How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[PRmerger]

Nice use of a threat. I really enjoy being threatened.

It’s just a friendly warning.

It’s good for you to be here, so tone it down a bit and you won’t have any problems.

Also, could you please learn how to use the “quote” feature correctly?

There are numerous threads here detailing how to do so. It makes it more convenient if you actually quote the post that you’re responding to, so the reader and go back to it if necessary, rather than cutting and pasting.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19771

 

[PRmerger]

You are saying that when the OT says:

…that Samuel is lying.

Right?

There are numerous explanations that are consonant with Catholicism regarding OT violence.

One that I find sustainable is from our Holy Father Emeritus:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Sarcasm is not the enemy of discourse, imprecision is.

You are, essentially, correct here.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, that has to be the most pie-eyed interpretation of a verse I’ve ever seen.

I see you’ve been banned. That’s a shame, since I’d be interested in hearing your responses here:

you claim I’m misinterpreting the passage about Ananias – that God struck them down – but where is that in the Scripture? I mean, Luke could have written “an angel of God smote Ananias” or “God required his life of him that day” or anything else that would have given you the opportunity to point to the text and say, “see! God did the killing! God’s bloodthirsty!” Yet, that’s not what’s there: Ananias sinned, persisted in their sin, did not repent, and died. On the face of it, that’s all there is. Anything else is your personal eisegesis.

No, and I think you need to go to the dictionary and look up ‘literally’. I have been Catholic for over a decade and have had to confess mortal sins before, and hey, I’m still here.

You’re missing my point, Zipply, so let me as you to re-read what I wrote. It’s not that Ananias and Sapphira sinned, so much as that they did not repent. In your example, you repented and confessed your mortal sins. Ananias and Sapphira did not. That’s the big difference. That’s why it’s not hyperbole to say that death (spiritual, but in this passage, phyiscal) is what sin brings us. Ever hear that “the wages of sin is death”?

Ask my confessor why I’m still here and he’ll say 'Because God loves me and wants to give me every chance to repent". That sort of contradicts your answer completely and totally.

The fact that you have a confessor is why my answer holds and your response does not.

Ah, ok. Well, I expect the majority of humanity to drop dead right about…now.

What? They didn’t? Why not? Gorgias said…

… that unrepented sin leads to death. Yep. Bank on it. For Ananias and Sapphira, that physical death happened at the time their sin was made public, but the spiritual death had already occurred, and the passage does not show any remorse or contrition that would reverse that result.

 

[PRmerger]

One that I find sustainable is from our Holy Father Emeritus:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Some things to consider:

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.–ibid

 

[Gorgias]

"Zipply:

Either we worship a God who strikes people down or we worship a God who gives people every chance to repent. Which is it?

It’s an interesting question, but one that’s phrased in a way that leads us off into fruitless territory. Does everyone who dies, do so because they’ve been “struck down”? No … that sounds a lot like fundamentalist preachers who insist that AIDS is God’s way of striking down sinners, and Hurricane Katrina is God’s way of striking down sinners, and, and, and…

On the other hand, your second choice doesn’t work, either. If God literally (yep, there’s that word again, and I really mean literally) “gives people every chance to repent,” then there’d be no physical death, now, would there? After all, God would always say, “well, there you go again – another sin. OK, you were supposed to die this afternoon, but I need to give you every chance to repent, so I’ll let you live another month until you repent.” So, this option doesn’t work, either. God wants us to repent and gives us the opportunity for absolution. The scary part of the equation is that we don’t know when our lives will end, so we need to reach out for God’s forgiveness while we can.

Why they died “at the moment” of the discovery vs later on…I dunno.

Why is the timing important? Would it bother you if they died the next day? Or in a month?

It’s a good question, though, and leads to interesting observations. As I sit here today and think about it, I’m wondering whether God, in His mercy, was preventing the rest of the community from feeling the effects of the sin of scandal – that is, they would have been scandalized if they’d have seen the results of what Ananias and Sapphira did (and that they’d “gotten away” with it) – and perhaps, God prevented that sin of scandal from being visited upon his Church in its infancy?

 

[clem456]

Many non-Christians object to Christianity based on misinterpretations of the Old Testament. They don’t object to the historical elements of the literature portraying wars and killing, they object to motivations imputed to God that justify the killing of one people by another. Especially those who are possibly defenseless or innocent.

Practically everyone knows who Jesus is and what he stands for, even on a superficial level, and can recognize the glaring inconsistency between Jesus, who is our faith and defines Christianity, and the god of the old testament.

It is hugely important that Catholics properly explain this seeming inconsistency with the mind of the Church. We must know what inspiration is, what inerrancy is, what allegory is, what metaphor is. We must especially know what it means to be an author of Scripture and how the author is inspired.

The passage that PRmerger posted above from Benedict is essential reading for anyone who wants to explain the Catholic understanding of Scripture.

 

[tanachanswers]

Where’s the part about divorce and remarriage being adultery?

That’s what Jesus taught.

So, Iesus added a small bit.

 

[PRmerger]

So, Iesus added a small bit.

Yes.

This certainly shows His authority, no?

 

[tanachanswers]

The violence in the OT is not part of God’s will, Zipply.

*(Num 21:6 BBE) Then the Lord sent poison-snakes among the people; and their bites were a cause of death to numbers of the people of Israel.
*
I have found that it is usually to read the bible prior to offering commentary on it.

