How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[clem456]

We will have to disagree.

It ultimately comes down to the fact that the words of God trump any other form of evidence that can possibly be presented. What do you think of that philosophy?

The Word of God is not designed to “trump” other forms of evidence. The bible is not a science or history textbook.

 

[Aloysium]

The Word of God is not designed to “trump” other forms of evidence. The bible is not a science or history textbook.

But, it does speak of what is miraculous.
Scripture describes the influence of the Word on history, which culminates in His incarnation.
It thus tells of miracles.
Among the miracles is the creation of man.
Science cannot explain miracles. Attempts to do so scientifically are nonsense.

 

[juliamajor]

Same thing. The words in the Bible are written by God through a human agent. It’s not the same thing.It least the way you state.You seem think that the human inspired writer acted as a dictaphone for God. No brain activity needed on the part of the human author.

Like I said before, when figures of speech are used in the Bible Scripture makes it obvious. *Figures of speech aren’t always obvious. Idioms are limited to a place and era.over the centuries language changes-all languages change and many forms of speech- like slangs are radically different from age to age. Understanding literary forms alter. English is way different than Hebrew or Greek- and the figures of speech- seemingly so obvious to you in a translation can and are very different in the original tongue.What a translator does is not always true to the original language . it can’t be because the symbolism in the original text would be incomprehensible to modern, english readers.

How the Jews interpreted Scripture is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Bible actually says. *What the bible says is open to interpretation. Everyone interprets the bible to one degree or another. How do you know what is really being said if you don’t interpret scripture? Scripture has been studied, interpreted and argued over for thousands of years- if the answers were so easily obtainable and pat- then why discuss it at all?

Not too difficult:

“19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” Mt. 28:19 (NASB)

• That’s very cute , but do you see the word 'HOLY TRINITY " anywhere? You must actually believe that doctrines and dogmas were handed over the same time scripture was. Doctrine for the most part evolved.Concepts such as the the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic union-heaven and hell were defined and fought over for centuries . They didn’t leap full formed out of the Bible… Early church had to fight different heresies for a very long time until the carved out the meaning of what a Christian is and what a Christian should really believe in order to be considered a Christian.
  Look up the Nestorian ,Arianism,Manichean heresies- that should get you started.*

You do understand that I’m not Catholic? It doesn’t matter to me what Pope John Paul II says; it only matters what God says. Obviously I disagree with his statement.I’m not a Protestant Fundamentalist so you know I don’t the bible literalistically And how do you know what God is really saying unless you interpret .

See above.

What you’re saying is that we should give up Genesis (and therefore, any sort of sound Biblical hermeneutic) because extra-Biblical evidence appears to be against it. I think that the words of God are more important than that, and so does the Apostle Paul:
**Again we speak of trying to understand the scripture in the light of the original intent and the original language and style it was written in. All scripture is not narrative
**
" In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: 2 proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." 2 Tim. 4:1-2 (NRSV) * Yes, when logic fails quote a verse.-this one is about teaching not fundamentalism. Paul as Rabbi and Pharisee would know the worth of teaching and the interpretation of scripture. *

Had God wanted to say he created the world through evolution he could have. Had he wanted to indicate there wasn’t a global flood he could have. He did not.

** how do you know that if you don’t interpret.? it must be nice that scripture is so crystal clear to you when to us other poor mortals must ponder over it and try to struggle to make certain that we are truly following God.**

 

[clem456]

But, it does speak of what is miraculous.
Scripture describes the influence of the Word on history, which culminates in His incarnation.
It thus tells of miracles.
Among the miracles is the creation of man.
Science cannot explain miracles. Attempts to do so scientifically are nonsense.

Agree.

 

[Hans_W]

** how do you know that if you don’t interpret.? it must be nice that scripture is so crystal clear to you when to us other poor mortals must ponder over it and try to struggle to make certain that we are truly following God.**

Two types of people have it really easy when it comes to reading the Bible:

The ones think it’s total nonsense, concocted by some goat-herding, bronze-age people.
The other lot takes every word literally.

 

[PJM]

=RockPigeon;12249762]Often when speaking of Catholicism to others, they have a problem with the Violence of God in the Old Testament. Specifically, the violence performed for minor tasks, such as when Uzzah tries to stop the Ark from falling over and is killed for touching it, or when Elisha kills the boys for making fun of his being bald, or other rules about killing, many seen in Deuteronomy.

