Literal Interpretation of the Bible versus Spam

[George]

Below is an email currently making the rounds. While it is certainly intended to make light of some passages in the Bible, it does raise a more serious point. Mores on which I'm sure all of us would agree make several of these passages obsolete. For example, Lev. 25:44 and Exodus 21:7 allow slavery.

The question I raise is: "Don't these passages indicate the Bible is a diary of the times, with a theological message for us all, rather than a document to be taken literally?"

------------ THE SPAM --------------
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord--Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness--Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination--Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[dizzle]

The Christian Reseach Journal did a full length response to this "letter." I will try to find the link.

[Piebald]

I have found it.. I think:


http://www.equip.org/free/DP801.htm

[dizzle]

That's it!!!

[GrayPilgrim]

As this thread is not discussing a specific set of Scriptures but it deals with hermeneutical practices I am moving it to Theology 102

[Socrates]

Oh, yeah, this was in response to President Bartlett's diatribe. That Sheen pillock forgets that he is just PLAYING the President although on wouldn't think so by his rantings during the current war crisis.

An alternative take on the Mosaic Law but also good enough to refute that nonsense is The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (http://www.ariel.org/ff00006f.html) by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum, on the Arial Ministries site. Yet another take but presenting more good arguments against that the thoughts as illustrated by that pathetic letter is this one on the Tektonics site Why Do Christians Not Keep the Law? (http://www.tektonics.org/lawrole.html)

I should say that while Christians should have no problem refuting the pathetic arguments of that "Letter to Dr Laura", Dr Laura herself is vulnerable because she is an Orthodox Jew so hasn't the insights that Yeshua Hamashiach and His chosen Apostles (all Jewish) can provide.

[dizzle]

George, you just posted this once and took off???

[Mikeb]

The truly humorous part of this thread is that the guy who created the Hamster link actually expended time and energy and thought writing a “defense” to a really funny joke. Judging from the defense, he had very little thought to expend.

[George]

Still here, but I've been away for a few days.

I have to admit I'm on the other side of the fence from most of the participants of this discussion group. This thread is intended to be provocative, but no one has yet to address the actual question. Instead, we are discussing the validity of the letter.

Let me try to get us back on point. Certainly we can address the letter point by point. However, the links offered so far debate by further citing the Bible.

Moses and Jesus (as interpreted by Paul) were each revolutionizing the religious thinking of the Jews. Thus, I would fully expect them to amend, even rewrite, the laws -- for the laws reflected the then-current understanding and codification of God's will. In their efforts to move people closer to God, Moses, Jesus and Paul all described the new way of thinking in context of the old way of thinking. They related the two in order that people might find the path.

As somewhat of an outsider, what I see is a lot of "energy expended" so that the Bible can be taken literally. Some of the interpretations of the text I've heard seem to stretch it quite far in order to sustain a "literal" interpretation throughout. Meanwhile, one could accept the Bible as divinely inspired, avoid all the specious machinations and still derive plenty of religious import. So much for Occam's Razor...

[nomad]

more important, i think, is the fact that most rebuttals to the letter are of the form 'well, that doesn't apply to us anymore'.

i'm not surprised if some non-christians laugh at such a defense. i mean, isn't this the same God that christians worship too? you can try to distance yourself from it, but it's still in there. and it doesn't answer the objection, why was this ever valid? the non-christian may not see how such rules could ever make sense, even in their time. you can't say dr.laura (as a jew) has a problem, but we don't; if it seems 'evil' even for a single person, then there's a problem.

that seems like a valid complaint. and one that needs answered.

i am not prepared to answer it right now. i know that in my christian upbringing, except for some bible stories the OT was sort of treated like the 'black sheep' of scripture, we don't take it out of our bible but we try to avoid it when possible.

i'm still working on rectifying this. there is some really incredible stuff in the OT. i hope one day to know it as well as the NT...

[Pilgrim]

Well from and exegetical, interprative point of view you have created a false dilema, an excluded middle. Your assumption is that the Bible must be viewed either in the most literal of terms in its entirety or not.

The truth is that the Bible is not one single book but a complilation of many and each one needs to be examed for its own genre and then you must read and interpret it in that context.

Pilgrim

[George]

Pilgrim, cute but what's your point?

The links cited in earlier posts connect the books of the Bible and relate passages across books in order to address the issues at hand. I'm certainly willing to deconstruct the Bible into autonomous books, but then each book is very much at risk of being more of legend than of the deliberate word of God. Further, it seems that deconstruction loses the central message of the Bible -- God's personal stewardship of His creation, etc, etc.

[nomad]

Pilgrim:

Well from and exegetical, interprative point of view you have created a false dilema, an excluded middle. Your assumption is that the Bible must be viewed either in the most literal of terms in its entirety or not.


if that was directed at me... not at all.

did the Jews live literally under the law?

if they did, this does not require me to interpret every single thing in the bible literally.

and if they didn't.... why not?

[Pilgrim]

Nomad, it was directed at George.

George, I was not talking about deconstruction per se. What I was getting at is the exegetical truth that, as Scott Haefman would say, "Context is King!"

The Bible is written in several genres. for example: Historical Narrative, Epistle, Psalm, prohetic literature, poetry..etc, etc. Each of those genres and the context surrounding them would dictate which parts are literal and which parts are not. There is no need to create the false dilema that the Bible is either all literal or not.

Pilgrim

[George]

I wasn't trying to force anyone to the absurd. Certainly there is a spectrum among passages. I agree there are sections that are obviously metaphorical. I also am willing to concede that Paul was the author of the epistles attributed to him. (I have however read decent research concluding that a Moses-era individual is not the only author of the Pentateuch.)

Focusing first on those passages written in the style of historical narrative, should we treat them literally? For instance, did Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount at a single venue or are we reading a convenient collection of things he said during his ministry? Should we treat the time Genesis allocates to creation as literally 168 Earth-hours or as a time-honored explanation of why weeks are 7 days long (and that you should rest for 1 of them)?

My point here is three-fold:

[1] I can't see how a more relaxed interpretation of the facts represented by such passages detracts from the essential message of the Bible.

[2] An awful lot of energy goes to creating a world view that sustains a literal interpretation of these passages, despite an ever growing body of evidence developed through more rigorous methods.

[3] Opportunities for more pertinent discussions about, e.g., theological imperative and personal morality are lost to debates over justifying, say, creationist or evolutionary theory.

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71385#post71385)
George:
[2] An awful lot of energy goes to creating a world view that sustains a literal interpretation of these passages, despite an ever growing body of evidence developed through more rigorous methods.



You've used the word "literal" a lot... could you define what you mean, please? That might help out.:help:

Do you mean whether the given passages are "true"? (because that assumes that they all contain propositions that can be verified as true or false)

Or do you mean that they correspond to reality in some way?

"Literal" is a word that we can't really take....um, literally, anymore.

[George]

I am using "literal" commonly:
[1] Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words
[2] Word for word; verbatim

Thus my question is "Should we be treating verbatim passages that seem to be recounting facts?" A looser interpretation is warranted if we wish to reconcile, say, Genesis' creation with what modern science has learned. But then that looser interpretation may call into question the word-for-word truth of the Gospels. On the other hand, sticking to a literal interpretation of the historical narrative requires extreme -- to the point of absurd -- gymnastics to rationalize the "facts" reported in the Bible.

[jpholding]

As author of one of the earlier linked articles

http://www.tektonics.org/lawrole.html

I'd like to ask George if he'd like to discuss my answer in more detail.

Both the Dr. Laura figure and the Presidential figure are making the same error.

[George]

A discussion of whether laws set forth in both the Old and New Testaments is relevant to the issue of whether the Bible is to be taken literally. To that end, I read "Why Do Christians Not Keep the Law?" Comments are below.

First, among the categories of laws found in the Bible, I might add "Protective". This category would contain laws whose obeyance protects the individual and/or the community. Many of the kosher laws fall into this category. For example, prohibitions against pork and shellfish protect the individual from trichinosis and other deadly infections. Having laws about bathing protects the community from, for example, bubonic plague (as witnessed among Jews during the Dark Ages). You might choose to categorize these as "culturally universal" but I suggest distinguishing among those that have purely religious import (e.g. your Lev 19:27) and those with a more earthly rationale.

