Do some Old Testament authors scapegoat God with their own prejudices?

I know this is controversial, and it's not my intent to stir up argument. My purpose for bringing this up is for legitimate discussion of what appears to be a discrepancy between the God of the Old Testament (OT), and the Jesus we see in the New Testament (NT). It all started while reading through the book of Deuteronomy. A lot of it struck me as "how is this even relevant moments. Such as 23:1 "no one whose testicles are crushed shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord." But it doesn't stop there. I started researching a little, and a guy, who I have not researched his theological background yet, named Jeremy Myers, has an article about it on patheos.com. He brings up a man offering his daughters to be raped by strangers (Genesis 19: verse eight), it's ok to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, and you'll only be punished if you kill him (Exodus 21:20-21), it's ok to buy and sell children, basically human trafficking (Leviticus 25:44-45), women who have premarital sex should be killed (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), anyone with a defect shall not approach God (Leviticus 21:18-19), smashing your children against rocks will make you happy (Psalm 137:9), and myself read that basically if you rape a woman then she has to become your wife (Deuteronomy 22:28). What do we do with verses like these? You can't really pull the culture card, because then we must turn a blind eye to things like the Holocaust where it was socially acceptable to hate and kill Jews. So if right or wrong runs deeper than culture and we exclude the possibility of ethnocentrism, which I believe we can, how do we reconcile God permitting such acts with the Jesus we seen in the NT? Is it possible that cultural bias tampered with the original texts? I know that is an incredibly controversial consideration, some would even say heretical, because once you start down that path, it's kind of like how far do you want to take it? How much human influence did God allow in the bible, especially in the OT, if at all? To me, the OT doesn't appear to be a dictation from God with the authors being mere scribes, but rather perhaps they interjected some of their cultural beliefs in there as well. Surely God is too big and sovereign to be influenced by cultural norms. If cultural norms affect the truthfulness of morality, then the concept must be applicable to many things we condemn in our present culture as well.  Otherwise, I'm not sure if I see the same God in all of the OT as I do in the NT. Jesus seems to be a whole lot more compassionate and accepting, and forgiving than the God of the OT.  If I'm way way off here, show me how, but please refrain from the "it is because it is" style of argument without further reference or reasoning to support it.

Well... it is like that because it is

No but really, you must understand you're asking something fairly difficult. All biblical texts you mention can be dealt with without much difficulty, but require a great deal of examination. Would it help if I shortly addressed all those verses first? And that you see what "remains" then? Because there's some thoughts about the possibility of "tampering" too

Yes, please share your thoughts and what you have concluded through your studies.

It's late, I'll answer tomorrow. Just a snippet for what's to come:

Gen. 19:8: This is a statement of history; not a command for certain situations. For another example of this, look at the actions of Lot's daughters just a bit later.

I agree with Andreas89 that to answer each text individually they need to be researched individually.

Personally (and I'm no scholar) I feel like God gives us progressive revelation into Himself.  Example: as a parent when your kid wants to drink from the toilet bowl you might tell a 2-year old "No." with no reason given.  You might tell a 5-year old "No!  Yucky!  You'll get sick."  You might tell a 12-year old (I know, I know, just assume they want to drink from it for the sake of the example) "No.  There are bacteria that will make you sick."  Eventually you could explain to a college student about which specific bacteria and explain medical reasons and how bacteria attack the body.

I think God's progressive revelation is like that.  The Old Testament is version of The Truth for 2-year olds, the New Testament is a version for 5-year olds, and when we get to Heaven we may get the teenage version of God's truth.  Maybe maybe after billions of years into eternity we might be mature enough for more.  This is just gut guess.  I have no Scripture to back that up except maybe 1 Corinthians 13:9-12, but I don't think there is anything to contradict it either.

I'm no scholar either, but I think the bottom line is pretty simple.  The scriptures were originally written a looooooooooooooong time ago...  but translated to English for the first time a little over 400 years ago, with more recent translation versions today.