What is a good way to respond to these points? One can agree they are certainly startling.

As a catechist I have too encountered this.

My response is to:

1. Ask for a specific example or examples
2. Then point out that it is always a response from God’s necessary Divine Justice.

Can’t can permit evil; BUT NOT desire it except as a just response to man’s disobedience.

The Plagues inflicted on Egypt are an excellent example of this:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[clem456]

As a catechist I have too encountered this.

My response is to:

1. Ask for a specific example or examples
2. Then point out that it is always a response from God’s necessary Divine Justice.

Can’t can permit evil; BUT NOT desire it except as a just response to man’s disobedience.

The Plagues inflicted on Egypt are an excellent example of this:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Patrick

It’s also important in RCIA or other catechetical settings to point out that the human authors of Scripture have an imperfect understanding of God’s will. They don’t write Scripture in a trance or tape record God’s word. God does not move the pen, so to speak.
Passages where God’s will is interpreted as commanding the Israelites to slaughter innocents must be read with that understanding.

This is perhaps the root of much misunderstanding in regard to the Old Testament. Christians are continually coming to know God. For new Christians, as they come to know Jesus, he is revealed to them as the fullness of truth and revelation, He is THE Word of God. But the inconsistencies are obvious between Jesus and the “God of the Old Testament”. There are not two Gods, there is only one who is unchanging. Each and every passage must be read in the light of the person of Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies about who God reveals himself to be must be worked out in that difficult relationship between the human and divine. The inconsistency is on the part of human understanding of God’s will, not in God’s nature. God cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings. It’s not in his nature, the Cross is evidence enough of that.

But far from disqualifying these passages, God still speaks inspired words to us through these difficult passages, giving us life through Christ who fulfills them. If we can move past insisting on literist interpretations of God’s word then we can hear his word much more fully. That’s why it is said in RCIA that it is not a program but a process, the goal of which is to know Jesus Christ. All Scripture and Church teaching leads us to know Christ.

 

[clem456]

Two types of people have it really easy when it comes to reading the Bible:

The ones think it’s total nonsense, concocted by some goat-herding, bronze-age people.
The other lot takes every word literally.

Perhaps the wisest post of the bunch.

Following The Word is not easy. Understanding scripture for the sake or our own understanding is not the goal.
Scripture not only requires our literal understanding, it asks for our very life, given over to Christ. “Knowing” is more than understanding the words on a page with our limited human knowledge. Knowing in a biblical sense is to enter into a relationship, to give our full selves to Christ as he gives himself to us. Scripture leads us to a relationship with Christ.

“When you find the God you think you fully understand, you’ve probably built yourself an idol”.
I believe that is attributed to Augustine, but in any case it is an unpopular truth in our “enlightened” times.

 

[dmar198]

It’s also important in RCIA or other catechetical settings to point out that the human authors of Scripture have an imperfect understanding of God’s will. They don’t write Scripture in a trance or tape record God’s word. God does not move the pen, so to speak.
Passages where God’s will is interpreted as commanding the Israelites to slaughter innocents must be read with that understanding.

This is perhaps the root of much misunderstanding in regard to the Old Testament. Christians are continually coming to know God. For new Christians, as they come to know Jesus, he is revealed to them as the fullness of truth and revelation, He is THE Word of God. But the inconsistencies are obvious between Jesus and the “God of the Old Testament”. There are not two Gods, there is only one who is unchanging. Each and every passage must be read in the light of the person of Jesus Christ, and inconsistencies about who God reveals himself to be must be worked out in that difficult relationship between the human and divine. The inconsistency is on the part of human understanding of God’s will, not in God’s nature. God cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings. It’s not in his nature, the Cross is evidence enough of that.

But far from disqualifying these passages, God still speaks inspired words to us through these difficult passages, giving us life through Christ who fulfills them. If we can move past insisting on literist interpretations of God’s word then we can hear his word much more fully. That’s why it is said in RCIA that it is not a program but a process, the goal of which is to know Jesus Christ. All Scripture and Church teaching leads us to know Christ.

Something in your post appears to me to contradict the Church’s teaching about Scripture. Dei Verbum 11 says: [The Church] holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.

