Steve Ray-Amalekites 1-26-15

[Gorgias]

This ^^^ is not what I said.

I’m not so sure. Let’s see if you can convince me.

**“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.

Agreed. Here’s the thing, though: PR wants me to tell him what my take on the literal sense is. If we’re all agreed that there is a literal sense, we’re all good – and not disagreeing with one another. And, if this is the case, then we can move to the next question. Is that where we are?

If so, then let’s talk about the literal sense – that is, the author’s intent on the level of the words he wrote. It sits somewhere along a spectrum, from metaphor to historical narrative. Did the evangelist expect us to take that one sentence of Jesus’ and presume He was talking about eyeball-plucking? Of course not. Did the evangelist expect us to take the passage (not one verse, but the passage!) as historically accurate? That leads to a vastly different answer!

Now, what about the first few chapters of Genesis? In their context, it’s difficult to assert historicity. But, what about 1 Samuel? Are we going to assert that a narrative that is historical in genre is attempting – at the level of the author’s intent – to tell a symbolic story that is ahistorical in nature? That’s a difficult assertion to make, let alone prove.

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

But factual? Nada.

Fair enough. But, the context there is a story; and that story isn’t factual. Explicitly, the narrative diverges from ‘history’ and moves into ‘parable.’ Are you really asserting that this what the author of 1 Samuel has in mind here? What might you offer as evidence for such an assertion?

 

[clem456]

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

Yes. Mr Akin does a good job of exposition here, looking at the range of viewpoints.
God gives life and takes life.
God is capable of anything he wills.
God allows evil…suffering, illness, war, genocide. It happens.
All this granted. Who could dispute it?

The only cogent argument he proposes for the literalist scripture interpretation of:
“God commanded them to kill the women and children”
is racial purity…to rid the land of any trace of evil, the land must be purified of even innocents.

Mr Akin points out that warfare and cruelty were what people understood.
Because that was how people dealt with one another in those days, God in effect said:
“oh allright, since you’re ignorant and belligerent and cruel, go ahead and be ignorant and cruel. I’ll just have to work with what I have here. It’s the price I’m willing to exact for you to be like me.”
BS
It’s a preposterous explanation that proposes a god-of-the-lowest-common-denominator. (And not one Mr Akin seems to endorse heartily, if at all.)

 

[TimothyH]

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):

This is what the Early Desert Fathers understood.

The land is our hearts. The foreigners are demons who attack our hearts with evil thoughts. The young foreigners are the thoughts as they enter our hearts for the first time. The older foreigners are the thoughts, desires and attachments that have lingered in our hearts for a long time. To “rise early and destroy the young” means to extinguish evil thoughts and desires as soon as they enter our hearts. We must drive them out of the land completely.

This is classic monastic exegesis and spirituality from as early as the second century.

-Tim-

 

[PRmerger]

IHere’s the thing, though: PR wants me to tell **him **what my take on the literal sense is. If we’re all agreed that there is a literal sense, we’re all good – and not disagreeing with one another.

Yes, I believe there is a literalist sense to the symbolic command to slaughter the Amalekites.

BTW: I am a she not a he.

 

[clem456]

I’m not so sure. Let’s see if you can convince me.

Agreed. Here’s the thing, though: PR wants me to tell him what my take on the literal sense is. If we’re all agreed that there is a literal sense, we’re all good – and not disagreeing with one another. And, if this is the case, then we can move to the next question. Is that where we are?

If so, then let’s talk about the literal sense – that is, the author’s intent on the level of the words he wrote. It sits somewhere along a spectrum, from metaphor to historical narrative. Did the evangelist expect us to take that one sentence of Jesus’ and presume He was talking about eyeball-plucking? Of course not. Did the evangelist expect us to take the passage (not one verse, but the passage!) as historically accurate? That leads to a vastly different answer!

Now, what about the first few chapters of Genesis? In their context, it’s difficult to assert historicity. But, what about 1 Samuel? Are we going to assert that a narrative that is historical in genre is attempting – at the level of the author’s intent – to tell a symbolic story that is ahistorical in nature? That’s a difficult assertion to make, let alone prove.

