God's Violence in the Old Testament vs Who Jesus Is

[englands123]

To repeat the words we sing at mass every Sunday to the OP is not a productive use of time.

The very asking of this question is a proposal that a mantra won’t cut it.

No offence , but the OP is right to ask such questions. It is productive long term.

We ALL have a different relationship with our Lord , our Father.

If a inquisitive child wants to ask a question towards their loving Father , who is this other child to judge.

He is not challenging God but asking to understand, which is a gift his Father has given him.

I don’t know what church you go to but they should not be teaching that. Even St Peter challenged Jesus to understand more.

Sorry

 

[Justin_Mary]

I read elsewhere that if the Israelites had done such violence without an explicit command from God in those exceptional situations then they certainly would have been committing a grave sin

Even if by God’s command, it affects the soul. God made David His king & granted victory after victory by the death of many men. Yet God would not allow David to build His temple for the blood on David’s hands.

 

[englands123]

In my own opinion God in the OT was making a clear statement of his divine power. It must have been very frustrating for God to see what he created go against his wishes , especially after the great flood.

NT Jesus witnessed first hand how it felt to be human. This is why he was moved to show pity on us all… and understanding.

Gods ultimate goal is for all our Souls to return.

I find this passage helpful a small insight of Gods thinking.

People who do not believe in God are like blind people​

35 Jesus heard that the Jewish leaders had thrown the man out. So, he went and he found the man. Jesus asked him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ 36 The man answered, ‘Sir, please tell me who he is. Then I can believe in him.’ 37 Jesus said to him, ‘You have already seen him. It is me, and I am talking to you now.’ 38 Then the man said, ‘Lord, now I believe.’ He bent down on his knees and he worshipped Jesus.

39 Then Jesus said, ‘I came into this world to show what people are really like. Then people who know they are blind will be able to see. And people who think they can see will become blind.’ 40 Some of the Pharisees who were there with him heard this. They asked Jesus, ‘Do you mean that we are also blind?’ 41 Jesus said to them, ‘If you really were blind, God would not punish you for the wrong things you have done. But you say that you can see. So, you do wrong things with your eyes open. God will punish you for that.’

Before Jesus came many was blinded and perhaps lacking clarity , but now Jesus is making it very clear from this day on blindness was not going to be used as a excuse.

God was so happy with his Son and his works that he never interfered. Even in the desert for 40 days , God stood back.

The OT never had Jesus to guide them and spread the word. The NT did.

This is why God gives Jesus all authority on our Souls to judge.

 

[FossilResin]

FossilResin:

I read elsewhere that if the Israelites had done such violence without an explicit command from God in those exceptional situations then they certainly would have been committing a grave sin

Even if by God’s command, it affects the soul. God made David His king & granted victory after victory by the death of many men. Yet God would not allow David to build His temple for the blood on David’s hands.

I never thought of it that way…

 

[Magnanimity]

HOW can this logically or justifiably or sanely be seen as the same God who never changes, who never does evil, who always has the same moral code and who never contradicts himself?!

These are fair and penetrating questions. Good on you for asking them. I believe St Augustine referred to the sacred scriptures as the “revealing of what has been revealed” by God in the person of Christ. Christ himself IS the Revelation. Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition testify to Him. In understanding the church’s approach to the OT, we need to go backward into the past before we can move forward in understanding.

The church has long regarded its sacred writings to be multivalent and inexhaustible. But it has also garnered certain principles for approaching the sacred texts. Going back to the beginning of the church, these principles were: to look for a true reading of the text, in harmony with the mind of the whole church, illumined by the grace of the Holy Spirit and testifying to Christ (who, again, is the Revelation).

I know that Protestants (and even some Catholics who think that biblical interpretation began in the Modern Era) approach the Bible as if it’s just plainly and simply to be read, like reading a newspaper or a history book. But, this approach to the Bible has no historical warrant. If you take a look at this Wiki article, you may begin to get a sense of the long interpretative tradition. Particularly good is the book by Cardinal Danielou that you can access some of, within the “further reading” tab.

There are a few very good videos too that I’ll link to below. All of these videos speak to the long tradition of biblical interpretation that I’m speaking of.

