God order killing?

[UnityofTrinity]

The question is whether or not it’s fair to use our modern perspective to look at the actions of men in the past. Historically speaking, we must not do so.

What is love? The question which had been asked by philosophers and theologians throughout ages. Kate is right, the corner stone of morality is to love, but love does not necessary means harm free. This question remind me of the story “The war prayer” by Mark Twain, and one of the quote was “If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time.”, this make me think, what is love? Would God’s love for an individual is hatred to others? Would God’s blessings to me be a curse to someone else? Yes, it could.

To us in this modern day, crimes toward children are the most heinous of all and the most punishable, but what about those in the past? Remember the scope of morality often change, sometimes better, sometimes worse, and we might still remember a time where witches were hung and heretics were burnt, and to a Medieval or a Puritan mind, it’s something moral and acceptable to do. One should not forget the 50s or the 40s where Blacks and Jews were lynched, tortured, discriminated by the Southern White, is it morally acceptable? No, but obviously it was in those times. Likewise, to the ancient peoples in Joshua time who were too fond with war, this is acceptable. We also should not forget the 2 facts presented to us in the Scripture: How many children(those who are unable to reason) were there? What about Rahab? How many did she save?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

God wanted the survivors - men, women and children - of the Jericho siege put to the sword (saving only the turncoats). The Bible is unambiguous about His command and we should assume that is exactly what He intended. The reasons, I submit, were unique to that time.

At this **early point in salvation history **(1400 BC), God was fulfilling the promise to Abraham of their own land. That Caanan was inhabited meant that for this land to be their land, it had to be invaded against hostile defenders, taken by the sword and the adherents of the Caanaite gods ejected or killed to preserve the identity of God’s chosen people. The Israelites failed repeatedly when they failed to remove all vestiges of Baal worship, e.g., the “high places” that proved so problematic to some of the bad kings.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Despite being a Christian, I still can’t fathom how could God order Joshua to kill everybody, male to female, old to young in Jericho. Then in other passages, God ordered His people to massacre Gentiles. One of the most disturbing in the Bible is that the Levites came together and killed their brothers and relavtives.

Can anybody give me answer why would an all-loving God do this?

God loves, but doesn’t force our will. For instance, He killed practically everybody with the flood…their actions were wicked. Perhaps they were acting bad in Jericho and God used Joshua. God is the creator…everything/everyone is His property.

Rom 1:21 "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible GOd for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Perhaps they were like these! Perhaps they were acting like those in Sodom! Maybe they were into idolatry…and dishonoring God. We can’t judge God!

This is still true:
Rom 2:6 “who will render to eah person according to his deeds 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the trugh, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.”

 

[diggerdomer]

Are there any other examples in literature where there are quotes which are not their direct quotes, and this is accepted? I can’t think of any. As I have written earlier, there are easy ways to attribute a thought to someone without putting it in quotes, and, the larger problem still remains about God ordering children to suffer.

Sure. Think of any fiction novel you’ve read. Likely, passages are given in quotes. That doesn’t mean there was an actual historical person who said such.

Or, Shakespeare’s historical plays…he puts things in quotes that do not require such historical persons said such.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think people who wrote the new testament were more merciful than those who wrote the OT.

I don’t think the people were necessarily more merciful.

The difference is their experience of Jesus Christ.

 

[diggerdomer]

T If you are telling a story and you don’t know exactly what happened, you write in a more general sense, not more specific.

Yes, that’s what we might typically expect today. This is not the same expectation that ancient authors and audiences would have had.

 

[Kate50]

Take a typical headline:

Senator Bob was seen checking into a seedy motel with his “wife”. The divorce proceedings were initiated the next day.

In that headline, the quote may not have been a direct quote of the Senator but of his aide or even the hotel registrar. But it is certainly implied that the quoted term was a lie.

The quotation marks here do not attribute “wife” as something someone said. Since this is not directly attributed to the Senator saying it, or his aid saying it, or anyone saying it, it is not a quote, it is therefore used to denote an unusual form of the word. In the Bible they specifically attribute phrases to God speaking, saying, i.e. Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” (bolding mine)

In eyes of God, we are all children. AND we all suffer. AND we all die… as children. I’ve never felt less that mature (even before I began school). I’ve never felt I knew it all (even after getting an advanced degree). I don’t see a persons particular age making a difference. We must suffer to grow, in this life or in purgatory, unless we are perfect.

I can definitely see how suffering can cause one to grow, such as the father disciplining the child - in fact the child would be more harmed if the father did not discipline him. However, what I can’t figure out is what benefit does a child get by suffering right before they die via God’s command? They did not sin to deserve some sort of justice, so why is it better that God directed that they suffer first before their death? As God is perfect, how does this act show love to the child?

