How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[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.

1-How would them knowing about it mean that they are responsible for his sin? How would them refusing to report him for his crimes mean that they are responsible for the consequences that his sin brought to Israel, if he was the one who stole the objects, not them?

People are legally punished in modern times for covering up crimes, but the punishment for covering up a crime is not the same as the punishment for the crime itself. They are two seperate things.

2=Deuteronomy 24 16 says"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." God wouldnt punish the innocent for the crimes of the wicked.

Why should (regarding Achan and his family) innocent people be obligated to bear the harsh consequences of other people’s sins and crimes? Sometimes innocent people are affected by the crimes of others (such as civilian deaths during wars) but that’s simply an unfortunate side effect of war-(collateral damage-)soldiers do not have the intent of causing collateral damage during war. But the Israelites intentionally punished Achans family.

 

[MacQ]

That’s why we have a Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why should (regarding Achan and his family) innocent people be obligated to bear the harsh consequences of other people’s sins and crimes?

Yes. It does not seem right. But atheists often point to the Catholic teaching on original sin and claim that it is not fair for us to bear the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve.

 

[Sky_River]

Yes. It does not seem right. But atheists often point to the Catholic teaching on original sin and claim that it is not fair for us to bear the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve.

We do bear the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, but we are not directly punished for their sins. Achan’s family was directly punished for his sin. Those are two seperate things.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. It does not seem right. But atheists often point to the Catholic teaching on original sin and claim that it is not fair for us to bear the consequences of the sins of Adam and Eve.

It’s no more “unfair” than it is for a husband and wife who squander their inheritance to have children now in poverty.

It’s logical. Consequences.

 

[Tomdstone]

We do bear the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin, but we are not directly punished for their sins. Achan’s family was directly punished for his sin. Those are two seperate things.

I think we are directly punished because our capacity for rational thought is dimmed and degraded by original sin. This is a terrible punishment inflicted directly on us.

 

[zz912]

1-How would them knowing about it mean that they are responsible for his sin? How would them refusing to report him for his crimes mean that they are responsible for the consequences that his sin brought to Israel, if he was the one who stole the objects, not them?

People are legally punished in modern times for covering up crimes, but the punishment for covering up a crime is not the same as the punishment for the crime itself. They are two seperate things.

2=Deuteronomy 24 16 says"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." God wouldnt punish the innocent for the crimes of the wicked.

Why should (regarding Achan and his family) innocent people be obligated to bear the harsh consequences of other people’s sins and crimes? Sometimes innocent people are affected by the crimes of others (such as civilian deaths during wars) but that’s simply an unfortunate side effect of war-(collateral damage-)soldiers do not have the intent of causing collateral damage during war. But the Israelites intentionally punished Achans family.

Because when they knew about his keeping of the idols/gold, they did not tell anyone. So they helped to cover it up and helped to keep the sin secret. They were sinning by their active participation in the cover up.

One of your neighbors steals another neighbor’s tv, and you see the tv at the thief’s house. You didn’t participate in the original sin. But if you don’t tell the victim neighbor, you are helping to keep the crime hidden. You are sinning.

 

[clem456]

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.

Many of us commit sins that are egregious, ongoing etc…This creates a problem for a true Christian interpretation of this passage.
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.

It doesn’t seem consistent with the person of Jesus Christ that God literally would make an example of innocent people. The truth of the passage can still shine through that sin has consequences.
The Church does not read the bible in a literalist way.

 

[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 that prove that they were accomplices to his crime? The fact that they knew about his crimes and refused to report him to the Israelite authorities does not mean they were personally involved in his sins.

 

[Gorgias]

How does that prove that they were accomplices to his crime? The fact that they knew about his crimes and refused to report him to the Israelite authorities does not mean they were personally involved in his sins.

In contemporary law, the notion is known as being ‘accessories after the fact.’ That is, they knew of his crime, and aided him by allowing him to continue to conceal the crime. Therefore, he was guilty of the crime, and they were guilty of aiding him after the crime. Both are criminal acts. In the context of the story, both he and his family were guilty of having disobeyed God.

