How can we explain violence in the OT?

[fred_conty]

Thank you so much! The link you provided was most helpful.

Your welcome. They did a good job explaining it.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Im surprised that nobody touched on the fact that all the verses quoted in the OP are from the Law of Moses, NOT the Law of God. That is why context is important when reading the bible.

 

[TimothyH]

Im surprised that nobody touched on the fact that all the verses quoted in the OP are from the Law of Moses, NOT the Law of God. That is why context is important when reading the bible.

The Law of Moses was given to Moses by God.

I just reviews the three quotes, Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Joshua 6:21 and Numbers 31:17-18, and all three are commandments of God.

-Tim-

 

[Zekariya]

A CAF apologist answers this well:

I dare say, you are definitely interpreting these incidents according to standards that are less the adequate. For God to take human life is NOT evil—as it is for us.

The Ten Commandments are commands by God to us, His creatures. But God is not one of His creatures; He’s God, the Creator of His creatures! So often we make the mistake of forgetting just who God is and begin to measure God by human standards. “Thou shalt not kill” applies to us; not to God. He kills off generations every day! He is the author of human life and has dominion over human life. He ALONE has the right to take human life—any time He so chooses. And it is always the right time!

“You alone are the Holy One. You alone are the Lord. You alone are the Most High” – from the Gloria.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19671

 

[TheHolyGhost]

The Law of Moses was given to Moses by God.

I just reviews the three quotes, Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Joshua 6:21 and Numbers 31:17-18, and all three are commandments of God.

-Tim-

So did God give Moses the authority to allow divorce? Jesus said, “from the beginning it was not so.” Im pretty sure that applies to a lot of the other “commandments” of the Mosaic Law.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

A CAF apologist answers this well:

I dare say, you are definitely interpreting these incidents according to standards that are less the adequate. For God to take human life is NOT evil—as it is for us.

The Ten Commandments are commands by God to us, His creatures. But God is not one of His creatures; He’s God, the Creator of His creatures! So often we make the mistake of forgetting just who God is and begin to measure God by human standards. “Thou shalt not kill” applies to us; not to God. He kills off generations every day! He is the author of human life and has dominion over human life. He ALONE has the right to take human life—any time He so chooses. And it is always the right time!

“You alone are the Holy One. You alone are the Lord. You alone are the Most High” – from the Gloria.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19671

If we all agree that God is morality itself and that morality is objective, to then start saying the morality is subjective and depends on who the person is that is committing a certain act, then morality is in fact not objective at all.

Can God also commit adultery? Or any other sin for that matter? Are these sins only sins for us humans or are they objectively sin for everyone?

God is indeed the author of life and He can give it and take it as He so chooses, but if Hes supposedly commanding humans to murder, then Hes asking US to do that, which is a sin for us to do as mentioned in the quote. God can level cities.on His own as in Sodom and Gomorroah, He doesnt need our help in doing that. And I dont think God is a murderer or commands people to murder. Ever. He asks us to love our enemies, not kill them.

 

[sw85]

So did God give Moses the authority to allow divorce? Jesus said, “from the beginning it was not so.” Im pretty sure that applies to a lot of the other “commandments” of the Mosaic Law.

Correct. Even today we believe this, that a purely natural marriage can be dissolved for grave reason for a competent ecclesial authority, in our case, the Pope.

If we all agree that God is morality itself and that morality is objective, to then start saying the morality is subjective and depends on who the person is that is committing a certain act, then morality is in fact not objective at all.

No, it just means it’s complicated. “Objective” does not mean one-size-fits-all, simple, easy, etc. Morality is not reducible to a laundry list of rules.

You are aware that when we talk about the “natural law” we mean “the law of morality as it is expressed in human nature,” right? Meaning that men, since they are different beings from, say, angels, have a different set of goods?

Think of this way: human nature is such that I cannot fly of my own power. But God could, if he wills it, cause me to fly, either temporarily or permanently. That doesn’t mean human nature is different, it just means I’m different. Put another way, while human nature is non-avian, my ability would to fly would be caused by God’s will, not by a change in human nature.

In a similar way, God, the author of human nature, can will that I kill this or that person. This doesn’t mean that killing (e.g., murder) is moral. It just means that I can kill this or that person morally, because God has commanded it.

Can God also commit adultery? Or any other sin for that matter? Are these sins only sins for us humans or are they objectively sin for everyone?

Whatever God is capable of doing is not, by definition, sinful for him to do, because God, being purely simple, is the same in his goodness as he is in his power.

But I suspect you don’t even know what “sin” is which is why you think this is some kind of profound contradiction. Sin is a privation of due order, willed in contradiction of reason informed by divine law. How, then, can God, who is pure reason and the author divine law, sin? The mere idea of it is nonsense.

