How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[RockPigeon]

Here are a few quotes from some Popes, although they are about Genesis. Although I’ve always been told that the purpose of the Noah’s Ark story is to answer the question “Why didn’t God ever try again with humanity?” People often stop the story at “and then there was a Rainbow. The End.” When really the entire point of the story is that the waters died down, they got off the boat, and immediately Noah got drunk and fell into sin again. Point being, God tried, humanity messed it up again. I’m not familiar with any quotes suggesting plainly that it is an allegorical piece, though I feel it can be extrapolated based on these following quotes:

Bl. Pope John Paul II had this to say about the story of Adam and Eve:
Following the contemporary philosophy of religion and that of language, it can be said that the language in question is a mythical one. In this case, the term “myth” does not designate a fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing a deeper content.

And Pope Pius XII had this to say:
“…the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

Another key part of Genesis often unnoticed is its inconsistencies. If Genesis is literal, God wasn’t almighty and omnipotent until about halfway through the Bible. That doesn’t sound like the God of all ages to me. For instance, in Genesis 18: 20-21, God is shown as not knowing about something, and setting out to investigate it.

Really dumb - Noah’s Ark is in the first 11 Chapters on Gensis. D’oh! So yeah, basic Catholic Understanding is that the first 11 Chapters are allegorical.

 

[RockPigeon]

I also feel this picture sums it up in a humorous way

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd....158_309223049227444_2502904283520871467_n.jpg

 

[Achilles6129]

No one is claiming anything using the word “all”. Scripture is not “all” a parable, and is not “all” metaphor, but certainly there are parables and metaphors. Do you disagree with that?

Of course Scripture has parables and metaphors in it. It just indicates where they are and tells you such. Otherwise that’s just being dishonest.

Do you believe the parable of the prodigal son, given by Christ himself, powerfully communicates the truth of God’s forgiveness?
Or do you consider Christ’s own words untrustworthy because his parable is not reducible to facts?

This isn’t even relevant to the conversation. The point of the conversation is that if you can make one passage of Scripture out to be a parable without any textual basis then you can make any passage of Scripture out to be a parable with no textual basis.

The bottom line is, “inspired by the Holy Spirit” does not equate to factual or historical or scientific accuracy,

That’s called “being dishonest.”

 

[Achilles6129]

But “Scriptures occasionally make use of metaphor” is not the same thing as “Scripture tells lies.” Because truth is not always necessarily the same thing as literal truth. When my fiancee says “I want to spend forever in your arms,” I don’t accuse her of lying, even though she isn’t speaking literal truth.

But in that case you know it’s a metaphor, so she doesn’t have to tell you. It’s a very commonly used metaphor that anyone would instantly recognize, so it’s not lying. However, talking in deep dark parables without making it clear that you’re doing so is absolutely being dishonest.

All you’re doing in this post is pointing to the difficulty of puzzling out where metaphor ends and strictly literal recounting of facts begins. That’s a real difficulty, and it often admits to a plurality of plausible interpretations. But the solution to the difficulty is not mindlessly positivistic/autistic literalism, it’s prudence. Prudence is a virtue after all.

As a matter of fact, based off of your interpretation, there is no way to tell where a metaphor ends and a recounting of “facts” begins. We have absolutely no way of ever knowing. And that’s the problem. Blending evolution with Scripture completely destroys the entire Bible and destroys all of theology.

 

[Achilles6129]

There is absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood. Having dug the Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania, I can personally attest to that…no evidence, no flood covering all of PA. No flood covering PA, no world-wide flood.

If taken literally, the bible is absolutely wrong here.

We’ll just have to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence. Have you visited sites run by creationist scientists, like Creation Ministries International (creation.com/) ? They claim that there is good evidence of a global flood and good evidence against evolution.

 

[Achilles6129]

Genesis: 7:17 The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 **And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; **20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; 22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Nothing in that passage says the entire planet was flooded. That is your personal view reading that into the passage. You can’t look at this as a scientific manual. It is storytelling, using storytelling language.

If all the high mountains under all of heaven were covered then the entire planet was flooded. Water always seeks its own level. Given the length of the flood, there is no way that water could have reached that level temporarily by some sort of tidal wave or other mechanism.

