[This post has related or continuing thoughts from this post.]
The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament of the Bible have some sections with laws, codes, and instructions in it. Certain of these laws seem downright bizarre, strange, or morally disturbing. I’ve seen some of these odd laws used to make a laughing stock of the Bible or to show it to be misogynistic or morally reprehensible. Simple examples are the instruction not to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk, or to mix the fabrics of wool and linen together. What in the world? Not all of the laws or instructions are odd – for example, the Ten Commandments contain basic ethical principles that transcend across time.
But what about the weird or morally disturbing rules? We need to remember that these are ancient eastern laws from over 3,000 years ago. The Bible is the only ancient book most people have on their bookshelf. There are other ancient laws and legal codes from antiquity such as the Code of Ur-namma, Code of Eshnunna, Code of 
Hammurabi, Hittite Law Code, and Middle Assyrian Laws. I don’t think anyone except specialized scholars have these on their bookshelf! If we were to look through these other ancient codes and laws, I’m sure we’d also find some odd and disturbing things. The Bible is put in a unique position because it is the only one still widely available to everyday people. It is a rather unique situation to pick up a book that contains laws from over 3,000 years ago!
If today, we were able to put together a sampling of modern laws and judicial decisions and send them back in time 3,000 years – I am certain that these ancient people of long ago would find some of our modern laws downright bizarre or repulsive too.
All laws are written within a culture and reflect the culture. In order to understand them, we need to take the time to understand the culture and historical situation. The ancient near eastern culture was polytheistic, patriarchal, polygamist, and prostitution was common. (Hmm…all those start with P!) Women were considered property and treated harshly. The worship of some false gods included things like the sacrifice of babies and young children. In the fertility cults, sexual activity was part of their worship.
Into this harsh reality, God stepped in to call out a special people unto himself. Some of the laws in the Old Testament were not to create an ideal society, but were to soften the worst effects and harshness of already existing practices. My regular readers know I’m a bit of a Christian feminist, and sensitive about the rights and treatment of women. Some of the laws regarding the treatment of women are disturbing. Yet, one of my professors (Dr. James Allman) explained that some of the Old Testament laws were not establishing new practices, but regulating already existing ones in the culture. While some laws seem very hostile to women, there is actually a degree of humanitarianism as the laws are mitigating some of the miserable treatment of women in the culture at that time.
And what about some of these random odd rules about not boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk, or mixing the fabrics of wool and linen together? There are different theories and ideas here. Archeology can sometimes shed light on these issues, but not always. Sometimes scholars must make educated guesses. Avoiding idolatry was critical for the Israelites. They were to avoid any of the practices or rituals associated with pagan deity worship. It could be that boiling a young goat or the mixing of wool and linen was associated with pagan rituals, and therefore they were to avoid these things.
I realize this post is written in more of a general sense, but I hope it might help bring a little perspective. Many aspects of the Bible transcend across time and transfer easily to our modern day. As we read historical narratives, it can be comforting to realize that families deal with some of the same problems now as back then. Yet, the Bible also took place in an ancient setting and some things, like certain laws, are unique to that culture and time.
Instead of making fun or discrediting the Bible, we need to remember that the Bible must be read a little differently than other books. It is highly unusual that we have such an ancient text so well preserved and widely available. It is an amazing gift to have the history of God’s work in this world recorded for us. Let’s try to respect this gift.
Well put, Laura. I especially liked this gem: “All laws are written within a culture and reflect the culture.” Perhaps it’s because of my own profession, but it struck me as being helpful for every Bible reader to keep in mind. It’s similar to what Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote too: “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” He meant that people don’t look at what makes the most sense and then create a written code designed to create the best behavior possible; they look at what is going on around them and then write rules to fit those situations and behaviors.
Your graphic toward the end was a great coincidence too. As i read your article I was thinking of the Bible at my bedside, which happens to be the Archaeological Study Bible. I’m reading through it from Genesis to revelation (Not the first study Bible I’ve done this with, as this is my regular form of quiet time). It takes excerpts from a lot of those ancient documents you mention and presents them side by side with Scripture. Really interesting to see where they intersect and where they diverge. There’s a lot more more connection than people might expect, but the points of divergence are even more telling.