The biggest hurdle (misconception?) here is comparing an ancient world concept to a modern day one.  Slavery, violence, etc. all seems cruel and barbaric compared to life today....  but back then, it was just how life was.  For all we know, a thousand years from now, people will think brushing your teeth is the most violent and destructive thing someone could do to their mouth, and would liken it to a self-harm cry for help.

What they did wasn't a crime, or even frowned upon.  Its more than just a culture issue, but a human development issue in general.  Humanity has thought some pretty dumb things and didn't know any better.  For heaven's sake, in the 50's, doctors recommended cigarette smoking to patients and parents could buy radioactive toys for their kids to play with.  That sounds INSANE today, but it was just how things were then.

^That is indeed very important to keep in mind. Which leads me to an interesting point of elaboration.

This year, I began to see the Jesus of the book of Revelation (I'm not very good with giving verses, but this can be seen in chapter 19) as the "real" Jesus, in the sense that this violently depicted Figure on the white horse is smashing the unjust as if they weren't there. In this, we can see God's demand for absolute purity from our side. Deut. 23:1 and Leviticus 21 are good examples of that; I don't know why this was demanded exactly, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation. Let's not forget that the ability to reproduce was extremely important for Israel, as can be seen in multiple instances in the Torah. And why? Just look at Jesus' family registers; they are written down for good reasons. I will research this topic further by the way; I don't like the incompleteness of my own explanation

Deuteronomy 22 needs clear reading. Verses 28 and 29 are about premarital sex; verses 23-27 are about rape. Earlier verses (around 20) speak of lying about virginity; at least it seems that way.

Concerning slavery, keep in mind that beating your slave to a bloody pulp as long as their heart keeps beating, isn't encouraged. One of the Torah's aims was to make people more compassionate towards others. Besides, if you didn't want to be a slave for life, you didn't need to be. Every seven years, slaves were ordered to be released, unless the slaves themselves didn't want to be.

It's late again, so I'll continue tomorrow.

Good answers so far, and I would like to add some stuff if I get the time.


For now, i'll say this - truly our God is a gracious God for allowing His creation too imply or accuse him of wrong doing...without His immediate judgment. That Patheos article does exactly that.

I'll leave addressing the specific passages to others who are better qualified (Andreas seems to be doing a pretty good job) and just share some general thoughts on the subject.

eatbugs wrote:Personally (and I'm no scholar) I feel like God gives us progressive revelation into Himself.

I think that's certainly part of it.  I'm no scholar either, but I definitely believe that God gives us a progressive revelation.  As you move through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, you gradually learn more and more of not only God's plans (at least, those that pertain to the world and humanity), but also his will and his nature.  The Apostles Paul and John, for example, clearly had a better understanding of things than the OT authors.

As for why God does things this way .....

ThomasEversole wrote:It's more than just a culture issue, but a human development issue in general.

Not saying that this is all there is to the matter, I think this has a lot to do with it.  Looking at both the Bible and history in general, we can see that God intended humanity to develop over time.

God's plan for humanity is evolution.  I'm not talking about the biological, Darwinian concept here.  I'm talking about a mental, spiritual, and social development down through the ages.  Learning, growth, and change on many levels.  To bring up Paul again, think of how much more developed his understanding of God and humanity was than Abraham's.  Think how much more developed Stephen Hawking's understanding of physics is compared to that of Archimedes, who would have no doubt been dumbfounded if you told him about things like general relativity and black holes.

If you believe in the sovereignty of God, this makes sense, at least to me.  Whether or not one believes that God micromanages down to the tiniest degree, it seems pretty implausible that he wouldn't have a hand in the development of the creatures that bear his image.  Why did he decided this was the best way to do things - that's another question altogether, one I'm not sure we can answer at this point in time.  His ways and thoughts are far, far above our own.  That may not be the easiest thing to accept - after all, who doesn't want to have all the answers - but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

sentient 6 wrote:For now, i'll say this - truly our God is a gracious God for allowing His creation too imply or accuse him of wrong doing...without His immediate judgment.

