 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 12:26 am |
|
Hi, I have enjoyed reading through the forum. I am a convert from evangelical protestantism and as a Catholic I am reading through the OT and finding that I have some intellectual problems with many of the stories presented there. There was a post some time ago about the historical narratives in teh OT and how to understand their genre. I am in agreement that some strories such as Jonah and the whale may not be meant to be taken absoultely literally although it is always possible with God that it really happened that way and that either way, it sort of doesn't matter. I'm ok with that. What I'm having a difficult time with though is how death abounds in the OT and it is by the power of God that it happens. Here are a few specific examples.
1) David takes a census of the army and because he relied on the strength of the flesh (size of army) God gives him 3 punishments to choose from. He chooses a plague and instantly 70,000 people die. So my questions are as follows
a) why? Isn't this somewhat harsh? I realize that a relationship with God was different and in a sense more difficult prior to the coming of Christ. But 70,000 people wiped out in a few days?
b) doesn't this seem like God was overly concerned with the political realm of Israel? I mean, the ultimate purpose of Israel after all, is not its military endeavors but the coming of the Messiah. So does God care so much about the army and if David was just measuring it? Perhaps there is a partial answer to my own question here...i.e that it was David not God who is getting too worked up about the military and the political aspect of the kingdom and losing sight of the spiritual significance of what God is doing with the nation of Israel?
c) Is there any room here to say (as we might with Jonah) that this is more of a wisdom genre (though of course on a whole Kings and Chronicles themselves are history but perhaps there are multiple genres in these books)? So, perhaps all we can take away from this is that a king (even the best one in Israel's history) should not and must not do ANYTHING involving the nation he is leading without the will of God b/c ultimately, this is God's kingdom. So, in other words, perhaps there is a kernel of truth to the real historicity of the story (or perhaps not even that) but that there is a lesson here for the kings of Isreal that the author wanted to bring out. Is this a viable interpretation or does this necessarily do violence to the text?
d) Many times in the OT God just shows up like He does here and talks to someone and it is recorded like its a face to face conversation or something. How are we to understand this? The text here (and I'm sorry I don't have the verse) just seems to indicate that God just came and spoke to David about this and gave Him 3 options...it is this simplicity of the narrative (and the way that people just instantly start to die as soon as David opts for punishment #3) that sort of get the wheels spinning that maybe there is something about this story that isn't exactly literal history.
2) My second example comes from Kings. One is where Elijah has the show down with the false prophets of Baal (I think) and after he "wins" he slays 300 or so with his sword. I guess by the power of God.
a) Are we to think that the power of God just came on him and he just got some miraculous strength from God to kill these guys and none of them were able to harm him? This sounds sort of like hollywood where one hero slays like 30 bad guys. Only this is like 300 (and there is a similar story about Samson only that number is 1,000!). Is this sort of narrative just teaching us that Elijah had a strong outpouring of the Spirit of God and you didn't mess with him b/c he showed up the false prophets (but maybe didn't literally swing his sword around on a mountain while 300 guys were coming at him and he took them all out?) Or are we to believe that b/c God was with him that he just had this special power to kill these guys and he was like invincible or something?
b) if we have to believe the latter then the types of questions that come to my mind would be is it fitting for the Spirit of God to be used as a charism to kill a bunch of people--even if they are "the bad guys" worshipping the false god and leading people astray?
3) Elisha is teased for being bald by some youths and he sends out some bears and they all get malled.
a) if this is real history does it not seem a bit unproportional for the "crime" of the kids (even if they were teenagers, still)...
