for offering up what I take to be “God’s explanation”, although I still reject it as being far too convoluted.

When you ask big boy questions, you’re bound to get big boy answers. If you can’t handle them, you probably shouldn’t ask.

In any event, you remind me of another (former) atheist:
C.S. Lewis:

If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?”

If you’re interested in his answer, click here.

I still prefer my previous explanations …as simpler, more likely, and in keeping with human nature.

I must have mistook your questions for seeking a complete answer, not a simple one.

I can do simple.
Truth 1: There is a God.
Truth 2: You are not Him.

Case closed, justification given, and far more reflective of our nature than your explanation.

Unsatisfied? Here’s another way of explaining it:
**Truth A: **You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you unless the owner says otherwise.
Truth B: God owns everything.

I’m surprised you find this so complex…

vigorous debate helps me clarify my positions, as I’m sure it does for everyone else as well.

What, exactly, is your position? What is the basis? Do we have rights in our persons? If we have no rights, is killing wrong? If we do have rights, how did we get them? Who gave us those rights? Who can take them away? Is morality objective? How is it objective, i.e., what’s the basis for objective morality? If it’s not objective, how can you condemn anything (including what you perceive God to be)?

Your position, it seems, is very far from clarified. There are many questions remaining.

Finally, this is the “Apologetics” forum is it not? One would expect some measure of “conflict and contention” here.

True, acrimony is present; but not for its own sake. That was my question WRT your intentions.

But if you really think I am being contentious, you should read some Origen.

I have.

At any rate, I’ve said my piece, and offered my opinions clearly enough on this thread, so barring any new information, I’m outta here…

As I’ve said, your opinion as expressed so far is rather insubstantial – if you’re truly seeking enlightenment or understanding, please shore up your opinion with logical and cogent arguments and we’ll get to work. If you’re not seeking truth…well…

See you in other threads…

Not if I see you first –

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[CollegeKid]

Ryan,

If you’re out there reading this: Thank you. I have to admit, I was surprised to find myself seeing a lot of sense in your explanation. Now, that’s not to say that I automatically understood everything in a way that was crystal-clear, or that I’ve totally made up my mind on how I’m going to reconcile this with what I believe, but I’m pretty sure its okay to have faith in the face of unanswered questions. After all, isn’t that part of the definition? Some of the most important points that you and a few other posters have made are:

1.God is the author of life, and He has the right to take it whenever He chooses. He can use humans to do this.

2.God had to make sure the Israelites would be preserved as a tribe so that the Messiah could be brought forth from them.

3.The Isrealites, at this time, were living under the Old Covenant. This was a pedagogy for the New Covenant, and what the Old entailed was different.

4.Those innocents who were slain probably had quick deaths, and are most likely now in Heaven or at least in a state of perfect natural happiness.

Of course, I knew these things before, but I had not fully considered their implications, especially not in this instance. As I said, I still don’t fully understand it, but its become clear that there is more to the story than I’d originally thought. We must trust that even if we can’t see the answer, God is in charge, we must trust His will.

My problem, now, is this: I firmly believe in denouncing the radical Muslim terrorists who plague our world today, in stressing the Catholic moral teaching that God does not want us to go out and kill people just because they are of another faith or no faith or because they’ve (supposedly) persecuted Muslims, as the jihadists believe. But most of them probably firmly believe they are right; that they are doing God’s will. I can foresee how in denouncing them and stressing the Catholic moral principle, some atheist or agnostic could just throw these OT verses in my face and say, “See, your own scriptures reveal your god is no better than the god of the Muslims, he had the Jews kill plenty of innocents.” I highly doubt they are going to listen to my exegetical interpretation and theological explanation of the verses in question in order to show that God was acting justly then but is certainly not the one now telling Muslims to kill innocent people.

 

[a_cermak]

I’m still disturbed, because this wasn’t simple killing, which can be moral under limited circumstances, but intended genocide! Read Joshua, for instance, it’s rife with cases of God demanding that not a soul be left in the cities. In fact, Joshua is a depressing book in general.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I’m still disturbed, because this wasn’t simple killing, which can be moral under limited circumstances, but intended genocide! Read Joshua, for instance, it’s rife with cases of God demanding that not a soul be left in the cities. In fact, Joshua is a depressing book in general.

I don’t get the Old Testament at all honestly, genocide, condoning rape (I can’t remember what pasage this is in, but I know it’s in there), stoning etc…

 

[Struggling]

Does that mean we should attribute those passages of scripture where God commanded the killing of all, young and old, male and female, even infants ( 1 Samuel 2:2-3) as just that? Direct commands from God to kill the innocent, even infants? And we’re not supposed to be troubled by that?

im not particularly troubled…

remember, there isn’t some moral law “higher than God” that He is bound by…

He IS the moral law. He IS ontological goodness itself. He IS morality. Morality and ethics are, by their definition, WHAT GOD WILLS.

