Struggling with The Tyrannical warrior God of the Old Testement

[Windfish]

I have seen that video before of Fr. Barron, and while the two videos are brilliant, and he is probably one of the best contributors on YouTube, I have always disagreed with his interpretation on the slaughter of the Canaanites. His interpretive key (i.e., Jesus) is dead on, but I don’t think it warrants such an allegorizing interpretation.

edited

 

[Windfish]

I always thought (even in my sinful New Age days) that we as Christians were to understand that most of the Acts committed by the Prophets in the OT were in one way or another either “caused” or “sanctioned” by God/Yahweh.

I was once told that whereas Elias merely “cursed” the children, it was Yahweh who sort of “sent” the bears. So in a way he Sanctioned/Caused the Catastrophe upon the Children. And that had always unnerved and distressed me. It upset for may years my image of a “Just God.” I WAS able to solve that Moral Problem by saying that Go dprobably did NOT cause the Bears to appear and therefore Elias was punished later on.
I guess I was wrong.

You make a Good Point, though. Never though of it that way.

You’re right in the sense that I’m NOT obligated to consider Elias a “Good Prophet.”
I was simply adding my two cents to the discussion. I SORT of understand what the OP was talking about.

And I mostly agree with your interpretation of the Slaughter of the Canaanites and God’s intentions in it. Good show.

Well… I have seen more historically literate people flesh out that incident that makes Elias’ reaction more understandable, but yeah, I stand by view. The Bible is full of immoral people - the history of the Jewish people is one of idolization, apostasy, violence, betrayal, adultery, etc. etc. etc., and we are not called, obviously, to see those things as good. And even David, God’s favorite, was terribly sinful.

As I said in my original post, the notion that we can understand the Bible and it’s plain is just flat out wrong. The Bible cannot be read in isolation, and it is always important to understand that. So before we jump to conclusions, step back, take a breath, and seek out answers consistent with the fullness of Christian Revelation in the Catholic Church, and with the milieu of the Hebrews.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well… I have seen more historically literate people flesh out that incident that makes Elias’ reaction more understandable, but yeah, I stand by view. The Bible is full of immoral people - the history of the Jewish people is one of idolization, apostasy, violence, betrayal, adultery, etc. etc. etc., and we are not called, obviously, to see those things as good. And even David, God’s favorite, was terribly sinful.

As I said in my original post, the notion that we can understand the Bible and it’s plain is just flat out wrong. The Bible cannot be read in isolation, and it is always important to understand that. So before we jump to conclusions, step back, take a breath, and seek out answers consistent with the fullness of Christian Revelation in the Catholic Church, and with the milieu of the Hebrews.

Yes, indeed.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am frustrated that MoM2 is not responding to me.

Sorry.

The fact of the matter is, there is moral and theological development in the Bible. This is undoubtedly true, and the Christ himself acknowledged this when the Pharisees asked about his changes to Mosaic Law. In Mt 19:8, Jesus said to them that because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses permitted them to commit acts (like divorce) that were not originally intended by God. So it is clear that there is moral development as God works with the limited moral understanding of His people…

Thanks for justifying my suspicions. I can accept that there is moral development in the bible. Now all we need is a clear understanding of what it means to say that the Bible is infallible.

So, broadly speaking, MoM2 is well within orthodoxy,

That’s good to know

but it is a matter of discussion whether or not his particular interpretation of the slaughter of the Canaanites is correct. It is possible, but we should strive toward what is true, not toward what is easy. Agreed?

Yes.

As for slavery, I think the arc of moral development explains that, but it is also very important to understand that slavery in that time and place was not at all like what American whites did to black Africans and Americans. Not at all.

I know it wasn’t exactly like that, and perhaps this fact lessens the problem; but it does not solve it in my eyes or my mothers.

My suggestion, MoM2, is to not isolate yourself on this.

Okay

I doubt very much that you are an expert on Jewish history, language, culture, etc. at that time, and that might provide some proper context with which to view this with more clarity.

That much I can agree on

I have a very long blog roll,

I have never seen it. where is it?

and I think I know a few people who are wicked smart on this subject who visit those blogs - I’ll see if I can contact them and see what they say.

Okay

 

[Windfish]

This is rather long. I hope you read all of it - I tried to pack it with information that may help you.

Biblical inerrancy follows necessarily from its inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and this means that the Bible is without error in everything that its divine and human authors affirm to be true. Implicit in all this is a proper understanding of what the divine and human authors “affirm to be true.” And this proper understanding proceeds, as I said earlier, from a perspective of the fullness of truth given to the Church by the Christ. And what does the Church say?

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

So we have a lot of work to do before we can even begin to interpret the Bible! No book interprets itself, and without the guidance of the Church, many fall into error.

