Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

[Magnanimity]

Let me ask you this. Do you think the conquest actually happened or is just allegory?

And as (name removed by moderator) has made clear

I recently had a discussion with that CAF user, so I’m aware of his commitment to literalism. In a recent thread on “Thou Shall Not Kill” I quoted St Gregory of Nyssa’s allegorical reading on the Life of Moses at length. St Gregory explicitly acknowledges how troubling it would be to suggest that God actually killed the Egyptian firstborns (troubling in the way that we would all know it’s troubling—it impugns the character of God, suggesting that He is capable of grotesque evil). So Gregory goes on to assure the reader that he should not concern himself at all with whether that killing of the firstborns (or even the Passover blood) was historical fact and thereby miss the spiritual lessons from the story.

You and I and (name removed by moderator) (and even the CC of the Modern Era) are all to some extent beholden to Modernism’s obsession with facts and evidence and historicity. It’s what we do. It’s our overarching worldview. But if you actually begin to read the patristics or the medievals and their commentary on scripture, it is immediately obvious that they didn’t at all approach the sacred writings in that way. Such a concern over historicity (and completely neglecting the spiritual/moral significance of the story) is utterly unique to the church of the last 500 years.

 

[Magnanimity]

It can be both sacred writing and history at the same time.

That isn’t obviously true at all. Your very thread here points out the problematic nature of such an idea. Pray tell, what is “sacred” about a god ordering genocide? Or putting the ban on the Amalekites? (Every man, woman, child, all livestock ordered to be slaughtered?)

It seems you have two options with respect to the OT.

First, the a priori commitment to the goodness of God is the starting point, as innumerable patristics knew very well. So, since the OT is a collection of sacred writings (and not history books) you are always looking for a true reading of the text, in harmony with the mind of the church, and pointing in some way to Christ. On this approach, you could disregard historicity questions bc you’re very aware that the primary purpose of the texts is to point you to the Word (Christ).

The other option is to believe that the historical claims made in the OT more or less occurred (eg, the battles and settling of lands) but that the lense of the writer was not fully reflective of the mind of God. That is to say, although the writer at the time interpreted the will of God to be commanding genocide, that interpretation is a reflection of the human author. This option might seem shocking to you, but I would say that’s only bc you’re a Modernist (as I am). I would understand your reticence.

So you can try the literalist approach (defending the indefensible) or you can link yourself up with the pre-Moderns. But at some point, you need to find a way to understand Pslams like 137:9 “Blessed is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock.” Is that “the word of the Lord?” Or, is it the words of King David, a leader of an ancient, nomadic warring people expressing his frustration with his enemies? If it’s both, only a non-literal interpretation could apply to God.

There is no way to defend literalism. It always ends in absurdity. More importantly though, while you’re busying yourself wondering whether God killed all the Egyptian firstborns, you’ll probably altogether miss the point of the Exodus story. Thankfully, there is a better way. But that way lies in St Gregory of Nyssa, not Modernity.

 

[Magnanimity]

Should we not concern ourselves more with facts, evidence, and historicity than the musings of, as you call them, “medievals”?

I didn’t contrast the Modernist obsession with facts, evidence and historicity with “musings.” I contrasted it with “wisdom, spirituality, meaning and virtue.” But no, facts and evidence couldn’t possibly be more substantive contributors to human flourishing than wisdom, spirituality, meaning and virtue.

So, questions like, “who were the major players involved in the War of 1812?” aren’t even in the same galaxy as questions like, “how does a human love well?”

“Did the ancient Israelites actually cross the modern day Red Sea?” can’t qualitatively approach a question like, “what does the just society look like?”

Which of the above questions do you think should be of primary concern to humans?

 

[Kei]

Not really. Paradoxical it may sound, but you achieve peace through war. Westerners may be used to peace, but it wasn’t too long ago the world was in a battle for it.
There were a couple of steps in the process.
The Israelites did try to make deals with the nations they came across, often it seems rejected, then after they got to the promised land they had to defend themselves. Fairly typical. The language of complete destruction or whatever is likely normal Ancient Near East exaggeration, probably meaning they defeated them. I’m sure God could sort it all out.

War brings peace in the spiritual life, too. We need to war against ourselves and our demonic foes, needing to lose our life to find it. Through providence we were mostly born into peaceful and prosperous nations, but many throughout history and today did not have such a luxury. They will get their reward in the end, do not worry.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

God is the Author of Life. He can kill if He wants to.