b) or can we say that this is sort of a legendary tale that reveals the kind of guy that Elisha was--a prophet who was used mightily by God and who had a double portion of Elijah's spirit and you didn't mess with this guy. He worked real wonders and miracles but some legendary tales got wrapped up with him in oral tradition (or in the mind mind of the author of Kings) and though it may not be actual history it reveals the kind of person he was. Elijah and Elisha are sort pre cursors to John the Baptist who has this rough/tough sense about him and in the Ancient Near East at the time that Kings was written, the way you convey that is to include in his life these sort of Hebrew ideas that people would be able to relate to (perhaps kind of like the Hebrew mind would relate to the sign of Jonah or a talking snake in Genesis, etc). I mean, we are dealing with ancient history and forms of writing here, so are we free to take this sort of stance or do we have to believe in the literal historicity of everything that appears on the surface to be "history"? I realize taking this stance brings in some real problems, like where do you draw the line, etc.. But for me, it's not about applying this method to the New Testament narratives of our Lord or about major historical events in the life of Israel such as the Exodus, but it's more about these sort of side stories that get pulled in to the life of a person that the author wants us to see as a great hero of God and perhaps while he was a real hero that worked mighty signs, we have some non historical ideas pulled in but that doesn't mean that Elisha never existed etc...Is this plausible or does this do violent to the text? Taking this approach seems to free my mind to relax about these sort of strories from teh OT, even though i realize such an approach can be taken too far. But I honestly dont' know if I have already gone too far in taking such an approach. But it seems possible to me based on the fact that we just don't know what kind of genre we are dealing with in each section of scripture from teh OT. I mean, after all, I don't think that most of us really buy the idea of one guy fetching 2 (or 7) of every known animal and shoving them (huge animals like giraffes hippos etc!!) on this boat the size of the titanic. But, of course, all ancient near east cultures write about a major flood and they usually talk about one guy or one family that the gods allowed to survive. So I wouldnt' say we are dealing with pure fiction in the case of Noah any more than i am saying that about Elijah, or Elisha (and certainly not David with my first example). So perhaps the way of communicating theological truth in such a culture way back then was to tell a story that engages the mind and teaches the theological truths and paints the basic picture of who this person was or why this event happened but the authors are free to sort of weave the story with a thin layer of history that may not be always truly historical in our sense of the word, but it is indeed based on real history, etc. Does this theory make sense or am i stretching it?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 01:10 am |
|
First of all, let me welcome you to the Coming Home Network forums. We look forward to you sharing your faith story with us when you are comfortable doing so. We also want to welcome you to the Catholic faith.
I am not going to address the individual points in your message, since others here are better able to do so. I would like to point out that, while the Church absolutely affirms the truth of scripture, she also teaches us that scripture conveys that truth which God wishes to convey for our salvation. From the Catechism:
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
That doesn't necessarily mean that every story in the Old Testament is literally true. God used the human authors and their own knowledge and abilities fully to convey that which God wanted conveyed:
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "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."
As true authors, they could only write about what they knew. Some here will argue that the stories you mention are literally true; others will consider them presenting a larger truth. Our Church tells us we must look beyond the meaning of any single passage and read it through the lens of all of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. Whether the story is factually correct or not, what is its larger meaning in light of the mission of salvation of Jesus Christ and the Church?
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
So to discover the real meaning, look beyond the actual words. Consider the culture and scientific knowledge of the times, and read it in perspective of the entire faith history of humanity from the creation until today. What important messages did God wish to convey, using the knowledge and abilities of the human authors?
Welcome once again to the Coming Home Network and the Catholic faith. We're happy to have you here with us.
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 11:05 am |
|
| Thanks Rick. I think i hear you saying "look at the big picture of scripture and of the Church's teaching and tradition and look beyond the actual words and you may see this more clearly." I think this helps but it still leaves me stuck with this problem...it is fitting these stories into the big picture that doesn't work--to my mind, anyhow. Whether they are true literally or not, either way my mind says "David took a census and a whole bunch of people died...I don't get it. How does that fit into God's bigger picture. It seems like a little odd quirk in scripture that doesn't really fit in." Same with the other stories I raised. I think that's my problem with them is it just almost seems like random death abounding everywhere. Like anyone who takes a census or laughs at a prophet just gets killed--this doesn't fit in to the bigger picture of who God is for me. But that coudl be the point I am missing..i.e. maybe i just don't like the thought of God being so harsh and strict in the OT b/c that's not how we experience Him now. Plus, I get worked up about people's lives being treated in what seems like a flippant manner. I mean, imagine being one of those guys that died in the plague and it's all b/c your king decided to take a census. Or imagine being the parents of one of those kids that was malled by the bears and being told "don't worry though, God is an infinitely loving God." I think that's the problem I have squaring. God is so full of love that it surpasses what we can even imagine--I think that's what is revealed in the NT. But in the OT it seems like He is so full of anger and wrath that you can't even bat an eye wrong without his wrath breaking out against you. I guess the trick is to hold both truths together but it just seems like my mind wants to call God's justice into question with regard to some of these stories. And that may be why I am tempted to dismiss them as legendary tales that perhaps have a kernel of historical truth in them but maybe more so than history they have teaching truths in them about the person Elisha for example and God's power in him, etc. But maybe if I could see such stories as being just then I wouldn't have a problem in believing in their literal historicity...Does that make sense?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
andersent wrote: And that may be why I am tempted to dismiss them as legendary tales that perhaps have a kernel of historical truth in them but maybe more so than history they have teaching truths in them about the person Elisha for example and God's power in him, etc. But maybe if I could see such stories as being just then I wouldn't have a problem in believing in their literal historicity...Does that make sense?
