How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[Zipply]

Well, obviously God allows the deaths of all of the innocent children in the world. He could prevent it if he wanted to and chooses not to. Interesting, isn’t it?

One has to get this teaching right, or else one is accusing God of awful, horrible things. Here in America, where our ancestors were Puritans or ignorant poor immigrants, we go all out for this kind of heresy. We accuse God of awful, horrible, sub-human violence and we don’t even bat an eye. Why? because we’d rather worship a horrible bloodthirsty pagan tribal deity than admit that perhaps ignorant laypeople don’t have compete command of the Holy Writ. In America, the most important religious principle is “I can read the Bible as good as anybody.” Nevermind that actual Catholic academics at actual Catholic universities, charged by the Popes with teaching future priests and bishops disagree fundamentally with these literalist interpretations. Nope, because I have an internet connection, I am the grand arbiter of scriptural truth.

 

[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.

That doesnt explain why only the sons and not the daughters were punished. I read in a Bible study book that in Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the entire family was considered a unit, and thus everybody was punished, even the daughters, not just the sons. Here is more facts regarding this issue. biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/family-life-and-relations.html

The social foundations for Israel’s preoccupation with responsibility and motives may be traced to its understanding that an individual cannot act in such a way that his deeds have no effect on others, whether or not those effects are visible in the present. Rather than seeing infractions as isolated incidents, a violator endangered his group by bringing upon them guilt, whether it be upon an entire people (as the Gileadite altar, Joshua 22:19-20 ) or the succeeding generations (as in the sin of idolatry, Exod 20:5 ; 34:7 ; Num 14:18 ; Deut 5:9 ). The woman convicted of adultery became a curse on the community to which she belonged ( Num 5:27 ). Oft-cited examples are Achan’s sin that brought guilt on his family and through it, to the entire people of Israel ( Jos 7:24 ). The families of Dathan, Abiram, and Korah, and the latter’s entire household, were destroyed because of the rebellion of their leaders ( Num 16:32-35 ).

 

[Gorgias]

That doesnt explain why only the sons and not the daughters were punished.

The daughters were taken – as if chattel! – by their conquerers, to be assimilated into their families and to bear Israelite children. They were made bereft of their families, their culture, and their way of life, and became (for all intents and purposes) part of the nation of Israel (albeit not as Jewish members of that society).

In a culture dominated by ‘clan’ politics, this is the equivalent of the death penalty. However, their potential to bear children, in an era in which childbearing was of paramount importance, made it logical that they were not simply killed. This doesn’t imply that their state in life might not be considered a ‘punishment’, by standards of the day, however.

 

[Sky_River]

The daughters were taken – as if chattel! – by their conquerers, to be assimilated into their families and to bear Israelite children. They were made bereft of their families, their culture, and their way of life, and became (for all intents and purposes) part of the nation of Israel (albeit not as Jewish members of that society).

In a culture dominated by ‘clan’ politics, this is the equivalent of the death penalty. However, their potential to bear children, in an era in which childbearing was of paramount importance, made it logical that they were not simply killed. This doesn’t imply that their state in life might not be considered a ‘punishment’, by standards of the day, however.

Why are you trying to justify Moses actions? Unlike God ordering Israel to wipe out and drive out the Caananites, the Bible doesnt even say that God told Moses to kill the Midianite children.

God told Moses to take vengeance on them (which meant going to war with them, they were also an enemy tribe who posed a threat to israel), but he didnt tell Moses to do anything to the children, who didnt lure Israel into sin.

Just because Moses was a prophet, it doesnt mean everything he did was right. King David is described in the bible as a man of God, but he committed adultery and murdered somebody to cover it up, but that doesnt make his actions right.

 

[clem456]

Is it a possibility that the slaughter occurred, and when scripture was recorded, the justification for it was imputed to God’s words and will?
My answer to this is yes, it is a likelihood due to ancient understandings of God’s will. In fact I believe many of the slaughters recorded in the OT are incompatible with who we know God to be, in the person of Jesus Christ. Pope Benedict addresses this in the “Dark Passages”.

And another question… If it is the case that justification of slaughter is imputed to God, does that nullify the inspiration of scripture?

My belief, which I believe is what the Church teaches, would be no, scripture is still inspired if the first question is true. Scripture is still inerrantly True.

 

[Gorgias]

Why are you trying to justify Moses actions?

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to correct your anachronistic misinterpretation of the situation in Numbers 31.

