The Significance of Saying that God Commanded Genocide
Violence is no stranger to the Christian story, but we find it on the side the antagonist rather than the protagonist. Unlike heroes in most mythical tales of good versus evil, Christ does not conquer evil by inflicting violence. He triumphs over sin and death by suffering violence, by sacrifice, by paying the price for our sins in order to achieve our redemption. His response to evil is the sacred sacrifice of divine love and the giving of undeserved sanctifying grace.
A recent post here witnessed a debate about whether or not God as depicted in the Old Testament truly commanded the Israelites to commit genocide. Rather than continue that specific debate, I would like to consider the narrative meaning of a God who ordered genocide and its significance for the Christian story and for the narratives of those who seek to justify violence today.
According to one reading of the Old Testament, God needed to order genocide for the preservation of his chosen people, who could not survive the influences of certain others, so that the way would be made for the coming of Jesus Christ and the coming of the Kingdom. The eternal salvation of everyone in every time and every place depended on the Israelites maintaining their purity as the chosen people. God’s response to those who threatened to pervert and corrupt his chosen people was annihilation: God commanded the killing of men and women, infants, newborns, and livestock. The other had to be obliterated to preserve the same. It was a horrid but necessary order, one that is, according to this reading, no longer necessary. Obsolete, one might say. Christ made the world anew, and so God has no need to give such orders again.
What significance does this conception of God have for the Christian story? It elevates the role of violence in the grand narrative. Salvation is now not merely dependent on God’s suffering of violence, but on humankind’s obedience to the role of annihilator, a role that purifies the way for Mary’s “Yes” and the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It grants the infliction of violence a salvific role—a necessary part to play in salvation history. Purifying violence becomes a prerequisite for redemptive suffering.
The consequences of this elevation of violence extend beyond the specific boundaries of the Christian myth: it is not only violence within the narrative leading to the Christ-event that takes on a salvific role. The idea of violence itself has become united with the idea of salvation: salvific violence is one kind of violence, a legitimate kind, even if the particular violence amounts to genocide. Conceiving God as one who commands genocide gives rise to thought about violence and salvation. We have before us an instance of genocide being morally legitimate, countering all condemnations of genocide as intrinsically evil. Indeed, the morality of genocide in this instance isn’t a question of right and wrong, but of power and necessity. God, the all-powerful, orders genocide because it is necessary. Genocide has been and therefore can be morally licit. What is needed to make it licit again? Necessity.
The idea that Christ made the world anew may be used to close the door on the acceptability of genocide today, but the line of thought outlined above creeps through the cracks. The idea of genocidal violence has become united with the idea of salvation. This union gives rise to new thinking. Indeed, we hear today the administration of mass death thought of as a necessary means of salvation. We uphold military might as a solution to the problem of evil. Presidential candidates promise to seek out and defeat evil in the world by destroying those said to be evil. We fight wars to bring “an end to evil” and justify the killing of infants and newborns when such mass killing is necessary. Those today calling for the annihilation of evildoers may or may not believe that God once ordered genocide, but the idea that God once did so gives a theological backing for their call. Genocide was once necessary, so it may be again. The argument that Christ made the world anew, thus making mass violence an obsolete means toward salvation, might appeal on an abstract, theoretical level if one assumes a particular understanding of “made anew,” but on the practical level of concrete action and justification, it has little force. The violent will use what justifications they can to legitimize their violence; the conception of God commanding genocide serves their purpose.
Trackbacks
- 1 Samuel 15 and the Problem of a Bloodthirsty God « Vox Nova
- 1 Samuel 15 and the God’s Approval of Genocide? « Whosoever Desires
Comments are closed.
“The consequences of this elevation of violence extend beyond the specific boundaries of the Christian myth: ”
Is Christianity a myth, then?
Does God actually act in history? Is revelation really Revelation, or just a human projection?
Kyle, Excellent. I believe you write to bring out whatever violence is in us and put that violence under the luminous Light of God. We are given a chance through the contributors at this site to look at the dispositions of our hearts to determine whether or not we are made new.
Violent words from readers and contributors alike need to be brought to light and accepted as that violence which exists in oneself. When that happens the world and the church move toward the Love that Christ desires for the unity of us with Him.
That is the Grace I see moving through VN.
Carole, It is both. It is myth and truth. Humans project on to God what they believe about God.
If you haven’t done so read the Dark Night of the Soul written by St. John of The Cross. It is beautiful.
Modern examples of “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group” (which I believe to be a fair definition of genocide) are (in the West anyway), quite rare. And, I would argue that none used the Judeo-Christian god as their excuse for genocide.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets forth the following elements of an act of genocide: (1) killing members of the group; (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (3) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (5) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. In the 20th Century, the obvious examples of genocide are the Turks against the Armenians, the Nazis against the Jews/Gypsies, and the Hutu against the Tutsi. The perpetrators were hardly standard bearers for Judeo-Christian ideals.
The thing that distinguishes the examples of genocide in the Old Testament from those of modern times is that, in the Old Testament, there was the voice of a prophet or leader calling for genocide in the name of God. Christ has, however, revealed to us that an act of genocide is a mortal sin. And, we are required by our faith to refuse any modern day “prophet” whose own personal “revelation” is a call to genocide. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the “Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations’”. I respectfully disagree that “[t]he idea of genocidal violence has become united with the idea of salvation.”
Kyle
Actually you and others here are opposing God who actually told you in “Wisdom” (which is only in the Catholic canon) why the dooms were done. Did you read “Wisdom” prior to posting against the dooms?
Here is Wisdom chapter 12. It was not all about protecting the Jews from bad influence. It was punishment and only after God had punished them little by little first in order to give them space for repentance which they refused nevertheless:
Wisdom 12:2
“Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little, warn them, and remind them of the sins they are committing, that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD!
3
For truly, the ancient inhabitants of your holy land,
4
whom you hated for deeds most odious– Works of witchcraft and impious sacrifices;
5
1 a cannibal feast of human flesh and of blood, from the midst of. . .– These merciless murderers of children,
6
and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers,
7
that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worthy colony of God’s children.
8
But even these, as they were men, you spared, and sent wasps as forerunners of your army that they might exterminate them by degrees.
9
Not that you were without power to have the wicked vanquished in battle by the just, or wiped out at once by terrible beasts or by one decisive word;
10
But condemning them bit by bit, you gave them space for repentance. You were not unaware that their race was wicked and their malice ingrained, And that their dispositions would never change;
11
for they were a race accursed from the beginning. Neither out of fear for anyone did you grant amnesty for their sins.
12
For who can say to you, “What have you done?” or who can oppose your decree? Or when peoples perish, who can challenge you, their maker; or who can come into your presence as vindicator of unjust men?
13
For neither is there any god besides you who have the care of all, that you need show you have not unjustly condemned;
14
Nor can any king or prince confront you on behalf of those you have punished.”
Apparently Catholic blogs can confront Him nevertheless.
Carole, I believe Kyle is using the concept of a “myth” as being a “truth-bearing allegory,” and that he is NOT applying the word “myth” to the necessary fundamentals of Catholic Christian belief, such as “the Resurrection” or “the Incarnation” or “the Real Presence,” but to such allegories as the creation of the world in six days or the story of Adam and Eve. In that light, as I have often told my students, this kind of “truth-bearing allegory” is more “true” than the fundamental propositions of physics.
Posted earlier at Journeys in Alterity:
Kyle–
In my opinion, the thesis that you have spent time countering here isn’t even worth the time spent. It doesn’t, in the first place, hold water historically–to the extent that the OT presents a rough history of the Jews–or even in terms of the biblical narrative read at a more literal level. Those genocides did not preserve the purity of anything. There was, in fact, nothing “pure” there to be preserved.
