What is the specifc Catholic view on the harsh OT laws?

[Windfish]

I am sure this has come up as a topic of debate for many of you with skeptics. It has for me, at least.

I have a general understanding that the nature and spirit of the OT law changed and came into fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, but I there may be more to it than that. Can anyone give the specific Catholic view on the harsh OT laws? I also think a link to an expert like Aiken might be helpful.

Thanks!

 

[corsair]

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean “harsh OT laws”?
Sometimes I get very frustrated by abbreviations.

 

[MarkThompson]

Pardon my ignorance but what do you mean “harsh OT laws”?
Sometimes I get very frustrated by abbreviations.

OT = Old Testament. There’s a lot of stuff in there like, “Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread.”

 

[reggieM]

There’s no official teaching on that as a topic (that I’m aware of).

 

[James_Miller]

They escape explanation today. Even for the Orthodox Jews.

 

[Windfish]

Really? C’mon, there has to be some explanation for them either in Scripture or Church teachings.

 

[SnakeMauler]

One thing I can tell you is that a lot of things are practical. For example, sexual laws (Leviticus Chapter 8 and a few other bits in there) are somewhat practical, as they abhor incest (wierd, and would cause genetic problems), prohibit bestiality (wierd), and prohibit homosexual sex (ouch).

There’s also a law about not touching dead bodies. I mean, when there’s millions of people walking through a desert for 40 years, surely you don’t want to spread disease.

 

[jackinbox]

How about Exodus 21:15?

He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

 

[autdrew]

From my understanding, Jesus said that he didnt come to abolish the law but to fufill it. Christians are not bound by the laws of Moses because of Christ fulfillment. That is the “works” spoken about by Paul, works of the laws of Moses. However, as I understand it, Jews are still bound by them. Not sure if they have a position of those specific ones & if they dont follow them, the consequences.

 

[SnakeMauler]

How about Exodus 21:15?

He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

I can see how that can be difficult to understand. But, try and read it with reason and a historical context. For example, the commandment doesn’t specify just exactly “how hard” a child has to strike their parent for their parent to justifiably kill them. I seriously doubt that on a large scale, children were killed for hitting their parents. My evidence for this is that (besides the sheer fact that it would be ridiculous to kill children for every time they smacked their parents) the Jews were notorious in the ancient world for their strong opposition to infantacide (Many other cultures critcized them for this) and child sacrifice. More then likely that since they already loved their children enough to not have an abortion or kill them, they wouldn’t be particulary trigger happy in killing a hormone raging teenager who punched his dad.

-Snakemauler

 

[reggieM]

Really? C’mon, there has to be some explanation for them either in Scripture or Church teachings.

You can find Catholic commentaries on various passages of Scripture and these have more or less authority depending on the consensus of the Fathers or if referenced in official documents. Some basic rules always apply when interpreting Scripture and in the Catholic view, one cannot read the Old Testament as if all of God’s commands to the Jews were meant as permanent laws.

With that in mind, we interpret the Scriptures through Christ – that is, through His living Church today. If you pick up the Old Testament and think that various regulations were written for Sola Scriptura-Christians, living in the 21st century, then that is a major error at the start. It will make no sense to continue if that is the mind-set you’re using.

The same is very much true with virtually all of the Bible itself. It’s not just “harsh” teachings which could be problematic. It’s possible to distort and confuse just about every word of Sacred Scripture and (as I’ve seen done by skeptics) twist even benign passages to create some kind of logical fallacies and contradictions.

Again, Catholic doctrine is not primarily derived from Scripture. That’s an essential point to understand.

 

[Windfish]

You can find Catholic commentaries on various passages of Scripture and these have more or less authority depending on the consensus of the Fathers or if referenced in official documents. Some basic rules always apply when interpreting Scripture and in the Catholic view, one cannot read the Old Testament as if all of God’s commands to the Jews were meant as permanent laws.

With that in mind, we interpret the Scriptures through Christ – that is, through His living Church today. If you pick up the Old Testament and think that various regulations were written for Sola Scriptura-Christians, living in the 21st century, then that is a major error at the start. It will make no sense to continue if that is the mind-set you’re using.

The same is very much true with virtually all of the Bible itself. It’s not just “harsh” teachings which could be problematic. It’s possible to distort and confuse just about every word of Sacred Scripture and (as I’ve seen done by skeptics) twist even benign passages to create some kind of logical fallacies and contradictions.

Again, Catholic doctrine is not primarily derived from Scripture. That’s an essential point to understand.

This is a terrific start. The bolded, in particular, is quite illuminating. Would I like, though, is an authoritative basis for this, or at least a treatment from a Catholic expert. The thing is, truth cannot contradict or override other revealed truth, so I’ve often wondered what the basis is for not being subject to OT laws and consequences.

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

How about Exodus 21:15?

He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

The Old Testament laws are all TYPES that were fulfilled perfectly by the New Law. The Old Law was concerned mainly with the flesh, but the New Law with the spirit. In another words – physical circumcision prefirgured baptism/spiritual circumcision. That’s why we don’t follow the Old Law any more, because the type is useless once it is fulfilled. Regarding this, please read Pensees by Pascal and The Great Commentary by Cornelius a Lapide.

Regarding that quote, Saint Alphonsus writes that although a child that strikes his parent is no longer put to physical death, he is put to spiritual death, since that is a mortal sin, and he will be punished in Hell for it.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Cough read my previous post cough

 

[Pug]

Are you asking about why they seem harsh to to modern eye, or are you asking why Christians aren’t obeying the harsh-seeming ones? I don’t view most of those laws as harsh for the time. Some show a distinct concern for the weak.

Have you noticed that much of the Law was directed to the Israelites, and not Gentiles (everybody else)?

 

[Apollos]

Can anyone give the specific Catholic view on the harsh OT laws?

Go to newadvent.org/summa/2.htm and scroll down to “OLD LAW: The old law (98) and its precepts (99): moral (100), ceremonial (101) and judicial (104). The causes (102) and duration (103) of the ceremonial precepts. The reason (105) for the judicial precepts.”

This is from Thomas Aquinas’ book Summa Theologiae, and it’s a summary of what the Church had been saying up to the 1200s on the issue. Each of the numbered topics 98-105 touch on your question.

 

[Windfish]

I can see how that can be difficult to understand. But, try and read it with reason and a historical context. For example, the commandment doesn’t specify just exactly “how hard” a child has to strike their parent for their parent to justifiably kill them. I seriously doubt that on a large scale, children were killed for hitting their parents. My evidence for this is that (besides the sheer fact that it would be ridiculous to kill children for every time they smacked their parents) the Jews were notorious in the ancient world for their strong opposition to infantacide (Many other cultures critcized them for this) and child sacrifice. More then likely that since they already loved their children enough to not have an abortion or kill them, they wouldn’t be particulary trigger happy in killing a hormone raging teenager who punched his dad.

-Snakemauler

This, too, is an important lens to view Scripture, the historical. Isn’t also true that transgressors were given the opportunity to repent? Weren’t the consequence only if there was no repentance?

 

[floresco]

A document that deals with your question is *Dei Verbum *: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html You should read the whole thing for the context, but this section to specifically address it:
5. The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. (1) These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence.

1. God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. (2) For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, (3) acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.

 

[reggieM]

This is a terrific start. The bolded, in particular, is quite illuminating. Would I like, though, is an authoritative basis for this, or at least a treatment from a Catholic expert. The thing is, truth cannot contradict or override other revealed truth, so I’ve often wondered what the basis is for not being subject to OT laws and consequences.

Here’s the bolded part again:

If you pick up the Old Testament and think that various regulations were written for Sola Scriptura-Christians, living in the 21st century, then that is a major error at the start. It will make no sense to continue if that is the mind-set you’re using.

A good place to start is with the error of Sola Scriptura. It’s important to see why that idea is false both from the Catholic perspective and also simply in terms of logic and history of the Bible.

Whenever you read the Bible, you are engaging in the act of interpretation of a text. How do you know you’re interpreting a text correctly? You need some “keys” to unlock the correct meaning.

Remember – the Bible has been given to you. You cannot simply read the Bible as if it was intended for isolated individuals who are not connected to the believing community.

The revelation of the Bible comes from God – but you only receive the Bible through the community of believers, the Catholic Church. God gave it to the Catholic Church, so that we would have the keys to interpret it correctly. Without that, the Bible becomes essentially useless, ripped apart by skepticism and individualistic interpretations.

A second area to work on is the notion that you are a Christian living in the 21st century. How is your mind-set different than those of the people living in 1500 B.C.? We have to recognize that God was building a chosen people – so He had to communicate to them in their culture, with moral laws that were needed for God’s ultimate purpose.

So again – what was God’s purpose in raising up the chosen people of Israel? We need to know that in order to interpret the Old Testament – because God’s purpose is the reason for His revelation.

Finally, we might think that God gave every word of the Bible to us as Eternal Law. But Jesus Himself taught that God doesn’t work that way with His people. When asked why divorce and remarriage was permitted to the Jews, Jesus said that God allowed it for a temporal reason. But when the “fulness of time” had come, Christ perfected the moral law.

 

[SnakeMauler]

This, too, is an important lens to view Scripture, the historical. Isn’t also true that transgressors were given the opportunity to repent? Weren’t the consequence only if there was no repentance?

The forgiveness of sins was somewhat of a complex process in the OT days. People “whine” about confession today, but it was a bit more in depth in the OT days. Read through Leveticus. It appears as though people offered animals as sacrifices and then the priest did this complex stuff with their organs and burning them and people offered cereal offerings too and then after all this complex stuff the priest would make an “atonement” on them and forgive them of their sins.