New vs. Old testament

[mrunicycler]

How do we, as Catholics, justify a just God when non-believers want to know about the teachings of Jesus regarding (Matthew 5:43) ‘love your enemies…’, when compared with the teachings of the Book of Law, where in Deuteronomy we are taught that the Lord commanded that, (Deut. 20:16) ‘…of the cities of these peoples, that Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,’ and in Joshua (6:21), ‘they devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old…’?

 

[otm]

One of the first things to remember is that God’s revelation of himself to us, and of our relationship with him, was revealed over time, culminating in Jesus. In the early OT, God revealed himself as much as he chose, and (I presume) as much as the Chosen People were able to absorb. So if it appears that vengence, mayhem and murder were condoned by God, perhaps a different perspective on the same issue would say that God had only revealed as much as they were able to comprehend. Further, one needs to keep in mind that, as God had only revealed some of himself, the Chosen People were not too good at living out what little he taught to that point. They were not called “stiff-necked” for no reason.

Further, in a careful reading, it would appear that they literally wiped ouyt some groups; but later, one finds idividuals of some of those groups still around. The operative word seems to be hyperbole.

 

[mrunicycler]

I’ve actually debated something along those lines with many of my non-Christian friends in different arguments, and the answer they’d give me to that would be something along the lines of, “How is your God moral if he condones such behavior in, of all people, his chosen people?” I have to admit that I’ve struggled with the issues of morality in regards to some of the Old Testament. How can I ever defend the killing of babies?

 

[otm]

mrunicycler:

I’ve actually debated something along those lines with many of my non-Christian friends in different arguments, and the answer they’d give me to that would be something along the lines of, “How is your God moral if he condones such behavior in, of all people, his chosen people?” I have to admit that I’ve struggled with the issues of morality in regards to some of the Old Testament. How can I ever defend the killing of babies?

Again, the issue is cast often in terms of God’s revelation of Himself, as if it was all revealed in one fell swoop, rather than God’s continuing revelation of Himself to a group (I think He called them “stiff necked” through one of the psalmists) who often didn’t get it. Morality, too, did not spring up full bloomed; if it did, there would be no need for Christ, and the many moral lessons he gave us.

A literal reading would have us believe form one section that whole groups were anihilated by the Jews; further reading would have members of that group showing up later, which is in direct contradiction to complete anihilation. Hyperbole is used in various sections of the Bible; failure to understand that leads to some interesting conclusions.

That the Jews as Chosen People did not have the fullness of truth in Christ should be obvious. The arguments you get into are with those who do’t realize that. Tribal warfare was not a pretty business. To assume that God literally commanded them to kill innocents is to take a very literalist approach to the Bible. It doesn’t work very well.

And by the way, where in the Bible does it say that everything therein is to be taken literally?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**When you live, every breath you take, is a gift from God. You are not entitled to it. Neither are you entitled, after receiving the gift of life, to continue to receive it according to YOUR will. It is God’s will whether you live or die, and if God ceases to stop giving the gift of life to you, for his own reasons, he is not unjust in doing so. He is the Lord of life, not anyone else. **

**Killing is wrong precisely because it is a violation of rights of God, the Lord of life. When you understand the reason killing is wrong, then when God decides to wipe out all the living things on the earth excepting Noah and his family, then you understand that his choice to cease giving his gift, is not and can never be unjust. **

**Gifts are called gifts because they are gratuitous, and never owed. Think of a teenager demanding $20 from the parent on the basis that the parent gave him a gift of $20 last week. Is it unjust that I give a gift one week, but decide, for my own financial reasons which I don’t necessarily share with my teenager, not to give him a monetary gift the next week? **

I think many have come to take God’s gifts for granted, and now think of them as entitlements, something owed to us. Somehow God OWES me life, and it is unjust of the gift-giver to stop giving his gift!!! Imagine the gall of the Giver of Life to not get my approval or explain to be why he ceased to give HIS gifts!!!

