Why is Judith in the Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember that the books of the Bible may not makes sense at a particular time of your life. For now, focus on the pre-figurement aspects of the book and move on. Months or years from now, re-read it and it may not be so troubling.
 
As I’ve tried clarifying before, I understand that all people are flawed. My confusion stems from the fact that the entire book of Judith seems to center on and praise her flaws.

Also, I have asked similiar questions on other passages people are bringing up and got satisfying answers. Abraham’s claim that his wife was his sister was not false. It was pointed out to me that he even explains that when she is discovered to be his wife. Withholding information is not the same as lying. Esau also gave Jacob his birth right, so for all intensive purposes he was now the “first born” when he went to his father.

I don’t understand why my misunderstandings are being avoided in these answers. Why would God help Judith in her intention to cause lust/seduce people? Why is it okay that she perverted the truth? Why is it good that she killed someone, not in the combat of war, but in cold blood when we see how God loved David for not killing Saul while he slept? Most instances of sin in the bible are corrected. David was a hero, but God still reprimanded him when he sent a man to die after coveting his wife. Why is Judith praised for all of the seemingly wicked things she does? What am I missing?
 
Willing_Spirit said:
to save the Hebrews from what seems to be another oncoming punishment from God for turning away from Him.
Click to expand...
God is the author of history. If it was His will that the Hebrews were punished & enslaved, they would have been punished & enslaved.

Instead, a woman believed, defeated the enemy & delivered her people.
 
Willing_Spirit said:
Why would God help Judith in her intention to cause lust/seduce people? Why is it okay that she perverted the truth? Why is it good that she killed someone, not in the combat of war, but in cold blood when we see how God loved David for not killing Saul while he slept? Most instances of sin in the bible are corrected.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but when I think we were not intended to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, then we err when we say this is good & that is evil.

All I know is our God brings good out of all things for those who fear Him.

So I can’t say, “God exalted Judith for cold blooded murder dressed like a tramp, He won’t have a problem if I seduce my neighbor & stab him in the head.”

These were a primitive people God used to help a primitive people understand Him. Trust God. In all things. He will deliver you.

Keep in mind Jesus corrected Moses. The Hebrew people’s understanding of marriage & divorce was wrong, way wrong.

Like wise a lot of “understanding” was corrected in His teaching. So it’s important to filter “Judith” through the New Testament.
 
That seemed to me that she didn’t do it because she desired sensuality, but nevertheless did it to cause men to desire sensuality. If I recall correctly, a passage near the one you posted mentions that she intends to “entice” men.
 
Would you consider calling up catholic answers during one of its radio shows? Or calling the Apologist line?
 
The deception which Judith uses was of a type regarded as licit in a war against an invader. Judith did not seek or even fear Holofernes’ lust. God led her to act in the way she did (13:16-19). By beheading him without her honor being damaged in any way, she achieves a double victory, moral and patriotic. This is why Catholic piety sees in Judith a symbol of Mary Immaculate who, without being affected by the promptings of the tempter, crushes the head of the infernal serpent. - Judith and Esther | Catholic Answers

 
OK, since nothing else helps, how about this: the Lord allows evil (deceit) so that He may bring good (salvation of the Israelites) from it?

Or, consider: As Jesus walked with Cleopas and the other disciple on that first Easter morning, He made as if he was continuing on, when that was not the case. Did He deceive them?

I think you are putting far too fine a point on this, and lasering in on the negative aspect of an act, both of patriotism and desperation, which ultimately saved the nation.

Anyway, my words have utterly failed, so I’m out.
 
Guest1 said:
The deception which Judith uses was of a type regarded as licit in a war against an invader. Judith did not seek or even fear Holofernes’ lust.
Click to expand...
Excellent reply!
Willing_Spirit said:
Why would God help Judith in her intention to cause lust/seduce people?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid part of me looks on that question as “blaming the victim”. When the army of the Assyrians conquered a city and enslaved the people, was it the fault of the women when they were raped (as was expected at the time – if the city surrendered beforehand, there was a chance they could keep that from happening to their wives and daughters)?