If God commands something (that he has otherwise usually forbidden) then it becomes, by the very fact that God wills it…obviously something good, acceptable, and even obligatory.

If goodness is defined as what God wills…and God wills something…then it is by definition Good.

There are certain general patterns of behavior which He Willed, that he imposed on humans to follow (unless given direct permission by Him), that he even weaved into the very nature of humanity and the nature of the universe. But sometimes He is going to want to change that for some reason. And who are we to question Goodness Himself?

As the Absolute…when God says something is true…by that very fact it metaphysically thus IS true. And when God says something is good…by that very fact it is thus good.

 

[RyanL]

Thank you.

You’re more than welcome.

…I’m pretty sure its okay to have faith in the face of unanswered questions. After all, isn’t that part of the definition?

I have plenty of unanswered questions; don’t ever think you’re alone on that.

My problem, now, is this: I firmly believe in denouncing the radical Muslim terrorists who plague our world today

I do, too. They’re a scary brand of crazy.

…in stressing the Catholic moral teaching that God does not want us to go out and kill people just because they are of another faith or no faith or because they’ve (supposedly) persecuted Muslims, as the jihadists believe.

This is true.

But most of them probably firmly believe they are right;
that they are doing God’s will.

I’m sure they do.

I can foresee how in denouncing them and stressing the Catholic moral principle, some atheist or agnostic could just throw these OT verses in my face and say, “See, your own scriptures reveal your god is no better than the god of the Muslims, he had the Jews kill plenty of innocents.”

Tell them that if there’s no God then there’s no objective morality. If there’s no objective morality, they have no place criticizing anyone else’s culture (Muslim or Catholic). If they can’t get this simple stuff straight, how can they expect to do complex moral reasoning?

I highly doubt they are going to listen to my exegetical interpretation and theological explanation of the verses in question in order to show that God was acting justly then but is certainly not the one now telling Muslims to kill innocent people.

I’m sure you’re right!

Here’s how you can criticize Radical Fundamentalist Islam without resorting to that:

1. In Islam, Allah is not bound by reason. He can be illogical if he wants to.
2. It follows, then, that if you want to fully submit to Allah you cannot object to the illogical. Reason is actually an obstacle to reaching submission to Allah. You must intentionally set aside reason to serve Allah.

There are other ways, but this is pretty easy to get people to see the error. Of course, if you’re Muslim this error shouldn’t matter – that’s just your reason speaking.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Struggling]

But most of them probably firmly believe they are right; that they are doing God’s will. I can foresee how in denouncing them and stressing the Catholic moral principle, some atheist or agnostic could just throw these OT verses in my face and say, “See, your own scriptures reveal your god is no better than the god of the Muslims, he had the Jews kill plenty of innocents.” I highly doubt they are going to listen to my exegetical interpretation and theological explanation of the verses in question in order to show that God was acting justly then but is certainly not the one now telling Muslims to kill innocent people.

Well, if the radical Muslims, in their (gravely malformed) conscience believe that what they are doing is right…then they are bound by their conscience. And if God truly commanded it of them (of course he didn’t) then they will get their reward.

But just because they may be doing subjective good in the internal forum…that doesn’t stop our obligation to try to stop objective evil. Maybe God has told the Muslims to kill innocents…but he hasn’t revealed that to ME…so I still have an obligation based on His previous commands to try to stop them.

People can always internally believe that evil is good…and if they truly are brainwashed…they might even be rewarded for following their (gravely, but unculpably twisted) conscience. Subjectively they might not be sinning personally. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us shouldn’t try to externally stop their objectively evil actions.

I doubt that God punished the canaanites for trying to defend themselves, for example…

 

[a_cermak]

im not particularly troubled…

remember, there isn’t some moral law “higher than God” that He is bound by…

He IS the moral law. He IS ontological goodness itself. He IS morality. Morality and ethics are, by their definition, WHAT GOD WILLS.

If God commands something (that he has otherwise usually forbidden) then it becomes, by the very fact that God wills it…obviously something good, acceptable, and even obligatory.

If goodness is defined as what God wills…and God wills something…then it is by definition Good.

There are certain general patterns of behavior which He Willed, that he imposed on humans to follow (unless given direct permission by Him), that he even weaved into the very nature of humanity and the nature of the universe. But sometimes He is going to want to change that for some reason. And who are we to question Goodness Himself?

As the Absolute…when God says something is true…by that very fact it metaphysically thus IS true. And when God says something is good…by that very fact it is thus good.

What about Judges chapter 11? Jephthah is blessed by the lord so offers to make a holocaust out of whoever comes out of his house first to greet him. As it turns out, it is his daughter so he sacrifices her! And God doesn’t intervene like he does in the story of Isaac. Now, some try to make that problem go away by saying, well it wasn’t really a burning holocaust but a dedication of her to God, but that isn’t really clear from the Hebrew.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

COLLEGE KID:

… if these parts of the OT were innaccurate in that God didn’t actually order the deaths of innocents, is that in violation of the Church’s teachings on the divine inspiration of scripture?

