Slavery, Rape and Gays In the OT

January 7, 2010 by EnnisP
Filed under: Answering an Atheist, Debate, Old Testament, Political Issues

Answering An Atheist

Original arguments are found in the post “Top Ten Worst Bible Stories”
On the web site “Not A Potted Plant” (NAPP)
Author – Transplanted Lawyer (TL)

Some parts of the Bible are admittedly difficult to understand and for that reason can be easily misconstrued by those who don’t believe.

Unfortunately, believers (and I am one) tend to skirt these issues or flavor them very favorably in light of the way people think, feel or act today. We over-read benevolence on the part of the Hebrews and overstate malice on the part of their enemies. Those of the opposing opinion easily recognize the bias and readily point it out.

Before we Christians judge and dismiss them, however, we must admit that they couldn’t make the criticism if they hadn’t at least read the Bible and the popular ideas associated with it. In fact, I have often been amazed at the clarity with which nonbelievers have articulated what we believers think. They have listened and we should respect that.

Recently I came across a blog authored by “Transplanted Lawer” (TL) who openly admits to being an “atheist” and, true to form, has asked some very pointed questions about difficult passages in the Bible. He actually targeted ten Bible stories he considers the worst and after saying what he thought was bad about them left an open challenge for anyone to respond. I accepted.

No, I’m probably not the best person for this task but I am interested and besides I like this guy. He has a great sense of humor, plays Scrabble, is agreeably conversational and fair. He has a fair knowledge of Christian issues and has been a reasonable antagonist. You can see his original challenge here, his acknowledgement of my acceptance here and so far I have responded to:

These are stories number 8, 2 and 5 respectively.

Before reading his blog I had written a post that answers number 10 on his list, accusing Jesus of racism. I left a link to my post on his blog and he was responsive enough to read it and comment.

The topics we’ve discussed so far are interesting but none of them carry the same weight as the three issues we look at now which are, in TL’s words:

It’s okay to have slaves as long as you don’t beat them too badly. Number 7

Should a slave owner strike a male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall surely be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there shall be no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Exodus 20:20-21

Rape victims must marry their assailants. Number 6

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Capital punishment for homosexuality. Number 4

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13.

These issues represent problems for us Christians because, on the surface, they seem to endorse actions or attitudes that we and the Bible, along with everyone else in the whole world, claim not to allow: slavery, rape and capital punishment for promiscuity.

Believers respond to these questions defensively or ignore them or explain them away and for good reason. The apparent contradiction between these statements and what the Bible teaches elsewhere is embarrassing.

Before addressing the issues mentioned, however, I need to point out that many ideas introduced in Old Testament law were very progressive for that day but not static. These regulations applied to Israel at that time in history and represented improvements but clearly opened the door for more progressive changes in the future. We shouldn’t be surprised. Laws constantly change because human nature ferrets out every possible way to break them.

A good illustration is the regulation regarding human waste. Bowel movements were to be taken outside the camp boundaries and buried (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). It was a law. It had to be done this way. From what we know now, we understand that it was a very primitive but effective way to avoid all kinds of life threatening diseases.

Unfortunately, the wisdom of this law was lost on cultures coexisting with Israel and even those following. As late as the 1800”s AD people in European cities routinely dumped excrement in public streets (from the front door or window above) and the communities suffered many diseases because of it. Dr. S. I. McMillen, MD, elaborates on this and many other laws in his book “None of These Diseases.” It’s a good read and has been updated to reflect new scientific findings.

We don’t obey that law precisely today but we do obey the underlying principle. We use toilets and sewer systems rather than holes in the ground to maintain separation between human traffic and human waste. The result is a disease free environment.

So these laws, in whatever way stipulated, were not to be kept, word for word, forever. We can and should change them as learning improves and as the situation requires. The change in some cases should be so extensive that they become completely unnecessary.

In fact, many of the laws can only be understood from hindsight (before they were given) and had little bearing on the future (today). That is particularly true of the laws involving slavery, rape and gays. You can’t understand the nature of these laws looking only from our vantage point. Governmentally, legally, scientifically and socially we are way ahead of Moses and his contemporaries. You must time-travel back as far as Abraham and work your way forward to get the right perspective.

And what do we find between Abraham and Moses?

Slavery was a common practice. Joseph’s brothers sold him to a band of travelling merchants who not only paid good money for the young lad but also conducted the transaction as if it was an everyday exchange, an opportunity not to be missed.

We also know from Joseph’s example that slaves could advance in importance but rarely in rights. It was only under extraordinary circumstances that they obtained rights associated with a better class in society other than a slave.

How did God handle this situation? He put them on the same legal standing with everyone else.

Most people have a problem with God because He stipulated that slaves could be beaten but never to the point of death. On the surface it seems like a free pass for abuse. What is not considered is the fact that beating was a recognized form of punishment for any person, slave or not, who broke the law. Because slaves were more easily taken for granted, this regulation stood out brightly in the text, “you can’t loose your temper and beat a slave to the point of death!” I’m sure slaves were also subject to the death penalty for capital crimes.