Now, on the slaughter of the Canaanites, it is important to first remember Gen 15:16. God tells Abraham that the promised land will not immediately be given to him and his descendants because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (The Amorites were all the semitic peoples occupying Israel at that time, including the Canaanites.) In other words, God was waiting to pronounce judgment on them, perhaps giving them an opportunity to repent from their ways, and the Canaanites were AWFULLY brutal and deprave people. Also recall that God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had there been just 5 innocent people. These are all things which must be taken into consideration in any interpretation of this event.

 

[Windfish]

Here is what my friend had to say about this subject. Perhaps you will find it illuminating:

Joe:

There are a lot of different possibilities here. Like you I am inclined to see the relative harshness of the Old Testament as part of the unfolding revelation of God’s nature and love to a people who were culturally no different from any other nomadic-warlike tribe until, gradually, God moved them in a better and better direction. From my own experience teaching, it seems impossible to take a student with a lifetime of bad habits and false expectations and instantly turn him into a straight A student. But if he is suddenly making an effort, you might meet him halfway, accepting provisionally his mediocre output and ignoring or even permitting some of his bad habits for the time being, but always with a view towards eventually putting him on the most correct path. This logic seems to be reflected in the Old Testament and especially in the contrast between “the Law” (which included both the moral law and ritual and cultural rules) and the prophetic tradition. On one hand, the Hebrews are supposed to keep the law, on the other hand the prophets challenge them to go beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law.

The letter of the law (as Jesus pointed out) permitted divorce, but only because the Hebrews’ “hardhardednes”. But “in the beginning it was not that way.” Passages like this suggest to me that God makes temporary concessions in view of long term goals since most people would be lost if they were expected to become saints overnight. However, the very same logic suggests that things like the slaughter of the Cannanites, man, woman and child, may not have been what God intended. After all, if Moses (the Lawgiver) can permit divorce (it’s in scripture!) while Christ specifically tells us that this was not what God actually wanted, but simply allowed in view of the scenarios that were actually possible in context, than this opens up the possibility that whereever we find God permitting or “commanding” objectively evil actions in the Old Testament, that in fact this was not what God wanted but the best he could get from humans under the circumstances. There are many passages in Scripture that suggest something like this (consider the would-be stoning of the woman caught in adultery, which Christ did not seem to be OK with.).

It might be objected that this would imply there are errors in scripture, but I don’t think so. After all, the innerancy of Scripture does not mean that everything anybody does in scripture is right, but rather that it is all God-breathed, that is, that the content and the structure of scripture is intended by God to teach certain truths. However, we already know that one of those truths is the gradual revelation by God to man (in the person of the cantankerous tribes of Israel) of his real nature, of who he really is.

 

[Windfish]

Speaking on a different subject, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser touches on the slaughter of the Canaanites in a comment to his article on the atomic bombing of Japan:
Edward Feser:

Re: the biblical examples, this is a big topic all by itelf, and not really relevant to the discussion of consequentialsm vs. natural law (since a natural law theorist need not be a theist, and certainly need not accept the biblical stories as divinely revealed). But briefly, what I would say is the following:

1. The natural law has to do with our natural ends, not with the supernatural end that (from a Christian POV) God has, as a matter of grace rather than nature, raised us to.
2. Since the lower can be sacrificed for the sake of the higher, our natural ends can be sacrificed for the sake of our supernatural end.
3. Only God, the author of both ends, can in principle effect such a sacrifice, and only He has the right even to try to do so.
4. So while we could never take it upon ourselves intentionally to kill the innocent, God can do so as part of His intention to realize for us a supernatural end.
5. The people in the stories in question were acting as God’s agents, carrying out a directly revealed divine order.
6. The case is therefore analogous to miracles: When we do science, we are describing the way the material world naturally tends to work, and we state scientific laws in a peremptory way, but this is perfectly compatible with saying “Of course, a divine suspension of the natural order may cause a different result.” Similarly in ethics, when we state a moral absolute we are talking about the way things work in the natural course of things, short of a divine suspension of the natural course of things for the sake of a supernatural end.
7. So, the examples in question no more entail the wearing of impaled infant pins than a scientist who believes that miracles are at least in theory possible (as even an atheist scientist might) should for that reason be wearing a Resurrection pin.
8. Such divine suspensions of the ordinary moral course of things have not occurred since biblical times and cannot occur today (at least not from a Catholic POV, since Catholic doctrine holds that general, public divine revelations on matters of faith and morals of the sort that occurred in biblical times do not occur in the present, post-Pentecost age).

Again, none of this has to do with natural law theory per se, anyway, but only with theological ethics, which I have not been talking about. But I do think it is perfectly reasonable for a skeptic to ask “Wouldn’t such a position allow that God might in theory command the killing of infants, etc.? And if so, how can you make that plausible?” The theological ethicist who believes the stories in question should just answer the question, rather than complain that the discussion has been debased. And the consequentialist should do the same vis-a-vis Nagasaki and the like.

