Numbers 24:17 says: >*“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the skulls of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.”* This verse is commonly understood by some Christian traditions to be a Messianic prophecy pointing to Jesus Christ—with the “star” and “scepter” symbolizing His **divine authority** and **kingship**. However, the latter part of the verse includes a violent image: >*“he shall crush the skulls of Moab.”* According to those who believe Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy, how did he fulfill this part of the verse? This is because this verse was fulfilled in David who led his armies against the Moabites and conquered them, so how do they reconcile that?

When Jesus [cleared the money changers from the Temple](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple) , he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in [Luke 13:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A17&version=NIVUK)) . Bible references for the story: - [Matthew 21:12-13](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13&version=NIVUK) - [Mark 11:15-19](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A15-19&version=NIVUK) - [Luke 19:45–48](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A45%E2%80%9348&version=NIVUK) - [John 2:13–16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A13%E2%80%9316&version=NIVUK) *(possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)*

As the title asks, what does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach its members about the responsibility to defend themselves and others?

Three points: #1 The “vegetarian mandate” was part and parcel of God’s original plan for creation. If one looks closely, one finds that the first chapter in Genesis is consistent in showing that the Creator never gave the birds, fish, and animals to the humans for food. The author of Genesis thus presents God as commanding his human creatures to be entirely plant and fruit eaters (today we would say "vegetarians"): > God said, "See, I have given you [humans] every plant yielding seed > that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in > its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the > earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on > the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every > green plant for food." And it was so (Gen 1:29-30 NRSV). Gen 2-3 makes the point that God himself is the master farmer and that he trains Adam [and later Eve] to be a farmer like himself. The human purpose given to Adam is “to till it [the earth] and keep it” (Gen 2:15). In this environment that is entirely agricultural, God creates the animals and birds and fish and brings them to Adam in the hope that he will find a solution to his loneliness (Gen 2:18-20). Animals and birds are never given to Adam to cover food shortages. It is also abundantly clear that Adam has been exclusively eating fruits and grains because (as yet) there were no animals, birds, or fish even created as yet to even be considered as food. [Note here that, according to Gen 1, the animals, birds, and fish were created before humans.] What the opening chapters of Genesis make clear is that the animals and birds are also entirely “vegetarian.” Thus the original design of the Creator was to insure that neither the human nor the animals had any reason to kill any living thing for food or for their pelts. #2 The “vegetarian mandate” was part and parcel of God’s plan for building Noah’s ark. During the extended stay of more than a year in the ark of salvation, neither the humans nor the animals would ever kill each other. This is made clear by virtue of this provision: “Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you [Noah and his family] and for them [the living creatures]” (Gen 6:21). When one hears the word “food” here, one thinks of the Creator saying, “Everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food" (Gen 1:29-30 NRSV). Thus, even aboard the ark, the author of Genesis shows that the “vegetarian mandate” was faithfully observed (Gen 1:29-30, 9:1-3). #3 After the Great Flood, however, the author of Genesis presents God as suddenly overturning the “vegetarian mandate”: > God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and > multiply, and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on > every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything > that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your > hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food > for you; and just as I gave you [earlier in Gen 1:29-30] the green > plants, [now] I give you everything [for your food] (Gen 9:1-3 NRSV). Yipes! Why this sudden reversal? The “vegetarian mandate” had been in effect for 1657* years. Part of the “righteousness” of Noah was the fact that he trained his family not to kill the animals, the birds, and the fish nor to eat them as their food. God spared Noah and his family because they were not “violent” like the others. For an entire year, they had been practicing the “vegetarian mandate” while living on the ark. So the big question is this: **Why does the author of Genesis present God as suddenly abandoning his “vegetarian mandate” after maintaining it for over 1500 years?