Why did God condone/command this?

[Todd_Easton]

The following passage summarizes the reasons for the command:

17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and cut off at your rear all who lagged behind you; and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies round about, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget. (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

Without provocation and without fear of God, the Amalekites attacked the Israelites soon after they left Egypt while they were making their way through the wilderness, when they were faint and weary, preying on those who lagged behind. Therefore, for their wicked deeds, God decided to blot out the remembrance of the Amalekites from under heaven and decided to use the Israelites themselves to do it, similar to the way He once used the waters of the Flood in the days of Noah and the rain of brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Lot, which killed both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

Concerning the seemingly-unjust death of the innocent among the Amalekites, remember that death is not the end and there is a reasonable hope that those who die in their innocence leave this valley of tears and go into eternal happiness. See Wisdom 3:1-9; 4:7-18, which talk about the righteous who die before reaching old age.

 

[kainosktisis]

In Genesis one gets an inkling of the rivalry & animosity that arises when Jacob cheats his older brother, Esau, out of his inheritance. Jacob takes what should rightfully go to the firstborn son, & he made an enemy of his brother with that - so much so that Esau had murder in mind with the impending death of their father, Isaac.

Esau married Canaanite women, whose practices were abhorrent to Esau’s parents. They grieved Isaac & Rebekah.

The Amalekites are said to have been descendants of Esau, & they made war with Israel.

See here in Wikipedia on Amalek:

Amalek - Wikipedia

Amalekites (Jewish Virtual Library) :

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-amalekites

It may not completely answer your question, but it gives some background for the hostilities between the 2 peoples.

I would also add that the Israelites were commanded by God not to take up the evil practices of the people of the land nor to intermarry with them because their practices would defile them & the land, & that the Israelites were to be a holy people to the Lord. They were commanded to drive out the inhabitants of the land that God had given them because of their practices. For this reason the land was “vomiting out” the inhabitants, & the Israelites were not to do likewise, or else they would experience the same.

It suggests that not only does sin impact people individually, but also communally, & even environmentally so as to upset the balance of life.

 

[goout]

Catholic scripture interpretation is not literalist fundamentalist, in the manner of modern evangelicals. We don’t take the word of God as CNN type journalism or office dictation, now do we view scripture as literalist history or science.

Scripture has elements of all of those. Scripture has elements of history, and also describes the world around us like science does, but scripture was not written as a history or science textbook. Scripture was written in different literary genres, and interpretation must take those genres into account. Genesis for instance is something like inspired poetry, not science or rigid history. You don’t believe there is a hammered metal dome in the sky, right? Why not? Taken in a literalist sense, those exact words are in Genesis. But Genesis does not intend to offer definitive scientific explanations of the sky’s construction. That’s not the inspired point of Genesis. So you must look deeper at God’s word.

Likewise these difficult passages detailing slaughter and seeming to portray cruelty on God’s part.
You have to read these passages with a couple of different baselines:

1. always read scripture with the Church, not as an individual
2. Jesus Christ is God’s full and final revelation of himself. Scripture scholars always refer to Christ as “the ultimate hermeneutical key”, or the lens through which scripture has meaning.

When you look at these passages, the overwhelming mainstream Catholic thought rejects the idea that God would command one human being to slaughter other human beings, especially innocent human beings. It is in fact incompatible with God’s revealed nature in Christ to do these things in will or command.

If that is the case, you must look for a deeper meaning of the written word. And plenty of meaning is present, if you can get by modern English speaking fundamentalism.

 

[goout]

Many of the apologies for the literalist explanation of this passage miss the point entirely.

The following points are generally accepted truths, but we have to get past these to answer this question for those who are confused:

1. God is the author of life; God breathes it into us and takes it away.
2. Temporal human life is not the end, and to be with God in eternity is our end.
3. God asks us to cooperate in accomplishing God’s will.

and here’s the missed point that bothers so many people
It’s not in God’s nature to command one human being to slaughter another human being, especially an innocent human beings. It is dogma that Christ is God’s full and final revelation of himself. And so by looking at Christ we know God’s will for us. There is not one God of the OT and then Christ is a new God. No, same God, eternally.

 

[kainosktisis]

How does this reconcile Psalm 149, where we read the following?

Psalms, PSALM 149 | USCCB

« previous chapter | next chapter »
1
Hallelujah!
Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the faithful.a
2
Let Israel be glad in its maker,
the people of Zion rejoice in their king.
3
Let them praise his name in dance,
make music with tambourine and lyre.b
4
For the LORD takes delight in his people,
honors the poor with victory.
5
Let the faithful rejoice in their glory,
cry out for joy on their couches,
6
With the praise of God in their mouths,
and a two-edged sword in their hands,c
7
To bring retribution on the nations,
punishment on the peoples,d
8
To bind their kings in shackles,
their nobles in chains of iron,
9
To execute the judgments decreed for them—
such is the glory* of all God’s faithful.
Hallelujah!

The Commentary that follows:

"* [Psalm 149] A hymn inviting the people of Israel to celebrate their God in song and festive dance (Ps 149:1–3, 5) because God has chosen them and given them victory (Ps 149:4). The exodus and conquest are the defining acts of Israel; the people must be ready to do again those acts in the future at the divine command (Ps 149:6–9).

• [149:3] Make music with tambourine and lyre: the verse recalls the great exodus hymn of Ex 15:20.
• [149:5] On their couches: the people reclined to banquet.
• [149:9] The glory: what brings honor to the people is their readiness to carry out the divine will, here conceived as punishing injustice done by the nations."

 

[goout]

Pope Benedict’s Apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Sec 42:

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.

Read St Augustine’s confessions. There are a couple of sections where the Saint rejects literalism.
Bp Barron (who refers back to Origen) is a clear and concise speaker on this subject:

Catholics, don’t be easy bait for atheists! When you make Christianity into fundamentalist caricatures, you make life easy for atheists and others who would like to accuse God.

 

[goout]

How does this reconcile Psalm 149, where we read the following?

Well, how do you answer your question?
What do other Catholic scholars say who devote their lives to this field of study?

 

[goout]

Are you saying this event did not actually occur? If not, by what means do you determine which events in the OT are literal?

There is a difference between an occurrence and the meaning of that occurrence. Does that make sense?
I am a revert to the faith, and had a conversion experience years ago. When I relay this experience to others I say “God spoke to me” in this way and that or “God said to me”. Do I mean that God spoke audibly in human words that came out of nowhere? No of course not. I am relaying a truth as I understand it, in the context it occurred, in the language I use, to the best of my limited abilities.

Scripture is Inspired by God, and…written by human beings, using human language and understanding, with a specific cultural context, under the Inspiration of God. Knowing that context is key to finding the Truth God wants to convey. The human context is going to have a beauty and integrity, and…the human context is limited, because human beings are limited creatures. Both/and. Inspired by God and written in human words and context.

You read the bible as a whole, not in isolated passages
You read the bible as a community, not as an individual
You read the bible with Christ, not with assumptions about an OT God that is disconnected from Christ.

 

[rose321]

1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says … “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Respectfully toward… opinion only. In pondering also on this verse
Personally should we take the bible literally?
First one has to …know…him… to know when it is he speaking maybe?

Asking would our heavenly Father…who is the fullness of Love…Truth…transgress his own laws…thou shall not K.ll?.. If he did…he would be transgressor of his own laws, he would be a liar also breaking another Thou shall not, and breaking his own Torah Laws, right??

Confused One who tells us …Thou shall not…then commands someone to do just that ?

Asking within his spoken word, repeated many many times…All life is sacred in the blood unto me, destroy it not?

Read the Covenant of Noah 9:5-8… he makes that very clear destroy not another, does he not?

What does he say about those who harm the little children it would be better if they tied what around their…?

Then there is the great prophet Jeremiah 8:8

How can you say “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely.

Jesus in Matthew Chapter 23 is where Jesus rebukes the Scribes and gives the Woe’s to them, does he not why? Identifies them as being the children of the father of lies?

In pondering in ancient times there was good Kings/ bad Kings, there were many also who were known and titled as gods/ lords would this be true? Even till the day of the Caesars, printed on their own coins, right?

