The fathers on violence in the Old Testament

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

This is my first post on Monachos. I guess this is where I should ask the harder and deeper questions that I have, regarding Eastern theology and liturgy.

I would like to know what the Greek and Syrian Fathers had to say regarding violence in the Old Testament, especially with regards to the herem in Deuteronomy and to other apparent divine commands to massacre and slaughter entire nations and peoples.

I've read in the course of my research that the literal reading of these commands as having been actual, literal commands of God to kill entire peoples, was actually an innovation on the part of St. Augustine. According to the same thesis, the Greek and early Latin Fathers normally read these "violent commands" as hyperbole and allegory. Is this true?

I am Roman Catholic but I'm deeply troubled by the traditional Latin answer contained in Aquinas and Augustine and in most Catholic exegetes down to the 19th century, namely, that these commands were given because God is the absolute master of life and death and had every prerogative to sentence entire "guilty" nations to death. Similar situations are similarly explained, for example, Jepthah did not commit sin in killing his daughter because it was God's will that, for that singular instance, human sacrifice be carried out. I find myself asking: is this really the only answer? I don't recognize in this the God of Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg speech, where he spoke of the God who is eminently rational and against violence.

And so, I'm here. I want a second opinion.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Carlos Antonio Palad wrote:


This is my first post on Monachos. I guess this is where I should ask the harder and deeper questions that I have, regarding Eastern theology and liturgy.

I would like to know what the Greek and Syrian Fathers had to say regarding violence in the Old Testament, especially with regards to the herem in Deuteronomy and to other apparent divine commands to massacre and slaughter entire nations and peoples.

I've read in the course of my research that the literal reading of these commands as having been actual, literal commands of God to kill entire peoples, was actually an innovation on the part of St. Augustine. According to the same thesis, the Greek and early Latin Fathers normally read these "violent commands" as hyperbole and allegory. Is this true?


Welcome to Monachos.

I am sure that the great majority of Church Fathers up to our own time would have taken these commands as representing something God literally asked of the people of Israel & something they literally did. This also would have been given a symbolic interpretation but without denying the literal.

I suppose that the last point gives a better understanding of what was behind this Patristic acceptance. For the Fathers nothing in Scripture stands 'as is' without referring to a deeper reality.

Thus the OT accounts for the Fathers are not just accounts of slaughter. Rather they are acts which God asks of His people as signs of faithfulness. If faithfulness was not their motivation- as it frequently was not- if it was simply blood-thirstyness or desire for land or power- then God's accusation against His people was always swift to come.

I am sure that this can still lead to important moral questions. But the main point to keep in mind is that for the Fathers such questions always had to be addressed within the actual context in which the people of Israel found themselves.

In any case, as the OT always implies- faithfulness does not rule out moral ambiguity. Indeed the suggestion is just the opposite that to keep to our own 'moral high ground' could be a sign of deep faithlessness towards God. As for example if Abraham had refused to offer his son for such a reason.

Why this is so is I think the main question to look at.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Denys Kosovsky]

I've read in the course of my research that the literal reading of these commands as having been actual, literal commands of God to kill entire peoples, was actually an innovation on the part of St. Augustine. According to the same thesis, the Greek and early Latin Fathers normally read these "violent commands" as hyperbole and allegory. Is this true?


Hi Carlos,

The Lord is just. Justice means reward and punishment. The people surrounding the Jews were slaves to sin. Certain kinds of sin carry certain punishment. I think I read somewhere that the sin for which God destroys people is uncontrolled sexual relations and carnal lust to the point when it becomes the en masse the driving force in the society. I mean mass infidelity, free sex, young age to enter into sexual relations, abortions, lesbianism and homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, etc. You may even notice that these are the sins that the modern Western society is repeating, hence the fact that the Orthodox Church is awaiting the coming of the Antichrist followed by Judgment Day. Sodom and the pre-flood world were destroyed for the sins of not worshipping the true God and living like animals giving in to all carnal lusts.

This is pretty general though sorry

Denys

[Ken McRae]

1 Samuel 15:1-9; and 32-33

1) Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king
over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the
words of the LORD. 2) Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish
Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way
when he came up from Egypt. 3) Now go and attack Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill
both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel
and donkey.’” 4) So Saul gathered the people together and
numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and
ten thousand men of Judah. 5) And Saul came to a city of Amalek,
and lay in wait in the valley. 6) Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go,
depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you
with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel
when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from
among the Amalekites. 7) And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from
Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8) He also took
Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the
people with the edge of the sword. 9) But Saul and the people
spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the
lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy
them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly
destroyed.

32) Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to
me.” So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, “Surely the
bitterness of death is past.” 33) But Samuel said, “As your sword
has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless
among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the
LORD in Gilgal.

Well, to be honest, I was reluctant to throw in my "widow's mite" here, but as this is a subject that has personally caused me much inner turmoil, over the years., I thought to throw it in, regardless. Of all the Old Testament accounts of violence, I can think of none that has tested me more than the above account, in Samuel 1.

Here we have the Prophet Samuel commanding Saul to invade a Gentile nation, and to literally wipe it out, every last man, woman, infant, child and beast; which Saul did, save for the King, (and some of the choice livestock, which he intended to sacrifice to the Lord,) who the people of Israel wished him to spare; and so he did, as they bid; and what was Samuel's reaction to this? "Samuel hacked Agag
in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal."

Presumably this was according to the rule of "an eye for an eye," meaning that this King had likely given just such an order, (and more than once,) to kill the children of the Jews, and even likely hacking them "to pieces." Still, it has been a difficult thing for me to contemplate this Scripture, and try to reconcile it with what we, in the 21st century, tend to think about such harsh events today:

First, would they consider it a "just" act, for one nation to invade another nation, and literally wipe it out, every man, woman, infanct, child and beast; in effect to spare no-one or anything? Secondly, to literally "hack" this Gentile king into pieces; as opposed to merely taking off his head, or running him through with the sword, with a single thrust. Would the Church today view that act of the Prophet Samuel as "just" or righteous, as well?

[Kosta]

What i say may sound controversial but i believe what is described is events that literally took place in war or views the political leaders of the time promoted against their enemies to energize the people. Afterall it happens to this day, "God is on our side", "God will destroy our oppressors", sounds familiar doesnt it. The OT usually praises God when the jews were successful in battle but if they were defeated it was interpreted as the people being sinful and this was how God punished them.

[Michael Stickles]

I think that God's revelation to Abram in Genesis 15:13-16 is relevant here (emphasis added):


Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

So, it sounds to me like God is saying that He would delay bringing the Israelites into Canaan until the sins of the inhabitants had piled up high enough to warrant their annihilation. As for Samuel commanding Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites, the reason is stated at the beginning of 1 Samuel 15 (emphasis added):


Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

But this does not answer the deeper question, which seems to be a fear of what these commands might say about God's character. And for that one, I have no answer beyond what Fr. Raphael has already said.

As for Jepthah, there is a Patristic reference, in St. John Chrysostom's 14th Homily on the Statues (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.xix.xvi.html)(I've added breaks for readability):


... what he [the devil] had done aforetime in the case of Jephthah, that he hoped now again to accomplish. For he likewise, when he had promised that the first thing that met him, after a victorious battle, he would sacrifice, fell into the snare of child-murder; for his daughter first meeting him, he sacrificed her and God did not forbid it.

And I know, indeed, that many of the unbelievers impugn us of cruelty and inhumanity on account of this sacrifice; but I should say, that the concession in the case of this sacrifice was a striking example of providence and clemency; and that it was in care for our race that He did not prevent that sacrifice. For if after that vow and promise He had forbidden the sacrifice, many also who were subsequent to Jephthah, in the expectation that God would not receive their vows, would have increased the number of such vows, and proceeding on their way would have fallen into child-murder. But now, by suffering this vow to be actually fulfilled, He put a stop to all such cases in future.

And to shew that this is true, after Jephthah’s daughter had been slain, in order that the calamity might be always remembered, and that her fate might not be consigned to oblivion, it became a law among the Jews, that the virgins assembling at the same season should bewail during forty days the sacrifice which had taken place; in order that renewing the memory of it by lamentation, they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God that this should be done, for in that case He would not have permitted the virgins to bewail and lament her.

And that what I have said is not conjectural, the event demonstrated; for after this sacrifice, no one vowed such a vow unto God. Therefore also He did not indeed forbid this; but what He had expressly enjoined in the case of Isaac, that He directly prohibited; plainly shewing through both cases, that He doth not delight in such sacrifices.