For Israelites this regulation must have awakened poignant memories. They had been subjected to slave drivers who beat them with impunity. Many Hebrews probably had scars from their own beatings and could remember friends and family members that died from it. From their perspective this regulation was ground breaking stuff.

And it wasn’t left to stand alone. Other statutes allowed slaves to go free if, as a result of a beating, they lost even as much as a tooth from the ordeal.

The law was also uncharacteristically gracious toward runaway slaves. Those who found a runaway were not required to force his return or allowed to retain him against his will. Hammurabi’s law – popular legal code for that day – required the exact opposite and anyone disobeying could be executed. The Law of Moses provided very humanitarian treatment for slaves at a time when they could easily be abused. In fact, Moses law repeatedly said there was to be one law for all people (Numbers 15:16), unheard of in the day. You could say this was “landmark” legislation.

And remember, because several generations of Hebrews had just suffered a high level of abuse by the Egyptians (according to the biblical account) there would be no quick turn around in their social development. The abused tend to become the abusers but these laws were designed to nudge them gently and carefully in the right direction.

Rape was not a problem. Customarily slaves had very few rights and women, also treated as property, had little more. Rape was considered a problem only if, as the property of one man, the woman was violated or damaged by the act of another and thereby was rendered less valuable. A man imposing himself sexually on an un-promised woman was not as socially repugnant then as it is today. That was rape in antiquity.

One custom that illustrates the casual way sex was viewed was temple prostitution (very popular at the time of the Exodus and even up to the time of Jesus in some parts of the world). This wasn’t prostitution carried on in the dimly lit, undesirable sections of town. This was prostitution on a pedestal. Men and woman (mostly woman) prostituted themselves in service for and at the local religious temple, the high point of every community. Rahab, of the Jericho story, was a temple prostitute before aligning herself with Israel.

And who in Israel was involved with this practice before the Law of Moses? Well, for one, Judah, the head of the leading tribe in the nation. His daughter-in-law, Tamar, left childless and without support (two successive husbands had died), posed as a temple prostitute and seduced Judah to sleep with her (her intent was to get pregnant not have pleasure). It’s a long story so I’ll spare you the details but Judah is represented as almost nonchalant in responding to this ruse.

As the story unfolds, once Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered they plan her execution until she proved Judah was the father. Why? Not because she engaged in casual sex but because she was considered the property of another man, in this case, Judah. If she hadn’t been previously married or promised there would have been no fault. That all happened before the Law of Moses.

That wasn’t exactly rape but it does demonstrate the very casual attitude toward sex, not too mention women, prevailing at that stage in history. Women were objects and sex was a man’s right. Popular attitudes haven’t changed much but there are many more laws in place to keep things in check.

Rape was socially more acceptable then and far more prevalent. It is a historic fact that plunder and rape were the postludes to every victorious battle by every nation in ancient times. There is no doubt God’s law was intended to put a stop to that practice.

That isn’t to say every man raped or every woman got raped. Lot’s daughters were exceptions. They were taken captive when Sodom was invaded but apparently not raped. We have to believe there were people in every community who had enough sense or decency to question the practice and do differently.

How do you begin the process of changing this cultural trend? Well, one step in God’s plan was to establish a regulation that makes you think twice. “If you rape her: you marry her, pay her father 50 shekels of silver (a heck of a lot of money in those days – they only paid 30 to betray Jesus and that was over a millennium later when the economy had inflated) and on top of that, once married, you could never divorce her. This applied to any form of rape occurring at any place or time with any person. He also put some strict regulations on polygamy for the same reason.

This law, though we view it condescendingly thousands of years after the fact, was way ahead of its time, pointed the community in a better direction and was a real twist of the arm for the ancient Hebrews. It was just what they needed and within their grasp.

Death penalty and the gays. Of the three regulations discussed here, this one is the least palatable.

As a rule we don’t impose the death penalty on any person for engaging in sexual activity between consenting adults. Certain things may be considered distasteful but they are not chargeable under the law.

In antiquity things were very different to what they are today. Many forms of inappropriate sexual behavior were not just allowed but celebrated, temple prostitution being one example. Even rape had a place in the cultural landscape. The odd thing is, adultery was viewed very differently and carried severe consequences but was defined only in chauvinistic terms.

If the man was married and the woman was neither married nor promised – no fault.
If the woman was married or promised they were both penalized by death whether he was married or not.

They also had a different take on sexual orientation. Bisexuality was common and homosexuality was not. People therefore were rarely considered exclusively homosexual although they might be considered exclusively heterosexual.

Which is to say, that the injunction about men lying with men was probably aimed at bisexuality rather than homosexuality. Even the wording implies this idea, “if a man lie with a man as with a woman…”

Of course, that doesn’t answer the question, “why did God sanction the death penalty for homosexual activity?” but it does give us a clue to the answer.

These two lifestyles are usually viewed as one but they are not equal. The social circles in which you find the one you also find the other but the apparent bond of friendship is encouraged by a common opposition to oppression not by identical life styles philosophies. A gay person is not automatically bisexual.

