by jimwalton » Mon Jun 12, 2023 10:18 am
This answer quotes John Walton's book, "Wisdom for Faithful Reading," a book about interpreting the Old Testament correctly. He writes that Torah is not establishing an ideal social system, but instead is speaking wisdom into the social system that was there.
"A superficial reading of the Torah leads to the belief that it endorses slavery, encourages violence, and is characterized by misogyny.
"The Torah is not offering a universally endorsed social system, because it is characterized by several significant contexts that limit its reach. First, it is Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. It was binding only with Israel — not with the Canaanites, not with the Babylonians, and not with us. That fact constraints its wider application.
"Second, it is situated in the ancient world, and therefore reflects old world concepts. That does not mean that its provisions are primitive or inferior; it means that they are culturally sensitive. Cultures are not monolithic. Concepts that we find odious (for example, sacrificing animals) or inequitable (hierarchical structures in society) are meaningful in their culture. Undoubtedly, concepts that we find meaningful would have been problematic for them (for example, our banking system, our prison system, our clothing fashions). We should not judge them for the different shape of their society, and we should certainly not insist on adopting it as a divinely mandated shape for any other society.
...
"Consequently, the Torah is not endorsing slavery or misogyny any more than it is endorsing an agro-pastoral economic system. Yet we still ask why God would tolerate slavery or patriarchy. Given our modern sensibilities, such tolerance seems to undermine any esteem we might be inclined to hold for him as a God worthy of our worship and admiration. Why does he not fix the system instead of perpetuating it and therefore at least tacitly endorsing it?
"There is no perfect society, no ideal social system. We may think ours is better than some in certain respects, and maybe it is, but it is undoubtedly, worse than others. The debt slavery and patriarchal hierarchy we observe in ancient Israel were characteristics that brought stability and dealt with social problems in ancient society. But all systems are subject to abuse and collapse of the values that people intend to preserve in that system. The Torah called Israel to operate those familiar systems in the best possible ways; it did not seek to change the systems.
"When we track with the authors of Scripture to discover the authoritative message, we will not do so by instituting the social system represented in the Torah. Nor will we seek to adopt its value system and then construct a modern society on its premises. Likewise, we should find no reason to be disconcerted that God worked within the social system that was current in Israel’s world. Familiar protocols were appropriate if Israel was to present a positive picture of their God to their world."
These quotes at least establish a base for further discussion. Let's talk about it.
This answer quotes John Walton's book, "Wisdom for Faithful Reading," a book about interpreting the Old Testament correctly. He writes that Torah is not establishing an ideal social system, but instead is speaking wisdom into the social system that was there.
[quote]"A superficial reading of the Torah leads to the belief that it endorses slavery, encourages violence, and is characterized by misogyny.
"The Torah is not offering a universally endorsed social system, because it is characterized by several significant contexts that limit its reach. First, it is Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. It was binding only with Israel — not with the Canaanites, not with the Babylonians, and not with us. That fact constraints its wider application.
"Second, it is situated in the ancient world, and therefore reflects old world concepts. That does not mean that its provisions are primitive or inferior; it means that they are culturally sensitive. Cultures are not monolithic. Concepts that we find odious (for example, sacrificing animals) or inequitable (hierarchical structures in society) are meaningful in their culture. Undoubtedly, concepts that we find meaningful would have been problematic for them (for example, our banking system, our prison system, our clothing fashions). We should not judge them for the different shape of their society, and we should certainly not insist on adopting it as a divinely mandated shape for any other society.
...
"Consequently, the Torah is not endorsing slavery or misogyny any more than it is endorsing an agro-pastoral economic system. Yet we still ask why God would tolerate slavery or patriarchy. Given our modern sensibilities, such tolerance seems to undermine any esteem we might be inclined to hold for him as a God worthy of our worship and admiration. Why does he not fix the system instead of perpetuating it and therefore at least tacitly endorsing it?
"There is no perfect society, no ideal social system. We may think ours is better than some in certain respects, and maybe it is, but it is undoubtedly, worse than others. The debt slavery and patriarchal hierarchy we observe in ancient Israel were characteristics that brought stability and dealt with social problems in ancient society. But all systems are subject to abuse and collapse of the values that people intend to preserve in that system. The Torah called Israel to operate those familiar systems in the best possible ways; it did not seek to change the systems.
"When we track with the authors of Scripture to discover the authoritative message, we will not do so by instituting the social system represented in the Torah. Nor will we seek to adopt its value system and then construct a modern society on its premises. Likewise, we should find no reason to be disconcerted that God worked within the social system that was current in Israel’s world. Familiar protocols were appropriate if Israel was to present a positive picture of their God to their world."[/quote]
These quotes at least establish a base for further discussion. Let's talk about it.