God is indeed the author of life and He can give it and take it as He so chooses, but if Hes supposedly commanding humans to murder …

Stop right there. If God can give and take life as he chooses then it is not “murder” if he commands me to kill. You are equivocating badly and it is confounding your ability to think clearly on this issue.

If the state orders me to execute a convicted criminal then it is not murder for me to kill that criminal. Why, then, would it be murder for me to kill a person when commanded to do so by God, whose authority vastly transcends that of the state – from whom indeed the state itself derives its authority?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If we all agree that God is morality itself and that morality is objective, to then start saying the morality is subjective and depends on who the person is that is committing a certain act, then morality is in fact not objective at all.

Can God also commit adultery? Or any other sin for that matter? Are these sins only sins for us humans or are they objectively sin for everyone?

God is indeed the author of life and He can give it and take it as He so chooses, but if Hes supposedly commanding humans to murder, then Hes asking US to do that, which is a sin for us to do as mentioned in the quote. God can level cities.on His own as in Sodom and Gomorroah, He doesnt need our help in doing that. And I dont think God is a murderer or commands people to murder. Ever. He asks us to love our enemies, not kill them.

God does not command humans to murder, since murder is the “unjust” or unwarranted killing of an innocent human. If God commanded the killing of human beings, it would not, by definition be unwarranted or unjust, but what justice, God himself, would demand.

Every human being dies. Death is the penalty for sin, a natural consequence of sin, really, like a branch that is cut off from its source of life will wither and die. God is not being unjust for commanding that all human beings suffer death as a consequence of sin.

The only way to view God’s judgement on large groups of people is to understand that evil is contagious in a very deep and real sense. At times, God like a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor, must cut off clusters of humanity that have the potential to infect the entire tree. Only God, as the master surgeon, would be in the position to know when that is necessary. We can complain about the injustice of having had a part or organ removed from our humanity, since we see things from the point of view of the patient being operated on, but that does not mean the surgeon did not act appropriately.

We would need to have a great deal more information about why God acted as he did before we can even consider our judgements on God’s actions to have any merit at all.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Correct. Even today we believe this, that a purely natural marriage can be dissolved for grave reason for a competent ecclesial authority, in our case, the Pope.

No, it just means it’s complicated. “Objective” does not mean one-size-fits-all, simple, easy, etc. Morality is not reducible to a laundry list of rules.

You are aware that when we talk about the “natural law” we mean “the law of morality as it is expressed in human nature,” right? Meaning that men, since they are different beings from, say, angels, have a different set of goods?

Think of this way: human nature is such that I cannot fly of my own power. But God could, if he wills it, cause me to fly, either temporarily or permanently. That doesn’t mean human nature is different, it just means I’m different. Put another way, while human nature is non-avian, my ability would to fly would be caused by God’s will, not by a change in human nature.

In a similar way, God, the author of human nature, can will that I kill this or that person. This doesn’t mean that killing (e.g., murder) is moral. It just means that I can kill this or that person morally, because God has commanded it.

Whatever God is capable of doing is not, by definition, sinful for him to do, because God, being purely simple, is the same in his goodness as he is in his power.

But I suspect you don’t even know what “sin” is which is why you think this is some kind of profound contradiction. Sin is a privation of due order, willed in contradiction of reason informed by divine law. How, then, can God, who is pure reason and the author divine law, sin? The mere idea of it is nonsense.

Sop right there. If God can give and take life as he chooses then it is not “murder” if he commands me to kill. You are equivocating badly and it is confounding your ability to think clearly on this issue.

If the state orders me to execute a convicted criminal then it is not murder for me to kill that criminal. Why, then, would it be murder for me to kill a person when commanded to do so by God, whose authority vastly transcends that of the state – from whom indeed the state itself derives its authority?

Couple of questions…

So do we love our enemies, as commanded by God, or do we kill our enemies, as commanded by God? Why one preference over the other?

If God can change His mind about killing or any otherwise sin, why are we to believe He is an all good God or will be an all good God at all time? Maybe we would catc Him on a “bad day” when He changed His mind about being merciful and felt like being cruel? Of course the kind of cruelty that good would come of it for someone elses benefit, at our expense, even though the ends never justify the means?

 

[All_hail_Mithra]

Violence is the denial of Mithra. Without Mithra, none can be saved.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

God does not command humans to murder, since murder is the “unjust” or unwarranted killing of an innocent human. If God commanded the killing of human beings, it would not, by definition be unwarranted or unjust, but what justice, God himself, would demand.

Every human being dies. Death is the penalty for sin, a natural consequence of sin, really, like a branch that is cut off from its source of life will wither and die. God is not being unjust for commanding that all human beings suffer death as a consequence of sin.

