Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[clem456]

Did anyone else hear Steve Ray’s response to the question about the slaying of the Amalekite women and children in Exodus?
I couldn’t believe what I heard from a Catholic apologist. This kind of weak apology for slaughter of innocents should be rejected by Catholics.

Perhaps he has never read Pope Benedict’s discussion of the “dark passages” of the Old Testament in Verbum Domini.

 

[Gorgias]

Nope, didn’t catch it. What’d he say?

 

[petra22]

wondering what he said…

 

[Robyn_p]

wondering what he said…

Me too.

 

[clem456]

I’ll do my best. I just about broke my steering wheel when I heard Ray’s answer to this question so the precise words have steamed out of my ears.
Maybe CA produces text of the programs?
Perhaps I misunderstood what he said.

A man called and asked about the slaughter of the Amalekites, specifically the women and children over and above the combatants. Steve Ray gave what is a fundamentalist/literalist scripture interpretation holding the women and children responsible for the evils committed by the society they were living in.
Something to the effect that "God wished evil to be eradicated so he commanded (literally) the Jews to slaughter every trace of the Amalekites -down to the women and children- to make sure the evil was dealt with thoroughly.

If this is what he said, and it may not be as I heard it, it seems difficult to reconcile with the way the Church reads Scripture.

 

[Ignatius]

Did anyone else hear Steve Ray’s response to the question about the slaying of the Amalekite women and children in Exodus?
I couldn’t believe what I heard from a Catholic apologist. This kind of weak apology for slaughter of innocents should be rejected by Catholics.

Perhaps you misunderstood what he said. Can you please find the text and give the exact quote?

 

[dmar198]

I’ll do my best. I just about broke my steering wheel when I heard Ray’s answer to this question so the precise words have steamed out of my ears.
Maybe CA produces text of the programs?
Perhaps I misunderstood what he said.

A man called and asked about the slaughter of the Amalekites, specifically the women and children over and above the combatants. Steve Ray gave what is a fundamentalist/literalist scripture interpretation holding the women and children responsible for the evils committed by the society they were living in.
Something to the effect that "God wished evil to be eradicated so he commanded (literally) the Jews to slaughter every trace of the Amalekites -down to the women and children- to make sure the evil was dealt with thoroughly.

If this is what he said, and it may not be as I heard it, it seems difficult to reconcile with the way the Church reads Scripture.

I think there is evidence that the traditional and current mind of the Church permits a literal interpretation similar to your description.

From your post, I’m guessing you don’t agree. Do you mean that the Church teaches something contrary to the interpretation of Mr. Ray? If so, do you have documentation? Because I think the evidence suggests that such an interpretation is permissible.

For example, here is how a similar passage is interpreted in Radio Replies Volume 3, which is a Catholic apologetics book published by a priest in 1943: 127. Do you believe that God sent the plagues upon Egypt, and above all, had the innocent children of the Egyptians killed?

Yes. Our speculations as to what God would or would not do are not evidence. I might be inclined to say, “Surely God would not permit cancer!” But God has permitted it. The prudence of man’s limited intelligence is not the measure of God’s wisdom.

As for the innocent Egyptian children, we must not view them merely as individuals. It is essential that they be viewed as social units. One nation as a nation was grinding another nation down in abject slavery and immense suffering- a nation whose services God wanted for a special purpose. The offending nation was punished as a nation, the parents suffering through their children. Those individually innocent children had their lives in this world curtailed, but they continued their existence in the next where they received just treatment from God. Meantime, if those children lacked some of the joys experienced by others who live longer, they also escaped many of the sorrows and afflictions of this world.

In any case, a created being is completely owned by its Creator, and we have a right to life only so long as our Creator decrees. source From this, it seems to me that the Church permits a literal interpretation of Old Testament violence like Mr. Ray’s interpretation. At least, that’s how I understand these remarks. What do you think?