Judith knew she was beautiful, and had spent several years hiding that fact under sackcloth and ashes. She knew this was a gift from G_D. To say that she “caused lust” is like saying she MADE men lust after her. You can’t MAKE someone “lust after” you; you can’t MAKE someone so angry that they hit you. Those are choices that people make in how they react in certain situations. When the Assyrians made plans to attack Israel, they were boastful and claimed the powers of G_D in conquering Israel. All G_D did was say to Judith to use the gifts he had given to her to make Holofernes vulnerable to her. And as Judith 12:11-12 makes clear, Holofernes intended to rape (seduce) Judith that night. (The desire and attempts of men to sexually abuse those in their power is not something new to the 20th and 21st centuries.) So her actions can also be viewed as protective : she would have known his intent; known that if she refused him he would have ordered her killed; known that if she just walked away leaving him alive he would have ordered the rape and enslavement of Israel. Did G_D desire Holofernes’ death? No, certainly not! But he had already placed himself outside of and in opposition to G_D, and his death was the only way to ensure Israel would be spared.
Willing_Spirit said:
Why is it good that she killed someone, not in the combat of war, but in cold blood when we see how God loved David for not killing Saul while he slept?
Click to expand...
This WAS combat of war. Holofernes was acting in the name of a king who had declared war against Israel. He was a valid target, whether on the field of battle or by assassination. If one of the Israelites had snuck in and killed Holofernes after he had fallen asleep while drunk, would you consider that dishonorable and NOT “in the combat of war” as well? Is it because she was not an officer of the Israelite army? Where in the laws of G_D or man is it written that citizens (or more to the point, ONLY WOMEN) are forbidden to use violence in defending their nation?

Did she pervert the truth? Depends. I’m not sure how the Catholic Church views those who “pervert truth” and feed the enemy false information, but I somehow doubt that it’s a matter of grave sin, especially when the lives of so many people hang in the balance. She only told him what he wanted (and in his arrogance, expected) to hear.
 
Last edited:
Willing_Spirit said:
Why is it good that she killed someone, not in the combat of war, but in cold blood when we see how God loved David for not killing Saul while he slept?
Click to expand...
Again, this WAS in the “combat of war”. God loved David for not killing Saul because Saul had been God’s chosen instrument to lead His People Israel. As such, it was good that David showed Saul mercy. Holofernes, as noted before, had no love for G_D, did not acknowledge Him as G_D (as he worshiped King Nebuchadnezzar – remember, this campaign was to subjugate those people who did not view this king as a god), and was in opposition to G_D. His death was a result of his opposition to G_D. If Judith had killed him in the street, that would have been sinful. Here she was acting as G_D’s agent in defending His people.

I think this is the thing you are missing. You seem to view Holofernes (and by extension King Nebuchadnezzar) as innocent actors in this story. They were not. They were people who rejected G_D and were acting to destroy His People and to bring down His Holy Name. If after hearing the testimony of Achior back in Judith 5:1-21 Holofernes had chosen not to attack, he would have lived. Instead, he chose to follow his god (King Nebuchadnezzar), oppose G_D, and so died. He died without glory, without honor, while drunk in his bedchamber, killed by a woman. Do you think this might be a lesson to those who might be tempted to attack Israel?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time addressing each of my questions. Some of your points along with those made by others have brought more clarity to my understanding. Another thing I thought of after reading these replies is that, like divorce, people might not have thought dressing provocatively was a big deal before Jesus taught about “adultery in the heart”. It does make sense that maybe anyone that wasn’t from Israel wasn’t expected to be treated equally under the Old Covenant too.
 
Willing_Spirit said:
… people might not have thought dressing provocatively was a big deal …
Click to expand...
Be careful of projecting your interpretations into Scripture. You use the phrase “dressing provocatively”. In modern parlance, that usually means to show MUCH more skin than usual or even strictly necessary. The Israelites knew the meaning of this term, also. I’ve gone over the relevant sections of Judith (chapter 10) and nowhere, NOWHERE, does it say that Judith dressed “provocatively”. In fact, Judith 10:3 states that she, “dressed in the festive attire she had worn while her husband, Manasseh, was living.” I doubt very much that her husband encouraged her to dress provocatively for other men while he was alive. Instead, she used perfume and styled her hair, along with accessories, to increase her attractiveness. There is nothing in scripture to say that she did this without maintaining her modesty.

Think of the women you might see at a fancy holiday party. Some might push the edge in terms of modesty, but most of them will rely on their natural beauty.
 
I often doubted the value of some of the Scripture, especially of the OT.
Then some weeks ago i was attending Mass listening about a passage that made no sense to me. Then in the homily the priest explained that passage and it made perfect sense in the context of the Mass.
So i realized every passage of Scripture has a meaning and serve its purpose, even if it is not apparent to us.
 
God’s message to the snake; “I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel.’”

Genesis 3:15
 
Douay-Rheims, Gen. 3: [15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

[15] “She shall crush”: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top