How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[Gorgias]

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.

Nope, not at all. Personally, I believe that there are places in the Scriptures that are historical narrative, and other places that are purely allegorical.

clem456:

“it’s all allegory” as you say above. No one is making that claim.

Actually, that’s not true:

PRmerger:

Yes, we can say that ALL of them are allegorical.

clem456:

The Church interprets Scripture in light of the person of Christ.

Agreed. The question I’m asking is whether that interpretation requires us to say that all instances of violence and killing (described as “at God’s command” by the OT) are allegorical. I think it does not; at the very least, PRmerger (if not others) think that it does require us to make that statement.

 

[clem456]

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.

It seems the standard reception of truth contained in these passages is “take sin out at it’s root”. That is the sharp edged sword that scripture can bring to our lives.
It can also convey the truth that God was patient with our ancestors, even as we misunderstood him and committed evil in his sight.
Isn’t it interesting that God patiently endured all this folly for thousands of years, and when he gave us his only and final Word, that Word refused to pick up a sword. The life of that Word should instruct us.

Do you see the problem with rigidly accepting the literalist representation of God’s will in commanding slaughter?

1. It’s completely incompatible with the person of Christ
   (There really isn’t any other problem of consequence aside of #1. but for the sake of discussion)…
2. The misunderstanding of who God is. Any representation of God that is less than the full truth does a disservice to those we are evangelizing. This is not to say the authors are “liars”. They simply knew God in a less full way. They were human beings who lived in a time and place and knew what they knew. Inspiration is =/= to literalist infallibility. We know Christ, the ancients did not.
   If God’s nature is fundamentally misunderstood all sorts of evil can be justified in his name. (See Terry Jones who believes he is doing God’s will and can “prove it”.)
3. Anyone who is looking in from outside the Church can see the inconsistency between who we claim God to be, and who the fundamentalist interpretation of the OT claims God is. If we insist on representing two gods, we drive people away from the Church. They know better and we do them no favors by reinforcing incorrect perceptions.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Sigh. PR, I was using hyperbole. Trust me… I know what I was thinking when I wrote it.

You may not have recognized it as such, and you may think I’m being unreasonable, but trust me: I was going over the top in my description. (And, to tell you the truth, it was because I really didn’t believe that you were saying that it’s all allegory. You shocked me when you made that claim explicitly. I think that this isn’t supported by Church teaching – to say that there’s an absolute lack of literal historicity as found in the (ahem) “Historical Books of the OT”. )

Now, you might make the claim that the Israelites misinterpreted God’s commands, or spun them in ways that God didn’t intend; that argument can be made (but I think it tends to fail, when made as an absolute and over-arching statement). You might claim that the Israelites, too, used hyperbole in their descriptions (the old, 1960s-era exegete’s claim that the Israelites never really told the truth, but just strung together colorful ‘tall tales’ or ‘fables’), but that, too, fails when used absolutely. I’m just not seeing how we can say, in an absolute way, that these passages are all allegory. As has been pointed out, if that’s our interpretation, then the “dark passages” aren’t dark at all; they’re just untroubling allegory that’s being interpreted incorrectly by some. That’s not what the Church has to say about them, though…

 

[Gorgias]

"clem456:

I’m not making a claim.

Do you see the problem with rigidly accepting the literalist representation of God’s will in commanding slaughter?

So… you’re making the claim that, when God commands ‘holy war’ or ‘haram’ or ‘under the ban’ or ‘doom’ warfare, it’s never the case that God literally did so?

(Can you see why I’m thinking that, yes, you are making a claim (even if implicitly)?)

 

[PRmerger]

Sigh. PR, I was using hyperbole. Trust me… I know what I was thinking when I wrote it.

You were being literal. Like Nicodemus.

Incidentally, (and I don’t think this is a coincidence at all), I returned to a podcast about 5 minutes ago, and as I pressed “play”, listen to what I heard Trent Horn say, explaining the hard passages of the OT.

catholic.com/radio/shows/why-arent-you-christian-11559#
Listen at about 9:20
“They may not be literal”.
And then he gives a sports example of slaughtering the other team.

QED

 

[Gorgias]

It seems the standard reception of truth contained in these passages is “take sin out at it’s root”.

This, I think, is an excellent summary of how the Church would see the “literal sense” of these Scriptures. Recall that the “literal sense” is not the answer to “what happened historically?” but rather, the answer to “what did the author intend? What is God trying to tell us here?”

That’s valuable to us as Christians: after all, it’s asking what God wants us to understand from His Word!

Yet, other questions remain: among them is the question of historicity. To say that some narratives are allegorical makes sense; to say that none are (or that none of the troubling ones are), makes a claim that the Church does not make with respect to Scripture.

