DavidSMoore
Member
Do Christians actually believe in the morality of the Old Testament? Let’s consider the Fourth Commandment:
As a general principle, certainly that is good advice. But what if your father and mother are criminals? Should you still honor them? What if a young woman’s father is a sexual predator who has raped his own daughter repeatedly-- should the daughter honor him? Or should she instead leave home and seek shelter somewhere where she isn’t likely to be raped? There is no nuance in the Commandment as stated above, so we can’t really determine what the proper course of action should be in such cases, based on the literal wording in the Bible. Furthermore, here’s what the Bible says about the punishment that should apply to disrespectful children:
So it would appear that any form of resistance to the desires of an evil parent is to be punished by death. That doesn’t seem to allow much room for children of immoral or predatory parents to defend themselves.
The Fifth Commandment says:
That is also a good rule of thumb in general, but there are exceptions-- specifically cases of accidental killing, killing in self defense, and killing in the line of duty. The Bible itself provides additional nuance for the Fifth Commandment in the following passage:
The method proposed is to provide for cities of refuge to which a manslayer may flee. Once there the manslayer may appeal to the city elders for asylum. The example given is of accidental killing. There are no specific examples in the Bible of how killing in self defense or killing in the line of duty should be handled. The passage cited above does say that the killer “did not deserve to die, since he was not at enmity with his neighbor.” But enmity is often involved in self defense killings, as in a case of two neighbors who have had a years long dispute over a fence and finally one snaps, grabs his handgun, and goes over to his neighbor’s house to finish the matter once and for all. Shouldn’t the other neighbor be considered within his rights to defend himself?
The above passage from Deuteronomy is a continuation of a long narration by Moses of the laws he received directly from God-- a narration that begins in Deuteronomy 5. So the provision for the manslayer is simply another one of the many laws that God gave directly to Moses at Mount Sinai. And that makes it every bit as much a part of the divine law as are the Ten Commandments.
In our present day legal system we don’t use cities of refuge. We have law enforcement agencies that are empowered to arrest suspects. We have hearings at which suspects are allowed to enter a plea of either innocent or guilty. We have a bail system that allows suspects to post bond to await trail outside of jail. And we have trials in a court of law in which the defendant is permitted to be represented by counsel. There is nothing in the Old Testament about any of that. Do present day Christians (or Jews or Muslims) think we should dispense with our modern system and implement cities of refuge as specified by the Bible? I have never heard any religious leader demand such a thing.
Leviticus Chapter Four describes what are known as “Sin Offerings.” There are four types of such offerings that are based on the person’s position in Hebrew society. But generally the person applying for forgiveness of a sin must provide a perfect animal of a type that depends on the person’s station in society to the priests of the Hebrew Temple. The priests, if they accept the animal, will then perform a ritual sacrifice at the Temple that is very specific-- right down to the number of drops of the animal’s blood that the priests must sprinkle on the horns of the altar. If all goes well, then the person’s sin will be forgiven.
The first words of Leviticus Chapter Four are:
That is, the rules concerning Sin Offerings were given to Moses directly by God. That could have happened at only one time and one place-- at Mount Sinai, when God gave the entire system of laws to Moses. Does anyone actually believe that we should revive this method of forgiving sins? I have never heard any Christian leader argue for doing so.
Exodus 21:1 - 11 states the laws given by God concerning slavery. Those laws recognize slavery as a perfectly valid institution. So clearly the God of the Bible approves of slavery. Does that mean we should make slavery legal again? Again, no modern religious leaders are calling for that.
And there are a great many conditions of modern life that the Old Testament laws have said nothing whatsoever about: labor unions, voting rights, car insurance, chemical pollution, trading in derivatives, the ozone hole, global climate change-- to name but a few.
The laws of the Old Testament were supposedly given to Moses by God. If that were true, then certainly all human societies would have an obligation to obey them. But there are many aspects of that ancient code that are superficial, incomplete, or just plain out of step with present day realities. No one believes that slavery is a necessary institution for a modern society. No one believes that cities of refuge, or sin offerings as described in the Old Testament should be revived. No one believes that our present system of law enforcement, bail bonds, and a human operated judicial system should be disbanded in favor of judgment by city elders. No one thinks that we should repeal all of our laws regarding voting rights, consumer fraud, civil rights, or investment scams. It is time to regard the morality of the Old Testament as just one step in humanity’s long struggle for justice. It is not a final end point, it is not perfect, and it decidedly is not divinely inspired.