This is not to mention the fact that God specifically claims he did destroy the entire planet in the flood:

“11 I establish my covenant with you, that** never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood**, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”” Gen. 9:11-17 (NRSV)

That and many other passages.

In other parts of Scripture, it says that all are sinful, and no one looks to God. Does that mean that every single person on the planet was not looking for God? Of course not.

It quite possibly could. It certainly did in the days of Noah. Or, it could be using hyperbole. But the flood account can’t be using hyperbole, as pointed out above.

If I told you it rained cats and dogs yesterday, I’m not literally telling you that canines and felines fell from the sky. But I am telling you, very truthfully, that it rained very hard yesterday. I’m not being literalistic, but I am being truthful about a real event.

Right, and you’re using a metaphor that’s very commonly used and that anyone can understand. If God’s conveying a local flood or evolution in Genesis then he’s doing so in a way that defies normal attempts at understanding metaphors.

 

[sirach2v4]

The best answer that I heard just recently is that 1) we don’t know the historical background of the situation described in the Bible and that 2) we should take the expression of violence as the attitude of God towards sin and evil.

 

[wiggbuggie]

That’s exactly how I have always looked at Uzzah’s death. It is not God “punishing” him but is rather the natural consequence of man’s sinfulness coming into contact with God’s holiness.

I actually usually use this passage in teaching about Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Uzzah just touched the Ark. Imagine what would have happened to Mary by actually being the Ark for nine months if she were tainted by Original Sin!

thanks for sharing very interesting and convincing for mary being sinless. Since nothing impure can behold or look upon God how much more mary would have to be cleansed

 

[juliamajor]

Achilles6129;12253179:

Guess those OT writers weren’t inspired by God then.

The Bible says it covered the entire planet.

Absolutely. The entire Bible and the entire realm of theology is at stake.

Scripture tells us that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The only way this could happen is if the flood was global.

/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood. Having dug the Allegheny Plateau in Pennsylvania, I can personally attest to that…no evidence, no flood covering all of PA. No flood covering PA, no world-wide flood.

If taken literally, the bible is absolutely wrong here.
First the Flood story is a metaphor.You can read similar tales- we are talking archetypes
here (see the Epic of Gilgamesh, the atraharis, and the story of Deucalion…
“the whole world” well if your whole life is in some little burg and the most ubiquitous way of travel is walking, then heck yeah, something like Katrina would seem to unsophisticated folks , like it was the end of the world.To take the creation and flood story anything other than myth-is foolish. St.Augustine had words about that.
Myth does not equal lie. myths often have powerful truths clothed in colorful stories…
to read the bible strictly as narrative is foolish indeed.

 

[Sky_River]

1. Uzzah and the Ark

There’s a couple of pieces of info needed here to understand the full issue. When they were moving the Ark, they were already sinning. God had proscribed very specifically how the Ark was to be moved. It had to be carried on poles by priests, in a manner showing honor. And yet they were moving it in a cart pulled by a beast of burden. They were directly disobeying God in how they were to care for the Ark. King David disobeyed God by having it in a cart instead of being carried as commanded by God. The Ark would never have begun tipping over if it had been carried properly. Uzzah was participating in this sin, and he was the one who suffered the consequences when the inevitable happened.

1. Elisha, bears and the young men.

Again, we need a little context. The passages state that the two bears killed 42 of the young men or boys (depending on translation). Now this number may be a bit overinflated to signify a large number, or it may be completely accurate. Either way, what does this tell us about the size of the crowd that was taunting and harrasing the prophet Elisha? For that many to be killed, there had to be hundreds of young men surrounding him and yelling at him. That’s not a small group, that’s a mob. And it is highly disrespectful, and blasphemous to insult and threaten a prophet of God. God sents them to speak a message to us, and when we insult, threaten or reject the prophet, we are doing so to God Himself. We are rejecting God.

Some will say the taunts they hurled were nothing, and meaningless, and not deserving of death. But that is an anachronism. We are reading our culture of today into that culture and time. We don’t know exactly how insulting those comments were back then, and how they were intended. Think about other comments that we can make today, that if they were said 50-100 years ago, would have gotten you slapped or punched in the face (or worse). And the same is true in reverse.