 

[clem456]

Nope, not at all. Personally, I believe that there are places in the Scriptures that are historical narrative, and other places that are purely allegorical.

Of course. The litmus test is the life and person of Christ re Church teaching.

Agreed. The question I’m asking is whether that interpretation requires us to say that all instances of violence and killing (described as “at God’s command” by the OT) are allegorical. I think it does not; at the very least, PRmerger (if not others) think that it does require us to make that statement.

No. You are misunderstanding what is being said. You are hung up on either/or, all/none. The Church has spent the last 2000 years studying scripture, studying ancient cultures, ancient languages, ancient ways of thinking. Not all cultures used the same methods to convey truth.

If scripture is all either/or, the Church would have no reason to study scripture. Why does the Church bother to continually study these things?

 

[catholictiger]

It seems the standard reception of truth contained in these passages is “take sin out at it’s root”.

The spiritual interpretation that is certainly true but what does the passage command?

There is a problem with trying to say that this is an allegory and only means that Moses is trying to say take out sin at it’s root

there are instances when God punishes the Israelites because they don’t kill everything, and take spoils from those who are in the ban. If Moses command is to be taken as literal why would God punish people for allowing the innocent to live or no destroying all of their possessions?

Do you see the problem with rigidly accepting the literalist representation of God’s will in commanding slaughter?

I’m not doing this, what I’m saying you have to look at the literal interpretation of the passage.

Is Moses commanding the people to kill everything that breaths? Or is this allegory.

I believe when you do your interpretation homework it is to be taken as he is actually commanding this. Not that he all of a sudden is talking allegorical and you don’t really have to kill everyone.

1. It’s completely incompatible with the person of Christ
   (There really isn’t any other problem of consequence aside of #1. but for the sake of discussion)…

Yes but just because this is true doesn’t mean that this is a wrong interpretation. It is possible that Moses incorrectly interpreted God’s own words to him. This is why we must understand three things

1. what was the intention of the author
2. what is the intention of God
3. how do we see this in light of christ.

1. The misunderstanding of who God is. Any representation of God that is less than the full truth does a disservice to those we are evangelizing. This is not to say the authors are “liars”. They simply knew God in a less full way. They were human beings who lived in a time and place and knew what they knew. Inspiration is =/= to literalist infallibility. We know Christ, the ancients did not.
   If God’s nature is fundamentally misunderstood all sorts of evil can be justified in his name. (See Terry Jones who believes he is doing God’s will and can “prove it”.)

see my three things

1. Anyone who is looking in from outside the Church can see the inconsistency between who we claim God to be, and who the fundamentalist interpretation of the OT claims God is. If we insist on representing two gods, we drive people away from the Church. They know better and we do them no favors by reinforcing incorrect perceptions.

see my three things. we shouldn’t interpret scriptures to satisfy those looking in. What matters is what is the truth contained in the scriptures not fit scripture into our own view of the scriptures so we can bring people into the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

You were being literal.

Thanks, PR. I always appreciate it when people helpfully tell me what I was really thinking, especially when I thought I was thinking something different.

Incidentally, (and I don’t think this is a coincidence at all), I returned to a podcast about 5 minutes ago, and as I pressed “play”, listen to what I heard Trent Horn say, explaining the hard passages of the OT.

catholic.com/radio/shows/why-arent-you-christian-11559#
Listen at about 9:20
“They may not be literal”.
And then he gives a sports example of slaughtering the other team.

QED

“They may not be literal” is worlds away from “they are all allegorical”. QED? Not by a long shot.

 

[clem456]

This, I think, is an excellent summary of how the Church would see the “literal sense” of these Scriptures. Recall that the “literal sense” is not the answer to “what happened historically?” but rather, the answer to “what did the author intend? What is God trying to tell us here?”

That’s valuable to us as Christians: after all, it’s asking what God wants us to understand from His Word!

Yet, other questions remain: among them is the question of historicity. To say that some narratives are allegorical makes sense; **to say that none are **(or that none of the troubling ones are), makes a claim that the Church does not make with respect to Scripture.

No one is making that claim. Of course the scriptures are the history of our people. The Gospels are historical, but the truth they convey is not merely historical in nature.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks, PR. I always appreciate it when people helpfully tell me what I was really thinking, especially when I thought I was thinking something different.

You can call it what you want, Gorgias. Nicodemus could have said, “Sheesh, Lord, I was using hyperbole–haha!” but the question demonstrates an inability to think in the abstract. An “I don’t get it. How can you say this? If you say it, then it necessarily means…[fill in the blank]” type of obtuseness. And we all know that he wasn’t being hyperbolic. Even if he were to call it that.

“They may not be literal” is worlds away from “they are all allegorical”. QED? Not by a long shot.