 

[Gorgias]

I think we are directly punished because our capacity for rational thought is dimmed and degraded by original sin. This is a terrible punishment inflicted directly on us.

This is a consequence of original sin, not the punishment doled out for it. The punishment was expulsion from the garden, which only Adam and Eve bore. The consequences, on the other hand, continue to be felt to this day.

I heard a preacher once call this the “offsides” example, but I think it doesn’t completely fit. Let’s call it the “unsportsmanlike conduct example.” A player on my team strikes an opposing player. His punishment is ejection from the game. I’m not punished, per se – after all, I’m not ejected from the game as a result of his transgression. However, I do bear the consequences of his actions – as part of the team, I’m assessed a 15-yard penalty. That isn’t the punishment due to the transgressor, but rather, a consequence that’s borne by his entire team.

 

[PRmerger]

I heard a preacher once call this the “offsides” example, but I think it doesn’t completely fit. Let’s call it the “unsportsmanlike conduct example.” A player on my team strikes an opposing player. His punishment is ejection from the game. I’m not punished, per se – after all, I’m not ejected from the game as a result of his transgression. However, I do bear the consequences of his actions – as part of the team, I’m assessed a 15-yard penalty. That isn’t the punishment due to the transgressor, but rather, a consequence that’s borne by his entire team.

Love the metaphor!

 

[clem456]

In contemporary law, the notion is known as being ‘accessories after the fact.’ That is, they knew of his crime, and aided him by allowing him to continue to conceal the crime. Therefore, he was guilty of the crime, and they were guilty of aiding him after the crime. Both are criminal acts. In the context of the story, both he and his family were guilty of having disobeyed God.

The point made by scripture is quite obvious. Sin has consequences.

Did God, in a literalist fashion, will the deaths of these “accomplices”? Probably not (we can’t know God’s will perfectly). The ancient author lives in a time and culture that has an understanding of God conditioned by that context. This is his interpretation of God’s will within his cultural context, with his knowledge of who God is. Christ, who is the fullness of revelation, hasn’t come yet.

In light of the person of Jesus Christ, who personifies revelation, the default response should be “no”, God does not will the deaths of accomplices to make “examples” of them.
The Catholic Church does not read scripture in a literalist way.

This story and many others are part of inspired Scripture and they proclaim a truth to the world that is larger than historicity.

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”

 

[Sky_River]

In contemporary law, the notion is known as being ‘accessories after the fact.’** That is, they knew of his crime, and aided him by allowing him to continue to conceal the crime. T**herefore, he was guilty of the crime, and they were guilty of aiding him after the crime. Both are criminal acts. In the context of the story, both he and his family were guilty of having disobeyed God.

That’s true. His family was guilty to an extent. But in Numbers 31, after Moses executed the Midianite women as punishment for luring Israel into idolatry, he also ordered all of their boys to be killed, even though they were totally innocent. Why is that? One may argue that he was punishing them for the sins of their parents, but tens of thousands of Midianite girls were allowed to live.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is a consequence of original sin, not the punishment doled out for it.

Were the consequences necessary? Was it necessary that our rational thought be dimmed and degraded? Further was this a good consequence?
If the bad consequences were not necessary, but something inflicted upon us by God as a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve, then i don’t see how it differs as a form of punishment by God for the sin committed by Adam and Eve.

 

[Gorgias]

Were the consequences necessary? Was it necessary that our rational thought be dimmed and degraded? Further was this a good consequence?
If the bad consequences were not necessary, but something inflicted upon us by God as a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve, then i don’t see how it differs as a form of punishment by God for the sin committed by Adam and Eve.

How, then, would you rationalize that the consequences were ‘not necessary’? That seems to be the prerogative of the divine judge, and not something that we, as persons with limited perspective and intellect, are able to judge.

 

[Gorgias]

in Numbers 31, after Moses executed the Midianite women as punishment for luring Israel into idolatry, he also ordered all of their boys to be killed, even though they were totally innocent.

