Paul Copan: Is God a moral monster?

 

Part 1. Neo-Atheism Contents 

Chapter 1. Who Are the New Atheists? 15 

Chapter 2. The New Atheists and the Old Testament God. 20 

Part 2. God: Gracious Master or Moral Monster? 

Chapter 3. Great Appetite for Praise and Sacrifices? Divine Arrogance or Humility? 27 

Chapter 4. Monumental Rage and Kinglike Jealousy? Understanding the Covenant-Making God. 34

Chapter 5. Child Abuse and Bullying? God's Ways and the Binding of Isaac. 42 

Part 3. Life in the Ancient Near East and in Israel 

Chapter 6. God's Timeless Wisdom? Incremental Steps for Hardened Hearts. 57 

Chapter 7. The Bible's Ubiquitous Weirdness? Kosher Foods, Kooky Laws? (I). 70 

Chapter 8. The Bible's Ubiquitous Weirdness? Kosher Foods, Kooky Laws? (II). 79 

Chapter 9. Barbarisms, Crude Laws, and Other Imaginary Crimes? Punishments and Other Harsh Realities in Perspective. 87 

Chapter 10. Misogynistic? Women in Israel. 101 

Chapter 11. Bride-Price? Polygamy, Concubinage, and Other Such Questions. 110 

Chapter 12. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (I): Slavery in Israel. 124 

Chapter 13. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (II): Challenging Texts on Slavery. 135 

Chapter 14. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (III): Slavery in the New Testament. 150 

Chapter 15. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing? The Killing of the Canaanites (I). 158 

Chapter 16. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing? The Killing of the Canaanites (II). 169 

Chapter 17. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing? The Killing of the Canaanites (III). 186 

Chapter 18. The Root of All Evil? Does Religion Cause Violence? 198 

Part 4. Sharpening the Moral Focus 

Chapter 19. Morality without a Lawgiving God? The Divine Foundation of Goodness. 209 

20 We Have Moved beyond This God (Haven't We?): Jesus as the Fulfiller of the Old Testament. 216 

Discussion/Study Questions 223 

Notes 235

Chapter 16. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing?

The Killing of the Canaanites (II)

Chapter 17. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing?

The Killing of the Canaanites (III)

Chapter 6. God's Timeless Wisdom? Incremental Steps for Hardened Hearts

Someone posted an "Open Letter to Dr. Laura" on the internet. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, of course, is the Jewish author and (until recently) radio talk show host who offers practical advice about relationships, parenting, and ethi-cal dilemmas based on Old Testament principles. Here's part of that letter, which is saturated with sarcasm:

Dear Dr. Laura:

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:

* 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?

* I have a neighbor 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?

* 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?

*¨Leviticus 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?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

* I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

* My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 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)....

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.

Twelfth-century rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) counted out 613 dis-tinct laws (365 prohibitions, 248 positive commands) in the Pentateuch. Talk about dos and don'ts! It's no secret that Westerners find many of these com-mands and the ancient Near Eastern world in general-baffling. They seem millions of miles removed from us all the regulations about food laws and skin diseases, not to mention prohibitions against cutting the edges of one's beard, wearing tattoos, or cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk. Israel's perplexing precepts, principles, and punishments seem odd, arbitrary, and severe.

When the New Atheists refer to the "ubiquitous weirdness" of the Bible, this may simply be the knee-jerk reaction of cultural snobbery or emotional dis-like. It may also reflect a lack of patience to truly understand a world different from ours. C. S. Lewis warns against chronological snobbery the "uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited."

How would you respond to the challenges of the open letter? Our discussion in part 3 will look at laws that may strike us as random, bizarre, and harsh. While the Old Testament world is in many ways a strange world to us moderns, to be fair-minded, we should at least try to understand it better.

After some introductory thoughts to frame the discussion, we'll look at is sues related to cleanliness and the treatment of women and slaves, concluding our discussion with Israelite warfare. Hopefully, this lengthy but popular-level discussion will help put Israel's laws and ancient Near Eastern assumptions into proper perspective.

The Law of Moses: Inferior and Provisional

On Palm Sunday in 1865, the brilliant Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered to the tenacious, gritty Northern general Ulysses S. Grant-sometimes called "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. This day at the Appomat-tox Court House was the decisive end to a costly war. Well over six hundred thousand men were killed in the Civil War-2 percent of the United States' population-and three million fought in it.

Despite the North's victory, the Emancipation Proclamation that preceded it (January 1, 1863), and the attempt at Reconstruction in the South, many whites did not change their mind-set in regard to blacks. As a nation, we've found that proclamations and civil rights legislations may be law, but such legalities don't eradicate racial prejudice from human minds. A good deal of time was required to make significant headway in the pursuit of racial justice.

Let's switch gears. Imagine a Western nation or representatives from the West who think it best to export democracy to, say, Saudi Arabia. Think of the obstacles to overcome! A radical change of mind-set would be required, and simply changing laws wouldn't alter the thinking in Saudi Arabia. In fact, you could probably imagine large-scale cultural opposition to such changes.

When we journey back over the millennia into the ancient Near East, we enter a world that is foreign to us in many ways. Life in the ancient Near East wouldn't just be alien to us with all of its strange ways and assumptions. We would also see a culture whose social structures were badly damaged by the fall. Within this context, God raised up a covenant nation and gave the people laws to live by; he helped to create a culture for them. In doing so, he adapted his ideals to a people whose attitudes and actions were influenced by deeply flawed structures. As we'll see with regard to servitude, punishments, and other structures, a range of regulations and statutes in Israel reveals a God who accommodates. Yet contrary to the common Neo-atheists' caricatures, these laws weren't the permanent, divine ideal for all persons everywhere. God informed his people that a new, enduring covenant would be necessary (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). By the Old Testament's own admission, the Mosaic law was inferior and future looking.

Does that mean that God's ideals turn up only in the New Testament? No, the ideals are established at the very beginning (Gen. 1-2). The Old Testa-ment makes clear that all humans are God's image-bearers; they have dignity, worth, and moral responsibility And God's ideal for marriage is a one-flesh monogamous union between husband and wife. Also, certain prohibitions in the law of Moses against theft, adultery, murder, and idolatry have enduring relevance. Yet when we look at God's dealings with fallen humans in the an-cient Near East, these ideals were ignored and even deeply distorted. So God was at work in seeking to restore or move toward this ideal.

We know that many products on the market have a built-in, planned ob-solescence. They're designed for the short-term; they're not intended to be long-lasting and permanent. The same goes for the law of Moses: it was never intended to be enduring. It looked forward to a new covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). It's not that the Mosaic law was bad and therefore needed to be replaced. The law was good (Rom. 7:12), but it was a temporary measure that was less than ideal; it was in need of replacement and fulfillment.

Though a necessary part of God's unfolding plan, the Sinai legislation wasn't God's final word. As the biblical scholar N. T. Wright affirms, "The Torah [law of Moses at Sinai] is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside-not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished." This is the message of the New Testament book of Hebrews: the old Mosaic law and other Old Testament institutions and figures like Moses and Joshua were prefiguring "shadows" that would give way to "substance" and completion. Or as Paul put it in Galatians 3:24, the law was a "tutor" for Israel to prepare the way for Christ.

Incremental Steps toward the Ideal

How then did God address the patriarchal structures, primogeniture (rights of the firstborn), polygamy, warfare, servitude/slavery, and a number of other fallen social arrangements that were permitted because of the hardness of human hearts? He met Israel partway As Jesus stated it in Matthew 19:8, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" We could apply this passage to many problematic structures within the ancient Near Eastern context: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted servitude and patriarchy and warfare and the like, but from the beginning it has not been this way" They were not ideal and universal.

After God invited all Israelites-male and female, young and old to be a nation of priests to God, he gave them a simple covenant code (Exod. 20:22-23:19). Following on the heels of this legislation, Israel rebelled against God in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32). High priests would also have their own rebellion by participating in deviant, idolatrous worship (Lev. 10). As a result of Israel's turning from God, he gave them more stringent laws (Jer. 7; cf. Gal. 3:19). In the New Testament, Paul assumes that God had been putting up with inferior, less-than-ideal societal structures and human disobedience:

* Acts 17:30: Previously, God "overlooked the times of ignorance" and is "now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent."

* Romans 3:25: God has now "demonstrate[d] His righteousness" in Christ, though "in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

Like two sides of the same coin, we have human hard-heartedness and divine forbearance. God put up with many aspects of human fallenness and adjusted accordingly. (More on this below.)

So Christopher Hitchens's reaction to Mosaic laws ("we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals") actually points us in the right direction in two ways. First, the Mosaic law was temporary and, as a whole, isn't universal and binding upon all humans or all cultures. Second, Mosaic times were indeed "crude" and "uncultured" in many ways. So Sinai legislation makes a number of moral improvements without completely overhauling ancient Near Eastern social structures and assumptions. God "works with" Israel as he finds her. He meets his people where they are while seeking to show them a higher ideal in the context of ancient Near Eastern life. As one writer puts it, "If human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the 'bet-ter way' must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand."

Given certain fixed assumptions in the ancient Near East, God didn't impose legislation that Israel wasn't ready for. He moved incrementally. As stated repeatedly in the Old Testament and reinforced in the New Testament, the law of Moses was far from ideal. Being the practical God he is, Yahweh (the Old Testament title for the covenant-making God) met his people where they were, but he didn't want to leave them there. God didn't banish all fallen, flawed, ingrained social structures when Israel wasn't ready to handle the ideals. Taking into account the actual, God encoded more feasible laws, though he directed his people toward moral improvement. He condescended by giving Israel a jumping-off place, pointing them to a better path.

As we move through the Scriptures, we witness a moral advance-or, in many ways, a movement toward restoring the Genesis ideals. In fact, Israel's laws reveal dramatic moral improvements over the practices of the other ancient Near Eastern peoples. God's act of incrementally "humanizing" ancient Near Eastern structures for Israel meant diminished harshness and an elevated status of debt-servants, even if certain negative customs weren't fully eliminated.

So when we read in Joshua 10:22-27 that Joshua killed five Canaanite kings and hung their corpses on trees all day, we don't have to explain away or justify such a practice. Such actions reflect a less morally refined condition. Yet these sorts of texts remind us that, in the unfolding of his purposes, God can use heroes such as Joshua within their context and work out his redemptive purposes despite them. And, as we'll see later on, warfare accounts in Joshua are actually quite tame in comparison to the barbarity of other ancient Near Eastern accounts.

So rather than looking at Scripture from a post-Enlightenment critique (which, as we'll see later, is itself rooted in the Christian influence on Western culture), we can observe that Scripture itself acknowledges the inferiority of certain Old Testament standards. The Old Testament offers national Israel various resources to guide them regarding what is morally ideal. God's legis-lation is given to a less morally mature culture that has imbibed the morally inferior attitudes and sinful practices of the ancient Near East.

Note too that common ancient Near Eastern worship patterns and rit-uals-sacrifices, priesthood, holy mountains/places, festivals, purification rites, circumcision-are found in the law of Moses. For example, we find in Hittite law a sheep being substituted for a man. In his providence, God appropriated certain symbols and rituals familiar to Israel and infused them with new meaning and significance in light of his saving, historical acts and his covenant relationship with Israel. This "redemption" of ancient rituals and patterns and their incorporation into Israel's own story reflect common human longings to connect with "the sacred" or "the transcendent" or to find grace and forgiveness. In God's historical redemption of Israel and later with the coming of Christ, the Lamb of God, these kinds of rituals and symbols were fulfilled in history and were put in proper perspective.

Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old Testament, we should freely acknowledge them. We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1-2 and affirm with our critics that we don't have to advocate such practices for all societies. We can also show that any of the objectionable practices we find in the Old Testa-ment have a contrary witness in the Old Testament as well.*

The Redemptive Movement of Scripture

The Old Testament's laws exhibit a redemptive movement within Scripture. It's easy to get stuck on this or that isolated verse-all the while failing to see the underlying redemptive spirit and movement of Scripture that unfold and progress. For example, William Webb's book Slaves, Women, and Homosexи als" unpacks this "redemptive-movement" perspective found in Scripture. The contrast is the static interpretation that rigidly "parks" at certain texts without considering the larger movement of Scripture.

Some people might ask, "Is this some sort of relativistic idea-that certain laws were right for Old Testament Israel but now there's another standard that's right for us?" Not at all! Keep in mind the following thoughts we've already touched on:

* God's ultimate ideals regarding human equality and dignity as well as the creational standard of marriage made their appearance at the very beginning (Gen. 1-2).

* The ancient Near East displays a deviation from these ideals in fallen social structures and human hard-heartedness.

* Incremental steps are given to Old Testament Israel that tolerate certain moral deficiencies but encourage Israel to strive higher.

So the Old Testament isn't affirming relativism-that was true in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament. God's ideals were already in place at creation, but God accommodated himself to human hard-heartedness and fallen social structures. Half a loaf is better than none-something we take for granted in the give-and-take of the political process in the West. In other words, the idea that you can make progress toward the ideal, even if you can't get there all at once, is a far cry from relativism. Rather, your eye is still set on the ideal, and you're incrementally moving toward it, but the practicalities of life "on the ground" make it difficult to implement the ideal all at once. Likewise, the Sinai laws were moving in the right direction even if certain setbacks remained.

As we progress through Scripture, we see with increasing clarity how women and servants (slaves) are affirmed as human beings with dignity and worth. Let's take slaves, for instance:"

Original ancient Near Eastern culture: The general treatment of slaves could be very brutal and demeaning, and slaves were typically at the mercy of their masters; runaway slaves had to be returned to masters on pain of death.

Old Testament improvement on ancient Near Eastern culture: Though various servant/slave laws are still problematic, the Old Testament pre-sents a redemptive move toward an ultimate ethic: there were limited punishments in contrast to other ancient Near Eastern cultures; there was a more humanized attitude toward servants/slaves; and runaway foreign slaves were given refuge in Israel.

New Testament improvement on Old Testament: Slaves (in the Roman Empire) were incorporated into the body of Christ without distinction from masters (Gal. 3:28); masters were to show concern for their slaves; slaves were encouraged to gain freedom (1 Cor. 7:20-22). Note, though, that the Roman Empire had institutionalized slavery-in contrast to the Old Testament's humanized indentured servitude. So the New Testa-ment writers had to deal with a new setting, one that was a big moral step backward.

Ultimate ideal: This includes the genuine realization of creation ideals in Genesis 1:26-27, in which God's image-bearers live and work together harmoniously and are fairly graciously treated; they are viewed as full persons and equals; and genuine humanness is restored in Christ, the second Adam/the new man.

While such a redemptive movement operates for women and servants/slaves in Scripture, the same cannot be said for homosexual activity. This action is consistently viewed negatively a departure from God's creational design-plan. Although I go into much detail elsewhere on the topic of homosexuality," let me briefly address it in this redemptive-movement discussion. Rather than re-vealing some progression in attitudes regarding homosexual activity, Scripture from beginning to end is uniformly negative in its evaluation. Homosexual behavior, though quite common in the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, was simply "alien to the Jewish and Christian ethos."

Remember that homosexual acts not simply inclinations/tendencies were judged to be immoral by the biblical authors. No redemptive movement exists to advance homosexual acts toward increased moral acceptability

Some claim that prohibitions against homosexual acts were "just cultural" or simply "on the same level" as the kosher or clothing laws given to Israel to set her apart from her pagan neighbors. This is too quick. Actually, the Mosaic law also prohibits adultery, bestiality, murder, and theft. Surely these go far beyond the temporary measures of eating shrimp or pork.

How then does this redemptive movement show itself in Scripture? As an illustration, consider the progression from Moses's permitting a certificate of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to Jesus's discussion of this in Matthew 19. Jesus acknowledged the permitting-not commanding of divorce in Deu-teronomy 24 due to human hard-heartedness. Yet Jesus didn't simply "park" at this Old Testament passage and woodenly interpret it, as his religious op-ponents did. He considered the redemptive component of this legislation. The certificate of divorce was to protect the wife; a vulnerable divorced woman typically had to remarry to escape poverty and shame by coming under the shelter of a husband. This law took into consideration the well-being of the wife so that she wouldn't be divorced and taken back and then dumped once more at the whim of her former husband.

Many religious leaders of Jesus's day had a stilted interpretation of this passage, making it difficult for them to see that Moses wasn't commanding an absolute ethic. They couldn't see beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the text. This conflict of interpretations is similar to the one in Mark 2:23-28: Jesus looked to the spirit of the Sabbath legislation, informing his critics that "the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" (κ. 27 NET).

Jesus instructively pointed out that human hard-heartedness was behind such legislation on divorce (Matt. 19:8). After all, God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16); that's certainly not ideal. Instead, God desires that a husband and a wife cling to each other in lifelong love and commitment (Gen. 2:24). Yet the religious leaders of Jesus's day approached the Old Testament so legalistically that they missed the spirit behind the Mosaic legislation.

Throughout this book, we'll repeat the message: Israel's Old Testament covenant wasn't a universal ideal and was never intended to be so. The Mo-saic covenant anticipated a better covenant. So when Sam Harris insists that consistent Bible believers should stone their children for believing heretical ideas, he's actually behind the times! As we move from Old Testament to New Testament, from national Israel to an interethnic Israel (the church), we see a shift from a covenant designed for a nation-with its own civil laws and judicial system to a new arrangement for God's people scattered throughout the nations of the world and whose citizenship is a heavenly one. In the Old Testament, the death penalty could be carried out for adultery, for instance. Yet when we get to the New Testament, the people of God-no longer a national, civic entity-are to deal much differently with adultery The professing Christian who refuses to stop his adulterous behavior after appropriate warning and loving concern is disciplined by (hopefully tempo-rary) excommunication (1 Cor. 5:1-5). The Christian can agree that while adultery may be tolerated legally by the state (we don't jail people for it), it shouldn't be tolerated in the church. The goal of all such (hopefully tem-porary) discipline of removal is restoration to fellowship-that "his spirit may be saved" (v. 5).

So as we look at many of these Mosaic laws, we must appreciate them in their historical context, as God's gracious, temporary provision. Yet we should also look at the underlying spirit and movement across the sweep of salvation history

Israel's History: Differing Stages, Different Demands

Israel's story involves a number of stages or contexts.

Stage #1: Ancestral wandering clan (mishpachah): Genesis 10:31-32

Stage #2: Theocratic people/nation ('am, goy): Genesis 12:2; Exodus 1:9; 3:7; Judges 2:20

Stage #3: Monarchy, institutional state, or kingdom (mamlakah, malkut): 1 Samuel 24:20; 1 Chronicles 28:5

Stage #4: Afflicted remnant (she'erit): Jeremiah 42:4; Ezekiel 5:10

Stage #5: Postexilic community/assembly of promise (qahal): Ezra 2:64; Nehemiah 13:1

With these differing contexts come differing ethical demands. Each new situa-tion calls for differing ethical responses or obligations corresponding to them. Don't get the wrong idea, however. It's not as though this view advocates "situation ethics" that in some situations, say, adultery is wrong, but in other situations it might be "the loving thing to do."

Rather, the Old Testament supplies us with plenty of permanent moral insights from each of these stages. So during the wandering clan stage, we gain enduring insights about commitments of mutual love and concern as well as the importance of reconciliation in overcoming conflict. The patriarchs trusted in a covenant-making God; this God called for full trust as he guided them through difficult, unforeseeable circumstances. And during Israel's theo-cratic stage, an enduring insight is the need to acknowledge that all blessings and prosperity come from God's hand-that they aren't a right but a gift of grace. The proper response is gratitude and living holy lives in keeping with Israel's calling.

Again, what we're emphasizing is far from moral relativism; it's just that along with these historical changes came differing ethical challenges. During the wandering clan stage, for instance, Abraham and the other patriarchs had only accidental or exceptional political involvements. And even when Abraham had to rescue Lot after a raid (Gen. 14), he refused to profit from political benefactors. Through a covenant-bond, Yahweh was the vulnerable patriarchs' protector and supplier.

After this, Israel had to wait 430 years and undergo bondage in Egypt until the bag of Amorite sins was filled to the point of bursting (Gen. 15:16). God certainly didn't act hastily against the Canaanites! God delivered Israel out of slavery, providing a place for her to live and making her a political entity, a history-making nation. A theocracy was then formed with its own religious, social, and political environment.

To acquire land to live as a theocracy and eventually to pave the way for a coming Redeemer-Messiah, warfare (as a form of judgment on fully ripened sin) was involved. God used Israel to neutralize Canaanite military strongholds and drive out a people who were morally and spiritually corrupt-beyond re-demption. The Canaanites had sunk below the hope of moral return, although God wouldn't turn away those who recognized God's justice and his power in delivering Israel from Egypt (such as Rahab and her family). This settling of the land was a situation quite different from the wandering clan stage, and it required a different response.