Well, if they are not literal, then they are…allegorical, no?

 

[clem456]

Is Moses commanding the people to kill everything that breaths? Or is this allegory.

I believe when you do your interpretation homework it is to be taken as he is actually commanding this. Not that he all of a sudden is talking allegorical and you don’t really have to kill everyone.

In the literal sense of Scripture, Moses commands the killing of everything that breathes.
It is also literal that Moses imputes to God the motivation and desire to see this killing carried out. He writes these things down. The bible is a work of inspired literature. The words are there. No one is disputing that the events happened.

It is simply vital to interpret the words in the context in which they were written. The author lived in a cultural context (Verbum Domini) that understood God within that context. This does not nullify the words, but rather allows us to see their their fullest meaning, in the light of Christ (Verbum Domini). The word of God lives and breathes (inspira), it is not cemented in the facts of 4000 years ago.

And in response to Gorgias question ( I have to get some work done ),
yes I do believe the Church not only permits but encourages us to believe that…
wherever God is portrayed as commanding the slaughter of one people by another, we are asked to look at those passages in the light of Christ for the full inspiration.
You have to do an intricate dance to get around the Church’s exhortation to read these passages with Christ.

 

[catholictiger]

In the literal sense of Scripture, Moses commands the killing of everything that breathes.
It is also literal that Moses imputes to God the motivation and desire to see this killing carried out. He writes these things down. The bible is a work of inspired literature. The words are there. No one is disputing that the events happened.

It is simply vital to interpret the words in the context in which they were written. The author lived in a cultural context (Verbum Domini) that understood God within that context. This does not nullify the words, but rather allows us to see their their fullest meaning, in the light of Christ (Verbum Domini). The word of God lives and breathes (inspira), it is not cemented in the facts of 4000 years ago.

Yes I agree, but that previous post you were saying because I tried to understand what the intention of the author was I was in error. I put me under a literalistic interpreter of scripture. I never did this.

What was the intention of Moses (or who ever wrote this down)
What is God trying to show in this passage to the Israelites (I think root out evil at it’s wrote is good)
How do we see this in the light of Christ.

I think even a more problematic passage that we can now discuss is.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. 2Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

1 Sam 15

How do we make sense of this?

I don’t think allegory helps us do this.

Did God really command Saul to kill infants?

 

[clem456]

Yes I agree, but that previous post you were saying because I tried to understand what the intention of the author was I was in error. I put me under a literalistic interpreter of scripture. I never did this.

I apologize, I misread the point of your other post then.

What was the intention of Moses (or who ever wrote this down)
What is God trying to show in this passage to the Israelites (I think root out evil at it’s wrote is good)
How do we see this in the light of Christ.

I think even a more problematic passage that we can now discuss is.

1 Sam 15
Quote:
Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish what Am′alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Am′alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.’”
How do we make sense of this?

I don’t think allegory helps us do this.

Did God really command Saul to kill infants?

No. How could it be compatible with God’s nature?

Still, the words have inspired meaning for us today…sin must be rooted out. We must spare no effort. Christ himself is the best example. He spared nothing in redeeming us from sin, even to the point of his own death. But he did not pick up a sword against anyone, or command anyone else to. So the inspired Truth is larger than the literalist words of the ancient author.

 

[catholictiger]

I apologize, I misread the point of your other post then.

No. How could it be compatible with God’s nature?

Still, the words have inspired meaning for us today…sin must be rooted out. We must spare no effort. Christ himself is the best example. He spared nothing in redeeming us from sin, even to the point of his own death. But he did not pick up a sword against anyone, or command anyone else to. So the inspired Truth is larger than the literalist words of the ancient author.

yes of-course but, how do we understand this passage?

The Prophet Samuel said that God commanded something we believe is against the nature of God. These words are held as the Word of God.

How you interpret this has a huge impact on biblical inspiration, inerrancy and many other things.

How do we make sense of what Samuel said.He said God commanded this, so the problem is if you say that God can’t command this then you are saying Samuel is wrong, but that would seem to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures, the inerrancy of the scriptures etc.

There are answers to all of these questions. The Church is silent but there are ways to interpret this passage in light of Christ.

My whole point to my discussion of this, is that we can give blanket statements to certain passages in the scripture. We agin have to know three things

1. the intention of the Author.
2. the intention of God
3. how we understand it in light of Christ

Bellow is my own opinion and doesn’t have to be held

I believe Samuel actually believed he was saying what God wanted him to say. Meaning Samuel believed the command of God was to kill all those who opposed Israel and may lead them into sin. Meaning the Author of Samuel believed that God wills the utter destruction of the enemies of Israel especially those who worship false Gods.