Indeed.  When you stop and think about it, God puts up with quite a lot.  I don't think I'd be able to be anywhere near as patient if I were in his position, so it's a good thing I'm not. 

One final thing ..... I think the difference between the ways the OT and NT present God is somewhat overstated.  Yes, there is more of an emphasis on mercy in the NT.  This is to be expected with the whole progressive revelation thing.  Part of the purpose of the OT laws and prophecies is to point the way to Jesus and the New (and superior) Covenant.  But there are plenty of places in the OT that speak of God's love and compassion toward people that are not only undeserving but frequently ungrateful.

And the NT talks plenty about wrath and judgement.  Yes, there is a lot about love and grace and mercy, but it's not all smiles and sunshine by any stretch.  Jesus mentioned Hell and the coming judgement quite a bit.  And all those parts about love and grace and mercy?  What makes them so great and so amazing is that they are toward people who deserve not only death but Hell itself, whether we're talking about Jesus healing someone or our justification before God.  He also sometimes spoke of standards that were higher than those of OT law - adultery and divorce, for example.  The book of Revelation tells of a future wrath that's greater than anything in the OT.  The same savior who lays down his life for us is also the conquering king who will swing the sword of judgement when he comes again.

I think Christians in the last few generations (including the present ones) have too often tended to paint a warm fuzzy picture of God, and too often the Jesus we speak of sounds more like a hippie than the Jesus of the Bible.  It makes it easier, more palatable, when talking about Christianity to nonbelievers.  And we ourselves tend to find it more comforting.

Don't get me wrong - it's of the utmost importance that we speak of God's love and mercy.  John tells us that God is love, and that's certainly proven by Jesus' great sacrificial act.  But that's only a part of the truth.  Also, if we don't remember God's holiness, his justice, his judgement ..... then we can't fully appreciate his love and mercy, which none of us deserve.

Alright, enough rambling for one evening.

Just my two cents here.  All theology comes down to humanity trying to understand God.  I think the Bible is part of that.  Yes, I know that I think there is a good deal of the OT that is simply reporting what happened and was never intended to be the basis of any sort of doctrine or belief system.  It just was.  Did Lot offer his daughters for sex?  According to the text, yes he did.  Was that to be taken as being prescriptive for how we (or even the ancient Hebrew) should behave?  I hardly think so.

As for some of the commands, yes, you absolutely can read time and culture into them.  Like someone above said, humanity evolves, and things that were acceptable in one age and one culture can be seen in this age and culture as horrific.  You can use that knowledge to understand why things were as they were (or are as they are) without condoning those things.  You mention the Holocaust.  Yes, the systematic torture and extermination of nearly 11 million people is truly an objectively horrible thing.  But we see in our modern world how a charismatic leader can influence people's ideas and opinions and how well-placed propaganda can fan pre-existing biases into full-blown manias.  I understand how the Holocaust happened and I understand how good, decent people allowed it to happen, but that doesn't mean I think that it was ok that it happened and I certainly will not stand silently by when it happens again.  In the same way, understanding the culture and context in which some of those "problematic" passages were born is not the same as saying it is the way God wants us to live.

As for the "scapegoat" charge, I think you'd have to look at intent.  If there was human bias put in there masquerading as God's word, I think it would be more likely to be the kind of thing that happens subconsciously rather than a blatant attempt to use "God said" to control and manipulate people.