Unlike God ordering Israel to wipe out and drive out the Caananites, the Bible doesnt even say that God told Moses to kill the Midianite children.

In Numbers 25, God tells Moses to strike (i.e., kill) the Midianites. He doesn’t make a distinction between adults and children.

God told Moses to take vengeance on them (which meant going to war with them

That’s your interpretation of what “avenge” means, right?

but he didnt tell Moses to do anything to the children, who didnt lure Israel into sin.

On the other hand, He didn’t tell Moses not to exact His revenge on the children of Midian. Moreover, the text doesn’t suggest that God was displeased with the way that Moses acted. Rather, on no fewer than four occasions, the text affirms that the actions of Moses were “as the Lord had commanded Moses.” Why is this?

In Numbers 27, God informs Moses that He will not permit Moses to enter into the Promised Land, but that, instead, Moses will be “gathered to [his] people.” From that time on, Moses is seen as doing exactly what God wants him to do. (When faced with one’s own mortality and impending death, there’s a certain urgency not to anger God.)

In fact, the bulk of Numbers 31 deals with the corrective actions Moses takes, due to the fact that the Israelite army acted in disobedience to God’s will. What was it that the army did, then? They took captives from among the Midianites.

Just because Moses was a prophet, it doesnt mean everything he did was right.

Quite right. Yet, the text neither says nor suggests that Moses’ actions were anything but what God intended him to do. That might not sit well with an analysis based on a 21st-century cultural perspective, but from the perspective of the author of Numbers 31, the actions of Moses and the Israelites weren’t morally deficient.

King David is described in the bible as a man of God, but he committed adultery and murdered somebody to cover it up, but that doesnt make his actions right.

True. Note, though, that God sends a prophet to David, to inform him of the sinfulness of his actions. Does God send Moses a prophet in Numbers 31, to tell him that he messed up?

 

[Sky_River]

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to correct your anachronistic misinterpretation of the situation in Numbers 31.

In Numbers 25, God tells Moses to strike (i.e., kill) the Midianites. He doesn’t make a distinction between adults and children.

That’s your interpretation of what “avenge” means, right?

On the other hand, He didn’t tell Moses not to exact His revenge on the children of Midian. Moreover, the text doesn’t suggest that God was displeased with the way that Moses acted. Rather, on no fewer than four occasions, the text affirms that the actions of Moses were “as the Lord had commanded Moses.” Why is this?

In Numbers 27, God informs Moses that He will not permit Moses to enter into the Promised Land, but that, instead, Moses will be “gathered to [his] people.” From that time on, Moses is seen as doing exactly what God wants him to do. (When faced with one’s own mortality and impending death, there’s a certain urgency not to anger God.)

In fact, the bulk of Numbers 31 deals with the corrective actions Moses takes, due to the fact that the Israelite army acted in disobedience to God’s will. What was it that the army did, then? They took captives from among the Midianites.

**Quite right. Yet, the text neither says nor suggests that Moses’ actions were anything but what God intended him to do. That might not sit well with an analysis based on a 21st-century cultural perspective, but from the perspective of the author of Numbers 31, the actions of Moses and the Israelites weren’t morally deficient.
**

**True. Note, though, that God sends a prophet to David, to inform him of the sinfulness of his actions. Does God send Moses a prophet in Numbers 31, to tell him that he messed up? **

1-How does culture determine morality? In some cultures, women are killed or marrying outside their religion. In other cultures (like Rome) people were fed to lions. God’s standards of morality are unchanging and not dependent on culture.

2-Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Gorgias]

1-How does culture determine morality?

It doesn’t, of course. Yet, it does come into play when considering culpability.

God’s standards of morality are unchanging and not dependent on culture.

Agreed. Yet, how do you understand Jesus’ response to those who asked him about the morality of divorce? Doesn’t it point to the fact that, while God’s standards on the indissolubility of marriage are unchanging, His law took into account His people’s limitations? Therefore, whereas under the Mosaic covenant, divorce was possible, nevertheless under Jesus’ New Covenant, divorce makes spouses adulterers. By the same sort of analysis, your assertions that the events of Numbers 31 imply immoral behavior on the part of Moses and the Israelites (based on later moral standards) are mistaken.

