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

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

Support the thesis with magisterial texts and you’ll be more convincing.

I find it interesting how St. Thomas fails to mention how wrong the Israelites were when 1 Sam 15 was specifically cited in objection to the orthodox faith.

I’ve already cited many Magisterial texts. Serious Catholics should take these texts seriously.

It may be that St. Thomas mistakenly believed that God ordered genocide in Old Testament times–just as the saint was innocently mistaken about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Then, too, there may be a text in which the Angelic Doctor explicitly teaches that there was a divine command to commit genocide; if anyone can cite it, I’d be grateful for the reference. Nonetheless, the Thomistic text that Dave cites (Summa theologiae, II-II, question 108, article 4), is *not * such a text.

The question that St. Thomas poses in this article is this: “Whether vengeance should be taken on those who have sinned involuntarily?” He answers in the negative, but adds that there is a kind of punishment that God permits even for the innocent. He gives the example of the innocent children in Sodom; note that these children died in a catastrophe, and were not killed by other human beings. When, however, St. Thomas mentions the Amalekites of *1 Sam * 15, he does not mention their children, but only their animals. This omission is extremely interesting. It seems to me that St. Thomas, seeing the same serious problem that many Catholics see in this Biblical passage, may have preferred not to comment on it.

In any event, nowhere in this article of the *Summa theologiae * does St. Thomas state that he believes that God has ever commanded any army to kill innocent human beings. Please don’t take my word for it; read the article carefully and in its entirety.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Steve,

Still got problems. First of all, you seem to have overlooked my question about the consistent extension of your reasoning to the command to take the Promised Land.

Second, while you do cite magisterial texts, none of your citations from the CCC claims to speak about interpretation of the OT. The Israelites were not, in fact, bound by the teachings of the Magisterium. They were bound by the commands of God. What Dave and I are asking for is a magisterial document that speaks directly to the issue of God’s commands to slay, or at least something that all could agree is parallel. If I cite the CCC’s teaching on the death penalty I have not exactly constructed a solid case that God did not actually command the stoning of adulterers.

Third, in the midst of calling all of your opponents un-Christian, sacrilegious, and variants thereof, you continue to assert your personal opinion as the obvious truth when you are, if not alone, at least in a very small minority. Does this not seem a little odd for the person who is so obviously correct? I guess the other side’s complete misunderstanding of the New Testament as well as its insidious clinging to the dark pleasure of pure, unadulterated hate must explain this queer numerical anomaly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The *New Jerome Biblical Commentary *also states regarding the Amalekites and Saul’s disobedience:

The Amalekites are cursed because they attempted to keep the people from their God-given heritage. (p. 51)

Saul has failed in obedience to a specific divine command; he is therfore rejected from being king (p. 150, emphasis added)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It may be that St. Thomas mistakenly believed that God ordered genocide in Old Testament times

I see. First Venerable Cardinal Newman is ignorant of the orthodox Catholic interpretation, now the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas is simply wrong as well. These members of the Teaching Church are simply no match for your masterful interpretation of Sacred Scritpure.

however, St. Thomas mentions the Amalekites of *1 Sam *15, he does not mention their children, but only their animals.

You seem completely unaware that the very same verse which commands the killing of these animals ALSO commands the killing of every living Amalekite, to include infants and children.

1 Sam 15:3 states: “Go now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.”

Are you suggesting St. Thomas asserted that only part of verse 3 was a true Divine command, while the other part was wrongly attributed to God? Can you see now why your thesis is so summarily rejected within this thread? It’s just too absurd.

You don’t seem willing to budge from your ridiculous assertion and I won’t budge from the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, Ven. Cardinal Newman, and other trustworthy Catholic sources. Your so-called magisterial support does not refer to 1 Sam 15 at all, whereas Ven. Newman and St. Thomas specifically address these texts, therefore your supposed evidence is uncompelling.

Good luck in your Bible studies.

 

[twf]

I’d like to make it clear what others have pointed out:
The Israelites WERE NOT subject to the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church. We are under a new dispensation…Christ has died, and the rules have changed. Christ, by fulflling the Law, specifically CHANGES things. For example, God COMMANDED the people to dispense justice by “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” yet Jesus specifically changes this in the New Dispensation (Mt 5:37-39).

