How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[clem456]

"
…
It’s simple logic: if God is good, then he’ll be honest and not try to distort, misrepresent, or hide the truth. God’s statements will be true and he will say them in a way that we can understand. He will make it clear to us when he is speaking literally and when he isn’t. If he doesn’t, then that’s simply called being dishonest.

That interpretative principle is based upon the very nature of God himself - so yes, it is in the Bible.

If you believe otherwise, then you believe in a God who deliberately confuses, deliberately deceives, and deliberately hides. This does not agree with the nature of God.

God’s nature…
Yes God is good, and honest. God is also God, and by extension, we are -not God-. There can only be one God, and we are not Him.

So God’s good and honest nature does not give us face to face understanding with Him. That would be a prime example of idolatry of self. He is a God of awesome mystery. He is reasonable for us, but our reason is very limited. We need others to help us understand the scriptures.

Anyone who believes he interprets God’s revelation in a complete way by his own understanding of the scriptures has some serious questions to think about.
Even Moses hid his face from God. God identifies himself to Moses as the God of his ancestors, not just Moses’ personal revelation. Think about that. God identifies himself as the God of a people, not of -a person-.

 

[zz912]

“20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Pet. 2:20-21 (NASB)

Nothing in Scripture is a matter of human interpretation because human beings don’t get to decide what it means and what it doesn’t mean.

Scripture is not just left alone to an individual’s interpretation. They must read it through the Teaching of the Church. And you only fool yourself if you think you aren’t personally interpreting. You are right that individuals do not get to decide what Scripture means and doesn’t mean. It is the Church who has that authority.

It’s simple logic: if God is good, then he’ll be honest and not try to distort, misrepresent, or hide the truth. God’s statements will be true and he will say them in a way that we can understand. He will make it clear to us when he is speaking literally and when he isn’t. If he doesn’t, then that’s simply called being dishonest.

That interpretative principle is based upon the very nature of God himself - so yes, it is in the Bible.

If you believe otherwise, then you believe in a God who deliberately confuses, deliberately deceives, and deliberately hides. This does not agree with the nature of God.

If your interpretation/logic is correct, then why does St. Peter write this?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. **There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. **17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

Might want to re-examine your personal interpretation and logic, since Scripture says the exact opposite.

 

[Achilles6129]

Scripture is not just left alone to an individual’s interpretation. They must read it through the Teaching of the Church. And you only fool yourself if you think you aren’t personally interpreting. You are right that individuals do not get to decide what Scripture means and doesn’t mean. It is the Church who has that authority.

No, it is God who has that authority. The Church (and I assume you’re referring to the Catholic Church) is made up of individuals. And if, as I said before, God has that authority, and the nature of God is such that he is honest, then God will make it clear when he is speaking literally and when he is not. All it takes is some sincere study on our part.

If your interpretation/logic is correct, then why does St. Peter write this?

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. **There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. **17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.

Might want to re-examine your personal interpretation and logic, since Scripture says the exact opposite.

That there are things in Paul’s epistles that are hard to understand has no bearing on a literal/metaphorical interpretation of the Bible. There may be passages that are hard to understand but in no case should we ever be in doubt whether they’re literal or not.

 

[Achilles6129]

God’s nature…
Yes God is good, and honest. God is also God, and by extension, we are -not God-. There can only be one God, and we are not Him.

So God’s good and honest nature does not give us face to face understanding with Him. That would be a prime example of idolatry of self. He is a God of awesome mystery. He is reasonable for us, but our reason is very limited. We need others to help us understand the scriptures.

Anyone who believes he interprets God’s revelation in a complete way by his own understanding of the scriptures has some serious questions to think about.
Even Moses hid his face from God. God identifies himself to Moses as the God of his ancestors, not just Moses’ personal revelation. Think about that. God identifies himself as the God of a people, not of -a person-.

The point is that Biblical hermeneutical principles should be based upon the nature of God. If God is honest then he can be counted upon to present the truth in an honest fashion. In other words he’s not going to turn the Bible into a book that we can’t possibly ever understand (which is what it gets turned into if we put theistic evolution in Genesis).

Therefore, it is possible for a human being to completely understand the Bible. To think otherwise is to assign another nature to God.