Fair enough. But, the context there is a story; and that story isn’t factual. Explicitly, the narrative diverges from ‘history’ and moves into ‘parable.’ Are you really asserting that this what the author of 1 Samuel has in mind here? What might you offer as evidence for such an assertion?

I have to go to bed.

Every word of God accomplishes it’s purpose. Every word is inspired. Every word has a literal sense. Every word has spiritual sense.

The Church simply cannot be any clearer (although it’s not easy to accept) that none of this means that the human authors factually, historically, perfectly knew and expressed God’s mind and will. The authors are inspired, but they are still human, unless I missed something here. The authors are human. See Benedict’s passage above on fundamentalist interpretations.

When the ancient peoples say “God commanded”…and it is a command that is incompatible with Jesus Christ, you should, no, YOU MUST, take into account their understanding of how God worked. If it seems incompatible, then what is the truth that God wishes to convey?
The Church takes into account their culture, how they normatively behaved, how they understood God’s action in their lives.

Imperfect human understanding and expression takes nothing away from Inspiration. This seems to be what is so hard to accept to the modern mind. We want proof. We want indisputable facts. How many God-forsaken threads on infallibility do we have here? All wanting proof in writing of things which cannot really be proved like that.

If we don’t have the reassurance of facts, we have a difficult time accepting that God is still God, always, everywhere, unchanging.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Yes. Mr Akin does a good job of exposition here, looking at the range of viewpoints.
God gives life and takes life.
God is capable of anything he wills.
God allows evil…suffering, illness, war, genocide. It happens.
All this granted. Who could dispute it?

The only cogent argument he proposes for the literalist scripture interpretation of:
“God commanded them to kill the women and children”
is racial purity…to rid the land of any trace of evil, the land must be purified of even innocents.

Mr Akin points out that warfare and cruelty were what people understood.
Because that was how people dealt with one another in those days, God in effect said:
“oh allright, since you’re ignorant and belligerent and cruel, go ahead and be ignorant and cruel. I’ll just have to work with what I have here. It’s the price I’m willing to exact for you to be like me.”
BS
It’s a preposterous explanation that proposes a god-of-the-lowest-common-denominator. (And not one Mr Akin seems to endorse heartily, if at all.)

I think its an historical event. Origen(afaik) is unique in his interpretation (and not a doctor nor a saint). Augustine and Chrysostom (both saints, and both doctors) talk about it as if its history. The passages do have other dimensions to it(which is nice to see), but I think it is ultimately what God commanded Saul to do, and Saul was punished by God for not fully implementing it (He had compassion for one of the kings if i recall).

I don’t quite understand the insistence on this being a fable when these particular books (literally the Historical books of the OT) are outlining history in painful detail. The only reason people want to discount this as history is because they think God is being immoral. But of course, they are wrong in that, no matter what lens you view this passage.

“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)

 

[ericc]

Yes. Mr Akin does a good job of exposition here, looking at the range of viewpoints.
God gives life and takes life.
God is capable of anything he wills.
God allows evil…suffering, illness, war, genocide. It happens.
All this granted. Who could dispute it?

The only cogent argument he proposes for the literalist scripture interpretation of:
“God commanded them to kill the women and children”
is racial purity…to rid the land of any trace of evil, the land must be purified of even innocents.

Mr Akin points out that warfare and cruelty were what people understood.
Because that was how people dealt with one another in those days, God in effect said:
“oh allright, since you’re ignorant and belligerent and cruel, go ahead and be ignorant and cruel. I’ll just have to work with what I have here. It’s the price I’m willing to exact for you to be like me.”
BS
It’s a preposterous explanation that proposes a god-of-the-lowest-common-denominator. (And not one Mr Akin seems to endorse heartily, if at all.)

And yet Christ himself didn’t think it was preposterous that Sodom gets wiped out Luke 17:29.

 

[Robyn_p]

Mr Akin points out that warfare and cruelty were what people understood.
Because that was how people dealt with one another in those days, God in effect said:
“oh allright, since you’re ignorant and belligerent and cruel, go ahead and be ignorant and cruel. I’ll just have to work with what I have here. It’s the price I’m willing to exact for you to be like me.”
BS
It’s a preposterous explanation that proposes a god-of-the-lowest-common-denominator. (And not one Mr Akin seems to endorse heartily, if at all.)