The Semitic Totality Concept echoes the teachings of Zen, though students of Zen might substitute "useless" for Dahl's "vain". Seeing an issue like this gets at my point about how so much energy is wasted when we try to force the Bible to support a literal interpretation. There is only one "God". How and why different peoples deal with that concept (through worship, studies and practice, etc.) is interesting -- and perhaps the most worthwhile discussion in religion.

Per the article, Christ "takes on the punihsment [sic] for the trangression of those who break God's law and accept his payment." Doesn't this imply that enforcement -- at least for Christian transgressors -- is God's job, not ours? To me, this implies a Christian theocracy should have no jails and write no laws. Certainly, if everyone is practicing their religion by following at least the universal laws, the point is moot. I believe John Lennon (not to suggest he is a religious leader) tried to "imagine" a world where each individual understood social etiquette and adopted a sense of community where earthly enforcement was unnecessary. I would happily concede such a world would be divine, even if there were no religion.

Finally, the article answers the question posed in its title by stating that faith in Christ has replaced the practice of ceremonial laws. Per my comment above, some of what you have classified as "ceremonial" might have an intrinsic value beyond the religious. Secondly, and more importantly, to dismiss the skeptics with a "(the law of) Christ supercedes all that" is specious.

The skeptics are challenging the notion that the original laws were even valid. Humanity matures, and we have learned that slavery is wrong. Yet God, as documented in the Bible, permitted it. The email prompting this thread pokes fun at these laws -- and at the notion that a wise God would ever allow such laws.

The idea that an omniscient and omnipotent God has to rewrite the contract seems self-contradictory to the point of absurd. Rather, it seems preferable that sometimes the Biblical words we are attributing as divine are, in fact, the words of men -- wrestling to impose some sanity and justice upon the vagaries of their time.

[nomad]

On the other hand, sticking to a literal interpretation of the historical narrative requires extreme -- to the point of absurd -- gymnastics to rationalize the "facts" reported in the Bible.


kind of off the point, but have you ever read velikovsky? i know he seems to be somewhat 'discredited' these days, but he did correctly predict the magnetic fields of planets (iirc). was wondering of your impressions. 'worlds in collision' is the one that is most relevant here.



Having laws about bathing protects the community from, for example, bubonic plague (as witnessed among Jews during the Dark Ages)...


grant jeffries claims that resurrection of this verse by Christian religious leaders had a large part in ending the black plague... in particular the part about RUNNING water, when most people thought a bowl was good enough...

he uses several others (contrasting them against the medical 'knowledge' of the egyptians moses grew up under) as part of his proof of God (in 'the signature of God', uneven but with some good parts).


Doesn't this imply that enforcement -- at least for Christian transgressors -- is God's job, not ours? To me, this implies a Christian theocracy should have no jails and write no laws.


maybe. i don't know of anyone who holds that extreme of a position, but i DO know plenty who hold 'anti-violence' positions (including some Christian pacifists against the iraq war), up to and including self-defense (i.e. some claim violence is NEVER justified, even if it costs me my life or chastity etc). i don't agree with them, but i do sympathize with their positions (i just don't have that much faith! :)


Certainly, if everyone is practicing their religion by following at least the universal laws, the point is moot. I believe John Lennon (not to suggest he is a religious leader) tried to "imagine" a world where each individual understood social etiquette and adopted a sense of community where earthly enforcement was unnecessary. I would happily concede such a world would be divine, even if there were no religion.


maybe. heaven is, in fact, such a place (and, when i argue why Christianity is necessary, i start from this perfection of heaven, then to sin, then justice, then mercy). i don't think it's possible here on earth...

i read about the CSPR (conference on science, philosophy, and religion) in chuck colson's 'how shall we now live?' (a decent book on its own, but a gold mine for primary sources to chase down). anyhow, i'm currently reading about it, so what i'm saying is from the summary in that book (further sources for more info, there is a chapter in the _history of the jewish theological seminary_, and fred beuttler's dissertation _organizing an american conscience_).

but... CSPR first met in 1940, so that gives some historical context. it was sponsored by the JTS, but consisted of people from across many different beliefs and disciplines (though, as an american conference, mostly western), crossing from christian (protestant and roman catholic) to atheistic secular humanists, and about everything in between.

the goal was moral advance to keep up with scientific advance, by developing a central ethics that people, atheists and theists, catholics and jews, marxists and modernist, could all agree on. simply put, they never could, after 30 years of trying.

and i, based on my own personal experiences with people primarily INSIDE the church, don't believe it is possible either.


The email prompting this thread pokes fun at these laws -- and at the notion that a wise God would ever allow such laws.


i agree, waving this away with 'well, it doesn't matter to use anymore' doesn't work.

as far as actually dealing with it... perhaps this is the time to invoke the image of 'God as Father'? teaching his children as they grow up...

[sacre]

We must certainly differentiate between the types of laws in the Pentateuch in order to find a rational stance in this matter.

First of all, they are all interconnected, because they come from the same absolute standard of God's justice. To be quite sure, I am completely a covenant theologian, and so I would deny outright the fundamental discontiuity of the economy of God. I would deny also the fundamental discontinuity of the books in the Bible. Thus, every bit of the OT applies to us today.

First, we have the moral law of God. These are drawn directly from the commandments in Exodus, when God Himself wrote them on stone tablets. This covenant is binding to every human, and those that transgress the law will receive just recompense. It is enforced by God himself, although the church is given certain powers to symbolize the judgement (i.e. excommunication, church discipline, etc).

Second, we have the civil law. This is often blurred together with the moral law, which is a reasonable mistake. It also has it's origin in the commandments of God, more specifically to punish the wicked who transgress against the community, and to protect the innocent. The civil law is enforced by the local government, about which Paul speaks in Romans (they bear the sword).

Third, we have the ceremonial law, which Israel observed for the purposes of the covenant fulfillment. They were a seperate people, and so had to act like it. The Christ completely took the ceremonial law out of the way, which is why we, as Christians, do not observe it.

Last is the judical law. It might be fitting to note that I am not a Theonomist, and there are conflicting views concerning how the judicial laws should apply civilly and within the context of God's covenant people. I believe that it is more civil than moral, and so the state, once again, should enforce the penalties in ways faithful to the purpose of the law.

I hope that clears things up a little bit. If I may recommend a book: The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Dr. Vern Poythress.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[jpholding]

George,

First, among the categories of laws found in the Bible, I might add "Protective". This category would contain laws whose obeyance protects the individual and/or the community. Many of the kosher laws fall into this category.

It's funny that I am the one to tell you this, but Skeptics have made a pretty good case that such health concerns are NOT behind the laws at all.

I am not surprised something like Totality is found elsewhere in the East. The Zoroastrians had such a concept as well.

Doesn't this imply that enforcement -- at least for Christian transgressors -- is God's job, not ours? To me, this implies a Christian theocracy should have no jails and write no laws.

Theoretically that would be correct, though ancient Israel was no Christian theocracy, of course...and that assumes everyone becomes a Christian as well.

Secondly, and more importantly, to dismiss the skeptics with a "(the law of) Christ supercedes all that" is specious.

Whom are you quoting here?

Humanity matures, and we have learned that slavery is wrong.

Um, in the ancient world, slavery was often the only way a person could survive, or that nations could preserve themselves...if you had a choice between starving and being a slave, which would you choose?

The email prompting this thread pokes fun at these laws -- and at the notion that a wise God would ever allow such laws.

The email is vastly anachronistic in assuming that the order of the moral hierarchy remained the same through cultures and time. :smile:

The idea that an omniscient and omnipotent God has to rewrite the contract seems self-contradictory to the point of absurd.

Why? Does the contract not have a second party that is NOT omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect?

[George]

To Sacre R:

I'm not familiar with the term "judical" so I'll assume you meant "judicial" in both instances. For this category, I can't imagine a law that wouldn't fall into either your moral or your civil category. Perhaps you have an example in mind and would explain how it doesn't fit either of the other two categories?

Personally, I suggest we employ a finer-grained categorization because the endurance, robustness and impetus of each category varies substantially. Incorporating JP's article, I suggest the following:

Morally Universal
---------------------
Examples include the 6th, 8th and 9th Commandments. I exclude the 1st through 4th because an Atheist would not consider these "moral" imperatives.

Civil
-----
These are laws (and regulations) created by men as part of constructing governments. Typically they extend morally universal concepts, seek to eliminate conflicting interpretations thereof and apply punishment to transgressors.