Finding out…that the Bible is like a library, filled with many books within,
Book of Poetry?
Book of Ancient Kings?..
Book of Songs?
Book of Medicine?
Book of Math?
Book of ancient Wars?
Book of Nations, histories, cultures, laws etc?
Book of Proverbs?
Book of Wise sayings?
Book of different religions, cultures, rituals etc?
Book of Architecture?
list can go on and on?

Our Heavenly Father spoke in this world there is
Truth vs Lies?
Good vs Evil?

Opinion only not going to blame this on my Heavenly Father, was the one commanding this for he is the fullness of Love. Gives us his Thou shall not.

In the beginning he Spoke… Spoken …he did not write down at the beginning nor at the end, but man did, those whom served him?

Important is it not.that we seek to …know …him …first then we will …know… who is speaking when/ those who are not of him, maybe?

Jesus teaches us how and gives instructions commanding us to Test all Spirits?
How?.. Question and Examine?
You will know them by their fruits?
Bring 2 or more Witnesses, asking is His Spoken Word …can be our witness also?

Commanded. Do not eat from the tree of good and evil.
Tree mixed with truth & lies, maybe?
Did Jesus not tell us to search for the pearl within?

Peace & respectfully toward but I do much pondering on:thinking:

 

[Gorgias]

it never happened. There are some inconsistencies in other OT passages that seem to indicate that the canaanites weren’t wiped out.

You’ve got a fourth option, then. “God ordered it, but it didn’t happen.”

Incidentally, that would have profound implications to the original audience of the text: since they didn’t believe in secondary causation, they believed that everything that happened actually took place because it was literally the will of God. Therefore, they wouldn’t have had the same problems with the text that we do. They would reason that, since it didn’t happen, God relented – that is, that God acted mercifully. So, they wouldn’t call that a “hard passage” at all, but rather, in an odd way, a beautiful passage that demonstrates God’s mercy on those who deserve punishment.

 

[midori]

Don’t forget the bit in Deuteronomy that goes----

29 The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.

So, with our modern eyes, we say, “Ohhh, that’s so sad. Why would God order such a thing to those poor innocent children/animals/people?” and at the same time, we’re indifferent to the crimes against their own children that were committed that brought judgment upon them.

Also, don’t forget that cultures were contagious back then. Even Ahaz and Manasseh, who were kings, ended up sacrificing their own children to Moloch. So it seems that it was kinder to the population at large to wipe out the toxic culture, so that the evils would stop, rather than tolerating them way-over-there and allowing them to continue through time.

In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah, Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. 2 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God. 3 He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

and

Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

 

[kainosktisis]

You’re not answering my question & are in fact avoiding it.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, taken in historical context, a lot of the bible is not literal, because early history was passed down by oral tradition and was not a literal account of what happened.

“Oral tradition” =/= “not literal”. You might claim, if you wish, that redactors might have modified the account, but you can’t claim that they’re not literal accounts (or even accounts that are attempting to be literal) simply because they come to us through oral tradition.

For example, great flowery speeches by famous roman emporers would often be made up by historians who knew the gist of what happened.

Apples and oranges. This is not an example of oral tradition.

More to the point, these historians were attempting to give literal accounts – this is what they would have thought that the orators would have said, if they had recordings of their speeches. They were actually trying their best to reconstruct what the speech would have been – even if their attempts were more fiction than non-fiction.

However, you’re also failing to ask what the norms for “literal history” were, back then, and failing to distinguish the differences between their standards and ours.

The gospels are written as factual accounts, yet obviously the parables Jesus told were just stories - there was no Good Samaritan for example.

Who claims that the parables were literal, historical accounts? For crying out loud, the evangelists themselves tell us in the Gospels that they’re merely stories (i.e., ‘parables’)!

I don’t see how child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey could all be evil. Can you explain how you know that they were evil?

I think we would say that the Amalekites were evil. The account says that they’re “under the ban”. That means that God is asserting that they – and all their possessions – belong to Him. Therefore, no one is permitted to profit from their destruction; no one is allowed to take their stuff as their personal war booty. (You know that this was the whole point of the annual spring-time war parties, right? The goal was to attack your neighbors and run away with their stuff. You would take people hostages, in order to ransom them back to their families. They would take young children and raise them as their own (after all, extra hands in the fields meant more work gets done and more stuff gets produced). It was all about personal enrichment at the expense of one’s neighbors.)

