God did NOT command the early Hebrews to kill women and children in warfare

[Steve_O_Brien]

It seems to me that one of the most serious problems for contemporary Catholic apologists is the fact that Old Testament passages (e.g., in Deut 20, Josh 6 and 8, and 1 Sam 15) appear to indicate that God commanded the early Hebrews to kill women, children, and other non-combatants in warfare. I suggest that the correct way to handle these texts is to deny that God ever issued such a command. I thus agree with the New American Bible annotator on 1 Sam 15:1-3 and Jesuit scholar John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible s.v. “Ban” and “Joshua.”

But what about the apparent conflict between this denial and the Catholic doctrines of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy? I believe that we can reason as follows: even though the ancient Hebrews erroneously thought that God had ordered these massacres, this underlying false supposition is not truly asserted and affirmed by the sacred authors, who merely report it without approbation. What counts as far as inspiration is concerned is what the Biblical author “truly wanted to affirm” (CCC 109)–in the sense in which, and to the extent to which, he wanted to affirm it.

Some apologists will be tempted to say that God did issue such a command, and that he is the Lord of life and death and may do as he wills. I can’t accept this. To say that the Lord ordered ancient Hebrew soldiers to slaughter infants and cripples in Canaanite cities would blasphemously transform the God of love into a monster. This contention would also contradict the Magisterium’s teaching in CCC 2261:

“Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: ‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.’ Ex 23:7] The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[bengal_fan]

Steve O'Brien:

Some apologists will be tempted to say that God did issue such a command, and that he is the Lord of life and death and may do as he wills. I can’t accept this.

i’m sorry you can’t accept the word of God for what it is. the authors did believe they were transmitting what actually happened and since it is the inerrant word of God, then He did order the killing of everything (including livestock in certain places). who are we to say who is innocent ? God is the one who gets to decide that. these people were in direct opposition of God by just being in the land He had given to His people. i know this may sound harsh, but God has His reasons (see Isaiah, “His ways are higher than ours…”) and we are not here to question His motives but to simply apply these things to our own lives. if your application forces you to deny what God clearly ordered then so be it, but don’t blame the church or apologists just because you can’t reconcile your own feelings.

 

[Vincent]

You’re probably familiar with St. Thomas’s view on the killing of the innocent:"God is Lord of death and life, for by His decree both the sinful and the righteous die. Hence he who at God’s command kills an innocent man does not sin, as neither does God Whose behest he executes: indeed his obedience to God’s commands is a proof that he fears Him."It makes some sense: People die everyday, and God is somehow involved. Can rational creatures be his instruments in carrying out these decrees? Here’s another one from the Summa: “All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God on account of original sin, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: ‘The Lord killeth and maketh alive.’ Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent, without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another’s wife; who is allotted to him by the law emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The same applies to theft, which is the taking of another’s property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all things belong, is not taken against the will of its owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in human things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way, natural, as stated in the I, 105, 6, ad 1.”

I can understand how this may leave some a little uncomfortable, as if divine Law was somehow arbitrary (“Thou shalt not slay… but I might tell thee otherwise”). St. Thomas’s answers suggest that such things are not incompatible with God’s immutability. I, however, have difficulty understanding it.

Your proposal might be reasonable if it can be demonstrated that the human authors of Scripture weren’t affirming that God ordered herem warfare.

Another option is that every single person under the ban wasn’t innocent and righteous. St. Thomas might disagree.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

bengal_fan:

I’m sorry you can’t accept the word of God for what it is. The authors did believe they were transmitting what actually happened and since it is the inerrant word of God, then He did order the killing of everything (including livestock in certain places).

When a Biblical author relates “what actually happened,” he is *not *necessarily affirming that what happened is good and worthy of imitation–otherwise Judas’s betrayal and suicide would be models of Christian conduct.

The contention that God did order the killing of non-combatants is a flat rejection of Jesus’s teaching concerning the love that is owed even to enemies (Mt 5:22-39; 5:44).

This contention can scandalize both believers (thus destroying their faith) and unbelievers (thus preventing them from attaining faith). We should remember Vatican II’s admonition that
“**elievers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism” (*CCC *2125).

These problematic Old Testament passages about extermination warfare demonstrate the need for an outside authority that can forestall misinterpretations of Scripture. This outside authority is what Catholics call the “Magisterium.” The Magisterium emphatically condemns the killing of non-combatants (CCC 2312-2314).

Keep and spread the Faith.**

 

[wisdom_3_5]

“The contention that God did order the killing of non-combatants is a flat rejection of Jesus’s teaching concerning the love that is owed even to enemies (Mt 5:22-39; 5:44).”