If you worship a God who does not have the power to strike people down then you worship a false god.

God, if He is all powerful and the source of life, can give and take life as He sees fit.

Now you seem to be claiming the opposite. I’m confused.

 

[tanachanswers]

Yes.

This certainly shows His authority, no?

Nope !
It would be a wonderful world if only those with authority add to the word of G-d.
People add to the word of G-d all the time.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope !
It would be a wonderful world if only those with authority add to the word of G-d.
People add to the word of G-d all the time.

Well, anyone who rises from the dead of his own power ought to have some authority, no?

 

[PRmerger]

I have found that it is usually to read the bible prior to offering commentary on it.

I don’t know what this means? It’s a bit nonsensical. “I have found that it is usually”? What?

 

[tanachanswers]

I don’t know what this means? It’s a bit nonsensical. “I have found that it is usually”? What?

Someone quoted to me from commentary as if it was from the bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone quoted to me from commentary as if it was from the bible.

You are making no sense.

Is English your first language? I mean no disrespect. I will just be more accommodating to your errors if I know you are not a native speaker.

This sentence you posted is nonsensical: “I have found that it is usually to read the bible prior to offering commentary on it.”

Did you make a mistake in typing?

I have found that it is usually to read the bible prior to offering commentary on it.

 

[PRmerger]

The violence in the OT is not part of God’s will, Zipply.

*(Num 21:6 BBE) Then the Lord sent poison-snakes among the people; and their bites were a cause of death to numbers of the people of Israel.
*

It was not part of God’s will that He send serpents to poison His people, tanach.

God was merely responding to the hardness of hearts of the Israelites. They would not listen any other way.

 

[Sky_River]

It was not part of God’s will that He send serpents to poison His people, tanach.

God was merely responding to the hardness of hearts of the Israelites. They would not listen any other way.

In Exodus 32 27, Moses said God told him to kill all of the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf, and there’s no hint in the Bible that God disapproved of his actions. So why are you saying that the OT violence wasnt God’s will?

 

[PRmerger]

In Exodus 32 27, Moses said God told him to kill all of the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf, and there’s no hint in the Bible that God disapproved of his actions. So why are you saying that the OT violence wasnt God’s will?

A violent slaying of one’s evil intentions? Yes, God wills that.

An actual physical slaying of the human person? No, God never wills* that.

From Jimmy Akin : Hard Sayings of the Old Testament

But suppose that he didn’t do this. We mentioned earlier the question
of whether God ever gave this kind of command, and we said that the
answer to this question is either yes or no. To this point, we’ve been
considering what if the answer was yes. But what if it was no?

In this case the commands found in the Pentateuch concerning the
Canaanites would not be meant to be taken in a literal sense. We know
that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well
as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.

Presumably, they would symbolize things like the need to be totally
separate from pagan culture, of how radically incompatible the pagan
lifestyle is with faith in God. On this theory the books of the
Pentateuch would have reached their final form some time after the
events they describe, and these stories about wiping out the Canaanites
(which the Israelites did not actually fulfill; there were still
Canaanites living later) were included to teach the later readers how
they must reject paganism, and that the original audience was meant to
understand the nature of these stories as cautionary tales from which
they were to draw a moral lesson (i.e., don’t be pagan; stick with God).

If this is the case then God never did command the extermination of the
Canaanites and we, because we are not familiar with the way literature
was written at this time, tend to take as literal something that was
never meant to be literal. (It’s certainly not the first time that’s
happened!) It is just that because we live in such a different age and
because our literature works so differently that we don’t easily

*God may permit it, but never wills it.

 

[Gorgias]

In Exodus 32 27, Moses said God told him to kill all of the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf, and there’s no hint in the Bible that God disapproved of his actions. So why are you saying that the OT violence wasnt God’s will?

This is why I think that the statement “God didn’t intend violence” is indefensible. Rather, I think it’s fair to assert “God didn’t intend injustice”. The difference gets to the notion of the effects of sin in this world (see Aquinas for the notion of ‘natural evil’, etc). God interacts with us in a variety of ways – some of these include interacting with us through the world. Necessarily, then, since we’re introducing the fallen world into the equation, there will be times at which the imperfections of the world will make themselves plain in the way those interactions happen.

In the case of Exodus 32:27, the Israelites sinned grievously. God’s judgment fell upon them for their sin, and they were punished. Are you saying that God acted unjustly, or merely that the punishment seems too harsh to you?

 

[clem456]

In Exodus 32 27, Moses said God told him to kill all of the Israelites who worshipped the golden calf, and there’s no hint in the Bible that God disapproved of his actions. So why are you saying that the OT violence wasnt God’s will?

The person of Christ.
How he lived.
What he taught.
The cross.

Do you really believe that God literally commanded the slaughter of unbelievers? Of women and children?
If so, I would suggest that belief is incompatible with the Christian faith.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you really believe that God literally commanded the slaughter of unbelievers? Of women and children?
If so, I would suggest that belief is incompatible with the Christian faith.

Hmm. Is it your claim, then, that everywhere in the Bible that it says (with respect to military actions, and punishments) that “God said this” or “God commanded us to do that”, that it’s not literal? In other words, that either it’s a mistaken interpretation by God’s people in the story, or it’s allegorical?