Its very much like Nelson Mandela. He wasn’t a communist but he was allied with communists for many years and for obvious reasons. Communists were willing to assist the resistance in ways others were not. Bisexuals and gays are allied in their struggle for recognition but there are differences to consider.

Bisexuals are viewed as unusual even from homo perspectives.
To express a bisexual desire precludes the possibility of monogamy.
Bisexuality could hardly be justified genetically.
And unless each partner in a bisexual arrangement is aware of the practice there is also infidelity.

These excesses, of course, are usually lumped together with anything “gay” but the recent push to legalize same sex marriage by the gay community is obviously an attempt to bring traditional norms to what was previously assumed to be unpredictable behavior.

So, to be clear, “gay” is not synonymous with bisexuality and the polyamory or infidelity associated with it.

Also, not only was bisexual activity more prevalent in antiquity it was also cited in historical events before the Exodus and with lethal outcomes, namely Sodom (Genesis 19).

This event occurred several hundred years before the Exodus. As the story goes, Lot was accommodating two men (angels) who were visiting Sodom and in the evening, before they went to bed, all the resident men of the city demanded Lot deliver his guests to them so they might “know” them. That was a veiled expression of intent to gang rape the visitors. Lot knew this and begged them to leave the visitors alone, referring to their intentions as “wicked” (his word). They responded by attempting to break down the door.

It didn’t stop there. Later, after Israel settled in Palestine, a priest was travelling with his concubine and stopped for a night in Gibeah. A local man offered to accommodate them for the evening almost begging them not to sleep in the open square.

In the evening “worthless fellows” surrounded the house demanding access to the priest, as before, that they might “know him.” Instead, however, they seized the concubine, gang raping her throughout the night and as a result, she died.

In addition to these two events sandwiching the command in question, the previously existing communities of Palestine were known for lewd misconduct in the extreme. The common sexual rituals were not genetically driven and had little to do with personal choice. These activities were cultural. Children were exposed to this religiously condoned sexual license and expected to participate eventually or worse, be abused. This conduct characterized the community and there were no legislative or enforcement agencies to monitor the situation.

And how did God respond to this dilemma? Well, the shortest distance between two points, in this case, was drawing a line in the sand and threatening those who crossed over with the penalty of death. Difficult times require courageous and radical solutions and that is what God stipulated.

But this wasn’t a final solution. It was a temporary step intended to help Israel rise above their surroundings and live on a higher plane. None of these laws were eternally fixed and there are three principles that should guide our study and use of Old Testament statutes. We should see these laws as:

Restrictive not prescriptive
Protective not punitive
Temporary not permanent

To understand the difference between “Commands” which Jesus upheld as eternal and “statutes” which are constantly changing go here.

If you’ve managed to get this far, before you leave, tell us what you THINK!AboutIt.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comments

19 Comments on Slavery, Rape and Gays In the OT

Transplanted Lawyer on Thu, 7th Jan 2010 7:50 am

I’d feel better about what you have to say if Jesus hadn’t made it a point to say that he affirmed everything in what Christians call the Old Testament as it was written in, among other places, Matthew 5:17-19. Although your claims that social customs evolved and softened and became more palatable over time, later-written books in the Bible, including what Christians call the New Testament, do not evidence this. A passage from Paul’s First Letter to the Romans is commonly cited by homophobes seeking to dress up their bigotry in the clothing of religion; Jesus never once condemns slavery; and I find it very hard to believe that rape wasn’t a problem in the ancient mideast when Jehovah himself authorized the Israelites to do just that to Midianite women captured as spoils of war. And the attitudes underlying these barbaric laws persist to this day, and are given a moral gloss by the statements in the Christian Bible. You need look no further than Uganda and its efforts to not only criminalize homosexuality but indeed in some cases to make it a capital crime. Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are a major part of the justification offered for that proposal — and let us all hope that this proposal fails.

I’d also feel better about what you say if I could be sure we were talking about the same thing. I take the stories and lessons of the Bible to be legends rather than recitals of historical events. Nearly everything in the Bible, particularly its early books, lacks any kind of corroborating historical or archeological record. This does not matter if we are talking about legends, but it does matter if we are talking about history. To the extent that your apology relies on a historical liberalization of criminal law, you need to corroborate your claim with the historical record, and it does not support your claim. I know from other writings you’ve posted that you take issue with the American “religious right” and do not consider yourself a Biblical literalist. So I don’t understand why you feel the need to defend the Bible’s historical authenticity.

I’d feel better about your discussion of these detestable moral codes having become historically obsolete if there was some principled way that we can tell which parts of the Bible have become obsolete and which remain in effect. I can’t find any words in the Bible to back up your claim that the laws or even the customs regarding these subjects ever changed.

I’d feel better about what you say if the moral principles underlying these “progressive” developments in social and legal tradition were not so deeply offensive and indefensible. “Be kind to your slaves” is still having slaves. “Treat other people’s property with respect” is not the same kind of moral proposition as “Don’t rape women.” And “Kill gay people” is simply indefensible even if you think gay sex is inherently immoral. Please remember, there have been a great many people, both our contemporaries and from history, who have insisted that the Bible is literally true, insisted that application of the laws and moral judgments of God are eternal and unchanging, and who maintained those insistences upon attaining political power.