** --------------------------------------- A good, better, and best response would have to respond to one, two, or three of the following: **Issue #1:** In Gen 1-8, there are only two mandates given to humans and animals: (1) “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:22 for birds and fish; Gen 1:28 for humans; Gen 8:17 and 9:1) and (2) Be “vegetarian” (Gen 1:29-30, 6:21). So, after the revival of the earth following the flood, God blesses Noah and his sons [Why are the women left out?]. Then he repeats the first mandate and negates the second. What reason does Genesis offer for this unexpected turn-around? Why does this turn-around seemingly come at the very moment when Noah and his family are ready to create a new world order dedicated to the “vegetarian mandate”? [So a good response will have to decide whether the text of Genesis offers a clear reason for this unexpected turn-around. If no clear motive is discovered, are you perhaps ready to identify an "implied motive" (by reading between the lines)?] **Issue #2:** God is presented as fully aware that negating the “vegetarian mandate” will wreck violence upon his creatures: “The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal, bird, and fish” (Gen 9:1-3). Earlier, Genesis tells us that God lamented “that he had made humankind” (Gen 6:6). Later, this same God is lamenting the fact that he had destroyed “all flesh” outside the ark saying, “Never again. . . . Never again. . . ”(Gen 9:11). But then the author of Genesis seemingly ignores these regrets and lamentations when God is presented as laying the groundwork for enabling humans to become more and more violent. [So a good response will have to either allow or to deny that Genesis presents God as regretting and lamenting his own violence. Is God permitted to reflect on his own conduct and to acknowledge his bad choices? Does this regretting and lamenting inspire confidence in Noah or distrust? Finally, when God is presented as negating the “vegetarian mandate,” the reader will have to decide whether this is another instance of regretting and lamenting. Does this turn-around inspire confidence in Noah or distrust? Can the reader of the text know whether this turn-around will be expected to increase or reduce human violence in the future? ] **Issue #3:** It is significant that the “vegetarian mandate” tacitly shows up again in the end times material of the bible. Take, as an example, Isa 11:6-7: > The wolf shall lie with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the > kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little > child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young > shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. Thus the end of days will have some features that were present at the grand beginning in Gen 1. There will be no violence between animals because the “vegetarian mandate” will finally become a lived reality. This reality, meanwhile, also demonstrates how nations will also be harmless and that the Lord shall negotiate peace: > [God] shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between > strong nations far away; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, > and their swords into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword > against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall > all sit down under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and > no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has > spoken (Mic 4:3-4 = Isa 2:4) [So a good response will explore whether the prophet Isaiah wants his hearers to believe and to hope that the “vegetarian mandate” of Gen 1-8 will someday flourish again and bring about universal peace and security between animals and between nations. If so, how might this impact the way that Isaiah and his followers would understand Gen 9:1-3?] PS: In a future question, I want to explore to what degree contemporary churches (and synagogues) embrace the reading of Genesis and of Isaiah that has been presented here. *Computed using the internal genealogies in Genesis