Cultural/Religious
----------------------
Here I would categorize the first three Commandments as well as laws about adultery (the 7th), homosexuality and perhaps even slavery. This category should contain laws that suggest a morality, but that morality is subject to a choice of religion or the surrounding culture.

Ceremonial
--------------
It might be difficult to distinguish among "religious" laws and "ceremonial" ones, but this category would contain laws that solely cover the practice of a belief system. Laws in this category range from laws like Lev 19:27 to blessing food to tithing to superstitious behavior like tossing salt over your shoulder when some is spilled.

Protective
-------------
Finally, this class of laws is based on observation. I think some of the kosher laws fall here. I intend this category to contain only laws attributed to God, but one could imagine a seat-belt law as being in this category -- if it appeared in the Bible.



To JP:

If you've ever experienced even low-grade shellfish poisoning or seen what trichinosis does to muscle tissue, I think you'd agree that some of the kosher laws are rooted in protecting individuals and the community. I don't really care what other skeptics argue. I doubt my own belief system fits the norm there. By the way, I understand Skeptic, when capitalized, to refer to the formal school of thought -- (loosely) that we really can know nothing for sure due to the imperfection of our subjective perception.

The quote is my paraphrase/understanding of the conclusion your article draws -- that, as Sacre also writes, that faith in (a.k.a. the law of) Christ supercedes obeying ceremonial law.

Regarding slavery, I certainly would choose slavery over death, but that is irrelevant. The point is that slavery is considered, at least today, morally wrong. The law is not about how to BE a slave, but rather how to practice it. It seems contradictory that God tacitly condones slavery with such a law in His Book.

Furthermore, I don't think constructs like "moral hierarchy" provide any wiggle room here because the practice of slavery could be construed to violate the 10th and 8th Commandments. A conquerer enslaving a people coveted their lands. A practitioner steals a slave's freedom, and arguably his life. However, let's not descend into the technicalities of whether slavery does violate those Commandments. If you disagree that slavery violate the Commandments, I'll concede that it doesn't.

You note the email assumes the moral hierarchy remained constant. Of course, that is my point -- either the moral hierarchy remains fixed or God's rewriting the contract. The self-contradiction of God rewriting is that it does not make intuitive sense:

God is omnipotent. Like a customer who dwarfs the supplier, He has no need to change the terms. The idea of a changing contract because God is teaching us is a good one, but were that the case, the process seems only to be confusing us further -- otherwise, why that email!

God is omniscient. I know there are different interpretations of what "omniscient" means. Many Christians I know consider His Omniscience to be time-limited, as He cannot both know the future and endow us with Freewill. Regardless, it seems a small expectation that God write a set of laws that are immutable and absolute. Here, I'm not even expecting that the laws be impervious to interpretation. I may not understand the relevance or scope of the Second Commandment, but it is at least clear and immutable.

There is a clear correlation with the revisions to the law and humanity's growing understanding of the rights of the individual, the rights of the community and the subjective nature of our existence. (In fact, I have seen cogent arguments that the definition of God Himself has evolved as we mature.) Rationally, I would expect a set of laws dictated by God to describe ideal personal and interpersonal behaviors. I would expect these laws to be fundamental to a properly working creation. I would expect these laws to ALL be universal -- both across cultures and throughout history.


For example, a set of such commandments might be:
[1] Know that God is.
[2] Know that God unconditionally loves you.
[3] Take time to be thankful for creation.
[4] Take time for yourself.
[5] Don't do bad things like murder, stealing and oppression.
[6] Avoid knowingly hurting others.
[7] Enjoy what you do have rather than covet another.

Instead, the Bible contains laws that do not uphold universal tenets. So much so that they are later dropped (e.g. the ceremonial laws). Further, many of these laws seem to be civil constructs written by pragmatic men, albeit intended for the good of the community. Taken together, this leads me to believe the Bible is a diary of the times and, like all enduring treatises, has grown to capture thoughts and lessons that are truly inspired (in the divine sense of the word).

Perhaps one or both of you could explain how a moral hierarchy, still attributed to God, accounts for but dismantles this conclusion?

[sacre]

George, thanks for the great response. I'll try to clarify a couple of my opinions here.

First of all, yes, I mean "judicial". You are right, it's not that the judicial laws are apart from the civil and/or moral laws, but that, in the application, we find problems because Israel was distinct in history and calling. You saw this too, and so created a category called "Cultural/Religious law." That was entirely my intent, although I didn't explain it very well.

Second, by "moral law", I am speaking strictly and unbendingly in terms of God's absolute Law, which, if you violate it, you will die. That is to say, whether or not the athiest would consider the 1st through 4th commandments to be morally binding, they are, and they will surely receive justice at the hand of God. Thus, the moral law is absolute, despite belief or unbelief.

Last, about the "Protective law" of which you speak. I do not think I see that paradigm in the Pentateuch. In my opinion, the laws which you would consider "Protective", I would call either civil or ceremonial. That is to say, civil law also protects the innocent (as a seatbelt law would). Ceremonial law protects the "seperateness", so to speak. This would include such things as the "mixed fabric" thing, the dietary laws, etc. My proof for this is Peter's encounter with the sheet full of unclean animals, which he was told to eat. God thus, at the same time, identifies the dietary laws with ceremony and enjoins us to cease the observance of the ceremonial laws.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[jpholding]

Hi George,

If you've ever experienced even low-grade shellfish poisoning or seen what trichinosis does to muscle tissue, I think you'd agree that some of the kosher laws are rooted in protecting individuals and the community.

The problem with that is that not all the forbidden animals carry such diseases, and permitted animals often do. In this age before refrigeration it didn't matter much.

I understand Skeptic, when capitalized, to refer to the formal school of thought

It does, but I use the capital at the request of others who suggest it makes it more clear that I do not refer to any skeptical person skeptical of anything.

The point is that slavery is considered, at least today, morally wrong.

And why is this so? Is it because of the institution itself, or because of accessory acts (beatings, etc)? If it is the institution itself, the why do we have credit cards?

A conquerer enslaving a people coveted their lands.

What about a defender of their own land who enslaved the invaders?

A practitioner steals a slave's freedom, and arguably his life.

Not really. Most ancient slavery was either as a defense, or was voluntary.

God is omnipotent. Like a customer who dwarfs the supplier, He has no need to change the terms.

Practically that would be logically impossible. If one party (men) is able to change, the God's reaction to men is able to change as well. There is no "one size fits all" logically possible. Do you know that the way Americans think is vastly different than the way ancient people thought?

There are immutable laws, yes, but there are not immutable applications. There is a rule in Deut. about having barriers around the roof of a house. They did that then because people lived on their roofs at times. We do not. The rule is senseless for us AS written; we need to figure out how it applies today (to balconies, general safety concerns, etc). There is an immutable concept behind all laws -- but applications can and will change almost inevitably. Your 7 suggested laws are fine, but law codes need application to be useful.

[George]

Sacre,

I'm not particularly beholden to the categorization I offered. However, any categorization must fulfill the needs of both sides in a debate such as this. Granted, you only need 3 categories. But I see 5 or more because of my belief system.

Having arrived at reasonable categorization, we may then debate:
[D1] In which category a law proffered in the Bible belongs
[D2] Whether a category offers evidence the Bible is not purely the Word of God

------------

I suggested a category of Protective Law because I find only having Ceremonial Law too restrictive. I understand your point to be that Christ, and more specifically faith in Him, supplants the need to follow Ceremonial Law. (If I've got it wrong, please correct me.) This raises three issues for me:

[i1] Broadly, I tend to see this argument more as one employed by the early leaders of the Church to address the fact that Christ revolutionized then-current interpretation of Old Testament Law. You might refute this perspective by citing chapter and verse, but please limit it to quotes attributed to Christ by Matthew, Mark and John -- everthing else begs being hearsay under the circumstances.

[i2] The practice of Christianity seems to have created its own set of Ceremonial Law. Baptism and communion are the obvious candidates (though I'm not clear on what the stance on communion is among the more Pentecostal sects). You might even add marriage to the list -- at least the ceremony and the rings. The institution of marriage might be better off in the Cultural/Religious category :-)

[i3] Along the lines of my response to JP, I don't see why ceremonial laws found their way into the Bible in the first place. Why does an omniscient God bother with such shallow constructs, only to reverse them a few millenia later?