 

[Achilles6129]

How does that square with passages like these:

2 Peter 3:16 - “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Acts 8:30-31 - “Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

Hebrews 5:12 - “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food.”

When you say “in a way that we can understand,” your whole sentence sounds to me like you are talking about the whole Bible. But the Bible says some things in it are hard to understand and Acts 8:30-31 seems to me to suggest that we need someone to guide us in order to understand it.

You said “He will make it clear to us” but God seems to say some of it is unclear. How do you explain these passages?

I think you’re misunderstanding the point. Things in Scripture can certainly be hard to understand (theologically speaking), but God can be counted upon to present them in such a way as it will be plain whether they’re literal or not, because of his nature. So, for example, if God doesn’t say a word about evolution in all Scripture but then suddenly we’re told we have to put evolution in Genesis because he intended it to be that way then God is not presenting things in an honest and straightforward manner but rather playing fast and loose with his words, so to speak. It just doesn’t work like that.

 

[Achilles6129]

But interpret it, we must. And as we are humans, we can only use human interpretation.

Correct. So God’s going to have to make it clear to us exactly the manner in which he’s speaking.

Fair enough.

But since the Bible never states “He will say them in a way that we can understand. He will make it clear to us when he is speaking literally and when he isn’t”…

you are following a man-made tradition.

Are we agreed on that? That the Bible never states that God is going to make it clear when he is speaking literally and when he isn’t.

Well, when you present yourself as talking literally but you’re really speaking metaphorically then that’s called being dishonest. Here’s the verse that supports the method of interpretation that I’ve proposed:

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, 2in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began” Titus 1:1-2 (ESV)

If God presented things as literal truth that were in fact fiction because he really meant it symbolically (even though he didn’t tell us) then he has lied and contradicted his own nature.

Otherwise, you’re going to have to post the Bible verse that tells us whether God is speaking literally regarding Psalm 33:20-22.

Is Psalm 33: 20-22 literal, metaphorical? And what verse in Scripture are you using to tell you this?

I fail to see what the hermeneutical issue with Psalm 33:20-22 is. Psalms is a book of lyrical poetry and that particular passage is talking about faith and trust in God.

Book, chapter and verse for this, please.

Titus 1:2

But your response “It’s simple logic” prompts the question: do you permit Catholics to use this same paradigm to defend their beliefs?

For example, when you ask, “Why do you believe in Purgatory? It’s not found in the Bible”

is it acceptable for me to say, “It’s simple logic”?

That is, we know that none of us is pure. We all need cleansing. And nothing that is dirty can stand before the eternal throne of heaven…

therefore logic dictates that if we die with even a smidgen of dirt on our souls, we need to be cleaned up before standing before the Beatific Vision, yes?

No, because what I have proposed lines up with the nature of God as described in the Bible and with Biblical passages that clearly state that God cannot lie. In your case you have a denial of purgatory in Scripture because it is clearly mentioned that everyone goes to either heaven or hell (see Matthew 25, etc.). There are only two destinations, so I would not say that you have a warrant for purgatory in that case.

 

[dmar198]

Things in Scripture can certainly be hard to understand (theologically speaking), but God can be counted upon to present them in such a way as it will be plain whether they’re literal or not, because of his nature.

Just as an example, in Acts 8:30-31, the context it is talking about is Isaiah 52-53, the Suffering Servant. And the Ethiopian Eunuch seems quite clear that he could not understand whether Isaiah was talking about himself or someone else. Now, that seems to be a great counter-example to your point: in your view, since it is always clear when something is literal and when it isn’t, shouldn’t it have been clear to the Ethiopian that Isaiah was not talking about himself? But he says someone had to guide him in order to understand the Scripture. What do you think of that?

 

[PRmerger]

No, it is God who has that authority. The Church (and I assume you’re referring to the Catholic Church) is made up of individuals. And if, as I said before, God has that authority, and the nature of God is such that he is honest, then God will make it clear when he is speaking literally and when he is not. All it takes is some sincere study on our part.

Well, I don’t disagree with you that we are required to do some “sincere study” of the Bible to understand its meaning.

