Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[Gorgias]

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.

Note, however, that the fact that there’s a spiritual sense of a passage of Scripture does not imply that there isn’t a literal sense: we can talk about the allegorical sense of this passage all day long, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no literal sense that we must suss out.

Fr Barron isn’t saying that there’s no literal sense to be had; rather, he’s simply pointing to the spiritual sense and asking us to consider how it may be understood.

 

[PRmerger]

Note, however, that the fact that there’s a spiritual sense of a passage of Scripture does not imply that there isn’t a literal sense: we can talk about the allegorical sense of this passage all day long, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no literal sense that we must suss out.

Fr Barron isn’t saying that there’s no literal sense to be had; rather, he’s simply pointing to the spiritual sense and asking us to consider how it may be understood.

Can you point out where he (or the Church) has articulated a literal understanding of this event?

 

[Gorgias]

Can you point out where he (or the Church) has articulated a literal understanding of this event?

Not “literal understanding”; we’re talking about senses of Scripture. There’s a literal sense of Scripture in play here. Whether I’m unable to find an articulation of it doesn’t disprove it exists. As the Catechism tells us, “[t]he 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’” (CCC, 116).

If “all other senses of Scripture are based on the literal,” and there exists a spiritual (i.e., allegorical) sense of that passage, then there must exist a literal sense of that passage as well. Castigating someone simply because he attempts to put forward a particular literal sense – based on the argument that a particular allegorical sense exists – is erroneous… and uncharitable.

 

[PRmerger]

Not “literal understanding”; we’re talking about senses of Scripture. There’s a literal sense of Scripture in play here.

A literal “sense”, eh?

What could that mean here, regarding the Amalekites?

 

[Gorgias]

A literal “sense”, eh?

What could that mean here, regarding the Amalekites?

Your question confuses me. After all, it means what the “literal sense of Scripture” always means: it’s the meaning conveyed by the very words of Scripture; it’s the meaning that the author of Scripture intended.

While it’s true that one of the spiritual senses is that the Amalekites symbolize certain things, it’s not true that there is also a ‘literal sense’.

(NB: asserting that there is a literal sense does not mean that literal sense is simply a literalistic reading of a passage. However, this does not imply that there is no literal sense, which is all I’m asserting. What ya’ll seem to be saying is that, since this is one of the difficult passages of Scripture, we should refuse to admit that there’s a literal sense, and instead assert that there’s only a spiritual sense. That assertion stands at odds with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture; we don’t abandon a passage of Scripture simply because it’s “difficult.”)

 

[PRmerger]

Castigating someone simply because he attempts to put forward a particular literal sense – based on the argument that a particular allegorical sense exists – is erroneous… and uncharitable.

We are agreed here.

 

[Gorgias]

We are agreed here.

Cute GIF. Not really sure what point you think you’ve made, though.

 

[PRmerger]

Your question confuses me. After all, it means what the “literal sense of Scripture” always means: it’s the meaning conveyed by the very words of Scripture; it’s the meaning that the author of Scripture intended.

And what is the meaning that the author of Scripture intended here?

While it’s true that one of the spiritual senses is that the Amalekites symbolize certain things, it’s not true that there is also a ‘literal sense’.

I think you’re also confused here. You forgot, perhaps, to put in another “not” in your last phrase.

IOW, is this what you actually meant: it’s not true that there is [not] also a ‘literal sense’?

Or, you might want to phrase it with less circumlocution and just say: it’s true that there is also a literal sense.

(NB: asserting that there is a literal sense does not mean that literal sense is simply a literalistic reading of a passage. However, this does not imply that there is no literal sense, which is all I’m asserting. What ya’ll seem to be saying is that, since this is one of the difficult passages of Scripture, we should refuse to admit that there’s a literal sense, and instead assert that there’s only a spiritual sense. That assertion stands at odds with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture;

Could you tell me what the literal “sense” is of this passage:

“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you.”–Matthew 18:9

we don’t abandon a passage of Scripture simply because it’s “difficult.”)

We are agreed here, too.

 

[Gorgias]

And what is the meaning that the author of Scripture intended here?

Immaterial to my argument. Clem’s unhappy that there might be a literal sense to this passage. You agreed with his example of Fr Barron’s homily which, I hope, does not imply that you agree with Clem that we cannot find a literal sense of the passage.

I think you’re also confused here. You forgot, perhaps, to put in another “not” in your last phrase.

Confused? No. Typo? Yep. Good catch.

Or, you might want to phrase it with less circumlocution and just say: it’s true that there is also a literal sense.

Precisely; that’s the case that Clem objects to.

Could you tell me what the literal “sense” is of this passage:

“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you.”–Matthew 18:9

How clever!

It seems that you’re asserting that, if one turn of phrase from Jesus isn’t meant literally, you want to suggest that a passage that recounts historical events cannot be taken literally? That’s quite the logical leap to make! In order to do this, you realize what gymnastics are required, don’t you? You have to assert that, in the context of a historical book… surrounded by historical narratives… the author suddenly decided to tell a tall tale and use it as a metaphor (in the way that “pluck it out” is a metaphor for ‘plucking out sin’). That’s quite a bold suggestion to make…

 

[PRmerger]

Immaterial to my argument. Clem’s unhappy that there might be a literal sense to this passage. You agreed with his example of Fr Barron’s homily which, I hope, does not imply that you agree with Clem that we cannot find a literal sense of the passage.

Confused? No. Typo? Yep. Good catch.

Precisely; that’s the case that Clem objects to.

How clever!