Perhaps you’ve noticed that the CCC condemns the death penalty…interesting how God specifically COMMANDS the death penalty in the OT for several crimes/sins. Is this a contradiction? Of course not, but we can not apply the rules of the present dispensation to the old. In these stonings that God commanded God used human agents to carry out His justice…so that rules out your argument that there is a difference b/w the slaying the first born directly by God or the slaying of a certain nation by the Israelites. We are now in the age of grace, under the Law, Christ had not yet died, and things were done differently to say the least. It is important to remember that all deserve death…all of us, you and me both…so the death penalty was indeed a just thing, for any serious sin.
I’m sorry for shouting a bit, but I need to get those important points across. I also second the notion that your way of looking at these Scriptures opens up the door for almost any interpretation of Scripture.

Here’s a very indepth apologetics piece on these mass executions…it is not Catholic, but Protestant, but it may provide a way to understand the justice and truth behind these Divine actions. christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Since Dave has cited The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, I’d like to point out that the Jesuit scholar whom he quotes is merely referring to the surface meaning of the text of *1 Sam * 15 without necessarily vouching for the actual existence of an alleged divine command to commit genocide

It’s highly unlikely that any of the scholars in that commentary dissent from this note to *1 Sam * 15:3 in the New American Bible:

"The interpretation of God’s will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been. The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God."

Please note that the New American Bible is the official translation for the celebration of the liturgy in the United States, and that it was commended by Pope Paul VI.

Jesuit John L. McKenzie, one of the other writers in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, is emphatic in his agreement with the annotator of the New American Bible. He writes as follows in his Dictionary of the Bible:

"The practice of the ban, like a number of other features of Hb law and custom, is a survival from primitive and more barbarous times which finally disappeared with the growth of a more enlightened morality and a more civilized manner of life. These mass murders of hostile peoples were doubtless done in good faith by the early Hebrews, but they cannot be justified morally in any way by the fact that the Hebrews believed that the action was pleasing to God, and the growth of Hb understanding in this respect is exhibited in the historical books, where the practice does not appear after the war of Saul with the Amalekites" (page 78).

"The moral tone of the book [of Joshua] in such episodes as the entire annihilation of the population of Canaanite cities has been distressing to many readers; to others, unfortunately, it has furnished an example. The use of this example to justify similar treatment of one’s religious adversaries shows how much evil can come from faulty exegesis. Knowledge of ancient history now shows us that Joshua and the Israelites were altogether people of their time in the morality of warfare. Their practice can be justified on no ground whatever, and their primitive morality is no example for anyone. The Israelite view of the charismatic leader as one under the guidance of Yahweh must be understood in Israelite terms and not pressed into a crass literal sense. Furthermore, the form of the tradition which we have contains itself the evidence that the practice of annihilation from a religious motive was not practiced generally by the Israelites and may have been actually a rare incident. Their relations with the Canaanites were generally friendly" (pages 458-459).

I put an unnecessary comma in this sentence in post #61: “Nonetheless, the Thomistic text that Dave cites (Summa theologiae, II-II, question 108, article 4) is *not * such a text.” Sorry!

Keep and spread the Faith.*

 

[Strider]

Steve O'Brien:

Since I don’t have a Navarre Bible, I can’t verify that it has been accurately cited. Nonetheless, the “explanation” that makes “perfect sense” to the author of the above post strikes me as repulsive and even sacrilegious. It’s difficult for me to believe that the author of the post truly understands Jesus’s teaching on love of enemies (*Mt *5:38-48; 7:12), or St. John’s definition of God as love (*1 Jn *4:8)

Shall we kill all those millions of human beings afflicted with AIDS and other STD’s to preserve the rest of humanity from contagion?

In proposing “explanations” of problematic Biblical texts, "elievers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism" (Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes, section 19; *CCC *2125).

Keep and spread the Faith.
Steve,
The above explanation that you find so repulsive is just that, one possible explanation. I know that I think like a man and have also wondered at God’s actions in the OT. But He, being God, the Author of Life, does not think like a man, he thinks like God. If we try to outthink him, we’ll lose every time.
Your position, as stated in the original post on this thread is simply untenable.
We cannot assume that the Israelites were mistaken in their understanding of God’s commands. We cannot assume that the sacred author simply reported events. He was not the anchor on the six o’clock news. That’s sacrilegious.
We cannot assume that St Thomas or any other doctor of the Church misinterpreted a passage of Scripture. We, as Catholics, have to rely on the Magesterium and other Church teachings.
If you are correct, then the entire foundation of Christianity is built on sand and all Church teachings can come tummbling down like a house of cards.
The Bible is inerrant. To believe what is in your post #1 is to believe that the Miracle of the Loaves was not really Jesus’ multiplication of five loaves of bread to feed five thousand with crumbs left over, but to believe that the true “miracle” was Jesus convincing the people to share food they already had with them. It’s rewriting Scripture.
God doesn’t have to explain Himself to us. If he can cause a man to die for touching the Arc of the Covenant to keep it from falling off of a donkey’s back, what can he not do?
God bless

 

[Strider]

chrisg93:

Strider:

Mat 5:29-30 “If your right eye cuses you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell…”
Did Jesus really want us to pluck our out eyes and cut off our right hands? Of course not. Hyperbole was a common form of teaching in first century Palestine, and intelligent Bible reading requires us to learn that.