 

[Gorgias]

I’ll do my best. I just about broke my steering wheel when I heard Ray’s answer to this question so the precise words have steamed out of my ears.
Maybe CA produces text of the programs?

The podcast should be up before too long. I’m assuming it was the ‘open forum for non-catholics’? Was it in the first hour or second hour? About how far into the hour (so that it’ll be easier to find)?

Thanks!

 

[ericc]

I’ll do my best. I just about broke my steering wheel when I heard Ray’s answer to this question so the precise words have steamed out of my ears.
Maybe CA produces text of the programs?
Perhaps I misunderstood what he said.

A man called and asked about the slaughter of the Amalekites, specifically the women and children over and above the combatants. Steve Ray gave what is a fundamentalist/literalist scripture interpretation holding the women and children responsible for the evils committed by the society they were living in.
Something to the effect that "God wished evil to be eradicated so he commanded (literally) the Jews to slaughter every trace of the Amalekites -down to the women and children- to make sure the evil was dealt with thoroughly.

If this is what he said, and it may not be as I heard it, it seems difficult to reconcile with the way the Church reads Scripture.

That sounds reasonable to me. Same thing he did to those evil cities, Sodom and Gomorrah. Bound to have women and children in there too. In fact the biggest deal was The Flood. All wiped out except Noah and his family. Never heard any complaints about that though the destruction was on a much grander scale. Women and kids too.

God has the ultimate right to do what he pleases with his creation. He can will anyone to die and he need not our permission nor he need to explain for it. Basically we don’t know the details of his masterplan. But many people think God is too nice and loving to do those destructive things. They better think again. In Revelations , many will perished when the angels come out to play.

 

[clem456]

The podcast should be up before too long. I’m assuming it was the ‘open forum for non-catholics’? Was it in the first hour or second hour? About how far into the hour (so that it’ll be easier to find)?

Thanks!

The technology eludes me. Can’t find it. My phone doesn’t do apps.
It was the last half of the second hour.

That sounds reasonable to me. Same thing he did to those evil cities, Sodom and Gomorrah. Bound to have women and children in there too. In fact the biggest deal was The Flood. All wiped out except Noah and his family. Never heard any complaints about that though the destruction was on a much grander scale. Women and kids too.

God has the ultimate right to do what he pleases with his creation.

I don’t think any Christian would argue with that.

He can will anyone to die and he need not our permission nor he need to explain for it.
…

The question is -not- can he. The question is about reading Scriptures with the mind of the Church, which reads them through the person of Christ. Christ is God’s fullest revelation. If an interpretation is incompatible with Christ, that’s a problem.

In asserting that God, in a literalist sense, commanded the slaughter of innocents, it seems the Catholic sense of scripture is lost. There are four senses of Scripture. Eric above seems to be advocating for reading scripture in a literalist sense. The literal is the base from which the others are derived. The literal sense of scripture is not the same as a literalist, or fundamentalist, sense of scripture. Could God, in a literalist sense, command the slaughter of innocent non-combatants?

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

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

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

The “dark” passages of the Bible

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.

 

[clem456]

Fr Robert Barron has a discussion of the Amalekite passage here from the perspective of Origen.
wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-struggle-with-amalek/770/

It’s a good Catholic treatment of the senses of scripture.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

It is within God’s right to do as He pleases. Nobody can judge Him. If He declares a life forfeit, how much harsher is it than judging someone to be damned for eternity. Yet we can stomach the idea of hell. We do not merit our life on earth or in heaven (no matter how good/innocent we are).

“This thought of yours is perverse: as if the clay should think against the potter, and the work should say to the maker thereof: Thou madest me not: or the thing framed should say to him that fashioned it: Thou understandest not.”
Isa 29:16

“Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom 9:21

 

[ericc]

The question is -not- can he. The question is about reading Scriptures with the mind of the Church, which reads them through the person of Christ. Christ is God’s fullest revelation. If an interpretation is incompatible with Christ, that’s a problem.