Now, I really do feel better about one thing — I’m well aware that most people of all manner of faiths and beliefs seek to avoid these kinds of barbaric rules and awful moral principles. Serious and thoughtful Christians, like yourself, do not adhere to them and do not preach them, which of course is good. Instead, they “pick and choose” which parts of the Bible they like and excluding the parts they do not like. That seems to me to be exactly what your post is doing — you don’t like and cannot defend the idea that the right way to deal with a rape is monetary compensation to the victim’s father, so you instead excuse it as an outgrowth of the cultural context in which this rule was found and indicate that since the cultural context has changed, we need not obey this rule any longer and are free to develop a better rule that works for our culture and our society.

Now, I personally do not have a problem with picking and choosing — I have always admitted that there’s lots of good stuff in the Bible, too, and as far as I’m concerned, the Bible is merely a collection of legends and myths, so of course we can pick and choose what parts we like and what parts we don’t. And of course I’d agree with the proposition that we are not bound to follow the legal or cultural dictates of the Bible. So if you were to say you were practicing “just the good parts of Christianity” I would be likely to applaud you for it. If the question were how do pick out the good parts from the bad, I am satisfied if you assure me you’ve attempted in good faith to do so; people of good faith can and do disagree about difficult moral questions. Point is, I don’t think “picking and choosing” is a bad thing at all if you’re going to claim to adhere to a religion.

But Christians and particularly Christian apologists seem to take great umbrage at the “accusation” that they are “picking and choosing” only the good stuff from the Bible, because they deeply want to claim that they are following the whole thing and that all of it is good. That proposition is simply not true. I hope you can see that what you have attempted here is to domesticate things that are by any good-faith assessment of their moral worth, just plain evil. And while I appreciate that you have an understandable motive for doing so, it is as much of a moral problem to domesticate Biblical slavery as it was for politicians in the U.S. to domesticate slavery in the south. I say, you don’t domesticate evil; you call it what it is.

EnnisP on Thu, 7th Jan 2010 1:00 pm

Thanks for commenting TL. I know you are busy and your responses are thoughtful. I appreciate that.

My approach in these discussions is neither strictly “literal” nor “legendary.” The intention is to look at the Bible as a unit and determine whether or not it can be understood as a continuous document and if so will that “thread of continuity” shed light on any one statement or incident. And it is an attempt to be open minded toward other opinions about the text.

Admittedly, there are many passages that are not easily comprehended. The typical responses are to accept them mindlessly or dismiss them out of hand. I would like to avoid both but I can’t do that speaking only to people who have my perspective.

One side, not always honest with the text or willing to allow it to speak for itself, represents God as unbending, inflexible, hard nosed, unthinking, insensitive and unforgiving. They are not amenable to discussion and throw Bible verses around as if they are the personal representative of God on earth (they would never admit to that). I can say those things because I am a Christian and spent time harboring that mindset. And it was when I stepped outside the usual explanations that I began to think differently about the meaning not the quality of the text.

The other side takes a more open minded approach, to a fault, and in some cases assumes God is not there at all. Both sides end up abusing or misreading the text.

Your reference to Uganda is a case in point. Unfortunately Uganda has become the battle ground for continuing the conflict between right and left wing politics and the outcome is very sad.

Truthfully, there are very few Christian groups who support the “kill the gays” legislation but they have intruded themselves into the situatioin and I think some are embarrassed and frustrated that Ugandan politicians are using their materials to support this extreme policy. I think what some Christians are realizing is that they do come across hatefully and it is embarrassing. Neither side, however, is doing anything more than throwing rocks at each other while Ugandans suffer daily with problems we can’t even imagine. A TV interview of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow illustrates the point. Rachel accuses Richard of ulterior motives while she, given her public commitment to the gay lifestyle, could hardly be considered neutral. It was a rock throwing match. I disagree with both.

Back to Uganda. it also illustrates ideas I suggested in my post. It has a long history of abuse on all levels and the largest number of victims are the children. I doubt any person in that society is gay or sexually promiscuous by choice and your orientation is not primarily a question of genetics. In that society children prostitute themselves just for a bite to eat and the gender of the person they service is irrelevant. The important question is can they pay, can I survive another day? Of course, if they are being raped which occurs at a staggering rate, there is no decision at all.

Even in South Africa, where I live, bush lore suggests that raping a virgin will cure a man of HIV and the victims are often infants. Barbaric, I know, but not uncommon. I personally visited a family the youngest member of which was raped by an HIV positive man (an uncle). This much, most people have heard. What they don’t know is that the infant’s body, unable to manage such an intrusion goes into a spasm and tightens up making it almost impossible for the male to disengage. The result is a broken back bone and paralysis.

Now, in keeping with our discussion, how would you address these problems? What legislation would you put in place in the hope of turning these trends around? These are fare questions and ones that the Ugandan and South African governments grapple with everyday. in South Africa alone there are 60 child rapes reported everyday and reputable news agencies suggest the number is more like 1 every three minutes.