 

[StudentMI]

God is the Author of Life. He can kill if He wants to.

Yes he can. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. The issue I have is with having humans to do it for him. Because that means an act we now know to be immoral was moral because God seemingly went outside His nature to order it. Which means God changed.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The issue I have is with having humans to do it for him.

Humans are His mouthpieces, so why can’t He command them to execute justice?

Which means God changed.

I think it’s you who is struggling to accommodate your image of God rather than God changing.

God made a promise to give the land to Abraham. He also said they wouldn’t get it because their wickedness hadn’t been completed.

 

[StudentMI]

God made a promise to give the land to Abraham.

So the Israelites had to commit genocide because of a piece of real estate?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So the Israelites had to commit genocide because of a piece of real estate?

Of wicked people, despite what you’d have us believe. And Rahab and the Gibeonites were spared. So, not genocide.

And this “real estate” was part of God’s covenant with Abraham, a covenant which had Messiah at the core.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

. But at some point, you need to find a way to understand Pslams like 137:9 “Blessed is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock.” Is that “the word of the Lord?”

The people who said this had their infants smashed across rocks. If anything it’s a prayer for God to require the suffering that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Babylonians.

 

[StudentMI]

Found this insightful article.

Kill Them All! - Catholicism.org

 

[stoplooklisten]

If you all believe the story of Noah’s flood, then Almighty God destroyed the entire world at that time (except eight people on the ark) because their deeds were evil.

If you can believe Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many." (Matthew 7:13)

Life is a gift and a privilege that Almighty God gives us.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Almighty God Himself chastised the first born of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus.

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. (Exodus 12:29)

Another time, Almighty God sent an angel to destroy 185000 men in the Assyrian camp.

That night the angel of the LORD went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. (2 Kings 19:35)

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No, you think so.

 

[goout]

goout:

How do you get from what I said to “what God says is determined by the reader.”

I’m not the only one who got that sense.

Yes I can see that there are the two of you, liking each other’s posts, pleading for the God who commands human beings to kill each other. Nice quorum you have there.

 

[goout]

Found this insightful article.

https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-267.html

Not sure why people have to stray to the fringes of Catholicism when the Magisterium at the highest levels speaks about these issues. This “order” is not even recognized canonically by the Church.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Yes I can see that there are the two of you, liking each other’s posts, pleading for the God who commands human beings to kill each other. Nice quorum you have there.

The Lord gives life. The Lord can take it away. (Job 1:21)

As some have said: The past is gone. The future is a mystery. Live each day in the present. It is a gift.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Nice quorum you have there.

And you who are getting close to Marcionism finds the Scriptures disturbing.

God gives and God takes away. We all deserve to die but God is merciful.

 

[Gorgias]

That doesn’t really address the issue of genocide. You can allegorize it all you want but the text calls for genocide.

Ahh, but only if the text is meant to convey a literalistic account. If it’s not, then “allegorizing” is precisely the correct approach!

So… what cards are you holding that show that it must be considered a literalistic, historical account?

StudentMI:

It can be both sacred writing and history at the same time.

That isn’t obviously true at all.

No, I’m with @StudentMI on this one: it actually can be both. However, SMI seems to want to suggest that it must be both, and that’s where he’s mistaken, I’m afraid.

Should we not concern ourselves more with facts, evidence, and historicity than the musings of, as you call them, “medievals”?

Only if we’re convinced that they wrote things within the same context that we’re attempting to analyze them.

That a book is categorized as ‘historical’ doesn’t imply that every passage within it is purely and slavishly a literalistic historical narrative.

 

[goout]

The Lord gives life. The Lord can take it away. (Job 1:21)

As some have said: The past is gone. The future is a mystery. Live each day in the present. It is a gift.

The word I bolded: “can”. What does that mean? It’s good to be precise when making theological claims about God’s nature, and “can” is somewhat vague.

God is omnipotent, correct? Does “can” refer to God’s capability? Or to his prerogative to choose actions and commands arbitrarily?
Would you agree that God “can” make a square circle? If not, why not?
Would you agree God “can” place a hammered metal dome over the skies as detailed in Genesis? If not, why not?
Would you agree that God “can” command a Pope to drop a nuclear bomb on a pagan country? If not, why not?
Would you agree that God “can” wipe us all out of existence? If not, why not?