Later, when many of God's people were exiled in Babylon, they were required to handle this situation differently than in the previous theocratic stage. They were to build gardens, settle down, have children, and pray for the welfare of Babylon-the very enemy that had displaced them by carrying them into exile (Jer. 29:4-7). Israel's obligations and relationship to Gentile nations hardly remained fixed or static.

The "Is-Ought" Fallacy

Christopher Hitchens mentions "the ungrateful and mutinous children of Israel. In fact, the Old Testament is full of characters who are deeply flawed and all too human. The critic wonders, "What kind of role model is Abra-ham (who lies about Sarah), or Moses (who murders an Egyptian), or David (who power-rapes Bathsheba and then arranges to have her husband, Uriah, killed)?" The critic has a point: this isn't the way things ought to be done. But the biblical authors often don't comment on such actions because (at least in part) they assume they don't need to. In other words, is doesn't mean ought; the way biblical characters happen to act isn't necessarily an endorsement of their behavior.

Here's a question we should be careful to ask: What kind of example are they-morally excellent, evil/immoral, or somewhere in between? Indeed, 1 Corinthians 10 refers to the "ungrateful and mutinous" children of Israel who are full of stubbornness and treachery They end up serving as vivid negative examples, and we should avoid imitating them. We can reject the notion that "if it's in the Bible, it must have God's seal of approval."

Take King David. He's more like a figure in Greek tragedies-a hero with deep flaws, a mixed moral bag. David is a lot like you and me. He illustrates the highs and lows of moral success and failure. Old Testament scholar John Barton puts it this way: "The story of David handles human anger, lust, ambition, and disloyalty without ever commenting explicitly on these things but by telling its tale in such a way that the reader is obliged to look them in the face and to recognize his or her affinity with the characters in whom they are exemplified."

Biblical writers are often subtly deconstructing major characters like Gideon and Solomon, who are characterized by flawed leadership and spiritual com-promise. On closer inspection, the hero status accorded to Abraham, Moses, and David in the Old Testament (and echoed in the New Testament) is rooted not in their moral perfection but in their uncompromising dedication to the cause of Yahweh and their rugged trust in the promises of God rather than lapsing into the idolatry of many of their contemporaries.

Also, many of Israel's regulations are casuistic-instances of case law. That is, what rules are to be in place if such-and-such a scenario presents itself? These scenarios aren't necessarily being endorsed or applauded as good or ideal. For example, if someone steals another's possessions or if someone wants to get a divorce, then certain actions are to be taken in these inferior circumstances. Stealing isn't a good thing, and neither is divorce!

Unlike the abstracted ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Mosaic law is sur rounded by lengthy narratives that often illustrate ethical life for Israel. Whether through failure, success, or something in between, biblical characters and events often put flesh and bones on ethical commands. Yes, the prologue and epilogue of Hammurabi's Code is full of self-exaltation and ethical promises, but it's fairly ahistorical. In fact, as we compare the Old Testament to other ancient Near Eastern worldviews-including beginnings, history, covenant, ethics, and theology-any surface differences fall away As John Oswalt has recently argued, the Old Testament presents an utterly unique religious outlook that sets itself apart from its ancient Near Eastern counterparts."

On another note, Hammurabi claims merely to speak for the deity Shamash; the Hittites claimed the sun god established the laws of the land. Moses, on the other hand, isn't the legislator on God's behalf. Rather, the law portrays a personally interactive God who throughout speaks in the first person:" "If you afflict him [the widow or the orphan) at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled" (Exod. 22:23-24); again, "You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell" (Num. 35:34). God's historical action of delivering enslaved Israel from Egypt becomes a model for how Israel is to live-for example, how to treat aliens and the disadvantaged in their midst.

Does this mean that humans can't use their judgment to create new laws? Not at all! Moses followed his father-in-law's advice to create a judicial hear-ing system so that he wouldn't be overworked (Exod. 18); David established a statute about giving a fair share to those who fought and to those who guarded their baggage (1 Sam. 30:22-25).

Of course, we should remember that just because the biblical text claims historicity and divine involvement, this doesn't yet prove anything. However, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen and others have argued, as time goes on, the once-doubted historical claims of the Old Testament-whether the cost of slaves in the ancient Near East, camels on livestock lists during the time of Abraham, the kingship of David, the mines of Solomon, the metallurgy of the Philistines, or the existence of the Hittites-turn out to be anchored in ancient Near Eastern history." The Old Testament portrays a God concerned enough to enter into and act in history, and these actual events and interactions are to shape and inspire the character and actions of the people of God.

These then are some important issues that will help us as we approach the law of Moses-a gracious gift temporarily given to national Israel that bridged God's ideals and the realities of ancient Near Eastern life and human hard-heartedness. Some of the troubling, harsh, and seemingly arbitrary Old Testament laws though inferior and less than morally optimal are often an improvement on what we see in the rest of the ancient Near East. God had to settle for less than the best with national Israel; however, he still desired moral improvement and spiritual obedience, despite fallen social structures and human rebellion.

Much in the Old Testament visibly reminds us of God's abundant grace despite human sin and fall-damaged social structures. We regularly see God work in and through sinful human beings as inefficient as it seems! to bring to pass his overarching purposes.

Further Reading

Copan, Paul. "Are Old Testament Laws Evil?" In God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible, edited by Chad Meister and William Lane Craig. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009, Goldingay, John. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testa-ment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Gundry, Stanley N., and Gary T. Meadors, eds. Four Views of Moving beyond the Bible to Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. 

Hoffmeier, James K. The Archaeology of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Kregel/ Lion, 2008. 

Webb, William J. Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2001. 

Wenham, Gordon J. Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. 

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Chapter 7. The Bible's Ubiquitous Weirdness? Kosher Foods, Kooky Laws? (I)

Imagine a triangle with the following categories: God at the top corner with God's people and the land of Israel at the bottom corners. The law given to Israel by Moses emphasized these three intimately connected angles-the theological, the social, and the economic. These intertwined themes undergirded God's covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. The land (the economic) is a gift of God (the theological) to his covenant people (the social). So when a neighbor, say, moves boundary stones to enlarge his own territory, this has a social impact, affecting his neighbor's livelihood. This act of theft from a neighbor isn't just a societal violation; it's a violation against God as well. Or consider how adultery throws a family into upheaval, not to mention creating a tear in Israel's social fabric. It was an offense against God as well. So when the one God makes a covenant with his people (at Sinai) just before providing a land for them, he is attempting to reshape his people into a nation very much unlike their neighbors. Regarding Israelite society, sociological research reveals that early on, Israel's identity was classified by tribes, clans, and households (extended families). In short, Israel had a tribal and kinship structure. Economic, judicial, religious, and even military aspects of life were oriented around this social formation. By contrast, Canaanites had a kind of feudal system with a powerful elite at the top and peasants at the bottom.

Regarding the land, many extended families were landowning households. These family units had considerable social freedom; Israelite society was "socially decentralized and non-hierarchical" until the time of Solomon onward. By contrast, Canaanite kings owned all the land. Peasants had to work the land as tenants and pay taxes.¹ Again we have dramatic improvements in Israelite law in contrast to the Canaanites. At Sinai, the Creator bound himself to Israel in a loving covenant, the Mosaic law, which extends from Exodus 20 to Numbers 10 and is recapitulated in Deuteronomy (the "second law") for the next generation of Israelites about to enter Canaan. Included in this covenant are apparently odd and arbitrary Old Testament laws. The atheist Bertrand Russell wondered about the command not to boil a kid goat in the milk of its mother (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21); this demand seems arbitrary to our ears, he claimed, because it was rooted in some ancient ritual.2 Like Russell, when we read commands regarding clothing laws, planting laws, food laws, laws prohibiting tattoos or ruining the corners of a beard, we may ask ourselves, "Why in the world...? What's the point?" Apart from their purpose for national Israel in the Old Testament, what good are they for us today? Do they have any relevance for us? Even though Christians aren't under the Mosaic covenant "but under grace" (Rom. 6:14), what relationship does the Mosaic covenant have to those of us who live in the new covenant era initiated by Christ? Keep in mind this statement that is worthy of full acceptance: the law of Moses is not eternal and unchanging. Despite what the New Atheists assume, Old Testament sages and seers themselves announced that the law of Moses was intentionally temporary. Yes, we see God saying things like "you shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it" (Deut. 4:2), but even here it is in the context of imageless worship (vv. 15–18).3 We also see adaptation within the law itself, such as Zelophehad's daughters requesting an upgraded legislation to address their inheritance question (Num. 27:1-11). Furthermore, Old Testament saints awaited a new covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). Within the law itself, we're told that a time would come when God would circumcise the hearts of his people (Deut. 30:1-6). So let's not think that we're talking about the universal application of all Old Testament laws for post-Old Testament times.

Israel's History, God's Activity 

The nineteenth-century British journalist William Ewer wrote, "How odd of God to choose the Jews." Well, grace is an amazing-and in some ways an odd-thing. Why did God select the nation of Israel and not another? Not because it possessed some right or had earned God's favor to be chosen. Israel owed its very existence to the saving activity of God in history. Israel's status 

as a theocracy (under "God's rule") was a privilege-and a responsibilityrooted in the grace of God. The law of Moses didn't stand on its own as a mere ancient law code. It is unique in that it is interwoven into a dynamic historical narrative of a covenantmaking God's activity through Israel from its beginnings: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exod. 20:2-3). God's act of gracious deliverance-along with his interaction with human beings in history-sets the context for God's giving the Mosaic law. In fact, the events in Israel's story often illustrate and clarify matters raised in the Mosaic law. So we'll misunderstand these Mosaic matters if we think Israel's obligations consisted only in eating kosher foods, remaining ritually clean by staying away from corpses and carcasses, and going to the health inspector-priest to have skin diseases, scabs, and house mold examined. For one thing, God desired that Israel love him and cling to him (Deut. 6:5; 10:20), which isn't exactly reducible to keeping laws! Also, God's actions in history shaped his people's identity as God's covenant people; the deliverance from Egypt in turn was to shape the nation's inner motivation out of gratitude. For example, because God graciously rescued his people from Egypt, Israel was to remember to treat with compassion the strangers and less fortunate in their midst. His people were not to forget that they themselves were once slaves in a foreign land (Lev. 25:38, 42, 55; Deut. 15:15). We've all met parents who think their kids can do no wrong. It's frustrating when you're the one trying to coach such kids in sports or teach them in a classroom. Some critics trump up this same charge against God-that he's treating Israel with a blind favoritism. Not so! In fact, God promised Israel that she would-and did-receive the same judgments God brought on morally corrupt nations surrounding her (Deut. 28:15–68; Josh. 23:14-16). God regularly reminded Israel that it wasn't her righteousness but rather God's grace that brought about her chosen status (Deut. 9:4-5); in response, they were to treat the poor and vulnerable with compassion and to be a blessing to the surrounding nations. This picture expresses what one scholar calls the grace-gratitude ideal: "This is what God has done for you. Therefore, out of gratitude you should do the same for others."4 The very context for the law was grace. Having "no other gods" (along with the other nine commandments) is preceded by the reminder that God had delivered Israel out of bondage (Exod. 20:2). Being God's graciously chosen people meant Israel's obligation to live wisely before the nations (Deut. 4:6-7). 