This is pre-Christian we’re taking about here.

Look at it from this perspective: All men deserve death due to sin. God chooses one group of people from which salvation for all people will come. This group has to separate itself from other groups, which were polythiestic. If all the men in a society were killed what would become of the women and children? Would they become a part of the Hebrews? Would they practice their own religion and lead other Hebrews into the practices of those religions? Look at what happened to Solomon when he married women that were not Hebrew, he started erecting temples to them and worshipping there! The whole history of the Jewish people in the OT is them choosing other than God and Him bringing them back to Himself. Why? Because they didn’t listen to God and kill all the people that God told them to.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Vincent:

You’re probably familiar with St. Thomas’s view on the killing of the innocent.

If you know of places in which St. Thomas explicitly discusses the Old Testament passages concerning extermination warfare in Canaan, I’d appreciate the references. In the Thomistic passages you’ve cited, St. Thomas refers only to Abraham’s conviction that he had to kill his son Isaac. Please note this crucial fact: God prevented Abraham from killing his innocent son.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Vincent]

Steve,

I haven’t been able to find St. Thomas’s references to the particular passages you’re asking for.

I was, on the other hand, able to find Fr. Benedict Ashley’s explanation:

If then we accept its inspiration in this context, we note that, the primary intention of this command is to warn the Israelites not to permit their faith to be corrupted by the idolatry of the pagans. We must also make allowance for the Deuteronomist’s literary style of black and white rhetoric. Jesus himself was willing to use such rhetoric as when he said both that we should “Do good to those who that hate you,” but also “If any one comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). Moreover modern scholarship dates the Deuteronomistic writings long after this command could have had a practical application as regards actual war, but was rather intended in the strongest language to warn against idolatry, since this remained a practical problem in Israel when Deuteronomy was last edited. Finally, it is clear that the Deuteronomist thought that the ancient wars by which Israel had obtained freedom in the land God had promised them could not have succeeded if God by his providential power had not cleared the land of the pagans. In historic fact this was probably a gradual process, but for the Deuteronomist it seems like one decisive act.

Of course, since, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out (S.Th. I-II. Q. 94 a.5 ad 2), God is author of life and death, he could have given to the Jews a command to act as his executioners in punishing the pagans. He could have even included the personally innocent, since even today the innocent incur the effects of original sin and die with their parents in wars and natural disasters. But the teaching of Dei Verbum on inspiration and inerrancy does not imply that the Scriptures contain no historical errors, but only no errors that would distort its religious message of salvation. Thus it is not necessary to accept the details of the Deuteronomic understanding of past history. Hence when today we read such passages we should understand their inspired meaning to be: (1) We must avoid idolatry and corruption of the faith as of the utmost gravity; (2) God permitted (but did not surely in the literal sense command) the Jews conduct of war in the manner of their own times, a manner that for us today is seen to be barbarous; (3) In the New Testament God teaches that such brutality is no longer tolerable and must be replaced with true respect for the sacredness of life of all persons. No doubt in a just war it is still ethical to use mortal force but only against aggressors.

I have analyzed this Old Testament passage that is perhaps the most difficult one in the whole Bible to understand in a way consistent with Jesus’ teaching, to show that, as Dei Verbum teaches, the Bible correctly interpreted contains no moral error. Yet it is very easy to see how a fanatic could quote this passage to justify crimes like those of Hitler, Stalin, or Milosevic.

 

[bengal_fan]

Steve O'Brien:

When a Biblical author relates “what actually happened,” he is *not *necessarily affirming that what happened is good and worthy of imitation–otherwise Judas’s betrayal and suicide would be models of Christian conduct…

no because judas’ conduct is condemned whereas the conduct of the israelites in claiming the promised land is rewarded.
Steve O'Brien:

The contention that God did order the killing of non-combatants is a flat rejection of Jesus’s teaching concerning the love that is owed even to enemies (Mt 5:22-39; 5:44)…

then why did God punish king saul when he spared some of the things (such as livestock and gold) when he was specifically told to kill everything. why was he not punished for taking “innocent” life? maybe it is a flat rejection of how you interpret Jesus’ teachings and how you interpret the old testament passages, but since they are inspired and inerrant they must not contradict. you are not the one to decide who is innocent. neither is the church (i do understand the magisterium as i am a protestant minister in the process of conversion to catholicism), God decides innocence and guilt and, according to His inspired word, He ordered the killings (He didn’t just “overlook” them).
Steve O'Brien:

This contention can scandalize both believers (thus destroying their faith) and unbelievers (thus preventing them from attaining faith). We should remember Vatican II’s admonition that
“**elievers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism” (*CCC ***2125).

this doesn’t mean we sweep truth under the rug because it might cause confusion and keep people from coming to faith. the cross is a subject of confusion and scandal according to st. paul and yet we preach it unabashadly.
Steve O'Brien:

Keep and spread the Faith.

i am…

 

[chrisg93]

*“If any one comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). *

the Bible correctly interpreted contains no moral error

I’m sorry to get off the subject but Luke 14:26 is a mistranslation or a faulty original manuscript. It contradicts the fourth commandment and implies that Jesus hated his own mother. This is a gigantic moral error in the Bible. The parrallel passage gives the correct translation.