God doesn’t actually will this but he has not fully reveled himself to Samuel even though in Israel no-one knows God more and understands god more than Samuel. When you interpret this in light of Christ, we understand that the Israelites didn’t fully understand who God is, because he hasn’t fully reveled himself. So their understanding how God works isn’t how we understand him. They believed that it was ok to kill infants because they were enemies of Isreal and that is what God commanded them to do. But, because of their incomplete understanding of God and his nature, they incorrectly interpreted God’s commands for them.

Usually the way it works in the Old Testament is that a prophet speaks on behalf of God. You will never see the voice of God itself actually telling someone to utterly destroy people. When they are commanded to kill people it is because the Prophet said God commanded it. It is possible that the prophets didn’t interpret the commands of God correctly and their interpretation was lacking.

This is difficult to understand, and because of that we can’t use blanket statements when it comes to scripture it is to complicated to do that.

 

[clem456]

yes of-course but, how do we understand this passage?

The Prophet Samuel said that God commanded something we believe is against the nature of God. These words are held as the Word of God.

How you interpret this has a huge impact on biblical inspiration, inerrancy and many other things.

How do we make sense of what Samuel said.He said God commanded this, so the problem is if you say that God can’t command this then you are saying Samuel is wrong, but that would seem to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures, the inerrancy of the scriptures etc.

There are answers to all of these questions. The Church is silent but there are ways to interpret this passage in light of Christ.

My whole point to my discussion of this, is that we can give blanket statements to certain passages in the scripture. We agin have to know three things

1. the intention of the Author.
2. the intention of God
3. how we understand it in light of Christ

Bellow is my own opinion and doesn’t have to be held

I believe Samuel actually believed he was saying what God wanted him to say. Meaning Samuel believed the command of God was to kill all those who opposed Israel and may lead them into sin. Meaning the Author of Samuel believed that God wills the utter destruction of the enemies of Israel especially those who worship false Gods.

God doesn’t actually will this but he has not fully reveled himself to Samuel even though in Israel no-one knows God more and understands god more than Samuel. When you interpret this in light of Christ, we understand that the Israelites didn’t fully understand who God is, because he hasn’t fully reveled himself. So their understanding how God works isn’t how we understand him. They believed that it was ok to kill infants because they were enemies of Isreal and that is what God commanded them to do. But, because of their incomplete understanding of God and his nature, they incorrectly interpreted God’s commands for them.

Usually the way it works in the Old Testament is that a prophet speaks on behalf of God. You will never see the voice of God itself actually telling someone to utterly destroy people. When they are commanded to kill people it is because the Prophet said God commanded it. It is possible that the prophets didn’t interpret the commands of God correctly and their interpretation was lacking.

This is difficult to understand, and because of that we can’t use blanket statements when it comes to scripture it is to complicated to do that.

I agree with what you say completely. I misunderstood something a few posts ago.

The authors believed what they wrote. God inspired them to write what they wrote. The bible is a work of inspired literature.

I think the key is to understand what the words inspired and inerrant mean. They do not equate to rigid factual historicity. The authors are not robots or tape recorders and do not write in a trance with God moving the pen.

 

[catholictiger]

I agree with what you say completely. I misunderstood something a few posts ago.

The authors believed what they wrote. God inspired them to write what they wrote. The bible is a work of inspired literature.

I think the key is to understand what the words inspired and inerrant mean. They do not equate to rigid factual historicity. The authors are not robots or tape recorders and do not write in a trance with God moving the pen.

yes

glad we now understand each other. God Bless.

sorry if I wasn’t clear.

 

[tanachanswers]

You are making no sense.

Is English your first language?

Nope, i speak American, some Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, AmSlam, Mandrin, ect.

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?

Not in the least. The problem with most people is that they do not look up the verse(s) and just quote from memory. And of course adding in a little unwritten commentary as they do it. It would be much easier just looking up the verse(s) and stating only what the bible really says.

 

[tanachanswers]

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?

(Eze 18:10 BBE) If he has a son who is a thief, a taker of life, who does any of these things,
(Eze 18:11 BBE) Who has taken flesh with the blood as food, and has had connection with his neighbour’s wife,
(Eze 18:12 BBE) Has done wrong to the poor and to him who is in need, and taken property by force, and has not given back to one in his debt what is his, and has given worship to images and has done disgusting things,
(Eze 18:13 BBE) And has given out his money at interest and taken great profits: he will certainly not go on living: he has done all these disgusting things: death will certainly be his fate; his blood will be on him.

It would appear that his family was not righteous either.

 

[Sky_River]

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.

Why did God want them to take women and children as slaves? I understand that God wanted the Israelites to wipe out the Caananites because they were wicked people who did child sacrifice and things like that, but why did civilized people who didnt belong to the Cananite tribes and werent wicked like them, need to be wiped out and taken as slaves?