It is also historically true, of course, that the Jews pretty quickly rejected the sacrifice of Jesus and preserved their Jewish “purity” against the “corruption” of Christianity.
In any event, the only purity needed, if we are to follow that trend of thought, was the Immaculate Conception. And I fail to see how genocide can be cited as having been necessary to make that possible.
I would take “myth” not to mean “untrue” but in its more ancient sense of “story,”specifically all the disparate events that are drawn together into a meaningful narrative through which we understand ourselves and what is unique to our identity. Even John Paul II on different occasions used the terms “myth” and “mythology” referring to Scriptural narrative. He noted in a footnote that it was the product of 19th century rationalism to relegate the term myth to mean that which is not real. Rather myth can certainly refer to something that is true, but we understand myth the way we do stories, that is in terms of an overarching plot that gives proper meaning and through which we understand the individual parts. Scripture isn’t written as a journalistic report listing all the bare “facts” but as a story that is charged with meaning.
I took that to be Kyle’s meaning, but he may mean otherwise.
Carole,
Alien Shore captures above what I meant by myth.
Bill Bannon,
I’m responding in this post to a particular reading and understanding of the Old Testament, particularly 1 Samuel 15, that has been proposed by readers in a few comment threads. Re-reading Wisdom 12 and applying my interpretation of its insights wasn’t necessary for my task at hand.
Bill Bannon,
Here is a quote by reader Carl from a previous thread. It captures the interpretation to which I’m responding.
“The command and execution of this genocide was based on the fact that the only alternative was Israel falling into “the abominable practices which they do in the service of their gods.” The genocide was necessitated by Israel’s proclivity to the idolatry, sexual immortality and human sacrifice (among other abominations) characteristic among these seven nations. The only alternative to the physical destruction of these nations was the spiritual destruction of Israel.
Certainly, this motive cannot justify the rape, torture or murder of the innocent. It was precisely in order to keep Israel from committing such evils that the Lord commanded them to commit this genocide in the first place. These nations were not innocent and the Israelites were not permitted to rape or torture but only destroy them.”
Kyle
Your reader Carl simply did not know the whole reason that God ordered the total dooms. Carl knew part of the reason..to protect the Jews from corruption since they lacked sanctifying grace which arrives with Christ (Jn.1:17). Wisdom 12 gives the rest of the reason. God first punished them lightly for cannibalism etc and they rejected that message. Then God required the death of everyone of them.
If you read the complete Deuteronomy chapter 20, you will see that God distinguished warfare into two modes which prevented the Jews from morally using the doom approach to any other people after that use unless God spoke through a prophet which may or may not be the case of the Amalekites as separate from the Amorites though Arab historians say they are the same.
Ergo, had the dooms really been the Jungian pre-conscious will of the Jews instead of the will of God, Deuteronomy would not have hemmed them in to restricting the doom approach only to the nations named in Deuteronomy 20. All other nations had to be warred against on other terms which spared women and children. In the dooms, God knew how the doomed children would behave had they lived until maturity hence God’s taking them as children through death actually saved them from something worse than death. Ergo the dooms were a final punishment for the adults but a mercy toward their children who could well be in heaven now and probably are varying with the age and whether they in God’s eyes had attained the use of reason and depending on what they chose.
We find Christ not rejecting the OT violence but conflating the law of Moses with the word of God as to the death penalty for cursing one’s parents in Mark 7:11 on:
10
“For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11
Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban”‘ 4 (meaning, dedicated to God),
12
you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
13
You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on.”
So for Christ: what “Moses said” equals “word of God”.
Prior to sanctifying grace, God needed threats of a severe kind for mankind to seek the good. OT man had actual grace per incident but did not have sanctifying grace nor was demon power reduced until Christ came: hence the many cases of possession at His time whereas there are practically none now.
So prior to grace, God had to stress His power in the face of man being void of grace. After Christ, the death penalties for personal sin vanish because with sanctifying grace, they are no longer necessary as motivators either for Christians or non Christians since the demon world is less strong and “bound” relatively til the end of time when they will be unbound.
But death penalties for murder and crimes are still legitimate which is why Romans 13:4 exists and is an echo of Genesis 9:5-6 (both of which were addressed to non Jews also)…and both of which are not about personal sins but about crimes.
The Jews know Deuteronomy 20 and thus they know even if Catholics don’t: that they may not repeat the dooms within modern warfare since Deuteronomy 20 restricted it to named nations only and there are no more prophets: verse 17
“You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you…”
Void the word of God with theories of preconscious human interference only at your own risk. If Christ did not like such voiding in the pharisees, He certainly does not like it in modern Catholics. Twice the Old Testament warns against subtracting from the Bible.
Posted earlier at Journeys in Alterity:
Kyle writes: “The idea that Christ made the world anew may be used to close the door on the acceptability of genocide today, but the line of thought outlined above creeps through the cracks…Genocide was once necessary, so it may be again.”
I think I understand what you’re going for: If we say that genocide was once acceptable (even if it is in only one completely unique and unrepeatable event in human history), then we cannot say that it is “absolutely” unacceptable but must admit that it is only “conditionally” unacceptable. It seems to leave a crack in the door.
But this is wrong – there is no crack – because the coming of Christ changed the world not merely “for today” but “for ever.” It is impossible to undo the changes wrought by Christ. The conditions that justified genocide in the Old Testament cannot ever be recreated. It is true that I must affirm that my rejection of genocide is “conditional,” but the condition upon which this rejection depends is permanent and unalterable. Therefore there is no crack in the door.
On that score, it seems to me that it could be argued the Charam came to an end not necessarily with Christ, but even earlier, perhaps with the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom (i.e. when the Ark of the Covenant came to Jerusalem). This is speculative, of course, and I won’t quarrel with anyone who disagrees, but I only ask that you allow me to state my case before anyone disagrees.
It seems to me that from the time of David, “Jewish identity” never suffered such severe threats as it once had. Even in the darkest days of the Exile and Diaspora, Jews would say to themselves (and still say to themselves): “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!” (Ps 137:5). These words express a strength of Jewish identity that none of the other tribes shared. Therefore, although the Babylonians would inflict upon Judah what the Assyrians afflicted upon the Northern Kingdom, the Jews never forgot who they were.
Also, let’s not forget that Uriah – the husband of Bathsheba – was a Hittite, a member of a nation under the curse of destruction. And yet he served in David’s army, conformed to a Jewish way of life, and God defended his right to live.
I think that religious Jews who do not acknowledge the coming of Christ, could maintain the logic that I’ve expressed in justification of the Charam (expressly in it’s “obsoleteness”) by locating the defining moment of change with the divine establishment of Jerusalem, the “city of peace,” the “light to the nations.”
Kyle,
Do you also have issues with Moses being killed for striking the rock twice? Or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the plague of the first born on the Egyptians? Did Saphirra deserve to die?
There are many other difficult passages in the bible. But to say that “My God wouldn’t do such a thing” puts you in judgement of God and that isn’t how it works.
I have no answers, only 2Peter 3:16
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures…”
The eternal salvation of everyone in every time and every place depended on the Israelites maintaining their purity as the chosen people.
I think making eternal salvation of everyone dependent on Israelite purity is VERY problematic. I thought eternal salvation depended on God’s grace, not human works ?
In his book Jesus of Nazareth Benedict XVI wrote that the Historical Critical Method remains essential to understand scripture and I think this insight is crucial in the proper interpretatin of these difficult passages.
At Regensberg he taught against violence and the need to combine faith with reason and how not doing that leads to religious justification of violence.
God Bless
The conditions that justified genocide in the Old Testament cannot ever be recreated.
Carl,
The Catholic condemnation of genocide is based on natural law. I don’t think that it can be argued that natural law dictated one thing before the coming of Christ and another thing afterward. Genocide is wrong now and was wrong for the same reason that murder was and is wrong.