Violence in the Bible

The Intersections of Scripture and theology

How the Church Fathers Interpreted Scripture

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

OP @FossilResin proposes a question to the logical consistency of God’s actions which is I fully support.

@Elias proposes the loving nature of God through reiterating the songs sung at mass.
@HumbleIOughtToBe (me) proposes that repeating the statements regarding the good nature of God does not defend the good nature of God, rather establishes an assertion about God.

@englands123 (you) proposes that I am attacking the OP for asking the question about the logical consistency of God. I am thankful this question is asked. I had an interest in the question which is why I asked it.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I will answer your question in the following way. It was Christianity that introduced the notion of personal salvation together with the possibility of eternal damnation if one chooses not to do G-d’s will but instead prefers to exercise one’s own contrary to that of G-d. This, however, was not a Jewish belief, nor was the idea that we are all sinners by our very nature although created in the likeness and image of G-d. That is, according to Judaism, we humans are not “lost” or doomed in the first place although we often err, and therefore we have no real need of a Savior to rescue us. Further, The Book of Revelations in the New Testament is, one must admit, far from a walk in the park. And finally, was it not Jesus Himself who stated there is no way to reach G-d the Father except through Him? My point here is, it seems to me, that though Jesus is quite loving and merciful in many ways, He is, at the same time, a stern taskmaster, not only from the perspective of the New Covenant here on Earth but also from the perspective of “making it” to heaven at the end of one’s earthly pilgrimage.

OTOH, G-d in the Hebrew Bible is, for sure, strict and ever ready to inflict punishment, particularly on His own chosen people. But, in addition to being almost too severely just, there are plenty of biblical passages in which G-d reveals His infinitely tender and forgiving nature.

My conclusion is that G-d is both totally just and merciful, that these two seemingly contradictory attributes are in fact intertwined, and, finally, the nature of G-d does not really change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament.

 

[Magnanimity]

Thank you, Meltzer, for sharing your mind. I’m glad that CAF has an obviously astute and thoughtful Jewish voice.

However, a few clarifications are in order, as they are quite essential to the historical situation and even to the differences in theology you address. Christianity, having spread so far so fast, as it did in its earliest centuries (first four, say) cannot be so easily reduced to singular perspectives, especially not on these matters.

It was Christianity that introduced the notion of personal salvation together with the possibility of eternal damnation if one chooses not to do G-d’s will

No, I’m afraid not. The accurate way of stating this would be to say that it was St. Augustine who introduced both of these things—seeing humans as capable of being grouped together, according to good and evil, for God or against him. This is essentially the basic premise of his City of God (which stands in contest with the “city of man”). Moreover, hell, when a conceived as a never ending, inescapable state of conscious torment and suffering also emanates from the pen of St Augustine.

Many early church fathers held and articulated positions completely contradictory to Augustine’s two premises here. For example, the great intellect of the East, St Gregory of Nyssa, held that Christ came to save humanity itself—the totality, not merely this or that individual human. And hell was not conceived of as forever and inescapable. Rather, the teaching was that all of God’s creation will, in the end, return back to the Source from which it came. And lest you think St Gregory was a lone wolf here, I add two other preeminent minds to the discussion, who agreed with Gregory in the main: Origen and St Maximus the Confessor. What’s the point of all this? It’s to suggest that what you’ve remarked above most certainly is not “Christian” teaching. Precisely, it’s Augustinian teaching.

nor was the idea that we are all sinners by our very nature…we humans are not “lost” or doomed in the first place

As has been noted by not a few Christian scholars, the teaching you describe above of “original sin” as imputed guilt is also, as it turns out, a fundamental Augustinian teaching. St Augustine, in trying to interpret St Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 5, verse 12 (only in the Latin translation—he did not read Greek) came up with the notion of inherited guilt. As in, all descendants of Adam and Eve inherent the primal guilt of the original father and mother of the race. And, again, such a notion was foreign to the greatest minds of the East that I mentioned above. These beliefs are not “Christian,” they’re Augustinian.