 

[Kate50]

The question is whether or not it’s fair to use our modern perspective to look at the actions of men in the past. Historically speaking, we must not do so.

What is love? The question which had been asked by philosophers and theologians throughout ages. Kate is right, the corner stone of morality is to love, but love does not necessary means harm free. This question remind me of the story “The war prayer” by Mark Twain, and one of the quote was “If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time.”, this make me think, what is love? Would God’s love for an individual is hatred to others? Would God’s blessings to me be a curse to someone else? Yes, it could.

To us in this modern day, crimes toward children are the most heinous of all and the most punishable, but what about those in the past? Remember the scope of morality often change, sometimes better, sometimes worse, and we might still remember a time where witches were hung and heretics were burnt, and to a Medieval or a Puritan mind, it’s something moral and acceptable to do. One should not forget the 50s or the 40s where Blacks and Jews were lynched, tortured, discriminated by the Southern White, is it morally acceptable? No, but obviously it was in those times. Likewise, to the ancient peoples in Joshua time who were too fond with war, this is acceptable. We also should not forget the 2 facts presented to us in the Scripture: How many children(those who are unable to reason) were there? What about Rahab? How many did she save?

It seems that over time we are growing in the direction of restricting ourselves (from stealing, from killing, from raping, from swearing, etc) and are more sensitive to the effects our actions have upon others. While a culture of a people may change(and yes, as a people, we have stumbled many, many times), God’s perfect nature does not. God’s omnipotence helps to do what is necessary for perfect good. But how is choosing to have children suffer a good thing? How does this portray God’s love? By using the line “we can’t judge of that time” that means that you could potentially say that anything and everything goes, and this can be used to justify any religion out there. Why can’t Catholicism stand above this with more detailed explanation and analysis, and be the shining example?

I think the parable of the prodigal son is a great example of how we can grow by looking at the Bible, as most people initially think less loving thoughts about the son, and we are surprised by how much love is shown by the father. But the story of the children suffering before death seems to go the other way - it seems cruel… so how is it a loving act, and how do we grow from this?

You make a great point about Rabab, however, this scenario of ‘death(in a way to cause suffering) to all’ happened in multiple cities, as well Noah’s flood.

 

[Kate50]

God loves, but doesn’t force our will. For instance, He killed practically everybody with the flood…their actions were wicked. Perhaps they were acting bad in Jericho and God used Joshua. God is the creator…everything/everyone is His property…

Perhaps they were like these! Perhaps they were acting like those in Sodom! Maybe they were into idolatry…and dishonoring God. We can’t judge God!

For the adults yes - absolutely! They were sinning and there is every right for punishment and death. For children as well, death can come at any time because God is the creator. But why is it a good and righteous thing for children (who have not taken part in all that sinning) to suffer before they die instead of just die?

To be clear, I am not judging God; I have said multiple times that God is perfect, and I think we all agree on that point. What I am saying is that the portrayal of God does not seem to match with what a perfect God would do, and God is perfect. So how is this reconciled? Is there a way that I’m not seeing that God purposefully deciding to having children suffer before they die is loving/benefits them somehow? Or can this story only be taken as allegory/fiction? Or is there another missing link somewhere?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

… By using the line “we can’t judge of that time” that means that you could potentially say that anything and everything goes, and this can be used to justify any religion out there. …

Except that you really can’t judge the Israelites of 1400BC by, for example, your CCC. God was still fulfilling covenant promises made to Abraham, in this case the Promised Land. Caanan was inhabited by peoples who worshiped Ba’al and for Isrealites to settle in this land, it had to be taken by force and the Ba’al worship eradicated. Hence the brutal treatment of conquered and the numerous injunctions in the OT about intermingling and the deplorable consequences to Israel when Ba’al worship was not rooted out (e.g., the failure of kings to tear down the “high places”).

The slippery slope argument vanishes if you see the broader picture in historical and salvation history context.

 

[Kate50]

Sure. Think of any fiction novel you’ve read. Likely, passages are given in quotes. That doesn’t mean there was an actual historical person who said such.

Or, Shakespeare’s historical plays…he puts things in quotes that do not require such historical persons said such.

Yes that is definitely true. So are you then saying that this story should be likewise viewed as allegory/fiction?

Yes, that’s what we might typically expect today. This is not the same expectation that ancient authors and audiences would have had.

I don’t really understand why it wouldn’t be. Why wouldn’t the author want to give as accurate a portrayal as possible, especially if guided by the Holy Spirit when writing? Wouldn’t this give pause to the accuracy of the rest of the Bible? God knew that people in 2,000 years would still be reading this.