Tim
Actually Tim, I really like this gem from you: “…people don’t look at what makes the most sense and then create a written code designed to create the best behavior possible; they look at what is going on around them and then write rules to fit those situations and behaviors.” – Very well put. I also think it reveals something great about our God – so willing to step into our mess and work with us humans right where we are…even the harsh pagan ancient culture.
Willing enough to step into our mess ultimately in the incarnation – what a mind-bender you pose, Laura! Can you imagine being God and then putting yourself under earth-bound authorities? “Oh, a temple tax, yes. Well Peter, you go do some fishing and find what you need to pay it off for you and me both.”
Well written, as always. But to offer a different perspective, it seems to me that the striking similarity between the Old Testament and other ancient writings shows it to be just another product of its time. I find it unlikely that a God who transcends time and space would inspire people in the time of Moses to write things that fit with other writings from the time of Moses. Why should we assume that required inspiration at all? I think if you appeal to the Code of Hammurabi and such like in an effort to show its similarities to the Bible, then it becomes harder to make the case that things like the Code of Hammurabi are uninspired, but the Bible is.
I also think some of these laws become much harder to rationalize when dealt with specifically. Like the example from Numbers 31 that I mentioned in your last post. Or Numbers 11, where the Israelites have been eating nothing but manna every meal of every day for years, and they ask for some meat. God decides to send them quail, but he also sends a plague among the people because they had the audacity to ask for a menu change. And yet, to an omnipotent god, you would think that any meal he sent them would be effortless, even if it was a different item every meal.
I know some Christians, like UnkleE for example, are troubled enough by the Old Testament that they don’t view it as completely accurate. They just find too many inconsistencies with the portrayal of God there compared to his portrayal in the NT. I also know of Christians who accept the entirety of the Bible as perfect and completely inspired — this typically leads them to have a much harsher view of God than if they only accepted the NT. They view him as strict and fierce, but also possessing some measure of love and mercy. Many Christians in this camp tend to be more legalistic — they can see that God did not tolerate any violation of his laws, and they think that still applies today. Hence their objection to women in the ministry, gay marriage, even divisions over which kind of baptism is the right kind.
Which end of that spectrum do you think you lean toward? Are these difficult passages in the OT accurately inspired, or do you think there may be some imperfections there?
Hey Nate! I always appreciate your comments as they challenge me to think. Regarding your first paragraph – we just see this totally differently. For me, the absence of parallels rather than their presence (between the Bible and other ancient texts) would raise suspicions about the integrity of the Bible! I see it as an amazing characteristic of God that he so graciously condescends himself and communicates with people in a way that matches the time in history. If God stepped in and used methods totally foreign to the place and time…likely the people would be frightened, confused, or otherwise would not understand.
My “appeal” to the Code of Hammurabi was more about ethnocentrism. To understand any document we’ve got to understand the time it was written in.
You are very right that certain individual laws can be harder to rationalize when dealt with specifically. Perhaps in a future post I can try to address some specifically and in more detail. I was just aiming for the “big picture” in this post.
I do believe the OT is accurately inspired. You mention the “inconsistencies with the portrayal of God there (OT) compared to his portrayal in the NT.” But I think there are differing ways to look at it. I’m a big believer in the concept of “progressive revelation” – that God did not “dump the whole truck” in Genesis but slowly over time revealed himself to humanity…culminating in the revelation of the Son. I don’t see inconsistency between OT and NT, but more that God revealed more about himself as time progressed. And that God works in different ways at different times and circumstances. One circumstance may require more “fierceness” and another more “love”. God is both wrathful and good, and I personally don’t see an inconsistency in that. Human parents might be an illustration…there are times they are firm and times they are lenient.
So those are a few thoughts. Again, thanks for the comments and questions.