So in context, we understand that this was an unruly mob of hundreds of young men/boys who were taunting and harrasing a prophet and messenger of God. It’s not a bunch of six year olds playing sandlot baseball.

Why was Achan’s entire family stoned to death (mentioned in book of joshua), just because he sinned and brought an accursed object into his tent?

Sometimes innocent people suffer consequences from the behavior of evil people (civilian casualties in wars), but why should they be obligated to bear the harsh punishments of the crimes of other people, if they are totally innocent?

 

[sw85]

But in that case you know it’s a metaphor, so she doesn’t have to tell you. It’s a very commonly used metaphor that anyone would instantly recognize, so it’s not lying. However, talking in deep dark parables without making it clear that you’re doing so is absolutely being dishonest.

It really isn’t dishonest, unless one goes into reading Scripture with the positivistic presupposition that truth is always unfailingly literal. How, for instance, do you reconcile yourself to Hebraisms – idiosyncracies of the Hebrew language (like “stiff-necked” referring to something other than the posture of one’s neck) not shared or immediately recognized by other languages?

As a matter of fact, based off of your interpretation, there is no way to tell where a metaphor ends and a recounting of “facts” begins. We have absolutely no way of ever knowing. And that’s the problem. Blending evolution with Scripture completely destroys the entire Bible and destroys all of theology.

Of course, because my “interpretation” doesn’t give a single, coherent, universally applicable rule for interpreting every single line of Scripture. And it doesn’t do that because I oppose Scriptural positivism. Because it’s silly and, like all positivisms, it’s a modern innovation.

We don’t get to divorce the reading of any one line of Scripture from the reading of all the rest. We don’t get to ignore theological, historical, historiographical, etc., contexts in which Scripture was written. We don’t get to invent arbitrary paradigms for reading Scripture that vacate us, personally, of all responsibility for actually digesting what we read. Etc.

 

[zz912]

If all the high mountains under all of heaven were covered then the entire planet was flooded. Water always seeks its own level. Given the length of the flood, there is no way that water could have reached that level temporarily by some sort of tidal wave or other mechanism.

Your personal interpretation understands when it says “all the high mountains” it means every single mountain on earth. Another interpretation understands it as all the mountainous areas in the region of the flood, which would be a much lower level of flooding. What makes your personal interpretation definitive and authoritative?

This is not to mention the fact that God specifically claims he did destroy the entire planet in the flood:

“11 I establish my covenant with you, that** never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood**, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”” Gen. 9:11-17 (NRSV)

That and many other passages.

Again, your personal interpretation that this means God is claiming to have flooded the entire earth.

It quite possibly could. It certainly did in the days of Noah. Or, it could be using hyperbole. But the flood account can’t be using hyperbole, as pointed out above.

No, it didn’t in Noah’s day, as Noah and his family prove. So your point is wrong.

Right, and you’re using a metaphor that’s very commonly used and that anyone can understand. If God’s conveying a local flood or evolution in Genesis then he’s doing so in a way that defies normal attempts at understanding metaphors.

“Normal attempts”. You’re reading this story at least 3,000 years after it was written down, and many more thousands of years after it was first told. But you’re quite certain YOU understand the passage and manner of writing/speaking perfectly well, and that anyone can understand. That is some hubris right there.

 

[zz912]

Why was Achan’s entire family stoned to death (mentioned in book of joshua), just because he sinned and brought an accursed object into his tent?

Sometimes innocent people suffer consequences from the behavior of evil people (civilian casualties in wars), but why should they be obligated to bear the harsh punishments of the crimes of other people, if they are totally innocent?

You’re assuming that they are innocent, which is not supported in the text. Achan had taken a mantle, 200 silver coins, and a huge bar of gold. And he hid them in his tent. That is a LOT to hide in a tent, even a large one. It’s certainly plausible that everyone in the tent knew about it.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that they didn’t. Achan directly stole that which was dedicated to God. He was explicitly warned by God NOT to take any spoils from Jericho, that they could take nothing. And yet he did.