In Gen 6:11, the narrator says, "The earth was filled with violence." It is this "violence" that moves God to plan the Great Flood. The 2014 movie, "Noah," dramatizes this violence. First, in the urban debris (trash) that pollutes the earth and the rivers. Second, the city dwellers are killing and eating animals and birds. Meanwhile, Noah and his family strive to safeguard the natural environment and they are vegans. To what degree does the film's portrait of "violence" find confirmation in the text of Genesis? To what degree are the movie makers distorting Genesis in order to falsely portray God and Noah as advocates of a "green agenda"?

Someone recently told me that passages like Samuel 15:3 and Numbers 31:17-18 which talk of God and Moses giving orders for violence, are considered by the Catholic church as **exaggerations** and **hyperbole** and not literally true, inserted by human authors whose ideas of God were influenced by the times they lived in. I want to know if this is really the position of the Catholic Church? Are these verses regarded as literally true or if these can be interpretated as exaggerations or even lies attributed to God and Moses?

Today's OT Reading for CoE Common Worship was Exodus 32:15-34. Although to the modern ear it appears indiscriminate no doubt it wasn't. Please could someone explain why the Levites as the Priestly tribe were the only ones told to run about with swords slaughtering their brothers, friends and neighbours? Was this somehow an act of atonement through the shedding of blood? Also how does by so doing ordain them for the LORD's service? Best I can fathom is that, 1. That judgement had to be dispensed on the people for their stubborn idolatry. 1. That as the Priestly tribe the Levites having had the greater responsibility for leading the other tribes in righteousness, were required to dispense the judgement both as a punishment for having failed to lead the people, as well as priests conducting a redeeming blood sacrifice of atonement. However if that is the case then why would the LORD further punish the people at a later date? How are two punishments just?

Just to state, I don't necessarily believe Jesus contradicted Himself. But these parts of Scripture *sound* like a contradiction, and I would like to hear any thoughts on how this can be reconciled. I thought of this question after reading this post and these verses: > He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and **if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one**. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” > > The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” > > “That is enough,” he replied. [Luke 22:36-38](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:36-38&version=NIV1984) But then when they come to seize Jesus, after Judas betrays Him with a kiss, this happens: > 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and, striking the body servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. > 52 Then Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. [Matt. 26:51-52](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2026:51-52&version=AMP) As per the answers in the linked post, Jesus had them get swords so the prophecies could be fulfilled: That He would be counted amongst the transgressors, and His arrest would be certain. But then why would Jesus reprove Peter of using his sword the way he did in the latter verses, when that is what He wanted to happen? Perhaps "contradiction" wasn't the best choice of wording, feel free to edit if you can word it better for me :)

Quoting Veritatis Splendor: > Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. (...) The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide, (...)" Veritatis Splendor, 80 So I believe that we can say that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, genocide can never be ordered to be carried out by God and committing it is always evil. Still, in the Bible we have examples of God**Moses** *(see comments)* ordering His believers to commit genocide: > But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God. Deuteronomy 20, 16-18 This most obviously satisfies the definition of genocide, as stated by the United Nations: > Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; (...)" [OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE (OSAPG)](http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf) There seems to be incongruity in Catholic teaching here. How does the Church explain the fact that while it declares it impossible for God to order genocide, such an order from God seems to be described in the Bible?

If there was ever a case of a completely innocent man being beaten and killed for crimes he did not commit, it would have to be Jesus. Yet, when Peter sliced off the ear of a slave, Jesus told Peter to put back his sword ... and healed the ear of the slave. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten 39 lashes he did not incite a riot. Instead, he sang, preached, and converted the prisoners and guards. Thus, I must ask: from where does one get scripture support that Christians should march against police brutality; what is the biblical basis that they might do this? The case of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise.

I have heard from many Orthodox that one should repent of *any* act of violence, including violence committed in self-defense or in the service of military duties. As I understand it, true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same situation again, one would act differently. How can this be squared with the church's non-pacifism? The church plainly is not pacifistic and has recognized in several places the unfortunate need for violence in this world. For Catholics there is no inconsistency, for one doesn't repent of just violence. But this seems to be a problem for the Orthodox, at least from my reading. How does Orthodox Theology resolve this apparent contradiction/paradox?

Can you hit someone in self defence? That is, if someone is trying to kill you, can you hit them to protect yourself? What is the Catholic doctrine on such a question?

I have two kids. We don't do contact sports, but some of our friends are involved in American football or hockey, and there's plenty of contact, but it seems like a __game__. Indeed over the course of my life, such sports have tended towards more game less violence through tweaking their rules. Wrestling seems definitively like a contest not based on violence. Boxing I have no defense for, but it's not part of my question. I just witnessed my son's friend's dojo, and the weaponry and actions of the participants sickened me. Now it's possible I'm being a pansy, and the *CCC* allows for self defense, but it sure seemed the participants were leaving communion in their actions. So, is there a formal statement regarding martial arts within Catholicism? Is there a line in which crossed one has sinned?

