AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Here we go again politics and religion the two things I absolutely hate when they are put together. Especially when politicians try and talk about religion, it is either funny, or stupid. So stupid, that I have to turn off the television or put down the web article before I blow a gasket. And here we go again, one of my pet peeves of interpretive fallacies was engaged in by none other than Barak Obama recently. AH! What Obama basically said is what I am hearing stated more and more these days by people thanks to the likes of Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. That is, how can we believe or interpret the Bible consistently believing that it is all the Word of God, and yet Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount seems to contradict the Torah which supposedly endorses evils such as slavery, genocide, racism, revenge, and the execution of those engaged in sexual immorality. Soooooooooo, just to clear things up with the 5 people who will probably read this, let me explain one at a time
Slavery
The Bible does not endorse slavery as you are probably thinking of it. We all of course learned in our history classes about the type of slavery that was engaged in, in this country centuries ago. That was known as chattel slavery, which is typically racially based, and is the complete dehumanization of those who suffer under it. Those individuals no longer have any rights and are considered their owners property to be worked, beaten, raped, or killed. The Bible does not endorse this kind of slavery, it actually condemns it in several places as we shall see. The Bible gives guidelines (not endorsements), for the Israelites to engage in debt-bondage slavery when they entered the Promised Land. Furthermore, in this type of slavery the only thing the master owns is his subject’s time and labor. Debt-bondage slavery was an economic necessity in the setting of the Bible, and was often a refuge for those in poverty, or a way to work off debt. However, like most forms of slavery it was abused which caused it to expand beyond reasonable limits. God on Mount Sinai gave specific regulations for the Israelites concerning slavery which caused it to diminish as an industry as the Israelites obeyed God’s instructions. Here are just some of the commandments.
“When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” (Exodus 21:1-6)
Here we see that slaves were to be set free every six years, and would only remain lifetime slaves if they volunteered for it. Sam Harris and some others have made quite a deal about the Biblical references to selling ones daughter into slavery. This is portayed to be sick, barbaric and dehumanizing. However, if we look at the cultural context of this type of slavery, it was not uncommon for a parent in debt and unable to work to sell their son or daughter into slavery for themselves. The very passage which Harris and others have used to demonize the Bible actually prevents bond-servant slavery from turning into sexual abuse, ensuring that women were treated with dignity.
““When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” (Exodus 21:7-11)
Furthermore, the Bible strictly forbids the disciplining of slaves beyond the level of force given to ones own disobedient children.
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27)
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” (Exodus 20:20-21)
In the later quote given above, it is stated that if one beats his slave to the point of death and he survives, his blood is not to be avenged. However, in light of the previous verses (26,27), the master would then be required to set his slave free for such treatment. It is interesting to note that it says the slave is his money, not his property. While slavery would certainly not be the preferred economic status for an individual in Israel, they were protected under the law, but did not have the exact same rights and standings of those not under slavery. Again, this was not a lifelong position, unless one chose to be in that position. There was, however, a more harsh form of slavery that was set aside for prisoners of war. Given the nature of it, and those imprisoned under slavery, such individuals had less rights similar to how POW’s and prisoners do today. However, the Israelites would still have been responsible to follow this command.
“You shall not wrong a sojourner (foreigner) or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:21-24)
Genocide
Does the Bible endorse genocide? It certainly seems so upon first glance…
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)
How could God order the slaughter of “innocent” women and children to be killed during these conquests (Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Josh 8:22-29)? If we are to believe the Bible, does that mean that we must conduct warfare this way? Not at all. First we must consider who these people were that Israel was ordered to exterminate. Most of these cultures, as archaeology has confirmed, were extremely depraved. They served pagan gods which required the ritual rape of young women by priests beginning in their teenage years, under the complete support and endorsement by the parents. The first child from such sexual behavior would then be offered up in infancy as a sacrifice to these gods by being burned alive, then there would be a ‘celebration’ involving drunkenness, drugs, and orgies. These nations were given 430 years to repent from the time when Abraham lived amongst them in the land, until the Israelite conquest of Canaan. We have to remember this is about 1450 BC, not 2008 when you can call the United Nations to help you deal with tens of thousands of widows and orphans. The Israelites would have enough trouble taking care of themselves within the land, let alone thousands of refugees who would most likely end up revolting against them anyways. This also is not to mention the fact that the Bible has a federal headship view of humanity, where the human race is viewed covenantaly as one unit. This is why all humanity can be guilty because of one man’s (Adam) transgression, as he was representative of the entire human race (Adam=Humankind in Hebrew). Also, unlike what you were told in Sunday school as a kid, Old Testament narratives, and narratives in general, are not to teach “good morals”. They are to demonstrate God’s covenant faithfulness throughout history primarily, although we can learn lessons from the past. So this part of the Bible was speaking to a particular context and is not endorsing genocide today. Again this is not to mention the fact that before the Israelites attacked a city they were to give the option of surrender which under the stipulation that those surrendering would be their slaves and somewhat assimilate into their culture (which was far superior morally)(Dt. 20:10-15). Far from endorsing racism, God gives the general commandment concerning foreigners, “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Dt. 10:19). Israelites were also commanded to show hospitality to visiting foreigners within the land.