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s preposterous. Isn’t that essentially the same explanation Jesus gave to the Pharisees about divorce? ''Because of your hardness of hearts" etc… It seems God has a habit of meeting humanity where its at and slowly purifying it.

I don’t know if God literally commanded the Amalekites to be exterminated or not, (I lean more towards the symbolic myself) but I don’t think Jimmy’s argument is BS either. What he is saying lines up with other examples we have in Scripture of God’s patient dealing towards our sinful, stupid race.

 

[clem456]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s preposterous. Isn’t that essentially the same explanation Jesus gave to the Pharisees about divorce? ''Because of your hardness of hearts" etc… It seems God has a habit of meeting humanity where its at and slowly purifying it.

I don’t know if God literally commanded the Amalekites to be exterminated or not, (I lean more towards the symbolic myself) but I don’t think Jimmy’s argument is BS either. What he is saying lines up with other examples we have in Scripture of God’s patient dealing towards our sinful, stupid race.

Jimmy Akin is not endorsing that line of thinking…He is proposing it as one way of justifying a God who might command the slaughter of innocents. His discussion is very nuanced. I do not get the impression that he accepts that line, but I dunno. When you combine all the pieces from Church authority, it does seem a preposterous suggestion.

And the passage on divorce fleshes this out.
When Jesus talked about divorce, he says
because of the way you were…“Moses commanded you”… -not- “God commanded you”.

He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you

Jesus does not ascribe to his Father something that cannot be attributed to his nature, from the beginning. Despite how the Israelites behaved and didn’t understand, God was never the God of divorce or homosexuality. You can see that getting these things right has huge implications for us today.

I just think it’s really important that we represent who God really is to people, and I believe the various pieces of Catholic hermeneutics overwhelmingly support this.
From the beginning…
this is how God is
and this is how I made you…

 

[ericc]

I think its an historical event. Origen(afaik) is unique in his interpretation (and not a doctor nor a saint). Augustine and Chrysostom (both saints, and both doctors) talk about it as if its history. The passages do have other dimensions to it(which is nice to see), but I think it is ultimately what God commanded Saul to do, and Saul was punished by God for not fully implementing it (He had compassion for one of the kings if i recall).

I don’t quite understand the insistence on this being a fable when these particular books (literally the Historical books of the OT) are outlining history in painful detail. The only reason people want to discount this as history is because they think God is being immoral. But of course, they are wrong in that, no matter what lens you view this passage.

“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)

Some just can’t handle that God in his divine anger can be destructive. On CA, we still have those who don’t believe that God can send anyone to hell. God is too loving, too kind, too merciful etc. Unfortunately, they keep on missing one crucial point. God is Just. There will be gnashing of teeth. There will be punishment. Some get it early, some get it late. Some will get it worse than Sodom/Gomorrah .Mat 10:15. When we are backed into the reality that the literal explanation is the only explanation, we better review our own prejudices in interpreting the Bible rather than staying in a mode of denial. I admit it most of the time if there is a gentler interpretation, I tend to lean towards that rather than opt for the angry God version. But when cross references about the same event all over the Bible does not support the gentler version, we must be honest enough to say that God was indeed angry. However we must not assume that God didn’t have a fair solution for innocents caught in the cross-fire.

I still don’t understand the focus on the Amalakite/Canaanites when the Flood’s destruction was on a much greater scale. We don’t hear too many complaints about the Flood do we? Or was the Flood a fable? Gee, I have been hoodwinked in my Catechism classes.

 

[clem456]

And yet Christ himself didn’t think it was preposterous that Sodom gets wiped out Luke 17:29.

I’m trying to figure out exactly how that relates to the issue…
Because Sodom happened, that proves that God would command the Israelites to kill babies and children?

What do you think about the quotes from Verbum Domini?
Dark passages?
Fundamentalist reading of scripture?
Do you think the ancient authors of scripture had any different view of God’s will whatsoever, compared to what we know of God in the present? Any difference whatsoever?

How about the catechism?
How about Jimmy Akin?
How about Fr Robert Barron?
Origen?
Comments? Anything you care to dispute? Which of these that you have taken the time to read is the most relevant to you?

