Board index ‹ God

[Rachel Flowers]

The New Testament and Old Testament are irreconcilable with the concept that God does not change.

It's pretty clear that Jesus wanted everyone to follow Jewish law, just in a spiritual way and to actually mean it when they said they were doing those things out of devotion to God. And not to make some kind of show out of it. But concepts like mercy, forgiveness, and "God is Love", and Jesus' proclamation that he who is without sin must cast the first stone, all of these are not in the Torah or the books of the prophets. Or the history of ancient Israel which is flecked with nightmarish violence, animal sacrifice, slavery, and the abuse of women. Kill 10,000 people with a donkey's jaw bone but if someone attacks you you must not fight back, and you must turn the other cheek. I can forgive minor contradictions atheists typically mock or point out like the inconsistent stories of the burial of Jesus for example. But it's hard to overlook the fact that a perfect deity would not be expected to change as radically between parts of "his" story in terms of their tone and personality. They're such different kinds of stories that it's impossible to believe the same violent, murderous God from the one is the peace-loving one in the other.

[jimwalton]

I'm sorry right off the bat, because I have the need to say it seems you haven't really read the Bible. Possibly you have believed sound bites, Google glances, or partial truths?

> It's pretty clear that Jesus wanted everyone to follow Jewish law, just in a spiritual way and to actually mean it when they said they were doing those things out of devotion to God.

This is partially true. Jesus never disobeyed the Jewish law, and He did say it was still valid, but He also said He had fulfilled the Law, so people now were to follow Him. But you're right that what He was interested in was devotion to God based on a relationship, not a set of rules.

> But concepts like mercy, forgiveness, and "God is Love", and Jesus' proclamation that he who is without sin must cast the first stone, all of these are not in the Torah or the books of the prophets.

- Mercy: Ex. 33.19; Isa. 55.7, 63.9; Hosea 6.6, and many others
- Forgiveness: 2 Chronicles 7.14; Ps. 103.3; 130.4 and many others
- "He that is without sin must cast the first stone" is a reference to Deuteronomy 17.2-7. The Law stated that the witnesses of a crime, who brought it to the tribunal, should be the first to throw the stones of judgment. Jesus was showing that they were not really interested in the purposes of the law. They were using her as a pawn to trap him. Therefore the motives of her judges (the religious leaders), (possibly the husband), and the witnesses were not according to the Law, and Jesus has every right to challenge their attempt to secure the woman’s conviction. They were pure out hypocrites. If they were sinless, how had they qualified as witnesses, since this situation was clearly a set-up? Jesus's statement is grounded in the Law.

> Or the history of ancient Israel which is flecked with nightmarish violence, animal sacrifice, slavery, and the abuse of women. Kill 10,000 people with a donkey's jaw bone but if someone attacks you you must not fight back, and you must turn the other cheek.

You can't just toss out a half-dozen pet peeves like you're on a soapbox. I can only deal briefly with these misunderstandings.

- "nightmarish violence." It depends what you're talking about. It's tough to deal with generalities.
- "animal sacrifice." It was devotion to God, a very clear visual aid to theology. But the animals weren't just slaughtered and wasted. Animal sacrifice was how the people generally had meat to eat. From your reference, I'm presuming you didn't know this.
- "Slavery." This is a much longer topic. Basically it comes down to that slavery in the ancient world was not what we think when we think of slavery. We have Greece, Rome, and the colonial West to thank for the horrific abuses of slavery as a system and of people. In the ancient world, slavery was much more like our employment: it was debt slavery. When someone needed to pay their debts, they hired themselves out to someone else to earn the money. In the ancient world, someone else owned their labor, but not their person. It was an economic system, not a human abuse system. So much more to say here.
- "the abuse of women." It depends what you're talking about. The Bible isn't misogynistic, as many who just read it superficially presume. But if you're talking about other things, you need to specify. Like, some people think God commanded rape (He didn't.) Some people think He was OK with rape (He wasn't).

> Kill 10,000 people with a donkey's jaw bone but if someone attacks you you must not fight back, and you must turn the other cheek.

Um, some confusing seems to be afoot. Samson killed "1,000" people with a jawbone, but that number is symbolic, not literal. It's also possible it means "clansmen," not "1,000" (a grammatical thing).

And when Jesus said "turn the other cheek," he was not saying we can't or shouldn't defend ourselves. He was saying that we should take insult with rising to revenge. But this is a longer discussion. Suffice it to say, it seems that you have some misunderstandings.

> But it's hard to overlook the fact that a perfect deity would not be expected to change as radically between parts of "his" story in terms of their tone and personality. They're such different kinds of stories that it's impossible to believe the same violent, murderous God from the one is the peace-loving one in the other.

There was no change from God in the OT and God in the NT. In both He loves all, is willing and able to judge evil, to forgive the repentant, and to take anyone into relationship with Him who truly wants it. But I guess we'll have to talk further to straighten all this out. Let's talk.

