Divine Sanction for Killing Innocents in Old Testament

[maryj]

(continued) The NT requires that we read the OT in a typological sense. Consider:
(1) In Mathew 12:40, Jesus teaches that jonah’s three days in the belly of the fish foreshadowed Jesus’ three days in the tomb.
(2) In John 3:14, Jesus says that the bronze serpent of Numbers 21:9 symbolized His crucifiction.
(3) In 1 Peter 3:19-20, St. Peter points out that the flood in the time of Noah prefigured Christian baptism.
(4) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul calls the rock that followed the isrealites in the desert "Christ:. Notice he does not say the rock was like Christ; St. Paul says the rock WAS Christ. He uses this language to stress that the relationship between a type and its NT fulfillment is more than a similarity.
These examples show how the NT teaches that in the OT persons and events, we are to see doctrines that are made more explicit in the Gospel. Thus, to be faithful to the NT, we should seek to appreciate the rich typology found in the OT.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

So then the question becomes whether or not *God *has a “right” to each individual’s life? It would seem so, as our lives (each and every moment) are a gift from God – we have no claim of “right” to our lives against Him. He made us, he sustains us, we are His. He make give or take life as He desires, since He is the source of all life.

When we “murder” we deprive God of this right to give and take life, which is a right inherent in Himself by His nature as the author of life. This is why “murder” is a sin. If God chooses to use us as instruments to give and take life, we have not deprived God of His rights and therefore this is not sinful. To state it bluntly, if God commands it, there’s no problem.

This is what I mean by mental contortions: the story in question was not about God taking lives, it was about the Hebrews killing a bunch of innocents and then claiming it was God’s will.

If God wanted those people dead - He certainly had the ability to do so himself. He didn’t need hired guns. I’m sure the mental toll on a person who kills helpless infants “for God” is overwhelmed by the joy that person feels knowing that God told him to do it. I’m sure Mohammad Atta felt the same way.

The proper response, therefore, when God asks you to kill someone should be “Sorry, the giving and taking of life is your job. Go get 'em, Tiger.”

 

[Explorer]

This is what I mean by mental contortions: the story in question was not about God taking lives, it was about the Hebrews killing a bunch of innocents and then claiming it was God’s will.

If God wanted those people dead - He certainly had the ability to do so himself. He didn’t need hired guns. I’m sure the mental toll on a person who kills helpless infants “for God” is overwhelmed by the joy that person feels knowing that God told him to do it. I’m sure Mohammad Atta felt the same way.

The proper response, therefore, when God asks you to kill someone should be “Sorry, the giving and taking of life is your job. Go get 'em, Tiger.”

Hey, this guy makes alot of sense. I never did like alot of parts of the OT. I like Jesus much better. I think the OT did get a little hijacked by the political leaders of the Jews. I’m glad we have the NT. It’s so much kinder and full of love and compassion. I love Jesus!

 

[The_Augustinian]

As the good Fr. Echert said, if we assume that the Jews “hijacked” Scripture in order to morally justify their so-called crimes against humanity, then not only were the Jews terrible people, the moral authority of Scripture itself is called into question, not to mention its status as being God’s word. After all, God would not let His words be twisted.

I think it’s a fair question why God would not use direct punishment (as in Sodom and Gomorrah) instead of sending in the Armies of Israel. But, if God could use his Creation to wipe out the evil, then why not use His chosen people to do it?

Anyway, why don’t you ask a good rabbi or something? Try calling his ancestors murderers and liars if you dare.

 

[CollegeKid]

As the good Fr. Echert said, if we assume that the Jews “hijacked” Scripture in order to morally justify their so-called crimes against humanity, then not only were the Jews terrible people, the moral authority of Scripture itself is called into question, not to mention its status as being God’s word. After all, God would not let His words be twisted.

I think it’s a fair question why God would not use direct punishment (as in Sodom and Gomorrah) instead of sending in the Armies of Israel. But, if God could use his Creation to wipe out the evil, then why not use His chosen people to do it?

Anyway, why don’t you ask a good rabbi or something? Try calling his ancestors murderers and liars if you dare.

Believe me, I’m not interested in going around badmouthing the Jews of the Old Testament, especially not to a rabbi. And I get the concept of “wiping out the evil,” I just don’t see how exterminating innocents, especially infants, fits into that description. If you could respond to that specific part, the on the reason for a command to kill women, children, and babies, I’d appreciate it, even if the answer is that you don’t know either.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Anyway, why don’t you ask a good rabbi or something? Try calling his ancestors murderers and liars if you dare.