I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful replies. Obviously my biggest hangups exist in the book of Deuteronomy, and while here are some good things there, a lot of it seems absurd, and the good does not contribute anything additionally that other books do not. So, to those who know, was there debate about even canonizing this one? Hardly the modern church would encourage rape or continuous relationship with your rapist, but in Deuteronomy you can rape a girl and pay a fine and get to keep her as your wife. Even 28:63 says that God will take delight in bringing ruin and destroying those in rebellion while 2 Peter 3:9 states that he desires none should perish. How can you both desire that none should perish and enjoy destroying them at the same time? Since he is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13: verse eight), how do we reconcile the two concepts above?

Deuteronomy does not encourage rape, most English translations do not do this passage justice. 
http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5197

As for 2 Peter 3:9 read this: http://reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_2_peter_39_by_pa.php

I haven't read through this thread thoroughly, so forgive me if I've missed something, but going by the general theme, I recommend the excellent book "Is God A Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan, which looks at such things as the laws in the Old Testament that people find controversial, whether they be concerning slaves, women or other issues.  It is very enlightening.

Black Rider, thank you for the articles you referenced. The one on Deuteronomy is helpful. The one on 2 Peter 3:9 is unconvincing because it interprets scripture though the lense of reformed theology, something that an Armenian can do while retaining an equal level of validity. He author makes the arguement of context, but contextual intent cannot be proven, leaving it open to interpretation and theological bias. 

Dr394, the book you suggest sounds very interesting and I will seek to obtain a copy. 

The biggest reason I bring all of this up is that I’ve heard verses like some listed above labeled as “atheist makers.” I am not one or even close by any means, but I feel that for apologetic purposes I don’t have a solid defense for these when they are used to support an anti-biblical stance. And while I remain a believer, I can also see the point of the argument against such verses, and they honestly confuse me too, so they must be wrestled with.

Some of these Old Testament passages are indeed very difficult, especially to the twenty-first century mind.

I go to a website called Wireclub, which has both chatting rooms and message boards.  They cover a wide variety of subjects, including Religion, and there are some Christians there, as well as a lot of atheists. Ironically, the Religion room is often dominated by the latter.
I have regularly conversed with unbelievers over some of the OT laws.  Some of these people are reasonable, others are dreadful, but I hear over and over again how God supports or even commands slavery, rape, murder, etc, these arguments stemming from a lack of understanding of the context of what they're reading.  On a number of occasions, I have recommended Copan's book, but I'm sure there are others out there which would be helpful as well.

I'd ask them why, if there is no God, do these things even matter? You can't argue for evil without God, just personal preference.

I actually started a thread recently at that site on why some people are so venomous in their objection to the Bible.  Why do they make such an issue out of these things that they see as objectionable?  I didn't raise the point of no God, no ultimate good or evil, but more along the lines of if they really think that the OT does promote or command slavery, rape, etc, where are all the Christians doing these things?  And if we're not, why are they making such a big fuss about it?

Some Christians don't like this concept, but its just as much of a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" thing to do, to make everything in the Bible applicable to present day life. ....as it is to regard the entire Bible as false because of a few details that someone doesn't agree with, or they think they can prove otherwise.

People who disbelieve the Bible (for whatever reason(s)) are lost, in more ways than one. People who insist on living the Bible to a T, will be in jail for chopping off their wife's hand because she grabbed a dude's nuts to try to stop him from punching her husband in the face. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

God wants us to have faith - it says something about us that we can still have the view we do without seeing God walking around, spoonfeeding the fact to everyone that He (His Son) is the way to eternal life. Likewise, God wants us to have discernment. Not in regards to what's true in the bible, but what's applicable in today's day and age.

One discernment example -
You see a wholesome foods billboard stating "Children make nutritious snacks".
Is that saying that kids are creating healthy foods?
...or that eating children is nutritious?

Discerning that incorrectly (just like discerning something from the Bible incorrectly) will be life changing...

I personally think there's more to those old testament "horror quotes" than merely what's written. It needs more investigation before contempt can be thrown into the equation.

There's a lot here to potentially respond to that I'm not going to address, but if I could offer one thought that I believe is true and that might be helpful?

Regarding the idea of "if you rape a woman, you get to keep her as your wife."

