Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 4 - Are Parts of the Bible NOT the Word of God?

There are actually several types of passages I am talking about here so I want to take each in turn:

1. Satan Speaks: While the Bible may record the words of the devil, that does not mean those words are authoritative simply because they are in the Bible. They are just there to record what happened and what was said. Even when the Devil uses Scripture (See the temptation of Jesus in the Gospels), he most certainly is twisting it to his own ends. What this part of the Word of God teaches a Christian is how the devil operates and what he does. We however should not see those things the devil says as accurate as far as what WE should do.

2. Job's Friends and Others: This category includes a lot of guys who speak in Scripture and are dead wrong in what they say, or teach things in the Bible that are contrary to other parts of the Bible. One time I heard a preach preach from Job and he was quoting one of Job's friends to prove that calamity results from sin. Guess he never read the end where God says everything Job's friends said was wrong. This is why you have to get the full context of anything you read in Scripture. Otherwise you might drop your finger on 'Judas went out and hanged himself' and think that applies to you. It is not that these are not part of the Bible, what they do is show us what beliefs are wrong. What we do have to note is that they are wrong and not believe them ourselves.

3. Paul Speaking by Permission and Not Commandment: 1 Corinthians 7:6 -- When Paul speaks of concession, not command, does that invalidate this as the commands of God? Guess it depends on your definition of inspired. If you understand that God allows the writers to input themselves as part of that inspiration (see here) then this is still inspired by God just with a different flavor. One that allows that God to use the Scripture writers own thoughts, issues, personalities and make them part of His Word.

4. Scripture Trumps Scripture: Matthew 19:1-12 -- when Jesus responds to the Pharisees he makes the statement that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, thus it seems that two passages of the Bible that seem to be at odds with each other. Several factors can be considered 1) What does it mean for the Bible to be inspired (above), 2) The progressive nature of that revelation (see here) and 3) that the Bible may also present options for the believer. In this case you can simply view marriage as a contract which can be annulled at any time or you can view it as a 'one flesh' covenant that is supposed to last a life time. In this case, the second option is a higher walk, but things happen so the first option remains.

5. Passages with Textual Problems: If you have a more modern translation you might find a textual note on a passage that indicates that it does not appear in older manuscripts. Most notable are John 8:1-11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) and The longer ending of Mark's gospel where from 16:9 to the end is not in older manuscripts. This is the field of textual criticism where old manuscripts of the Scriptures are compared. What textual critics look for is changes as the copyist makes mistakes and age of the manuscript. The age is important because the closer some thing is to the original writing the less chance there are changes from the original because there has not been the time to make those changes. In the two cases above, both have the problem of not being supported by older texts, this means they very well could be additions put in by later people. This one is a harder thing to deal with. The thing to remember is that in all of these differences, not one of them openly contradicts anything else in Scripture nor do they present too many things that are not said elsewhere so for the most part they are not new material. In these cases, I simply have to shrug and say - 'do what you want with them' . It does not hurt to believe them or not to believe them.

6. Miscellaneous Stuff: How about the times the apostles are saying: 'this person greets you' or 'bring me X' seeing that the person's and things being talked about no longer exist. Once again, God in the situation and using it to inspire does not mean that the authors were brainwashed and these passages actually show that idea. Those verse that just seem to be filler at the end of letters, etc. Once again, context and inspiration definitions come into play.

What we see in all this is that the Bible is a very human book as well as being divine one. God inspiring the writers does not take away the very human situation they were in or their humanity itself. In fact it seems that the writers of Scripture have their humanity enhanced. The Bible and inspiration are really a God and Man collaboration and as we interpret it we should keep that in mind.

Previous: Herod's Slaughter of Infants

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 3 - Herod's Slaughter of Infants.

I know you were expecting: "Are Parts of the Bible not the Word of God?", but as I was studying to preach this passage this week, I realized it fits this series so well. Therefore, the interruption is a good one.

Matthew 2:16-17 records one of the most disturbing events of Scripture, Herod the Great slaughters all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem. The goal is to destroy what he perceives is a threat to the throne. Now what makes this passage troubling is not that Herod the Great is a butcher; that is a well documented fact of history. What makes the passage troubling is that God seems to direct it happening:

1) He tells the Magi to not return to Herod - had they done so, the innocents in the story would have been spared probably at the cost of the Magi (Herod was a butcher), but the exact target would have been known and Mary and Joseph could have escaped anyway through God's warning. The only problem would have been Herod would have known exactly who he was looking for and assassins could have been sent -- even into Egypt. In the final analysis, to protect His Son, the warning of the Magi seems the best. The problem is the cost is tremendous.

2) This is the most disturbing problem -- Jeremiah prophesies about this event. This means for God's Word to be fulfilled, the innocents HAD to die. Or did they? My views of how prophecy works have greatly changed since becoming an open theist. Here is the point -- Jeremiah the prophet sees Rachel weeping for her children in Ramah. Is he seeing this event or getting a feeling that something is bad is going to happen in involving Rachel and her city -- Bethlehem.

