Quite possibly. However, the problem being discussed in this thread is God’s actions towards the Amalekites, Midianites, Egyptians and Canaanites. It is a very long stretch to describe God’s actions towards them as infinitely loving.However, He has shown us infinite love in His Son, Jesus Christ
To be more accurate, we are discussing the Old Testament passages in which the **actions of the Israelites **are justified in the literature of the OT as being directly willed and commanded by God, and the proper interpretation of those passages.Quite possibly. However, the problem being discussed in this thread is God’s actions towards the Amalekites, Midianites, Egyptians and Canaanites. It is a very long stretch to describe God’s actions towards them as infinitely loving.
rossum
I find it interesting in this thread, that there is almost no comment on the words of the Church dealing with Scripture interpretation.we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
If the Canaanites had continued living, their injustice would have continued claiming more lives and souls than the Israelite conquest of Canaan did. Also God didn’t have to send the Israelites into slavery in Egypt for hundreds of years, but he did so as part of a plan for something greater. The Church is that something.No it was not. Had God decided to, all the Canaanites could have been moved to Australia, well out of the way of the Israelites.
An omnipotent God has a very wide range of options to pick from.
rossum
To be more accurate, we are discussing the Old Testament passages in which the **actions of the Israelites **are justified in the literature of the OT as being directly willed and commanded by God, and the proper interpretation of those passages.
To which Benedict said:
To be honest, I’ve read Benedict’s (not the church’s) words several times and I’m not exactly sure what he’s asserting.we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
Does he think the events really happened, but that we should try to ignore them and focus on Jesus instead? If so, doesn’t that also ignore the trinitarian fact that Jesus was there also when all of this was happening? Or does he think that they didn’t happen and that they should be treated as metaphor? If so, as metaphor for what? He also seems to give a lot of latitude to pastors and scholars to come up with their own interpretations (which is nothing new), but if that interpretation emerges through yet another mystery, I can’t help but think that there are still going to a lot of people in the pews still asking themselves: “But what about the babies?”
Here is the link. It is lengthy and address many other issues as well. It’s good to read the specific chapter on troubling scripture passages in the context of the whole. I think the section that was pasted here speaks clearly for itself, in that scripture interpretation is not merely a black and white literalist endeavor. Not sure where the confusion lies.To be honest, I’ve read Benedict’s (not the church’s) words several times and I’m not exactly sure what he’s asserting.
POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
VERBUM DOMINI
OF THE HOLY FATHER
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY,
CONSECRATED PERSONS
AND THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE WORD OF GOD
IN THE LIFE AND MISSION
OF THE CHURCH
The “dark” passages of the Bible
Another passage
- In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
The need to transcend the “letter”
Addressing the OP, it seems clear that the Catholic Church does not read these passages in a literalist way. In other words, in a way that requires strict acceptance of the author’s interpretation that God willed and commanded the Israelites to kill innocents. And that does not detract from inerrancy or inspiration of scripture.
- In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit. This is not an automatic, spontaneous passage; rather, the letter needs to be transcended: “the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text. To attain to it involves a progression and a process of understanding guided by the inner movement of the whole corpus, and hence it also has to become a vital process”.[125] Here we see the reason why an authentic process of interpretation is never purely an intellectual process but also a lived one, demanding full engagement in the life of the Church, which is life “according to the Spirit” (Gal 5:16). The criteria set forth in Number 12 of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum thus become clearer: this progression cannot take place with regard to an individual literary fragment unless it is seen in relation to the whole of Scripture. Indeed, the goal to which we are necessarily progressing is the one Word. There is an inner drama in this process, since the passage that takes place in the power of the Spirit inevitably engages each person’s freedom. Saint Paul lived this passage to the full in his own life. In his words: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”
(2 Cor 3:6), he expressed in radical terms the significance of this process of transcending the letter and coming to understand it only in terms of the whole. Paul discovered that “the Spirit of freedom has a name, and hence that freedom has an inner criterion: ‘The Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom’ (2 Cor 3:17). The Spirit of freedom is not simply the exegete’s own idea, the exegete’s own vision. The Spirit is Christ, and Christ is the Lord who shows us the way”.[126] We know that for Saint Augustine too this passage was at once dramatic and liberating; he came to believe the Scriptures – which at first sight struck him as so disjointed in themselves and in places so coarse – through the very process of transcending the letter which he learned from Saint Ambrose in typological interpretation, wherein the entire Old Testament is a path to Jesus Christ. For Saint Augustine, transcending the literal sense made the letter itself credible, and enabled him to find at last the answer to his deep inner restlessness and his thirst for truth.[127]
As this is usually used as a wedge issue by atheists who deny the validity or historicity of the Bible, it is always worth asking if the person advancing the argument is anti-abortion, as an issue of moral consistency.
If not, why do they think the deaths of children thousands of years ago (in passages that some Christians regard as possibly hyperbolic and/or even parabolic) is a greater evil than the documented +54,559,615 abortions that have taken place within modern times in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade?