In Christ,
Mike

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

I think that God's revelation to Abram in Genesis 15:13-16 is relevant here (emphasis added):



So, it sounds to me like God is saying that He would delay bringing the Israelites into Canaan until the sins of the inhabitants had piled up high enough to warrant their annihilation. As for Samuel commanding Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites, the reason is stated at the beginning of 1 Samuel 15 (emphasis added):



But this does not answer the deeper question, which seems to be a fear of what these commands might say about God's character. And for that one, I have no answer beyond what Fr. Raphael has already said.

As for Jepthah, there is a Patristic reference, in St. John Chrysostom's 14th Homily on the Statues (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.xix.xvi.html)(I've added breaks for readability):



In Christ,
Mike

After reading this quote from St. John, my understanding is that God simply permitted the sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter to go through. He did not actually WILL the sacrifice -- which is what some traditional Roman Catholic commentators say, even going so far as to say that Jepthah had no fault.

Permitting the sacrifice to go through without attempting to prevent it, and WILLING this sacrifice, are two different matters.

For that matter, I've often asked: how does the Old Testament concept of causality differ from ours? (But I guess that is off-topic for this thread.)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Of course we can put & interpret it in different ways. But the OT and Church Frs are clear that God did command such things.

So the quandary remains of how this was a real sacrifice of faith for Israel and not a sullied one?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

Of course we can put & interpret it in different ways. But the OT and Church Frs are clear that God did command such things.

So the quandary remains of how this was a real sacrifice of faith for Israel and not a sullied one?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father, bless!

Thank you for your responses!

Granting that God did command "such things", I do not find anything in Judges that would say that God did command the sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter. And St. John Chrysostom seems to say that this sacrifice was not God's will either. At least, Jepthah's sacrifice of his daughter does not seem to fall under "such things."

"He made a vow (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm) to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), saying: If thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) into my hands, 31 Whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm), the same will I offer a holocaust (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07396b.htm) to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). 32 And Jephte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm) passed over to the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) to fight against them: and the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) delivered them into his hands. 33 And he smote them from Aroer till you come to Mennith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036a.htm), which is set with vineyards, with a very great slaughter: and the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) were humbled (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07543b.htm) by the children of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm). 34 And when Jephte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm) returned into Maspha (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09788a.htm), to his house, his only daughter met him with timbrels and with dances (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04618b.htm): for he had no other children. 35 And when he saw her, he rent his garments, and said: Alas! my daughter, thou hast deceived (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm) me, and thou thyself art deceived (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm): for I have opened my mouth to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and I can do no other thing. 36 And she answered him: My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), do unto me whatsoever thou hast promised, since the victory hath been granted to thee, and revenge of thy enemies. 37 And she said to her father: Grant me only this, which I desire: Let me go, that I may go about the mountains for two months, and may bewail my virginity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) with my companions."

The text from Judges 11: 30 - 37 says nothing of God commanding that Jepthah do human sacrifice. Rather, Jepthah assumes (some would say, sinfully) that this is an act pleasing to God, an assumption of which, with God's permission, he was disabused in the most painful manner.

If I misread the passage, someone please correct me.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I would tend to put this passage among those other 'quandary' passages we have referred to. In vs 29 for example which prefaces this passage it says:


And a spirit of the Lord came upon Jephtha...

The entire context of the passage, to me at least, also suggests that, if God did not actively command such a thing of Jephtha, then He certainly was not displeased with it. There is no indication in the passage that the vow given by Jephtha was mistaken and should not be honoured.

In any case, whatever one's interpretation of this passage we still have the many other references of God commanded elimination of others by the people of Israel.

As said previously this was taken as a sign of faithfulness for Israel. This needs to be seen in the larger context of Israel as a nation separate in conduct from the other nations, not relaxing themselves to adopt their behaviour.

A second element crucial in this was the fact that these people worshiped 'other gods'. Their hearts were not centered on the One God.

In dealing with this we are not dealing with vengeance in the immoral sense. Rather when we hear of 'God's vengeance' (for that is what I think we are really discussing here) in such a context we refer first to the establishment of God's righteousness which always will be accomplished through the intermediary of His people. Secondly this will always draw forth a reaction from what is of this world. This reaction always leads to a kind of self-destruction if not from external causes then from the inner results of ones own rejection of God which act as a kind of protest of nature itself.