One thing I have learned about the gospel writers is that they play far more fast and loose with OT Scriptures (particularly prophecy) when they say they are fulfilled. In short, is this a direct correlation or is it Matthew seeing a connection after the fact. The thing with prophecy, I now believe, is that God leaves His options open in HOW he can fulfill them or simply that the prophecy fulfills itself with no action on God's part at all, but an observer sees the connection. In this case, the slaughter occurs through Herod, but the connection is seen with Jeremiah and Matthew, who is using prophecy to prove Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, uses that connection to further his point.

The other point that could be made here is that the ultimate fate of the innocents is generally believed to be Paradise. Is there really any harm done from an eternal perspective? Baby killed; it goes to heaven. For critics this is unsatisfying because the concept of heaven, or that innocent children go directly to heaven if killed, is something that is not directly provable and suffering here is caused because God is involved regardless. May not be His direct hand, but He is involved. Could He not have prevented it?

One thing to consider, though it does not really help resolve it completely, is the fact that infant mortality was high in the ancient world. Meant people were 'used to' infants and children dying; but that does not really help the main question because just because a culture may get used to something, still does not remove the evil of it.

For reasons that still baffle me, God has a great deal of respect for the freewill of man. It may be because of this, that events play out the way they do. God directs those who listen to him, but does nothing to directly stop Herod because the slaughter is ultimately in Herod's court and thus his responsibility. Herod is not listening to God but following his own desires. God ultimately will pass judgment on Herod's evil, but for the time being lets the rogue king have his way. Perhaps God could have changed Herod's heart like he did Pharaoh's in Exodus, but have you ever noticed God only seems to reinforce what is already in a person's heart, not completely change it in reverse. For that to happen requires repentance and Herod never will do so.

We may never have a really good answer to this one and it still remains a troubling passage. Between my open theist beliefs and my understanding of God's respect for freewill, I have come to terms with the fact that the slaughter is ultimately Herod's action that God, respecting the freewill of everyone involved, guides those who can escape it to escape it. Matthew when writing his gospel sees the connection between the event and the passage in Jeremiah but the fulfillment of that passage could have happen other ways as well. Perhaps this is not the answer, but it is the best one I can see for this troubling passage.

Next: Are Parts of the Bible, Not the Word of God?
Previous: God Goes to War! 

Troubling Passages of Scripture - Part 2 - God Goes to War

Numbers 31 is a troubling Scripture from the standpoint of modern westerners. It is not just the fact that God orders a war but genocide.

The chapter is basically about Israel's war with the Midianites in which God orders that Israel to utterly destroy the Midianites. To leave no male alive and to only spare women that were virgins so that they could become wives to the Israelites. For all practical purposes this would mean the end of the Midianites forever as the virgin girls would be suddenly Israelite the moment they had sex with and Israelite male.

I really have no problem with God going to war. In the Law there are laws about murder, but there are also laws about how to divide the spoil after a battle. The context for killing, and the Hebrew word for 'to kill' are different. One is premeditated crime of an individual; the other the act of the state in its own interests. If God therefore wants to act as king of His country (A state of affairs that would last until the monarchy of Saul) and wage war on his enemies, He has just as much right to do so as any other king.

Genocide is a different story. To wipe out an entire people group is a harsh action. The question is it justified? One could argue that God is in a better position to judge these things or has a different standard for himself involving justice. Perhaps the first is true about God being in a better position to judge these things, but God is said to be just and the definitions of justice simply don't change just because one entity has more power that others. Justice is justice.

No the real question is genocide sometimes justified? What we are asking here is can a group of people get so corrupt and so vile that they whole lot of them deserve death. Looking at this time period for not just the Midianites but all of Canaan the answer might be 'yes'. Worship of the gods of the time period involved some pretty disgusting rites:

1. Ritual drunken orgies are the norm with temple prostitution as the chief means of support for the temples. Incest was a common accepted practice in religious rites. That's dads with daughters; sons with mothers; brothers with sisters, etc.

2. Human sacrifice in particular the burning to death of a man's firstborn son. Not a quick burning either, but the child was basically placed in a hole in a bronze idol that was then heated from the inside slowly cooking the child to death while drums beat so the child's cries could not be heard.

The whole area is wracked with wars and disputes which were filled with brutality and rape. Slavery was common and while the Law of Moses allows for a kind of indentured servitude, it was not the brutal, for life, under the lash that the people of this time in Canaan practiced.

It wouldn't have been so bad but the local politics, culture and religion supported these activities and promoted them.

There is also the practical advantages of genocide to consider in this case:

1. The fact that Canaanite worship survived became an absolute plague to the Israelites that got them into trouble with God on a regular basis.

2. The fact is the surviving Canaanites and the the Israelites would battle for centuries in which more people would die, more women would be raped and more misery and suffering would be dealt out over the long term than if the Canaanites had simply been destroyed. In short, kill a few now over a short time inflicting short term misery or kill a a whole bunch more over a longer period of time causing continued, long term misery.