And: “[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” The human authors may not have a perfect understanding of God’s will, but God certainly does, and it is God who wrote each and every one of the passages that give you trouble. Therefore, I don’t think we can blame the troubling passages on the authors’ imperfect understanding, because “they have God as their author” “in their entirety, with all their parts.”

To say that the human authors wrote things down in a way that was “inconsistent” with “God’s will” appears to contradict this statement: “they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” To suggest that they assigned things to God’s will that were really incompatible with God’s will appears to contradict this statement: “[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” If the text affirms that God commanded X, then it seems to follow that we should regard that statement as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And, if that analysis is correct, then it appears to be a simple case of whether we are going to believe Him in what He says He commanded or not.

Finally, the idea that God “cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings” appears to contradict daily reality: innocent people are slaughtered at the hand of other human beings every day, and God appears to tolerate it. You said, “the Cross is evidence enough” of your point, but I would say it illustrates the opposite: it seems to me that, on the Cross, God tolerated the slaughter of Himself at the hands of other human beings.

Do you see why I am troubled by what you say?

 

[clem456]

Something in your post appears to me to contradict the Church’s teaching about Scripture. Dei Verbum 11 says: [The Church] holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.

And: “[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” The human authors may not have a perfect understanding of God’s will, but God certainly does, and it is God who wrote each and every one of the passages that give you trouble. Therefore, I don’t think we can blame the troubling passages on the authors’ imperfect understanding, because “they have God as their author” “in their entirety, with all their parts.”

To say that the human authors wrote things down in a way that was “inconsistent” with “God’s will” appears to contradict this statement: “they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” To suggest that they assigned things to God’s will that were really incompatible with God’s will appears to contradict this statement: “[A]ll that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” If the text affirms that God commanded X, then it seems to follow that we should regard that statement as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And, if that analysis is correct, then it appears to be a simple case of whether we are going to believe Him in what He says He commanded or not.

Finally, the idea that God “cannot tolerate the slaughter of innocents at the hand of other human beings” appears to contradict daily reality: innocent people are slaughtered at the hand of other human beings every day, and God appears to tolerate it. You said, “the Cross is evidence enough” of your point, but I would say it illustrates the opposite: it seems to me that, on the Cross, God tolerated the slaughter of Himself at the hands of other human beings.

Do you see why I am troubled by what you say?

Yes,
It is God’s will that every line of scripture was written. But the authors do not always have a perfect understanding and expression of God’s will -in the events of their times-. The authors of scripture do not operate outside free will. That is not the meaning of inspiration.

I can see where the word “tolerates” causes confusion, because the slaughter of innocents at the hands of others has always taken place. Maybe condone is a better word.

The Cross is God’s gift of himself, taking these evils of humanity on himself. It is not justification for the killing of innocents.

Benedict’s discussion of this in Dei Verbum is key:
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

…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.

 

[Aloysium]

Yes,
It is God’s will that every line of scripture was written. But the authors do not always have a perfect understanding and expression of God’s will -in the events of their times-. The authors of scripture do not operate outside free will. That is not the meaning of inspiration. . . .

Let’s see if I have understood; they do not have an understanding, but you do. You can interpret the teachings of the church as you wish, but your opinion of your your opinions seems rather presumptuous.

 

[clem456]

Let’s see if I have understood; they do not have an understanding, but you do. You can interpret the teachings of the church as you wish, but your opinion of your your opinions seems rather presumptuous.

Whoaaa. What?
That is not what I said, even remotely.
That was really uncalled for ad hominem.

I posted a link and a quote from Dei Verbum. What do you think?

 

[clem456]

Here is again a passage from Verbum Domini regarding the issue at hand.
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 “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.

 

[Aloysium]

Whoaaa. What?
That is not what I said, even remotely.
That was really uncalled for ad hominem. . .

So, you’re saying I did misunderstand you.

Hmm.

It’s also important in RCIA or other catechetical settings to point out that the human authors of Scripture have an imperfect understanding of God’s will.

It is God’s will that every line of scripture was written. But the authors do not always have a perfect understanding and expression of God’s will -in the events of their times-.

