How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[PRmerger]

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?

We are certainly permitted to believe that it is allegorical and not a literal command to commit genocide.

 

[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. 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.

God told Joshua in Joshua 7:10-12 to kill whoever took the accursed object, which Achan did. Achans family didnt know about that command. So why were they responsible for covering up his sin?

 

[Gorgias]

God told Joshua in Joshua 7:10-12 to kill whoever took the accursed object, which Achan did. Achans family didnt know about that command. So why were they responsible for covering up his sin?

Because they did actually know about the command. Look at Joshua 6:

Joshua said to the people, “Now shout, for the LORD has given you the city. The city and everything in it is under the ban. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are in the house with her are to live, because she hid the messengers we sent. But be careful not to covet or take anything that is under the ban;* otherwise you will bring upon the camp of Israel this ban and the misery of it. All silver and gold, and the articles of bronze or iron, are holy to the LORD. They shall be put in the treasury of the LORD.”

So, they knew, and yet, they aided him in hiding the booty that he had taken, against the command of God, which Joshua had explained to them.

 

[Gorgias]

We are certainly permitted to believe that it is allegorical and not a literal command to commit genocide.

OK, but that doesn’t get you out of the woods. As we can see by Sky River’s ongoing questions, it’s not just “this example is allegorical” or “that story isn’t literal” – if you’re going to make the case that you’re making, then you have to be willing, I think, to say that all of these cases are allegorical. Otherwise, you’re just playing a waiting game and hoping that someone doesn’t mention one that ruins your case.

So – all of God’s commands to perform military acts against ‘innocent’ nations, and all of God’s directions for capital punishment: all of them are allegorical, and never really happened?

 

[PRmerger]

OK, but that doesn’t get you out of the woods. As we can see by Sky River’s ongoing questions, it’s not just “this example is allegorical” or “that story isn’t literal” – if you’re going to make the case that you’re making, then you have to be willing, I think, to say that all of these cases are allegorical. Otherwise, you’re just playing a waiting game and hoping that someone doesn’t mention one that ruins your case.

So – all of God’s commands to perform military acts against ‘innocent’ nations, and all of God’s directions for capital punishment: all of them are allegorical, and never really happened?

Yes, we can say that ALL of them are allegorical. And that would still be consonant with Catholic teaching.

And by “allegorical” that doesn’t mean it “never really happened”.

If we say, “We’re going to slaughter the other team on the soccer field, girls!” And we do. Allegorically.

That doesn’t mean that we didn’t actually win by a landslide.

It actually happened.

And it was allegorical.

Both/And.

 

[catholictiger]

Respond like Pope Benedict XVI in his document Verbum Domini. This may have been brought up but it needs to be shown again.

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.

I think the best way to respond to this is to acknowledge that these passages are very problematic. Don’t try to say oh God didn’t inspire dark passages, God is ok with violence in the Old Testament, along with other justifications. Be honest say this doesn’t make sense.

If you are able to recognize that there are dark passages that are hard to explain I think you can gain some respect with atheists. Of Course be able to explain how you still believe God is behind the writing of the scriptures and it is still God’s word.

The Church remains very silent how to interpret dark passages, she leaves it to exegetes to explain them, and scholars and pastors to interpret these in the light of Christ.

I may respond to some of the passages, but above is how the Church calls us to approach these passages.

 

[Gorgias]

And by “allegorical” that doesn’t mean it “never really happened”.

If we say, “We’re going to slaughter the other team on the soccer field, girls!” And we do. Allegorically.

That doesn’t mean that we didn’t actually win by a landslide.

It actually happened.

And it was allegorical.

Both/And.

Erm… so, when we read that God commanded the Israelites to overthrow a Canaanite city, and placed it all ‘under the ban’ and doomed all the people within… He really meant “win by a landslide, guys! Go team!”…?

That doesn’t make sense. But, since you’re claiming allegory, perhaps you can help me out. After all, allegory means that something happened, although not literally as if on the face of the text. So: when we read these things in the OT, what is it that you’re saying that God really did command? What is it that you’re saying that the Israelites really did, such that it met with favor from God?

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, we can say that ALL of them are allegorical. And that would still be consonant with Catholic teaching.

And by “allegorical” that doesn’t mean it “never really happened”.

If we say, “We’re going to slaughter the other team on the soccer field, girls!” And we do. Allegorically.

That doesn’t mean that we didn’t actually win by a landslide.

It actually happened.

And it was allegorical.

Both/And.

Is this allegorical?

Deuteronomy 20
When you draw near a city to attack it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and lets you in, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead joins battle with you, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your power, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and anything else in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder for yourselves, and you may enjoy this spoil of your enemies, which the LORD, your God, has given you.That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to these nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive.