The sad thing is, that covers only one type of abuse. There is no death penalty and the prisons are gorged with inmates who resort to same sex activity some of which is more than abusive. Bush lore also suggests that rape is one way to correct lesbian tendencies.

I make this next statement very carefully. I am not a proponent of the death penalty but I think is some cases it might be considered a quick fix. I know that might come across as horribly insensitive but the question is, who are we caring for the most?

Jesus did say that the Old Testament was not rescinded by the New but It would be stretching to think He was referring to every ordinance. I think He had commands in view on which laws or statutes were based. He even reduced the entire law to two primary commands, Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. I discussed the difference between commands and laws (statutes) in a previous post, OT Law – Restrictive Not Prescriptive.

By the way, I think Americans, left or right ought to stay the hell out of Uganda, South Africa or any place else unless they intend to settle in for the long haul and try and make a difference. Right now these countries are being used as nothing more than political pawns to advance political agendas being played in the US. That ain’t right. I’m not suggesting you are a part of that. I’m speaking to the bigger picture.

Transplanted Lawyer on Thu, 7th Jan 2010 4:54 pm

It wasn’t my intention to take on Uganda’s or South Africa’s problems, just to point to an immediate and graphic example of why I think this critique and dialogue are important. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the problems of the world; if pressed about Uganda or SA, I’d suggest that better health and sex education, with an emphasis on what condom use can do and what HIV and AIDS really are, would be a big help. There are many charities and NGOs, some of which are affiliated with Christian organizations, that are doing good work. I wish the same could be said about all of them and I’m looking at the Roman Catholic Church when I say that. But the ones who are out there in the field spreading the word and passing out the latex deserve praise.

As for the Biblical perspective, I too am trying to understand the Bible within its own context because I agree that simply quote-mining it is not productive. Now, you (or some other person) might think that my original article was nothing but quote-mining the Bible, but that was not my intent at all and I’ve labored to read it in context. The overall picture that I get is at best ambivalent — some good stuff mixed in with some bad stuff. The real target of my original article was the person who insists that no, it’s all good stuff; such a person has stopped thinking about what they are reading.

In that sense, let me be so bold as to suggest that you and I have similar objectives for our respective efforts, since I get the impression that you too find a thoughtless approach to this text to be objectionable. Our perspectives diverge from there, of course, but the broader point remains: it’s not enough to read and accept the words in this book; it’s incumbent upon the reader to think about what has just been read.

Slavery, Rape and Gays in the Old Testament | NowTHINK!AboutIt | Israel Today on Fri, 8th Jan 2010 3:57 pm

[...] Read more: Slavery, Rape and Gays in the Old Testament | NowTHINK!AboutIt [...]

EnnisP on Fri, 8th Jan 2010 5:30 pm

The present activities of various organizations are better than nothing but only just. In some sections of these countries there is no law or order and the whole community is subjected to thug rule. It is chaos and we aren’t really touching the worst needs.

Theft is still a primary means of making ends meet. I live is a nice middle class neighborhood. On the outside it looks quiet and safe but every neighbor I know personally has had break-ins some at gun point and the same is true of some I don’t know (I have lived in this house for over 20 years). I am tempted to say “every” home has been broken into but I can’t really verify that. I do know that very few if any have managed to escape this experience.

Personally, we have been broken into twice, had four cars stolen from our property, had cars stolen twice off the property and a few other minor incidents. What happens in my area, at very unacceptable levels, is exponentially increased in the African areas.

It is very difficult to take first world statutes and law enforcement practices or remedies for HIV/AIDS and super impose them on these situations. It is also difficult to imagine correcting the situation using only westernized experience.

This discussion has actually changed my perspective on the biblical record. Something to think about.

But, just to be clear, I think killing gays in Uganda would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Like using abuse to counter abuse. Not smart.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and willingness to engage. Given our different starting points it is easy to see how these exchanges could become brutal which they have not.

Mark Gomez on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 7:13 am

TL, when you say things like “I have labored to understand the moral lessons in context” we would expect you to have searched out the context, original languages, etc. So when you say that Deuteronomy 22 is saying that a rapist must marry the woman he rapes, we just scratch our heads and wonder why you can’t do more than just a superficial reading of the text from a single version of the Scriptures.
Look at a word study of the passage and you find that the words used here that the KJV translates (unfortunately) rape are actually never translated as rape anywhere else. As a matter of fact, they are generally always understood as a consensual sexual act. The preceding verses give the penalty for rape, which is death. In this case, a man has sex with a woman, who is a virgin and not betrothed to anyone, so he must take her as a wife and pay her father a dowry. Was that so hard to figure out?