------------

Regarding your comments about Moral Law, we've got to start with what we both agree -- hence my definition of Moral Law as universally agreed morality. Any law in the Bible that (currently) fits this definition is then evidence of divine inspiration -- for it has endured the test of time and speaks to a truth fundamental for all of us. Thus -- as your comments imply -- it is critical that ALL of the Commandments be Moral Laws because God continues using them to judge us. Otherwise, a fundamental precept of Christianity is not divinely inspired, calling the whole religion into question.

Accepting the Bible (and therefore the Commandments) as the Word of God is something one takes on faith. Those that have see it as documentation of the absolute Truth.

Since there don't seem to be any Atheists in on this discussion, I'll grant you the First Commandment as a Moral Law. I'll even concede the Third as a Moral Law by assuming it as a clarification of the First. However, I don't see how the Second and the Fourth can be fairly categorized as Moral Laws (given the universally-agreed constraint).

The Second seems arbitrary. The translation I'm reading doesn't specifically reference graven images of a(nother) god, so it doesn't seem -- on the face of it -- to be a clarification of the First. Therefore, are works of sculpture immoral? How about photographs?

Neither can the Fourth be construed as a fundamental, universally-agreed moral. Any justification for the specifics of that Commandment comes from the Bible -- and acceptance of the Bible's truth is a matter of faith. Thus, the Fourth falls into the Cultural/Religious category ... or perhaps even Ceremonial because it's about HOW one practices a religion.

------------

Underpinning this discussion are our respective belief systems. I am hoping you agree that the truth of the Bible is something taken on faith and that a result of that faith is the conviction that it is entirely True. However, there are those of us who do not consider the Bible purely divine Word. For a point to be valid, we need either evidence from outside the Bible or evidence from within that is logically self-evident.

[George]

JP,

Slavery is not bad because of collateral acts but because it strips individuals of rights they undeniably have. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...")

I am not at all familiar with the perspective of even ancient slavery that you hold. Did the Jews submit voluntarily to enslavement by the Egyptians? I am more familiar with the practice of the Romans. For example, they "enslaved" many Greeks after they conquered those lands. Some of these Greeks were poets and artists who then lived in Rome. I recall one or two cases of such slaves managing to buy their freedom. Despite how much more civil Roman slavery was than our typical picture of the American institution, it must not have been that cozy for a poet to spend his life trying to get out of its bonds.

As for enslaving invaders, that practice reflects the times. Today, we jail such individuals as prisoners of war. Eventually, we establish a truce with the invading nation and return the invaders. For invaders without a land, the equivalent today is the common criminal. We jail them, punish them and then set them free -- capital punishment notwithstanding as it violates the Sixth Commandment.

Both Exodus and Leviticus require that "enslaved" Hebrews be released in the seventh year. This is more indentured servitude than slavery. However, Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly allow slaves -- on the condition that they not be Israelites. It is exactly this kind of racism that makes the institution of slavery so wrong. An individual is to be treated on his/her own merits, not treated differently based on nationality. Instead, slavery supplants individual, commercial arrangements like indentured servitude with unabashed oppression that relies one crude generalizations to maintain the institution.

--------------------------

On your point about applications -- is it that God also concerned Himself with writing laws about applications?

If there are absolute truths, then there are rules -- time immutable -- by which we should live. I would expect an omniscient God could foresee the types of things we might do or think in the future and write His laws to address them categorically. My own experience is that well-written contracts document the spirit of the agreement. They use language like "including but not limited to ..." to help explain the idea at hand and avoid problems of interpretation. The Tenth Commandment is a good example of such phrasing. It suffices for all eternity, regardless of what possessions we invent.

You have suggested God is laying down additional "terms and conditions" based on our interpretation of and behavior within the contract. For instance, we start buying and selling slaves because there's nothing in the contract that says "Don't." So God, through Moses, responds with Leviticus.

But the problem here is that we now think slavery is bad -- but God said it was okay as long as you didn't enslave your brethren:

[1] Is God still saying slavery is okay?

[2] If not, why did he ever sanction it in the first place -- particularly since we ourselves have come to realize that it's a bad bad thing?

[3] If so, how do we interpret "children of Israel" in light of Christianity?

[4] And if so, how can God sanction buying heathens when one of them might be enslaved against his/her will? So much for the parable of the good samaritan...

[jpholding]

Heya George,

Slavery is not bad because of collateral acts but because it strips individuals of rights they undeniably have.

Slavery in the ancient world was more a matter of giving up rights voluntarily to survive (as is of course anyone's right to do, yes?) or being conquered in war (and so risking your rights).

Did the Jews submit voluntarily to enslavement by the Egyptians?

No. The Egyptians would probably have excused it as pre-emptive war (per Pharaoh's comment about them becoming too numerous). Your Roman example is close but if the Romans were not invaded by or threatened by the Greeks there would be no justification for their acts of enslavement.

civil Roman slavery was than our typical picture of the American institution, it must not have been that cozy for a poet to spend his life trying to get out of its bonds.

I imagine if we lived in a day when life was hard no matter where you were, it would not have been seen as much of a difference whether you were working to get out of bonds or working to just get your next meal. You worked hard either way.

As for enslaving invaders, that practice reflects the times. Today, we jail such individuals as prisoners of war.

Correct. Which is why I do not approve of those who criticize slavery in the ancient world. The ancient world had no resources to build POW camps. When prisons did get invented they were worse than slavery.

For invaders without a land, the equivalent today is the common criminal. We jail them, punish them and then set them free --

Is not jail a form of slavery?

It is exactly this kind of racism that makes the institution of slavery so wrong. An individual is to be treated on his/her own merits, not treated differently based on nationality.

Um -- if all foreign slaves came from wars, as in Israel they should have, then this makes sense and isn't racism but practical necessity. But Israelite slaves would all be "volunteers".

On your point about applications -- is it that God also concerned Himself with writing laws about applications?

If He did, then the Bible would need to be carried in a fleet of vans for instructions to every culture and time. Do any of the contracts you know of transcend every possible value in every culture? I would doubt it. Indeed, unless you know other cultures intimately, can you begin to say so?

The Tenth Commandment is a good example of such phrasing. It suffices for all eternity, regardless of what possessions we invent.

What would you say to the person who says he can covet his neighbor's horse, because an ox and an ass are the only animals named?

But the problem here is that we now think slavery is bad

Actually, the people I know who say slavery is bad say so because of ill treatment of slaves in our past. You are the first to say it with reference to rights I have met, yet as noted, rights are also ours to give or risk, and that was what ancient slavery was mostly about.

Is God still saying slavery is okay?

If it followed the ancient pattern, of course it would be -- but it doesn't in any example I know of in recent history.

If so, how do we interpret "children of Israel" in light of Christianity?

I do not see the relationship here.

And if so, how can God sanction buying heathens when one of them might be enslaved against his/her will

"Might be"? What context would you mean? If they were in the military then they knew that thet risked being enslaved and took it as worth the effort of winning.

Decent inquiry, George. Keep it up and you'll win one of my awards for intelligent skeptics of any sort that few here have yet won. :thumb:

[George]

We find slavery morally repugnant because it is the practice of buying and selling humans -- and we understand ALL humans to have a fundamental right to freedom. Don't whitewash the practice by overemphasizing the use of slavery as an economically feasible form of jail.

Around 192 BC, Rome invaded and conquered Greece. The Romans enslaved many Greeks. Humans were loot, the spoils of war. Similarly, the Egyptians conquered the Israelites and enslaved them for profit. The Egyptians weren't preemptively jailing the Israelites. The Egyptians weren't concerned with the piddling little tribe of Israel. They were worried about the Assyrians. They enslaved the Israelites for profit as part of the expansion of their empire.

The problem with Leviticus is that it actually recognizes the moral problems of slavery. That is why it expressly forbids enslaving Hebrews. Instead, it requires that any Hebrew "slave" be treated as an indentured servant, one with a term of not more than 7 years.

But, Leviticus allows slavery for non-Hebrews. Don't think that these "heathen slaves" only found themselves slaves after a failed invasion of Israel. Hebrews were trading with their neighbors. Part of that trade was the buying (and quite likely selling) of slaves. These individuals might be slaves because they were looted as part of an invasion or because her father sold her when he needed money. Male or female, plenty were slaves through no choice of their own. These people were chattel -- and treated as such.