Hosea 1

for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed at Jezreel and bring to an end the kingdom of the house of Israel;

compare this to 2 kings 9

Jehu got up and went into the house. Then the prophet’s aide poured the oil on his head and said, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: I anoint you king over the people of the LORD, over Israel. You shall destroy the house of Ahab your master; thus will I avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the other servants of the LORD shed by Jezebel. The whole house of Ahab shall perish: I will cut off from Ahab’s line every male, whether bond or free in Israel. I will make the house of Ahab like that of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and like that of Baasha, son of Ahijah. In the confines of Jezreel, the dogs shall devour Jezebel so that no one can bury her.” Then he opened the door and fled.

God commanded them to shed blood at Jezreel but now they are punished for doing what God commanded them?

This can be explained away by allegory?

I could list other passages it is all over the place, how can we as Catholics make sense of this?

no disrespect but just saying every problematic passage is allegory, is a light version of what Benedict said not to do.

 

[clem456]

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?

I claim nothing.
Please read Benedict’s statement that has been referenced several times throughout the thread.

 

[Sky_River]

Because they did actually know about the command. Look at Joshua 6:

So, they knew, and yet, they aided him in hiding the booty that he had taken, against the command of God, which Joshua had explained to them.

I understand that Achan and his family were punished for crimes. But there are a few other Old Testament verses that confuse me, in 2nd Kings. Why did God want Jehu to kill Ahabs family, and Josiah to kill the priests of other religions?

 

[PRmerger]

Erm… so, when we read that God commanded the Israelites to overthrow a Canaanite city, and placed it all ‘under the ban’ and doomed all the people within… He really meant “win by a landslide, guys! Go team!”…?

Wow. That’s a little ridiculous application of my analogy.

You would be like one of Jesus’ disciples, in response to Jesus saying that He is the door, telling Christ, “Do you really mean that you’re stiff as a board? And that you can swing back and forth?”

See the metaphor and its applications without the absurdity, Gorgias.

That doesn’t make sense. But, since you’re claiming allegory, perhaps you can help me out. After all, allegory means that something happened, although not literally as if on the face of the text. So: when we read these things in the OT, what is it that you’re saying that God really did command? What is it that you’re saying that the Israelites really did, such that it met with favor from God?

There are a multitude of ways that we could interpret God’s command to exterminate an entire race of people, and understand it to not be a literal slaughter.

One way would be: God wanted them to banish/expel/push out all the idol worshippers.

 

[clem456]

Please, if Catholics don’t want to invest the time to read Verbum Domini, or the Catechism, or even just section 42 of Verbum Domini, please let just these two sentences sink in.

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.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow. That’s a little ridiculous application of my analogy.

LOL… it’s called ‘hyperbole’.

You would be like one of Jesus’ disciples, in response to Jesus saying that He is the door, telling Christ, “Do you really mean that you’re stiff as a board? And that you can swing back and forth?”

True – but what I’m asking is whether you’re literally claiming that none of these things literally happened.

There are a multitude of ways that we could interpret God’s command to exterminate an entire race of people, and understand it to not be a literal slaughter.

One way would be: God wanted them to banish/expel/push out all the idol worshippers.

OK – so, in all cases, your claim is that military action (which implies being an aggressor against an ‘innocent’ nation, and killing (at the very least) enemy combatants) was not what God literally commanded?

 

[Gorgias]

Please, if Catholics don’t want to invest the time to read Verbum Domini, or the Catechism, or even just section 42 of Verbum Domini, please let just these two sentences sink in.

Clem,

These “two sentences” don’t make the claim that “it’s all allegory”, as has been presented here. Or, are you claiming that this is precisely what’s being said here?

If we understand the historical-cultural context, we’ll understand that this was well within the moral code of the day, as understood by the people living in that context. That seems to make a claim for historicity, not allegory.

You’re right, though – I need to go back and re-read the essays by Ratzinger that you recommended; yet, (and perhaps I’m speaking too early) I somehow doubt he’s saying “it’s all allegorical, folks”…

 

[PRmerger]

Is this allegorical?

Deuteronomy 20
When you draw near a city to attack it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and lets you in, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead joins battle with you, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your power, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and anything else in the city—all its spoil—you may take as plunder for yourselves, and you may enjoy this spoil of your enemies, which the LORD, your God, has given you.That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to these nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive.