[Darth Vader]

You just proved the OPs point in your first 4 paragraphs.

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”"

[jimwalton]

Um, I didn't prove the OP's point at all. The OT and NT are perfectly reconcilable in Jesus. He is obedient to the Law, the fulfillment of the Law, the continuation of the Law as it was meant to be, and the New covenant (the new law). The OP's point is that the two covenant are irreconcilable, and I was showing that they are in perfect harmony with one another. YHWH's perfect revelation of Himself was in Jesus (harmony between OT & NT). YHWH's law was fulfilled in Jesus (perfect harmony). Jesus was the new Israel, the new Temple, the new Law, the new Moses, the new David. He was the perfect fulfillment of all of it (harmony between OT & NT). God's character never changed OT & NT; God's treatment of humanity never changed. God's revelation was progressive—consistent all through OT & NT. I actually rebutted the OP's point, showing it to be untrue.

[Pensive]

> Jesus never disobeyed the Jewish law, and He did say it was still valid, but He also said He had fulfilled the Law, so people now were to follow Him.

This is one of the worst arguments Christians make. They claim that there are three states for a Law:

1. In effect
2. NOT in effect
3. "Fulfilled"

When asked what "fulfilled" means -- do we have to follow the law, or not? -- you get weird answers.

The "apostle" Paul thought he was important to nullify God's Law, and yet he said we still "shouldn't sin". But NOT sinning is the same thing as following god's law, because "sin" is defined by god's law.

"Fulfilled" is A ^ ~A. Reject.

[jimwalton]

> This is one of the worst arguments Christians make. They claim that there are three states for a Law:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

> When asked what "fulfilled" means -- do we have to follow the law, or not? -- you get weird answers

The Mosaic Law has not been superseded, but the law of Christ has been superimposed on it. Jesus’s fulfillment is superimposed on and identified with the law of Moses. Just as Israel entered into a covenant relationship that was governed by law, so the Gentiles would enter into a covenant relationship governed by law—but the law in this new covenant is the law of Christ.

The law is fulfilled in Christ. The law’s purpose and condition are carried out perfectly through the teachings and ministry of Jesus. The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not just one part of it. He “fulfilled” it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we’ll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don’t do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’s example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

So what are we to do with all of these laws? We have to approach them as revelation of God (which they still are), not as rules for society (which they once were) or means of salvation (which they never were). That means that as we look at each law, whether it is one of the Ten Commandments or a law about mildew on the wall of a house, our first step is to try to understand what that law revealed about God to the Israelites. Once we understand that, we must make a cultural transfer to formulate a general principle about what that law reveals about God to us. Then we can use that principle to try to apply the revelation of our world in specific ways of acting and thinking. It is not the ancient law itself that carries the authority of the text. Authority is found in the revelation of God that is offered through the principle behind the law.

> The "apostle" Paul thought he was important to nullify God's Law

Paul said we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Gal. 3.25) since it has been superseded (Ga. 4.1-7). But in Romans 3.31, Paul specifically says, "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

[Seize the Day]

Slavery being debt-based is only for Jews. Gentiles are cattle-slaves.

[jimwalton]

I'll assume you meant "chattel slaves." You're a little correct, but not quite. Leviticus 25.42 mentions buying slaves from the nations around, but you need to understand their cultural worldview, which forbade chattel slavery. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.

Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."

that the foreigners are not God’s servants, and therefore can be slaves. He hadn’t redeemed them from Egypt, so they were still indentured. But since Israelites didn’t own other people as chattel, these foreigners provided more of a long-term, stable workforce—employees for life, as my father was in his company. They didn’t have to be released at Jubilee.

The Israelite worldview would have been more akin to our modern sports world where one team can buy the contract of an individual, and now that player “belongs” to that ball club. They owned his labor.

Israel was a country of a beneficial labor pool. They could take foreigners into their homes as workers (buy them), and over the course of several generations provide for their eventual citizenship. “Serving within Israelite households was a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability” (Copan).

[Schenectady]

> Your argument on slavery comes across as uninformed and unstudied. You can't read these texts superficially. They require study into the culture and background. You could NOT beat your slaves without punishment. Exodus 21.26-27 defines verse 20: if a slave is actually injured, they get to go free. But it's really a much longer discussion.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

> As to passing them on as property to your children, that comes from Leviticus 24.46, that's a misunderstanding also. It would help you to understand their cultural worldview, which forbade chattel slavery. Israel had emerged from slavery in Egypt with the worldview that slavery was inhumane bondage against the values and morals of God himself (Ex. 1.13-14). Slavery was the horror against which God would work His great act of liberation (Dt. 4.32-40). It’s part of the biblical theme of salvation in which God is always at work to redeem people from bondage. Consequently, their legislation and the covenant are founded in their personal and national freedom consistent with the reality of having formerly been slaves, treating people with dignity, and recognizing the fundamental worth of all people. Though they recognized that people could have different statuses (Israelite or foreigner, slave or free), they recognized equal personhood. The dignity of all people was to be guarded, even in their servitude. Slaves were afforded rights commensurate with having the dignity afforded any human being, as well as rights within the larger familial structure.

