The Dangerous Job of Reading the OT
I came across this anonymous letter again last year while reading Garry Wills’s book What Jesus Meant
It’s the kind of piece that makes me think deeply about how I understand the Old Testament, scripture, inerrancy, and hermeneutics. (Translation: Am I sure I want to reduce everything to “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it”?)
Supposedly someone is responding to an Evangelical leader who had condemned homosexuality by quoting the Old Testament:
“Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is
in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?(Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.”
No wonder someone like Sam Harris writes, bitterly, about the implications of living with these laws:
“The idea that the Bible is a perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the book. Admittedly, God’s counsel to parents is straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13-14). If they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7). We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, practicing sorcery, and a wide variety of other imaginary crimes. Here is just one example of God’s timeless wisdom:
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ . . . you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. . . . If you hear one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. (Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-15) (Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage)
You can see why Harris believes that it isn’t far from this to al-Qaeda, can’t you?
My guess is that many Christians haven’t really read the Old Testament. They’ve skimmed past it as a collection of edifying, inspiring stories of faith . . . or as a collection of prophecies that exhaust their usefulness as they point to Jesus . . . or as a collection of proverbial insights about how to live. But they haven’t confronted the wipe-out-all-heretics passages that fill so many of the pages.
When reading the Old Testament, we must remember these things:
1. This was the word of God first to the people of Israel — a word that came in their world with their language and culture.
2. This continues to be, the church has historically claimed, a word of God to us. It is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The church voted “no!” to Marcion’s attempts in the 2nd century to rid God’s people of the Old Testament and the OT God.
3. These texts must be read by Christians through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ — the center of our faith. There is a good bit of reinterpretation of texts in the New Testament in light of the story of Jesus. Hermeneutics — learning to live in the world of the text through the wisdom of the church as indwelt by the Spirit of God — is the difficult task we always face.
4. The Old Testament is itself in the process of development. The instructions in the prophets (Amos, Micah, etc.) sound quite different from the often-vindictive words of, say, Numbers. These words came in violent cultures and they must be seen for the way they are interacting with those cultures — as well as (often) challenging them. A flat, systematic reading of the OT is difficult, then, because there is lively debate going on within the texts themselves.
5. There is an important difference between saying that the Old Testament is authoritative for God’s people and saying that it is inerrant.
Finally, these hopeful words from Walter Brueggemann:
“The central concerns of the Bible are not flat certitudes . . . but assurances that are characterized by risk and open mystery. The quality of certitude offered by the Bible is never that of a correct answer but rather of a trusted memory, a dynamic image, a restless journey, a faithful voice. Such assurances leave us restless and tentative in the relation, and always needing to decide afresh. Rather than closing out things in a settled resolution, they tend to open things out, always in fresh and deep question and urgen invitation. The central thrust of the Bible, then, is to raise new questions, to press exploration of new dimensions of fidelity, new spheres for trust. Such questions serve as invitations to bolder, richer faithfulness. Such questions also serve as critics exposing our easy resolution, our faithless posturing, and our self-deception. If the Bible is only a settled answer, it will not reach us seriously. But it is also an open question that presses and urges and invites. For that reason the faithful community is never fully comfortable with the Bible and never has finally exhausted its gifts or honored its claims.” (The Bible Makes Sense
LOL…to the first part, not the second. Brueggemann is a helpful marvel. qb
At least part of that “letter” was used on The West Wing several years ago by President Bartlett to make the same point as he lashed out at some “Christian conservatives.”
“Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?”
I think I can *cough* “clear” this one up.
There is no biblical prohibition against refractive surgery to correct vision defects such as presbyopia (Greek for “old eyes”).
Therefore, clear lens exchange surgery with an AcrySof Restor intraocular lens or multifocal LASIK are allowed. Have one of those procedures, and you can approach the altar with confidence.
Warning: Multifocal LASIK is still investigational. Worst case scenario: you see everything (including The Bible) upside down and backwards when they’re done.
Just kidding about the last part. Not kidding about this being a much-needed and much-appreciated post.
I am reading Christopher J.H. Wirght’s book The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Wright offers the “Missional Hermeneutic” as a way of reading the O.T. that helps us avoid the concerns that you raised while being faithful to the O.T. as God’s word.
One of the things this post says to me is that I need to spend much more time seeking the God of mystery & paradox, and much less time drawing lines in the sand; more time trying to experience God and less time trying to “understand” Him; more time challenging my own motives and less time questioning the motives of others.
Thanks, Mike, for your thoughts, not only today but every day!
It’s all laws, the Bible. Laws, that’s what it is.
: )
Thanks for your honesty, Mike. It’s all about the spirit of Jesus, isn’t it? A spiritual life based on time-dated, culturally limited laws and a legalism that can be contained between book covers is just inadequate and always has been.
That would be “covenant” of course.
I appreciate the observation about many Christians not reading the Old Testament. Sad, but true.