So, to say that "the ancient pattern" of slavery is morally acceptable is [1] ignoring many of the broader facts about ancient civilization and [2] forgetting why we outlaw it today.

--------------------

The version of the Tenth Commandment I have been considering in this discussion is available at www.10-commandments.org. It reads "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." The last clause seems pretty clear to me.

--------------------

My question about how we should interpret the "children of Israel" line is based on Leviticus 25:46 in the King James version (see http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Leviticus/25.html). The problem is that God is sanctioning slavery over non-Israelites.
But now with Christianity radically altering our notion of brethren, has He effectively outlawed slavery, is it something okay for the Jews to practice etc.? To me, the interpretative problems herein strongly imply that these laws are not God's laws, but rather laws of men that snuck into a book attributed to God.

Sacre's and your point has been that faith in Christ obviates ceremonial law. What we're seeing here is that the passage of time, humanity's own maturation is obviating laws in other categories.

-----------------

Finally, I don't really understand your point about applications. When you first raised it, I thought you were justifying the shifts over time as God compensating for new, potential applications and thus clarifying the law. Now you seem to be saying that God was not adding clauses to the contract to clarify it, because had He been in the business of addressing all applications, the Bible would be impossibly verbose.

It seems to me you agree that either:

[1] An omniscient and omnipotent God should be able to design a contract that is concise, culturally independent and absolute for all time -- but He has not done that with the Bible.

[2] God authored the Bible to be self-contradictory for a reason and that reason is understandable.

[3] The Bible is not self-contradictory -- neither in the eyes of God nor in what we now know to be morally just.

[sacre]

Thank you for your reply, George. I'm sorry that I haven't gotten to respond sooner. I've been busy working for the last week or so.

I understand your point to be that Christ, and more specifically faith in Him, supplants the need to follow Ceremonial Law.

"Supplants" is not really the right word here. the Christ Himself said that "not one jot or tittle" would be supplanted... instead, the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Him, and not so much modified for us as "matured" for us. Think of this example: your view is that (if I may generalize) we were given (whether by God or by man) an apple tree then, and the Christ gave us an orange tree. They are both trees, but they have different fruit (and I do not mean to confuse this with the "fruit" symbolism in the Bible). My view is this: God gave us a apple tree sapling, and throughout redemptive history has matured that into a full grown apple tree. It has a broader circle now, and bigger fruit, and provides more shade, but is still the same apple tree.

My Biblical proof for this starts in Matthew 5 with the sermon on the mount. Verses 17-48 comprise the majority of my argument. He starts by saying that "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." What does He claim that the Law and Prophets provide but the Word of God? What does He claim to be but the Word of God? Therefore, to interpret this in light of the rest of His claims, He is saying here in Matthew 5 that the whole of the Law and the Prophets were speaking exacly about Himself. From the beginning when God spoke the earth into existance, He spoke it by Jesus (in the ablative sense, not accusative). In the protoevangelion, all mankind was told that there would be emnity between the seed of the serpent (the world) and the seed of the woman (the church, spiritual Israel, the Christ Himself), and that there would be the one to crush the head of the serpent. At the very beginning and to the end, the whole point of the "old testament" was to point directly towards the coming Christ.

Dealing more specifically with the Law, we can see this in Jesus' words in Matthew 5: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Why does He say this? Because the Law shows us His shadow, and if anyone "supplants" the Law, they are "supplanting" the Christ's own attributes. So with the examples that He cites (and I will paraphrase): "The Law says 'Do not murder,' but I tell you 'do not even be angry with him. The Law says 'Do not commit adultery,' but I say 'Do not even lust after a woman.'" So here we see the shadow of Christ, the Law, giving us a just command, and here is the Christ Himself giving us the full-grown version. He is giving us the spirit of the law, telling us to live justly. For the sake of space, I'll leave it at that unless you'd like me to do more later.

Concerning the sacraments, I have another long-winded answer. First, I'll confess that, within Christianity, there are extremely varying views about them, and I will only be giving you my Reformed view (with a capital "R", according the the Westminster catechism). The sacraments are "signs" and "seals" of the covenant of God, and "means of grace" (you will find these three terms wherever you go in Reformed circles). This means that, like the ceremonial law, they point us to the covenant of God. Like the ceremonial law, they also are the means by which God shows us His favor (this part is unnecessary to the discussion). So yes, in a sense, our sacraments (which, by the way, were instituted by the Christ for this purpose) do set us apart as God's people. The main function, however, is that it is a visible means of grace to the church.

Regarding your comments about Moral Law, we've got to start with what we both agree -- hence my definition of Moral Law as universally agreed morality.

If we start with what we both agree, it will not be the Law (or the scope of the different Biblical laws). We will instead have to start with the authority of God. By authority, I mean "the right to obligate people to obey." If we agree that God has authority, the next step is to ask, "is the Bible the Word of God?" This is obviously a bigger question than what this thread (or maybe 50 threads) can handle, so we are left with conceding one way or another for the purpose of the discussion. If we say that the Bible is not the pure Word of God, then I have no purpose in this discussion. If we say it is the pure Word of God, then the we are left with your first debate topic, and that is, which categories to specific OT laws fall into, which could be a fruitful discussion.

Side note: I cringe every time I hear someone refer to the basis of my belief as "faith", although it is. The Westminster divines gave three necessary parts to a real faith. The first is knowledge (notitia), the second is assent (assensus), and the third, volition (fiducia). Clearly, the "faith" is not "blind" by any means, but founded securly on the revelation of God (the source of all knowledge). Perhaps you already understand my position, but I guess it can't hurt to beat it into the ground.

Sorry for the length of the post. I look forward to your reply.

Godspeed,
R

[George]

Maybe my "supplant" was heavy handed. My understanding of your point has been that, with Christ, ceremonial law -- as found in the Old Testament -- is no longer ... uh ... appropriate. Further, I understand that, along the lines of your apple sapling-to-tree analogy, Christ completes the picture.

My issue here is that "no longer appropriate" equates to "invalidated". While I might swallow this under the guise of the broadening of Judaism into Christianity, which is then accessible to gentiles, the interpretation you offer leaves two problems:

[1] If the entire Bible points to the coming of Christ, it implies God's omniscience includes foresight. I.e., He knows that we will fall and that redemption through Christ will be necessary. If so, then why weren't one set of laws written? Why the need to revise them?

[2] We still have laws that humans understand as, to say the least, no longer applicable (e.g. my points on the allowing of slavery in Leviticus). Thus:
-- Does the coming of Christ obviate such non-ceremonial laws too?
-- Did/does God condone the oppression inherent in the institution of slavery (e.g. Leviticus limits slavery to heathens implying God understood the consequences since He strove to protect Israelites from its consequences)?

[jpholding]

Heya George,

We find slavery morally repugnant because it is the practice of buying and selling humans -- and we understand ALL humans to have a fundamental right to freedom.

Your statement simply begs the question and ignores what I said earlier: If we have rights, then we also have a right to forfeit our rights, to buy and sell ourselves. We do the same today, but we call it "credit cards," "military service," and "employment." This is not "whitewashing" in the least -- the principle is the same. Unless you are your own self-sufficient master, you have indeed sold yourself to someone in exchange for a benefit.

Around 192 BC, Rome invaded and conquered Greece. The Romans enslaved many Greeks. Humans were loot, the spoils of war.

But I ask you again: were the Greeks a THREAT to Rome? Had they not enslaved the Greeks, would Greece have overrun Rome and killed their citizens? I don't think so from what I recall. Egypt thought so with Israel, but was probably wrong, and you may hit a nail on the head by suggesting it had something to do really with empire-building. But all you are doing then is showing that their reasons for enslaving others were not valid under the paradigm I am offering, where it is either voluntary or the result of a war of aggression.

The problem with Leviticus is that it actually recognizes the moral problems of slavery. That is why it expressly forbids enslaving Hebrews. Instead, it requires that any Hebrew "slave" be treated as an indentured servant, one with a term of not more than 7 years.

You assume this falsely. This is not any sort of "recognition" of the problem you state above; you merely assume that that was what the writer had in mind and anachronistically apply your thoughts to these writings. You also should note that the slave had the option of staying behind, which seems rather odd if there was some issue of "human rights" as you say. Rather the 7 year option is reflective of the Jubilee practices and also reminds the Hebrews that God is their master, not other men. Contextually that is the proper answer.