2-Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quite so. Incidentally, there’s a distinct absence of evidence in your claims that Moses acted in a way displeasing to God. Just sayin’…

By the way: you’re misusing the aphorism. There’s a difference between “absence of evidence” and “lack of evidence.” In the former, not all possibilities have been exhausted, and therefore, a premature conclusion may be an inaccurate conclusion; in the latter, all the evidence is available and open to analysis, and the non-presence of evidence leads to a valid conclusion – that is, the conclusion that there is evidence of absence. (As an example, I might assert that you have no quarters in your pockets. If I ask all of your friends whether you have quarters, and no one can say that you do, then all I have is “absence of evidence” – there’s no evidence present that suggests that you have no quarters; yet, that doesn’t prove that you have no quarters. On the other hand, if I ask you to allow me to inspect the contents of your pockets, and no quarters show up, then I have evidence of absence. And therefore, having seen all the evidence and having found no quarters, I can conclude that there’s evidence of absence; and that conclusion would be valid.)

In the case of Numbers 31, we’ve got “evidence of absence”: there’s no further Scriptural data to be reviewed, and none of the Scriptural data even suggests that God was displeased with Moses’ actions. Therefore, “evidence of absence.” QED.

 

[Tomdstone]

God’s standards of morality are unchanging and not dependent on culture.

Didn’t God’s people accept slavery in the past?
Don’t some cultures accept capital punishment, whereas others don’t? Didn’t Pope Innocent IV allow torture under certain conditions, but in today’s culture, torture is forbidden as immoral?

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t God’s people accept slavery in the past?

Sure.

But God didn’t.

Don’t some cultures accept capital punishment, whereas others don’t?

Sure. That’s Catholic teaching: capital punishment is acceptable if it’s the only means of punishing a society has.

Didn’t Pope Innocent IV allow torture under certain conditions, but in today’s culture, torture is forbidden as immoral?

Can you cite the document that limns the Church’s teaching on torture?

 

[Sky_River]

It doesn’t, of course. Yet, it does come into play when considering culpability.

Agreed. Yet, how do you understand Jesus’ response to those who asked him about the morality of divorce? Doesn’t it point to the fact that, while God’s standards on the indissolubility of marriage are unchanging, His law took into account His people’s limitations? Therefore, whereas under the Mosaic covenant, divorce was possible, nevertheless under Jesus’ New Covenant, divorce makes spouses adulterers. By the same sort of analysis, your assertions that the events of Numbers 31 imply immoral behavior on the part of Moses and the Israelites (based on later moral standards) are mistaken.

Quite so. Incidentally, there’s a distinct absence of evidence in your claims that Moses acted in a way displeasing to God. Just sayin’…

By the way: you’re misusing the aphorism. There’s a difference between “absence of evidence” and “lack of evidence.” In the former, not all possibilities have been exhausted, and therefore, a premature conclusion may be an inaccurate conclusion; in the latter, all the evidence is available and open to analysis, and the non-presence of evidence leads to a valid conclusion – that is, the conclusion that there is evidence of absence. (As an example, I might assert that you have no quarters in your pockets. If I ask all of your friends whether you have quarters, and no one can say that you do, then all I have is “absence of evidence” – there’s no evidence present that suggests that you have no quarters; yet, that doesn’t prove that you have no quarters. On the other hand, if I ask you to allow me to inspect the contents of your pockets, and no quarters show up, then I have evidence of absence. And therefore, having seen all the evidence and having found no quarters, I can conclude that there’s evidence of absence; and that conclusion would be valid.)

In the case of Numbers 31, we’ve got “evidence of absence”: there’s no further Scriptural data to be reviewed, and none of the Scriptural data even suggests that God was displeased with Moses’ actions. Therefore, “evidence of absence.” QED.

How does culpability connect to morality?

 

[clem456]

Agreed. Yet, how do you understand Jesus’ response to those who asked him about the morality of divorce? Doesn’t it point to the fact that, while God’s standards on the indissolubility of marriage are unchanging, His law took into account His people’s limitations? Therefore, whereas under the Mosaic covenant, divorce was possible, nevertheless under Jesus’ New Covenant, divorce makes spouses adulterers. By the same sort of analysis, your assertions that the events of Numbers 31 imply immoral behavior on the part of Moses and the Israelites (based on later moral standards) are mistaken.

Christ does take note of human limitations in “the hardness of your hearts”. But at the same time he reinforces that marriage is the same in God’s eyes yesterday, today and forever, as God created it “in the beginning”. So human understanding may affect culpability and the moral sense, BUT, it cannot be said under any circumstance that God willed or found divorce acceptable.
In fact this passage is a textbook example that the justification of behaviors should not be literally imputed to God’s will. The ancient people, as Christ notes in the passage, had imperfect understanding and execution (no pun intended) of God’s will. And Pope Benedict’s observation that Christ is the ultimate hermeneutical key is well illustrated by Christ himself.