This OT scenario though fits into its own time and conditions which shaped the specific contours of how this overall dispensation was to be worked out. NT times change this in an external sense. But not in the inner.

Thus the people of God are now the Church. We are called to be not of this world. We are called not to give others over to destruction for the sake of showing forth faithfulness but rather ourselves in martyric self- denial. And finally this will inevitably involve a judgment of this world since there is a side to us that rejects such self-denial & which we in turn must deny.

In Christ- Fr Raphael



Father, bless!

Thank you for your responses!

Granting that God did command "such things", I do not find anything in Judges that would say that God did command the sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter. And St. John Chrysostom seems to say that this sacrifice was not God's will either. At least, Jepthah's sacrifice of his daughter does not seem to fall under "such things."

"He made a vow (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15511a.htm) to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), saying: If thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) into my hands, 31 Whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm), the same will I offer a holocaust (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07396b.htm) to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). 32 And Jephte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm) passed over to the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) to fight against them: and the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) delivered them into his hands. 33 And he smote them from Aroer till you come to Mennith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036a.htm), which is set with vineyards, with a very great slaughter: and the children of Ammon (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01431b.htm) were humbled (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07543b.htm) by the children of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm). 34 And when Jephte (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08333b.htm) returned into Maspha (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09788a.htm), to his house, his only daughter met him with timbrels and with dances (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04618b.htm): for he had no other children. 35 And when he saw her, he rent his garments, and said: Alas! my daughter, thou hast deceived (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm) me, and thou thyself art deceived (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm): for I have opened my mouth to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and I can do no other thing. 36 And she answered him: My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth to the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), do unto me whatsoever thou hast promised, since the victory hath been granted to thee, and revenge of thy enemies. 37 And she said to her father: Grant me only this, which I desire: Let me go, that I may go about the mountains for two months, and may bewail my virginity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) with my companions."

The text from Judges 11: 30 - 37 says nothing of God commanding that Jepthah do human sacrifice. Rather, Jepthah assumes (some would say, sinfully) that this is an act pleasing to God, an assumption of which, with God's permission, he was disabused in the most painful manner.

If I misread the passage, someone please correct me.

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

I would tend to put this passage among those other 'quandary' passages we have referred to. In vs 29 for example which prefaces this passage it says:



The entire context of the passage, to me at least, also suggests that, if God did not actively command such a thing of Jephtha, then He certainly was not displeased with it. There is no indication in the passage that the vow given by Jephtha was mistaken and should not be honoured.

In any case, whatever one's interpretation of this passage we still have the many other references of God commanded elimination of others by the people of Israel.

As said previously this was taken as a sign of faithfulness for Israel. This needs to be seen in the larger context of Israel as a nation separate in conduct from the other nations, not relaxing themselves to adopt their behaviour.

A second element crucial in this was the fact that these people worshiped 'other gods'. Their hearts were not centered on the One God.

In dealing with this we are not dealing with vengeance in the immoral sense. Rather when we hear of 'God's vengeance' (for that is what I think we are really discussing here) in such a context we refer first to the establishment of God's righteousness which always will be accomplished through the intermediary of His people. Secondly this will always draw forth a reaction from what is of this world. This reaction always leads to a kind of self-destruction if not from external causes then from the inner results of ones own rejection of God which act as a kind of protest of nature itself.

This OT scenario though fits into its own time and conditions which shaped the specific contours of how this overall dispensation was to be worked out. NT times change this in an external sense. But not in the inner.

Thus the people of God are now the Church. We are called to be not of this world. We are called not to give others over to destruction for the sake of showing forth faithfulness but rather ourselves in martyric self- denial. And finally this will inevitably involve a judgment of this world since there is a side to us that rejects such self-denial & which we in turn must deny.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father, bless!

I hope that you would bear with me on this. While I do not intend this to become an endless discussion, and I have no desire to come across as contentious, I would like to ask for one last clarification regarding Jepthah.

The quote from St. John Chrysostom, posted above, makes the following clear:

1) Jepthah "fell into the snare of child-murder"

2) God is simply spoken of as "not preventing the sacrifice" and of "suffering the vow to be fulfilled" -- suffering, of course means "permitting."