In fact, it’s the grappling with, as you mention, the fact of humanity’s bearing the image and likeness of God that forms part of the bedrock for the theologies of ultimate reconciliation of God’s creation and simultaneously has these theologians reject the notion of forever and inescapable hell.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for this enlightening information. I do have two questions, however. When you say it is "not ‘Christian’ " but rather Augustinian, do you mean St. Augustine, while a Doctor of the Church, cannot speak infallibly for the Church in these matters? And does your reference to the East refer to Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or both)?

 

[Magnanimity]

therefore we have no real need of a Savior to rescue us.

If I’m not mistaken, it isn’t a uniquely Christian belief that there is something deeply wrong with the world as we experience it. Creation is groaning, “fallen.” Not altogether broken but messed up enough to be in need of a major alteration. Is this not Jewish teaching too? Let me know how you understand this concept within your religious framework. So you, personally, may need no savior, but the universe almost certainly does. As in, God does need to set a major course-correction and restore that which was lost in the beginning. You mention the complexity of the book of Revelation. I agree. But a central theme of the book is ultimate restoration - the “New Jerusalem” and the “New Heavens and New Earth,” all things set aright and made new again.

And finally, was it not Jesus Himself who stated there is no way to reach G-d the Father except through Him?

Ah yes, there’s a rub. But this can be interpreted as Christ making a metaphysical claim—a “oneness” claim with the Father that he frequently makes. So not, “become a Christian or you’re toast.” Rather, “I and the Father are one.” Factually. So, it’s not a threat as much as it’s a self-affirmation. But I know this falls poorly on Jewish ears…

My point here is, it seems to me, that though Jesus is quite loving and merciful in many ways, He is, at the same time, a stern taskmaster… But, in addition to being almost too severely just, there are plenty of biblical passages in which G-d reveals His infinitely tender and forgiving nature.

I think this is fair, up to a point. I don’t think we quite find Sermon on the Mount theology clearly expressed in the OT, but God’s “cruelty” and lack of mercy in the OT is often overstated. The OT is replete with admonition to care for the poor and vulnerable. And it is in the Psalms where we find wonderful lines repeated, like “His mercy endures forever.”

My conclusion is that G-d is both totally just and merciful, that these two seemingly contradictory attributes are in fact intertwined, and, finally, the nature of G-d does not really change from the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament.

It’s a bold conclusion. I like it! Good on you. And, if I may say, I can only hope to be so generous toward Jewish fellow-wanderers as you are here toward Christians. Bravo!

 

[Magnanimity]

When you say it is "not ‘Christian’ " but rather Augustinian, do you mean St. Augustine, while a Doctor of the Church, cannot speak infallibly for the Church in these matters?

It’s a good question. As it happens, I admire a great many things written by the great St Augustine. I know I may come across as laying at his feet all kinds of bad teachings, but he was often very lucid and had many deep theological and psychological(ish) insights, especially in his Confessions. He was so profound that his theological shadow loomed large over the entire theological history of the Western church for the entirety of the Middle Ages!

But no, whatever his influence and however big was his shadow-cast, he was, in these matters, just a theologian. An immense one, to be sure. But not, in himself, possessing any charism of infallibility. I myself find his teachings on original sin and hell to be abhorrent—to be strongly opposed, and I do this as a (wannabe) faithful Catholic.

And does your reference to the East refer to Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or both)?

It would refer to both, as there was just the one church for a millennium. But the Catholic Church in the West was firmly ensconced in the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition for far too long. It was really only the 20th century Ressourcement movement in Europe that helped the church in the West rediscover competitive theological voices from the East. I live in the wake of that movement, and although I thoroughly love the mind of St Thomas Aquinas, I have equally loved my exposure to the great Fathers of the East. The Catholic Church needs to continue to hear their voices!

 

[EndTimes]

I’ve been disturbed about this for some time. If we say that God is always the same and never changes, and that he never does evil, and that he never contradicts himself, HOW do we even begin to make sense of this one God who, in the Old Testament, commands the execution by stoning of a man gathering firewood on the sabbath (not to mention every other violent act that God explicitly commands in the OT, like impaling the Israelites who worshipped foreign deities) with this supposedly very same God in the person of Jesus who is so lovably and consistently nonviolent, who explicitly famously says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” HOW can this logically or justifiably or sanely be seen as the same God who never changes, who never does evil, who always has the same moral code and who never contradicts himself?!

