Skip to comments.Year of Faith: Does God Command Evil Actions in the Bible? Part II (Part I linked)
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 its 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 its 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 wasnt a single righteous person among them? Were there no innocent children? Or is there something more to this scene? Lets 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, its 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 Jerichos 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 wouldnt begin thinking that I literally died and must now be a ghost. You know thats 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 Abrahams conversation with God that God does not punish the innocent. So its 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.
Its 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, thats 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. Hes using an expression to illustrate the severity of what he is saying. So the lesson here is, dont 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. Its 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?
So much for Catholics lecturing Protestants about "private interpretations" of scripture!
If God doesn’t punish the innocent, why did he kill David’s son?
as to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah— Scripture speaks in Chapter 18 of the debate and one needs consider Biblical symbols to understand some of it.It appears ethno centrism is going on here — the text speaks of the number of men—not the number of souls. The speculator does not allow Scripture to speak for itself but plays what if? As it appears the society was governed by men—the judgement for their unrighteousness rests with the guilty. When we play what if with Scripture we end up wholly seduced like Eve in the garden.”Thou shalt not surely die?” Genesis 19 : declares that Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown -so it was.
Because we think that private interpretations are often speculative and are not to be accepted if they conflict with the authority of the Church.
Well, the innocent do suffer, as Christs example attests. . And the paradox that it is the unblemished lamb that is sacrificed?
Israelites were the first people on Earth to figure out that they did not need to be worshiping dwarf stars. “Yahveh” is the same basic word as “Jove” (Jupiter) and you can convince yourself that “El” meant Saturn by doing Google searches on ‘El Saturn Babylon’ and you need to included the term ‘Babylon’ to keep from seeing all the hits for GM Saturn dealerships. I’d assume that Jericho and Ai were before Israelites figured out that God was not Jupitor or Saturn...
Oh, Alex, your comment was expected. The author is referring to this passage:
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).
You are not a literalist, nor are we. The example he cited comes from his interpretation of that passage. What is yours?
How dare he go to reading scripture on his own. the nerve of that guy!
In Southern Baptist seminaries, it was once commonly taught to not say, "this is what the bible says, and this is what it means" like closing a door upon possibility of anything further, but rather to say "this is what the bible says, and this is what it means to me".
There is a lot that can be said for that approach...
if we cannot trust the Lord to use His own word to do that work He sent it to do, then all the table pounding and book thumping in the world isn't going to get His message across. His Kingdom is not of this world.
So you don’t take this passage literally?
Still in my daily prayers!
Clearly in this world, the innocent suffer. However, the question I asked was; if (as is usually claimed) God doesn’t punish the innocent, why did He kill David’s son?
Everybody dies. Why does he kill EVERYBODY’s son?
If he killed Davids son for Davida guilt, he has also killed the rest of us, and often our innocent children ,for our sins. The wages of sin is death.
So the assertion by the author that God doesn’t punish the innocent is incorrect?
That’s a really good question.
I will answer as soon as you do.
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.