3) Finally, St. John Chrysostom declares that "it became a law among the Jews, that the virgins assembling at the same season should bewail during forty days the sacrifice which had taken place; in order that renewing the memory of it by lamentation, they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God that this should be done, for in that case He would not have permitted the virgins to bewail and lament her."

It is true that there are other passages in the OT whose violence would need a different explanation. Nevertheless, at least in the case of Jepthah, it seems to me that St. John Chrysostom is clear that God was not pleased with the sacrifice, but permitted it nevertheless for a greater good.

[Matthew Namee]

In response to the general question of the "violent commands" of God in the Old Testament: This was something that once bothered me a great deal. A wise man gave me a helpful response. He said that the entire purpose of history up to the Incarnation was to produce the Incarnation. Thus the necessity for a people set apart, for a temple, for the birth of the Virgin. God was using flawed humans to create conditions which would make possible the Incarnation. Now that Christ has come into the world and the law has been fulfilled, such "violent commands" are unnecessary. Fr. Raphael says it well:


This OT scenario though fits into its own time and conditions which shaped the specific contours of how this overall dispensation was to be worked out. NT times change this in an external sense. But not in the inner.

God is certainly far more merciful than I am (or any other person). If, then, parts of the Old Testament seem to portray God as being anything other than merciful, it is only because we are not understanding them in their proper context. Also, it is important to remember that the nature of the afterlife was very different prior to the Cross. No judgment had taken place. The dead, both righteous and unrighteous, had yet to be visited by St. John the Baptist and then Christ himself in Sheol.

Anyway, these explanations helped me to understand the apparent harshness of God in the Old Testament. Everything he did, commanded, or allowed was for the ultimate benefit of mankind.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The insights of the Fathers are rarely made to be taken in an exhaustive sense. Rather they are made to be read in concert and to see their underlying point.

I do not have the time right now to read through this passage of St John Chrysostom in detail but in terms of its underlying point it seemed only to be about how God used this incident of Japheth & his daughter for His own providential purposes.

In a way then I'm not sure that St John Chrysostom's main intention here is to try to address our particular question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael



Father, bless!

I hope that you would bear with me on this. While I do not intend this to become an endless discussion, and I have no desire to come across as contentious, I would like to ask for one last clarification regarding Jepthah.

The quote from St. John Chrysostom, posted above, makes the following clear:

1) Jepthah "fell into the snare of child-murder"

2) God is simply spoken of as "not preventing the sacrifice" and of "suffering the vow to be fulfilled" -- suffering, of course means "permitting."

3) Finally, St. John Chrysostom declares that "it became a law among the Jews, that the virgins assembling at the same season should bewail during forty days the sacrifice which had taken place; in order that renewing the memory of it by lamentation, they should make all men wiser for the future; and that they might learn that it was not after the mind of God that this should be done, for in that case He would not have permitted the virgins to bewail and lament her."

It is true that there are other passages in the OT whose violence would need a different explanation. Nevertheless, at least in the case of Jepthah, it seems to me that St. John Chrysostom is clear that God was not pleased with the sacrifice, but permitted it nevertheless for a greater good.

[Christophoros]

On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-4898NN2U&feature=player_embedded#!

[Sacha]

On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-4898NN2U&feature=player_embedded#!

Fr Jacobses' thoughts are quite helpful. He does not seem to be advocating a literal reading of the text. For example, take Zechariah 14:1-2, where it says " 2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped" Fr Jacobses would probably say that this is an anthropomorphism to be read today with the understanding that the Jews of Zechariah's time saw their God as one who captures, ransacks and even rapes their enemies. And I beileve he is right when He speaks of Christ superceding the old. But this seems to clash with a lot of the views expressed in this forum, where literalism is still defended. Did God literally ordain rape in Zechariah 14:2?

When Christ, the Father's perfect revelation, appeared to us, it is amazing how He breaks with these old wineskins. It's almost as if He says, you must mature in your understanding, for example when His disciples ask Him to call down fire on the samaritans. He tells them that they do not what spirit they are of. Even when the Lord quotes the prophets, He deliberately omits certain sections that would feed the old wineskins way of thinking.

This is where protestants are so vulnerable, with their insistence of 'well, it's in the bible'. What does 'in the bible' really mean? It's meaningless without the acknowledgment that intepretation is what's at stake. Yet when I turn to the OC, I see varying interpretations as well.