The artful way Mike and Walter try to justify the many atrocities in the Old Testament is understandable, given their belief system, but it tends to whitewash the fact that these were actual human beings that were being subject to this type of inhumane treatment for many, many years. Just because things are different in this age of enlightenment doesn’t simply erase the past and make it okay. The fact that God sanctioned and oversaw the type of behavior described in the Old Testament is disturbing, regardless of whether it happened thousands of years ago or yesterday.
I know that after Christ came, everything changed. I’ve often wondered if God didn’t get a bad rap in the OT because maybe His priests were crooked. That we have the summary of their wrong ways so not to make the same mistakes. Man always tries to diminish God and exult himself only to fail. Yes, I have been reading C.S.Lewis.
Concerning the laws of the Old Testament, I like this quote by J. Vernon McGee:
If you can create a whole universe–and you will need a whole planetary system with sun, moon, and stars–then you can make your own commandments. But as long as you are living in God’s world, breathing his air, using the sunshine, drinking his water, walking on his earth, and not even paying rent for it, you had better obey his commands. He tells us that if we disobey his commands, we will pay for it! You may not be arrested by the local police, but you will stand before GOD some day!
Brett, I don’t believe that what God seems to have “sanctioned” then as opposed to now indicates that He has changed … but that we have, people have. At the perfect time, Christ came – to provide a perfect example that supercedes law. Before that, humanity was in desperate, edge-of-extinction need of law to help build civilization, character, respect for God.
God knew what was in the hearts of those He ordered obliterated. He must have known that their “detestable practices” would subvert His law for His people. For that matter, there are still people in the New Testament after the spread of the Gospel who have turned their backs on God and His Son and His truth, whom God abandons, giving them over to their own desires (Romans 1); whom Paul recommends handing “them over to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5).
A quick scan of any morning’s newspaper will tell you that such people still exist, untouched by the love of Christ – some even after having been exposed to it.
What exactly is the difference between God obliterating the deeply sinful in this life and destroying them in eternity? Is He not the Potter of both worlds?
Keith–Thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately, innocent children were obliterated as well. Sure, you’ll say they ended up in heaven, but it still seems more than a little extreme. That a perfect, omnibenovolent being could come up with such notions as hell, obliteration, Satan, human sacrifices, and other such constructs stretches credulity.
Why do you constantly make it difficult to walk by sight?
Very humorous but it also makes the point.
- Rex
Brett – I appreciate the reasons that are causing you doubt. I can’t determine whether the children were innocent. But I know they were God’s children, and in a culture of sacrificing children to Molech or Baal, they didn’t have a very bright future in this world.
It’s becoming more and more obvious to me as I grow older that I don’t have to understand everything about God in order to believe and to trust Him.
I believe, for instance, that the ability to choose is one of the highest privileges and blessings God has given us – and the most vulnerable expression of His faith in us. If there were no hell, obliteration, Satan, human sacrifices and other evil, there would be no choice between it and good; no significant distinction between God’s nature and something else. So, no choice.
No privilege.
No blessing.
That He authored these constructs is open to debate. I tend to believe He permitted them to be created by virtue of choice. Before Satan chose, he was Lucifer. Before hell, he was the prince of this world. (As I understand it.)
Before we choose God, we are just self self self.
Barely able to judge for ourselves. Certainly not qualified to judge God by even our best human standards.
He permits evil to happen in this world. He could prevent it. He chose, instead, to try to persuade us to be His agents of good in this world through a detestable human sacrifice – that of His Son.
Were I God, that would not have been my first choice.
Aren’t you glad I’m not?
I’m all for obeying God’s laws! He’s the one in charge.
What I’m poking at a bit, however, is the naive “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
These texts are in a kind of canonical discussion themselves. There isn’t just one opinion.
If a passage sounds more like an al-Qaeda text, I’m inclined to believe that Israel is justifying itself and (in a long tradition of religious fanaticism) saying, “God told me to do it.”
These scriptures remain the word of God to us. We live under their rule and guidance. But we use the wisdom and discernment of the Spirit-led community of faith to interpret them.
“…we use the wisdom and discernment of the Spirit-led community of faith to interpret them.”
Scary but true, kinda like that jumping off the empire state building thing. Best be in the “Spirit-led community”
<<>>
Making God pro-choice, eh?
Mike – respectfully, and at my own peril! – I disagree. In 1 Samuel 15, God ordered the obliteration of the Amalekites as punishment for their inhospitality to Israel years before. Saul almost obeyed, and it cost him his job. That doesn’t really sound like Israel justifying itself in its historic chronicles – to me.
Brett – “making God sovereign” would be my choice of wording.
“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” ~ Romans 11:22
As C.S. Lewis says of his messianic character Aslan, the lion: He’s not safe. But he’s good. He’s the king.