But since we are fallible, is it not possible that we could be in error with our conclusions, even after studying?

 

[clem456]

The point is that Biblical hermeneutical principles should be based upon the nature of God. If God is honest then he can be counted upon to present the truth in an honest fashion. In other words he’s not going to turn the Bible into a book that we can’t possibly ever understand (which is what it gets turned into if we put theistic evolution in Genesis).

Therefore, it is possible for a human being to completely understand the Bible. To think otherwise is to assign another nature to God.

No, it’s not. Think about what you are saying.

You are assigning to -a- human being, the ability to -completely understand- a book that is revealed by God.
That is idolatry.

 

[Gorgias]

zz912:

our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures

That there are things in Paul’s epistles that are hard to understand has no bearing on a literal/metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.

“As they do the other Scriptures,” Achilles. In other words, Peter isn’t asserting only that “there are things in Paul’s epistles that are hard to understand,” but also, that there are people who twist in the Scriptures in general. I think that’s the point being made here.

There may be passages that are hard to understand but in no case should we ever be in doubt whether they’re literal or not.

Why is it, for passages that are hard to understand when we presume they’re literal, that we cannot doubt whether they’re meant in a way that isn’t literal? Just curious…

 

[Gorgias]

Well, when you present yourself as talking literally but you’re really speaking metaphorically then that’s called being dishonest.

Fair enough. Yet, does God say that He’s talking literally?

Here’s the verse that supports the method of interpretation that I’ve proposed:

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, 2in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began” Titus 1:1-2 (ESV)

You’re not delivering on what you’ve promised. “God never lies” doesn’t equate to “God only speaks literally”. Read on…

If God presented things as literal truth that were in fact fiction because he really meant it symbolically (even though he didn’t tell us) then he has lied

Not at all! That is, things that are symbolic aren’t ‘fiction’, they’re truth presented in a symbolic way. If I say “it’s raining cats and dogs out there,” am I lying? I mean, there aren’t actually dogs and cats falling from the sky, right? Yet, I’m not lying – my intent is to describe the intensity of the rainfall in a way that my audience will understand. So, if I use a metaphor that is meant to symbolically express my meaning, then I’m telling the truth, not lying! So, your assertion here fails – if God speaks metaphorically in symbols, He still tells the truth!

In your case you have a denial of purgatory in Scripture because it is clearly mentioned that everyone goes to either heaven or hell (see Matthew 25, etc.). There are only two destinations, so I would not say that you have a warrant for purgatory in that case.

The case for purgatory isn’t a case for a “final destination”; we would agree that there are only two final destinations (heaven or hell). Therefore, your appeal to Matthew 25 fails here.

 

[juliamajor]

Metaphors , are parts of speech. They are not lies.Just like a parable isn’t a lie. They are are words we use communicate thoughts and ideas. they have no tinge of good or bad
.The use of language is our main way of connecting with each other and it is the way connect with God.Our ability to express God’s thoughts and words are limited because how can we truly understand God? We are finite, he is infinite. We understand God with human language , not the language of angels.
the Inspired author is just that -breathed into, by God. The inspired author is not “possessed” by the Spirit of God, not knowing what he says or does. The free wills of those inspired was fully intact. We are not God’s puppets or automatons.Scripture is God’s Word filtered through a human brain , a human will. because it is a cooperative work of the human and the divine, human ways of thinking and expressing are manifest.

 

[Achilles6129]

Just as an example, in Acts 8:30-31, the context it is talking about is Isaiah 52-53, the Suffering Servant. And the Ethiopian Eunuch seems quite clear that he could not understand whether Isaiah was talking about himself or someone else. Now, that seems to be a great counter-example to your point: in your view, since it is always clear when something is literal and when it isn’t, shouldn’t it have been clear to the Ethiopian that Isaiah was not talking about himself? But he says someone had to guide him in order to understand the Scripture. What do you think of that?

Obviously anything can be difficult to understand and people can have questions. The point is that God has to make it clear whether he’s speaking literally or metaphorically so that any sincere, reasonable person with the proper amount of study will be able to see whether or not it’s literal.

Otherwise one would simply have no idea whether any passage in the Bible were literal or not, which would completely destroy all of Biblical hermeneutics and thus all of theology.