This direct, and blatant sin and insult to God comes after the Exodus, and 40 years of disobedience and defiance in the desert. Finally God is bringing his people into the promised land, and they STILL will not abide by His commands! He is separating them from the other people of the area, giving them special blessings and responsibilities, but He wants them to NOT be like the people around them who do not worship Him.

Achan was WELL aware of the punishment for those who disobeyed God. He personally witnessed the destruction of the people of Jericho who disobeyed God. And yet, he STILL wished to disobey and sin. This kind of egregious and blatant sin cannot stand. So God made an example of Achan and his family, as an example to all the other Israelites, that refusal to obey God meant their entire life and family would be blotted out of the people of Israel. It is harsh because the sin was so egregious, ongoing, and increasing.

 

[Sky_River]

You’re assuming that they are innocent, which is not supported in the text. Achan had taken a mantle, 200 silver coins, and a huge bar of gold. And he hid them in his tent. That is a LOT to hide in a tent, even a large one. ** It’s certainly plausible that everyone in the tent knew about it.**

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that they didn’t. Achan directly stole that which was dedicated to God. He was explicitly warned by God NOT to take any spoils from Jericho, that they could take nothing. And yet he did.

This direct, and blatant sin and insult to God comes after the Exodus, and 40 years of disobedience and defiance in the desert. Finally God is bringing his people into the promised land, and they STILL will not abide by His commands! He is separating them from the other people of the area, giving them special blessings and responsibilities, but He wants them to NOT be like the people around them who do not worship Him.

Achan was WELL aware of the punishment for those who disobeyed God. He personally witnessed the destruction of the people of Jericho who disobeyed God. And yet, he STILL wished to disobey and sin. This kind of egregious and blatant sin cannot stand. ** So God made an example of Achan and his family, as an example to all the other Israelites, that refusal to obey God meant their entire life and family would be blotted out of the people of Israel. It is harsh because the sin was so egregious, ongoing, and increasing**.

How does them knowing about it make them guilty and worthy of harsh punishment?

Morality is not determined by time period. Stoning is a horrible punishment. It’s not moral for innocent people to suffer horrible death penalty punishments (viewed as cruel and unusual punishment today) for the crimes of others. What if a middle eastern country did that today? People would say it would be horrible. Please explain how time period determines morality.

 

[juliamajor]

Time period, culture, ethnicity,custom all effect morality.
Less then a hundred years ago young girls married men two, three times their young age .15 &!6 year old married men in their 30 's,40’s ,50’s. The young women would be considered wise to make such a match while older men were not looked upon as perverts as they are now.
Illegitimate children were unadoptable.
Slavery was commonplace (still is for some nations). It had been practiced for thousands of years.It was a way to pay off your debts. If you were an Israelite you would be released after a while. All slaves were given a protection under the Law.
50 to 75 years ago lobotomizing the mentally ill was considered humane and not barbaric- like it is now. Eugenics was considered forward thinking and sterilizing women of certain ethnicity and race was accounted as moral and righteous. It help to aid the Nazis to form a rationale for the “Final Solution.”
These things are considered immoral now. In the past they were considered progressive. An enhancement of life for all the"right " kind of people.
Are the barbarities of the present less horrific then that of the past?
Is a justice system that unfairly puts the poor and indigent in jail at a much higher rate, then the wealthy ;that’s the justice system , I don’t hear folks reeling against that.Do you.
HISTORY changes everything. Art, science ,music, philosophies ,customs, manner, child rearing- the list goes on and on.
Harshness of punishment is relative to time period.

 

[clem456]

Time period, culture, ethnicity,custom all effect morality.
Less then a hundred years ago young girls married men two, three times their young age .15 &!6 year old married men in their 30 's,40’s ,50’s. The young women would be considered wise to make such a match while older men were not looked upon as perverts as they are now.
Illegitimate children were unadoptable.
Slavery was commonplace (still is for some nations). It had been practiced for thousands of years.It was a way to pay off your debts. If you were an Israelite you would be released after a while. All slaves were given a protection under the Law.
50 to 75 years ago lobotomizing the mentally ill was considered humane and not barbaric- like it is now. Eugenics was considered forward thinking and sterilizing women of certain ethnicity and race was accounted as moral and righteous. It help to aid the Nazis to form a rationale for the “Final Solution.”
These things are considered immoral now. In the past they were considered progressive. An enhancement of life for all the"right " kind of people.
Are the barbarities of the present less horrific then that of the past?
Is a justice system that unfairly puts the poor and indigent in jail at a much higher rate, then the wealthy ;that’s the justice system , I don’t hear folks reeling against that.Do you.
HISTORY changes everything. Art, science ,music, philosophies ,customs, manner, child rearing- the list goes on and on.
Harshness of punishment is relative to time period.