Nate, Interesting questions – hope I’m not being presumptuous by posting a response/opinion, Laura! As usual, I really enjoyed your post. Back to Nate – if God’s law delivered through Moses introduced a new idea of morality in a context with which the people were familiar… well… that absolutely seems inspired to me. The laws were different – but not so foreign that the people had no frame of reference. There are so many factors at play when reading the Old Testament. Understanding that it was written by people from a polytheistic culture who understood their gods as mighty deities always to be appeased would certainly affect the way they learned about God and the way that they wrote about him. That is not to say that the Old Testament is not inspired or inaccurate – just acknowledging that humans wrote it and their culture and traditions would certainly affect their writing style.
I am no history buff, so many contextual things are new to me and they almost never fail to lend clarity and meaning to scripture.
Some of the tough laws – like those against cross-dressing and even homosexuality could be framed as terrible abominations BECAUSE they were part of pagan worship rituals, and God wished to separate himself from such things. It may go much deeper than that, but that’s one way of reading such laws.
As for Numbers 11 – that seems like an odd one to cause you confusion. I don’t think it was about God’s effort at all. Would not any parent be angry with a child who looks upon the good things you’ve provided for them – which are more than enough – and complains and turns up their nose?
Finally, I do not see a contradiction between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. If humanity did not face insurmountable obstacles to God, there would have been no need for Jesus. So the situation of the people in the New Testament required the back story of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament exacted justice but also offered mercy and guidance – just as he did through Jesus in the New Testament.
Thanks for these thoughts daretodelve. I’m glad you jumped in. I think we were typing at the same time b/c just as I was posting I saw your post was there too. I really like your thoughts in the entire first paragraph! I was trying to say something similar in my response but your wording brings more clarity. People do need a frame of reference…without it they’d be lost. And I agree that the Bible can be both inspired and the writing style be a reflection of the culture and human personality. Your other thoughts are helpful too.
Are you back blogging? I haven’t noticed anything by you in a long while unless I’ve just missed it. Glad to see you around! : )
Laura – I haven’t been around in a while, but still reading and studying.
Hoping to get back to it, though. Thank you for noticing! I need to catch up with your blog, too. Take care!
Hi daretodelve, thanks for the comment!
But if you don’t mind my asking, what is it about the Bible that makes you think it was inspired at all? The similarities to other ancient writings give me trouble. Let me see if I can explain it another way…
What if we were comparing two guitarists, say Eric Clapton and Stevie Ray Vaughan? Both are excellent. And while there are noticeable differences between the two, if someone told you that one of them had been divinely inspired while the other was just gifted and a product of his own time, how would you know which is which? That’s how I view the Bible. The Law of Moses does not seem better to me than the Code of Hammurabi or the Code of Ur-Nammu. The fact that the Israelites believed every good and bad thing that happened to them was the result of Yahweh’s actions is no different than how all the other nations felt about their own gods (the Moabite Stone is a good example of this). Some of the Mosaic laws are good — don’t covet, don’t commit adultery, don’t murder, honor your parents, etc. But some (as Laura has noted) are bizarre, or even seemingly immoral. Like the law that if someone beats his slave, but the slave lives a couple of days before dying, then no big deal. And when Yahweh wants the Israelites to inherit Canaan, he doesn’t transplant the Canaanites, or simply convert them to Judaism — he tells the Israelites to slaughter every single one of them. Those parts of the Bible seem very problematic, and to me, they greatly reduce the likelihood that the Bible was actually inspired by a god. Could you say what aspects of it convince you that it was really inspired?
Also, I brought up the episode from Lev 11, because it seems like a harsh way to deal with their request. I have three young kids, and yes, I sometimes get aggravated when they complain about the meal I’ve fixed them. At the same time, I would expect complaining if I fixed them the same thing every single meal of every single day for years on end. And if they complained about that, what right would I have to beat one of them in response? Or worse, kill them?
Thanks again for your comment!
Hi Laura, excellent post, and I agree with most of what you say. But it does have one big consequence, that some people may not be happy with.
If we say ” some of the Old Testament laws were not establishing new practices, but regulating already existing ones in the culture.” and ” the Bible also took place in an ancient setting and some things, like certain laws, are unique to that culture and time” then we have to also say that some, perhaps all, of the OT doesn’t apply today. That includes, perhaps, the teaching on homosexuality and women, on crime and punishment, even the Ten Commandments.