In the Middle Ages, smallpox ravaged Europe. How would a typical peasant have viewed this epidemic, given the medical knowledge of the time? Remember, the authors can only relate what they know, and they had no concept of viruses.
Thousands of years earlier, how would an author have seen a plague? Did an angry, vengeful God attack them, or did a tribe with weakened immune systems (because they failed to follow Jewish dietary and other laws) fall victim to an opportune infection that the Hebrews were better able to fight off? Maybe they even caught the infection from the Hebrews, like the Native Americans caught infections from European conquerers. Many of them died, and others were too sick to fight for their territory. Europeans certainly saw this as a sign from heaven that they were to conquer America, Africa, India, etc.
The Hebrews saw ever action as an act of God. A low tide or earthquake or eclipse were all seen as signs from God. Hebrews were healthier than other tribes because of the laws they followed: they washed their hands, they didn't eat undercooked pork, they bathed, they were better able to keep themselves clean. That made them stronger and healthier than their neighbors. Is it a sign from God that those who closely followed Jewish laws survived, while others died?
So I don't doubt the accuracy of the stories you relate. What I doubt is that they were deliberate acts by a vengeful God. We know through Jesus that God is love, but we can also see how the Jews might have taken the result of events of the time and attributed them to God.
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 01:36 pm |
|
| I like this appraoch and I have thought of this myself. But the question that comes to my mind is "is it legitimate for Scripture to attribute to God something that wasn't directly from God?" I'm just worried that taking this route might attribute to God this vengeful act, but if Scripture is wrong and this was from a "natural cause" then how does this portion of scripture reveal God? In what sense is the Holy Spirit the author of this text if it doesn't in any way reveal God? I admit that it may be that David took a census and was warned not to do it (his advisor did warn him not to) and afterwards the Hebrew people attributed David's error to the death that occured. I think this is possible. But in what way does such a spin reveal God? In what way is the Holy Spirit then the author of the text? It seems that we would have to always hold these things together with any portion of scripture. Job may not have been a real guy and Jonah may not have been swallowed by a whale but the stories about them reveal an aspect of God. Although even there (like in Job) there are exaggerations perhaps of to what extent God might test one man. But it still shows us somethign about God,satan, and the suffering of a righteous servant. Somewhere, that sort of connection must be in this story about David's life too. but i'm not really seeing it...
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 01:54 pm |
|
andersent wrote: I'm just worried that taking this route might attribute to God this vengeful act, but if Scripture is wrong and this was from a "natural cause" then how does this portion of scripture reveal God?
Scripture is never wrong. We may misunderstand the meaning, but scripture itself is infallible.
How does it reveal God? Through the selection of Moses and the imposition of the Ten Commandments and the Levitical laws, the tribe of Israel was strengthened to be better fighters and to be healthier than their neighbors. If the possibility I suggested is true, then it is because God loved the Jewish people so much that he gave them generations of preparation for that moment.
If I am driving and I pray for a green light and get it, is it more awesome to believe that God changed the light, or that God created the universe so that the light would be green when I needed it? Which is the greater revelation of the awesomeness of God?
Is it more awesome to believe that God "slew" 70,000 with a plague, or that God planned for centuries to improve the immune systems of the tribe of Israel so they would be better able to fight the infection? What does this reveal about God?
What it revealed to the Jews was that their God, Yahweh, was more powerful than the gods of their neighbors. Since we believe today there is only one God, does that mean scripture was wrong? No. It means that in their limited understanding, they were attributing things to "gods" that didn't belong there. It doesn't alter the fact that from the time of Noah, God instituted laws through his prophets that made the tribe of Israel stronger and healthier than their neighbors.