And as for the slavery bit, you show no understanding of God’s covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants. The people who lived in Canaan were wicked people who had transgressed the revealed will of God and followed other gods. God chose to judge them for their transgressions and used His covenant people, Israel as the tools of His judgment on the nations who were in rebellion against Him. In some cases, the Israelites destroyed those nations by God’s decree. In other cases, the people were placed in bondage to the Israelites. Either way, it was a judgment of God on their sin. Eventually the Israelites forsook God as well and were judged in the same way. You find that barbaric. But that’s because you believe that morality is relative. Morality is subjective and I can not impose my ideas of morality on you and vice versa. But then you talk about evil and we’re left wondering why we should care what you think is evil since you’ve already established that there is no ultimate basis for morality.
As far as the death penalty for gays. God has said that homosexuality is a violation of the created purpose of male and female. In the old testament, sexual sins were punishable in the extreme. That’s not to say the punishment was always carried out. There was room for mercy as well. Joseph had the legal right to have Mary stoned for becoming pregnant while she was betrothed to him, but he chose to show her mercy. God sets a rigorous law to show them the seriousness of their sin, but allows room for mercy.
And to take Christ’s words about not destroying the law to mean that all these laws are still in effect is a gross misunderstanding of the differences in the covenants of God. Christ has fulfilled the law. We are free from the law. Christ says that the law will not pass until He fulfills it and then He went and fulfilled it. Paul teaches extensively on the point and use of the law. He tells the Galatian church that Christ has set us free from the law. Not that the law was evil, but that it was insufficient to bring us to righteousness.
So no, the law is not in effect anymore. The modus operandi of the spreading of the kingdom in the OT was centripetal in nature. Israel was set apart and was to draw people to God. In the NT, the MO is opposite. Now the church is centrifugal in nature, moving out to the corners of the earth and drawing people. God no longer works theocratically. He set aside a time for the church to go out and spread to every people, tongue, and nation and when that time is complete He will return and establish His rule. But that time is not now. We as Christians are involved in our governments as much as we can be, but we do not expect God to set up a theocracy and rule like He did with Israel.
But to come back to the point, you accuse God and Israel of being barbaric, evil, etc. But on what basis? You accuse Christ of being a racist (again, ignoring the context and purpose of the passage in question, which perhaps we’ll deal with later), but on what basis can you condemn racism? Is it because you’re more enlightened? Peter Singer seems like a pretty enlightened guy over at his ivy league school and he endorses infanticide. You okay with that? Is it okay for a mother to kill her child if it poses a threat to her happiness? Why or why not? What is your basis for morality?
You accuse God of brutality and genocide, but underlying those remarks is the idea that a person deserves to live and that human life is valuable. Why do you think that? What is special about humans? Just because we’re further up the evolutionary chart? Why is it wrong for God to judge someone? You’re a lawyer. Make the case.

EnnisP on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 9:52 am

Hey Mark,
Your arguments are sound in the technical sense of traditional orthodoxy but the question is, does tradition represent biblical information in the most accurate way. These are God’s laws which are basically spiritual but they are applied among humans on planet earth which is practical. Giving only a spiritual explanation doesn’t satisfy every person.

One thing TL, and others who share his opinions, bring to the table is an observation about Christian bias. We over read “nice” in the context where Israel is concerned and “nasty” into the context where everyone else is concerned and we tend to be dismissive when asked about the practicalities.

I’m not saying the bias is inaccurate but I think we haven’t fully justified it.

For example, capital punishment was prescribed for several sins, even breaking the Sabbath. You and I are going to give a spiritual justification for this. What that doesn’t do is explain practically how such a ruling can be justified.

We may never get an answer and some respond by suggesting “it’s God’s right to do whatever He wants” but instead we would be more honest to at least admit to the question. And I don’t mean we question God but rather explore the issue.

Mark Gomez on Sat, 9th Jan 2010 5:21 pm

Can you explain what you mean by our bias and over reading nice into Israel and nasty into everyone else? I’m not saying that Israel was always better than their neighbors, necessarily. They had plenty of failings and eventually God judged them for it. They weren’t “nice” but they were chosen. God chose them when they didn’t deserve it. He set His covenant with Abraham by His own fiat. He vividly describes the fact that there was nothing inherent in Israel that would make Him choose them, that it was just His own good pleasure. So I’m not sure where you get the Santa dichotomy between naughty and nice.
And trying to focus on the practical aspects of the law minimizes its primary purpose. If God says the primary purpose of the law is spiritual in nature, to work to preserve His people as a separate people, and to serve as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, then we need to begin with the spiritual purpose of the law when we explain the law. There were practical ramifications of the laws, but they are secondary in purpose in most cases.

Transplanted Lawyer on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 12:59 am

Mark, it’s not my intent to begin a second career as a Biblical scholar and ancient language historian, and if that’s what’s necessary to understand Christianity that that demonstrates perhaps more eloquently than anything else I could point to (or would even argue myself) that the religion is based on things which are now obsolescent and therefore not useful to modern life.

It is my intent to read the story and see what moral lesson it’s trying to tell me. When I open up the Bible, which I’m told again and again is the inerrant word of God and the highest moral authority available, I see the word “rape” used. I can only presume that the translators did their best to convey in English the meaning of their source material. In virtually every culture that has ever existed, the notion of consent to sex has been contrasted with rape, and it seems a fair assumption on the part of a non-expert that when the Bible uses the word “rape” it does so for the purpose of distinguishing consensual sex from non-consensual sex.