**You must stop thinking of life as some kind of entitlement, as if God owed you or anybody else such a gift. **

See more here:

God sometimes ordered Hebrews to wipe out a city. Was it immoral? - View

 

[mrunicycler]

To OTM:

If we aren’t careful when we decide to take the Bible literally, then doesn’t it lose a hint of its authenticity? I mean, if the Bible doesn’t give us a direct command to understand a certain passage as hyperbole or metaphor (as Jesus sometimes does), then shouldn’t we take It literally? To do anything else leaves much interpreting to be done by whoever is reading It at the time, and begins to cast the entire Work in a light of suspicion. What I mean is, if I can’t take It literally when It says, “kill every living thing,” then how do I know I can take It literally when it says, “love your enemy as yourself”? To use an example that itsjustdave may appreciate, I know that 4+4=8 because I’ve learned in elementary school that 2+2=4. If 2+2 equaling 4 is suddenly put into doubt, then I have begin to question not only 4+4=8, but also the entire math book, and possibly my entire Catholic school.

The Jewish community (at least, the small part of it I’m familiar with) doesn’t seem to have much in the way of getting hung up on the literalness of Deuteronomy when it’s speaking of killing innocents. Not to say that they’re proud of it, but they seem to accept that it was part of their history, it was a command from God, and so it was done. Because for them Jesus didn’t come onto the seen, they don’t have the dichotomy of Good God/Jealous God that we have to deal with, and to explain it away as, “Don’t take that part too seriously,” is treading on dangerous ground for all parts of the Bible.
It seems more proper to me to try understand the Bible as it’s written, to take those parts that are expressly stated to be hyperbole as such, but not to twist it’s words so that our conscience is made to feel better at the end of the day.

You ask me where does it say to take it literally. I’ll ask you where it says not to (except for those few those few passages where an hyperbole is told, and the hyperbole ends).

You tell me that morality did not spring up full bloom. I ask you where do you get your morals? From the New Testament only? Where in the Bible does is tell us to take parts of it as Gospel, but not to burden our souls with those parts that may trouble us.

I’m sorry to come across so strongly, but it wouldn’t be written in the Bible if it weren’t supposed to be read and taken seriously. I mean, take it or leave it, but don’t take it out of context.

 

[mrunicycler]

To itsjsutdave:

While I’m not going to argue that life is a gift from God, please understand that killing someone is more like the parent giving the kid a $20, and then taking it back. Is it right to give your child a $20 bill, and then decide for your own financial reasons which you don’t share with your teenager, to take it back?

I completely agree that people have taken life for granted. Every moment that passes is a moment that has slipped away. How many seconds have each of us wasted in front of one tele when we could have been talking to our mom or dad on another? How many opportunities do each of us miss in this life to spend a minute with our friends?

I don’t remember implying or saying or thinking that God owed me life. I don’t remember wanting an explanation for God deciding to kill people. What I wanted was an understanding of how I can justify some of the Old Testament given what is said in the New. If God wants to take a life, he does, no questions. But how can I justify a man standing over an innocent baby with a sword or bootheel, and snuffing out its life because of the Law that God had spoken when a few hundred pages later I’m reading, “love your enemy as yourself”?

I have to question my beliefs when I may one day be faced with a God who will tell me to kill an innocent baby. If God wants that life snuffed, then let it go the way of Elijah. As for me and my house…?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

"If God wants to take a life, he does, no questions. "

Good! Now take the next step. If God commands Abraham to kill his son, can such a command be unjust? God is the life-giver. He can stop giving it (directly) or command others as the instrument of His Divine Will, right? Where’s the injustice if God’s will be done by either means?

“love your enemy as yourself”?

We do love our enemy as we love ourselves when we obey God’s command, and place all things in accord with His Divine Providence.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

While I’m not going to argue that life is a gift from God, please understand that killing someone is more like the parent giving the kid a $20, and then taking it back.

I disagree in the instance where God commands the act. The $20 in this analogy is the breath already given and breathed. It is never taken back. Future breaths are that which is witheld when God chooses, as the life-giver, to cease giving life. Whether God produces the effect directly, through his creation, such as St. Michael the Archangel’s sword, or through the use of others as his Divine instrument, the measure of justice is always relative to whether God’s Will be done. There’s no dichotomy between the justice and mercy of God, either in the OT or the NT, or when comparing the two testaments.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps some perspective of the wrath of God from the NT may help understand that the dichotomy presented between the OT and NT is false…

“The revelation of Jesus Christ… he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. … I will come to you soon and war against them… Behold, I will throw [Jez’ebel] on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead.” (Revelation 1:1, 7; 2:16; )

I wonder what all the wailing will be about? It seems to me, the Lord is the Lord of Justice as well as mercy, not merely the latter.

We still have a rather wrathful God.