Don't think that these "heathen slaves" only found themselves slaves after a failed invasion of Israel. Hebrews were trading with their neighbors. Part of that trade was the buying (and quite likely selling) of slaves

"Quite likely"? You do not know this and are merely assuming it to force an argument. Most Israelis would have been in no position, as a nomadic agricutural society, to buy slaves for at least 400 years past the time of Leviticus. Show me an example of such a slave from the OT and perhaps we can talk. :smile:

So, to say that "the ancient pattern" of slavery is morally acceptable is [1] ignoring many of the broader facts about ancient civilization and [2] forgetting why we outlaw it today.

I'm afraid your vague generalization here is insufficient. You cannot "broaden" the "facts" when none are evident in the texts. Show me some and we will talk. As for why we outlaw it, my recollection is that abolition movements were rooted and founded on poor treatment of slaves and the methods whereby they were procured -- not the institution itself or the practice. But maybe you have more information for me.

shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." The last clause seems pretty clear to me.

Now do the same for the issue of slavery.

My question about how we should interpret the "children of Israel" line is based on Leviticus 25:46 in the King James version (see <http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Leviticus/25.html>). The problem is that God is sanctioning slavery over non-Israelites. But now with Christianity radically altering our notion of brethren, has He effectively outlawed slavery, is it something okay for the Jews to practice etc.?

There's really no connection. Bear in mind that slaves and masters could be Christian brothers in the NT -- where they are also commanded not to rule over each other ruthlessly.

Sacre's and your point has been that faith in Christ obviates ceremonial law. What we're seeing here is that the passage of time, humanity's own maturation is obviating laws in other categories.

I could only agree in the sense that the progres of architecture has "obviated" the rules about rails around roofs.

Now you seem to be saying that God was not adding clauses to the contract to clarify it, because had He been in the business of addressing all applications, the Bible would be impossibly verbose.

That is and has been my point. I vite for option 3: The Bible is not self-contradictory -- neither in the eyes of God nor in what we now know to be morally just.

Take care. :smile:

[sacre]

Those are good points, George, and I think I can give you a satisfying answer to both of your questions.

First, though, I must again take issue with your word choice. I would not say "invalidated" at all (I don't mean to pick on you here). What is at issue here is not whether or not the ceremonial law is appropriate, since we both agree that it is not, but why it is not appropriate. This issue, incidentally, is one of three fundamental differences between the Dispensationalist and the Covenantal theologies (I am part of the latter school). The difference is that I see a fundamental continuity in God's redemptive history. He has decided to deal with man in a single manner, and He has not changed this since the beginning of time. I will try to answer the questions by themselves now.

If the entire Bible points to the coming of Christ, it implies God's omniscience includes foresight.

Christians have been saying this for two millenia. The logical theologian must deny that God is in the least reactionary (and all Reformed theologians assert that God is immutable). God the Son, therefore, was meant to die for man's sins from before the foundation of the earth. Your logical process in this is sound. I agree that God's unchangeable plan since creation was to redeem the world through the propitiatory work of the Christ incarnate. I disagree, however, with your extrapolation of this. That is to say, it is precisely because God planned to send the Christ that Israel was given the ceremonial law to cleanse them. Let me put it this way: to be consistant with my last argument (the shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (which, by the way, is an excellent book by Vern Poythress)), the ceremonial law also served as part of the shadow of the Christ. The harmony is this, that the Christ was the Prophet, Priest, and King. He therefore is the Master of all law: Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil, respectively. All of them make up part of his shadow.

Once we get to this point, you might ask, "Why then, since the Christ has already fulfilled the ceremonial law, are the other categories of law not fulfilled?" I'll tell you. First of all, allegorically speaking, the Christ casts His shadow forward in time as well. In other words, we still see the Christ in the civil and moral law. The ceremonial law's main purpose was to clease the nation of Israel (and remember, I mean the spiritual nation) of their sins, which the Christ did once for all. The moral and civil laws, though, persist because they apply to all men, regardless of whether they are part of spiritual Israel. I hope that makes sense.

Concerning slavery, I have absolutely no problem with slavery (although I would call it "indentured servitude"). God clearly condemns any mistreatment of slaves in the Law (eg. "if a man strikes his slave and he loses a tooth, the slave shall go free on account of his tooth"). The inalienable rights, of course, are not so inalienable as to keep us from giving them up by ourselves. Thus, to be in debt is to be a slave to the debtor, and fully justifiable, Biblically speaking. Once they have repayed their debt, they are to go free (see also "kinsman redeemer", etc). As to a conquered nation as enslaved, that was clearly a judgement of God upon the people. Notice how Moses and Joshua were commanded to be the tools of God's judgement upon the people in the promised land. They were wicked people, and so deserved death. If they receive less than death (i.e. slavery), I would call that extreme mercy. Since our promised land (as Christians) is spiritual, this model holds no weight for the church. The state, however, just like the State of Israel (not to be confused with the Church of Israel), still is required to bear the sword against injustice.

If there are more questions, or if you disagree, or would like me to clarify my stance, please let me know, although I cannot garauntee a quick response.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[onceuponapriori]

04-23-2003 @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76868#post76868)
jpholding:

The point is that slavery is considered, at least today, morally wrong.

And why is this so? Is it because of the institution itself, or because of accessory acts (beatings, etc)? If it is the institution itself, the why do we have credit cards?

Even the beating of slaves was (apparently) morally sanctioned, providing you did not kill the slave. Why did *this* change? What love is this?


Exodus 21: 20-21 (NIV):

"20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89279#post89279)
onceuponapriori:



Even the beating of slaves was (apparently) morally sanctioned, providing you did not kill the slave. Why did *this* change? What love is this?



The same kind that was used to justify applying beatings to students in the ancient world -- because if you didn't match instruction with beatings, your student was likely to end up in the bawdyhouse and in turn would contribute to anarchy and societal collapse, in a day when society was ALWAYS on the brink of collapse and anarchy. Such interaction was a necessity in that day -- not necessarily a cruelty (unless abused, which is the point of the command you cited). "Love" incidentally meant doing that which was in the best interest of the group (society as a whole) -- it did not mean glorified sentimentality.

We need not wonder why we have school shootings.

[sacre]

Onceuponapriori: I agree with JP. The "beating with the rod" is a disciplinary action, and therefore necessary. In the same way, we are told that the one that spares his son discipline hates his son. Are we to believe that discipline is wrong, then? If so, then the Bible contradicts us. If we say that the passage is not about discipline, then the Bible contradicts itself when it says "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26) Obviously, they were protected under the civil law.

Godspeed,
R

[onceuponapriori]

"but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two"

After two days? Beating someone with a rod so brutally that they can't get out of bed until two days have past is just 'disciplinary'? Do you think beating your child that severely is also justified? If you saw someone beating their child in such a manner, wouldn't you want to intervene?

Just wondering.

[George]

Just the point I was typing when the email arrived.

First off, I seriously doubt we can equate a cuff from Socrates or a spanking with a flogging that leaves you bedridden for a "day or two".

Secondly, JP has been making the point that the problem with slavery is the beatings, not the institution itself. Yet now, beatings are okay too?

Thirdly, the point of disciplining children is that they come to understand (1) society has rules -- both explicit and implicit -- and (2) actions have consequences. I wouldn't expect an adult slave needs such lessons, but I sadly would expect masters need to periodically demonstrate their abolute control of their possessions.

Finally, I would think a better synonym for "love" -- when applied societally -- would be "charity".


PS: JP, I did a little deeper research on the practice of ancient slavery. It's hard find links that are tied to the American practice. I did, however, find one article that noted that Hebrews had the habit of (1) burning the loot per God's will, (2) slaughtering all the men and (3) taking the women and children as slaves.

[sacre]

George, I would have to disagree with that last point you made. God specifically commanded Israel (in the vast majority of instances) to destroy everything--man, woman, child, livestock, and plunder, and to burn it all inside the city as a whole burnt offering. In fact, when they disobeyed (I can think of two such instances off the top of my head), a plague was sent upon them until the plunderer among them was hunted out and slaughtered before God.

I would further question your thoughts on necessary discipline for adults... if adults were more morally responsible, why would we need the state at all? This is simply not taking into account the depravity of man.

Also (George), have you read my previous post yet concerning the ceremonial law? I am interested in your reply.

Regards,
R

[Alien]

As I have been publicly critical of the manner in which some discussions are conducted here, I feel compelled to comment when I observe the opposite.