Do you really believe that God “regretted” the creation of man and planned to wipe out humanity (and animals, too) but then looked favorably on Noah, had him build an ark, and so on? (Some evangelical explorers a couple of weeks ago said they were 99% sure they had discovered Noah’s Ark. Do you think so?)
I find it dubious, but some believe believe Genesis 3:15 is the “protoevangelium” — the first hint of God’s plan for salvation for humankind. Would he really have abandoned the plan if it hadn’t been for Noah?
How about….Israelites came up with these justifications? Even mass murderers frequently feel the need to justify their actions. Usually, it’s God that egged them on. Deus vult!
Now, if you believe that the Jews were the chosen people and they claimed “G-d” told them to massacre other tribes and think that’s ok – do you apply the same standard to Catholicism ? Or is, to you, the difference, that one thing was in the Hebrew Scriptures (calling it Old Testament is a bit like writing a sequel to someone else’s book and then claiming the original for yourself, too) and the others just in a papal statement ?
The famous quote “Kill them all, God will know his own”, attributed to Abbot Arnaud Amaury, head of the Cistercians (the quote is attributed to him decades later by another Cistercian) in the slaughter of the Albigensians. The “crusaders” wanted to know how to tell Catholic from Cathar, and that was the alleged response.
My wife, a Sicard de Carufel, descends from Comte Raymond VI of Toulouse, as it happens. He was the target of Papal ire, since he refused to kill his subjects. (he did off the papal legate though) The Pope came up with a bull, offering indulgences in exchange to kill Cathars. Sound familiar ? Kill the infidel, get virgins in paradise (the Muslim heaven differs from the Catholic one, as it is the Playboy Mansion and doubles as women’s hell)
Now, how is the slaughter attributed to divine command by Israelites different from popes ordering slaughter, claimed to be willed by God ? Those in power always claim that God’s on their side and tells them what to do. And, if things go awry, it’s due to sexual immorality (or believing the “wrong” thing). (At least some Jewish prophets had the decency to attribute evil befalling Israel to their own injustice, rather than indecency. The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. If the Canaanites massacre the Jews, you’re appalled, if the Jews massacre the Canaanites, God willed it and they had it coming. How is it possible to be this blind ?
In short, because of a particular religion/ideology things that are otherwise completely rejected all of a sudden are ok. There is common human decency, it just gets suspended because of beliefs. Life becomes compartmentalized – loving father at home, killing the ‘infidel’ abroad.
I don’t understand. You seem to have raised the question, and then sidestepped it.
If the Old Testament is infallible scripture, it is then therefore true meaningful allegory when the sacred author intended to convey allegory, but true literal fact when the author intended to convey literal fact.
It seems clear that the record of the Exodus and of the conquest of the Promised Land falls in the latter category, so one is not let off the hook: God ordered mass exterminations.
Your piece seems to have raised the notion that if this was necessary to preserve the monotheism of the covenant people, then future people may erroneously conclude that it was necessary, and thus permissible, for lesser reasons. Very well, but so what?
By “so what?” I’m not suggesting that that wouldn’t be a very bad thing. But I am stating that it has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the original question.
If the Catholic Church teaches that works play a part in salvation, it is possible (it is in fact shown by history) that some will misconstrue this as requiring salvation by works. If the Catholic Church teaches that there are such things as indulgences or prayers to saints, then it is possible (is in fact empirically demonstrated) that some will abuse indulgences or give adoration to creatures or confuse creatures with their existing polytheistic or animistic pantheon.
In short, the fact that the implications of truths can be misconstrued or misused does not make them false after all.
So what about it? Is genocide permissible when God orders it? Apparently it must be, because apparently He did. Does this have any bearing on, say, Consequentialism?
I’d love some insight about this, without the conversation being stifled by fears of someone else misconstruing it or using it to justify barbarity.
R.C.,
I dealt with my thinking on whether or not God actually ordered genocide in previous posts. My aim here wasn’t to address that question, but to consider the consequences for thought and action of saying that God did, in fact, command genocide.
Another Kevin,
My focus in these posts has been God commanding human beings to commit genocide rather than instances where God himself brings people’s lives to an end. I may, in a separate post, address the second issue, but it’s a bit too much for me to tackle in a comment thread.
Carl,
You wrote:
But this is wrong – there is no crack – because the coming of Christ changed the world not merely “for today” but “for ever.” It is impossible to undo the changes wrought by Christ. The conditions that justified genocide in the Old Testament cannot ever be recreated. It is true that I must affirm that my rejection of genocide is “conditional,” but the condition upon which this rejection depends is permanent and unalterable. Therefore there is no crack in the door.
You only cover the crack if all people whose thoughts and actions arise from your conception of God in the OT share your understanding of the coming of Christ. That is in no way certain. The ideas of violence and salvation, thus informed by an understanding of a God who orders genocide, can play out beyond your particular Christian framework of thought. You wouldn’t justify genocide today (or evermore), but others who do not share your conception of how Christ changed the world, may very well seek to justify mass death and destruction by pointing to God as depicted in the OT. To repeat: the violent will use what justifications they can to legitimize their violence; the conception of God commanding genocide serves their purpose.
David Nickol:
First of all, “This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (‘first gospel’): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final vicory of a descendant of hers” (CCC 410). This is established Catholic doctrine that you are calling into doubt, a unanimous interpretation of Scripture made by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. This is a very serious matter.
Second, I have absolutely no idea how the narrative of Genesis 1-11 – which is immensely figurative – corresponds to modern conceptions of history and I’m extremely suspicious of anyone who thinks he has it figured out. With regard to the structure purported to be the ark, I haven’t seen evidence sufficient to render an opinion one way or the other.
I certainly accept the truth of the narrative according to the principles of Catholic doctrine, a good exposition of which can be found in CCC 56-58. I don’t believe that it’s all “just a myth.” Indeed, I don’t believe any ancient myths are “just myths.”
About God “repenting of” or “regretting” the creation of man, you need to look at the idiomatic sinews of the Hebrew “nakham,” which denotes a groaning. It would be an exegetical mistake it interpret the term to mean that God “changed his mind.” God is expressing his sorrow at seeing what his creatures have done to themselves and saying that it would better for them to have never been made. It would be better for them to be destroyed than to continue their descent into evil. All this is certainly true: “Death rather than sin” (St. Dominic Savio). Since redemption was not yet possible, we often see this proverb play out rather gruesomely in the Old Testament.
Gerald A. Naus,
Thank you. Very very very well said.
God Bless
From Jeremiah28:7-9 “But now, listen to what I am about to state in your hearing and the hearing of all the people. From of old, the prophets who were before you and me prophesied war, woe, and pestilence against many lands and mighty kingdoms. But the prophet who prophesies peace is recognized as truly sent by the LORD only when his prophetic prediction is fulfilled.”
Carl,
It seems to me that there are many problems with the idea of the Protoevangelium. One of them is identifying the serpent as Satan. There is nothing at all in the text to suggest this interpretation, whether you take the story literally or figuratively. Since, the Catechism acknowledges the story of the Fall is told in figurative language, it seems to me there is even less reason to attribute any identity to the serpent. God says, “Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life.” If the serpent is Satan, why punish serpents for something Satan did? The only conclusion is that the serpent is a serpent. If it is not a serpent, why does the chapter begin, “Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made”?
The NAB says in a note:
They are acknowledging that their translation would be more exact if “he” were rendered “they,” so one can only conclude the NAB is giving a less exact translation in order to accommodate the idea of the Protoevangelium. The JPS translation is as follows: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.”
Gerald A. Naus,
You raise an interesting analogy between the “charam” (the hebrew term that describes the divine command to commit genocide) and “inquisition” (here understood as the papally approved capital punishment of heretics during the middle ages).
The biggest problem with this analogy, however, lies in the difference between the dogma of Scriptural inerrancy and doctrines regarding the spiritual assistence promised to the Magisterium. Put briefly, Catholics do not regard even dogmas – much less every word uttered by a pope – as “the inspired word of God.” This is the essential difference between the charam and the inquisition. On these grounds, your analogy (although extremely interesting and worth engaging) can be easily dismissed as “apples and oranges.”
This being said, I will now seek to explain the logic of administering capital punishment against heretics.
Because the destruction of souls represents a greater evil than the destruction of bodies (Mt 10:28), a heretic represents a greater threat to the common good than does a murderer. Therefore, “assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC 2267).
With the death of Jan Hus and the Bohemian Wars (1419-1434), the Church’s prosecution of heretics began to result in greater disorders than heresies themselves. Learning this lesson was a slow and painful process that took many centuries to learn, but painting themselves as martyrs, heretics were able to turn persecution to their favor and cause greater damage to the common good than if they had been left alone. At the same time, the Church’s influence on secular law and justice administration waxed and wained, eventually losing any and all capacity to prosecute heresy as it had during the middle ages.
One can argue that the Church’s prosecution of heretics never effectively defended human lives against heresy. I myself tend to agree with this judgment. There is no doubt that the renewal of preaching brought with the rise of mendicant orders was far more effective in combatting medieval heresies than was the inquisition. There is also absolutely no doubt that a living Jan Hus could never have caused as much physical and spiritual damage as did the dead one. There is also no doubt that attempts to suppress Protestantism by force overwhelmingly failed. I think the damage caused by the attempted suppression of the Huguenots can still be felt to this day.
Kyle,
In this case, every effort must be expended to communicate an understanding of how deeply the Gospel of Jesus Christ has changed the world. This effort will serve us much better in changing hearts and minds than denying the literal sense of Scripture in order to show how the Coming of Christ makes no difference with regard to matters of a darkness such as this.
Absolutely nothing will combat the purposes of those who seek mass death and destruction more than the faithful proclamation of the good news of the hope of salvation that springs from Immortal Tree. I think that explanations of how the Holy Spirit spoke not really “through” but “in spite of” the prophets can also be used to serve the purpose of the perpetrators of evil.
David Nickol,
There are many things in the text that suggest, at the very least, an analogy between the serpent and Satan. First of all, let’s recall that “satan” is a hebrew word that describes an adversary, an enemy in battle. Whether he is the fallen angel Lucifer with tail and pitchfork, he is certainly an adversarial character, one who seeks to disrupt the relationship between man and his Creator. He is satan at the very least in that sense.
The Hebrew term for “serpent” (nachash) – it is worth noting – is the same term as a soothsayer or enchanter. It is also closely related to the term for medals such as copper, brass or bronze that were forged into money. In this, the term is idiomatically associated with immortal enemies of Israel, things that speak softly into the ear of God’s people and lead them away from him.
The superlative description of the serpent’s “subtlety” (craftiness, cleverness) also invites a comparison to Satan, who Jesus would call “the father of lies,” thus hearkening our attention to the serpent, the first liar. The author of the book of Wisdom also puts the devil in the Garden of Eden when he writes, “God created man for incorruption and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world” (2:24).
As to Genesis 3:15, the implication is that the seed of the woman will eventually overcome the immortal enemy (enemies) represented by the serpent. I think it is far more likely that the sacred writer had the image of a sourcerer in his mind than the image of a fallen angel, but this is ultimately a distinction without a difference. As demonology developed it was inevitable that that subsequent generations would see the presence of Satan in the activity of the serpent.
Whether we translate the pronoun as “he” (most common) or “they” (as you suggest) therefore ultimately doesn’t change the character of the passage of the proto-evangelium. Indeed, the Latin vulgate translates the pronoun as “she,” which a strong part of Catholic tradition understands as a reference to Mary more than Christ.
Carl,
I hold that the Holy Spirit spoke through the sacred writers. I just happen to interpret the preposition “through” differently than you do.
Could it be that the human passions are the cunning snake? Could it be that the woman had within her the passion to know herself differently from the way the man described her?
When she received the knowledge of the “fruit” she had no response. She was so naive and innocent. Plus she is created for a relationship and her response is going to be determined by the person she is relating to. So, the man gets the knowledge and they both feel shame. Sounds like the first time I became sexually aware and did not know what to do with the power of that feeling. Overwhelming.
It is interesting that Adam then blames the whole thing on her. So we end up struggling with these passions from that point on.
It is also interesting that Adam names her Eve after he has some knowledge. The damage was already done though. She had to rely on a man who blamed her for his hard life. How does that affect the relationship with the first child? I am one I know.
I have not been able to figure out what the lies the serpent allegedly tells. It seems to be telling the truth.
I have previously written about the serpent and my thoughts on the significance of the myth of the Garden of Eden here and here.
I would be interested in any feedback on how these ideas reflect upon the current discussion.
Kyle,
Is the way you interpret “through” different from me or different from the Catholic Church? The Church holds that the Holy Spirit impregnated their humanity in such a way that he intended what they intended: “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men, who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more” (CCC 106, DV 11).
It would certainly be erroneous to say that the sacred writer’s intention in writing the passage exhausted the intention of the Holy Spirit, but it is equally erroneous to assert that the Holy Spirit didn’t intend what the sacred writers intended.
It seems that you are in the very unfortunate position of having to hold either that when the God said “kill infants” he didn’t really mean for the Israelites to kill infants or else that the sacred writer misrepresented God who never actually told anyone to “kill infants.” Neither opinion is sustainable.
David Nickol,
In the Hebrew concept “nasha” (Gn 3:13), there is no distinction between lying and deceiving. The fact that material truth can be found in the serpent’s words doesn’t mean he is telling the truth, it just means he is “arum” (crafty, subtle). The Hebrew term for truth (“ehmeth”) is idiomatically connected with firmness, stability, reliability and sureness.
So you see, there is nothing “true” about what the serpent is saying, because every word is directed at robbing man of his “ehmeth,” which is his happiness (“eden”) and innocence (“nakedness”).
So when you say that the serpent seems to be telling the truth, you are relying on the fact that his words are not materially false, which is of no consequence to the hebrew writer in portraying him as a liar.
Carl,
You write:
Is the way you interpret “through” different from me or different from the Catholic Church?
To be precise, it is different than your interpretation of the Church’s understanding of the word “through.” You and I differ on what we understand the Church to mean.
Rodak, I am on the same track as you after reading your first post. They had to have an identity if they are made in the image of God. They had to search for knowledge. The woman instinctively knew that she was not who the man described. She was open to searching. The man on the other hand was content with what he was given until he saw her as “his”. But his what?
Orthodoxy has made a tremendous mistake and they seem to have projected their dislike of humanity on to the first two identified as human.
There is no other way for human being to have a true loving mature relationship with God in this material world that we inhabit. Wisdom cannot develop in a womb like the safety of the garden.
The woman was also a gift of love in the story but she was not experienced as such.
The serpent did not lie. God created the scenario of death by not allowing them eternal life without wisdom. That was always the plan. There is no real love without wisdom and there is no wisdom without love. Love can only come through perseverence and sacrificing self for the other. There would be no sacrifice in the garden.
The serpent can be seen as desire through the senses and the struggle to be more than that desire, to be what we were created for and the only way to do that is the path we are on as it was always intended.
Just some quick thoughts.
Ronald–
Thanks for your thoughts. I think that you’ve added a layer of interpretation to what I previously wrote.
Ronald–
Thanks for your thoughts. I think that you’ve added a layer of interpretation to what I previously wrote. What do you think of the notion that in order for there to be knowledge of good and evil, there must be evil available to the understanding? If so, all was not “good” in the Garden, was it?
Kyle,
Again you are stating a misunderstanding without explaining it. Let me provide a text from the Pontifical Biblical Commission that I think might prove helpful in understanding the Church’s position:
“The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, part II, section B, article 1).
How can you possibly reconcile the statement that “some of the things written by the biblical writers are perverse” with this text?
In your own words, Kyle: you’re cute, but not that cute.
Rodak, There was never a word about evil being in the garden–only knowledge of good and evil. This would also indicate that they did not know what was good. My thinking at this point is man is the creator of evil which in quantum mechanics would be the amount of energy resonating at a certain frequency times the number of units operating at that frequency and then being capable of influencing others who lack sufficient countering force. Just a guess:)
In other words, the more hate the more evil. More love less evil. More violence less love. Somehow the human being who supports the notion of a violent god contributes to the frequency of violence surrounding all of us all the time and intruding into our consciousness and soul until we feel the weight of that darkness being so palpable that I must say to myself STOP to remind myself that I am created for love and that I did not fall nor did anyone before me. We are attempting to rise into the wisdom of Love.
Stop me now Rodak. Thanks
“The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, part II, section B, article 1).
How can you possibly reconcile the statement that “some of the things written by the biblical writers are perverse” with this text?
I’d suggest that the literalistic sense is perverse but the literal sense isn’t. Read “thus says the Lord” as a prophetic opening clause rather than a statement that God actually said what follows.
I’d also suggest that the Pontifical Biblical Commission isn’t saying that the literal sense is really what God says but simply what God inspires the human author to say but expressed thru the human authors own limited understanding, worldview and theological understanding. I think God INTENDS us to grasp the human writer’s own limitations as a foil to fundamentalist views which lead to the justification of intrinsic evils like genocide.
God Bless
Carl,
No reconciliation is necessary; the two are not mutually exclusive.
Rodak and Ronald,
You’re projecting in ways that are neither faithful to the Hebrew idiom and literal sense nor to the content and unity of the faith. You’re just making Genesis say what you want it to say.
I have freedom to explore. What is faithful to the Hebrew idiom mean to you. Genocide? I am not saying what I want it to say. I am saying what I know about 30 years of studying human development and human interpersonal neurobiology and being directly involved in the pain of human interactions and understanding the dynamics of that pain.
I speak what I know about human beings and you speak what you believe about God. You’ll understand God a lot better if you can understand your fellow human beings better through the lens of God’s Love.
Carl–
The Christian religion has made Genesis say what it wants it to say from the beginning. Genesis was not written to establish a doctrine of Original Sin. What God saw as “good” when he had completed his creation was not purely good. My argument is that Genesis establishes a dualism. What is good has always contained its opposite number. Thus we have the Serpent in the Garden before the Fall. And we have the Serpent doing evil prior to Eve. For, if what the Serpent did was not evil, why was it punished by God along with the humans? Additionally, if there is a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil prior to the Fall, there must have been evil to recognize, prior to the Fall. The material creation, by its very nature, casts a shadow when it encounters the Light: it could be no other way.
Rodak, An excellent point. Let’s go back a little further to Gn 1:3-5 and light. God saw that the light was good and then He separated the light from the darkness. He creates contrast; perfect balance in which the beginning of a certain formation of different frequencies of energy to create a cascading effect of consequences leading to the creation of everything we see and do not see.
Nothing can exist then without the darkness. I think that the creation was in its completion seen as good in a subjective sense because without it these different forces we would not exist.
Beginning with light and its opposite dark, it would then seem that they are both good. Who has made the darkness bad? Men. We create the evil that is acted out in the darkness.
When light enters the darkness the shame of my evil is revealed and it is then brought to light and the weight of that burden disappears.
If I remember correctly, sin was not seen as evil originally, rather, it was seen as a wrong choice and felt as a weight or a burden.
In most symbol systems, it seems that light is understood to be intrinsically good and darkness, as its absence, if not “evil” per se, then at least “bad.”
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Here’s an interesting question which is the subject of two posts over on the America blog The Good Word.
In the very early Church, a point came when it was necessary to decide whether Gentile converts were obligated to be circumcised and otherwise follow Mosaic law. A meeting was held, and the outcome was as follows:
It is crystal clear that the obligation to eat only kosher meat remained in force for Gentiles. This was a decision of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles. Why are we not obliged to eat only kosher meat today?
Another point to note. Jesus said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). The literal meaning of that is clear. No salvation without baptism. A literal interpretation of those words (which some Protestants insist on) means that there is no baptism of blood, no baptism of desire, and no salvation for infants (or anyone else) who die without being baptized.
David, Is anyone not born of water and spirit?
Ronald King,
“Genocide” is a neologism coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943. There is, of course, nothing new about what it describes: the extermination of individuals for the sake of their race or culture.
Our thinking on genocide and its intrinsic evil is informed by a post-enlightenment ethos that considers the individual aspect of a human being to be more essential than aspects of race or culture. I think its further informed by the horror produced in seeing the power of modern technology employed to exterminate large groups of individuals. I would also add that there are all kinds of factors in the development of modern history (and by “modern” I here mean “since the middle ages”) that have increasingly emphasized the individual aspect of our character. These factors have accelerated and continue to accelerate.
We live in a very, very different world than did the men of the Old Testament. As Americans we live in a world of so many choices that is difficult for us to understand the behavior of those who live in world with fewer choices.
If we look to the text of the Old Testament without importing our own philosophical presuppositions, there is absolutely no doubt about what it says with regard to the extermination of the seven condemned nations. When Israel conquered a Philistine, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite or Midianite town, they were generally commanded “to put all the men to the sword, but to take the women, the little ones, the cattle and everything else as booty.” When Israel conquered an Amorite, Canaanite or Jebusite town, they were commanded to destroy every living thing. There is nothing mythopoetic about it. It is presented as an express command from God through his mouthpiece Moses.
You are wrong to assume, Ronald, that your study of human development and human interpersonal neurobiology allows you to understand others more than they understand themselves. At the end of the day, being between one’s ears always gives greater knowledge of self than not being between one’s ears. Indeed, when another person understands you better than you understand yourself it is because he has somehow gotten between your ears. I’m not speaking of looking at the matter from outside, but making himself one in your own consciousness. Being between one’s ears is an entirely different thing than looking at what’s between one’s ears.
I don’t think a greater knowledge of neurobiology will help you correct your misunderstanding of the extremely profound love that exists in my heart, Ronald. You will need to find another science about which you apparently know very little.
The fact that we live in a very, very different world than the men of the time of the OT, is precisely why those books are no longer of any use to us; and, in fact, do more harm than good.
There is nothing you need to know that is not given to you, whole and perfect, in the New Testament. Nothing.
Rodak –
I completely agree both that the Christian religion has always had an eisegetical approach to Genesis and that Genesis was not (humanly) written to establish a doctrine of Original Sin. Yet these two observations cause me not the least anxiety with regard to my orthodox profession of faith because I also believe that the Catholic Church has always read and interpreted Scripture by the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written. In other words, the Christian eisegesis reflects the Holy Spirit’s intention in writing the Scriptures even when it has very little to do with the human author’s intention.