So, God is not saying that their children or donkeys or jewelry was evil – just that the Israelites were not permitted to profit from them.

 

[Gorgias]

It says that the bible can be allegorical in the Catechism.

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.

Oh, boy. You’ve misinterpreted that passage severely. The “allegorical sense” does not mean that the literal sense is replaced by the allegorical. Read a bit further, and get to paragraph 117: " 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."

What you’re attempting to say is that the literal sense might be an allegorical interpretation of the words on the page. That much is true. Please don’t say that the presence of the “allegorical sense” means that we throw out the literal sense.

 

[goout]

Ok.

The people are exultant with victory over enemies. They have won. War is hard and people die. They have killed many people. And the Israelites thank God they have won. And they see God’s powerful hand in their deeds, to the best of their understanding. This is how they understand God’s will and action in their lives.

If by reconcile you mean make true in a literalist way, no.

 

[goout]

ShrodingersCat:

It says that the bible can be allegorical in the Catechism.

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.

Oh, boy. You’ve misinterpreted that passage severely. The “allegorical sense” does not mean that the literal sense is replaced by the allegorical. Read a bit further, and get to paragraph 117: " 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."

What you’re attempting to say is that the literal sense might be an allegorical interpretation of the words on the page. That much is true. Please don’t say that the presence of the “allegorical sense” means that we throw out the literal sense.

It’s essential to distinguish literal from literalist.
The bible is, by definition, a work of inspired literature. And so the words have an integrity and primary sense, as they are written. So, we don’t change the words to find Truth, we take the words as they are written, and find meaning and sense from those words. For instance, many have altered scripture over the centuries to suit themselves. Adding or detracting words from the text violates the literal sense.

Literalism superimposes your understanding of the words, in your language, in your culture, with your understanding, and tries to make them materially factual. But the bible was never written as a materialist manifesto of facts.
And what that does is robs scripture of it’s life.

 

[kainosktisis]

I understand your point, but on what basis do you decide what is literal vs literalist?

Can you please point me to an authoritative Church-approved text indicating what Scripture is interpreted as one or the other?

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add, the temporal punishments and chastisements in the OT were figures of what Jesus revealed. Sins that led to death, like idolatry, etc. are generally sins that lead to damnation. The destruction of whole societies showed how such sins could corrupt the whole society.

Sins are no longer punished with the pedagogical punishments, since the real, eternal consequences have been revealed. Such commands as in the OP were extraordinary in their own day, and certainly are not operative now. In fact, since revelation has ended, they never can be again.

Here is how St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue puts it (God is speaking here):

St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue

The old law was the law of fear, that was given by Me to Moses, by which law they who committed sin suffered the penalty of it. The new law is the law of love, given by the Word of My only-begotten Son, and is founded in love alone. The new law does not break the old law, but rather fulfills it, as said My Truth, ‘I come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.’ And He united the law of fear with that of love. Through love was taken away the imperfection of the fear of the penalty, and the perfection of holy fear remained, that is, the fear of offending, not on account of one’s own damnation, but of offending Me, who am Supreme Good. So that the imperfect law was made perfect with the law of love. Wherefore, after the car of the fire of My only-begotten Son came and brought the fire of My charity into your humanity with abundance of mercy, the penalty of the sins committed by humanity was taken away, that is, he who offended was no longer punished suddenly, as was of old given and ordained in the law of Moses.

There is, therefore, no need for servile fear; and this does not mean that sin is not punished, but that the punishment is reserved, unless, that is to say, the person punish himself in this life with perfect contrition. For, in the other life, the soul is separated from the body, wherefore while man lives is his time for mercy, but when he is dead comes the time of justice.

 

[kainosktisis]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 

[Gorgias]

I understand your point, but on what basis do you decide what is literal vs literalist?

We listen to the Church when she authoritatively interprets a passage of Scripture. (Not every verse has been explicitly interpreted by the Church, BTW.)

Can you please point me to an authoritative Church-approved text indicating what Scripture is interpreted as one or the other?

We can give you examples in which the Church has said “this passage is figurative” or “this passage is literal”. Is that what you’re asking for?