1) You're right that Deuteronomy doesn't necessarily add to the previous books -- it's not intended to.  Deuteronomy literally means "2nd law" -- "deutero" = 2 and "nomos" = law.  The book is effectively a huge sermon from Moses to the people of Israel before they crossed the Jordan to take possession of the Promised Land (recorded in Joshua, of course).  Virtually everybody who was present for the first giving of the law at Sinai in Exodus is dead and gone -- they've wandered 40 years in the wilderness, and that generation has largely passed, and so this is Moses giving the same instruction on how to live and worship and set up a civilization to the current generation.  The audience is new, not the message, and that's actually the very point of it.

2) Specifically regarding rape and marriage, this is going to sound very foreign to us, but I think it's biblical.  The way our modern society thinks of and treats sex and marriage as separate (with, of course, some overlap!) would be completely foreign to the ancient Israelites.  Biblically, I think sex and marriage are inseparable.  A couple wasn't "completely" married until the marriage was consummated, because sex was part of marriage.  Similarly, if there had been a sexual union, Scripture speaks of sex as a "joining" of two individuals in a very profound way that runs much deeper than how we often think of sex as simply a physical event.  Reference Genesis 2:24, which is itself referenced both by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, and Jesus in his extremely hardcore discussion about marriage recorded in Matthew 19.  As well as the way the OT treats marriage and sexuality in general.  So it's my strong suspicion that it's less "If you rape a woman, you get to marry her," and more of "You're joined!  The two have become one, this has happened."

Also, I believe this would have been much more for the protection of the woman than the boon of the rapist.  A woman who's been raped would have been profoundly "damaged goods" and would have been hugely unlikely to become a bride, and in their way of life a single woman had virtually no ability to provide for herself.  The man, then, is forced to provide for the woman -- which practically speaking would have served the dual purpose of hugely discouraging rape and also ensuring provision for a victim.  I think they would be equally shocked and horrified that we will sleep with a partner in a long-term relationship or a one-night stand but not marry, much the same way that we are shocked and horrified to read something like "marry your rapist." Of course I recognize that "having" to marry your rapist sounds absolutely horrific, and truly it does.  But I tend to believe that in that instance, it was the least terrible option in a terrible situation.  And, of course, marriage and much of life was very different for them than it is for us.  The entire concept of marrying the person of your choice for reasons of emotional attachment (I have not used this phrasing in love poems to my wife, ha ha!) has only become widespread in the last couple of hundred years (and frankly we haven't had great results with it, ha ha!).

Of course quite a bit more could be said, but I'll stop here for today, and maybe forever.

I'll say to the op that I'm glad you're asking questions, and good and serious questions.  I'm also very happy with the spirit of the discussion here, which seems kind and respectful, in maybe a CMR theological first (the history is long and gross).  Naturally, you're free to disagree with or dismiss whatever from what I wrote, and I know that it isn't all super palatable to our modern sensibilities.  Thanks for your consideration.

I agree with what Grindboy has said here, especially in regards to the raped woman being pretty much "damaged goods", and getting married to the rapist would be the least worst thing that could have happened to her after the crime.  It was a very different culture from what we understand today.

I'd just like to comment on the last bit though, about the lack of kindness and respect in regards to theology at this site.  If I'm treading on stuff about which I should be shutting up, I apologise, but this does surprise me. I'm aware that there was a kerfuffle here a while ago to the point where the theology boards needed to be closed, which I've seen not only as a shame but also bewildering to me. This isn't because such things can't happen at Christian sites (oh boy, I know they can), but I find the CMR, a site I admit I only visit every now and again, to be one of the most conservative, respectful and intelligent I've ever come across.

Maybe, comparatively speaking, that just says something about where I've normally gone over the years. 