I assume that is simply a rhetorical question…

At any rate, I’m not calling anyone’s ancestors murderers or liars, simply stating the obvious - that cruelty, inhumanity, and religious justification are universal traits of humanity. The Old Testament is full of both “God approved” and “God non-approved” killing. Do you honestly think there is a difference?

I doubt those who were killed would be splitting any hairs about justification.

The old testament world was a cruel and indifferent one. To survive, a people needed to be just as ruthless (and even more so) than their enemies. They had to do things that most would find detestable at times. Having the “approval of God” whether real or imagined was a legitimate means of making such acts acceptable. The jews were not the first to utilize that rationalization, and they were by no means the last. Every culture, every people has a similar story somewhere. I see no reason to accept the “God told us” rationale when basic human nature explains it all too well.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

If you could respond to that specific part, the on the reason for a command to kill women, children, and babies,

I too would be interested in God’s explanation here.

 

[RyanL]

I too would be interested in God’s explanation here.

Blah, blah, blah. Don’t you atheists have your own forum?

Bless yourself,
RyanL

 

[Nullasalus]

Sorry, I know this has been discussed before but I never really gave it serious thought until today. I was thinking about how the Pope has reassured us, in light of the recent controversy over his comments on Islam, that God will never act in a manner opposed to certain tenets of reason, among those that He will never sanction the murder of innocent people, as opposed to the radical jihadist Muslim belief in killing “infidels,” no matter how innocent those people actually are. I’ll be honest with you guys, I’m having a real hard time with my faith due to certain portions of the Old Testament in which it seems God commanded or at least condoned the Israelites’ killing of innocent people during wars. One of these instances would be in the book of Joshua, chapter 6, describing the fall of Jericho, in which the Israelites killed everbody, male and female, young and old. Then describing another conquest in chapter 8, verse 2, God commands Joshua, “Do to Ai and its king what you did to Jericho and its King.” I’ve also heard that in 1 Samuel God ordered more indiscriminate killing (including infants), and then there was the seige of Canaan (I know the Canaanites were sinning very seriously so some of them definitely deserved it, but weren’t there a lot of innocent women and children killed too? Obviously, the reason all this is hard for me to reconcile with my faith is the fact of Catholic teaching that the killing of innocents is never justified no matter the reason, most notably the Church’s absolute opposition to abortion in any circumstance, which I heartily agree with. I guess I’m wondering, did the morality regarding killing change with the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant?

I’m not an expert on this either, however - in the Old Testament, the jews were in a situation that differs vastly from our own. Wiping out villages utterly wasn’t unheard of back then - certainly not a Jewish invention. With wars and wiping out peoples being relatively commonplace if deemed necessary - or even just advantageous - it’s honestly of no surprise that the Israelites would have been given license to do whatever was necessary to survive and fulfill God’s plan. It doesn’t make those killings holy, or good in the way we commonly use the term. It just makes it a likely necessity.

And before you argue that killing innocents wouldn’t be a necessity, remember the specific situation the jews were in. Their goal wasn’t just to survive as a people, but to maintain their culture and their people rather than be assimilated. If they kill all the men but leave the women and children, what’s the result going to be? Absorption into another empire, armed with a whole lot of animosity towards the israelites? Should they have absorbed the innocents into their tribe while there was already enough trouble with idolatry and the weakening of their faith?

It’s an aspect you have to consider when dealing with the OT.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Actually, no, it’s not a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious as to what an Orthodox Jew would think about the actions of his ancestors. I know there are a few members of the Tribe on this forum; I wonder what they think?

 

[as-a-child]

One thing that people are forgetting is that in the cultures that the jews were command to cleanse was that the sacrifice of children to their gods was common.

An the simple answer to why God would command this is that His ways are not our ways.
Is that a stock answer. Yes. But no more than saying well i think it’s contradictory so i don’t beleive in God anymore. All that tells me is i looked for an easy way out and i found one.

Also wasn’t it samuel who let some of the people live , they grew up, influenced him and brought destruction upon the jews?

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Blah, blah, blah. Don’t you atheists have your own forum?

Bless yourself,
RyanL

Yeah, but we all agree over there…

 

[CollegeKid]

I’m not an expert on this either, however - in the Old Testament, the jews were in a situation that differs vastly from our own. Wiping out villages utterly wasn’t unheard of back then - certainly not a Jewish invention. With wars and wiping out peoples being relatively commonplace if deemed necessary - or even just advantageous - it’s honestly of no surprise that the Israelites would have been given license to do whatever was necessary to survive and fulfill God’s plan. It doesn’t make those killings holy, or good in the way we commonly use the term. It just makes it a likely necessity.