The NT syas as much. Jesus several times in Matthew 5 said that his teachings updated the OT laws including some of the Commandments, and explained this in Luke 16:16:
Paul also said clearly in several places that we no longer serve God according to the OT law (e.g. 2 Cor 3:6), and even included one of the Ten Commandments in his examples of old laws that are no longer binding on us (Romans 7:6-7).
This doesn’t make the OT useless. As you say, it shows “the history of God’s work in this world” – or at least, some of it. And it shows us how God prepared his people from the coming of Jesus. Thanks for some stimulating ideas.
Howdy Unklee!
Believe it or not, I completely agree with you on this. The entire book of Hebrews, for instance, makes the case that the OT, while serving a valid and necessary purpose, has done what it needed to do and is no longer in effect. If it were, Christians would still be required to observe the Sabbath Day (which is Saturday). I’m always surprised when I hear Christians (not saying Laura here, because I don’t know how she sees this) talk about following the 10 Commandments. The NT, Paul especially, teaches that the Old Law has passed, and the real pathway to God is Jesus.
It is nice to think we can agree on something more Nate!
Hey Unklee! Well, you take my post in a different direction than I intended for it, but these are good thoughts too. I essentially agree, but might word some things differently. Saying that “some or perhaps all of the OT doesn’t apply today” makes me uncomfortable – that is not how I’d word it. Don’t get me wrong – I totally agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law – all of it! A variety of NT verses could be used to back that up – like the ones you give. And I agree with Nate’s thoughts on Hebrews. Hebrews is clear that Jesus is superior to the prophets, law, sacrifice system, etc.
Yet, I just don’t like the wording that the OT does not “apply” today. For example, frequently in the NT various people or events from the OT are referenced in order to teach us something or as some type of example for us. As we learn things from their lives, this certainly applies to us today.
And even though the law was fulfilled, there are some OT ethics that are repeated in the NT. For example, most of the 10 Commandments (all except the Sabbath I think) are repeated in the NT. By that I mean there are verses in the NT that, in one way or another, also teach that we should not commit adultery, steal, put things above God (idolatry), etc. I’m not trying to say we are back under the law! We clearly are not, but there are some ethical standards that transfer from the Old to New. Today it is different – we are not under the OT law, but under the “law of love” (Romans 13:10, James 2:8, etc). Our motivations and purposes are different. I guess perhaps my concern is with seeing “law” and “love” as mutually exclusive or opposed to each other. I’m not so sure they are. For example, Jesus also said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And love itself is also a command of the law (Matthew 22:36-40).
Well, thanks for giving me the opportunity to think through this. I hope my thoughts make some sense? Any thoughts back welcome unklee!
“I find it unlikely that a God who transcends time and space would inspire people in the time of Moses to write things that fit with other writings from the time of Moses.”
G’day Nate, hope you’re having a good new year! I wonder why you find this unlikely? If God wanted to be “obvious”, he could have done a lot more than he has done, so that doesn’t seem to be a likely hypothesis. But if we assume he doesn’t choose to be obvious but rather work through more natural means, then surely he would always choose to communicate in relevant ways. Besides, if he had communicated what we believe to be truth to Moses, no-one would have understood it – see Moses learns science. I wonder whether you find this unlikely because of the form of christianity you grew up with – but having rejected that form of christianity, it would be surely worth considering rejecting any expectations you have that flow from it?
.“it becomes harder to make the case that things like the Code of Hammurabi are uninspired”
I wonder too why you assume that the code of Hammurabi isn’t inspired by God in some way? Christians generally believe in “common grace”, that God is at work in all places and cultures in some way, and that ultimately all good things come from him. So if that code brought greater goodness and controlled wickedness, why couldn’t it also have been inspired?
Missionary Don Richardson found a remarkable “redemptive analogy” in the culture of the West Papua Sawi people – by which he meant ways he could see God had been preparing these tribespeople to know him. He went on to research such analogies and found evidence of them all over the world – see his book Eternity in their hearts.
I can see here why you might not agree here, because I suspect here also you are using concepts from the form of christianity that you have rejected, in this case the definition of inspired that you are using. But if we take inspired to mean that God stimulates people to search for him and find him in ways relevant to their culture, then I believe we can see God inspiring all sorts of things. Of course we believe the Bible is inspired in a special way, but I don’t think the inspiration is all that different, rather the applicability and authority is.