 

[Achilles6129]

But since we are fallible, is it not possible that we could be in error with our conclusions, even after studying?

Sure, it’s possible we could be in error in our conclusions about the meaning of the passage, but not as to whether or not the passage is literal or not. God is required to present it in such a way as to make it plain when he is speaking historically and when he isn’t.

 

[Achilles6129]

No, it’s not. Think about what you are saying.

You are assigning to -a- human being, the ability to -completely understand- a book that is revealed by God.
That is idolatry.

So in other words, you’re saying that God has presented us with his word, but in such a convoluted way that no one can possibly understand what it means.

 

[Achilles6129]

Why is it, for passages that are hard to understand when we presume they’re literal, that we cannot doubt whether they’re meant in a way that isn’t literal? Just curious…

You can certainly doubt that they’re meant in a way that they’re literal. However, God is required to tell you when he’s speaking symbolically and when he isn’t, as I have said before.

Fair enough. Yet, does God say that He’s talking literally?

He would have to make it clear when he isn’t if he wants to be considered honest.

You’re not delivering on what you’ve promised. “God never lies” doesn’t equate to “God only speaks literally”. Read on…

I never said “God never lies” = “God only speaks literally.” I said “God never lies” = “God has to tell us when he isn’t speaking literally.”

Not at all! That is, things that are symbolic aren’t ‘fiction’, they’re truth presented in a symbolic way. If I say “it’s raining cats and dogs out there,” am I lying? I mean, there aren’t actually dogs and cats falling from the sky, right? Yet, I’m not lying – my intent is to describe the intensity of the rainfall in a way that my audience will understand. So, if I use a metaphor that is meant to symbolically express my meaning, then I’m telling the truth, not lying! So, your assertion here fails – if God speaks metaphorically in symbols, He still tells the truth!

God can speak metaphorically in symbols so long as he makes it clear he is doing so. If he is in reality speaking metaphorically with symbols all the while giving off the impression that he is talking about literal history then he is being dishonest.

The case for purgatory isn’t a case for a “final destination”; we would agree that there are only two final destinations (heaven or hell). Therefore, your appeal to Matthew 25 fails here.

In this case there is no mention of purgatory in Scripture so it’s existence is unwarranted, just like there is no mention of evolution in Scripture so the same applies. Your concerns about being purged of sin and so forth are dealt with in other Biblical passages.

 

[MacQ]

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.

This is how I would respond:
The violence going on in today’s world is equally startling…slavery, beheadings, war, torture, crucifxions… none of those things has stopped.

The Old Testament can be viewed as the story of mankind, and it’s still going on.
As Catholics, we try to take wisdom from the stories, the prophets, AND the bloody history (ancient and recent)…and we turn to the New Testament for answers that Jesus came to bring us.

 

[PRmerger]

You can certainly doubt that they’re meant in a way that they’re literal. However, God is required to tell you when he’s speaking symbolically and when he isn’t, as I have said before.

So is God speaking literally or metaphorically in Malachi 1:11?

And what verse in Scripture tells you the answer regarding Malachi 1:11? Book, chapter and verse, please!

From the rising of the sun to its setting,
my name is great among the nations;
Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere,
and a pure offering;
For my name is great among the nations,
says the LORD of hosts

 

[dmar198]

Obviously anything can be difficult to understand and people can have questions. The point is that God has to make it clear whether he’s speaking literally or metaphorically so that any sincere, reasonable person with the proper amount of study will be able to see whether or not it’s literal.

Well I basically agree with that. I just think that any person who looks at the creation narrative and/or the flood narrative with the proper amount of study can reasonably conclude that these stories intentionally use symbolism and poetic exaggeration to such a degree they only contradict modern science if you take the symbolic portions literally. Do you think that’s reasonable?

 

[Achilles6129]

Well I basically agree with that. I just think that any person who looks at the creation narrative and/or the flood narrative with the proper amount of study can reasonably conclude that these stories intentionally use symbolism and poetic exaggeration to such a degree they only contradict modern science if you take the symbolic portions literally. Do you think that’s reasonable?

No, I see no way to reconcile the two accounts.