This passage is NOT hyperbole. It is exactly what Jesus wants us to do. Jesus never exagerated or hyperbolized. Our sin is “caused” by our evil and wicked nature, BUT if your hand did ever “cause” you to sin (which is almost impossible, except the Mark of the Beast on your hand) then you should cut your hand off! This verse means exactly what it says. Remember Jesus never exagerated or hyperbolized.

Yes, he did. Jesus used many different teaching methods. He used hyperbole, metaphor, simile, indirct reference and direct analysis. He used every teaching tool there is, and he used them better than anybody, before or since.
The passage above follows this: "You have heard that it was said ‘You shall not commit adultry.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultry with her in his heart. Mat 5:27,28
Thus the reference to the right hand (get it?) and right eye in the next verses.
This thread is a perfect example of why we need the Magesterium to help us interpret Scripture. 33,000 Christian denominations and sects attest to the danger of going it on our own.
As was stated in a few posts above, we not only have to look at what Scripture says, but we have to try to understand what the author wanted to convey. To do that, we have to understand somethng about the time and culture in which he lived.
I depend on Magesterial teaching, with two thousand years of experience and learning behind it, to help me do that.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I was able to track down a passage in which St. Thomas Aquinas expresses his belief in the reality of a divine command to kill women and children in wartime. It’s located in the Summa theologiae, part I-II, question 105, article 3, objection 4 and the reply thereto:

newadvent.org/summa/210503.htm

The saint is addressing, not *1 Sam * 15:1-3, but *Deut * 20:10-18. This is another of the problematic passages that deal with genocidal warfare.

I don’t believe that St. Thomas’s opinion on this question is definitive–even though I urge all Catholics to regard St. Thomas as one of their primary teachers and guides. Obviously, the Angelic Doctor is a mega-authority in Catholic philosophy and theology. Nonetheless, the saint’s stature does not prevent the bishops of the United States from allowing this footnote to stand in The New American Bible at *1 Sam * 15:3: “The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God.”

After seven centuries of Magisterial teaching on the intrinsic evil of killing the innocent, on universal non-combatant immunity, and on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture, perhaps the Angelic Doctor might now be willing to reconsider his view. I don’t know. I wish that he could send us a post from heaven! I do know, however, that St.Thomas wants us to follow our consciences (in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church in *CCC * 1790) and to be loyal to the truth rather than any theologian.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[chrisg93]

Steve O’Brien,

I happen to think you are both right and wrong.

1. WRONG - The OT says “if you son get drunk, he is to be stoned”. If parents can kill their own son for getting drunk then God can certainly order killing strangers on almost any pretext.

2, WRONG - To say the Hewbrews misunderstood God or the OT writer misunderstood what he was supposed to write is flimsy. You will have to come up with a better explanation. My suggestion is that the manuscript is simply a faulty manuscript - it is a 5th?-10th?- 15th? - 50th? generation copy and corrupted text is certainly possible.

1. RIGHT - Your basic theological point of protection of the innocent is valid and correct.

 

[nan]

OK - I will admit I have not read every word posted on this subject but I did scroll through. I am not a bible scholar and am only just finishing up reading the bible cover to cover (I’m in Acts) for the 1st time. As I scrolled through the responses here I became more and more anxious. Many mentally disturbed people have killed their children because they thought God told them to do it. My concern is that people reading this thread will be encouraged in their delusions - esp. the person who keeps coming back to the business about stoning a drunken son (no wonder the kid’s an agnostic!). It is my understanding that Jesus came to replace the old law with the new. Deut. 21:18-21 is definitely old law. And it instructs the parents to have the son apprehended by lawful authorities. It is far beyond me to wrestle with the “destruction of whole peoples” passages but there again I have a concern with people taking these biblical incidents as justification for genocide.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

nan:

It is far beyond me to wrestle with the “destruction of whole peoples” passages, but there again I have a concern with people taking these biblical incidents as justification for genocide.