That said, I could not have expressed my own sentiments any better than you did when you wrote:

. . . it asks for our very life, given over to Christ. “Knowing” is more than understanding the words on a page with our limited human knowledge. Knowing in a biblical sense is to enter into a relationship, to give our full selves to Christ as he gives himself to us. Scripture leads us to a relationship with Christ.

I just don’t like how you speak about scripture as reflecting an imperfect understanding in those who wrote it. To understand God as He reveals himself to warriors, it is important to see the world through their eyes. What is written is perfect, we here are imperfect in our understanding.

As to my own presumptuousness, I would say that, Dei Verbum as excellent and deserving of all accolades as it is, it remains written by man. I personally would not say " . . . the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise . . . " outside the narrow context it is used. I will assert that all that is needed to understand scripture is the Holy Spirit, referencing your quote about giving ourselves to Christ; that is, for the majority of mankind whose intellect and worldly knowledge is not a curse deflecting them from the Truth.

BTW: I am all about the ad hominem. I see philosophy as reflective of our relational nature. It does not exist outside of our relationships to the world, with one another and with God. What the person expresses reveals the beauty or the horror of who they are, which is more what interests me.

 

[dmar198]

As to my own presumptuousness, I would say that, Dei Verbum as excellent and deserving of all accolades as it is, it remains written by man. I personally would not say " . . . the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise . . . " outside the narrow context it is used.

Just FYI :: that passage does not come from Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum is the dogmatic constitution on Sacred Scripture published as part of the Second Vatican Council. The passage we are discussing comes from Verbum Domini, which is an apostolic exhortation by Pope Benedict XVI. Apostolic exhortations are not even technically teaching documents: exhortations call upon the recipients to reflect upon something and take action. That’s not to say there’s no teachings in it at all, and I’m not saying it has no authority, (heck, I was the first person in this thread to quote it, on the first page in post #7) but its purpose should be taken into account.

 

[Aloysium]

Just FYI :: that passage does not come from Dei Verbum. . . The passage we are discussing comes from Verbum Domini, which is an apostolic exhortation by Pope Benedict XVI. . .

Oops . yeah, that’s what i was referring to and why i spoke of it as i did. Thanks.

 

[clem456]

So, you’re saying I did misunderstand you.

Hmm.

That said, I could not have expressed my own sentiments any better than you did when you wrote:

I just don’t like how you speak about scripture as reflecting an imperfect understanding in those who wrote it.

Human beings are by nature not perfect in any way as God is perfect. That is not what inspiration is. Inspiration does not make the authors perfect in their perceptions. But the Church surely proclaims that every word God intended to be there, is there. No more, no less. Through thousands of years and a multitude of oral and written tradition, and through translations in different languages, God’s word is alive as he wills it.
So we are challenged. Can you accept the tension between Inspiration and man’s imperfection? It is a challenge. Do the authors of scripture have free will, or do they not? If the literalist written word of scripture is the final word, then Jesus cannot be. But Jesus is God’s Word. Christ fulfills in perfection what is written.

To understand God as He reveals himself to warriors, it is important to see the world through their eyes. What is written is perfect, we here are imperfect in our understanding.

That’s exactly the point that Benedict makes in Verbum Domini.
So??
Not quite sure why you are attacking when you and I agree on the above, in line with the Church.

As to my own presumptuousness, I would say that, Dei Verbum as excellent and deserving of all accolades as it is, it remains written by man. I personally would not say " . . .** the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise . . .** " outside the narrow context it is used. I will assert that all that is needed to understand scripture is the Holy Spirit, referencing your quote about giving ourselves to Christ; that is, for the majority of mankind whose intellect and worldly knowledge is not a curse deflecting them from the Truth.

Well, ok. The person you are quibbling with above is Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini.
And you accused me of inflicting my personal interpretations on the Church:shrug:, which I did not. Ok…Can we just stick to what the Church actually says?

 

[clem456]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

1. 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.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

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)

 

[Chi_Rho_777_747]

youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0 Hopefully this video from Fr. Robert Barron may help shed some light on the issue of OT violence.

 

[clem456]

youtube.com/watch?v=1A65Wfr2is0 Hopefully this video from Fr. Robert Barron may help shed some light on the issue of OT violence.

Good stuff. I especially like his comments reading scripture through the lens of Christ the Lamb of God. And also his comments on historicity.