The case could be made that those acts which are known to be immoral in the fullest light of Christ have always been immoral, regardless of the ignorance of historical times. Culpability would be a different matter.
Mankind was simply ignorant of the full truth. The basis of morality is the eternal law, the fulfillment of which is Jesus Christ.

All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law.

Does the eternal law change? Was the God of the Old Testament a different God than the God of the New Testament?
For instance, the slaying of innocents that is repeated many times throughout the history of Israel. Has it ever been moral, in God’s eyes, or was man’s reason and intellect darkened, thereby allowing justifications?

 

[zz912]

How does them knowing about it make them guilty and worthy of harsh punishment?

Morality is not determined by time period. Stoning is a horrible punishment. It’s not moral for innocent people to suffer horrible death penalty punishments (viewed as cruel and unusual punishment today) for the crimes of others. What if a middle eastern country did that today? People would say it would be horrible. Please explain how time period determines morality.

If they knew about it, they are helping to conceal the theft, and thereby sinning.

And yes, stoning is a horrible punishment. Life was harsh back then, because it had to be. We can’t read our culture into their time. There was very little in the way of security and things like police and such to protect the public. What they had was severe punishment to keep people from committing crimes and sin. They didn’t have jails to put people in. So punishments for crimes had to be very severe to keep the peace.

Today this is not necessary in most of the world, as we have prisons and such to be able to punish people. A nomadic tribal people doesn’t have that luxury.

 

[zz912]

Does the eternal law change? Was the God of the Old Testament a different God than the God of the New Testament?
For instance, the slaying of innocents that is repeated many times throughout the history of Israel. Has it ever been moral, in God’s eyes, or was man’s reason and intellect darkened, thereby allowing justifications?

You are judging God against the standards set for man. God is the author of life, and has all authority to end that life if and when He chooses. In fact, He WILL end the life of every single person who will live, except those alive at His Second Coming.

When God orders the killing of innocents, He commits no sin, because He is the author of life. Man is not, and does not have the authority to end the innocent life of another.

 

[juliamajor]

The case could be made that those acts which are known to be immoral in the fullest light of Christ have always been immoral, regardless of the ignorance of historical times. Culpability would be a different matter.
Mankind was simply ignorant of the full truth. The basis of morality is the eternal law, the fulfillment of which is Jesus Christ.

Does the eternal law change? Was the God of the Old Testament a different God than the God of the New Testament?
For instance, the slaying of innocents that is repeated many times throughout the history of Israel. Has it ever been moral, in God’s eyes, or was man’s reason and intellect darkened, thereby allowing justifications?

God’s eternal law doesn’t change. How we understand it and enact it does. We have perfect infinite law from the mind of God. How do imperfect, finite people interpret it. Imperfectly-
Through their own prism of history,existence, and culture.

the world doesn’t stand still and the way we know God and understand God changes,evolves. Concepts like eternal life is vague at best in the OT but in NT times was a well understood and mostly embraced except by the Saducees. So did eternity change or did man’s concept of it change?

 

[Achilles6129]

First the Flood story is a metaphor.You can read similar tales- we are talking archetypes
here (see the Epic of Gilgamesh, the atraharis, and the story of Deucalion…
“the whole world” well if your whole life is in some little burg and the most ubiquitous way of travel is walking, then heck yeah, something like Katrina would seem to unsophisticated folks , like it was the end of the world.To take the creation and flood story anything other than myth-is foolish. St.Augustine had words about that.
Myth does not equal lie. myths often have powerful truths clothed in colorful stories…
to read the bible strictly as narrative is foolish indeed.

I think you’re missing the point: the point is to destroy the entire human race. The only way that could have happened was if the flood was global. Do you agree that the entire human race was destroyed in the flood?