I share Nan’s alarm. I first had to confront the serious exegetical problem posed by the genocide texts when Bob Coger on the thread concerning Karl Keating’s August 3, 2004, e-letter cited *1 Sam * 15:1-3 to justify the mass murders that the U.S. military perpetrated by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Biblical scholar William G. Most may be able to help us. Father Most was staunchly loyal to the Magisterium and believed profoundly in the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy. He was a critic of Father Raymond E. Brown. In his 1985 book Free from All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars, Father Most appears to accept the reality of the genocide commands. Nonetheless, what is extremely relevant for us is the fact that he also explains Catholic principles that will allow us to take the opposite position from his in connection with the texts in *1 Samuel * and Joshua.

In reference to *1 Samuel *, Most says that the conflicting accounts of David’s first meeting with Saul represent the inability of the sacred author to decide which of the two sources is true. Accordingly, the human author simply records both accounts without asserting or affirming their historical accuracy. “So there is no error at all” (page 88).

Most maintains (page 90) that the same situation may exist with respect to the variant narratives explaining the reason for God’s rejection of Saul’s kingship (*1 Sam * 13:1-14 and *1 Sam * 15:1-31). If this is the case, then the historicity of *1 Sam * 15:1-31 can also be considered as unaffirmed by the human author. The result is that this account’s mere report of an alleged divine command to engage in extermination warfare does *not * oblige us to believe that such a command was actually issued.

Furthermore, Father Most says: “It is quite probable that the Book of Joshua is also in something like epic genre. . . .] the picture is epic idealization. . . .] Yet there is no error. Again our study of the differences in genres makes clear what the inspired writers meant to assert” (pages 89-90). If *Joshua * contains historical inaccuracies permissible in epics, then the genocide passages in that book may not be historical at all.

Most’s reasoning is solidly based on Magisterial documents: Pope Pius XII’s encouragement of the study of literary forms in his 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, and the responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on implicit citations (February 13, 1905) and narratives that are only apparently historical (June 23, 1905).

Get Father Most’s book.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The distinction here, Nan and Steve, is that no one on this thread is advocating modern genocide based on some divine command. Saying that a method of interpretation should be rejected because it can be misused by the unstable also disqualifies Steve’s interpretation because it can be used to entirely viscerate the Bible. Essentially, every time I don’t want to agree with the voice of God in Scriptures, I could just say the words are not an actual utterance of God but a mere historical mistake. It’s just as open to abuse as one that trusts in the truth of those utterances, just in a different manner. Which is more dangerous? They have different dangers. One involves a relatively small amount of psychopaths who will inflict bodily harm on others. The other involves a rather large amount of sane people who will inflict spiritual damage on generations of others (people have been “correcting” the Bible for quite a while).

 

[chrisg93]

nan,
You took a swipe at me in a very callous way. My son read that passage, objected to it’s unfairness and became an agnostic. Please shut up when you don’t have anything good to say, you stupid twerp.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Andreas Hofer:

Still got problems. First of all, you seem to have overlooked my question about the consistent extension of your reasoning to the command to take the Promised Land.

To acknowledge a providential commission allotting Canaan to the Israelites and granting them the right to use military force to defend themselves does *not * demand a simultaneous belief in the reality of the putative divine command to wage extermination warfare. The two issues are separable in view of the emphatic nature of the Magisterium’s condemnation of all deliberate attacks on the lives of non-combatants (*CCC * 2312-2314).

As for the possible abuse of the Catholic Church’s understanding of Biblical interpretation–an understanding which accommodates the recognition of literary genres that are not strictly historical–I grant the point. Catholic principles can be abused. Any principles can be abused. But that does not negate the truth of any valid principle.

The fact that the interpretive methods permitted by the Magisterium can be mangled simply corroborates the need for the Magisterium as our guide in Biblical studies. This is a basic affirmation of the Catholic Faith.

Again, get Father Most’s book. And I’d also like to take the liberty of respectfully urging Catholics interested in the serious study of the Bible to assimilate all the documents of the Magisterium on this topic.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Steve O'Brien:

To acknowledge a providential commission allotting Canaan to the Israelites and granting them the right to use military force to defend themselves does *not *demand a simultaneous belief in the reality of the putative divine command to wage extermination warfare. The two issues are separable in view of the emphatic nature of the Magisterium’s condemnation of all deliberate attacks on the lives of non-combatants (*CCC *2312-2314).