Hosea 1

for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed at Jezreel and bring to an end the kingdom of the house of Israel;

compare this to 2 kings 9

Jehu got up and went into the house. Then the prophet’s aide poured the oil on his head and said, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: I anoint you king over the people of the LORD, over Israel. You shall destroy the house of Ahab your master; thus will I avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the other servants of the LORD shed by Jezebel. The whole house of Ahab shall perish: I will cut off from Ahab’s line every male, whether bond or free in Israel. I will make the house of Ahab like that of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and like that of Baasha, son of Ahijah. In the confines of Jezreel, the dogs shall devour Jezebel so that no one can bury her.” Then he opened the door and fled.

God commanded them to shed blood at Jezreel but now they are punished for doing what God commanded them?

This can be explained away by allegory?

Yes, I believe so. This is certainly permissible.

no disrespect but just saying every problematic passage is allegory, is a light version of what Benedict said not to do.

Where does he say that? I see him saying not to neglect the dark passages, but I haven’t read where he says: you cannot see every dark passage as allegory.

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”

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, I believe so. This is certainly permissible.

Where does he say that? I see him saying not to neglect the dark passages, but I haven’t read where he says: you cannot see every dark passage as allegory.

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”

ok let’s go with his allegory interpretation

what truth could he possibly be trying to show through the writer who says, kill all who are under the ban?

Deuteronomy 20 is a command from Moses not some story meant to be taken as allegory. If I was a Israelite about to attack the promise land, I would read those words of Moses not as allegory but as actually commanded by Moses, speaking on behalf of the Lord. Meaning that I believe God is actually commanding me to kill all those under the ban. I don’t see how you can interpret Deuteronomy 20 in a way that allows you to take it as allegory. Deuteronomy is a command for future actions.

Hosea is problematic for a few reasons.

1. The prophet Hosea told the Israelites that they were going to be exiled from Jerusalem because of the action in Jezreel.
2. when you look at the story of the killing of people in Jezeel, it appears that it was commanded by God. The prophet said, thus says the Lord, meaning he is speaking as if God said this directly to him. Allegory or not, Hosea is saying God is going to punish them for something that he commanded them through a prophet. A very clear contradiction that saying this is allegory can’t explain away.

I didn’t say Benedict said that I’m saying you seem to be approaching the bible that every time we hit a problematic passage apply allegory to it. That is a way of ignoring it but not fully ignoring it.

Again I don’t see how Deuteronomy 20 can be taken as allegory. This was a command, how can that be taken as allegory.

let me rephrase

by putting a universal way to intemperate every dark passage, is neglecting this passage. You have to look into every single passage and say, what was the intention of the Author of this passage, what did God intend to revel to the Israelites in this passage, and finally how does shining the light of Christ on this passage change how we interoperate this passage.

 

[clem456]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
Please note that “literal” and literalist are not the same thing.
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[clem456]

Clem,

These “two sentences” don’t make the claim that “it’s all allegory”, as has been presented here. Or, are you claiming that this is precisely what’s being said here?

If we understand the historical-cultural context, we’ll understand that this was well within the moral code of the day, as understood by the people living in that context. That seems to make a claim for historicity, not allegory.

You’re right, though – I need to go back and re-read the essays by Ratzinger that you recommended; yet, (and perhaps I’m speaking too early) I somehow doubt he’s saying “it’s all allegorical, folks”…

I’m not making a claim.
You seem to think the reading of scripture is an either-or proposition.
It’s either rigidly literalist, or “it’s all allegory” as you say above. No one is making that claim.
The Church interprets Scripture in light of the person of Christ. It’s that simple and that challenging.

 

[catholictiger]

I need to clarify

what I believe Benedict is warning against is putting a universal law on how to interpret certain passages. For example, every time God orders the killing of innocent people it is allegory. Maybe I’m wrong but from a quick glance that looks like someone who believes in God believes he is good and doesn’t kill the innocent, but that reads commands to kill the innocent, and instead of trying to figure out what is going on in the passage, resorts to calling it allegory to protect his idea of God. This is neglecting the interpretation of scripture.

We must take every single passage of scripture with great care, trying first to understand the historical context, their intention in Writing, and how we are to understand it in the light of christ.

This is what the Church has asked us to do, not to give universal rules of how to interoperate problematic passages.

For example:

I may be correct to say the Flood is allegorical
but not correct to say the command of Herem warfare is allegorical.

I’m not saying these are accurate but something like this could happen.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL… it’s called ‘hyperbole’.

What you are doing is, interestingly, applying a, er, *literal *interpretation of my metaphor.

That’s not hyperbole.

Just like Nicodemus who asked Jesus: what do you mean you have to be born again? How can I climb back into my mother’s womb?

He was not using hyperbole. He was being literal and unable to think in the abstract.