And before you argue that killing innocents wouldn’t be a necessity, remember the specific situation the jews were in. Their goal wasn’t just to survive as a people, but to maintain their culture and their people rather than be assimilated. If they kill all the men but leave the women and children, what’s the result going to be? Absorption into another empire, armed with a whole lot of animosity towards the israelites? Should they have absorbed the innocents into their tribe while there was already enough trouble with idolatry and the weakening of their faith?

It’s an aspect you have to consider when dealing with the OT.

I think you’ve definitely brought up some good points here that I need to consider. The difficulty I still have (and maybe I’ll just have to continue having it, I’m prepared to accept that) is that despite all of these possibly-valid justifications, it seems like there is a clear discontinuity between God’s occasional commands to kill innocents in the Old Testament to achieve a greater good and Catholic moral teaching that the ends never justify the means when the means are evil, for example, I’m sure the Church wouldn’t endorse abortion or contraception as a means of population control. It seems like a moral teaching changed from transition of the Old Covenant to the New, and I thought moral teachings couldn’t change, even if they were from the Old Covenant.

 

[CollegeKid]

An the simple answer to why God would command this is that His ways are not our ways.
Is that a stock answer. Yes. But no more than saying well i think it’s contradictory so i don’t beleive in God anymore. All that tells me is i looked for an easy way out and i found one.

I realize this may not have been directed at me, but just in case, I can assure you I am not looking for a way out. I’m fighting hard and praying that my faith would be strengthened, even if I don’t find much of an answer to this. Please pray for me.

 

[Nullasalus]

I think you’ve definitely brought up some good points here that I need to consider. The difficulty I still have (and maybe I’ll just have to continue having it, I’m prepared to accept that) is that despite all of these possibly-valid justifications, it seems like there is a clear discontinuity between God’s occasional commands to kill innocents in the Old Testament to achieve a greater good and Catholic moral teaching that the ends never justify the means when the means are evil, for example, I’m sure the Church wouldn’t endorse abortion or contraception as a means of population control. It seems like a moral teaching changed from transition of the Old Covenant to the New, and I thought moral teachings couldn’t change, even if they were from the Old Covenant.

Careful on that. No priest would condemn you for killing a man in legitimate self-defense. The Catholic Church has a just war concept - and while it’s certainly restrictive and reasonable, it does allow for war if conditions are met. These are situations where the means are still what we’d call evil - or at the very least, utterly undesirable. And yet there is justification to use them.

It’s not as simple as ‘the ends don’t justify the means if the means are evil’, sadly. Contraception and abortion are utterly different situations than what the OT Israelites were dealing with. At least, I’d argue that what we know of their situation would be closer to self-defense than general good aims like ‘a better economy’ or ‘a lower population’.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Sorry, I know this has been discussed before but I never really gave it serious thought until today. I was thinking about how the Pope has reassured us, in light of the recent controversy over his comments on Islam, that God will never act in a manner opposed to certain tenets of reason, among those that He will never sanction the murder of innocent people, as opposed to the radical jihadist Muslim belief in killing “infidels,” no matter how innocent those people actually are.

I’ll be honest with you guys, I’m having a real hard time with my faith due to certain portions of the Old Testament in which it seems God commanded or at least condoned the Israelites’ killing of innocent people during wars. One of these instances would be in the book of Joshua, chapter 6, describing the fall of Jericho, in which the Israelites killed everbody, male and female, young and old. Then describing another conquest in chapter 8, verse 2, God commands Joshua, “Do to Ai and its king what you did to Jericho and its King.” I’ve also heard that in 1 Samuel God ordered more indiscriminate killing (including infants), and then there was the seige of Canaan. (I know the Canaanites were sinning very seriously so some of them definitely deserved it, but weren’t there a lot of innocent women and children killed too?)

Obviously, the reason all this is hard for me to reconcile with my faith is the fact of Catholic teaching that the killing of innocents is never justified no matter the reason, most notably the Church’s absolute opposition to abortion in any circumstance, which I heartily agree with. I guess I’m wondering, did the morality regarding killing change with the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant?

College Kid, I hope you won’t mind my having taken the liberty of introducing paragraphs into your post to make it easier to read.

Please don’t lose the Faith over this Scriptural difficulty!