 

[Vincent]

chrisg93:

This is a gigantic moral error in the Bible.

There’s such a thing as hyperbole.

 

[chrisg93]

Vincent:

There’s such a thing as hyperbole.

Not in this case. Jesus never exagerated, mislead or spoke out of context or said anything that he did not mean.

 

[porthos11]

Again we see 21st-century understanding of innocence and guilt being applied to ancient cultures.

First of all God IS the master of life and death. If he decides to snuff out a human life and take a soul to himself, we have no right to complain because he is God. It does not make him a monster; that is OUR perception. He has the RIGHT to order the death of someone, otherwise he wouldn’t be God.

Second, God understood the necessity of these radical measures in order to protect his chosen people. Now as we abandon our 21st-century mentality we put ourselves in Joshua’s shoes thousands of years ago and what do we see n Canaan? IDOLS. Sacred Prostitution. Child Sactifice. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Canaanites were NOT INNOCENT! God saw the beginnings of the danger they posed in the desert. Read the story of Phinehas son of Eleazar when he speared an Israelite as he took a pagan woman into his tent. God rewarded him and his line with the High Priesthood. These women were leading Israel astray. So there was no injustice involved.

Abandon this modernist “scholarship”. It’s done so much harm to the Church already. I for one will fight it and such “interpretations” with every ounce of my strength. ORTHODOXY FOREVER!!!

 

[porthos11]

*“If any one comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). *

the Bible correctly interpreted contains no moral error

I’m sorry to get off the subject but Luke 14:26 is a mistranslation or a faulty original manuscript. It contradicts the fourth commandment and implies that Jesus hated his own mother. This is a gigantic moral error in the Bible. The parrallel passage gives the correct translation.

SIGH :banghead:

There is no mistranslation. Think like an ancient Jew not like a 21st-century American.

In Jewish cultural understanding to “hate” is not to harbor some kind of murderous grudge about a person; to “hate” is simply not to love as much. The Jews did not have so much an understanding of love in terms of degrees, it was more black and white to them. So what is to love for them? It’s in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5): “Hear O Israel: The LORD your God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”. THAT for them is the best love to be given to God alone, any less is considered “hate”. Hence: “God loved Jacob but hated Esau.” DId he really hate Esau the way we hate enemies? No. It just means that he loved Jacob over Esau to give Jacob the covenant inheritance.

To hate one’s family then was simply to relegate them to a lesser priority from God. We are obligated to choose God above all else. That is the Jewish/Biblical understanding of “hate.”

 

[porthos11]

And by the way, not to sound like some doomsday freak, I think we should be reminded that even with the new Covenant in place, God still has absolute mastery over our little lives. God can still decide to kill us all should he will it.

And I propose that this is not remote possibility. With helpless babies dying by the millions in abortions, legal or otherwise, and other crimes crying to heaven for vengeance, God might just decide to make such a decision. And should that happen, yes many of God’s innocent and faithful will die along with the guilty.

Except that the faithful, should they be caught in the judgement of God, will not see this as a disaster, but as a merficul purification that opens the door to heaven, as well as a manifestation of God’s justice, and they will rejoice over the blow dealt to the kingdom of Satan.

Every time I hear of “debates” over abortion, senseless terrorist killings, forced steilization, homosexual marriage, I find myself praying with the martyrs: “How long O Lord, before you come to judge the earth?” :bowdown2:

 

[chrisg93]

porthos11,
Thanks for the reply but I cannot find it to be true for several reasons…

1. Your intrepretation makes the Bible incorrect on it’s face. You are saying hate does not mean hate. Anyone could understand a cultural shift of say - color. Red is now magenta and blue is now aqua. That’s logical. But what your interpretation does is give an opposite meaning to the words of the Bible. It doesn’t mean hate, of course, so why is it translated hate. It’s wrong eigher way.
2. Your intrepretation necessitates that all Bible readers become an ancient historian. As an average Catholic, I rely on the Bible to be clear enough to sit down and read without a degree in ancient jewish history. Don’t you think that’s a fair request from me? Don’t you think that’s the way it should be?
3. What else is misinterepted? Did Jesus really die on a “circle” not a “cross”. Did Jesus feed 5,000 with “pizza” not “loaves and fishes”. Where does it end?
4. The parrell passage gives the correct interpretation. Why doesn’t this one, except that is from a faulty manuscript and has never been changed. Remenber there have been several important faulty translations that have been changed, this is not the first.
5. The passage is a direct violation of the 4th Commandment. That cannot be justified by linguistics. The passage implies that Jesus hated his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. I can’t think of a more horrible implication.