And if there is “room for mercy” within laws that appear on their face to be draconian, then the credit for mercy should go to those who show mercy rather than to the author of the law who would have authorized the disproportionate and cruel punishment. To use your example, if Joseph would have been within his legal rights to have had Mary stoned to death for adultery, then I say, shame on the author of the law (who we are told is Jehovah himself) because whatever personal injury adultery wreaks it is not an offense worth killing for under any circumstances, and congratulations to Joseph for staying his hand when a less temperate and compassionate man could easily have acted within the latitude for murder permitted him by an unjust law.

In other words, it does not exonerate Jehovah’s cruelty in fashioning bad laws that humans actually administered them with justice. Laws should be inherently just, and the laws of the Bible do not always meet that description.

Mark Gomez on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 1:40 am

But TL, it was you who said you had labored to understand the moral lessons in context. Did you not understand that part of the context was that the Bible is an ancient document originally written in another language? When Christians describe the Bible as inspired, we’re talking about the original authors. God did not inspire the translators. In this case, the KJV translators made a poor word choice. Almost every other translation uses another word in this case. So your laboring to understand the moral lessons in context apparently boils down to a cursory reading in one version which itself was translated 400 years ago. Since the Bible is an ancient document in an ancient language (or 3 to be precise), there is a certain amount of scholarship that must go into understanding it. You don’t have to begin a second career as a historian or language expert. There are people who do that as a career. You can look at their findings, as I linked for you. I’m a math teacher. I have 4 kids. I don’t have the time to be an ancient language expert. But it sure wasn’t hard to find information that explains this passage. It was so easy, I wouldn’t classify it as labor.
You’re explanation of the word choice of rape shows that you didn’t even begin to read the article I linked to. You really don’t seem like you’re willing to put in any labor to understand the moral teachings here. So stop pretending you’re the one who’s committed to rational thought, when you started this argument without any objectivity whatsoever.
Then you inculpate Jehovah for his laws against sexual sins. Where do you get your ideas of justice? Do you believe in capital punishment for any crimes? Are you a pacifist? Is there ever a justification for taking the life of another? If so, then how do you determine that? Who gets to decide? You still haven’t answered the question of where you draw a basis for morality. Before you say its cruel and unjust for God to require the death penalty for certain crimes, you need to establish what your basis for determining cruelty and justice is.

Transplanted Lawyer on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 2:51 am

You raise some fair questions, Mark, and some unfair ones, and you raise more questions. I also find your tone to be somewhat different than that of Ennis, so if my tone seems different in response to you than it did to Ennis, it is because I am responding in kind to what I see pointed at me.

My moral compass is derived from a blend of the philosophical traditions of deontology (Kant) and utilitarianism (Bentham). My opinions about capital punishment and pacifism are irrelevant to this discussion.

We can all agree that exceptional heinous acts like murder and rape are wrong. We can all agree that the punishment for a particular crime should be roughly proportionate to the crime that has been committed. These concepts are not subject to serious intellectual dispute in Western society.

You seem to take umbrage at the idea that I would dare to morally judge the commands of God. Your entire objection to my criticism of the Bible is therefore based on the fallacy of special pleading: if God does it, it must be good. That means that there is no such thing as good or evil in the objective sense — there is only that which pleases God, and that which does not please God.

As an example of this special pleading, I notice that neither you nor Ennis have chosen to offer an apology for the massacre of the Midianites yet. Why was it appropriate for the Israelites to commit genocide on the Midianites? What had the women and children of Midian — noncombatants who Moses made a point of saying had to be slaughtered, even after they had been captured, raped, and enslaved — done to deserve death? Or is Jehovah’s fiat enough to justify this?

It’s not just the KJV that uses the word “rape.” The versions used by the Roman Catholics and the various Orthodox sects do, as well. This bad translation is a relatively common error. Nevertheless, if I cannot properly understand the Bible without an examination into its translation and evolution and an expert analysis thereof, then the Bible ought not to be distributed as a stand-alone document, nor held out by Christians to be such a document. However, the vast majority of Christians I come across tell me that all I need to live a good life is the Bible, and since I am not a Christian I have to take them at their word with regards to the teachings of their religion. Perhaps you’re telling me that those other Christians are wrong and only you and people who think like you do are the “true” Christians by virtue of your reliance on extra-Biblical source material. I don’t expect you to answer for what people you don’t know may have said to me, but the question remains: if the Bible is not a stand-alone document, why has this additional information omitted?

I fully understand that the Bible is an ancient document, written in ancient times by ancient people. That’s my point: this is a barbaric, archaic, brutal document containing barbaric, archaic, brutal moral codes, written by members of a barbaric, archaic, brutal society. Some of the apologia offered by Ennis concedes this point — what was necessary three thousand years ago to compel moral behavior and keep order is no longer necessary in today’s age. Ennis stops short of the ultimate implication of this line of thought, which is that the Bible is obsolete and therefore should be discarded.