If they believe it is morally evil for a group to claim for itself the moral right to attempt to eliminate members of a particular ethnicity, how do they feel about Planned Parenthood, Inc., which was founded by a woman who stated her purpose was the elimination of African-American children as members of a supposed “underclass?” If they agree that is a moral evil that does not coincide with their moral compass, invite them to protest with you in front of an abortion clinic. If they do not choose to do so, why not?
That there might exist evidence that certain Canaanite tribes practiced abhorrent religious practices would not seem to be evidence that the Israelite army conducted military operations against them such as described in the bible.If one holds the position that the relevant accounts from the Old Testament are historical fact, there is ample archaeological evidence from secular sources that support the likelihood that the Canaanite tribes were practicing morally unacceptable evils (such as ritual infanticide), and that there are secular, non-Christian historical texts (you know, the kind they are always demanding to see to support the historicity of Jesus’ existence) that support that archaeological evidence. As it is likely that a loving God would view with horror the idea that His chosen people would be contaminated and corrupted by such people’s evils, which could ultimately end in the sacrifice of the children of His chosen people to pagan idols, is it surprising that, the full fury of the Israelite army would be directed at them? Is it surprising that, faced with similar evils against the Jewish people, the United States used weapons against Nazi targets in Germany that, presumably, included civilian women and children (as during the Dresden fire bombings)?
The Catholic Church and also the Orthodox Church both celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents albeit on different days. These were the infants commanded by Herod to be killed so as to prevent Jesus from coming into this world. The Holy Innocents were considered by the Church as martyrs which mean they are believed to be in heaven.So remove the word “unbaptized” and insert the word “innocent”. The point stands. AFAIK, the church has never definitively ruled on what happens to their souls.
Well what do you expect God to do in order to maintain and to keep up with his ‘loving’ nature? Obviously you would think God should not have killed them.Quite possibly. However, the problem being discussed in this thread is God’s actions towards the Amalekites, Midianites, Egyptians and Canaanites. It is a very long stretch to describe God’s actions towards them as infinitely loving.
rossum
Correct. God kills far to many people in the OT. Have you ever read through Buddhist scriptures and counted how many people the Buddha killed?Well what do you expect God to do in order to maintain and to keep up with his ‘loving’ nature? Obviously you would think God should not have killed them.
So, life on Earth is of little worth to you? Why then did God, correctly, tell you that it was of great worth: “You shall not kill”?The Church OTOH does not judge God’s love that way. God is love because he has given man another chance to live by sending his own very Son to take away their sins. The ‘living’ here means eternal live in heaven, the situation that our forefathers had when they were created. It also means physically alive though it is nothing compared to the eternal life. We are just temporary in this world.
I am not Christian. Death is the consequence of birth. Birth is the consequence of unwise actions in previous lives. Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one.After the fall, there should be no man left alive because the consequence of sin is death.
Time out.Well what do you expect God to do in order to maintain and to keep up with his ‘loving’ nature? Obviously you would think God should not have killed them.
The Church OTOH does not judge God’s love that way. God is love because he has given man another chance to live by sending his own very Son to take away their sins. The ‘living’ here means eternal live in heaven, the situation that our forefathers had when they were created. It also means physically alive though it is nothing compared to the eternal life. We are just temporary in this world.
After the fall, there should be no man left alive because the consequence of sin is death. That we are alive even physically is the demonstration of the love of God. But to do that God has to convene a plan of salvation for mankind. The chosen people, the killings, the miracles are all part of that plan. That is what God’s love is all about. It has been said by other posters and it is true, God ways are not our ways and God is not dictated by humans’ reason.
It is not as simple as assuming the author has an unfettered access to God’s will, which is why the Church does exegesis, to determine the truth in a passage in the context of the whole of scripture, in the context of the culture and beliefs of the author. The world would be a lot simpler if Catholics were fundamentalists and literalists, but that is not who we are.the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ. .
Citing a Wikipedia entry on a supposedly relevant logical fallacy does not obviate the double standard advanced by many atheists or hypocrisy of their moral stance, and it is reasonable that one should consider the motives of those advancing an argument based on morality when they themselves may hold a position that does not honor the virtues of morality or integrity. (I am NOT including you in this group, cornbread_r2, as I have no idea if you are an atheist, or what your views are on abortion or the unjust termination of human life, and for all I know, you may be an active crusader against the evil of abortion. Some atheists oppose abortion, as did Christopher Hitchens and George Orwell, and their position should be commended as honorable. I am describing here the hypocritical views of those who decry OT accounts of the deaths of children in warfare but still avidly defend “a woman’s right to choose” to end a child’s life.)
Yet you seem to be arguing that they did, and that if they did, it was a moral wrong. If you are attempting to argue that they did not conduct such operations, what is the problem you have with the issue? Are you trying to argue that something is immoral that never happened?That there might exist evidence that certain Canaanite tribes practiced abhorrent religious practices would not seem to be evidence that the Israelite army conducted military operations against them such as described in the bible.
However, He did do the killing of the Egyptian firstborn and, if you accept a literal flood, He was directly responsible for all the deaths cause by that.God did not do the killing throughout these Old Testament conquests.