Thanks

 

[porthos11]

chrisg93:

porthos11,

1. Your intrepretation makes the Bible incorrect on it’s face. You are saying hate does not mean hate. Anyone could understand a cultural shift of say - color. Red is now magenta and blue is now aqua. That’s logical. But what your interpretation does is give an opposite meaning to the words of the Bible. It doesn’t mean hate, of course, so why is it translated hate. It’s wrong eigher way.
2. Your intrepretation necessitates that all Bible readers become an ancient historian. As an average Catholic, I rely on the Bible to be clear enough to sit down and read without a degree in ancient jewish history. Don’t you think that’s a fair request from me? Don’t you think that’s the way it should be?
3. What else is misinterepted? Did Jesus really die on a “circle” not a “cross”. Did Jesus feed 5,000 with “pizza” not “loaves and fishes”. Where does it end?
4. The parrell passage gives the correct interpretation. Why doesn’t this one, except that is from a faulty manuscript and has never been changed. Remenber there have been several important faulty translations that have been changed, this is not the first.
5. The passage is a direct violation of the 4th Commandment. That cannot be justified by linguistics. The passage implies that Jesus hated his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. I can’t think of a more horrible implication.

Thanks

Hi Chris,

With regards to point no. 2, unfortunately yes, in order to interpret the Bible correctly, everyone, including average Catholics need to put themselves in the proper historical, cultural, and linguistic context. That is why we Catholics are so blessed to have the Magisterium to set us straight, for only the Church is the infallible interpreter of the Bible. “Hate” here is a Hebraism; it means total detachment.

I understand your point though. Which is why again, we need to remember that there are TWO types of Bible translation philosophies: literal and dynamic. Literal translations (e.g. KJV, RSV, NASB, NAB [to some degree]) render the original words according to their literal translation (e.g. Greek misei=English hate) without too much regard for the actual context. This is important for Scripture scholarship. It also makes such Bibles harder to read.

Dynamic translations (e.g. Jerusalem Bible, NJB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NAB) strive for clearer meaning rather than word-for-word fidelity. That is why, for example in the Contemporary English Version (a dynamic translation), you will see the Lucan passage almost identical to that of Matthew. Dynamic translations are easier to read but some cultural and liguistic details may be lost, and there is the possibility of doctrinal bias. If you’re really after the meaning, then a dynamic translation is something you want. Otherwise, you need to be aware that you’re reading a literal translation.

I myself keep the RSV for my literal Bible. The dynamic translations I use are the original Jerusalem Bible (which, incidentally, keeps the “hate” word, a notable literal in a generally dynamic version) and the NAB, while I reference to the Good News Bible and King James Bibles too.

So it’s really important to understand Bible translation philosophies too. Tough for the average Catholic? Yes it is. Even for Protestants, but their personal interpretations without the benefit of proper scholarship AND the Church explains their 35,000 sects today. Again, thank God for the Church who infallibly interprets for us.

So when we understand the Jewish concept of “hate” as rendered in LITERAL translations, we will know that Jesus did not despise or dishonor his mother. He simply loved her with the love due her, but still less than his love for his Father.

 

[porthos11]

Hi Chris,

Oh, and I think I should also address your “pizza” and “circle” analogies.

1. Pizza is not rendered even in literal translations because the Greek word we find is “bread”.
2. With regards to “cross” there is indeed a translation issue used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross. They claim that the word “stauros” means stake. That’s really true, especially in modern Greek. But in Koine Greek, the language of the NT, stauros translates to either an upright stake or some other upright wooden structure, like a cross. So why translate as cross?

Because we know from history that is the way the Romans executed prisoners.

So there is really no comparison between hate and cross and pizza. You are reading a Bible translation that simply renders the original languages with a faithful word-for-word translation.

See the Catholic Answers tract on Bible translations for more information.

God bless.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

chrisg93:

1. Your intrepretation necessitates that all Bible readers become an ancient historian. As an average Catholic, I rely on the Bible to be clear enough to sit down and read without a degree in ancient jewish history. Don’t you think that’s a fair request from me? Don’t you think that’s the way it should be?