Best wishes.
I hope you’re having a great new year too!
It’s true that most Christians I know personally don’t hold to the views you just described. That being said, I don’t have any particular problem with what you’re proposing — only that it doesn’t seem much like Christianity to me. I’d view it more like Deism — a god who has communicated with us through most cultures and beliefs in some way or another. While such a thing is possible, I think it makes it harder to isolate to a particular god like Jehovah. Much of the Bible, OT and NT, talk about there only being one way to God, and it’s narrow. All other ways are false. And there would be no reason to convert others to Christianity because all paths lead to the same mountaintop.
But if we ignore the parts of the Bible that teach exclusivity and drop the idea of inerrancy that I grew up with, then sure, I think the idea you raise is possible. In fact, if there is a god, and he/she/it interacts with us in some way, then I think the way you describe would be it. But as I’ve said before, I personally haven’t had any experiences that make me think there’s a god out there. And while others claim to have those experiences, I’m a little skeptical of them. So until I have similar experiences, faith in God is just not something I can force myself into. I’m actually okay with that too — I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.
But in my opinion, the larger consequence of this position is that posts like Laura’s aren’t really necessary. If God speaks to us all through many different cultures and beliefs, then we don’t really have to explain the rougher parts of the Bible. They either aren’t entirely accurate, or they just don’t matter because other paths will work just as well.
Does that line of thought make sense, or am I missing something? Thanks!
I’ll delete this later, but I am tired and going to bed and can’t reply to all these interesting comments until tomorrow! : ) Thanks all for the interesting dialogue!
“I’d view it more like Deism — a god who has communicated with us through most cultures and beliefs in some way or another. …. other paths will work just as well. Does that line of thought make sense, or am I missing something? .”
Well Nate, I think you are making sense, but I wouldn’t completely agree (sorry!).
That God communicates through other cultures is a Biblical teaching. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, God reveals himself so that other people may find him (Acts 17:27) and people will be judged by the light they have been given (Romans 2:14-16). It wouldn’t be fair any other way. I have written on this at Can only christians be saved?
But Jesus is still the ultimate truth and the only way to God. Even though others can receive the benefits of his life and death and kingship, it is better to know him and be more explicitly on his team. Salvation isn’t our only aim, but also building the kingdom and serving others, and we can do that if we are better connected to the “head”.
“I personally haven’t had any experiences that make me think there’s a god out there. And while others claim to have those experiences, I’m a little skeptical of them. So until I have similar experiences, faith in God is just not something I can force myself into.”
I think it would be wrong to try to make yourself believe something you didn’t think was right. But overt experiences are not the only way to know God – there is philosophy, history, other people’s experiences and, most of all, the life of Jesus. We cannot make ourselves believe, but we can give God the opportunity by seeking, praying and being open. I don’t suggest you are necessarily ready for that yet, but I would hope you might be one day.
Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss these important matters.
Unklee and Nate – I was just reading through your back and forth dialogue. Thanks, both of you, for sharing all these thoughts publicly for us to consider! I’ll only add on a few thoughts.
Nate said: “I find it unlikely that a God who transcends time and space would inspire people in the time of Moses to write things that fit with other writings from the time of Moses.” Unklee’s link to “Moses learns science” was quite good. (While I don’t agree with everything in the Moses conversation, I definitely agree with the primary point being made by Unklee.) If God communicated in a way that did not “fit” in any way with the current time and culture – the people would not get it. God’s communication would not be understood.
Unklee – thanks for mentioning the Don Richardson book. I have heard about that book for many years, and always wanted a copy. Well, last yr I stumbled upon a copy at a local thrift store. But have not read it yet. I’ll be bumping it up in my “to read” stack!
I agree Unklee that we can see hints of biblical truth in so much of the world – nature, other cultures, other religions, etc. Nate: “I’d view it more like Deism — a god who has communicated with us through most cultures and beliefs in some way or another. While such a thing is possible, I think it makes it harder to isolate to a particular god like Jehovah.” Nate – this does the opposite for me – it makes it easier for me to isolate a particular God like Jehovah. That we can see “hints” in so many aspects of this world points to one underlying truth being behind it all.