It seems that you’re asserting that, if one turn of phrase from Jesus isn’t meant literally, you want to suggest that a passage that recounts historical events cannot be taken literally? That’s quite the logical leap to make! In order to do this, you realize what gymnastics are required, don’t you? You have to assert that, in the context of a historical book… surrounded by historical narratives… the author suddenly decided to tell a tall tale and use it as a metaphor (in the way that “pluck it out” is a metaphor for ‘plucking out sin’). That’s quite a bold suggestion to make…

Well, since you’re being a bit obfuscatory about what, exactly, you think the literal “sense” of the passage means, I guess I can’t really argue with your position.

Maybe we are agreed, eh?

If all you simply mean by literal “sense” is that there were actually Amalekites who fought with the Israelites, then, who am I to argue with you on that point?

But as to God actually commanding genocide, (in the case of the Canaanites) well, I see a symbolic genocide being commanded, in the literal “sense” of the word.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, since you’re being a bit obfuscatory about what, exactly, you think the literal “sense” of the passage means

Nah, not really. I’m just arguing against the position that suggests that there can’t be a literal sense of this passage, but only a spiritual one.

But as to God actually commanding genocide, (in the case of the Canaanites) well, I see a symbolic genocide being commanded, in the literal “sense” of the word.

This is an interesting tack to take; and I think it flies in the face of what a “literal sense of Scripture” means. Tell me if I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying here: you seem to be saying that the intent of the author of Scripture was that God didn’t place the Amalekites under the ban, except in a symbolic sense. In other words, by saying “God placed the Amalekites under the ban,” the inspired author of Scripture really meant “God didn’t place the Amalekites under the ban.”

 

[PRmerger]

Nah, not really. I’m just arguing against the position that suggests that there can’t be a literal sense of this passage, but only a spiritual one.

Until you tell me what, exactly, you think the literal “sense” of this passage is, how can I agree or disagree with this sense?

Why don’t you tell me what the literal “sense” is, and then we can discuss further.

Otherwise, your obscure allusion to a literal “sense”, is a colossal waste of my time.

Imagine being on a thread here where some conspiracy theorist asserts, “I believe that something is going to happen someday! And you’ll all be sorry you didn’t take me seriously!”

It would be a big waste o’ time, wouldn’t it, to engage with this guy until he says exactly what he’s referencing, right?

PR: what is this event to which you allude?

CT: what does it matter? Just know that I’ve asserted that it’s true!

PR (shrewdly): Buh-bye!

 

[irenaeuslyons]

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
(1 Sam 15:1-3)

Keep in mind God punishes Saul for not carrying out the ban fully to the letter.

But as to God actually commanding genocide, (in the case of the Canaanites) well, I see a symbolic genocide being commanded, in the literal “sense” of the word.

What is your definition of symbolic genocide? How does it differ from literal “sense” of genocide?

 

[PRmerger]

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
(1 Sam 15:1-3)

Keep in mind God punishes Saul for not carrying out the ban fully to the letter.

What is your definition of symbolic genocide? How does it differ from literal “sense” of genocide?

Did you listen to the homily by Fr. Barron? That’s what I mean by symbolic genocide.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Did you listen to the homily by Fr. Barron? That’s what I mean by symbolic genocide.

I don’t have speakers. In any case, I was asking you because you characterized it as your opinion. So can you please explain? Or can only Fr Barron do that.

But as to God actually commanding genocide, (in the case of the Canaanites) well, I see a symbolic genocide being commanded, in the literal “sense” of the word.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Hard Sayings of the Old Testament
By Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

 

[clem456]

Immaterial to my argument. Clem’s unhappy that there might be a literal sense to this passage. You agreed with his example of Fr Barron’s homily which, I hope, does not imply that you agree with Clem that we cannot find a literal sense of the passage.

This ^^^ is not what I said.
You have not read my posts very carefully
Not a problem. It’s a lot of material. It happens a lot on CAF.
No problem.
But if you’re not going to read and understand posts, please just don’t address them.
I simply accept the material I quoted. That’s it. Take issue with the material.

**“Literal” is not equal to “literalist” **in the Catholic senses of Scripture.
Literal is not *the same thing as *factual,
or historical. Not the same thing as.
That doesn’t mean the literal sense of scripture excludes history or facts, but it’s not the same thing.

Again, refer to the parable of the prodigal son as an example.
It’s Inspired
It’s Truth
Literal
Spiritual

But factual? Nada.

By the way, it’s snowing cats and dogs here. God wants me to stay home from work tomorrow.
Literally

 

[PRmerger]

This ^^^ is not what I said.
You have not read my posts very carefully
Not a problem. It’s a lot of material. It happens a lot on CAF.
No problem.
But if you’re not going to read and understand posts, please just don’t address them.
I simply accept the material I quoted. That’s it. Take issue with the material.

**“Literal” is not equal to “literalist” **in the Catholic senses of Scripture.
Literal is not *the same thing as *factual,
or historical. Not the same thing as.
That doesn’t mean the literal sense of scripture excludes history or facts, but it’s not the same thing.

Again, refer to the parable of the prodigal son as an example.
It’s Inspired
It’s Truth
Literal
Spiritual

But factual? Nada.

By the way, it’s snowing cats and dogs here. God wants me to stay home from work tomorrow.
Literally

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have speakers. In any case, I was asking you because you characterized it as your opinion. So can you please explain? Or can only Fr Barron do that.

The story of the destruction of the Amalekites is symbolic of our struggle with evil.

Origen says, in this struggle, we must fight to the finish. Remove evil from our lives.

And, as Jimmy Akin states (cited by Randy):

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

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

 

[clem456]

Here’s some more interesting material along these lines from Pope Benedict.

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit.It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.[146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres.