Posted on 07/25/2013 11:51:19 AM PDT by NYer
(The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Joachim Patinir, 1520)
In (Part I) of this question we looked at Deuteronomy 7:1-2 where God calls Israel to “utterly destroy” the nations they will confront in the Promised Land. We know it’s never morally acceptable to intentionally kill innocent persons. We also know that God is all good. So what was God asking Israel to do in this passage? Was he calling them act in an evil way by killing innocent persons? Two other stories in Scripture should help to answer this question.
In this story, Abraham is like a defense attorney pleading for clemency on behalf of Sodom (a city with some serious problems, as we learn in Genesis 19). Abraham asks God,
“Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? … Far be it from you to do such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked … Should not the judge of all the world do what is just?” (Genesis 18:23-25)
Abraham affirms that God is just, and it’s unjust to kill righteous persons. So Abraham asks God if he would spare Sodom if there were fifty, forty, thirty, or ten righteous people in Sodom. In each instance God says that he “will spare the whole place for their sake.” From this we learn that God is indeed just, and he will not kill the innocent. As the Catechism says, “God is infinitely good and all his works are good” (Catechism No. 385). “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil” (Catechism No. 311).
The interesting thing is that God does end up destroying Sodom in Genesis 19. Does that mean there wasn’t a single righteous person among them? Were there no innocent children? Or is there something more to this scene? Let’s look at our next story and see how it can help explain what might be happening.
Jericho was a city within the Promised Land spoken of in Deuteronomy 7; part of a nation that was to be “utterly destroyed.” In the book of Joshua we see Israel besiege and attack Jericho “putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6: 21).
What is happening here? A literalistic interpretation of this passage brings us back to where we started: It would seem God was commanding the death of the innocent, including the young. But is this the only possible way to interpret this text?
When we read Scripture, it’s important to distinguish between a literal and a literalistic interpretation of a text. The literalist interprets every word of Scripture as literal, historical truth; and does not distinguish among the various types of writing found in Scripture – including poetry and metaphor.
A literal understanding of Scripture recognizes that “truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing” (Catechism No. 110). Is the author of Joshua really intending to say that every single living creature in Jericho was utterly destroyed, including innocent children? The problem with this view is that the story itself has an exception to Jericho’s utter destruction. Rahab and her family are spared (see Joshua 6:25).
Is it possible that in these examples the sense of utter destruction was not meant to be understood literalistically, but was used as an expression? Could this refer to a great – but not total – devastation? We use similar expressions frequently. For example, if I described a comedy I really enjoyed and said it “killed me,” you wouldn’t begin thinking that I literally died and must now be a ghost. You know that’s just an expression for how funny something was. So too, the idea that “every living creature” in Jericho was killed is quite possibly just an expression, perhaps intending to say that it was a complete victory for Israel.
We know from Abraham’s conversation with God that God does not punish the innocent. So it’s not likely Deuteronomy intended to say that God was commanding the death of everyone. In fact, Deuteronomy goes on to say, “You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Why would Deuteronomy need to forbid intermarriage with these nations if they were to be utterly destroyed? There would be no one left to marry among them.
It’s more likely that the phrase “utterly destroy” was used as an expression. Perhaps it was intended to describe a complete victory for Israel; a victory that meant separating themselves from anything that might get in the way of their relationship with God. Actually, that’s the reason Deuteronomy gives for this command, “For [the nations] would turn your sons from following me to serving other gods, and then the anger of the LORD would flare up against you and he would quickly destroy you” (Deuteronomy 7:4). This interpretation would mean that God did not command evil. Rather he commanded Israel to avoid evil by removing those temptations that might lead them astray.
Christ uses a similar expression in the New Testament to describe avoiding sin:
“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away … And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna” (Matthew 5:29-30).
Christ is not speaking literally. He’s using an expression to illustrate the severity of what he is saying. So the lesson here is, don’t literally cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, or lay waste to a nation. Instead, remove those things in your life that draw you away from the Lord. It’s better to separate yourself from those things than to find yourself separated from God.
Of course, this is just one explanation. There are many other possible interpretations. What do you think?
>> “Is it possible that in these examples the sense of utter destruction was not meant to be understood literalistically, but was used as an expression?” <<
.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
The people and culture of Jerico were immensely evil, casting their infant children into the red hot arms of a bronze idol in the middle of an intensely hot fire, to die in agony as the crowd danced and played loud music to drown out the shrill cries of the dying infants.
The author of this tripe will deserve what he gets at the judgement seat!
>> “why did he kill David’s son?” <<
.
So that David would not profit fron his illicit relationship.
The death of the child didn’t harm the child.
Maybe it’s the sin that punishes the innocent. Like a pregnant woman taking dope.
Who are you asserting is inocent?
Are you saying that Yehova knows not who is his own?
Don’t allow the deceit of this author drive you to questioning Yehova.
And this is what happens when you impose chrstianity (and “natural law”) on the Hebrew Bible.
We all deserve the worst at the judgment seat.
But those that deliberately deceive others get the most severe punishment.
What I think is 1) since the archeological evidence suggests that Jericho had been sacked and abandoned about 200 years before the probable date of the Exodus, the authors of Joshua were not describing a real event, but a symbolic one; 2) the writers of the Bible were quite capable of inserting divine commands into accounts of flawed human actions, in order to justify their ancestors behavior.
The Bible says David’s new born infant son was killed to by God to punish David’s sins.
“The death of the child didn’t harm the child.”
Being made to suffer an illness for seven days and then to die isn’t either harmful or a punishment?
The Bible tells us that David was punished for his sin, but the point of the story was to show David’s willingness to accept this punishment, that he was not above the Law. Nathan foretold what would happen and so it did, and David accepted the judgement of his sovereign Lord.
Yes. God killed the child to punish David for his infidelity. So there were two punishments. Firstly, God killed an innocent party (the new born son) and used that death to punish a guilty one (David) for his infidelity.
However you paint this, it still seems apparent that the idea that God never punishes the innocent is incorrect, right?
If God is the creator, the way he causes anything is not like we cause things, and he certainly is not acting the part of an abortionist. However, even accepting as literal the text, God is no more than cause than Nathan or David and Beethsheba.
I didn’t say that God was acting in any way as an abortionist. How he causes things is also irrelevant.
It’s the effect not the cause which is at the heart of this - God decided to kill an innocent new born infant to punish his father’s sin. The author of the article claims that God does not punish the innocent. One only has to read the Bible to see that that claim is incorrect. God can and does punish the innocent.
You appear to want to dance around the edges of this issue and not grapple with the essence of it. I don’t understand why.
You clearly do not understand how Yehova works!
Remember Shadrach, Mashack, and Abednego?
They walked around in an 1800 degree furnace, and talked with the pre-incarnate Messiach, but suffered no harm.
Yehova has never harmed an inocent person.
When God used Israel carry out His judgement on a nation, it was not evil. His judgements are always righteous.
Only if you assume that a new born infant isn’t innocent or that disease and death isn’t harmful.
Whatever the larger point about David’s sin and/or the prophecies surrounding it, the fact remains that God killed an innocent to punish the guilty. Is that a true statement or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.