This thread has been a model of what such discussions should be: uncompromising statements of opinion coupled with courtesy and respect. I just discovered it and couldn't stop reading until the end, even though I should really be working!

Congratulations to all participants!

[George]

Sacre, I had missed that post. Sorry.

There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery. The Bible (in Leviticus) affords the former to Hebrew slaves of Hebrews. These "slaves" were to be set free after 7 years. The latter -- servitude until death -- was reserved for slaves taken from surrounding lands. Similarly, European peasants paid for shipfare to America by indenturing themselves, while Africans were slaves for life.

The Bible frankly tends toward the sloppy in its use of terms. Exodus seems to be speaking only of servants, while Leviticus uses both "servants" and "bondsmen". Leviticus 39-46 are pretty clear in distinguising the two. The latter is "for ever" (King James).

Personally, I interpret Leviticus as dealing with slaves and servants, but Exodus only with servants. I don't expect you will agree with me since doing so would concede my points of God understanding the injustice of slavery (over indentured servitude), how the institution promotes racism and oppression, etc. Regardless, the fact that these sections are even open to that interpretation gets back to the criticism of how is it that an omniscient/omnipotent God could write such a poor contract.

In your disagreeing with that interpretation, the common ground is to assume that the laws in Exodus apply to bondsmen/slaves too. Thus we're left debating whether a beating that requires a two-day recovery is humane. Unless OnceUponAPriori or JP have another angle on that issue, I say we leave slavery at a draw :-)

So let's take another one: Murder versus War. God burns the Sixth Commandment into stone. He leads the Israelites to Canaan and says to Joshua "Go slaughter everyone already living there because I give you this land."

Now I understand that the Israelites are God's chosen people and all, but are we to think that "murder" doesn't apply to all humans? Killing in self-defense might be justifiable, but this slaughter is unprovoked.

---------------

I often debate with two local Christian friends of mine. They hold that the Bible reflects revisions in God's plan, made as he reacts to man's behavior. They hold God cannot have foresight because then man is not endowed with freewill. To me, taking foresight away from God, and/or limiting Him temporily, undermines the omniscience and omnipotence we (need to) attribute to God. After all, who created Time?

I would agree with you that God is immutable, at least in a "dynamic equilibrium" sense. However, endowing God with foresight weakens Christianity theology because it introduces the Problem of Evil. (Ironically, a not-quite omniscient/omnipotent God avoids the Problem of Evil, but the theology succumbs then to parthenogenetic qualities of Evil.)


I'm sure you're aware of this issue; it's fundamental to any definition of God. My understanding goes like this:

[1] God knew humans would fall because He knows each choice they will make, He could have selected souls who would choose Good every time. Thus, God specifically created the world to contain Evil. Ergo, God is responsible for Evil.

[2] God does not know how humans will choose. So, Evil is present in Creation because:
[a] Humans create it. But of course God created humans with the specific capacity to choose such. Therefore God is responsible for Evil.
[b] Something else -- that God created -- creates it. Again God created the capacity so God is responsible.
[c] Evil creates itself. This gives Evil the same power as God -- the ability to create oneself. Therefore God cannot eliminate Evil so our model of God must be insufficient.

[3] There is no Evil in the eyes of God (akin to 2c).

Thus the Problem of Evil is either God is responsible or it doesn't exist. And all this from endowing God with foresight :-)

[sacre]

There is a difference between indentured servitude and slavery. The Bible (in Leviticus) affords the former to Hebrew slaves of Hebrews. These "slaves" were to be set free after 7 years. The latter -- servitude until death -- was reserved for slaves taken from surrounding lands. Similarly, European peasants paid for shipfare to America by indenturing themselves, while Africans were slaves for life.

I agree with this. The fundamental Biblical difference is that an indentured servant was such because of a debt, and a slave was such because of the judgement of God, and only that because the harsher judgement (death) was forgone because of the sin of the people. Thus, even a severe beating is justified by the Law. To call it "humane" or "inhumane" seems to me to deny the reason that they were slaves in the first place (i.e. the judgement of God upon the nation). That's about all I have to say on this issue, so a truce is agreeable to me (although I think JP will probably want to continue).

Now I understand that the Israelites are God's chosen people and all, but are we to think that "murder" doesn't apply to all humans? Killing in self-defense might be justifiable, but this slaughter is unprovoked.

Here I see two separate parts. The first is a violation of the moral law and a just punishment from God. We would call this a "Holy war". First of all, the nations were occupying Israel's promised land (that is, promised by God). Second, they were under the judgement of God for their sins. Third, God chose Israel as the people of God. So, then, we have the visible people of God acting as an instrument of justice in the world. In fact, any violation of the absolute moral law made a nation forfiet. God therefore showed much mercy to every nation that was not completely wiped out (especially Israel).

The second part is concerning corporal punishment. The state Biblically still has the power of the sword. This means that they are responsible to intervene in cases of "force and fraud", according to the Biblical civil law. God gave this power and authority to the local state (and by state, I mean the governing authorities of the nation or land mass in which you happen to live--we are all subject to these authorities, including Christians) in the Noaic covenant, and it continues to this day as per Jesus' instructions and as explained by Paul. Self-defense is justifiable for the Christian, but never vigilantism. Thus, if you assault my family, I will not hesitate to shoot you. Afterwards, I will drop you off at the local police station to be summarily executed, according to a reasonable judicial standard. In the case of war, the state also has autority to "draft" citizens to fight for the defense of the people of the state. They do not, however, have authority for a preemptive strike on a nation that may be a threat to us.

Now then, on to "the problem of evil".
I think a fundamental definition in this question is that of "evil". I would submit to you that "evil" is not a thing, but a lack of something, namely, "good". This gives us insight into the source, and further saves us from compromising God's omniscience or our logic (that is to say, ex nihilo, nihil fit, as Onceuponapriori would say: "from nothing, nothing comes"). If evil is a thing, and God cannot create evil, by definition, God did not create every thing. If God did not create every thing, then He is not God. Also, I must reject the notion that "God created Himself". This is a logical impossibility. Instead, God, by definition, is self-existing, and uncreated. Self-creation says that something can be (to posess the power to create) and not be (to need to be created) at the same time and in the same relationship, which violates the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, evil cannot be a thing, logically. Let me put it this way: There are four possibilities.

[1]Evil is a thing, and God created all things.
[2]Evil is not a thing, and God created all things.
[3]Evil is a thing, and God did not create all things.
[4]Evil is not a thing, and God did not create all things.

Since we seem to agree that God created all things (by definition), we are left with one and two. Since God also, by definition, is the standard for Good (I do mean to capitalize that), if He had created Evil, it would not be called Evil, but Good. To put it in the Biblical way, "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:18). So then, we are left with number 2: God created all things, and Evil is not a thing. What can it be then, but the absence of the active Goodness of God (the Christian definition)? This is not to say that He is not omnipresent. I only mean to say that He has the perogative to withdraw His "hand" from any particular situation, or will, or existance, or "thing", thus making it "evil". In this way, God is "responsible" for evil, but certainly not the source. The source is in the fundamental existance of any particular thing without the active grace of God to sustain it.

I don't know if all of that makes sense, but it seems to from my point of view. Let me know what you think.

Godspeed,
R. McIntyre

[jpholding]

The Bible frankly tends toward the sloppy in its use of terms. Exodus seems to be speaking only of servants, while Leviticus uses both "servants" and "bondsmen". Leviticus 39-46 are pretty clear in distinguising the two. The latter is "for ever" (King James).

George, if you mean that by your reading it appears to be sloppy, I can deal with that, but if you read it in context, knowing the culture and use of terms I would have to disagree.

If you like I can send you by PM some useful links. And yes -- adults DO often need lessons. Check the prisons for proof.

Alien: Do you also see a difference in the way George operates and the way a skepticbud operates?

[George]

The short one first:

Regarding "sloppy", I meant that the Bible often uses multiple terms in seemingly interchangeable ways. For instance, Exodus 21:2 and 21:7 are talking about "servants" while Leviticus introduces the terms "bondservant" (25:39), "hired servant" (25:40) and "bondsmen/maids" (25:44).

Personally, I find a careful read yields a clear distinction. "Men/maidservants" are "hired servants" -- the equivalent of indentured servitude -- and "bondsmen/maids" are slaves for life. To me this distinction leads to the conclusions I've mentioned above -- that the Bible recognizes the negatives of the institution of slavery and so limits slaves to non-Hebrews.