The first big problem with your exegesis is that you forget that Genesis 2:4-3:24 is an OLDER TEXT than Genesis 1:1-2:3. Therefore when you make the snarky remark that everything is not as “very good” as is claimed in Genesis 1:31, you’ve already departed what the human author intended in writing the passage. The texts of Genesis were arranged according to a conceptual order, not according to the chronology of when the texts were written. If the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are correct, we cannot have recourse to anything written in Genesis 1 to explain what the biblical writer meant by anything in Genesis 2-3 (the first four verse of Genesis 2 notwithstanding)
You are completely mistaken to see any dualism in the Book of Genesis. Indeed, the book of Genesis – as it comes down to us – represents perhaps the first great attack on dualism in recorded history. In stating that the serpent was a creature that Yahweh had made, the biblical writer has established that the Yahweh is the single principle of creation. In other words, he will explain the existence of evil, suffering and death not by means of a second divine principle in eternal conflict with the first, but as the invention of creatures. What God created is good, but through the lies (nasha) of the serpent (nachash).
Through your own ignorance of the Hebrew language, your exegesis has completely set aside the idiomatic connection between deception and serpent and you’ve convinced yourself that the hebrew writer intended us to understand the serpent as a truth teller! It’s just so silly!
When Yahweh curses the serpent, the woman and the man, the biblical writer is telling us that the serpent is under Yahweh’s power. He is not an equal and opposite coeternal force, but a slithering little snake who has been put on notice.
Your interpretation sets aside all the marvelous irony of the man and woman discovering that, after having rejected their dependence on Yahweh, they have not become like him, but they are naked, weak, vulnerable and helpless.
A realization of this irony is what caused a later writer to recognize another irony: Man was more like God before his effort to be like God caused him to fall away from him. Therefore when he was inspired to write a kind of “prehistory of creation,” this subsequent writer tells us that man, male and female, was “made in the image and likeness of God” (Gen 1:26-27). Indeed it was precisely the profound absense of dualism in the earlier text that caused the later writer to keep saying “it was good” as each category of creation was completed, culminating in the “very good” creation of man.
But hey, what do I know? I’ve just wasted my time busting my butt to obtain a masters degree in theology, scouring thousands of mind-numbingly dry pages of historical criticism in order to learn as much as I possibly can about the historical and literary conditions affecting the literal sense of Scripure, turning my mind into knots trying make my way through two volumes on Biblical Hebrew, and availing myself of as much anthropological and philological resources as I’ve been able to get my hands on, when all this time, the answer was to be found in your pseudo-intellectual, seat-of-the-pants, arm-chair-philosopher approach. Man, do I feel like a doofus.
By the way, did you know that if you asked Eber whether there was “evil” in Eden, it would have been like asking whether there were breaking branches or roaring lions? He wouldn’t understand “evil” in the stagnant, monolithic, one-definition-only way you understand it. That’s not how his language worked.
And if you want to understand what an ancient man is saying, you’re going to have to stop projecting on to him things that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his manner of perception, thought and speaking.
David Nickol,
First, an exegetical point: “meats of strange animals” is not necessarily the same thing as “meats prohibited by Mosaic law.” for the rest of this point, I will set this aside and presume for the sake of argument that the Apostles were demanding that meats be kosher.
We are not obliged to eat only kosher meat today because the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops of the Catholic Church to abandon this requirement a generation later. This is why the Catholic Church distinguishes between dogma and disciplines that cannot change even in formula, doctrine and disciplines that cannot change in meaning but can change in formula at the discretion of the magisterium, and disciplines that can change at the discretion of the magisterium. The decision to obligate the eating of only kosher meat belongs to the third category.
On John 3:5. The Catholic Church (unlike Protestant fundamentalists) understands the literal sense to be that which corresponds to the intention of the original human author, in this case, the Apostle John.
If we were to apply a LITERALIST interpretation it would seem that Jesus words as recorded by John denied the salvation of Abraham, Moses, Elijah and everyone else who lived before the existence of Baptism! Does anyone think this is how John would understand Jesus’ words when so many things written in the New Testament and early Christian tradition clearly affirm the salvation of the patriarchs and prophets by means of Christ’s descent into hell? So the question, then, how did John understand the words? Did John believe that Christ in some manner “baptized” the deceased patriarchs and prophets in Sheol before taking them up into heaven? What implications might this have for baptisms of blood and desire?
I’m not sure John did understand Christ’s words, to be perfectly honest. He certainly understood them in the context of baptism as can be shown by the context of this passage immediately before John 3:22-30. And he certainly is asserting that the baptism of Jesus is necessary in a way that the baptism of John was not.
There is nothing in John’s Gospel or Epistles to indicates a contradiction between the actual words of John 3:5 and the interpretation of the Compendium of the Catechism: “Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament” (Q. 261).
Personally, I would say that those who are said to receive baptism of blood and desire are Baptized in the true sense of the word (water included). But that’s another conversation entirely.
Carl, Do you know what is between your ears that influences you to dismiss something you know very little of. Do you know the signficance of mirror neurons and how they are formed in the preverbal, preconscious areas of your brain prior to birth and are programmed for your basic emotional and behavioral response to human encounters by the time you are 3 and you begin to awaken to consciousness. Do you know that your response to my comment was determined about 6tenths of a second before you consciously decided it was wrong?
Do you know that your very identity is so entwined with your point of view that it is impossible for you to consider seriously and in depth what I am writing?
The reason I know this is because you as no questions about what you do not know and you make statements of dismissal.
If you do not want to know something you know nothing about then just say so rather than saying I am wrong.
The dynamics of interpersonal relationships between ancient man and modern man have not changed. Power seeking. You are on a power trip Carl. How do I know this? Because you are the one who projects and is not able to have a discussion.
What has hardened you so much. I would be interested in knowing your story.
Rodak,
Your opinion (“New Testament alone”) has been condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy for roughly eighteen centuries.
The opinion is contradicted by the New Testament itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching.” If the New Testament is “whole and perfect” then this would in fact require us to know and love the Old Testament.
To put the matter in more ecumenically-friendly, post-Vatican II terminology: “Christians venerate the Old Testaement as the true word of God. All of the books of the Old Testament are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value. They bear witness to the divine pedagogy of God’s saving love” (Compendium 21).
First, an exegetical point: “meats of strange animals” is not necessarily the same thing as “meats prohibited by Mosaic law.”
Carl,
It is not meats of strange animals. It is meats of strangled animals — that is, meats of animals that have not had their throats slit and been drained of all blood.
We are not obliged to eat only kosher meat today because the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops of the Catholic Church to abandon this requirement a generation later.
And can you document this?
David, Is anyone not born of water and spirit?
Ronald King:
It would be rather pointless of Jesus to say that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and the spirit if everyone was born of water and the spirit.
So when you say that the serpent seems to be telling the truth, you are relying on the fact that his words are not materially false, which is of no consequence to the hebrew writer in portraying him as a liar.
I don’t think the serpent is portrayed as a liar in Genesis. He is certainly not referred to as a liar.
The serpent says, “”You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.”
God says, “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.”
How can it possibly be maintained that the serpent is lying, when God’s own words confirm what the serpent said?
Ronald King-
I comfortable admitting that I neither believe these things nor disbelieve them. I am extremely willing to consider them.
I do suspect, however, that your own expertise on these matters is bloated by your own pride and my reason for believing this has NOTHING to do with what you’ve written on neuro-biological matters, but based on what you’ve written about me.
I have consistently admitted the plausibility of what you claim and yet you have consistently dismissed me as “dismissive.” And you’ve also dismissed with callous disregard all the ideas I communicated to you in a rather long comment that required some thought.
You think I am a hardened person, but you have no knowledge of what I am like in the presence of my wife or children. You have no idea what occurs in me when I see an animal dead by the roadside. You think I am power hungry, but here I am suffering this conversation rather than seeking some material advancement.
I already suspected but now I believe that you are using “neuro-biology” like a medium uses “palmistry” (another matter about which I am quite content knowing very little). Can you figure out what I do for a living by examining my right temporal lobe though the words I leave on an internet blog? Indeed, I suspect a medium would at least have the intuitive capacities to pick up on these things. Can you tell me how many children I have? How many more do I want? I just saw a raccoon writhing on the road, Kemo Sabe, how do you think it made me feel? What do you think I did about it? Did I run it over to put it out of its misery? Did I swerve out of the way? If I swerved, did I check to make sure the maneuver was safe? What sooth say you?