TheDoctor394 wrote:I'd just like to comment on the last bit though, about the lack of kindness and respect in regards to theology at this site.  If I'm treading on stuff about which I should be shutting up, I apologise, but this does surprise me. I'm aware that there was a kerfuffle here a while ago to the point where the theology boards needed to be closed, which I've seen not only as a shame but also bewildering to me. This isn't because such things can't happen at Christian sites (oh boy, I know they can), but I find the CMR, a site I admit I only visit every now and again, to be one of the most conservative, respectful and intelligent I've ever come across.

Not to derail the thread, but with your join date it surprises me a little you don't remember more.  It was more than a "kerfuffle" (   ), I wouldn't even go on the Theology Realm boards by the end of it as it became so argumentative (what do you expect though when a bunch of metalheads discuss theology).  I didn't keep score but if I remember correctly it seemed to be just a few argumentative individuals who liked to stir the pot or at best couldn't agree to disagree.  The offenders I remember are gone now.

Was it a blessing in disguise?  As you noticed those of us who stayed get along fairly well.  On the other hand we lost A LOT of people.  These boards used to be a lot busier and we had some big names in Christian metal come around once in a while.  Where are they now?  I think those negative few drove them off.

...

Back on topic I think Grindboy nailed it with that particular topic and in general the more I study the Bible the more the controversial stuff resolves itself.

eatbugs wrote:

TheDoctor394 wrote:I'd just like to comment on the last bit though, about the lack of kindness and respect in regards to theology at this site.  If I'm treading on stuff about which I should be shutting up, I apologise, but this does surprise me. I'm aware that there was a kerfuffle here a while ago to the point where the theology boards needed to be closed, which I've seen not only as a shame but also bewildering to me. This isn't because such things can't happen at Christian sites (oh boy, I know they can), but I find the CMR, a site I admit I only visit every now and again, to be one of the most conservative, respectful and intelligent I've ever come across.

Not to derail the thread, but with your join date it surprises me a little you don't remember more.  It was more than a "kerfuffle" (   ), I wouldn't even go on the Theology Realm boards by the end of it as it became so argumentative (what do you expect though when a bunch of metalheads discuss theology).  I didn't keep score but if I remember correctly it seemed to be just a few argumentative individuals who liked to stir the pot or at best couldn't agree to disagree.  The offenders I remember are gone now.

Was it a blessing in disguise?  As you noticed those of us who stayed get along fairly well.  On the other hand we lost A LOT of people.  These boards used to be a lot busier and we had some big names in Christian metal come around once in a while.  Where are they now?  I think those negative few drove them off.

I think that demonstrates how rarely I come here, and I don't think I actually visited the theology board.  But yes, I think, with that kind of thing, all it takes is two or three loud ones to cause enormous damage.  The deadliness of the tongue and all that...

Yes sorry, I didn't mean to send this thread off in another direction. :-)

I think one of the reasons for this is how differently people back then thought about being afraid of God. They didn't think them being afraid took anything away from God being good and loving.

Nowadays people don't like the thought of "the fear of God" at all. People tend to think that if you have to be afraid of someone, then that someone has to be evil. But back then it was obvious that if there is the ultimate creator of everything, it can and even should be something to be afraid of. And they were completely able to both love and fear that force at the same time.

Airola wrote:I think one of the reasons for this is how differently people back then thought about being afraid of God. They didn't think them being afraid took anything away from God being good and loving.

Nowadays people don't like the thought of "the fear of God" at all. People tend to think that if you have to be afraid of someone, then that someone has to be evil. But back then it was obvious that if there is the ultimate creator of everything, it can and even should be something to be afraid of. And they were completely able to both love and fear that force at the same time.

That's an interesting suggestion, and makes sense to me.

I think one of the dumbest bumper stickers (or anywhere else where it might be placed) is one that says "Fear God".  The average Christian knows that this is a fear of respect; it does not mean we should be terrified of our Lord. But others are likely to assume we have a God who is completely domineering and controlling, rather than loving and compassionate.