The only way to view God’s judgement on large groups of people is to understand that evil is contagious in a very deep and real sense. At times, God like a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor, must cut off clusters of humanity that have the potential to infect the entire tree. Only God, as the master surgeon, would be in the position to know when that is necessary. We can complain about the injustice of having had a part or organ removed from our humanity, since we see things from the point of view of the patient being operated on, but that does not mean the surgeon did not act appropriately.

We would need to have a great deal more information about why God acted as he did before we can even consider our judgements on God’s actions to have any merit at all.

I agree, the issue I have is that He supposedly has commanded other humans to kill other humans. God alone is the author of life and He has shown that He is more than capable of taking it Himself. He doesnt need us humans to do that.

That is why I believe it was the law of the people that commanded such killing, not God that commanded it. Otherwise if He did in fact command us to kill our enemies, it would make zero sense for Him to come and say to love them. It would have made zero sense for Jesus to stop the stoning of the adulterous woman. Forgiveness would be irrelevant. Etc…

 

[sw85]

Couple of questions…

So do we love our enemies, as commanded by God, or do we kill our enemies, as commanded by God? Why one preference over the other?

We love our enemies, since that’s the order that arises from human nature as elevated by Baptism. We love them even if circumstances (whether war, self-defense, or the order of God) demands that we kill them.

The fact that you contrast the two in this way suggests to me you don’t really get what “love” is in the Biblical sense, either. To love someone means to will what is best for them. To know what is best for them you have to have some idea of what they are, what their nature is, etc. Obviously what’s best for me isn’t going to be what’s best for, say, a cat. (For instance, I eat a diet rich in carbs – fruits and veggies, etc.; if I fed my cat this diet, he would die, because he needs more protein; so obviously, what is “good” for me is not what is “good” for my cat).

So what is human nature? What sets it apart from, say, apes? For one thing humans have reason and free will, which means they have moral responsibility. They can be held accountable for their actions. Loving them means, among other things, treating them as moral agents capable of doing good and doing evil, and treating them accordingly. Which means, yes, executing an unrepentant and obviously guilty criminal (for instance) is an act of love.

If God can change His mind about killing or any otherwise sin,

You’re missing the point. God does not change his mind about the nature of sin. That’s why I said before that God willing that I be able to fly does not affect a change in human nature. God commanding me to kill changes qualitatively the nature of the act. It stops being murder precisely because it is God who has commanded it.

Do you agree that the state has, in principle, the authority to execute guilty criminals such as murderers, etc.? You should because that’s straight out of the ancient Magisterium. Why, then, do you believe God does not have this authority?

why are we to believe He is an all good God or will be an all good God at all time? Maybe we would catc Him on a “bad day” when He changed His mind about being merciful and felt like being cruel?

You are subjecting him to needless anthropomorphization. He is all good because goodness is being and he is pure being. Does pure being have “bad days”? Does pure being have “days” at all? Are “days” not the mode of experience of beings subject to temporal limitation? Why, then, do you think it’s meaningful to talk in this way about God?

I agree, the issue I have is that He supposedly has commanded other humans to kill other humans. God alone is the author of life and He has shown that He is more than capable of taking it Himself. He doesnt need us humans to do that.

He doesn’t need us for anything. “Need” doesn’t and has never had anything to do with God’s interactions with us.

That is why I believe it was the law of the people that commanded such killing, not God that commanded it.

In which case the Holy Spirit canonized this particular story in Sacred Scripture because… why? To scandalize and mislead the faithful for thousands of years until Richard Dawkins came along to set us all straight?

Otherwise if He did in fact command us to kill our enemies, it would make zero sense for Him to come and say to love them.

Only if, again, you imagine there to be some tension between the two – i.e., because you subscribe to an inadequate and purely modern notion of “love” that has no correspondence at all to the love we have always and everywhere meant when we say things like “God is love,” “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son,” etc.

It would have made zero sense for Jesus to stop the stoning of the adulterous woman. Forgiveness would be irrelevant. Etc…

This is even less true than what you said above. Forgiveness requires repentance. The Canaanites were not repentant but, on the contrary, were beyond all repentance. This is why, when God showed Abram the land which his descendants were later to inherit, he said: “In the fourth generation your descendants will return here, for the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (Gen. 15:16). God does not and cannot, even now, forgive those who do not ask for forgiveness.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Starting to make more sense, but still more questions pop up…

So as long as we kill people and love them, then we are justified in killing them? People who are euthanized are killed out of compassion, to end suffering, yet the Church speaks against this.

I find this dangerous territory to claim if God commands it, then its no longer sinful, so long as you do so out of love. If the Church declared tomorrow that God Himself has chosen to reveal through His Church that Catholics should go out and kill Muslims (so long as you love them) in order to restore Christianity in the Middle East and because it would be best for them, since they would no longer continue in their sins, we would be killing them for it would be in their best interest… I would feel really weird.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Starting to make more sense, but still more questions pop up…

So as long as we kill people and love them, then we are justified in killing them? People who are euthanized are killed out of compassion, to end suffering, yet the Church speaks against this.