I will take up the morality of the New Testament in a future posting.
As a general principle, certainly that is good advice. But what if your father and mother are criminals? Should you still honor them? What if a young woman’s father is a sexual predator who has raped his own daughter repeatedly-- should the daughter honor him? Or should she instead leave home and seek shelter somewhere where she isn’t likely to be raped? There is no nuance in the Commandment as stated above, so we can’t really determine what the proper course of action should be in such cases, based on the literal wording in the Bible. Furthermore, here’s what the Bible says about the punishment that should apply to disrespectful children:
So it would appear that any form of resistance to the desires of an evil parent is to be punished by death. That doesn’t seem to allow much room for children of immoral or predatory parents to defend themselves.
The Fifth Commandment says:
That is also a good rule of thumb in general, but there are exceptions-- specifically cases of accidental killing, killing in self defense, and killing in the line of duty. The Bible itself provides additional nuance for the Fifth Commandment in the following passage:
The method proposed is to provide for cities of refuge to which a manslayer may flee. Once there the manslayer may appeal to the city elders for asylum. The example given is of accidental killing. There are no specific examples in the Bible of how killing in self defense or killing in the line of duty should be handled. The passage cited above does say that the killer “did not deserve to die, since he was not at enmity with his neighbor.” But enmity is often involved in self defense killings, as in a case of two neighbors who have had a years long dispute over a fence and finally one snaps, grabs his handgun, and goes over to his neighbor’s house to finish the matter once and for all. Shouldn’t the other neighbor be considered within his rights to defend himself?
The above passage from Deuteronomy is a continuation of a long narration by Moses of the laws he received directly from God-- a narration that begins in Deuteronomy 5. So the provision for the manslayer is simply another one of the many laws that God gave directly to Moses at Mount Sinai. And that makes it every bit as much a part of the divine law as are the Ten Commandments.
In our present day legal system we don’t use cities of refuge. We have law enforcement agencies that are empowered to arrest suspects. We have hearings at which suspects are allowed to enter a plea of either innocent or guilty. We have a bail system that allows suspects to post bond to await trail outside of jail. And we have trials in a court of law in which the defendant is permitted to be represented by counsel. There is nothing in the Old Testament about any of that. Do present day Christians (or Jews or Muslims) think we should dispense with our modern system and implement cities of refuge as specified by the Bible? I have never heard any religious leader demand such a thing.
Leviticus Chapter Four describes what are known as “Sin Offerings.” There are four types of such offerings that are based on the person’s position in Hebrew society. But generally the person applying for forgiveness of a sin must provide a perfect animal of a type that depends on the person’s station in society to the priests of the Hebrew Temple. The priests, if they accept the animal, will then perform a ritual sacrifice at the Temple that is very specific-- right down to the number of drops of the animal’s blood that the priests must sprinkle on the horns of the altar. If all goes well, then the person’s sin will be forgiven.
The first words of Leviticus Chapter Four are:
That is, the rules concerning Sin Offerings were given to Moses directly by God. That could have happened at only one time and one place-- at Mount Sinai, when God gave the entire system of laws to Moses. Does anyone actually believe that we should revive this method of forgiving sins? I have never heard any Christian leader argue for doing so.
Exodus 21:1 - 11 states the laws given by God concerning slavery. Those laws recognize slavery as a perfectly valid institution. So clearly the God of the Bible approves of slavery. Does that mean we should make slavery legal again? Again, no modern religious leaders are calling for that.
And there are a great many conditions of modern life that the Old Testament laws have said nothing whatsoever about: labor unions, voting rights, car insurance, chemical pollution, trading in derivatives, the ozone hole, global climate change-- to name but a few.
The laws of the Old Testament were supposedly given to Moses by God. If that were true, then certainly all human societies would have an obligation to obey them. But there are many aspects of that ancient code that are superficial, incomplete, or just plain out of step with present day realities. No one believes that slavery is a necessary institution for a modern society. No one believes that cities of refuge, or sin offerings as described in the Old Testament should be revived. No one believes that our present system of law enforcement, bail bonds, and a human operated judicial system should be disbanded in favor of judgment by city elders. No one thinks that we should repeal all of our laws regarding voting rights, consumer fraud, civil rights, or investment scams. It is time to regard the morality of the Old Testament as just one step in humanity’s long struggle for justice. It is not a final end point, it is not perfect, and it decidedly is not divinely inspired.
I will take up the morality of the New Testament in a future posting.
