In a key paragraph of his apostolic exhortation, Verbum Domini, Pope Benedict XVI addresses the “dark passages” of the Bible:
“42. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”. I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.”
The bulk of these difficult passages are found in the Old Testament. As a supplement to the above reading from Verbum Domini, here are five points to remember when you encounter these “dark passages”:
1. There are difficult passages in the Old Testament. Some things said or done in certain parts of the Bible are indeed tough to grapple with on their face. But just because something is difficult to understand does not mean it lacks a reasonable explanation. There are things in the world of science (consider theoretical physics, for example) that are difficult to understand; but that doesn’t mean that they are unreasonable.
2. Context is important. Trying to understand a difficult passage in Scripture out of its context only makes the passage more difficult. An eyeball makes more sense in the context of a face; and likewise, Old Testament events and behaviors make more sense in the context of ancient Near East culture. God’s people did not live in a vacuum. And immediate context of a given narrative also matters. For example, when Nathan the prophet says to David, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel…and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom’, it sounds as if God is advocating polygamy explicitly (see 2 Samuel 12). But once you realize Nathan is speaking with a tone of satire (one possible explanation), it changes one’s whole understanding of the passage. Monogamy was clearly advocated for by God “in the beginning” (see Genesis 2).
3. “Is” does not necessarily mean “ought”. Just because a given behavior is in the Old Testament does not mean that God condones it. Even the heroes screw up sometimes; thus it is necessary to make the distinctions between which acts are actually endorsed as morally upright versus which are not. Not every description is a prescription.
4. Familiar words may have unfamiliar definitions. The word “slave” is good example. A slave to the Hebrews was something like a live-in employee who worked to pay off debts to his employer. Slaves in this context were not treated like sub-human property as in other cases and cultures throughout history. Nonetheless, this distinction is commonly overlooked today, especially by Christianity’s critics. Paul Copan writes:
“When Christians and non-Christians read about slaves or slavery in Israel, they often think along the lines of antebellum slavery, with its slave trade and cruelties. This is a terrible misperception, and many — including the New Atheists — have bought into this misperception.”
Unlike the rest of the ancient Near East, the Mosaic Law allowed for injured slaves or “servants” to go free, prohibited the kidnapping of slaves, and commanded the Israelites to give safe harbour to runaway slaves.
5. The Mosaic Law is not intended to be permanent or universal. The law prescribed through Moses is what was most appropriate for the Israelites at that point in salvation history. The Old Covenant was not, however, intended to be permanent (see Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 16:59-63; Hos. 2:18). Yes, the Mosaic Law demanded tremendous self-discipline and obedience – a lot of it – but that’s precisely what they needed. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Verbum Domini, “God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them” [emphasis added].
But eventually the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in and through Christ, and parts of the Old Covenant law become invalidated, though “the just requirement of the law” remains (Romans 8:4). But God’s plan from the beginning is to redeem the world through the Israelites; so in the Law of Moses, God meets them where they’re at both culturally and morally. He prepares them for the coming of the Messiah slowly and methodically, and in a unique way. Fr. John Hardon, in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, writes:
“Compared with similar law in other nations of that time, the Mosaic code is vastly superior by reason of its strong monotheism, its proclamation of God as the only source and final sanction of all laws, and from its summation of the whole law in the love of God and of neighbor.”
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Recommended Books:
Two books I highly recommend are Matthew Ramage’s Dark Passages Of The Bible and Paul Copan’s Is God A Moral Monster. Also keep an eye out for Trent Horn’s new book on Bible difficulties which is set to come out soon.
Great post! Thanks Matt.
Thanks for reading, brother! GO LEAFS 😀
Benedict was a gentle soul and gentle souls can’t stand violence and section 42 is dominated by his anti violence idea to the point of his making mistakes. Benedict says that the ” prophets…challenged every kind of …violence…whether collective or individual…”
That simply is not correct. The prophet Samuel ” hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal” 1 Sam.15:33 because Saul failed to kill Agag as ordered by God. Elijah killed a minimum of 552 men…two groups of 51 by calling down lightning ( 2 Kgs.1:10 and 2 Kgs.1:12) and the rest (450) after the test between him and the priests idolaters…1Kgs.18:40. You hear in the Mass how Eliseus cursed 42 boys who were killed by two bears. Jeremiah of the later prophets warns the Chaldeans that they will be cursed if they are merciful to the Moabites in battle…Jeremiah 48:10 “Cursed be he that doeth the work of Jehovah negligently; and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.”
Benedict is saying that God never ordered the herem massacre of the Canaanites but scripture repeatedly says God did. What Benedict missed was two key concepts that had he known them, he may have accepted the herem as scripture recounts them. First, God gave the Canaanites 400 years of lighter punishments first prior to ordering the herem ( read Gen.15:16…God to Abraham ” in the fourth generation, your descendants will return here because the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete”….then Wisdom 12:10 ” punishing them bit by bit, you gave them space for repentance”). Second, God only orders such things when a group’s sin is filled up or complete….hence again look at the Genesis quote above. And later in 2014 the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated that the herem never happened whereas Benedict is saying they happened but were really sins of the Jews. Both are incorrect and don’t agree with each other as you’ll notice.
Read Wisdom 12 which is only canonical in Catholicism. It states in 12:5-6…” These merciless murderers of children,devourers of human flesh, and initiates engaged in blood ritual, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our ancestors.”
Benedict and the PBC are hoping to clean up the Old Testament of violence but in the Old Covenant, God had to use violence because pre Christ man needed great threats jst be be good…hence the death penalties for sins like adultery…man lacked certain things that Christ achieved:
….Christ had not brought sanctifying grace: John 1:17 ” the law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
…..Christ had not yet reduced the devil’s power so that possession cases abounded in His culture but not after Him: Luke 10:18 ” I saw satan fall like lightning…” Once Christ reduced satan, even non Christians have an easier time trying to be good.
…… Christ had not yet been lifted up from whence He draws all men to Himself ( though many resist the drawing): John 12:32. ” And I if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself”.
Benedict and the PBC theologians are embarassed by OT violence but they don’t notice that Christ is not embarassed by it and announces the worst massacre and its reason…Jerusalem in 70AD and Christ notes it will happen because they had not known the things which were for their peace Luke 19:42.
ps
The idea of no herem is brought by God unless a group completes their sin is not only in Gen.15:16 but Christ repeats it in Jerusalem:
Christ talking to the leaders in Jerusalem…Matthew 23:31-32. ” Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now FILL UP what your ancestors measured out.”
That was an ominous moment for any Jew listening to Christ who knew Gen.15:16 as precedent to Christ’s ” fill up”.