> Hezser and Potok say, "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."

I understand this arguement, except for the fact that again, as I quoted, you could beat them and if they didn't die in a few days there was no repercussion. They also took slaves from those around them, who were afforded even less rights than Hebrew slaves.

I guess you and I just differ. I think being able to pass slaves as property, beat them without repercussion (as long as they don't die) etc is wholely immoral in any time or place. I don't don't think there can be justification for it.

I appreciate the thought out responses.

[jimwalton]

> Exodus 21:20-21

It was not natural for masters to beat their slaves. In fact, it was rare. If they beat their slaves, they would not be as strong and healthy to work for them. We are not to think of the Japanese work camps in WWII.

It would probably help to mention at this point that all of the law (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) is casuistic. It deals with a wide variety of case studies, which may or may not have been realistic or historic, but which serve as guidelines for judges having to make judicial decisions. They are often characterized by "if...then" clauses to give the judges principles by which to adjudicate. They regulate the general principles for governing society, for fair practice, and for treating people fairly in contentious situations. As persons committed crimes under varying circumstances, it became necessary to go beyond the simple statute like "Do not steal," for instance, to take into account such things as time of day, motive, and the value of what has been stolen.

The law codes of the Torah are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. They are better viewed as *legal wisdom*. They are a collection of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.

Therefore, they are not intended to be read as rules, but instead to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles, similar to how we use word problems to teach math. The things we make up (two trains are coming towards each other...) are not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry. So we also understand the laws of the Torah. it is to shape society, not to give a list of moral commands."

You'll notice that the text specifies that if a master injures a slave, he is to be punished in like manner (fines, appropriate compensation, legal action; Ex. 21.23-27) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.27). The slave is to be treated with dignity. If the servant dies, the master is to be tried for capital crime (Ex. 21.20). If the slave is injured, the debt is presumably voided and the person goes free (Ex. 21.27). With judicial guidance like that, beating of slaves was rare.

In v. 15 an attack can be any kind of maltreatment (Keil & Delitzsch Vol. 1 p. 133). “Cursing” (v. 17) is placed on a par with attacking because it proceeds from the same disposition. In v. 15 an attack can be treating with contempt, or deliberate and persistent opposition to authority. In v. 18 it can be a fistfight or throwing something at another person and causing injury. The nature of the impromptu action shows that the blow was not “malice aforethought,” but unpremeditated and hasty. Had he intended to truly injure or kill, he would have brought a knife. In vv. 18-19, the injured party is entitled to compensation for medical expenses, and the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed. This text about slaves is in the same context, the same casuistic set of guidelines.

v . 20 "If a man beats his slave with a rod". If a man *naqams* his servant. This is pretty wide open to interpretation. Some Bibles translate it as "beat", but it could be much milder than that. It could be a whack for discipline.

If the slave dies from this hit, or attack, or discipline, or beating, the master is to be punished (*naqam*), meaning he is to be capitally punished for the crime.

But if the slave doesn't die, "he is not to be punished (same word: *naqam*, denoting capital punishment (from v. 20—same word). The master is not to be executed if the slave wasn't killed. It is thought that the loss of his slave (the slave might go free, depending on the injury [v. 26]) and/or the consequent loss of income (if the slave couldn't work, the owner could lose income) were deemed sufficient punishment for the master. If bodily injury resulted, as v. 26 says, the slave was to be set free.

"if the slave gets up after a day or two." This would indicate the master was only correcting him in some way. Sometimes discipline may be necessary, and the master is given the benefit of the doubt if there was no particular injurious or murderous intent. Here is where the judge can consider motive and method.

"since the slave is his property." Unfortunate translation. The Hebrew word is כַסְפּוֹ, "money." Again, the suggestion here is not that servants were chattel, or property. The OT constantly affirms the full personhood of these debt servants. The servant is in the household to work off his debt. The employer (master) stands to lose money (כַסְפּוֹ) if he mistreats his employees; his hard treatment toward a servant could impact his income. This worker is an economic asset.

> you could beat them and if they didn't die in a few days there was no repercussion.

So you can see that this opinion of yours is based on a misunderstanding.

> They also took slaves from those around them, who were afforded even less rights than Hebrew slaves.

This I already explained in the post to which you are responding. Did I say it for nothing?

> I think being able to pass slaves as property, beat them without repercussion (as long as they don't die) etc is wholely immoral in any time or place.

So you see this isn't really the accurate picture. They didn't beat their slaves without repercussion, and "passing slaves as property" doesn't really capture what was happening there.