Some atheist philosophers have objected to the idea of a "chosen people"- that this, by itself, is inherently immoral. Louise Antony asks, "What part of 'chosen people' do you not understand?"5 Actually, she hasn't understood it all that well! Not only does God threaten Israel with the same judgments he brings on other nations, but he also reminds Israel that he is at work in the nations of the world: "Are you not as the sons of Ethiopia to Me, O sons of Israel?... Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?" (Amos 9:7). When we encounter Melchizedek, Abimelech, Job, Rahab, Ruth, and other non-Israelites in the Old Testament, we are reminded of Paul's words-that a rescuing and redeeming God isn't far from each one of us (Acts 17:27), whether before or after Christ. And God's choosing Israel was not an end in itself but a means of blessing all the nations. 

"One Nation under God"

The Manifest Destiny idea has shaped much of American life, though the term came into use in the 1840s to validate the United States' expansion into Texas, Mexico, and Oregon. Early in America's history, many Protestants who came to America believed that they were extending the Reformation; God's special hand of blessing was upon them as they hoped to realize the postmillennial dream: bringing God's kingdom to earth. The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop (1588–1649), saw the New England colony as "a Citty upon a Hill" with "the eyes of all people... upon us."6 The problem here was that the early colonists' vision was blurred; they didn't distinguish between church and state. They assumed that they were the new people of God embarking on a new exodus-an errand in the wilderness-to do theocracy the right way. 

Today, many American Christians seem to mix up church and state. They believe the community of genuine believers in America is the people of Godboth in heaven and on earth. But the nation of America isn't the people of God; we don't live in a theocracy. The sooner Christians realize this, the sooner the church can make a deeper impact as salt and light in society. Things were different at Mount Sinai. A true theocracy was being created, the only one that would ever exist. Church and state were united.7 Some readers may be thinking, "But Muslims have their theocracies too!" I'm not going to take the time here to argue for the Old Testament's unique authority as God's special revelation to Israel as opposed to, say, the Qur'an.* I'm just trying to help make better sense of difficulties found within the Old Testament. Under the Mosaic covenant, national Israel uniquely existed as a theocracy, and even this arrangement wasn't intended to be ideal and permanent. This environment would help prepare the cultural and theological context for God's revelation of Jesus of Nazareth "when the fullness of the time came" (Gal. 4:4). The ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit would lead to the creation of a new, interethnic community-the true Israel as the new royal priesthood and holy nation (1 Peter 2:9). The Old Testament theocracy gave way to a new covenant community from every nation and language-the church (see Matt. 8:11-12; 21:43). The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 marked the finality of this transition, signaling the demise of national/ ethnic Israel as the people of God." Again, Old Testament Israel was the one and only genuine theocracy ever to exist, and it was temporary at that. Furthermore, national Israel was established by God to help set the religious, cultural, and historical context for the saving work of Jesus the Messiah later in history. The ultimate goal is nothing less than God's salvation being brought to all the nations (Gen. 12:3) and seeing his righteous rule finally established (2 Pet. 3:13).

 Holiness in All of Life

The Israelites seemed to have laws covering everything-food laws, clothing laws, planting laws, civil laws, laws regarding marriage and sexual relations. These weren't intended to be exhaustive. Rather, they were to be viewed first as visible reminders to live as God's holy people in every area of life. There wasn't any division between the sacred and the secular, between the holy and the profane. God was concerned about holiness in all things-the major and the minor,the significant and the mundane. In such legislation, Israel was being reminded that she was different, a holy people set apart to serve God.10 

Holiness wasn't just for official priests; it was for the entire people of Israel. In fact, they were called "a kingdom of priests" and "a holy nation" (Exod. 19:6). Since God is holy or set apart, his people were to be so as well (Lev. 11:44). The Israelites were to be "marked off," just as the Sabbath day was "marked off" or "set apart as holy" to the Lord (Gen. 2:3). We could rephrase the command "be holy, for I the LORD am holy" (Lev. 19:2) this way: "You shall be my people and mine alone, for I am your God and yours alone."11 This relationship can be compared to the serious marriage vows we talked about earlier. Being God's people meant living lives dedicated to God in every aspect of life. 

This holiness wasn't religious pretense-a phoniness that looked intact and decent on the outside but was cracked and rotting within. When God prescribed rituals, he wanted them to represent humility of heart and love for God and neighbor (Ps. 51:15–19). God hated rites like "festivals... solemn assemblies... burnt offerings and... grain offerings" when God's people ignored "justice" and "righteousness" (Amos 5:21-24). Eating kosher foods and paying careful attention to rituals didn't matter if the worship of God and the treatment of others weren't kosher. 12 

Food, clothing, and planting laws weren't nitpicky commands God gave to oppress Israel. The prophets reminded her that God was primarily concerned about justice, mercy, and walking humbly before God (Deut. 10:12; Mic. 6:8). This underlying moral concern, however, didn't cancel out ritual prescriptions-with their rich theological meaning-even much later in Israel's history after the Babylonian exile.13 

The Christian (and we could throw in the non-Christian too) should learn the lesson God wanted to teach ancient Israel: living under God's reign should affect all of life. God's presence permeates and saturates our world. Heaven and earth are full of his glory (Ps. 19:1-2; Isa. 6:3). God isn't cordoned off to some private, religious realm. God is-either by direct control or divine permission so as not to violate human freedom-sovereignly at work in all the rhythms of creation and workings of human history. He's weaving together a tapestry to bring all things to their climax in Christ. As the hymn writer put it, God "speaks to me everywhere."14 

Clean and Unclean

We've heard the line "cleanliness is next to godliness." In Old Testament times, this was closer to the truth than what we may think today. What does all this language of "cleanness" and "uncleanness" or "purity" and "impurity" mean? Why the ablutions for the pollutions? Why the need for purification? While we Westerners may think all of this strange, many other cultures-tribal, Islamic, Hindu-can more readily relate to such a picture. We'll be helped by thinking in terms of analogies and symbolism-not in terms of arguments-in our effort to better understand purity laws and the notions of clean and unclean. Cleanness and uncleanness are symbols or pictures, and the Hebrew idea of life and death is behind these pictures. For the Hebrew, life wasn't mere biological existence. Humans could be biologically alive yet living in the realm of death-spiritual, moral, psychological/emotional ruin and alienation (e.g., Prov. 7:23-27). Uncleanness symbolizes loss of life. 

Although many English translations use terms such as (un)cleanness or (im)purity, we shouldn't think these refer to health and hygiene. That isn't the case. Perhaps the term taboo-which suggests something nonmoral and perhaps mysterious that is off-limits regarding food, time, death, or seхmight capture this idea more effectively. A priest needed to be physically whole-without defect-so that the sanctuary of God might not become common. This doesn't mean that a physical defect is sinful or wrong; being polluted isn't identical to being immoral (although immorality brings pollution or is taboo). After all, animals that are taboo (unclean) are still part of God's good creation. And when unclean, Israelites weren't prohibited from worshiping God or even celebrating feasts-only from entering the sanctuary.15 Furthermore, sex is a good gift from God and not sinful (within marriage), yet purification was necessary after sex so as to show the distinction between God and human beings. (Keep in mind that the various ancient Near Eastern gods engaged in all kinds of sexual activity, unlike the biblical God.) 19 

Life, on the other hand, means being rightly connected to God and to the community-and properly functioning, whole, or well-ordered within (peace = shalom). As we'll see, carnivorous animals, whether predators or scavengers, are connected with death and are therefore unclean. Ritual uncleanness in Israel was inevitable and frequent but not in itself sinful.17 Yet the ultimate concern behind cleanness, uncleanness, and holiness is the human heart-the very point Jesus made in Mark 7:14–23. And even though sin goes beyond ceremonial matters, it still defiles or pollutes us. Sin creates moral impurity or uncleanness before God. In the Old Testament, ethical concerns (sin) can't be separated from matters of purity.18 Murder, for example, symbolically defiles or pollutes the land (Num. 35:33–34), and so it must be "cleansed." The same can be said about the language of abomination; it has the same kind of overlap as uncleanness. Sometimes it refers to moral impurity, other times ceremonial impurity-and these categories aren't always neatly distinguished in the Old Testament. To sum up, the law refers to two kinds of (im)purity: (1) ritual impurity (the result of contact with natural processes of birth, death, and sexual relations) and (2) moral impurity (through three serious sins in particular-idolatry, incest, and murder).19 

Again, cleanness was ultimately a heart issue.20 The nearer one came to God, the cleaner one had to be. Approaching God was serious business, and doing so called for self-scrutiny and preparation. The pursuit of cleanness was a kind of spiritual "dressing down"-an inner unveiling or internal examination of where one stood in relation to God. 

Now, cleanness and uncleanness are opposite each other (Lev. 10:10), and Israelites could move in and out of these (temporary) states. In the course of life, they would become vulnerable to uncleanness. For example, an Israelite could touch a carcass or have a child and become unclean but then purify herself or offer a sacrifice and become clean again. 

Cleanness and uncleanness are symbolic of life and death, respectively. Humans move between these two relative or temporary states (because of childbirth, male and female "issues," contact with death, sinful acts); these states represent being with or without life. The stable status of holiness, on the other hand, reflects closeness to life found in God, and an Israelite had to be "clean" (and closer to life) in order to approach the tabernacle's outer court; the high priest had to be clean and was specially set apart ("holy") to enter the Holy of Holies just once a year. Holy articles such as the ark of the covenant and the Holy of Holies remained holy and did not become unclean-even if the sanctuary might be cleansed under unusual circumstances (for example, 2 Chron. 28:19). More clearly in the New Testament, Jesus-"the Holy and Righteous One" (Acts 3:14)-touched lepers and a hemorrhaging woman but remained unpolluted. The relationship between life and death, holiness, and cleanness/uncleanness is illustrated in the figure below:21

Life  Holiness Cleanness Uncleanness Death

Holiness came in degrees of set-apartness (e.g., the people, Levites, high priest). The closer an Israelite drew to a holy God (moving from the tabernacle's/temple's outer court to the Holy Place to the Holy of Holies), the more requirements he had to follow and precautions he had to take. At their consecration, high priests had special garments, washings, anointings with oil, and ceremonies that marked them as set apart. Nazirites (Num. 6) took sacred vows in consecration to God; this was shown by avoiding alcohol, haircuts, and contact with dead things. If someone from a priestly line couldn't give evidence of his ancestry, he was considered unclean (Ezra 2:62)—unfit for closely approaching God. There was a hierarchy of holiness in Israel. 