Do you interpret these terms this way?

--------------

Regarding adults needing lessons, yes -- I agree they do. My point before is that we are teaching something different to a child; we are teaching the basic principles of rules and consequences. The punishment of criminals intends a different lesson. I think that the lesson is that the adult has an unacceptable value system or, at the very least, that a specific behavior will not be tolerated by the community at large.

-------------

Yes, Alien, thanks. I'm sure ALL of us appreciate it :-)

[George]

Sacre,

I don't see how you determine that enslavement only derives from the judgement of God. Take Leviticus 25:46 -- specifically "of them shall ye buy". Sounds like good ol' fashion commerce to me. I don't see how God's judgement factors into it (beyond His being our Creator).

Furthermore, I read Leviticus 25:45 - 46 to say that the children of bondsmen are slaves too. I don't see justification in punishing -- ad infinitum -- descendants of some transgressor (assuming the slave was even a transgressor in the first place). Under the eye-for-an-eye stuff, at some point the (earthly) debt is paid.

-----------

On murder versus war:

So God creates Adam and Eve, but they sin and are banished from Eden. Eventually we end up with the Flood, and Noah's descendents must repopulate the planet. They do and God choses a subset -- spawned from one guy named Abraham -- to favor. Those people are not particularly any better than the others -- after all they have a tendency toward idol worship too. Once they have atoned by wandering in the desert for 40 years, God says "Go and smite all those in Canaan."

Now exactly how had they sinned (I don't recall any specific passage on this, but maybe you know of something)? And doesn't God simply bannish those peoples?

Finally, if one justification for murder is a commanded holy war, couldn't anyone just issue the edict provided God had spoken to them? Assuming a "yes", what litmus test do we apply to the instigator's claim? After all, we can't really validate the conversation or question God's will. Keep in mind that political leaders -- from Joshua to George Bush -- have justified their actions as the will of God.

-------------

Perhaps this should be rhetorical, as this is not the forum for politics, but given your statement of "They do not, however, have authority for a preemptive strike on a nation that *may* be a threat to us" -- how do you view the recent action against Iraq?

-------------

On the Problem of Evil (which maybe should be a separate thread as we're pretty far afield at this point):

Evil is a Thing. It is a concept and it is the consequence of behavior.

God is responsible but not the "source"? I can't see how this hair-splitting gets you anywhere. To me, your words read that God withdraws from some portion of Creation -- and due to the lack of God (the source of all that is Good) that portion is Evil. Yet that portion endures.

What is sustaining it? If it is self-sustaining (because it was so constructed by God), then God created the capacity for Evil -- which aligns with the cases I listed above. If it ceases to exists (because the Universe requires the continuing presence of God's creative force), then the hypothesis that Evil is the lack of God is void because we agree that Evil is present in the world.

------------

As an(other) aside, I had a professor whose doctoral thesis discussed whether God had the capacity committing Evil Himself. He argued God could, but doesn't. My professor logic went something like this:
[1] God is perfect.
[2] The more morally praiseworthy, the more perfect.
[3] Having the capacity to commit Evil and not doing so is more morally praiseworthy than never committing Evil because it is impossible.
[4] Therefore, God could (but doesn't) commit Evil.

[jpholding]

Heya George,

Regarding &quot;sloppy&quot;, I meant that the Bible often uses multiple terms in seemingly interchangeable ways. For instance, Exodus 21:2 and 21:7 are talking about &quot;servants&quot; while Leviticus introduces the terms &quot;bondservant&quot; (25:39), &quot;hired servant&quot; (25:40) and &quot;bondsmen/maids&quot; (25:44).

Well, checking the Hebrew we find the word "ebed" used in all of them -- Lev. apparently adds something (a prefix?), abodah, which just means "work" and 25:40 uses another word entirely, sakiyr. 25:40 uses ebed again. So the confusion is in English but not necessarily in the Hebrew. Your careful read might well be supported by a study of the Hebrew. But I don't see how this shows that "the Bible recognizes the negatives of the institution of slavery and so limits slaves to non-Hebrews." It shows that there were different classes of worker, and that's all you can really derive from it without being anachronistic.

Regarding adults needing lessons, yes -- I agree they do. My point before is that we are teaching something different to a child; we are teaching the basic principles of rules and consequences. The punishment of criminals intends a different lesson.

I regret to say, after many years of work in the prison system of my state, that there is little basic difference. Most criminals need the same lessons and were never taught skills to resolve basic life issues. Much of what they say to justify themselves would sound like it came from the mouth of a 4 year old -- minus the profanity!

[sacre]

Those people are not particularly any better than the others -- after all they have a tendency toward idol worship too.

Nor are the ministers of state and/or church particularly any better than others. This does not make the ideology of the institution injust, does it? No, all it means is that we all must ultimately be responsible to God, especially when we carry out the duties of the state and/or church. This is evident in the Bible, where ministers are obviously held to a more unforgiving standard.

Once they have atoned by wandering in the desert for 40 years, God says "Go and smite all those in Canaan."

If you will notice, the "atonement" was the death of all those in rebellion. That is to say, the entire generation, save only Joshua and Caleb, had to die before they entered the promised land. Even so, the justification of the elect was never according to works, but according to God's mercy.

You ask, what was the justification of the "holy wars"? I'll quote several passages.

Exodus 23
23 "For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them.
24 "You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces.
25 "But you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst.
26 "There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.
27 "I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.
28 "I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you.
29 "I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.
30 "I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.
31 "I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you.
32 "You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.
33 "They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you."

As to the authority of Moses in declaring the Word of the Lord concerning a "holy war"...

Deuteronomy 7
1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,
2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."

Numbers 12
1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman);
2 and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?" And the LORD heard it.
3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.)
4 Suddenly the LORD said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, "You three come out to the tent of meeting." So the three of them came out.
5 Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward,
6 He said,
"Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
7
"Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
8
With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?"
9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed.
10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous.

Furthermore, the only reason Israel had to wander around in the desert for 40 years was because they refused to bear the sword against the inhabitants of the promised land in the first place (see Numbers 13). Israel was not only justified in the "holy war", but they were required to take part in it, lest the wrath of God fall upon them as well.

Since the incarnation, our holy war is no longer against flesh and blood, but against spiritual things (Ephesians 6:12). Therefore, the only standard we have is the civil standard, which, in my opinion, only comes into play with the presence of FORCE and FRAUD. In these cases, and in these cases only, is state action (i.e. "bearing the sword") just. Based on that, our war with Iraq (which, by the way, is unconstitutional, since Congress did not declare war) is only just if they had anything to do with the September 11th attacks (which I do not intend on disputing either way). The state has no authority in spiritual matters, nor had they ever any authority. Moses was a prophet--not a polititian. If any state leader, therefore, claims a prophetic word from God, contrary to the Christ's spoken Word, that person is to be taken out of the capital and stoned (or shot, or lethally injected, etc).

About the "problem of Evil". I am in favor of moving it to another thread, especially since this current discussion does not necessarily involve it. I'll try to make the necessary arrangements, and then post my reply.

Godspeed,
R

[Alien]

JP:Alien: Do you also see a difference in the way George operates and the way a skepticbud operates?

Yes, of course. This has been my point all along; courtesy breeds courtesy and, regrettably, vice versa.

[jpholding]

How many "buds" do you know who start without courtesy, though? :smile:

[djdavo]

05-06-2003 @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89279#post89279)
onceuponapriori:



Even the beating of slaves was (apparently) morally sanctioned, providing you did not kill the slave. Why did *this* change? What love is this?


Exodus 21: 20-21 (NIV):

&quot;20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.&quot;


i have a question for you to answer your question: was it 'morally right' for the government of the day to beat, a thief (for instance) as their punishment?

the slave owner is the one who handed out justice to their slaves rather than the government.
if a slave stole from his master is it just to punish them somehow? of course it is.... if a slave raped someone (for instance) would it be 'moral' to beat the tar out of them for a punishment? you bet it would be....either that or 20 years in prison under hard labor...

that being said, the bible also makes it clear to treat your slaves fairly and with respect. (don't have the reference off the top of my head, sorry )

[djdavo]

and what's already been said many ways holds true: slaves back then beared little resemblence to American slaves of the 18-19th centuries, so you can't compare the two.