My apologies to Mr Ray for venting uncharitably. I still don’t think he speaks with the mind of the Church, concerning God’s command to commit genocide, based on the specific guidance of the Church in scripture exegesis. But that’s his option to read that in a strictly literal fashion. So be it.

 

[clem456]

I don’t quite understand the insistence on this being a fable when these particular books (literally the Historical books of the OT) are outlining history in painful detail. The only reason people want to discount this as history is because they think God is being immoral. But of course, they are wrong in that, no matter what lens you view this passage.

“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)

My last post as we are going around in circles now.

I’m not debating the historical elements of the bible, or reducing it all to fable.
How in the world would I know? How would you know? How can anybody dispute historical details? We weren’t there to dispute. It’s pointless to debate what happened. Let’s assume that lots of killing went on. It’s a given: people kill one another, and frequently they do it in “God’s name”.

It’s obvious that lots of wars happened in the OT. The chosen people dished it out and had it dished out to them, just like we do now.
The difficulty is the imputation to God’s express will the command to commit genocide, in a fundamentalist and literalist way. We’re not even talking here about God directly vaporizing one of his creatures. We are talking about God commanding one group of human beings to slaughter other innocent non-combatants in the name of racial and spiritual purity. The literalist imputation of this command to God is incompatible with the person of Christ, and if that’s the case, then it can’t be taken in a literalist fashion. (see Verbum Domini 42)

 

[dmar198]

We are talking about God commanding one group of human beings to slaughter other innocent non-combatants in the name of racial and spiritual purity. The literalist imputation of this command to God is incompatible with the person of Christ

I don’t think this point is that obvious. What is your evidence that those commands are incompatible with the person of Jesus? He appears pretty Old Testament-like to me in the Book of Revelation.

 

[clem456]

I don’t think it is. What is your evidence?

I know I said last post, but

Are you serious? What is my evidence? You as a follower of Christ need me to produce evidence that genocide in the pursuit of racial and spiritual purity is incompatible with Jesus Christ…
Really? You give yourself too little credit. I don’t think you need me for this.

I hate to answer questions with questions, but what do you think about Pope Benedict’s words. Did you read them? Just ignore my posts, focus on the content from the Church.
What about Fr Robert Barron?
What about the catechism?
Which of this stuff that you read do you agree or disagree with?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think this point is that obvious. What is your evidence that those commands are incompatible with the person of Jesus? He appears pretty Old Testament-like to me in the Book of Revelation.

Genocide is an absolute moral evil.

We know this from natural law/reason, and from our Church:

One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.–CCC 2313

The Church abhors genocide, which means Christ abhors genocide.

 

[dmar198]

I know I said last post, but

Are you serious? What is my evidence? You as a follower of Christ need me to produce evidence that genocide in the pursuit of racial and spiritual purity is incompatible with Jesus Christ…
Really? You give yourself too little credit. I don’t think you need me for this.

It’s just that I think there is a sense in which it is true that the literalist interpretation of those remarks is compatible with Jesus. For example, let me illustrate this by means of a theoretical syllogism, and you can tell me which premises you think are wrong (if any):

(1) The killing of innocent children ordinarily involves a great injustice, but it would not be unjust in a case where Jesus commands it. (Because it is not unjust for the one in authority over life and death to take life.)
(2) The killing of innocent children can have a great positive effect. (E.g. it can be used to teach a spiritual truth about the effects of sin.)
(3) The great positive effect can outweigh any remaining negative effect.
(4) Any non-unjust action where the positive effect outweighs the negative effect can be done by Jesus.
(5) Therefore, Jesus might command the killing of innocent children, at least in cases where #3 is in place.

How would you answer that syllogism? Is one of the premises wrong, or does the conclusion not follow, or is there some other problem involved?

I hate to answer questions with questions, but what do you think about Pope Benedict’s words. Did you read them?

Yes, I’ve read them, and I’ve taught a class on apologetics that addressed the issue of Biblical violence and used Pope Benedict’s comments as a primary text for understanding and explaining these issues. I think his explanation is very helpful, but I don’t think it suggests that the Amalekites really weren’t killed or that God didn’t really command it.

Just ignore my posts, focus on the content from the Church.
What about Fr Robert Barron?