Isn’t that what the miracles were for? Several places in the Bible say that signs were performed so that people would believe the message they were hearing. If Moses had told the Israelites that they should treat all people with equality, that slavery was wrong, that women had as much value as men, etc, and then followed it up with all the same signs and wonders that were exhibited in the Bible, why wouldn’t people have understood it? Sure, other nations had bizarre practices involving sacrifices and superstition, but they had no true signs to back those up. If someone came along with the obvious power of God, I think people would have listened.
The other problem is that making the Bible so similar to what other cultures were doing at the time only makes it harder for people today to believe it — at least those of us who are skeptics. And we don’t have anyone like Moses to display God’s power for us to see it. Noah, Gideon, Hezekiah, Ahab, Jonah, Nebuchadnezzar, Peter, Paul — all of them received miraculous signs to convince them that the God of the Bible was true — why don’t people like me receive the same kinds of signs? Does God show partiality?
A true God would not have to mimic the false ones just to get people to believe in him.
Nate, I feel ill-equipped for this debate, but I’ll answer how I can!
First, I happily confess that there are still passages in the Bible that confuse or even disturb me. I have also found that if I seek answers from people who have studied extensively, my concerns are usually addressable in quite logical ways. But I do not think I will ever completely reconcile every hangup. The difference for me is (sorry to disappoint) personal experience. I’ve felt a distinctive… well… pull from the time I was 11 years old. I believe that the Bible is inspired because it is a uniquely historical set of ancient documents written by many people that include personal, often dramatic and/or supernatural experiences of one God. These writings were carefully vetted. Many VERY smart biblical scholars can give you excellent reasons for believing, but many VERY smart atheist scholars can give you reasons for not believing, too. Again, I think most concerns can be addressed (and not in an out-there way), but at some point, faith has to take over. I do believe that the Bible is representative of my God. I believe that John 14:6 is accurate: “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” THAT BEING SAID, I do no think that eliminates the possibility of coming to Jesus in a way that is different from mine, perhaps calling it something else entirely, perhaps even without conscious understanding.
The scary slaughter in the Old Testament is tough, I agree. My personal view right now, until someone can further clarify for me is that God is just and death is not the end. I trust that he will ultimately be fair to his ENTIRE creation. If he had to establish the Israelites in that way to ultimately bring peace to other nations through them, I trust that. I don’t think that translates for people. WE do not know all hearts and minds intimately or have after-death authority, so I do not believe that I should choose violence just because it is all over the Old Testament. I am not insensitive at all. Death rips the people who are left apart, and they suffered, I’m sure. I think the factors God considers are unfathomable – can you imagine the ripple effects of every tiny decision from every person on the planet throughout the ages?
So, I don’t know why he chooses the methods of interaction that he does… but it seems like kind of a moot question. If he chose to do it a different way, we would wonder about that, too.
One more thing on Num. 11. Conceivably, God was angry because this was just one more way in which his provision for the people and the miracles he sent to help them were not being appreciated or acknowledged. The people had no business complaining: They were given simple, specific instructions when they left Egypt and they just couldn’t follow them. God could have abandoned them right then and there. He chose to punish them according to the scriptures, with plagues and with 40 years in the wilderness, but they would have died without him there at all, as they frequently exhibited. And perhaps the “punishment” was in fact simply God taking his grace from them for a moment, during which they became sick or lost their way. I can only imagine that disease in a huge wandering party would be rampant. Seems a wonder there was anyone left after 40 years.
Thanks to everyone for the great conversation. I think I see where you’re all coming from, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain your positions. It’s nice to be able to express these varying ideas without devolving into arguments.
daretodelve, it was nice to “meet” you
Laura and unkleE — always a pleasure!
Hey Nate! Replying to your comment a few above where you quote me and refer to miracles. There is no reply button below what you wrote, so I’m posting here. Well, God did use miracles to validate things but he still communicated in a way they’d understand – like putting the laws in a format for that time, making a “covenant” which was something done back then, etc.