 

[Kate50]

Except that you really can’t judge the Israelites of 1400BC by, for example, your CCC. God was still fulfilling covenant promises made to Abraham, in this case the Promised Land. Caanan was inhabited by peoples who worshiped Ba’al and for Isrealites to settle in this land, it had to be taken by force and the Ba’al worship eradicated. Hence the brutal treatment of conquered and the numerous injunctions in the OT about intermingling and the deplorable consequences to Israel when Ba’al worship was not rooted out (e.g., the failure of kings to tear down the “high places”).

The slippery slope argument vanishes if you see the broader picture in historical and salvation history context.

I agree we can’t judge people according to our standards. What I’m saying is that God’s perfect nature does not change over time, and God’s morality does not stoop to that of the people.

 

[fhansen]

I agree we can’t judge people according to our standards. What I’m saying is that God’s perfect nature does not change over time, and God’s morality does not stoop to that of the people.

I think this is why we need the Church to define and explicate God’s nature and will for us to the extent He’s revealed Himself to her-which was most fully accomplished in the Incarnation of Christ who most definitively revealed that nature as love and that will as necessarily proceeding from that love. This need for the Churchs’ authority includes the role of interpreting Scripture-just how, when, and where God’s Word is contained in it and conveyed by it.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I agree we can’t judge people according to our standards. What I’m saying is that God’s perfect nature does not change over time, and God’s morality does not stoop to that of the people.

God’s promise to the Israelites in 1400 BC in re conquest of the promised land is not part of His plan for the Church today, although it was a necessary precursor in salvation history. I’m not questioning God, I’m saying that your CCC cannot be used to judge the Israelites’ conquest of Caanan.

 

[Kate50]

God’s promise to the Israelites in 1400 BC in re conquest of the promised land is not part of His plan for the Church today, although it was a necessary precursor in salvation history. I’m not questioning God, I’m saying that your CCC cannot be used to judge the Israelites’ conquest of Caanan.

Ok, but my concern here is not with the people(people make mistakes and act immorally all the time), its with how God was portrayed. We can’t say that God acted ‘of the time’ because God’s actions are perfect and would never be less than perfect because of rough early times.

 

[Kate50]

I think this is why we need the Church to define and explicate God’s nature and will for us to the extent He’s revealed Himself to her-which was most fully accomplished in the Incarnation of Christ who most definitively revealed that nature as love and that will as necessarily proceeding from that love. This need for the Churchs’ authority includes the role of interpreting Scripture-just how, when, and where God’s Word is contained in it and conveyed by it.

Do you know of any additional resources from the Church which touch on this issue in particular?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Ok, but my concern here is not with the people(people make mistakes and act immorally all the time), its with how God was portrayed. We can’t say that God acted ‘of the time’ because God’s actions are perfect and would never be less than perfect because of rough early times.

Agreed. His plans were for a different time in salvation history, a different place (the unconquered Canaan) and people, which is not to say they were anything less than perfect. But my point is that the Israelites of 1400 BC were not the same as the Israelis and Christians of AD 2010 although we are all His people. In taking Canaan by the sword ( specifically the slaughter at Jericho and at other places) the Israelites were obeying God and this cannot be called immoral. Later, when they disobeyed Him by failing to root out Canaanites’ worship of Ba’al and intermingled with them, the OT records the consequences of that disobedience (the bad kings such as Ahaz and the relapse into Ba’al worship) and explains the necessity for what appears to be criminal ruthlessness to modern eyes.

While putting noncombatants to the sword is a major war crime in the 21st century, at the time of the invasion of Canaan, it was part of God’s plan to fulfill promises made to Abraham of land and a people.

 

[fhansen]

Do you know of any additional resources from the Church which touch on this issue in particular?

Well, the Catechism as well as Dei Verbum shed light on it:

**110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
**
Dei Verbum:

**12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

**

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

fhansen, are you asserting that the men, women and children (excepting the traitors) of the Jericho siege were not executed?

Just trying to get the RC take on this OT story.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, are you asserting that the men, women and children (excepting the traitors) of the Jericho siege were not executed?

Just trying to get the RC take on this OT story.

No, not at all-I’m sure the battle happened-and I can’t speak directly for the Church on this matter anyway. But what I’m saying is that the OT must be read in light of the new, and while the conditions were much different in the lives of Gods’ chosen people as they struggled for survival-a survival He desired and guaranteed for His purposes-I’m unconvinced that every place in the OT where it’s said that God spoke and directed His people in a particular way is necessarily an exact portrayal of His will rather than a human take on it. If it was God’s will that every man, woman, and child be slain in Jericho, then this would have to in any case be understood as an act of His love for mankind. While I don’t know of any official position on this matter by the Magistereum, I do know of her teachings on the nature of God.