3. Had all of Israel's enemies been destroyed, the odds for a lasting peace in the region would have been far higher.

God would be in a better more knowledgeable position to judge these things and see the bigger picture and the lasting impact. Even so, this is troubling to my humanity because to fulfill this you would see soldiers breaking into homes and they find a woman nursing her baby boy, then by the order of God, they would have to spear them both. But in truth as a king going to war in this region, He would have been no different than many others, only in this case the objective is to ultimately crush evil in an area of the world.

Perhaps we should consider that, we may not like the means but had the full will of God been carried out, evil in Canaan would have been destroyed. It is just perhaps we simply do not like the means with which God had chosen to do this act. But then again He is God, it seems in the authority structure that he would have the right to choose any means He wants.

I will be honest, this one still keeps me up at times because God here seems unfair. Why give the Israelites the power and the right to wipe out a sinful race when they at times were just as vile. In truth, there are a lot of races could be condemned to death but are not. So why at this time and in this way? In this case, we may simply have to exercise faith in the justice and goodness of God.

Next: Herod's Slaughter of Infants?
Previous: Marriage and Rape 

Troubling Passages of Scripture -- Part 1 - Marriage and Rape

This post is a response to a friends comments on facebook. In particular the subject was about some passages that seem to show the God of the Old Testament as a mean, nasty S.O.B. In most cases, the bigger issue when looking at these kind of verses is that we judge the people in them by our standards and ethics based on our western culture. In short we paint someone, including God, as a mean because to our culture they are mean but to their culture what they are doing is perfectly normal.

This is particularly true in the cases involving rape and marriage.

Our Western culture and the Ancient Oriental Culture are very different and because of that it is often difficult to understand what is going on in some passages or at best we will misunderstand their meaning:

1. Marriage -- in our culture people choose who they marry, it is a mutually accepted event. In the Ancient Orient culture of the Bible -- marriages are arranged by parents and there is often very little choice in the matter. In that culture marriage meant obligation not romantic love.

2. Sex -- this also creates a difference in the understanding of the purpose of sexual intercourse. In our culture sex is about expression of love and romantic feelings, it can lead to children but when we have sex that is not the main reason we go at it so to speak. In the Oriental Culture, the opposite is very true -- it is about creating children and secondarily it was about enjoyment. Sex was about the fulfilment of a contract of marriage to them so that a man would have descendants and a woman was to provide the womb in which those descendants would be made.

3. Rape -- In both societies rape is something evil, but the consequences are very different. In our culture, the stigma of rape, while still bad for the woman (unfortunately), does not mean that another guy might not marry her and love her. Not so in the orient culture as such a woman is considered 'spoiled goods' and would have only two options for the rest of her life -- begging or prostitution.

4. The Role of Women -- in our society women are equals, heck they are sometimes superior to men as far as roles ands power. In the ancient culture this was not the case -- women we somewhere above cattle and they have very few options. There main things in the culture of the Old Testament that gave a woman value was 1) her ability to produce children and 2) who she was married to. Marriage was something a woman wanted to give her both so she would be respectable. Otherwise her options became very limited.

These things taken into consideration some of the things in the Bible are a little more clear.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -- seems kind of harsh to westerners that if a woman who is not engaged is raped she has to marry her attacker. But in that culture this is actually an action to protect the woman. In all other cases of rape the man is put to death because the woman is either engaged or married and thus she has someone who is obligated to take care of her. Not so with the unmarried woman who is not engaged. If the Law had the man killed, the woman would either become a beggar or a prostitute. The man is forced to marry her and thus that makes him obligated to provide for her. He also looses his right to divorce her which means he has to take care of her for the rest of his life. This also meant he would loose face and in this culture that means no other family would deal well with him. He would live with the shame of his actions forever and at the same time the woman is provided for. This is not a mean law but an act of compassion in this culture.

Judges 21 -- Now one thing we need to remember is that the Bible sometimes simply records events but makes no moral judgement and parts of the Bible have no actions by God recorded. Such is the case of Judges 21. The people have slaughtered the Benjamites to the point that the tribe if for all practical purposes - gone. The reason for this slaughter was actually a rape of a Levite's concubine in the previous chapter. When the whole tribe of Benjamin decides to protect the rapists (thus becoming gilty as well after the fact), the rest of Israel decides to go to war with them and destroy them. They succeed. Now at this point THEY are troubled that the tribe is gone but it never says God was troubled. What follows is, in my opinon, the actions of misguided people who feel they are doing God's work but are really just being idiots because they have made rash vows. This causes them to destroy a group of people, so the women could be used be the few remaining Benjamites as well as kidnapping some women from another town.

In this culture, though, the odd thing would have been this -- the women would have accepted it. To them, as long as a man was providing for her and giving her an opportunity to have children, most of them would have been content with this arrangement because neither marriage nor sex was about romantic love but obligation and procreation. Hard to believe to our Western ears but true.

Next: Part 2 - God Goes to War