I guess I’d ask you how you would conclude that the Midianites are innocent? From the context of Numbers 25 – which is the basis for the narrative of Numbers 31 – we see that God tells Moses that all of Midian are the enemies of God and of Israel.

Why is that? One may argue that he was punishing them for the sins of their parents, but tens of thousands of Midianite girls were allowed to live.

I think I would respond that we need to see this in terms of clan dynamics in the culture of the day. Guilt was shared equally among all of a rival clan. So, God’s pronouncement of doom was to be shared by all. However, clan dynamics also required blood vengeance. So, the sons of the Midianites were honor-bound to kill those who had killed their fathers and brothers. Their mothers, then, would raise them, teaching them to inflict that vengeance upon Israel. Moses, then, is simply requiring the Israelites to make good on the command of God that the Midianites be punished for attempting to lead Israel astray.

The girls are another matter, however. In that time and place, they were seen as little more than chattel. Once they were taken into a man’s household, they essentially became the property of that man. Therefore, taking them wasn’t seen as much more than a division of spoils.

If we attempt to judge these actions by 21st century standards, we grossly misinterpret what’s going on here. In their context, these boys and women were not ‘innocent’ of the crimes of Midian.

 

[Gorgias]

Did God, in a literalist fashion, will the deaths of these “accomplices”?

Considering that the text of Joshua 7 explicitly puts the words of the description of the punishment as coming from the mouth of God, it would be difficult to say that this isn’t what is going on, both from a literalist perspective and the literal sense of the Bible. From the spiritual sense, we see that the moral sense of this passage is that transgression of God’s commands have consequences, as you point out.

In light of the person of Jesus Christ, who personifies revelation, the default response should be “no”, God does not will the deaths of accomplices to make “examples” of them.

Agreed. Rather, God punishes those who sin. Achan’s family sinned in their willingness to be accessories to the crime. This isn’t a case of “making an example” of an innocent, but rather, of punishing the guilty.

The Catholic Church does not read scripture in a literalist way.

Odd that you should point that out, since the quote you gave us asks us precisely to make the historical-critical critique of the passage that leads us away from your notion of ‘making an example of accomplices’: “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.”

This story and many others are part of inspired Scripture and they proclaim a truth to the world that is larger than historicity.

Yes; but that doesn’t mean that there is no historicity in Scripture.

 

[Tomdstone]

How, then, would you rationalize that the consequences were ‘not necessary’?

Because God is all Powerful and as an omnipotent being, it seems like He could have restricted the bad consequences to Adam and Eve for a limited time until they repented. Perhaps then it can be argued that if He was not able to do that, it might mean that His omnipotence is somewhat restricted or limited.

 

[Sky_River]

I guess I’d ask you how you would conclude that the Midianites are innocent? From the context of Numbers 25 – which is the basis for the narrative of Numbers 31 --** we see that God tells Moses that all of Midian are the enemies of God and of Israel.**

I think I would respond that we need to see this in terms of clan dynamics in the culture of the day. Guilt was shared equally among all of a rival clan. So, God’s pronouncement of doom was to be shared by all. However, clan dynamics also required blood vengeance.** So, the sons of the Midianites were honor-bound to kill those who had killed their fathers and brothers. **Their mothers, then, would raise them, teaching them to inflict that vengeance upon Israel. Moses, then, is simply requiring the Israelites to make good on the command of God that the Midianites be punished for attempting to lead Israel astray.

The girls are another matter, however. In that time and place, they were seen as little more than chattel. Once they were taken into a man’s household, they essentially became the property of that man. ** Therefore, taking them wasn’t seen as much more than a division of spoils. **

If we attempt to judge these actions by 21st century standards, we grossly misinterpret what’s going on here. In their context, these boys and women were not ‘innocent’ of the crimes of Midian.

The Midianite women led Israel into sin, but their boys didnt.

What does that have anything to do with whether or not they were innocent or guilty?

But it doesnt seem fair that the midianite boys be punished for the sins of their parents, but the girls werent.