I don’t think God would allow his prophets to gossip or lie about His role in the death of the innocents.

What you are raising is an aspect of the more general problem or mystery of evil, which nobody has ever really resolved.

My own take is that death comes to everyone sooner or later. But why should it? I didn’t eat fruit from the forbidden tree. I am innocent of that. Why should I be punished? Yet it is God’s will that I should be punished for the sin of Adam and Eve by being born with the stain of original sin on my soul. I accept God’s will. I do not question whether it is reasonable. God knows what He is doing … it would be presumptuous of me to question his plan. The road to atheism is made smooth by the notion that God cannot exist because God as He is presented to us in Scripture is less reasonable than we are.

If God chooses to order the death of innocents, that is God’s choice to make, but not ours. God gives life and can take it for reasons of His own. However, God does not allow us to take innocent lives on our own authority. That would be unreasonable.

Whatever compensation God gives to the innocents, we cannot know. Perhaps in return for losing their lives, they get a free pass into heaven. Not sure about that, but it’s possible. God is just and God is merciful. We have to trust that He knows what He is doing, even if we don’t, when He orders the death of innocents.

And we need to remember that God alone can make and break the rules at His own will. It is not unreasonable for Him to do so. If it were, Jesus could not have performed a single miracle … and most of all could not have risen from the dead to assure us of our salvation through him.

 

[maryj]

I’m still disturbed, because this wasn’t simple killing, which can be moral under limited circumstances, but intended genocide! Read Joshua, for instance, it’s rife with cases of God demanding that not a soul be left in the cities. In fact, Joshua is a depressing book in general.

Typology,Typology,Typology…The entire history of the conquest of the “PROMISED LAND” is a PROPHECY of the spiritual conquest of the world through the church under the leadership of Jesus the Messiah. Now read Joshua again in terms of types. and to take from your own words, God demands that not a soul be left behind, how unselfish of Him, how caring, how loving, how perfectly father like. He desires that we all “die” of our old selves and become New “lives” in Jesus Christ. It is that simple. How wonderful if the whole human race were to “die” and become “a new life” in Jesus Christ. God bless.

 

[rtconstant]

I’ll wade in here and by no means do I claim to know all the ends and outs of this. I think that anytime you look at something like this from the ancient world you have to consider the context of the situation.

When we read the Bible we can see the path and process of God working with and on humanity. When God refers to himself as the potter and us the clay it isn’t for nothing. If you think that we today are cruel and vicious you’d be stunned by the ancient world. Our ancestors lived in extreme times. The assumptions of typical behavior in that day were horrifying.

If a city was laid seige and didn’t surrender before seige was started the occupants understood that by their resistance they were equally culpable in the following acts if they were defeated: rape of all women (and most children), enslavement, total looting (including holy places) and the possible razing of the entire city. This was in that day “acceptable behavior”.

So when God in the OT sometimes seems to be asking the Israelites to commit atrocities. He’s trying to work with a frame work that humans understand and created, and believe it or not sometimes He’s encouraging them towards less cruel behavior. While to us it seems horrible, total and quick destruction could be preferable to some of the alternatives.

God may be an carpenter of unmatched skill but we his tools are not. God is often forced to build his kingdom with broken tools. Simply telling the Israelites in that day and age concepts like: all people are equal, slavery is wrong, women are equal too men, violence begats violence would have fallen on confused ears. In that era we hadn’t learned enough to grasp those concepts.

Someone mentioned economy earlier and that was an ecellent point. God has to work with us as we are able to grasp and understand. So don’t look with judgment on our ancestors. They did the best they could in a cruel world. Instead just be glad that you are living in time where that we are able to receive more of God’s grace. And let us pray that our decendants will live even closer to Him.

 

[a_cermak]

Typology,Typology,Typology…The entire history of the conquest of the “PROMISED LAND” is a PROPHECY of the spiritual conquest of the world through the church under the leadership of Jesus the Messiah. Now read Joshua again in terms of types. and to take from your own words, God demands that not a soul be left behind, how unselfish of Him, how caring, how loving, how perfectly father like. He desires that we all “die” of our old selves and become New “lives” in Jesus Christ. It is that simple. How wonderful if the whole human race were to “die” and become “a new life” in Jesus Christ. God bless.

I’m not a believer in OT as lens through which to read NT. This book was written long before Jesus roamed Nazareth.

 

[CANman]

I heard Scott Hahn (I think) say that these other nations were steeped in atrocities that cried out to God for vengeance. We all read how the Israelites kept falling into sin. Had they not killed the whole town, these sins would have slowly crept into their society. (Kinda sounds like us today, eh?) This is witnessed throughout the OT. So in order to protect His “first-born son” . . .

On another note, these nations had forcibly conquered these lands anyway. So; “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

Hope this makes sense.