It is "divine intervention" but not of the same type that the Jews with their limited knowledge could understand. So as our Catechism teaches us, the lesson of scripture goes beyond the facts conveyed through the limited knowledge of the inspired authors, and the message it carries is just as valid today as it was thousands of years ago.
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 03:28 pm |
|
Rick, I think we have to back up a bit in the conversation as I think you may have misunderstood the text I was referring to. In the text I am referring to, David takes a census and it is 70,000 Israelites that die (not their surrounding neighbors). The plague takes 70,000 Isrealites--the irony that the author appears to be pointining out is that David was getting a bit big-headed about the size of the army and all that "he" was accomplishing and so the Lord struck back his army to decrease the numbers. Apparently, the lesson is that the army is the Lords, not the kings (even a good king like David). And furthermore that David was relying on the flesh in relying on the size of the army rather than on the hand of the Lord. So my problem with the text then is that God demolished part of His own army to teach the King (David) a lesson about relying on Him rather than the size of the army. And my problem is that while this is indeed a valuable lesson (who couldn't apply it to spiritual warfare today?) it still seems to treat these 70,000 persons like pawns or something. They die in order to show us all a lesson about who is in charge here of the army in Israel and by what strength the Isrealites should have relied on. Do you see my point?
So, we could say that maybe there was a plague and the people attributed to the king--David did something wrong by taking a census they though, and that is why God is killing off part of the army. They may have made that connection b/c they see God as being involved in all things (as you said). But if the real cause was a natural cause and not the hand of the Lord truly killing off these people because of his anger towards what David did, then my question is isn't scripture pinning something on God that wasn't really God's wrath? But, if we take the other approach, namely, that God did do this b/c of His anger towards David then I have the problem I mentioned above--namely, that it seems like 70,000 people are being treated flippantly or something--they can die in order to teach Israel a lesson (and I guess us later on today). Does that make sense?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 04:29 pm |
|
Todd, I am pleased to meet you. Your questions are probably in the back of many minds, so it is a vital topic you broach. Allow me to set forth a few points of biblical lore and some ideas based on them that occur to me.
Apparently the passage you read about the census is 2 Samuel 24. Did you also read the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21? There are some specific points the Chronicler makes that are necessary for understanding the episode. We’ll look at them in due time.
Right now, I want to look at your words: “David takes a census of the army and because he relied on the strength of the flesh (size of army) God gives him 3 punishments to choose from. He chooses a plague and instantly 70,000 people die.” In point of fact, the census was not of the army but of the entire nation. The army was charged with carrying out the census. Note that the commander, Joab, protests vehemently the whole idea of taking a census. Why? Because except for the two censuses taken in the book of Numbers (the very name referring to the census), numbering of the people of God was generally forbidden. The only legitimate reason given for a census was for the support of organized worship, as promulgated in Exodus 30:11–16. Notice in particular verse 11, where it specifies that “each shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them,” and what is to be done with the half shekel tax as laid out in the following verses.
So why does the text (1 Sam. 24:9) speak of “valiant men who drew the sword”? Because only able-bodied men above the age of 20 years were counted. (In other words, in accordance with then-current custom, women and children were not counted.) This was not for purposes of conscription, nor was it to further the worship of God. It was evidently King David’s plan to satisfy his curiosity and simultaneously strengthen his hold on power. God coincidentally used this offense to punish the people for their infidelity and internecine quarreling. Notice that in 1 Sam. 24:1 David’s act is ascribed to God’s anger, but in 1 Chron. 21:1 it says, “Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” It is by God’s permission that Satan acts through the king.
David admits his own fault and begs God to punish him and his family only, but because he is head of the nation, God visits the punishment on the whole people. But let us look at the figures. Seventy thousand is five percent of the total census; 95 percent of the people remain. So this is only a token punishment. Compare our own nation’s guilt in the killing of the unborn, wherein nearly 50 million have died at the hands of abortionists. What, then, would be God’s judgment upon this people? Yet the judgment has been far more severe in Europe than in North America. How is this? I believe that Luke 13:1–9 tells us why. Again, the irony of Matthew 5:22 should not be lost.
Doesn't this seem like God was overly concerned with the political realm of Israel?
Quite the contrary. God is concerned with the people keeping faith with him, not with their political or economic fortunes. The fact that the people connected worldly fortune with God’s favor is thus to be considered wrongheaded.
It was David not God who is getting too worked up about the military and the political aspect of the kingdom and losing sight of the spiritual significance of what God is doing with the nation of Israel?
Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation.
Is there any room here to say (as we might with Jonah) that this is more of a wisdom genre (though of course on a whole Kings and Chronicles themselves are history but perhaps there are multiple genres in these books)?
You are divining a clue here which I see as headed in the right direction. I wouldn’t call either 2 Samuel or 1 Chronicles “wisdom literature.” They were written as an account of historical events. Yet one can draw an object lesson from them, and that is in great part their intended purpose. But the wisdom genre is quite distinct from this approach.
The Church’s tradition allows, and even encourages, the kind of interpretation you are proposing in this paragraph. The Fathers of the Church often used it exclusively, leaving behind any questions of authentic historical value in the texts. If you will look at the Gospels carefully, Jesus himself did much the same. For him the historical accuracy of scripture was not nearly as important as the spiritual lessons that could be drawn from it.
The text here… just seems to indicate that God just came and spoke to David about this and gave Him 3 options… it is this simplicity of the narrative (and the way that people just instantly start to die as soon as David opts for punishment #3) that sort of get the wheels spinning that maybe there is something about this story that isn't exactly literal history.
The style of writing has tricked you. The author is condensing the story to its essentials, and you are mistakenly interpreting this to say that there is no lapse of time between one occurrence and another. Note that the same literary approach is often found in the Gospels.
God spoke to Gad, the prophet (1 Chron. 21:9), not directly to David. David, for his part, did not directly opt for punishment number three. He declined number two but left it to God to choose one or three (1 Chron. 21:13).
Why did God not strike David and his house instead of the people? I have mentioned his responsibility for the people (1 Chron. 21:17). But there is another, more personal reason. It was more painful to David to see the people punished; it is for this reason that he pleaded with God to strike him instead (2 Sam. 24:17). But God then had David do something by way of reparation, as described in 2 Sam. 24:18–25, concluding: “And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burt offerings and peace offerings. And so the Lord heeded supplications for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel.” This was to fulfill the conditions set forth in Exodus 30, cited above. By coincidence, the propitiatory sacrifice was offered on the hill outside the city of Jerusalem where a generation later the Temple of Solomon would be built, as can be seen from the chapter following in 1 Chron. Thus there is a direct connection between the census, the plague and the temple; we can see in this a prefiguring of Messianic times: there was a census ordered by Caesar, there was a slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem when King Herod sought to destroy the newborn King of the Jews, and a few years later the Messiah offered himself in sacrifice outside the walls of Jerusalem.
Now let us turn our attention to your question about the prophets of Baal.
You seem to be saying that it would take superhuman strength for Elijah to slay all 450 of these false prophets. But 1 Kings 18:40 says, “And Elijah said to them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.’ And they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and killed them there.” So it was the people gathered to watch the contest who seized the false prophets. Whether Elijah personally dispatched each of the 450 is also doubtful. Probably he killed the leaders personally but left the others to the people, since they were already in their custody. In like manner we see David slaying Goliath with the giant’s own sword but the army pursuing and destroying the Philistine army (1 Samuel 17:51–53). In ancient times these details would be understood without need to mention them, but at a distance of 3,000 years a lot of clarity is lost.
Similarly, we 21st century Christians have a different view of the value of life, the justice of taking a life even when it is a matter of protecting the people and defending the honor of God, and the idea of proportionality in dealing with public offenses. We are guilty of anachronism and cultural blindness if we do not distinguish our own feelings from the way things were thousands of years ago in a far-off land. Isn’t this why we often hear present-day Muslims referred to as “barbarians”? They continue to follow the traditions of their ancestors while we have sought to apply a Christian viewpoint to their Muslim civilization. (I do not say that it would not be better for them to turn from their vengeful ways, but that in order to understand where they are coming from we have to make certain allowances.)
In like manner we have the story of Elisha, who had shaved his head after the manner of prophets. The bears that mauled the boys who taunted him were undoubtedly quite unaware of the offense the boys were making in their taunting of the man of God. In other words, it was just something that happened, and it might have happened in any event.
Perhaps the boys were also molesting the bears’ cubs; we don’t know. Naturalists will tell you that this is the usual reason a she-bear will attack a human being. The fact that Elisha cursed them is indication that he considered them heathens, not fearing the Lord, not that he himself was offended by being called “baldhead,” for so he was. The words “go up” (part of the taunting) refer to pilgrimmage, for he was headed to Bethel, literally, the “house of God”; as we read in other passages of scripture, the faithful “go up” to Jerusalem for Passover.