Here is the link:

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/08/happy_consequentialism_day.html#comment-141941

 

[Windfish]

Finally, here is what Jimmy Akin has written on it:

jimmyakin.org/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I have always disagreed with his interpretation on the slaughter of the Canaanites. His interpretive key (i.e., Jesus) is dead on, but I don’t think it warrants such an allegorizing interpretation.

I’ll buy that. His is a Catholic view, though, and if someone thinks what Fr. Barron says seems more like the truth than what we have to say, they should know it is a canonical option. That you disagree with him may help to show the legitimate diversity of opinion the Church allows.

 

[Windfish]

And there is so much more material.

I would comment more on the issue of slavery, but I have not researched it enough, yet. I will say, though, that this issue is “resolved,” so to speak, if you take into consideration the moral development of God’s people in salvation history - Joe’s analysis and analogy are particularly good illustrations of this.

On a more personal level, what you have written about in your personal life saddens me. The spirit of God is one of peace and joy and steadiness, anything else - despair, misery, and erraticism - are of the Evil One. Please take care, and be watchful. And as I said, do not be in isolation - make friends! For your spiritual AND intellectual benefit! I have tried to seek out friends to help better my intellectual and spiritual growth - parents, husbands, wives, elders, professors, and other Catholics of all kinds and different backgrounds. Each of them has helped me greatly, and I hope I have helped them, too!

 

[Windfish]

I’ll buy that. His is a Catholic view, though, and if someone thinks what Fr. Barron says seems more like the truth than what we have to say, they should know it is a canonical option. That you disagree with him may help to show the legitimate diversity of opinion the Church allows.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a possible interpretation - Scripture, like prophecy, has multiple meanings and can apply to more than one thing! With that in mind, he’s probably right about the interior, spiritual aspect. But I think you will have a hard time trying to argue that there is no historical aspect.

 

[Windfish]

I have a favor to ask… I was going to post this link to help out MoM2, but I hesitated because it comes from a Protestant source. Remember, Protestants lack the fullness of Christian Revelation, and I am weary about their apologetics because of that.

Here is the link: christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html

For those who are more knowledgeable on Scripture take a look and let me know what you think. Is it good?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a possible interpretation - Scripture, like prophecy, has multiple meanings and can apply to more than one thing! With that in mind, he’s probably right about the interior, spiritual aspect. But I think you will have a hard time trying to argue that there is no historical aspect.

Is farther barron saying there is no historical aspect, but rather it s is a crude representation of spiritual death using physical descriptions? Although that would ease things a little, its a bit hard to stretch.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Is farther barron saying there is no historical aspect, but rather it s is a crude representation of spiritual death using physical descriptions? Although that would ease things a little, its a bit hard to stretch.

See for yourself.

As for the latter explanation, we have God as the Father, as described by Fr. Barron. It starts at 3:21.

Personally, I believe and I believe he’s saying that outside of any historicity these stories express a truth. He doesn’t quite mention historicity — personally, I believe that it is the least important quality of stories about God and His people.

Put aside the historicity and embrace the truth behind it, if that is all you can wrap your arms around!

 

[Della]

Okay, I’ll try again! What bothers me is the outright hubris of modern man who thinks he can pick up the Bible, read it cold (no historical understanding only his own modern sense of “niceness” to go by) and understand what the OT is telling us about God. It is monumental hubris of the most dangerous kind!!!

We aren’t atheists here. How dare anyone judge God’s actions based in his own faulty and uneducated reading of the OT? It’s utter folly. The Bible is a “two-edged sword” not a nice little book of sweet stories and fables. It will cut anyone to the bone who dares to dabble in it unprepared, bringing to it a closed set of “principles” of his own making. It’s as dangerous as a million sticks of TNT not something to be handled by those who know nothing about it. Even a little education can be dangerous, as we clearly see here.

Understand people. The Bible is not to be trifled with any more than the Eucharist. It’s a sacred text inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by holy men. If you don’t understand something ask reliable authorities, but don’t try to determine on your own what it tells us about God nor judge it’s persons/situations. That is not ours to do. Ours is to be faithful to God and learn what we can from those who have studied these things diligently and prayerfully with the blessing of the Church which alone has the authority to tell us what it all means.

For example, Elias and the “children” who taunted him. Firstly, they weren’t “children” of 5 or 6 years old–they were teens. Young men who had gone through the rites of adulthood and should have known better than to taunt the prophet of God. They pelted him with mud and ran after him, calling him names. By doing so they were, in effect, taunting God and calling God names because Elias spoke in God’s name with the authority of God. The she bear destroying them was a warning to the “next” generation of Israel that God will not be mocked, nor his prophet who speaks for him. It was the duty of Israel to remain faithful to the Lord at all costs, even if that cost came high and dear.