“If Moses had told the Israelites that they should treat all people with equality, that slavery was wrong, that women had as much value as men, etc, and then followed it up with all the same signs and wonders that were exhibited in the Bible, why wouldn’t people have understood it? ” – I see your point here and it is a good one – why didn’t God just immediately make things right instead of just softening the current culture and planting seeds of change for the future?
But isn’t this rather naive or unrealistic? God is dealing with human beings – change rarely occurs instantly but over time in individuals. And for a society at large, it can take a couple generations or more for real change to come especially with major cultural norms. True and lasting change also needs to come from the heart – not from being dictated to. If God had just stepped in, gave drastic new laws (as you mention) along with miracles to validate – yes, the people could have “understood” – but does that mean overnight capability of change? I don’t think so. The people likely would have been stupefied by it. The ancient pagan culture was severe and extreme. They also likely would have felt they were being squash liked bugs by God. New problems might have been created. One might ask, couldn’t God have given them the power to instantly change? I suppose so. But here we have that balance between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
I know in my life personally, that true and lasting change has come to me NOT when I was slammed over the head with a drastic new command or demand – but rather when I slowly over time came to understand and realize that something was wrong. “Light” came a little at a time with slow incremental changes and understanding. Slam over the head can bring change, but usually it is only temporary and creates someone doing the right thing for wrong reasons.
Awhile back i read about missionary work in a culture where polygamy was practiced (I think it was not a current situation but a reference to one from yrs ago). The way I remember it – the missionaries, after reaching the people for Christ, immediately tried to stop polygamy. Well, the men with many wives picked one to keep and rejected all the others. These other women had no where to go, and other men did not want them as a wife since they’d already been anothers wife, and these women ended up homeless, forced into prostitution, etc. So they ended one problem only to create others. Rather, what the missionaries learned was that they had to be more patient with changes, and realized it would likely take a couple generations to slowly eradicate polygamy without creating new problems in the society.
I see God as working in a similar way and meeting people “where they are”.
Hope I didn’t say too much!! But I think we get each other Nate…meaning we are sharing thoughts not arguing. And I may have taken this in a little of a different direction…
Hi Laura, thanks for the reply!
But didn’t God operate this way anyway? He had no tolerance for idols, even though the Israelites lived in a culture of idols. Even if they had only wanted to represent Yahweh himself, God had no patience for it. When they made a mistake in something he had commanded them, he often responded by annihilating a percentage of them.
Also, I think the reason it has taken society so long to reach a higher moral standard is, in part, because the Bible didn’t try to get us there sooner. How many preachers in the 1950s and 60s taught from the Bible that integration was wrong? How many people justified slavery in this country by using the Bible? Or their treatment of women? The Inquisition found much justification in its methods from teachings found in the Bible. Why couldn’t those foundations have been laid in the time of Moses, even if it took the people several generations to achieve it?
To me, it makes much more sense to see the Bible’s striking similarities to the other religions and cultures of the time as evidence that it was not actually divinely inspired at all, but simply written by men. It doesn’t stand out remarkably because there was no omniscient being directing what was written. I understand the point you’re making, I just don’t find it plausible.
But thanks again for responding!
Hi Nate! Just a quick reply. “But didn’t God operate this way anyway?” – Sometimes yes. That can’t be denied. But there are also examples of God in the OT being patient, merciful, and giving people a chance. I also think of how God wanted to extend mercy to the Ninevites, and Jonah was angry that God wanted to be merciful to them.
Yes, the Bible has sadly been misused. And may be misused in different ways at different times in history. But I don’t think that is a reason to dis-credit either the Bible or Christianity. I think that comes back around to more of the original underlying reason for my post – to encourage a better understanding of the Bible and its application to life.
I too can honestly see the points you are making Nate, but I just don’t find it plausible either. : ) Thanks for the dialogue!
Touche
One way to take those similarities, Nate, is as you do: as evidence that the Bible is just like all those other writings in that it reflects the culture and times of its non-inspired writers. Another way is as C.S. Lewis suggested: imitations (other religions’ writings) should be expected to mimic the original (the Bible).
Cheers,
Tim