In asserting that God, in a literalist sense, commanded the slaughter of innocents, it seems the Catholic sense of scripture is lost. There are four senses of Scripture. Eric above seems to be advocating for reading scripture in a literalist sense. The literal is the base from which the others are derived. The literal sense of scripture is not the same as a literalist, or fundamentalist, sense of scripture. Could God, in a literalist sense, command the slaughter of innocent non-combatants?

When God killed the “innocent?” first born of Egypt, the difference between that and the Amalakites is that the killing was done by him whereas the Amalakites were by the Israelites who were commanded to do it. To deny that God should not be doing this because it is “un-Christian-like” is to deny Biblical history, no matter what interpretation sense you adopt. If you accept that God did kill the innocent first born of Egypt, or accept the Flood kills all except Noah, then you have to accept that God has the sovereign right to kill the Amalakites. Perhaps it is his foreknowledge that requires some to be put away first to spare them from sinning greatly were they to be brought up in such a sinful environment. After all, everyone dies. God doesn’t owe anyone how long one deserved to live or how one were to die. And everyone have sinned (with exceptions of course).

Romans 9:21-23. “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”

I am not denying certain readings need not be read literally. All I am saying that there are some inescapable facts that requires acceptance that God can be destructive as well as loving and merciful. You can not preferentially adopt a reading sense that is less dissonant when the facts do not support such a reading.

Let me pose these questions to you:

1. Do you accept literally that God caused the Great Flood that destroyed practically everything?
2. Do you accept literally that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?
3. Do you accept literally that God ordered the killing of the Amalakites?
4. Do you accept literally that God ordered the extermination of the Canaanites?
5. Do you accept literally that God killed the first born of Egypt?

If you do not accept the above to be literally true, then these Biblical stories are false and we have been taught wrongly fairy tales. The NT has many examples of these destruction thus confirming these acts. 2 Peter 2;5-6, Jude 1:7, Luke 17:26,29,

But if you accept these as true and literal, then the challenge is finding explanations. Steve Ray has a shot at it. I would be keen to know how you would explain these non-literally.

I don’t think the Church has denied that these events never happened or not God- commanded. I would be more than happy to know of a less dissonant explanation because I am challenged to answer critics of our faith about such Godly destruction. Especially by atheists. I have to be honest with the answers and I haven’t found a more pleasant or less jarring explanation yet.

 

[clem456]

When God killed the “innocent?” first born of Egypt, the difference between that and the Amalakites is that the killing was done by him whereas the Amalakites were by the Israelites who were commanded to do it. To deny that God should not be doing this because it is “un-Christian-like” is to deny Biblical history, no matter what interpretation sense you adopt. If you accept that God did kill the innocent first born of Egypt, or accept the Flood kills all except Noah, then you have to accept that God has the sovereign right to kill the Amalakites.
…

That’s a good place to stop.
The Bible is not a literalist history book. It has historical elements for sure.

And you’re not really understanding the issue I’m asking about. I’m not disputing God’s “sovereign rights” at all.
I am not "deny that God should not be doing this because it is “un-Christian-like” (I’m not even sure what that means…).
Pope Benedict…is the one who encourages us to read the scriptures in the light of Christ who is the ultimate hermeneutical key. That’s not my idea.

What do you think about the scripture passage in question, in the specific light of what Pope Benedict says, in light of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, in light of what Fr Robert Barron says? This is orthodox Catholic stuff.

The Steve Ray segment is the second hour at exactly at the 46 minute mark.

 

[clem456]

It is within God’s right to do as He pleases. Nobody can judge Him. If He declares a life forfeit, how much harsher is it than judging someone to be damned for eternity. Yet we can stomach the idea of hell. We do not merit our life on earth or in heaven (no matter how good/innocent we are).

“This thought of yours is perverse: as if the clay should think against the potter, and the work should say to the maker thereof: Thou madest me not: or the thing framed should say to him that fashioned it: Thou understandest not.”
Isa 29:16

“Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Rom 9:21

Yes thanks I realize that thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

The technology eludes me. Can’t find it. My phone doesn’t do apps.