I know admittedly little about neurobiology, but I know you well enough to know that your rant has nothing to do with my character and it has nothing to do with your expertise or lack thereof with regard to neurobiology and it has everything to do with a churlish emotional response to the last sentence of my previous post: If you really want to know what is in my heart – and you clearly don’t – you will have to look somewhere other than neurobiology.
You read that and you decided to haul off and lay into me, but it’s okay, I forgive you.
I understand why a heretic was viewed as the greatest danger – he was viewed as killing the soul (and maybe the body too). Of course most monarchs and other leaders were more interested in power politics – you could find Catholics allied with Protestant nations against other Catholics, even Muslims. The reasons for country A being Cztholic and country B Protestant are political/economical. In Spain, the monarch already had a strong hold on the church, he wouldn’t gain much from Protestantism, he might even endanger his own position – if one pillar falls, why not more ? in German areas this was not the case (Northern in particular). So by becoming Protestant the prince or princeling could become head of the church and increase his revenue. The Saxon ruler banned indulgence sellers because he didn’t want money leaving the country. When German princes protected Martin Luther, they did so because he was the key to increasing influence and income. A successful merchant was drawn to Calvinism. You’re doing well ? You must be a good person. The Catholic spirit would be… Are you doing any good for those not doing well?
The true believers wouldn’t have cared about those reasons. This true believer has a certain personality type, the content almost doesn’t matter. Whether he is a gear head, fanboy, crusader or Tea Party strangeling, the way of thinking remains the same.
As a Protestant, I don’t give a…hoot…what the Catholic Church has condemned. Nor am I impressed by the stack of centuries that has accumulated since that condemnation was pronounced.
That said, I don’t let Protestants off this particular hook. Protestants tend to harvest even more of their self-serving version of morality from the hideous behavior of OT heroes than do Catholics. The latter tend to have gotten so deeply involved in the cult of Mary and the pantheon of saints (New Testament phenomena, btw) that they are distracted from the myriad murders of which they claim the OT “author” to have been so fond. The OT would have me believe that God’s favorite was exemplified by the kind of guy who would send the loyal Uriah forth to die in order that he might steal the man’s wife, with whom he has already committed adultery. And the New Testament authors have constructed elaborate, but contradictory and impossible geneologies to prove the decent of Our Savior from that immoral thug. But, no sweat. We can back-write that to make it morally pristine, as we can back-write absolutely anything else; for we have no choice.
I don’t claim that there is no chaff in the New Testament, just as there is in the Old. What I claim is that, once one skims off the dross, the pure, elemental gold is to be found in the New Testament, and that it is sufficient to be minted as the coin of one’s salvation. I think that you must admit that the Old Testament would be useless in this regard, if for some reason it alone remained to us. It is, therefore, superfluous.
In fact, the concept that what the text reveals has little to do with the meaning intended by the author sounds quite post-modern.
The dualism of which I speak is that between Spirit and matter. Dust we are and to dust we shall return: there’s the rub.
Carl, I’m sure that you’re ever-so-much smarter than I am. In fact, I’m sure that you were the kid who sat in the front row, right in front of the teacher’s desk, and who always had his hand up, furiously waving, when the teacher called on the the class to answer a question, beads of sweat flying off your agitated brow like sparks. Rock on, Carl.
Carl, I am sorry I hurt you. You are correct, I do not know you. I therefore confess my mistake and hope that you are ok. I can tell that you have a high sensitivity since I would react the same way to the raccoon on the road or even a bug on my windshield. That one example you wrote just makes me question even more why you would take the stance you have with genocide and God commanding it.
I do know that highly sensitive people have generally more pain receptors than the less sensitive and consequently will feel the pain of being human more intensely. On the other hand they will also love more passionately. Now that you gave me that little bit of info I have a better understanding of you and that you are actually passionately made by God for projecting His Love to others.
That is why I am baffled with your stance.
Ron
. . . . when so many things written in the New Testament and early Christian tradition clearly affirm the salvation of the patriarchs and prophets by means of Christ’s descent into hell?
Carl,
This may be in early Christian tradition, but it is not in the New Testament.
I find it actually interesting that David’s history was not whitewashed. While the Hebrew Scriptures have a lot of cases of the “God wills it” propaganda, they are also frequently very critical of Israel. The social justice prophets “getting away with it” is also something unusual. Jesus is in that tradition and I find his teleological rather than “strict constructionist” interpretation of Jewish laws and customs remarkable.
Outside of the realms of myth and saga, it is hard to accept as historical reality the idea that any people–be they Hebrews, or be they denizens of the Seven Nations–were any more fundamentally wicked than the average run of mankind always is. Especially in those times, it cost too much energy just staying alive to spend much time on systematic wickedness. That men must have been wicked was basically a rationalization of the indisputable evidence that life was short, brutal, and seemingly unfair to even the good.
My (undoubtedly heretical) take on Jesus is that his true innovation is to remove the emphasis of religion away from the group and place it squarely on the individual: he was an existentialist. This was his teleological direction; and this is what allowed his message to escape the boundaries of language, place, ethnicity, and history.
Rodak, Was his emphasis also on the abuse and hypocrisy of the authorities in religion. It seemed that He wanted authority to discard their superficial symbols of authority with their demands and rituals as the essence of their religion and power to be replaced by the humility of serving and being the last to be served. In essence, He wanted them to give up their identity as masters of language and take on the action of humility.
Death being the #1 existential crisis followed by freedom, isolation and apparent lack of meaning, I agree is what Christ addressed in His actions first and then Hiw words which explained His actions.
It seems we got it backwards now. Words first and then maybe some action to satisfy that little voice that says we do not do enough. I apply this to myself and not anyone else that may read this.
Rodak, I’d say this is true of the Buddha as well. Sadly, the followers tend to institutionalize, misplace emphasis and get stuck on details. While they’ll see the correctness of, say, Jesus healing on the Sabbath, they’ll act just like the Pharisees in a Christian context. It’s simply easier to be literal, by-the-book, perverting of original meanings notwithstanding. While Buddhism has a stronger built-in corrective, the tendency to embrace outward symbols and get stuck in empty ritualism is there as well.
As far as brutality goes – it was worst in nomadic times – deterring was important, there were no courts, no permanent law enforcement. You wanted to make sure your enemies got the point. The lex talionis (eye for eye) was actually a liberalization – revenge/punishment now was supposed to be proportionate. Horrific punishments can be found much later, too, when strong central authority, such as police, were not established yet. The English punishment for regicide was public and as gruesome as possible. Watching one’s entrails pulled out and so forth. As givernment gets stronger, punishment becomes less public, less gruesome. While permanent institutions usually provide for a higher degree of safety, when they go evil, they pose an even greater danger, like in Nazi Germany.
Yes. I just seriously doubt that there was ever a time, or a place, where the ordinary people of any nation or tribe were so much worse than any other nation or tribe that they deserved to be completely obliterated in order to preserve the superior morality of their neighbors. All of this was only a lame justification of a historically routine land-grab, imo.
David Nickol,
1. Right: “strangled.” Sorry about that. This actually demonstrates my point. This is a much, much less rigorous criterion than kosher laws.
2. Documentation: The Bishops of the Catholic Church no longer require Catholics to refrain from eating meats of strangled animals. This in itself demonstrates that the decision was the kind of disciplinary rule over which the Peter and the Apostles have the power to “bind and loose” (Mt 16, 18).
3. “Liar.” Eve explicitly accuses him of “lying” in Genesis 3:13 and this accusation is confirmed in the following verse.