Not Getting Mixed Up with Others 

Attentive parents will regularly tell their kids to avoid getting mixed up with the wrong crowd. Bad company corrupts good character (1 Cor. 15:33; cf. Ps. 1:1-2). Likewise, God gave the Israelites certain actions to carry out as a way of symbolically telling them not to get mixed in with the false ways of the nations. Israel "wore" certain badges of holy distinction that separated them from morally and theologically corrupted nations surrounding them; they were not to get "mixed in" with those nations' mind-set and behavior.22 Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9–11 prohibit mixed breeding and other attempts at mixing: no cross-breeding of cattle; no planting of different crops ("two kinds of seed") in the same field (though this may refer to a Canaanite magical practice of the "wedding" of different seeds to conjure up fertile crops); no clothing with mixed fibers such as wool and linen (no polyesters!); and no plowing with both ox and donkey.23 

The law also refers to improper sexual mixing as with adultery, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality, since these were viewed as crossing boundaries (Lev. 18:6–23).24 Likewise, because God created male and female (Gen. 1:26-27), wearing the clothes of a person from the opposite sex (by which divinely ordained sexual distinctions could be blurred or spheres crossed) was prohibited (Deut. 22:5). As we'll see, the same applied to clean and unclean animals. These antimixing commands attempted to portray a sense of wholeness, completeness, and integrity. This is why the priest and the animal sacrifice weren't allowed to have any physical deformity (Lev. 21:18-24; 22:18-26).

A number of scholars reasonably claim that God was reminding Israel of her own distinctive, holy calling even in the very foods Israel was to eat. Animals that "crossed" or in a sense "transgressed" the individual and distinctive spheres of air, water, or land were considered unclean. Gordon Wenham puts it this way: "In creation God separated between light and darkness, waters and waters. This ban on all mixtures, especially mixed breeding, shows man following in God's steps. He must separate what God created separate."25 Food laws-interwoven with many other Mosaic commands regarding purity-symbolized the boundaries God's people were to keep before them: 

The sanctuary (tabernacle/temple): God's visible presence was manifested there; this was his "habitation." God gave laws to remind his people of their own set-apartness from all creation and how God was to be approached (e.g., priests as well as sacrificed animals had to be without defect or blemish). 

The land of Israel: The land of Israel was set in the midst of pagan nations with false gods, and thus there were certain commands that marked off the Israelites from other nations. 

So Israel's land, Israel's sacrifices, and Israel's food all had social and theоlogical significance. Israel's various boundaries were to remind her of her relationship to God and to the nations around her. Just as God was set apart from human beings, Israel was to be set apart in its behavior and theology from the surrounding nations. Just as the tabernacle represented sacred space within Israel, so the land of Israel itself representeda set-apartness in contrast to the nations around it.26 I've tried to set the stage for discussing food and other purity laws in more detail. I'll do so in the next chapter.

Chapter 8. The Bible's Ubiquitous Weirdness? Kosher Foods, Kooky Laws? (II)

Kosher Laws

The Hebrew word kashrut means to be proper or correct. Observant Jews will be alert to Kosher food labels with the letters kshr (in the Hebrew root form) on them. Israelites were to avoid foods such as pork, shrimp, and squid. Why were such foods unclean (not kosher)?

The listing of clean and unclean animals is found in Leviticus 11 and Deu-teronomy 14. An interesting feature to these lists is that certain animals were unclean but still could be handled (for example, camels used for transporta-tion). The issue arose when there was death. Unclean animal carcasses rendered a person impure, not necessarily touching the animals when they were alive. Scholars have suggested various reasons for the distinction between clean and unclean. We'll look at a couple of unsatisfactory suggestions before zero-ing in on a more likely solution.

Health/hygiene: Argument: Israelites were to avoid eating vultures be-cause these creatures eat roadkill and carnivores" "leftovers." And who knows what kinds of diseases these birds carry? We know that pigs can transmit diseases such as trichinosis, while the hare and coney/rock badger commonly carry tularemia. Shrimp shouldn't be eaten because they raise your cholesterol level! Problem: The health idea just isn't the concern in Leviticus 11 or elsewhere in the Old Testament. And why aren't poisonous plants considered unclean? To top it off, why did Jesus declare all these foods clean if health was really the issue in the kosher foods section of the Old Testament?

Association with non-Israelite religions: Argument: Animals were unclean because they were associated with non-Israelite religion in the ancient Near East. Problem: If that's the case, the bull should have been an abomination; after all, this animal was central to Canaanite and Egyp-tian religion. Yet the bull was the most valuable of Israel's sacrificial animals. As it turns out, the Canaanites sacrificed the same sorts of animals in their religious rituals as did the Israelites! (Hittites did sacri-fice pigs, however.) On top of all this, ancient Near Easterners generally considered pigs detestable and typically avoided both eating them and sacrificing them in their religious rites. While Israel was to differentiate itself from neighboring nations in many aspects, animal sacrifice wasn't one of them.

These two suggestions, therefore health and religion-aren't good solu-tions. A couple of related angles will help us get at an answer: creation (Gen. 1) and the fall, death, and abnormality (Gen. 3).

Angle 1: Creation

Genesis 1 divides animals into three spheres: animals that walk on the land, animals that swim in the water, animals that fly in the air. Leviticus 11 lists as unclean certain animals that are connected to land (vv. 2-8), water (vv. 9-12), and air (vv. 13-25). As we've seen, these animals symbolize a mixing or blur-ring of categories. In contrast, the clean animal has all the defining features of its class given at creation. So animals that "transgressed" boundaries or overlapped spheres were to be avoided as unclean.

Water: To be clean, aquatic animals must have scales and fins (Lev. 11:10; Deut. 14:10); so eels or shellfish, which don't fit this category, are unclean and thus prohibited.

Land: Clean animals are four-footed ones that hop, walk, or jump. A clear indication of a land animal's operating according to its sphere is that it both (1) has split hoofs and (2) is a cud-chewer. These two features make obvious that an animal belongs to the land sphere (e.g., sheep and goat). Camels, hares, coneys (which chew the cud but don't have divided hoofs), and pigs (which have divided hoofs but don't chew the cud) are borderline cases; so they're excluded as appropriate land animals to eat.

Air: Birds have two wings for flying. Birds like pelicans and gulls inhabit both water and sky, which makes them unclean. Insects that fly but have many legs are unclean; they operate in two spheres-land and air.

However, insects with four feet-two of which are jointed for hopping on the ground are considered clean (Deut. 11:21-23). These insects-the locust, katydid, cricket, and grasshopper-are like birds of the air, which hop on the ground with two legs. Therefore they're clean.

Unclean animals symbolized what Israel was to avoid-mixing in with the unclean beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations. Israel was to be like the clean animals-distinct, in their own category, and not having mixed fea-tures. After all, the Israelites were God's set-apart people who were to reject the religion and practices of surrounding nations.

But wasn't everything that God created "very good" (Gen. 1:31)? If so, doesn't this mean that no animal is inherently unclean or inferior? Yes, Jesus affirms this in Mark 7:19 (all foods are clean), and it is implied in Acts 10:10-16 (Peter's vision). However, as the people of God, the Israelites were reminded that holiness requires persons to conform to their class as God's set-apart people. So what the Israelites did in their everyday lives-even down to their eating habits-was to signal that they were God's chosen people who were to live lives distinct from the surrounding nations. Every meal was to remind them of their redemption. Their diet, which was limited to certain meats, imitated the action of God, who limited himself to Israel from among the nations, choosing them as the means of blessing the world."

So no religious overlap, blurring distinctions, or compromise could exist between Israel and its neighbors. Israel was called to integrity and purity of life, to avoid what would restrict or inhibit drawing near to God. Holiness involved conformity to God's order of things. Just as clean animals belonged to their distinct sphere without compromise, so God's holy people were to belong to their distinct sphere; they weren't to mix their religion with surrounding pagan nations or intermarry with those who rejected the God of Israel (cf. Ezra 9:1-4; Neh. 13:23-30). Holiness wasn't merely a matter of eating and drinking but a life devoted to God in every area. The New Testament says the same thing: while all foods are ultimately clean (Mark 7:19), our eating and drinking matter to God, who is Lord of all (1 Cor. 10:31). Yet food matters shouldn't disrupt the church's joy and peace in the Spirit (Rom. 14:17).

Angle 2: The Fall, Death, and Abnormality

Not only do swarming and slithering creatures cut across the three spheres of classification and are thus unclean, but swarming and slithering animals in any sphere (eels, snakes, flying insects) were reminiscent of the fall in Gen-esis 3 and of the cursed slithering serpent. We can look at clean and unclean foods from another angle that of curse and death. This connection with the fall is reinforced by the repetition of God's command in Genesis 2-3, "you may cat (2:16, 3:2) or "you shall not eat" (2:17, 3:1, 3), in Leviticus 11 (vx. 2, 3, 9, 11, 21, 22).

Furthermore, the kinds of animals that were permitted and forbidden in the Israelites' diet were linked to the kind of people God wanted them to be. They weren't to be predators in their human relationships. Just as discharged blood and semen symbolized death and therefore uncleanness, so did preda-tory animals: "do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts" (Exod. 22:31 NIV).

A further aspect to cleanness and uncleanness seems to be an animal's appearance. An animal with either an odd-looking or abnormal appearance/feature or one that is weak and defenseless falls into the unclean category as well.

While specific kinds of food, clothing, planting, and sexual relations in their respective spheres serve as a picture of Israel's set-apartness from the nations, the distinction between clean and unclean animals in particular symbolizes how the Israelites were to act in relationship to their neighbors as well as to God. In the language of Leviticus, animals symbolize what God required from his people. For example, note the parallels between the kinds of animals offered in sacrifices in Leviticus 1, 3, and 23 ("without blemish," which resulted in a "pleasing aroma to the LORD") and the priest who is to be "without defect/blemish" (see Lev. 21:18-23). The parallel language between the unblemished priest and the unblemished sacrificial animal is striking (note the italicized words, emphasis mine):

Unblemished Priest (Lev. 21:18-20, 23)

For no one [of Aaron's priestly line) who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crusbed testicles.... He shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that be will not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sancti-fies them.