I find this dangerous territory to claim if God commands it, then its no longer sinful, so long as you do so out of love. If the Church declared tomorrow that God Himself has chosen to reveal through His Church that Catholics should go out and kill Muslims (so long as you love them) in order to restore Christianity in the Middle East and because it would be best for them, since they would no longer continue in their sins, we would be killing them for it would be in their best interest… I would feel really weird.

Bump…

Anyone?

 

[clem456]

Wow…
Without knowing the pure will of God in any circumstance,
it’s a very steep hill to climb, for any person to claim knowledge of God’s will in the killing of one person by another, in any circumstance.

Violence in the OT… Catholics do not read the scriptures with a literalist interpretation. It is not required belief for Catholics that God commanded or willed Moses, Joshua, etc…to kill women and children. It is required belief that the scriptures are the inspired word of God. And they include facts and history, but the interpretation of them goes above and beyond merely factual interpretation.

We know that Joshua, for instance, killed men, as well as defenseless women and children, repeatedly, and that the author believed God commanded this. The author himself is not God, the author is not a robot, taking dictation from God in a trance. The author does not have a tape recorder. The author is a tool in God’s hands, for lack of a better word, but is a fully human being with beliefs, not all of them perfect. God may or may not have actually commanded the killing of innocents, we do not know. But it’s a fairly safe bet, in light of the Gospel, that God did not command this. And this does not detract from the inspired nature of scripture. These passages are in there for a reason that only God truly knows. Maybe these passages are in scripture so that we, even today, might be thinking about mercy, justice, love.

Here’s a post from an earlier thread with a good reference:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10665931&postcount=5

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

~Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/be…_In_The_Church

 

[clem456]

More along these lines from Pope Benedict

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_Interpretation_Of_Sacred_Scripture__In_The_Church

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Clem, thanks for responding. For the sake of this discussion, if we should ever find or hear a truly unjust command from God or find a genuine contradiction, do we continue to.keep saying “We dont know why its there, but it must be for a good reason?”

I know we must have faith and I dont believe at this point there are any contradictions, but I cant also help feeling that the response of “Its a mystery, do it anyway” for everg single “bad sounding” command or topic can lead into a sort of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[clem456]

Clem, thanks for responding. For the sake of this discussion, if we should ever find or hear a truly unjust command from God or find a genuine contradiction, do we continue to.keep saying “We dont know why its there, but it must be for a good reason?”

All of scripture is there for a good reason, inspired by God who is -the- good. That doesn’t mean we have perfect understanding of God’s motivations or will in the inspiration of any particular passage. Or that the words or deeds he uttered or commanded in the OT necessarily justify any particular behavior in the present. For instance, you would not take the various OT commands to slay all the unbelievers as a valid command for you today.

I know we must have faith and I dont believe at this point there are any contradictions, but I cant also help feeling that the response of “Its a mystery, do it anyway” for everg single “bad sounding” command or topic can lead into a sort of intellectual dishonesty.

The proper application of scripture is a very complex topic. I think Benedict’s quote above is good:
Here it is again, I bolded a different section.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_Interpretation_Of_Sacred_Scripture__In_The_Church

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. **It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning **of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

Clem, you say it wouldnt be a valid command today, although I wouldnt think it to ever be a valid command, especially in the midst of “love your enemies”, but as another poster stated, killing people doesnt necessarily mean we dont love them. Its still confusing.

We are bound to do what the Church instructs us to do. If the Church should command, speaking on behalf of God, which He gave them all authority to do, that believers go out and slay all non believers to keep them from further sinning and that this is ok and moral because it is done out of love, is this not a dangerous belief?

I dont see how killing someone would benefit them, even in the old testament. I wouldve thought Jesus to instruct us to not live by the sword and to instead pray for our enemies to be saved, not kill them in the midst of their sins and have them die in that state.

 

[TimothyH]

So did God give Moses the authority to allow divorce? Jesus said, “from the beginning it was not so.” Im pretty sure that applies to a lot of the other “commandments” of the Mosaic Law.

Yes, there was no divorce from the beginning with Adam and Eve until the time of Moses. Men would kill their wives instead. Divorce was a temporary concession to prevent men from killing their wives due to the hardness of their hearts.

Another example of a concession in the Old Testament the kingship in Isreal. God said that he himself would be their king, but he allowed a temporary concession when Israel asked for king to be like the other nations. It was imperfect, and the kings ruled harshly just as God said they would. There were many concessions in the Old Testament law, until the time that Christ should come and perfect all things.

The phrase, “The Lord said to Moses” appears 156 times in the RSV Bible. All the commandments of the Mosaic law are commandments of God.

-Tim-