Again, because of the connection between “nachash” and “nasha,” calling the “serpent” a “liar” is redundant. In choosing to make this character a “serpent,” the biblical writer is telling us that he’s a “liar.” The character isn’t a “serpent” (nachash) because he’s a physical serpent (nachash), he’s a serpent (nachash) because he’s a liar (nachash).
4. Whether Christ’s descent into hell is explicitly contained in the New Testament is debatable. I think the presence of this doctrine pretty clear from what’s written in about eight or nine passages of the Book of Revelation. 1 Peter 3:19 makes it pretty clear that Christ gave the opportunity of salvation to the souls who died before his coming.
What is not debatable that the following doctrines are lavishly contained in the New Testament: 1) The patriarchs and prophets were justified by faith; 2) Jesus Christ suffered, died and rose again in order to obtain the salvation of those justified by faith.
5. My original point is that nobody would interpret John 3:5 to preclude the salvation of those who lived prior to the incarnation. Likewise, there is no reason to preclude the salvation anyone else who had no opportunity to be baptized.
Such an assertion cannot follow from John’s words taken in and of themselves. I’ve been in long debates with Feeneyites of various degrees and all of them approach the words from what they perceive as a traditional interpretation. Even the strictest Feeneyites, by the way, do not categorically deny the salvation of those who came before the coming of Christ.
Gerald A. Naus,
1. I think we’re in agreement on this point, but it still seems worth saying.
I would not agree that the Protestant or Catholic character of a country was purely the function of political or economic factors, as if the people involved had no choice in the matter. The only thing motivating Henry VIII was his own desire to see a son succeed him as king. All that trouble and, in the end, his son would outlive him by only six years!
Likewise, neither politics nor economics forced Henry to create a Protestantism so superficially similar to Catholicism. It would have been more politically and economically convenient for him to either remain Catholic or else follow an established brand of Protestantism.
This being said, I don’t disagree that political and economic considerations weighed heavily in the affairs of the 16th century.
2. David’s history has definitely been whitewashed. The Scriptures taken in themselves give us very little indication of how he rose to power, other than that God willed it, and we are left with no understanding of how the enemies of David construed their own motivations. All we know is that they were an evil company of dogs.
Really, the Bible gives more questions than answers with regard to Israel’s separation from Judah. We are simply told that Solomon and Reheboam pushed the people too hard and that if they had been like David, the separation would never have happened. This explanation seems like an example of the Davidic whitewashing that took place.
I think you are underestimating the role of the Priests and Prophets in the “Ancien Regime” of biblical Israel. There is nothing unusual about the prophets getting away with anything.
I think we need to trace the regime back to Moses, who left in his wake a kind of balance of powers between Joshua and Aaron – I know Aaron was already dead but am speaking of him as the perpetual head of the levitical priesthood – that would continue to color subsequent history even to this very day. Moses’ decisions to split up secular and religious authority and to leave no authority to his own descendents in either category are truly unique. I can think of no analogy in ancient history.
The establishment of the priesthood in the line of AARON seems especially remarkable. For all the puffery about hanging the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and public squares, I think both sides have missed the point about Moses’ influence on the development of political thought.
Rodak,
Actually, I suspect that you were that kid until one day (or perhaps a series of days) when, crestfallen and disallusioned, you discovered it was all a lie. You seem like the kind of person who was once gullible in one direction and corrected it by becoming gullible in another direction.
For my part, I was a good student in kindergarten and first grade. Then on labor day weekend as I was beginning second grade, my father committed suicide. After that I saw little point in much of anything, especially the ridiculous busy work of school. I was quiet and kept to myself and I always did well enough on tests to get by without drawing much attention to myself. I did a couple turns as the trouble making, class clown, but for the most part I was on decent terms with my teachers, but I can only think of one teacher (a political science professor at Western Illinois University) who might have thought of me as his or her favorite student.
As schoolwork became less busy and more intellectual, my grades gradually improved. I think the first time I ever became a “straight A student” was my first semester of Grad School. Even then, I was always prepared to stick it in a professor’s ear, say what I thought was right and flush my grade right down the toilet. I’ve never been one to jump through hoops, as this conversation ought to prove pretty clearly. That hand raising kid you described doesn’t, under any circumstance, defend genocide.
What’s shocking is that even though we both seem to believe that I’m smarter than you, you nevertheless think yourself so flawless, wise and inerrant that you are capable of rendering summary judgment against the Old Testament, the New Testament, Protestantism and Catholicism. Even having a pretty keen intelligence and a wonderful education, I know my limitations and weakness. I know that the Old Testament, New Testament and Catholicism have given me more than I can every repay and would never set knowingly myself against them in any manner whatsoever.
Obediently rocking on,
Carl
Ron,
My stance that God commanded genocide follows from one very decisive fact:
Deuteronomy 20 tells us that God commanded the genocide of these nations in order to prevent Israel from following them in their abominable practices. Read Deuteronomy 20. Unlike so many other passages of the Old Testament, there is really no doubt about what is being said.
Given this fact, one can reasonably: 1) deny the inerrancy of Deuteronomy 20, 2) accept it in the darkness of faith, or 3) seek to explain how “God” could ever command “genocide.”
My desire is to do number 2, but I can’t. The reason I can’t is because I think I understand why God commanded genocide. I don’t think it was simply because it was “the just punishment for their sins” (St. Thomas Aquinas), but because the sinfulness of Israel had left him no other option. In giving man free will, God compromises his own power in the most remarkable ways. St. Thomas Aquinas’ explanation let’s Israel off the hook and places all blame on the seven nations, making Israel out to be nothing other than a perfect instrument of divine wrath. I disagree with that for a whole bunch of reasons.
Ron, you might say – and I would neither agree nor disagree – that the explanation I have given is the only one that abides with the strictest criteria of both hemispheres of my brain. Kyle’s brain offends my left hemisphere. St. Thomas’ explanation offends my right hemisphere. Hopefully this manner of speaking makes more sense to you than it does to me ;)
Carl
PS. What do you think of what I wrote about Marlon Brando?
Correction:
Kyle’s “EXPLANATION” (i.e. not his “brain”) offends my left hemisphere.
If my left hemisphere is offended by Kyle’s brain, it has not yet informed itself of this!
Let’s please keep to the topic. Thank you.
Carl, I had to return to the perverse post to reread your enjoyable rant on Marlon Brando. There is a lot in there that I cannot address at this time. For the moment we have to consider family history and the genetic history of the stress and reaction to stress in that history and how it affects gene expression and how that gene expression is influenced by environmental stimuli and the reward system being developed or not developed in the early interpersonal attachments and how this sets up the basic interpersonal and intrapersonal response of self in relationship with others.
Carl, I would be very interested in detailing this in more depth, but I am physically and mentally drained at this point.
I know my words are nothing, however, I have a deep compassion for you and the pain of losing your dad.
God Bless You.
Ron
Thank you Ron,
Undoubtedly, the nature of my father’s death at the very threshold of the age of reason was extremely decisive for me in realizing something that took Solomon a lifetime of mistakes to realize: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Between the ages of 7 and 17, I believe I spent more time in the depths of existential darkness than Soren Kierkegaard spent in his life. And it is not something I regret or am uncomfortable speaking about.
On the one hand, it has made me comfortable in enter the darkness that others experience, points of darkness that are foreign to my own direct experience. On the other hand, it prepared me in a way that would not have otherwise been possible to appreciate the joys that God has subsequently given me. A person can only be with Christ in the Resurrection to the extent that he has been with Christ in the Garden of Gethsamene. And I have been there. I didn’t recognize it at the time. But I’ve been in that garden and I’ve sweat blood from inside Christ’s body and I know what a wonderful and terrible blessing it is to be able to say that.