I’ve listened to his explanation in The Four Youtube Heresies, and I initially had reservations about it, because I understood him to be saying that the texts were not literally true. However, I later re-listened to it, and now I don’t think he actually says that. If I understand him correctly, he focuses on the apologetics value of the spiritual sense of the passage, without denying that the literal sense is what it appears to be on the surface.

What about the catechism?

Yes, I’ve read the Catechism, and it was another of the texts I used in the apologetics course I taught. A passage that I focused on was CCC 1964: “under the…Old Covenant [there were] people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit…[and] there exist [wicked] men under the New Covenant [who are] still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to [virtue].”

To me, that passage supports the literalist interpretation of Old Testament violence by referring it to the fear of punishment that was (and sometimes still is) necessary to incite people to virtue. I think that suggests against the interpretation that the violent passages were intended to be symbolic, because if that was true, and unless I’ve missed something, a symbolic meaning wouldn’t inculcate the fear of punishment that the Catechism seems to indicate is part of the reason for violence in the Old and New Covenants. Does that make sense?

What other passages from the Catechism do you think are relevant here?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s just that I think there is a sense in which it is true that the literalist interpretation of those remarks is compatible with Jesus. For example, let me illustrate this by means of a theoretical syllogism, and you can tell me which premises you think are wrong (if any):

(1) The killing of innocent children ordinarily involves a great injustice, but it would not be unjust in a case where Jesus commands it. (Because it is not unjust for the one in authority over life and death to take life.)
(2) The killing of innocent children can have a great positive effect. (E.g. it can be used to teach a spiritual truth about the effects of sin.)
(3) The great positive effect can outweigh any remaining negative effect.
(4) Any non-unjust action where the positive effect outweighs the negative effect can be done by Jesus.
(5) Therefore, Jesus might command the killing of innocent children, at least in cases where #3 is in place.

How would you answer that syllogism? Is one of the premises wrong, or does the conclusion not follow, or is there some other problem involved?

I categorically and vehemently disagree with premise #2.

 

[dmar198]

Genocide is an absolute moral evil.

We know this from natural law/reason, and from our Church:

One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.–CCC 2313

The Church abhors genocide, which means Christ abhors genocide.

It seems to me that the Church forbids genocide on the same grounds that it ordinarily forbids other kinds of killing: because humans do not have authority over life and death. Does that seem like a reasonable interpretation? Because I think that would make a kind of loophole for God: He does have authority over life and death, and therefore He can order people to be killed, even in large numbers, if He has a good reason for it.

I hope I haven’t typed this conclusion merely because that’s how I see things myself; I honestly think the Church recognizes this line of reasoning in other parts of its doctrinal documents. I pointed out one such place in my most recent response to Clem456, and in an earlier post on page #1 of this thread I also posted a similar line of reasoning from the classic Catholic apologetics book Radio Replies (which may not directly be a part of the Church’s Tradition, but it’s still not without value in a discussion like this, at least in my opinion). Do you think I was misinterpreting those documents?

 

[dmar198]

I categorically and vehemently disagree with premise #2.

If you reject premise #2, then I think that would mean the same conclusion you apply to the Amelekites would apply to all other cases where innocent children seem to be killed in the Bible. Am I extrapolating too much? How could you maintain that the Great Flood, for example, was caused by God, if premise #2 is false?

 

[clem456]

It’s just that I think there is a sense in which it is true that the literalist interpretation of those remarks is compatible with Jesus. For example, let me illustrate this by means of a theoretical syllogism, and you can tell me which premises you think are wrong (if any):

(1) The killing of innocent children ordinarily involves a great injustice, but it would not be unjust in a case where Jesus commands it. (Because it is not unjust for the one in authority over life and death to take life.)

A nonsensical proposition.

(2) The killing of innocent children can have a great positive effect. (E.g. it can be used to teach a spiritual truth about the effects of sin.)

Could never be correct. Incompatible with Christianity. (And truly terrifying)
I think you can see where the rest falls flat on it’s illogical rear end.

(3) The great positive effect can outweigh any remaining negative effect.
(4) Any non-unjust action where the positive effect outweighs the negative effect can be done by Jesus.
(5) Therefore, Jesus might command the killing of innocent children, at least in cases where #3 is in place.