Assuming that the Bible is clear is a rather Protestant idea. Catholics don’t think the Bible is clear enough that they can sit down, read, and be guaranteed to understand the correct meaning of a passage. They do believe that one can derive some extent of biblical Truth on one’s own, but also hold that in order to fully understand Scripture one must rely on the teaching of the Magisterium. After all, Peter tells us that some things in Paul’s letters are difficult to understand. So if the very Scriptures consider themselves difficult, it’s no surprise that we should sometimes have trouble with a passage.

As for the Old Testament commands to kill the women and children, I agree with the poster who point out that those killed were not totally innocent. They came from idolatrous peoples and, regardless of any current wrongdoing, were all in a condition of original sin. Now, if the wages of sin is death, then we should not have a problem with God distributing those wages. The New Testament absolute prohibition against the killing of the “innocent” can be seen as a result of the fact that Christ has now paid the price of our sins, and therefore men are no longer called upon to execute the judgment of God. However, if God were to once again command such a thing, we would be obliged to comply.

As an aside, while documentation from the Angelic Doctor may not have been presented in explicit support of the genuine nature of those commands, you have also not provided explicit support from the Magisterium for your interpretation of these verses. Rather, you have cited a single Jesuit, as well as passages from the CCC that don’t specifically deal with the topic at hand. You are presuming that they were meant to speak to the issue. You should hold yourself to the same burden of proof when you advance a claim as you do others. Either relax the standards for the opposition or produce your magisterial document.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Andreas Hofer:

As for the Old Testament commands to kill the women and children, I agree with the poster who points out that those killed were not totally innocent. They came from idolatrous peoples and, regardless of any current wrongdoing, were all in a condition of original sin. Now, if the wages of sin is death, then we should not have a problem with God distributing those wages. The New Testament absolute prohibition against the killing of the “innocent” can be seen as a result of the fact that Christ has now paid the price of our sins, and therefore men are no longer called upon to execute the judgment of God. However, if God were to once again command such a thing, we would be obliged to comply.

As an aside, while documentation from the Angelic Doctor may not have been presented in explicit support of the genuine nature of those commands, you have also not provided explicit support from the Magisterium for your interpretation of these verses. Rather, you have cited a single Jesuit, as well as passages from the CCC that don’t specifically deal with the topic at hand. You are presuming that they were meant to speak to the issue. You should hold yourself to the same burden of proof when you advance a claim as you do others. Either relax the standards for the opposition or produce your magisterial document.

This is a chilling post. Whatever the intentions of the author, its cold-bloodedness is so un-Christian as to take one’s breath away. Can its author really believe in the truth of the New Testament? “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (*1 Jn * 4:20; 1986 NAB). Killing non-combatants in warfare, or approving such killing, is a way of hating one’s brother–in any age.

Even though they participated in the sin of idolatry, the women, old men, and cripples slaughtered by Joshua’s army were “innocent” in the sense in which the Catholic Church understands that term when she teaches the moral immunity of non-combatants in wartime. Despite original sin, even unbaptized infants in those Canaanite cities were “innocent” in the same sense. (And please note that original sin is not personal sin: *CCC * 404-405). If all these human beings were not “innocent” in the sense defended by Catholic moral theology, then the doctrine which the Church emphatically sets forth in *CCC * 2312-2314 would be total nonsense, and the Magisterium’s claim to guide us in the name of Jesus would be a lie.

Please pay special attention to this condemnation:

***“Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide” (CCC * 2313).

If non-combatant immunity did not apply even to the idolatrous peoples of Canaan, then it is not a “universal principle.” Both the Church and reason (*CCC * 2312) tell us that it is. I believe the Church and reason.

On non-combatant immunity and the immorality of early Hebrew extermination warfare, I recommend the treatment of Germain Grisez, an outstanding contemporary theologian noted for his fidelity to the Magisterium. Please see The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume Two: Living a Christian Life, pages 474-479.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[chrisg93]

A couple of points…

1. I have soooo much respect for people that are learned in Bible translation, history, liguistics and culture. I am not. But I find that Catholic training tells me “hate” in Luke 14:26 is wrong. Examples of faulty translations - “lead us not into temptation” has been changed to “put us not to the test” and “except for fornication” has been changed to “except for unlawful marriage”. Someday the “hate” wording in Luke will be corrected also.
2. More related to the topic. My son has become an agnostic over the the OT passage “if your son gets drunk, he is to be stoned to death”. I dispair over his decision but I can certainly see his reasoning and I do not have a good answer. The OT has many things like that.