Modern society takes issue with these texts today mainly because we do not believe ourselves to be sinners, or worthy of God’s judgment. So to see God judging societies throughout history causes us to be disgusted, even though every single human being deserves to face God’s eternal wrath right now. Even apart from the saving grace in Jesus Christ, there is common grace that is extended to each man as he is given a lifetime here that he doesn’t deserve which can often be quite pleasant even though he may be completely wicked.
Hatred
One sound bite which really irks me is the whole misunderstanding that “the Old Testament teaches eye for and eye, whereas Jesus says we should love our enemies”. Apparently Obama said this in a speech where he cited this as evidence that we cannot take what the Bible has to say about morality seriously, especially concerning the topic of homosexuality.
If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. (Lev. 24:19-21)
From texts such as these it is then argued that the Old Testament and New Testament teach completely different ethical systems, because Jesus said that we shouldn’t seek revenge and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. However, Jesus was quoting Leviticus 19:18 from the Old Testament, which commands, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” So then why does God state that the standard for justice is an eye for an eye? One commentator states:
“This was designed to curb exaggerated revenge, such as anger that led to murder (Ge 4:24), but it was not always enforced literally (Ex. 21:26-27). As with other legal penalties, this was a statement of maximum liability rather than of mandatory retribution or compensation. Jesus (and the apostles) affirmed this principle and encouraged that its application be tempered by love. So for the sake of the kingdom, Jesus encouraged his disciples to deny self, to forbear and to forgive, rather than to seek revenge, recognizing that God will judge people on the last day for their works.”
Concerning the death penalty in the Old Testament for everything from adultery, homosexuality, and witchcraft, it must be understood that these people made a willing covenant with God. They had witnessed His miracles and provisions, and before Mt. Sinai stated that they would follow all of His commandments and stipulations. However, due to the fact that not all all of Israel was ‘Israel’ (Rom. 9:6) many were still dead in their sins and, like the rest of us, when they were told not to do something the first they wanted to do was engage in that behavior. Marriage in the Bible is the first interpersonal human relationship established by God, and is the closest to reflecting His relational nature. Of course it is completely jacked now due to sin (Gen. 3:16-19), but that does not excuse its abandonment or degradation. Therefore, since the Israelites were to be used by God in his redemptive plan, them seeking self serving and perverted pleasures or contact with spirits through divination, was completely unacceptable. In light of the fact that they had seen his goodness and provisions in the exodus and in their stay within the Promised Land, they had absolutely no excuse to sin blatantly against God. However, these were stipulations given to a civil government, which was abolished in 70 AD due to their rejection of the Messiah (Mt. 23-24). The church today is not a government and therefore does not follow God’s legal stipulations to Israel, as they have not been given that task. Furthermore, many of the “weird” stipulations in the Law, such as the prohibition of wearing two different types of fabric or of eating certain foods, had to do with the surrounding cultures. Wearing two types of fabric was a form of sympathetic magic which was intended to make crops be fruitful. The Israelites were to depend on God in the Promised Land, not the occult, which is why such practices were banned. This is why in our context today; Christians do not see the need to avoid such practices. However, those immoral things which God abhorred in the Old Testament, He still abhors today, just under a different administration of the covenant. So don’t believe it when some leftwing wing nut tells you that the church is the “American Taliban” and that we are coming for you with our stones and torches to set up a theocracy.
Really this all comes down to the fact that as Americans, we feel ourselves to be entitled. We figure that if there is a God, he should conform to our attitudes, desires, and views on the world. Any God who requires us to conform to Him is often viewed as some petty rule maker, not as an awe-fully transcendent Holy God who deserves worship, adoration, and praise. When we see God for who he truly is, we see ourselves for who we truly are. When that happens all of the judgment and law in the Bible appears natural, and the grace… well it simply seems amazing that such a God would extend grace to us…
“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
that saved a wretch like me….
I once was lost but now I’m found,
Was blind, but now, I see….