OK – it’s up at the web site, around the 46 minute mark.

The question is about reading Scriptures with the mind of the Church, which reads them through the person of Christ. Christ is God’s fullest revelation. If an interpretation is incompatible with Christ, that’s a problem.

True enough, but that doesn’t allow us to be anachronistic and presume that the teachings of Christ were the exact teachings of the preceding hundreds of years. The people had a difficult time accepting Christ precisely because His teachings were strange to their ears. Does this mean that no one had heard the voice of God prior to Jesus’ ministry? That’s a difficult assertion to make.

Let’s be honest – these passages are called “difficult” for a reason; they don’t admit of a nice, tidy, easy-to-summarize interpretation.

And, I think it’s important to point out that there was some confusion at the question itself. The caller points to the Israelites’ first encounter with the Amelekites (see Exodus 17), but then brings up a later encounter with them in which God puts them “under the ban”, without admitting that he’s talking about narratives from completely different periods of time (see 1 Sam 15). Steve (mistakenly) seems to be asserting that this happens on the entry into the promised land; Patrick thought that the caller was thinking about Deuteronomy 7. (Now, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes – taking calls cold, from folks who might or might not be representing Scripture fairly, and trying to make sense of their assertions? Wow… that’s a tough job! So, it’s difficult to take them to task for their on-the-spot answers. )

In asserting that God, in a literalist sense, commanded the slaughter of innocents, it seems the Catholic sense of scripture is lost.

I think that you’ve hit it on the nose, without realizing it.

The important point to realize, I think, is that, in the context of the time and place, the Amelekites weren’t innocents. The women and children weren’t combatants, and so, in our culture, we see that taking military action against them would be abhorrent. However, God isn’t commanding a military strike, per se – He’s placing them “under the ban” (some older translations call it the “doom”). This word is herem (and is related to a word from fables that we’re more familiar with: ‘harem’). Just as a sultan’s harem of women belonged to him and him alone, and were not allowed to be accessed by anyone else, those people who were put under the herem were not allowed to be accessible by the Israelites: not as slaves, not as adopted children, not as brides. They and all their property belonged to God, so to speak, and so, it was not to be touched by anyone else – destruction (that is, offering back to God) was the only way to give them back to God (any wonder, then, that it’s translated as ‘doom’?)

There’s a Wiki page on herem that you might find interesting.

Could God, in a literalist sense, command the slaughter of innocent non-combatants?

Again, I think that I would argue against your characterization. They would be perceived as people who weren’t ‘innocent’, per se – they would (now or in the future) actively seek to harm the Israelites and pry them away from their religious beliefs. At least, that’s how it would have been viewed back then.

 

[PRmerger]

Fr Robert Barron has a discussion of the Amalekite passage here from the perspective of Origen.
wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-struggle-with-amalek/770/

It’s a good Catholic treatment of the senses of scripture.

A beautifully articulated explication of a Catholic view on the struggle with Amalek by Fr. Barron!

Yes, it is indeed a symbolic representation of our struggle to eliminate sin completely in our lives.

 

[clem456]

…
I am not denying certain readings need not be read literally.

Ok then.
Which ones? Says who? What are the alternative senses and when should they be used? Based on what revelation?
Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini tells us the person of Christ is the ultimate and final revelation of God, and is thus the hermeneutical key to Scripture. Christ “unseals the scrolls”. Fr Barron touches on this.
While a literalist historical interpretation is permitted, the question is, is it the most complete, and most authoritative interpretation? Is it with the mind of the Church, based on what we know about God… who he is…and his will for mankind?
There cannot be two Gods, There is not a God of the OT and a God of the NT.

1. Do you accept literally that God caused the Great Flood that destroyed practically everything?
2. Do you accept literally that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?
3. Do you accept literally that God ordered the killing of the Amalakites?
4. Do you accept literally that God ordered the extermination of the Canaanites?
5. Do you accept literally that God killed the first born of Egypt?