Please see the annotation to 1 Sam 15:3 in the New American Bible, and also the thread entitled “God did NOT command the early Hebrews to kill women and children in warfare”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11103&highlight=Hebrews+kill+children

No, the morality of killing did not change between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Good luck as your pursue your studies, and as you struggle through this difficulty! You’re in my prayers.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[CollegeKid]

Careful on that. No priest would condemn you for killing a man in legitimate self-defense. The Catholic Church has a just war concept - and while it’s certainly restrictive and reasonable, it does allow for war if conditions are met. These are situations where the means are still what we’d call evil - or at the very least, utterly undesirable. And yet there is justification to use them.

Agreed. I believe there are just wars, and I would kill in defense of myself or my family or any innocent people who were under attack. But I thought that even in just wars, care should be taken so that the number of innocents killed is low, and directly killing them is absolutely forbidden.

It’s not as simple as ‘the ends don’t justify the means if the means are evil’, sadly. Contraception and abortion are utterly different situations than what the OT Israelites were dealing with.

But can utterly different situations serve as mitigating circumstances in the eyes of God when it comes to employing an evil as a means to an end? Also, maybe we’re not on the quite on the same page, but aren’t we supposed to use the idea of “evil means never justify the ends” as a guideline, despite how hard it may be to make those fine distinctions in real world situations?

Note- I’m basing this on what I recall reading in the catechism in the past, and the new Compendium, which is what I have right now- “It is not lawful for anyone directly to destroy an innocent human being. This is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator. ‘Do not slay the innocent and righteous’ (Exodus 23:7)”.

 

[CollegeKid]

Careful on that. No priest would condemn you for killing a man in legitimate self-defense. The Catholic Church has a just war concept - and while it’s certainly restrictive and reasonable, it does allow for war if conditions are met. These are situations where the means are still what we’d call evil - or at the very least, utterly undesirable. And yet there is justification to use them.

Agreed. I believe there are just wars, and I would kill in defense of myself or my family or any innocent people who were under attack. But I thought that even in just wars, care should be taken so that the number of innocents killed is low, and directly killing them is absolutely forbidden.

It’s not as simple as ‘the ends don’t justify the means if the means are evil’, sadly. Contraception and abortion are utterly different situations than what the OT Israelites were dealing with.

But can utterly different situations serve as mitigating circumstances in the eyes of God when it comes to employing an evil as a means to an end? Also, maybe we’re not on the quite on the same page, but aren’t we supposed to use the idea of “evil means never justify the ends” as a guideline, despite how hard it may be to make those fine distinctions in real world situations?

Note- I’m basing this on what I recall reading in the catechism in the past, and the new Compendium, which is what I have right now- “It is not lawful for anyone directly to destroy an innocent human being. This is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator. ‘Do not slay the innocent and righteous’ (Exodus 23:7)”.

 

[Nullasalus]

But can utterly different situations serve as mitigating circumstances in the eyes of God when it comes to employing an evil as a means to an end? Also, maybe we’re not on the quite on the same page, but aren’t we supposed to use the idea of “evil means never justify the ends” as a guideline, despite how hard it may be to make those fine distinctions in real world situations?

Note- I’m basing this on what I recall reading in the catechism in the past, and the new Compendium, which is what I have right now- “It is not lawful for anyone directly to destroy an innocent human being. This is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator. ‘Do not slay the innocent and righteous’ (Exodus 23:7)”.

Right out of Exodus. And yet something clearly happened in Israel’s history. And they didn’t choose to omit it - it became part of their testament.

I’m tiring out at the moment, so this is my last response for the night. However - think of it in terms of an abortion where the life of the mother is threatened. The Catholic Church, I believe, says - rightly - that you can’t say “Well, in this situation clearly the infant should die.” At the same time, one or the other shall certainly die. So what is the doctor to do? Two innocents, and a situation forced by the situation at hand. The doctor is supposed to do whatever is possible to save both. But at one point a decision is going to have to be made.

When it is, is the doctor automatically guilty of evil? We’d call the results evil. We may even call the act evil. But in another sense, if the doctor is doing whatever is possible to save both, and makes a decision in the interest of saving the life of one, did he do an evil?

Another part to keep in mind. What do you think was done to the people who ran away? When God said to wipe out X nation, and leave no man, woman, or child alive - did that mean hunting down the ones who fled to other nations or tribes remorselessly? This wasn’t an era of remote bombs, missiles, and blitzkriegs. Wars took time, and people fled disaster and threats. Taken that way, how many women and children do you think were sticking around in their villages while a siege was under way and going against them?

Someone else made the above point in another forum post like this. I wish I knew who - they had better resources on hand, but it was enlightening.

 

[Explorer]

Blah, blah, blah. Don’t you atheists have your own forum?

Bless yourself,
RyanL

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.