 

[raoul1951]

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.

Uzzah should have been aware of the fact that touching the would kill him. And, furthermore, that the ark would never actually touch the ground.

As for, the boys, they should have been aware that making fun of their elder was wrong. They just chose the wrong person to make fun of, someone with the power to get G-d to answer his prayers.

Basically, each brought his own death upon himself.

 

[Sky_River]

Uzzah should have been aware of the fact that touching the would kill him. And, furthermore, that the ark would never actually touch the ground.

As for, the boys, they should have been aware that making fun of their elder was wrong. They just chose the wrong person to make fun of, someone with the power to get G-d to answer his prayers.

Basically, each brought his own death upon himself.

Both of those instances are not human violence, but are God personally carrying out judgement on people, which he also does in the NT in Acts 5. What confuses me regarding Old Testament violence is mainly this.

Why did God use human violence as an instrument of judgement in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament? Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful. He never told them to use violence against groups of people to punish them for their sins-that would be murder. But in the OT, not just with Israel wiping out Caananites, but also with Hosea 13:16, violence and wars used to execute judgement on Samarians for the sins of idolatry. Why didnt God do anything like that in the New Testament? Jesus is the same person as the God of the OT (Col 2 9) and God never changes (Hebrews 13 8.)

 

[clem456]

Both of those instances are not human violence, but are God personally carrying out judgement on people, which he also does in the NT in Acts 5. What confuses me regarding Old Testament violence is mainly this.

Why did God use human violence as an instrument of judgement in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament? Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful. He never told them to use violence against groups of people to punish them for their sins-that would be murder. But in the OT, not just with Israel wiping out Caananites, but also with Hosea 13:16, violence and wars used to execute judgement on Samarians for the sins of idolatry. Why didnt God do anything like that in the New Testament? Jesus is the same person as the God of the OT (Col 2 9) and God never changes (Hebrews 13 8.)

As to your question “why” the difference in portrayal, the authors simply saw God and the world through a different lens. Jesus had not yet been revealed to us.

 

[Sky_River]

As to your question “why” the difference in portrayal,** the authors simply saw God and the world through a different lens.** Jesus had not yet been revealed to us.

I am not asking about the way the authors portrayed God. I am discussing God’s nature and why God’s nature seems different in the OT than in the NT, based on his actions alone.

Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are both members of the same Trinity. In Genesis God said, “Let US create man in our image”. When God used the Assyrians to bring violent judgement upon Samaria, and Israel to wipe out Caanan, God the Son (Jesus) was in agreement with him. But in the NT, Jesus never told his disciples to do anything like what he made people do in the Old Testament. Why is that?

 

[Zipply]

I am not asking about the way the authors portrayed God. I am discussing God’s nature and why God’s nature seems different in the OT than in the NT, based on his actions alone.

Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are both members of the same Trinity. In Genesis God said, “Let US create man in our image”. When God used the Assyrians to bring violent judgement upon Samaria, and Israel to wipe out Caanan, God the Son (Jesus) was in agreement with him. But in the NT, Jesus never told his disciples to do anything like what he made people do in the Old Testament. Why is that?

The short answer is nobody knows.

The fact that God seems much more flawed and violent in the OT leads to only a few potential solutions. I have discussed them before in this thread. One of them, Marcionism, is a condemned heresy (but was condemned, it seems, mainly for the technical nature of the solution, polytheism).

 

[clem456]

I am not asking about the way the authors portrayed God. I am discussing God’s nature and why God’s nature seems different in the OT than in the NT, based on his actions alone.

Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are both members of the same Trinity. In Genesis God said, “Let US create man in our image”. When God used the Assyrians to bring violent judgement upon Samaria, and Israel to wipe out Caanan, God the Son (Jesus) was in agreement with him. But in the NT, Jesus never told his disciples to do anything like what he made people do in the Old Testament. Why is that?

And the answer is that God is the same always.
Why is the author’s “lens” not a possible answer to your question?
In fact, what other answer can there be, if God is unchanging but different witnesses portray him differently? (I’m open to alternatives…)

 

[Zipply]

In fact, what other answer can there be, if God is unchanging but different witnesses portray him differently? (I’m open to alternatives…)

Marcionism. Atheism. Disbelief in the scriptures.

 

[clem456]

Marcionism. Atheism. Disbelief in the scriptures.

Right. As a Catholic I am looking for options in that context.