We modern Westerners are such wimps. We expect everything to be handed to us and that we shouldn’t suffer for the cause of God. But, in our very day 7 out of every 10 Christians in the world suffers persecution of one kind or another. That is what we should be focusing on, not what we “don’t like” about the OT. We should be on our knees thanking God for all his blessings instead of daring to tell him how we think he should have “behaved” towards peoples long dead and buried.

Let he who has ears to hear listen…

 

[donsnow]

Thanks, Della,

Yes, there are Christians in Asia and Africa who obey the same injunction found in both OT and NT: “…keep faith unto death…”.

When we live in Christ, we’ll be ready to die in Christ. And, though I die, if I die in Christ, yet shall I live forever.
No sense in grumbling about things in the Holy Bible nor in society, along the way.

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Okay, I’ll try again! What bothers me is the outright hubris of modern man who thinks he can pick up the Bible, read it cold (no historical understanding only his own modern sense of “niceness” to go by) and understand what the OT is telling us about God. It is monumental hubris of the most dangerous kind!!!

We aren’t atheists here. How dare anyone judge God’s actions based in his own faulty and uneducated reading of the OT? It’s utter folly. The Bible is a “two-edged sword” not a nice little book of sweet stories and fables. It will cut anyone to the bone who dares to dabble in it unprepared, bringing to it a closed set of “principles” of his own making. It’s as dangerous as a million sticks of TNT not something to be handled by those who know nothing about it. Even a little education can be dangerous, as we clearly see here.

Understand people. The Bible is not to be trifled with any more than the Eucharist. It’s a sacred text inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by holy men. If you don’t understand something ask reliable authorities, but don’t try to determine on your own what it tells us about God nor judge it’s persons/situations. That is not ours to do. Ours is to be faithful to God and learn what we can from those who have studied these things diligently and prayerfully with the blessing of the Church which alone has the authority to tell us what it all means.

For example, Elias and the “children” who taunted him. Firstly, they weren’t “children” of 5 or 6 years old–they were teens. Young men who had gone through the rites of adulthood and should have known better than to taunt the prophet of God. They pelted him with mud and ran after him, calling him names. By doing so they were, in effect, taunting God and calling God names because Elias spoke in God’s name with the authority of God. The she bear destroying them was a warning to the “next” generation of Israel that God will not be mocked, nor his prophet who speaks for him. It was the duty of Israel to remain faithful to the Lord at all costs, even if that cost came high and dear.

We modern Westerners are such wimps. We expect everything to be handed to us and that we shouldn’t suffer for the cause of God. But, in our very day 7 out of every 10 Christians in the world suffers persecution of one kind or another. That is what we should be focusing on, not what we “don’t like” about the OT. We should be on our knees thanking God for all his blessings instead of daring to tell him how we think he should have “behaved” towards peoples long dead and buried.

Let he who has ears to hear listen…

I would still believe the world was created in seven days if I had your attitude. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture or Gods supposed actions.

 

[Della]

I would still believe the world was created in seven days if I had your attitude. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture or Gods supposed actions.

As it happens, I don’t believe in a literal seven day creation and no one said anything about being a fundamentalist literalist, either. And yes, there is a lot wrong with questioning Scripture and God’s actions (there’s no supposed about it, actually, only people’s inaccurate and uneducated guesses about his actions). I’m not some wild-eyed fanatic who is blind to the evils of the world. Just the opposite. I firmly believe in reason and common sense. But I also believe that God is God, not me, and that his ways are not my ways.

In no way has God ever commanded anything against his nature nor anything that is intrinsically evil. What we have here is a lack of understanding and learning, and maybe a bit too much influence by the modern world that, if it hasn’t outright rejected God–the real God, wants him on its own terms. That’s not going to happen. We answer to God not vice versa. We have to live up to his expectations, not he to ours. The Catholic faith is all about seeing ourselves in the light of God’s truth. We have to understand that truth from his point of view, not our own. Unless and until we are willing to do that we will never understand who God is and what he expects of us.

 

[tonyrey]

I would still believe the world was created in seven days if I had your attitude. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture or Gods supposed actions.

Indeed. The Bible is a collection of writings selected by the Catholic Church which require interpretation - as is evident from the thousands of Protestant sects which have sprung up as the result of individuals believing they are unique in their understanding of the Word of God. Theologians disagree on the interpretation of many texts but they are united in their belief in the basic doctrines formulated by the Church. The precise meaning of texts in the Old Testament pales into insignificance in the context of the uniqueness and beauty of Christ’s teaching. To parody John Keats, “That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know…”

 

[donsnow]

I would still believe the world was created in seven days if I had your attitude. There is nothing wrong with questioning scripture or Gods supposed actions.

I have always found it disturbing, to come across Catholics who spout atheist and skeptic beliefs. Which is what the above looks like.