Ok, well we could go round and round about various specific events and what factually happened, and about what God was actually thinking, doing and telling people to do throughout history. I wasn’t there personally, and I can’t begin to know God’s will in these matters (no one does) so I will listen to the Church which has the fullness of truth, and has been doing exegesis for centuries. Remember thatHowever, He did do the killing of the Egyptian firstborn and, if you accept a literal flood, He was directly responsible for all the deaths cause by that.
rossum
we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
Yes ok, that’s true, but the OP is positing a different issue that has plagued Christianity forever: overreach in interpretation. Literalism. This issue has been used by Christianity’s opponents to discredit us constantly, and we play into their hands by saying
“Well they must have deserved it! If the author says he knew God’s will, then a just God must have good reason to order the slaying of women and children!”.
And this literalist reading of scripture has also unfortunately been used by “Christians” to justify all sorts of evil in the name of “God’s will”.
It is important to understand scripture as the Church understands it. The authors are human beings inspired by God. They do not have perfect understanding of God’s will. They are influenced by their own conceptions of God and the culture in which they lived.
At the risk of being redundant, here Is Pope Benedict from “Verbum Domini”.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html
The “dark” passages of the Bible
The quote from the encyclical is very good. Thank you.
- In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
I see God’s hand in some of the many “dark deeds” in modern times. The US Civil War comes to mind. Lincoln understood it as Biblical. From his second inaugural address:
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
-Tim-
Yes, through what we know of the scriptures and revelation (Jesus) in general, It’s a fairly straightforward interpretation that God wills the end of slavery, as Lincoln said. I’d like to believe that his mighty hand sustained the forces of good in that instance. It is tragic that a people enslaves another, against God’s will, and tragic that a war must be fought to protect the dignity and safety of others.The quote from the encyclical is very good. Thank you.
I see God’s hand in some of the many “dark deeds” in modern times. The US Civil War comes to mind. Lincoln understood it as Biblical. From his second inaugural address:
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
-Tim-
,“the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.
Did these wars then not actually take place? Or did they take place but were not commanded by God? If the answer to either is yes then how do we reconcile this to the scriptures?Yes, through what we know of the scriptures and revelation (Jesus) in general, It’s a fairly straightforward interpretation that God wills the end of slavery, as Lincoln said. I’d like to believe that his mighty hand sustained the forces of good in that instance. It is tragic that a people enslaves another, against God’s will, and tragic that a war must be fought to protect the dignity and safety of others.
A just war, fought against those who would harm a whole race of people.
Contrast this against wars that were fought in the OT, killing the combatants to the last man, and killing, in a genocidal way, women and children who might “contaminate” the chosen people. AND the author believing it was God’s will and direct command to do so.
As a layman looking at this scenario through the various contexts, primarily the context of
,
I have a hard time believing that merciless genocide bears any resemblance to just war. I also have a hard time believing that the authors literally received a command to do this. And clearly we are not required to believe this as Catholics.
Not to speak for Clem, but the Old Testament, although inspired by God and inerrant in matters relating to salvation, should be understood as an anthology of texts, which are written in a variety of styles and genres by different authors, and in styles that were accepted by the readers of the times in which they were written. Not everything in there is literal truth, although it can be… Such varied styles include prayer in the form of spiritual verse (recounting passion, sorrow, anger, joy, rage, the entire panoply of human feeling), family trees, prophetic visions, parables, legal codes, and so forth. Accounts of battles, then and now, are often written in hyperbolic terms by the victors (“We wiped them out;” “Not a stone was left unturned;” “we had to destroy the village in order to save it,” and so forth.) That the “genocide” of these peoples did not actually occur seems to have been recognized by the authors, as members of these tribes are referred to later in the narratives - so obviously, they were not wiped out to the last man, woman, and child, and most would have fled, as people tend to do when an invading army approaches.Did these wars then not actually take place? Or did they take place but were not commanded by God? If the answer to either is yes then how do we reconcile this to the scriptures?
As a student and lover of the Scriptures I am truly interested in your take.
-Tim-
You were questioning God’s love then. I explained to you God’s love which surpassed mere killing if it is for a greater purpose.Correct. God kills far to many people in the OT. Have you ever read through Buddhist scriptures and counted how many people the Buddha killed?
I did not say life on earth is of little worth. I only said it is nothing compared to the eternal life because it is temporary. What good it does to you if you enjoy life on earth and suffer in damnation in the thereafter? We teaches that the eternal life is more important becuase, well, it is eternal.So, life on Earth is of little worth to you? Why then did God, correctly, tell you that it was of great worth: “You shall not kill”?
And so you are not. You questioned God’s love in the Old Testament and I explain to you why in context. Similarly, your argument as a Buddhist would be from the fact of your respective belief. However, you cannot apply your Buddhism to Christianity because they are different. You would sound ignorant if you do so since you do not argue in the context of why it is so.I am not Christian. Death is the consequence of birth. Birth is the consequence of unwise actions in previous lives. Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one.
rossum
I added my own in the blue to reflect which POV I kind of line up with in this issue.Did these wars then not actually take place? Or did they take place but were not commanded by God to slaughter innocents? If the answer to either is yes then how do we reconcile this to the scriptures?
As a student and lover of the Scriptures I am truly interested in your take.
-Tim-