Note also that the texts say that the bears “tore forty-two of the boys,” not that they mauled all of them. Evidently there were more in the crowd, making it quite a throng. The text calls them “small boys,” not “teenagers,” which indicates that they were playing and possibly engaged in cruel games, as is so common with such boys. (Recall the scene in The Passion of the Christ where a crowd of boys surrounds and browbeats Judas. This is not just a screenwriter’s whim.) You can see, then, why I suggest that they may have been molesting the bears’ cubs when the prophet happened by.
Can we say that this is sort of a legendary tale that reveals the kind of guy that Elisha was--a prophet who was used mightily by God and who had a double portion of Elijah's spirit and you didn't mess with this guy.
As is evident from my speculation above, I don’t buy this theory. I can accept an occasional legend getting mixed in with a historical account, since this was the state of historical narration in those days. But I do not see it as a tale of heros’ exploits. Often the protagonist suffers defeat (e.g., Samson) for the slightest infidelity. This is a principle of the spiritual life. A person called to great holiness is not allowed to rest at a lower level; he must continue his climb to the summit or he will be severely punished.
I see that you and Rick have continued your exchange, and he has given you a number of valuable points to ponder. You may consider my remarks as supplementary. I just wanted to offer some positive suggestions as to how these passages might be interpreted while staying within the framework of Catholic doctrine.
David
|
|
|
andersent
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Todd | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly united methodist, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 1st, 2007 10:31 pm |
|
David, you've given me much to ponder. This is a very good response, and when I couple it with Rick's responses where he speaks of scripture in light of the catechism, this gives me more comfort with these texts. I can see that i glossed over some details and in the case of David's census I was unaware of what you pointed out in exodus and i had never made the connection to the census taken in the life of Jesus. I can see that story hang together a bit more nicely now. Thanks much.
|
|
|
lia
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Quezon City, Philippines |
| Posts: | 98 |
| First Name: | lia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 8th, 2007 08:00 pm |
|
I'm not sure if this will help but, this is the footnote in my bible of 2 Samuel 24. (Christian Community Bible, Catholic Pastoral Edition, 27th Edition, by Claretian Publications)
---------
The kingdom has grown very much in territory, animals and wealth. Israel is a numerous people and so David is tempted to count them and orders a census.
The census in itself is not bad. What is bad is to feel greater because one has so many people or soldiers, or to have an obsession for quantity, for numbers, forgetting the essential which is quality. David forgets that he is the administrator and deputy of God in Israel: the sheep do not belong to him. At all levels of life, people like to count their animals, or recall their accomplishments. There are many ways of feeling oneself "owner" when, in reality, all belongs to God.
Here, the author presents the pestilence as God's intervention to punish the king. People of that time easily accepted an intervention of Yahweh to kill the Israelites even if they were not responsible for the sin of their king. It seems more accurate for us to say that God intervened by sending the prophet Gad a few days before the pestilence broke out, a pestilence which, of course, was not miraculous in nature. Thus he wanted to impart to David a lesson and a sign of the gravity of his sin, using a language he could understand.
----------
About Elijah's "win" and what he did afterwards.... (same source as above)
The victory at Mount Carmel is Yahweh's victory. It is also Elijah's victory. God needs prophets and saves through them. We are shocked at the massacre that follows; but Elijah lived in a violent world where death was the normal lot of those conquered, and his thinking was in accordance with those times.
Besides, this brutal punishment teaches us that to lose one's life is not as serious as to lose oneself serving false values, deceiving oneself and deceiving everyone.
--------
As for the youths making fun of Elisha, "Go up, baldhead!"
I see I've made a comment in my bible as "This is weird."  
I didn't ponder much about it after than since it doesn't seem to bother my faith as a whole and accepted it as, "For whatever reason, the author included that. I may not understand what it's for, but I'm sure my Church has the answer." 
Last edited on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 08:43 pm by lia
____________________
Man can't b forced 2 accept the truth.He can b drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom w/c commits him 2 search sincerely 4 truth & when he finds it, 2 adhere 2 it both in his conviction & his behavior.-- JP2
|
|
|
Current time is 07:54 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