Unblemished Animal (Lev. 22:18-22, 24)

[When anyone] presents his offering...it must be a male without defect.... What-ever has a defect, you shall not offer.... It must be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no defect in it. Those that are blind or fractured or maimed or having a running sore or eczema or scabs, you shall not offer to the LORD.... Also anything with its testicles bruised or crushed or forn or cut, you shall not offer to the LORD, or sacrifice in your land.

Getting more specific, Mary Douglas shows the connection between the kinds of animals that are permitted/forbidden to be eaten and the kind of people God wants Israel to be in its relationships. The theme of (un)cleanness in Leviticus and Deuteronomy symbolizes creation's orderliness with every-thing in its own sphere. (So unclean animals represent a lack of wholeness or integrity in not belonging to their own sphere.) Yet something more is going on: animals that are unclean appear to be either (1) predatory animals or (2) vulnerable animals (defective in appearance or characteristics). This has a parallel to human relationships.

In regard to the predatory aspect, animals of the air (owls, gulls, hawks, and carrion-eaters such as vultures) are forbidden in Israel's diet because they themselves have consumed blood; they're predatory Remember the prohibi-tion against eating blood in Genesis 9:4, suggesting respect for life, which is in the blood: "the life of all flesh is its blood" (Lev. 17:14).

As for land animals, quadruped plant-eaters rather than carnivores-may be eaten (once their blood has been drained). The fact that they (1) chew the cud and (2) have split hoofs (whether domestic or wild) are clear indications that they never eat blood and thus are not predatory (Lev. 11:3). The borderline cases the pig, the camel, the hare, and the coney are forbidden because they fit one but not both criteria. So land animals that are predators must be avoided because of their contact with blood. In a symbolic way, they "break the law."

Some scholars point out another symbolic feature. Besides unclean animals that represent predation, there are others that represent victims of predation. For instance, prohibited aquatic animals (without scales and fins) symbolically lack something they "need"; this is a picture of vulnerability The distinction between clean and unclean animals also serves as a picture of justice and in-justice in personal relationships. Let me quote Douglas at length:

The forbidden animal species exemplify the predators, on the one hand, that is those who eat blood, and on the other, the sufferers from injustice. Consider the list, especially the swarming insects, the chameleon with its lumpy face, the high humped tortoise and beetle, and the ants labouring under their huge loads. Think of the blindness of worms and bats, the vulnerability of fish without scales. Think of their human parallels, the labourers, the beggars, the orphans, and the defenceless widows. Not themselves but the behavior that reduces them to this state is an abomination. No wonder the Lord made the crawling things and found them good (Gen. 1:31). It is not in the grand style of Leviticus to take time off from cosmic themes to teach that these pathetic creatures are to be shunned because their bodies are disgusting, vile, bad, any more than it is consistent with its theme of justice to teach that the poor are to be shunned. Shunning is not the issue. Predation is wrong, eating is a form of predation, and the poor are not to be a prex"

What's most clear in all of this is that holiness and predatory behavior don't mix. Holiness represents respect for human life, and the eating of blood (symbolizing violent death) represents predatory activity Clean animals don't represent virtues in their own bodies, just as unclean animals' bodies don't represent vices. They just follow the "rule" of avoiding blood. If scholars who claim that certain unclean animals symbolize vulnerability and defenselessness are correct, then this representation of the oppressed the alien, the widow, the orphan (Deut. 14:29; 16:11; cf. Isa. 1:17)-would serve as a reminder that they ought to be respected.

Israel's entire way of life down to the very food they ate (or didn't eat)-mattered to God. Their diet served as a reminder of the holy and the unholy: Israelites were to avoid the unholy activity of preying upon the vulnerable in society

Dishonorable Discharges

Why do many levitical laws emphasize semen and blood? Leviticus 15 speaks of the emission of semen or the discharging of menstrual blood, both of which lead to impurity and the need for washing/purification. The reason? The life-death symbolism behind cleanness-uncleanness informs us that these discharges represented what was "outside" the wholeness of the human body, just as unclean foods entering the body would symbolically pollute or defile.

Vaginal blood and semen are powerful symbols of life, but their loss symbol-izes death. To lose one of these life fluids represented moving in the direction of death. Some scholars suggest that Exodus 23:19 prohibited cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk because this was a Canaanite fertility ritual. Others suggest that this is a case of clashing symbols. That is, life (mother's milk) and death (cooking a baby goat) collide in this scenario. Another such clash is found in Leviticus 22:28: "Do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the same day" (NIV). Likewise, life and death are symbolically at odds when semen or menstrual blood is lost from the body. This admixture of life and death represents a loss of wholeness.

The symbolism doesn't stop here. Israel was surrounded by nations that had fertility cults. To have sex with a prostitute in a temple meant spiritually connecting with a particular deity. By contrast, Leviticus 15 presents something of an "emission control system"! The message to Israel was that sex has its proper place. God isn't prudish about sex. God is the author of mutually satis-fying sex between husband and wife (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 5:15-19; Song of Songs).

Yet, in contrast to her neighbors, Israel needed to take seriously restraint and discipline in sexual activity Although sex brought temporary impurity, Israel was reminded that it was prohibited in the sanctuary as part of a religious ritual-unlike the sexual rituals in Canaanite religion. Again, sex within mo-nogamous marriage is good, but adultery shouldn't be glorified by putting a religious label on it. To differentiate Israel from her neighbors, God provided certain "barriers" to keep sex in its proper place rather than degrading it-no matter how pious Israel's neighbor's made adultery appear."

In contrast to the surrounding nations, wives in Israel weren't possessions to be used for sexual pleasure. Men had certain restrictions regarding when they could have sex with their wives, which was to help give women a greater measure of independence. As Richard Hess points out, such protective laws have no parallels in the ancient Near East. 12

The Holiness Gap: Purity Laws and the Need for Grace

Being God's chosen nation was a privilege. However, a heavy burden came with it. As the peasant Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof tells God, "I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can't You choose someone else?" Now rewind to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Many of the earliest Christians (who were Jewish) thought that one must become a good Jew in order to become a good Christian. Yes, Jesus was sufficient for salvation-sort of. But more was needed, some argued-namely, Jewishness! Peter replied to this claim: "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (v. 10).

Serious-minded Old Testament Jews were regularly reminded of the gap between God and themselves. To approach God was no light thing, and throughout an Israelite's daily life were many reminders of defilement, impurity, and barriers in worshiping God. Attentive Israelites routinely experienced a "holiness gap" that existed between them and God." Being placed in such a position could prompt an Israelite to seek God's grace and purification on his behalf.

Animal sacrifices were a small picture of this. The worshipers/priests would place their hands on the animal. This act symbolized that an animal was being put to death in the place of humans (Lev. 4:15; 8:14, 18, 22). Sacrifice served as a reminder of human sin and unholiness and the great need for outside assistance that is, divine grace.

Richard Hess offers an illuminating perspective on sacrificial laws and the sequence of sacrifices in Leviticus. First is the purification (from sin) offer-ing, then the burnt offering (indicating total dedication to God), and then the fellowship (or ordination) offering (chaps. 8-9, 16). This helps us better understand the nature of Christian discipleship in the New Testament epistles: first comes confession of sin, then dedication to God, and then fellowship with God. Though Christ fulfills these sacrifices (as Hebrews makes clear), they illustrate nicely what is involved in Christian discipleship."

Galatians 3:24-25 mentions the law as a tutor to lead us to Christ. In other words, the law pointed forward toward the ultimate fulfillment of Israel's sacrifices, priesthood, and holy days. And as we've seen, such things pointed backward to Abraham, who turns out to be a picture of the need for grace apart from law keeping. Genesis 15:6 affirms that Abraham trusted God and was counted righteous by God because of his faith. Notice: this happened even before he was circumcised and before the Mosaic law was given. Living by faith, even without the law, enabled one to keep the heart of it (cf. Gen. 26:5). The law-with all its purity requirements and sacrifices-actually revealed human inadequacy and thus the need for humans to look beyond their own resources to God's gracious assistance.

However one navigates through some of these Old Testament purity laws, the undergirding rationale behind these laws is Israel's call to live holy lives in everything. That's why the theme of holiness is explicitly mentioned in all the passages in which the prohibited food lists are given (Exod. 22:30-31; Lev 11:44-45; 20-25-26; Deut. 14:4-21).

Upon reflection, the New Atheists' caricatures of the Mosaic law shouldn't be taken so seriously. We need patience to understand what's going on with the Old Testament's levitical laws, and we shouldn't see the law as the ideal standard for all humanity However, we'll continue to see how it shows a greater moral sensitivity and a marked improvement over other ancient Near Eastern law codes.

Further Reading

Douglas, Mary "The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 59 (1993): 3-23.

Hartley, John L. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.

Hess, Richard S. "Leviticus." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 1, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3. Not-tingham, UK: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007.

Wenham, Gordon J. Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

"The Theology of Unclean Food." Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 6-15.

Chapter  9. Barbarisms, Crude Laws, and Other Imaginary Crimes?

Punishments and Other Harsh Realities in Perspective

In many ways, life in the ancient Near East was much like the "state of nature" described by philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan: "nasty brutish, and short." It was no picnic, to be sure, and many of the ancient Near Eastern laws reflected this harsh, morally underdeveloped existence. We've taken pains to show that the Old Testament laws weren't given in a vacuum. Though they presented a dramatic moral improvement, they also reflected the ancient Near Eastern social context. The punishments in the Mosaic law reveal aspects of that context. So when the New Atheists refer to barbarisms, crude laws, and other imaginary crimes found in the Old Testament, they no doubt have these kinds of passages in mind:

If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.

(Lev. 20:9)

Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the sons of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel struggled with each other in the camp. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses.... They put him in custody so that the command of the LORD might be made clear to them. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him." (Lex 24:10-14)

Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Num. 15:32-36)

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear. (Deut. 21:18-21)

The law of Moses seems so severe with all this death-penalty and harsh-punishment talk! Some Westerners utterly disapprove of even modest cor-poral punishment. In fact, it's illegal in places like Sweden and other Nordic countries. So when we come to some Old Testament laws, the punishments seem outrageous. Critics claim that stoning people is primitive and barbaric and that the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual punishment. Now I'm not advocating stoning people as a punishment, nor am I advocating a death penalty for those who reject the Bible. But we'll try to put some of this harsh-sounding legislation into perspective.

Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes and the Mosaic Law

We've repeated the theme that the Mosaic law was given to Israel in a morally inferior ancient Near Eastern context. Other ancient Near Eastern law codes existed in the second millennium BC and were known as "cuneiform" law. Cuneiform (kyoo-nee-i-form) refers to the wedge-shaped characters or letters inscribed on ancient Near Eastern clay tablets, typically with a reed stylus. Included in this list are the laws of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100 BC, during the Third Dynasty of Ur); the laws of Lipit-Ishtar (c. 1925 BC), who ruled the Sumerian city of Isin; the (Akkadian) laws of Eshnunna (c. 1800 BC), a city one hundred miles north of Babylon; the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi (1750 BC); and the Hittite laws (1650-1200 BC) of Asia Minor (Turkey).'

We shouldn't be surprised that there are parallels and overlap between various ancient Near Eastern laws and the Mosaic law. In fact, various sayings and maxims in the book of Proverbs sound a lot like adaptations or borrowings from the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. Biblical writers might quote a work of poetry-like the Book of Jashar (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18)-or they might consult official documents, as the chronicler does. Along these lines, we could view Moses as something of an editor of the Pentateuch who appropriates oral traditions and writings related to creation and Israel's patriarchal history Later in the New Testament, Luke 1:1-4 reveals an orderly research project investigat-ing the Jesus traditions that had accumulated in order to compile a trustworthy biography of Jesus. These human endeavors, writing styles, literary genres, and personalities are part of the Spirit-inspired enscripturation process. Some have compared the "making" of the Scriptures to the doctrine of the incarnation. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the divine and the human are brought together. Likewise, simply because a writer's personality or style or various processes are involved or because "outside" material was borrowed doesn't mean that God's inspiring Spirit wasn't involved in Scripture formation.

Again, various parallels and similarities exist between ancient Near Eastern laws and the Mosaic law (and more specifically, the covenant code of Exodus 20:21-23:33)-whether this be capital punishment for murder or legislation regarding a goring ox. And, yes, there were certain humanizing improvements in various ancient Near Eastern codes over time-for example, a softening of legislation from the Old Hittite laws (1650-1500 BC) to the New Hittite laws (1500-1180 BC). But at key points, whopping differences exist between the Mosaic law and other ancient Near Eastern codes. The Sinai legislation pre-sents genuinely remarkable, previously unheard-of legal and moral advances. Not surprisingly, critics like the New Atheists focus on the negative while overlooking dramatic improvements. Why bother with nuance when you can score rhetorical points about the backward ways of the ancient Near East! Throughout the rest of part 2, we'll highlight these significant differences.

As we delve more deeply, we'll continue to affirm two things: (1) certain Old Testament laws and punishments were inferior to creational ideals (Gen. 1-2); (2) the Mosaic law is not permanent, universal, and the standard for all nations. So we should evaluate the severity of harsh laws and punishments in their ancient Near Eastern context instead of in light of Western culture. Indeed, to the minds of the ancient Near Eastern peoples, we Westerners would be considered a bunch of softies!

Sabbath-Breakers and Slanderers

The Sabbath-breaker story (Num. 15:32-36) comes on the heels of legisla-tion regarding unintentional sins and defiant or "high-handed" sins. The stick-gathering Sabbath-breaker illustrates a defiant act; it's a direct viola-tion of God's clear commands in Exodus 31 and 35. The one working on the Sabbath was to be put to death (Exod. 31:14-15). Then we have the son who blasphemes or slanders God-or "the Name" (Lev. 24) as well as the stubborn, rebellious son (Deut. 21). These too are flagrant violations of what God had commanded.

Often, when first-time violations were committed in the midst of this fledgling nation, a harsh punishment came with it. Consider the high priests Nadab and Abihu, who [like father, like sons) imitated Aaron's idolatry in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32); they offered "strange fire"-a pagan ritual of Western Semitic cults that was associated with one's appointment to the priesthood and were struck dead (Lev. 10). And Israelite men, deliberately lured into adultery and idolatry by Midianite women, were struck down be-cause of their disregard for God's covenant (Num. 25). During the Davidic monarchy, Uzzah tried to steady the tottering ark of the covenant as it was being transported (2 Sam. 6:1-7). How was he "thanked" for his efforts? God struck him dead! Even David was angered at God's actions.

Just think of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament (Acts 5), who were struck dead for lying about just how generous they were. The message wasn't lost on the early church: "great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things" (Acts 5:11). Especially in exemplary or first-time cases, God seems especially heavy-handed. God isn't to be trifled with. He takes sin seriously, and he is often setting a precedent with first-time offenses. For the people of God, these punishments were to be sobering reminders of what God expected.

So when Uzzah tried to steady the ark of the covenant, which David had placed on a "new cart," God was making very clear that his instructions in the law of Moses had been ignored. The ark was to be carried on poles by the Levites (Exod. 25:12-15; 30:4), not transported by oxcart. And certain holy things weren't to be touched on pain of death (Num. 4:15). As God told Aaron and Moses after Nadab and Abihu were struck dead, "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored" (Lex. 10:3).

The Glutton and the Drunkard: Deuteronomy 21:18-21

What about this harsh text, quoted earlier? We don't have any biblical record of this actually happening. But as with first-time offenses in Israel, the goal was to instruct: that "all Israel will hear of it and fear" (Deut. 21:21). What was the offense? We're not talking about a little practical joker or even about a teenager who won't clean up his room. No, he's an utter delinquent whose hardened, insubordinate behavior simply can't be corrected, despite everyone's best efforts. He's a repeat offender: "when they [his father and his mother] chastise him, he will not even listen to them" (Deut. 21:18). He's a picture of insubordination-"a glutton and a drunkard" (v. 20; cf. Prov. 23:20-21). This serious problem would have had a profoundly destructive effect on the family and the wider community (Jesus was called "a glutton and a drunkard," a very serious offense in Israel.)

This son, probably a firstborn, would inevitably squander his inheritance when his father died; he would likely bring ruin to his present and future fam-ily He was like a compulsive gambler who bets away his home and life savings right out from under his family's feet. Notice, though, that the parents don't take matters into their own hands. They confer with the civil authorities, who are responsible for keeping an orderly, functioning society. The parents aren't in the picture any longer; they're not taking charge of punishment. Rather, the community carries out this exercise of social responsibility And when it takes this drastic action, it's a tragic last resort to deal with this trouble.

Mediums, Sorcerers, and False Prophets

Mediums (or diviners) and sorcerers (or soothsayers) were prohibited from living in Israel on pain of death (Lev. 19:26). Those predicting the future through omens or signs, telling fortunes, and attempting to contact spiritual (demonic) beings were outlawed. Likewise, false prophets, who sought to lead Israel into idolatry, were to be capitally punished (Deut. 13:1-11).

The cult of the dead was common in the ancient Near East, including Canaan. Ancient Near Eastern peoples attempted to consult or connect with the dead so that they could step step in and help the living. These ancient Near Eastern religions advocated mourning rituals like cutting one's body for the dead and putting tattoo marks on the body (Lex. 19:28). The act of men trim-ming their hair on the sides of their head or the edges of their beard (Lev. 19:27) was a Canaanite practice of offering one's hair to departed spirits to appease them (cf. Deut. 14:1).

None of that was to take place in Israel! God's people were to be different from the nations around them; they were to focus on life and the God of life, not the dead or false deities. No one was to "consult the dead on behalf of the living" (Isa. 8:19; cf. 2:5-6). Israel's priests couldn't even attend funerals, unless they were relatives of the deceased (Lev. 21:1-5). They were to be "holy to their God" (x6). So mediums and fortune-tellers and the like those in the dying business-were to be capitally punished.*

In a democratic society like ours, all of this sounds intolerant. We're to respect the freedom of religion of others, aren't we? Yet Israel had bound herself to Yahweh, who had made a covenant with Israel-like a husband to a wife. The people of Israel themselves had vowed that they were God's and that they would keep his covenant (Exod. 24:3). They had willingly submitted to God's (theocratic) rule. So any intrusion into this relationship-whether in the form of foreign deities, political alliances, or consulting with the dead-that replaced trust in God was in violation of these covenantal vows. Even so, it's misleading for Sam Harris to speak of stoning to death a son or daughter coming home from a yoga class. The point of Deuteronomy 13:6-16 is that of a false teacher who tries to "entice" the community by commanding wor-ship of other deities ("let us go and serve other gods").

Of course, those not wanting to embrace Israel's God or obey his require-ments were free to leave Israel and live in another nation. This was the obvi-ous, preferable alternative. It was spiritually healthier for Israel and safer for theocracy opposers. Any remaining in the land were to respect the covenant and the laws that went with it.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, then it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his guilt. He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes. (Deut. 25:1-3)

Remember when the American eighteen-year-old Michael Fay was jailed in Singapore back in 1994? He had gone on a rampage of theft and destruction, spray-painting cars at an auto dealership. Fay found out that you don't mess around like that in Singapore! After he and his parents pleaded with the authorities, he received four instead of six stinging lashes with a long cane.

Now the Singaporean strokes were less numerous but more severe than Semitic strokes. In Israel, rods were likely used. But, still, doesn't a punishment of forty strokes seem extremely harsh and overdone? Again, let's look more closely at this text to gain a greater appreciation for what is happening here:

1. A proper trial had to take place first.

2. No one was to exact punishment personally, taking matters into his own hands.

3. The process was to be supervised by the judge, who would ensure that the punishment was properly carried out; the punishment wasn't left up to the cruel whims of the punisher.

4. This was a maximum penalty, and offenders were typically punished with fewer strokes than forty Yet the maximum number of lashes was fixed and wasn't to be exceeded.

5. The judge rendering the verdict and the punisher were to remember that the guilty party was a "brother." The criminal was to be protected from the overreaction of a mob or individual; he wasn't to be humiliated (so that "your brother is not degraded in your eyes")."