In its place, I want to encourage people to think about morality for themselves, rather than to outsource their moral decision-making to the ignorant Bronze Age shepherds whose barbaric customs and risible folklore have been irrationally assigned the mantle of divine inspiration through the random machinations of history.

Mark Gomez on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 5:24 am

TL, thanks for your response. I apologize if my tone is insulting or overly combative. I did not intend to come across that way. I have no problem with the tone of your response, so if it is in kind, I guess we’re okay with the tone of this discussion? I’ll try to ask less questions in future responses.
Deontological utilitarianism (I think I just made that up) is an interesting blend. It doesn’t really answer the question though. If you’re a deontologist, how do you come up with the duties that we are bound to? If you’re a utilitarianist, how do you come up with the highest good, or to put it another way, how do you determine “good”?
You and I both agree that murder and rape is wrong, but to say that there is universal agreement is untrue. I mentioned Peter Singer before. There are plenty like him who think infanticide is okay on utilitarian principles. I bring up your views on capital punishment and pacifism to see if you think it is ever okay to kill a person. I want to clarify your position a little better. Are you saying its never right to kill a person or are you saying that in some circumstances it is okay, but Jehovah is overdoing it?
I don’t take umbrage to the fact that you would morally judge the decrees of God (although I’m sure He does), but I am curious how you reject absolute morality and then call something evil.
As far as special pleading goes, what I’m saying is that if we presuppose that there is a God, then He is the source of morality, both through His nature and His decrees. If there is a God who has revealed Himself, then man has rebelled against Him. He has revealed that the payment for that rebellion is death. So each person is deserving of death. If there is a God, then He is also in control of the method of that death and has the right to judge men in the way He sees fit. In this case, it is illogical for you to say, “God is unjust.” Because if there is a God who has created and revealed Himself, then justice flows out of His nature and His decrees. This is just a form of deontology (divine command theory) which I’m sure you’re familiar with. Along with that, once you reject the existence of God, it becomes very difficult to speak of objective good or evil.

As far as your question about the Bible being a stand-alone document, the answer is yes and no. Because the Bible you have been reading is a translation, it is vulnerable to the problems that come with any translation. For the most part, the English Bible is understandable, regardless of the version, and is sufficient for a man to believe in God by faith. But in some areas, there are difficult passages which are made difficult by virtue of the differences in language. But God has provided the Christian with certain resources: the Spirit and the community of believers. If I have trouble understanding a difficult passage, I can turn to a brother in Christ who is a linguist and has studied the underlying language to help me understand it. I don’t need that for every verse or even the vast majority of verses. But here is a case where an understanding of the original languages helps to clear up a difficult passage. I am not saying that all 10 of your objections can be cleared up with an understanding of the Hebrew language, but #6 can.
Finally, to say that we as Christians have irrationally outsourced our moral decision-making to ignorant Bronze Age shepherds completely ignores the personalities and teachings of the New Testament authors. Paul, the uber-educated, Roman-citizen, Greek-philosopher Jew, was no ignorant shepherd. Through his epistles, God has explained the purpose and role of the law for the New Testament believer. The NT believer no longer has the same socio-political aspirations as the OT saint who lived in a theocracy.
Finally, when you say that you want to encourage people to think about morality for themselves, does it matter what conclusions they come to? If Peter Singer’s arguments caught on in a society, would it be okay for them to enforce a law requiring the death of a down syndrome or disabled child for utilitarian purposes? What about NAMBLA? You okay with older men coming to the moral decision that its okay to have sex with little boys based on utilitarian views of hedonism? I haven’t outsourced my moral decision-making to ignorant Bronze Age shepherds (which, by the way, Moses received the best possible education in the Pharaoh’s house in Egypt). I’ve moved my basis for morality out of myself and into the creator of heaven and earth. I don’t have the time right now to give a full defense for the existence of God, and I doubt it would sway you. But there are rational defenses out there and you can’t call my position irrational until you’ve dealt with those.
As far as not dealing with #1, the genocide of the Midianites, I’ll try to tackle it later on, or at least link to someone who’s dealt with it. Or you could try to Google it yourself. There are defenses out there. None of them will meet your standard since you reject Divine Command Theory out of hand, but they’re there.

Transplanted Lawyer on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 5:57 am

Fair enough, Mark. I think I’ve said what I wish to say on this topic by now so I’m content to let yours be the last word. (Unless our gracious host wants to chime in.)

Mark Gomez on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 6:01 am

I feel the same way. I appreciate your bringing up these passages because there were a couple that I had not yet dealt with. A pastor-friend of mine used to pound into my head that Christianity should be a thinking man’s religion and I want to be true to that. I may at some time take up on my blog a few of your other points that have not yet been dealt with, but I have 4 kids, a beautiful wife, and a demanding job. Yet I find these discussions fascinating. We’ll see.

EnnisP on Sun, 10th Jan 2010 11:05 pm

Just dropping in to say I haven’t forgotten the discussion. It has been a particularly busy weekend so had little time but have read through the discussion. Won’t add anything now but will work on some of the other questions. Have a good week.

RD HoskEN - "Dr. Bob the CompuNerd" on Tue, 26th Jan 2010 10:31 pm