Easy…

Your argument is false and full of holes…

It divides Sacred Scriptures… into OT versus NT…

As In the old hat argument _ The Old Testament God versus the New Testament Jesus…

They are not!

For Instance, you’re neglecting Jesus’ super tearing into the Pharisees with His string of ALAS!

And When at Judgement He Jesus Shall Block the Goats from Entering Heaven

Mercy is conditioned upon the Mercy which we dole out to others.

And how Jesus fully Embraces God of the OT … and … NT.

And how Jesus confirms His Unity / Oneness with God the Father !

 

[nfinke]

Because to think God in the OT is different from God in the NT is Marcionism, and Marcionism is heresy.

“Because to think differently is heresy” is not a valid response to “how do we make sense of this”.

 

[EndTimes]

“Because to think differently is heresy” is not a valid response to “how do we make sense of this”.

Wrong… No need to make any sense besides all realizing that it’s Heresy!

The “Mean old God of the OT” - presented by false shepherds
as if God in the OT is in oppostion to the Unconditional Loving Jesus of the NT
is olde hatt Heresy… .

God and Jesus’ Mercy IS conditional!

MERCY is conditioned upon the Mercy which we dole out to others!

Jesus’ very strongly Tore into the Pharisees with His string of ALAS!

At Judgement Jesus Shall Block the Goats from Entering Heaven

NT Jesus affirms and confirms His Unity / Oneness with God the Father of the OT/NT

 

[nfinke]

Wrong… No need to make any sense besides all realizing that it’s Heresy!

That might be your opinion, but you thinking there is “no need” for someone to pose a question is irrelevant. It’s still objectively true that your first statement did nothing to answer the question.

 

[EndTimes]

That might be your opinion, but you thinking there is “no need” for someone to pose a question is irrelevant.

I never said there was “no need” to pose a question…

I said there’s no need to make any sense of that heresy beyond that it’s heresy.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Just after the story of creation, we get to Genesis 6, when God sees all the evil on Earth and he regrets creation and the story of the flood begins. I wonder what God thinks of his creation when he looks at the world today, wars, murder, violence and so many horrible things.

 

[GiftofMercy]

God brings purification on the world, not because of the faithful, but because of the wicked.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve been disturbed about this for some time. If we say that God is always the same and never changes…

There is a really great line in the CCC that can tell us a lot about what is going on:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

What we can see here is that man can truly conceive a distorted image of God.

Have you always had the same image of God - all your life? Or instead, has your image of God changed over the years?

So while God’s infinite and unconditioned love and mercy never changes, our conception of God does indeed change, and we can see an evolving conception of God when we look at the old and new testaments, and then follow that history into modern times.

HOW do we even begin to make sense of this one God who, in the Old Testament, commands the execution by stoning of a man gathering firewood on the sabbath

I observe that we humans naturally, as we develop spiritually, first equate God with conscience. Since the conscience is the first “voice within” that we hear, it is very natural that such equating is core to a child’s first concept of God. Israelites who took ownership of “the rules” found breaking the rules unconscionable, therefore against God Himself. Since righteous indignation is a natural emotion, and when we are in punishment mode (a mode practically inseparable from the conscience) we are blind to the humanity of the “offender” (they have no value, as Jesus had no value to those who hung Him) it follows that this God-as-conscience endorses severe punishment. In other words, when I get angry enough to kill someone for breaking “God-given rules”, I am going to project that God thinks such a penalty is just and right. (Notice, again, that this involves equating God and conscience vs. seeing that there is an unconditionally loving and merciful God underlying the conscience) I think that you and I can agree that this is a misconception, but can you understand the perspective? We all project our image of God.

Does that make sense?

 

[OneSheep]

If we say that God is always the same and never changes

To further my point, can you see that Jesus presents radical departure from some OT images?

Imagine if Jesus had come at an earlier time in history presenting God as “Abba” which translates something like “Daddy”. They would have hung him a lot sooner!