As I was raised: God is **all-loving**, and He wants us to be all-loving too. But, as you may know, homosexuals—particularly in America—have been shown hatred, and even violence (1) (2) (3) (4) from some members of the Christian community. The Wikipedia article on Christianity and homosexuality suggests some of the views from various denominations, but it's largest claim remains unsupported (i.e. that "most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual relationships and sexual acts are sinful." Check the references, they are broken links or only refer to the Methodist Church, so they don't speak for "most Christian denominations"). As I dug deeper into the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament , I saw some passages which indicated that homosexuality might be a sin, but the articles are poorly written and lack verifiable citations. Either way, I wasn't able to find any indication that God condones violence by mankind towards homosexuals. You would think that those who so vehemently hate homosexuals would also think that homosexuals are going to Hell when they die; that their fate will be gruesome enough such that anything a human does to add to it prematurely would be like kicking someone who's already dead. Maybe they really haven't thought that one through? So I'm curious **if there is any Biblical support for the idea that God wants us to be cruel to homosexuals** (or anyone for that matter). Please carefully note that I'm not merely asking if the Bible is against homosexuality; I'm asking if there is a basis for **showing hatred towards others**, particularly gays.

Are there any rules for painting (or praying) Orthodox Christian icons that disallow depictions of violence or conflict? For example: Would an icon depicting a murder be a problem?

In the Quran there is this passage: > And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. (Quran 9:5) As seen here , extremist interpretations of this verse push Islamists towards violence against others. Does the Bible have anything similar to this, encouraging hurting or killing people who defy God? I know there is Matthew 10:14-15 , but that is reserved for the Judgement day. So is there any place in the Bible where God encourages or commands others to be harmed or killed in His name?

In John 18, when Jesus is in the Garden on Gethsemane, Judas approaches with a mob of Pharisees and soldiers, coming to arrest Him. > 4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” > > 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” > > 7 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” But suddenly, Simon Peter pulls out his sword and slices off a servant's ear. > 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) ### The Question It seems a bit impulsive of Peter to cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Is this the case? If so, why would/did Peter react so violently when he was seemingly unprovoked? Could it be, instead, that the Bible, or rather the translation thereof, simply doesn't record what was exchanged verbally between the two parties? Why didn't any of the other disciples react in this way? **Are there any other passages of scripture that explain this behavior?**

Did God really have to do all those plagues in order to get Moses' people free? Did each plague have a particular purpose? I heard about a documentary or hypothesis that only first or first few plagues were intended and then the remaining plagues, except the last one, just occurred naturally. Even if we grant that all but the last plague were purposeful or natural, what was the point of killing innocent children, particularly the Pharaoh's son? Why not kill the Pharaoh and then have the son or regent rule and then have the next ruler of Egypt set Moses' people free? Why not send a bunch of angels to threaten the Pharaoh into releasing the Israelites or into offering fair wages? I doubt this is relevant to the problem of evil as God specifically intervenes in human affairs in Egypt. Why all the violence though? It seems to make sense that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good being who would intervene in human affairs would want to do so with little bloodshed unless there's a specific lesson that the being wants to impart on the Egyptians or Israelites or something of the sort. Maybe the Israelites wouldn't have appreciated God's efforts as much if it was that simple? Also, I seem to recall from high school something about wanting to convert the Egyptians. What does the Catholic Church say about this?

Arguably the killing of Jesus Christ was the most avenged killing in history. There is no other person for whom there were so many other people killed in the name of retaliation. In Russian Empire the oppression of Jews was explicitly justified because of their complicity in Jesus' murder. I wonder whether those Christians who thought that somebody, either modern or ancient, is guilty in killing Jesus, really believe in his resurrection and immortality? How can one avenge a murder of an immortal? Or do those Christians believe in resurrection of Christ only metaphorically/figuratively? Do they think that he was resurrected in the body of the Church or in the spirits of Christians rather than physically? An analogy: your father dead. You think that you or someone else is guilty. Then God miracliously resurrects your father. Do you still feel remorse, guilt or desire for revenge? Is not desire for revenge actually a **disbelief** in real resurrection?

Some Christians teach that it is acceptable to divorce a physically abusive spouse. Some would even say that someone in that situation *should* do so. What is the Biblical basis for this? Society would generally say that the sane response would be to divorce an abusive spouse. I'm trying to find scriptural support for this, but the only related verses I can find say "Do not divorce" or "If you divorce and remarry, it's adultery."