I accept that the OT, in an Inspired manner, details the history of the Israelites. These things happened.
Really the nut of this question gets to the nature of Inspiration. Inspiration is not equal to literalist historical factuality.

If you do not accept the above to be literally true, then these Biblical stories are false and we have been taught wrongly fairy tales.

That does not follow and disregards the inspired nature of all the senses of Scripture. Do I accept the above to be part of the Inspired literature of the Bible? Literally true? Yes. Is it factually and inerrantly historical, in a literalist sense? No ( and that still allows for the historical elements). That is not what the Catholic Church teaches us about inspiration. The Bible is a work of Inspired literature and contains Truth (not just truth). History and facts are -not- the essence of inerrancy and Inspiration. They are part of it.

If this is problematic, think about Luke 15:11-32, the prodigal son. There is not one detail in this parable that actually happened. Christ, who is the Truth, communicates life giving Truth to us outside the boundaries of facts and history.
Think about the profundity of that for a second. Christ breathes life giving Truth into a story. Inspira

But if you accept these as true and literal, then the challenge is finding explanations. Steve Ray has a shot at it. I would be keen to know how you would explain these non-literally.

I don’t think the Church has denied that these events never happened or not God- commanded.

The Church does not definitively hold that God, in a literalist sense, commanded the Israelites to slay the women and children.
Yes, God is able to give and take life. Yes the Israelites did have wars and kill people. These passages detailing God’s will “are conditioned by” the culture and understanding of God these people lived in. But knowing what we know about God, through Jesus Christ, and employing all the senses of Scripture with the Church, is it reasonable to assert that God literally commanded this?
Do you think that God can communicate saving Truth to us through these passages even though Inspired authors may not perfectly understand God’s will? Even someone as dense as I can see that God is commanding me (us) to have no quarter to evil. We are asked to put sin to the sword and reject it. That is powerful Truth for us.

Why is any of this important?
People looking in from the outside can see the incongruity between who we proclaim Christ to be, and the literalist interpretation of the OT. There cannot be two Gods. God is unchangeable. The contradiction is unavoidable. I can tell you from doing RCIA for many years that this issue is one of those most responsible for driving people away from Christianity.

 

[TimothyH]

The point is that over and over God told Israel to kill everyone and destroy everything and over and over Israel failed to do it.

***Yet the people of Israel did not drive out the Gesh’urites or the Ma-ac’athites; but Geshur and Ma’acath dwell in the midst of Israel to this day. **(Joshua 13:13)

**However they did not drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: so the Canaanites have dwelt in the midst of E’phraim to this day but have become slaves to do forced labor. **(Joshua 16:10)

**But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jeb’usites who dwelt in Jerusalem; so the Jeb’usites have dwelt with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day. **(Judges 1:21)

Naph’tali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-she’mesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; (Judges 1:33)*

All these people became a snare for Israel and led them to sin.

There are dozens of verses where it is very plainly stated that Israel failed to do what God told them to do or did what he forbade them to do and it led to their downfall in some way. Saul sacrificed when he was told not to and the kingdom was torn from him.

Faithfulness to God’s commands - that’s the overall point. When we fail to drive out sin from our lives, killing even the smallest thought of sin, it becomes a snare for us. The land is our heart. The people who were to be driven out of the land are demons and evil thoughts. That’s the point. This is a very ancient interpretation from the Early Desert Fathers.

-Tim-

 

[irenaeuslyons]

People looking in from the outside can see the incongruity between who we proclaim Christ to be, and the literalist interpretation of the OT. There cannot be two Gods. God is unchangeable. The contradiction is unavoidable. I can tell you from doing RCIA for many years that this issue is one of those most responsible for driving people away from Christianity.

You are posing a false dilemma. Believing that God did what he actually said he did is not problematic as you suggest. It does not make for a different God.