But the whole point is that in telling them to enter Canaan, God was essentially telling the Israelites to prosecute an aggressive war in order to acquire territory. I’m not an expert in ancient property law, but if someone came onto the land that my family had held and worked as its own for generations, I wouldn’t consider his sword-wielding to be a defensive measure. Once the land had been taken, one might reason that fighting to maintain possession could be considered defense, but until that land had been *taken by force *the war was aggressive (unless thieves who kill those trying to prevent their theft act in legitimate self-defense). And the CCC teaches that aggressive war is unjust.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Andreas Hofer:

But the whole point is that in telling them to enter Canaan, God was essentially telling the Israelites to prosecute an aggressive war in order to acquire territory. . . .] And the CCC teaches that aggressive war is unjust.

The *Catechism of the Catholic Church * does indeed teach that aggressive war is unjust (sections 2308-2309). Still, if Scripture scholar John L. McKenzie is correct, there was sufficient empty space in Canaan to enable the Israelites to coexist peacefully with the other inhabitants. Please note this statement, cited in post #66:

"Furthermore, the form of the tradition which we have contains itself the evidence that the practice of annihilation from a religious motive was not practiced generally by the Israelites and may have been actually a rare incident. Their relations with the Canaanites were generally friendly" (Dictionary of the Bible, page 459).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again, get Father Most’s book.

I agree. I also recommend the following from Fr. Most:

Scripture 525: Basic Scripture Fr. William Most’s basic scripture course, taught at the Notre Dame Catechetical Institute. How to study Scripture, plus brief commentaries on all the books of the Old and New Testaments.

Here’s an excerpt…

The pattern in these books [1, 2 Sam; 1, 2 King] is the familiar deuteronomic picture: sin brings punishment, repentance and good bring salvation. They are basically historical, with perhaps a bit of freedom since they are written chiefly to give the deuteronomic message, with illustrations from history.

Does that mean that Fr. Most considers the Divine command for *herem *to be non-historical? Not at all. Observe,

… children brought up by wicked parents are apt to learn the bad ways of the parents. Also because a predisposition to sin, even to crime, can be transmitted by biochemical inheritance. We see his from a remarkable report in Science News (August 20-1983, pp. 122-25) telling how a chemist from Argonne Laboratories went to Stateville Prison, in Illinois, took hair samples from violent criminals, found a remarkable correlation between highs and lows of some trace elements and violent behavior. (Cf. a similar report in Science News of Nov. 10, 1990, p. 293, on data from Archives of General Psychiatry of November, 1990).

Some are shocked at the severity of the ban (Hebrew herem), a theme found in many places, e.g. in Dt. 7:1-5, where God ordered them to destroy the nations in the land of Canaan, without mercy. Two things are to be noticed. First, God wants them to be free of the temptation - which later experience showed was fatal - of joining in the idolatrous worship of those nations. Second, God is the supreme Lord of life. If He wills to end the lives of any persons, that is His right.

And we recall that in Genesis 15:16 God promised to give them the land, but not until after the fourth time-span (Hebrew dor, which can mean either generation or period of time). He said He would wait, because the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached their fullness. For even one mortal sin, a person merits death. If his sins reach their fullness, go the limit, this is all the more fully true. As to the deaths of children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is nothing wrong. (ibid)

These verses ought not to be used to justify the release of Atomic weapons, or the mass destruction of non-combatants of any sort. That’s not Divine *herem, *but a strategic decision by a fallible authority. The difference that I cannot emphasize enough is this: *herem *recorded by Sacred Scripture was a Divine and just command, directed from God through his true prophets. There’s nothing in Scripture or Tradition which contradicts this.

 

[fix]

itsjustdave1988:

I agree. I also recommend the following from Fr. Most:

Scripture 525: Basic Scripture Fr. William Most’s basic scripture course, taught at the Notre Dame Catechetical Institute. How to study Scripture, plus brief commentaries on all the books of the Old and New Testaments.

Here’s an excerpt…
Does that mean that Fr. Most considers the Divine command for *herem *to be non-historical? Not at all. Observe,
These verses ought not to be used to justify the release of Atomic weapons, or the mass destruction of non-combatants of any sort. That’s not Divine *herem, *but a strategic decision by a fallible authority. The difference that I cannot emphasize enough is this: *herem *recorded by Sacred Scripture was a Divine and just command, directed from God through his true prophets. There’s nothing in Scripture or Tradition which contradicts this.

Great post. Especially:

For even one mortal sin, a person merits death. If his sins reach their fullness, go the limit, this is all the more fully true. As to the deaths of children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is nothing wrong.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You can also read Fr. Most’s book, Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars*,* online for free here:
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=216