Keith,
I’ve had the same problems that Brett has (and almost lost my faith over it) but have come to the conclusion that maybe some things that the OT writers ascribe to God, might not have been his intentions. Its part of the story of his people, but read in context of the OT as a whole, we see the results of the life that Israel often times chose for itself, and they aren’t good. Do you not think its possible that the OT writers believed things to be God’s will that weren’t? I can think of some examples in more modern history where intelligent and respected members of our faith community have declared things to be God’s will that future Christians might find questionable. Maybe there’s an aspect of progressive revelation involved here.
I heard of a book a while back ago named “Living Biblically.” It was a man’s attempt to live one year by all the commands in the Bible. I did not read the book, but I guess that included all of the O.T. commands. In one part of the book, the guy started throwing stones at a lady. This might not be the best approach today.
http://www.matthewmorine.com
Mike, do you question the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son?
btw thanks for this post, some very good thoughts
Clint – no. By the way, I’m planning to write more about the problem of HEREM (Hebrew word used in the passages where Israelites are told to totally wipe out people — men, women, children — and animals).
Keith – I’m kind of thinking this through out loud. For a long time I’ve just gritted my teeth and said, “God can do what God wants to do.” And I still absolutely believe that. He is God; we are not.
But, what about those passages where God seems to be acting un-God-like? Here are possibilities:
1. Maybe our sense of what is un-God-like is wrong. (Though I’m working primarily from what I’ve learned about God in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.)
2. Perhaps people at times attributed to God actions that were not from God. That happens all the time! We don’t need much proof of such. The question is this: does our understanding of inspiration permit that?
Stay with me in this series. Partly, I’m provoking people. My greatest goal would be to get others to read the OT carefully.
I’m tuned in!
I’m just hesitant – I’m sure we all are! – to edge toward a Jeffersonian approach to scripture: scrapbooking what we like and clipping out what we don’t.
I don’t think we need fear a Jeffersonian approach. The issue here isn’t metaphysics but an attempt to find a moral coherence that spans the Old Testament, the New Testament, and our own time. To wit: The word “genocide” is not yet 75 years old. How do we read the OT in the wake of Auschwitz and Rwanda? If a modern Christian doesn’t squirm a bit when reading the Old Testament then I think he/she is missing a critical feature of the modern human experience.
Everyone scrapbooks what they like and clips out what they don’t like. If that weren’t the case, we’d be killing witches, obeying the Sabbath (and killing those who don’t), and avoiding shellfish.
If Christians were to suddenly decide that certain characters in the Bible were ascribing to God what he did not do, that opens up an interesting can of worms. Any passage would be subject to liberal interpretation. One could take the passage in the Old Testament, where God assures us that he is not a man, and discount the entirety of the Jesus story. Perhaps Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were ascribing to God what he did not do–coming to Earth as a man–and fabricating some supernatural occurences along the way. Perhaps God didn’t impregnate Mary as well, if you can simply say that characters ascribed to God what he did not do.
Or, there’s the passage in the Bible warning against canabalism. The sacrament is symbolic canabalism, and Jesus said that even symbolic sin is sin (lust in the heart, etc.). Perhaps eating flesh and drinking blood symbolically is against God’s will. Or, better yet, perhaps some of the good things in the Bible were ascribed to God when he had nothing to do with them–that last bit is sarcastic, but you can see where this can lead.
The reason the Bible seems harsh to us is that we are living in enlightened times (relatively speaking) when people of good conscience realize that animal sacrifices, destroying others of a different faith, eternal hellfire, and the like do not seem like holy deeds inspired by God, but as cruel and terroristic. Moderate, liberal, intellectual, reasonable, Universalist (or whatever you want to call them) Christians proudly proclaim the good things in the Bible (love one another, feed the poor), but they attempt to justify the aforementioned attrocities by saying that we are no longer living under the law, that God was “speaking” to ancient people in ways that they would understand, hellfire is merely symbolic, hell is merely seperation from God, our minds are too finite to understand, and now–this is the first time I’ve heard of this theory–characters in the Bible were ascribing to God things he did not do.
I wonder what the next justification theory will be?
Brett, you trivialize the whole enterprise, and unfairly, I think.
Richard had it right: we’re trying to find an elusive moral coherence in the scriptural record. Anyone who claims they have nailed it down in all of its particulars is delusional at best.
Maybe we’re never going to find it. But the scriptural record is full of hints and intimations that one of God’s essential characteristics is justice, which would seem to require…moral coherence. So the search for coherence is, in a way, a proxy for the search for God. And if we take His agents at their word, that those who search for Him will find Him, moral coherence is a noble and plausible pursuit.
Although I wasn’t overwhelmed by the quality of the book, Scot McKnight’s _The Blue Parakeet_ helps us confront the vexing demons within us, the cognitive dissonance that deafens us when we juxtapose “destroy all of them, women, children, weak…” and “you did not advocate for the widow and the orphan.” Surely, Brett, you can see the ethical quandary such a juxtaposition creates, right?
Your archRepublican servant,
qb
I guess mass murder is good if it has a blessing?
Very good points. However, another can be added to the list: the use of instrumental music in worship. Since the OT allowed it and no mention of it is made in the NT, how can those who use it today justify it?