A beating with rods does sound harsh to modern ears. Yet the metaphor or image of the rod can have a gentler connotation of guiding, say, sheep (Ps. 23:4) and disciplining a child (Prov. 13:24; 22:15; 29:15). Again, the law prescribed a maximum punishment of strokes, and a judge could determine a lesser punishment. Furthermore, Israel's punishments were tame compared to the more brutal law codes and ruthlessness of other ancient Near Eastern cultures. For certain crimes, Hammurabi's code insisted that the tongue, breast, hand, or ear be cut off. One severe punishment involved the accused being dragged around a field by cattle." In ancient Egyptian law, punishments included cutting off the nose and the ear. The Code of Hammurabi insisted on death for a thief," whereas the Old Testament demanded only double compensation for the loss (Exod. 22:4). This contrast is one of many reminders that persons mattered more in Israel's legislation than in other cultures in the ancient Near East. When punishing criminals (for perjury or libel, for example), Egyptian law permitted between one hundred and two hundred strokes; the hundred-stroke beating was the mildest form of punishment. Regarding penalties for theft in the Old Testa-ment, David Baker observes, they "are much more humane than in most [ancient Near Eastern] laws, and never involve mutilation, beating, or death."

How does Deuteronomy 25:1-3 look to you now? Israel's legislation allowed no more than forty strokes for a criminal's punishment. This was the maximum penalty, one left up to the judge's assessment. By contrast, punishments in other places in the ancient Near East were extremely severe. On top of all this, in Baby-lonian or Hittite law, for example, status or social rank determined the kind of sanctions for a particular crime. By contrast, biblical law held kings and priests and those of social rank to the same standards as the common person.12

Some may point to the following example as a moral upgrade. Initially, Hittite law stated that if a person plowed a sown field and sowed his own seed in its place, he was to be put to death. But in later legislation, the criminal needed ritual purification and to bring a sacrifice. While we can be grateful for this improvement, it still came nowhere near Israel's strong emphasis on compen-sation for property crimes, not the death penalty People mattered more than property in Israel, a noted contrast with the rest of the ancient Near East.

"An Eye for an Eye"?

What of Scripture's emphasis on "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"? Some consider such exacting punishments ruthless and barbaric. We should take another look, though. A much different picture emerges upon closer inspection.

Such exacting punishments called lex talionis are mentioned in several places: Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:17-22; and Deuteronomy 19:16-21. What's interesting is that in none of the cases is "an eye for an eye" taken liter-ally Yes, "a life for a life" was taken in a straightforward way when it came to murder. Yet each example in these passages calls for (monetary) compensation, not bodily mutilation. For example, following on the heels of the lex talionis passage of Exodus 21:23-25 comes, well, Exodus 21:26-27! And it illustrates the point we're making quite nicely: "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth" (NIV). We don't have a literal eye or tooth in view here, just compensation for bodily harm. Scholars such as Raymond Westbrook note that the lex talionis as a principle of compensation wasn't taken literally

The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime. Further-more, these were the maximum penalties; punishments were to be proportional and couldn't exceed that standard. And a punishment could be less severe if the judge deemed that the crime required a lesser penalty

Later in the New Testament, Jesus himself didn't take such language literally either. This language had been misapplied by Jesus's contemporaries outside the law courts as a pretext for personal vengeance (Matt. 5:38-39). At any rate, Jesus took this language no more literally than he did the language of plucking out eyes and cutting off hands if they lead one to sin (Matt. 5:29-30).

What's more, carrying out punishments that fit the crime protected the more vulnerable the poor, the weak, the alienated. The wealthy and powerful couldn't dictate the terms of punishment; in fact, the socially elite could re-ceive these proportional punishments like everyone else. In addition, this lex talionis principle served as a useful guide to prevent blood feuds and dispro-portionate retaliation (think Mafia methods here). When we compare Israel's punishments with other ancient Near Eastern legislation, the law of Moses presents a noteworthy moral development. As biblical scholar Brevard Childs points out, the lex talionis principle "marked an important advance and was far from being a vestige from a primitive age."1"

Some people might bring up the point that the Code of Hammurabi already had its own lex talionis, what we could call "a bone for a bone" as well as "a tooth for a tooth." However, this applied when an aristocrat (a patrician)-not a common person (a plebian) was injured by a peer. Furthermore, we know that the Code of Hammurabi called for the cutting off of actual hands, noses, breasts, and ears! Middle Assyrian laws (around 1100 BC)-over two hundred years after the law of Moses was given at Sinai-were outrageously disproportionate. They included beatings up to one hundred blows as well as mutilations. So the expression "an eye for an eye" was a measure of justice, not something Israel took literally

Ox-goring legislation provides an interesting contrast between the Mosaic law and other ancient Near Eastern codes. Codes like those of Hammurabi or Eshunna, for example, didn't reflect as high a regard for human life as did the Mosaic code. In the other codes, if an ox was in the habit of goring but the owner took no precautions to prevent it so that it gored and killed a free-born person, then a half mina (or two-thirds of a mina) in silver was paid to the victim's family and the ox lived." By contrast, Exodus 21:28-36 presents a more severe maximum punishment because of the value of human life, which was reflected in Israel's laws. The requirement was to put a goring ox to death (cf. Gen. 9:4-6), and its meat couldn't be eaten. Furthermore, if an ox was in the habit of goring and the owner did nothing to prevent this so that the ox killed a man or a woman, then the owner not just the ox-could be put to death as a maximum penalty (and we'll look at another angle on this shortly).

Likewise, Hammurabi insisted that if a homebuilder was careless and his construction collapsed and killed a minor, then the builder's own child would be killed. By contrast, killing a child for the parents' offenses (or a parent for his child's offenses) wasn't permitted in Israel (Deut. 24:16).

Beyond all this, the ancient world lived by an unwritten code to take revenge for the killing of a family member. And it didn't matter whether or not the death was accidental: "You killed my family member; I'll kill someone in your family!" By contrast, Israel's law distinguished between accidental killing and intentional killing. It provided cities of refuge for those who had accidentally killed another (Exod. 21:12-13), a way of preventing ongoing blood feuds.20

The noted historian Paul Johnson commented on the Code of Hammurabi, though much the same could be said for other ancient Near Eastern law codes: the "dreadful laws are notable for the ferocity of their physical punishments, in contrast to the restraint of the Mosaic Code and the enactments of Deu-teronomy and Leviticus."21

One further matter: We've seen that the various ancient Near Eastern laws we've explored are far more harsh in comparison to Israel's laws. Even so, a range of scholars argue that punishments in the Mosaic law-and even in various ancient Near Eastern law codes are less fierce in actual practice. For example, Numbers 35:31 states, "You shall not take ransom [i.e., substitute payment] for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." This idea is reinforced in Exodus 21:29-30 (an ox goring a human to death as the result of owner negligence); since this isn't premeditated murder, verse 30 allows for the possibility of monetary payment instead of taking the owner's life: "If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him."

Walter Kaiser points out the general observation of Old Testament scholars: There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the Old Testament. Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a "ransom" or a "substitute." This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a "ransom" or "substitute." In that case the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime." One could cite other scholars such as Raymond Westbrook, Jacob Finkelstein, and Joseph Sprinkle, who readily concur with this assessment.

So if we take the severe Old Testament punishments literally, we observe that the Mosaic law is far less strict than other ancient Near Eastern law codes. If, on the other hand, we follow these scholars who take the Old Testament's capital punishment laws as allowing for a "ransom" payment instead (with the exception of premeditated murder), then this opens up a dramatically new perspective on these apparently severe punishments.

Infant Sacrifice in Israel?

Not a few critics will point out that the Old Testament assumes that infant sacrifice was acceptable in Israelite society and demanded as an act of worship by the God of Israel. Some will showcase Abraham and Isaac (though hardly an infant) as one such example. Such criticisms are off the mark, however. For one thing, the Mosaic law clearly condemns child sacrifice as morally abhorrent (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31; 18:10). As Susan Niditch points out in War in the Hebrew Bible, the "dominant voice" in the Old Testament "condemns child sacrifice" since it opposes God's purposes and undermines Israelite society.

Let's look at a couple of passages that allegedly suggest that human sac-rifice was acceptable.

Mesha, King of Moab: 2 Kings 3:27

Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land. (2 Kings 3:27)

Here, Mesha, king of Moab, sacrifices his firstborn son on the wall of Kir Hareseth (in Moab). After this, the Israelite army withdrew because of "wrath." Some think this is God's wrath and that God is showing his approval of Mesha's sacrifice of his son by responding in wrath against Israel. This view, however, has its problems:

*This notion is at odds with clear condemnation of child sacrifice earlier in the Pentateuch (Deut. 12:31; 18:10) as well as repudiation of it within Kings itself (2 Kings 16:3; 17:7; 21:6).

*The word fury or wrath (qetseph) isn't divine wrath. Elsewhere in 2 Kings, a cognate word (coming from the same root as qetseph) clearly refers to human fury (5:11; 13:19).

*Typically, commentators suggest several plausible interpretations: (1) This was Moab's fury against Israel because their king, Mesha, forced by desperation, sacrificed his son; Mesha's goal was to prompt Moab's renewed determination to fight. (2) The Israelites were filled with hor-ror or superstitious dread when they saw this human sacrifice, causing them to abandon the entire venture. (3) Even though Mesha had failed in his attempt to break through the siege (perhaps to head north for re-inforcements), he was still able to capture the king of Edom's firstborn son, whom he sacrificed on the wall, which demoralized Edom's army The wrath of Edom's army ended the war because they withdrew from the military coalition of Israel, Judah, and Edom.*

Jephthah's Daughter: Judges 11:30-40

Israel's judge Jephthah made a rash vow: "whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon [who were oppressing Israel], it shall be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering" (Judg. 11:31). Perhaps he was thinking it might be one of his servants, who would most likely come out to attend to him. Yet he was horrified to see that "his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing" (v. 34).

Some Old Testament scholars argue that Jephthah didn't literally sacrifice his daughter. Most, however, are convinced that the text asserts this. So let's take for granted the worst-case scenario. Then come the inevitable questions: Wouldn't Jephthah have clearly known that child sacrifice was immoral and that God judged the Canaanites for such practices? Why then did he go ahead with this sacrifice? Was it because God really did approve of child sacrifice after all?

We've already affirmed that is doesn't mean ought in the Old Testament; just because something is described doesn't mean it's prescribed as a standard to follow. Certain behaviors are just bad examples that we shouldn't follow (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). So let's make the necessary changes and apply our ques-tioner's reasoning to another judge-Samson. As a judge of Israel, wouldn't he have clearly known that touching unclean corpses was forbidden (Judg. 14:8-9), especially given his (permanent) Nazirite vow (Num. 6)? Wasn't he fully aware that consorting with prostitutes was prohibited (Judg. 16:1)? You get the idea. Keep in mind that we're talking about the era of Israel's judges. To borrow from Charles Dickens, this was in large part the worst of times, an age of foolishness, the season of darkness, and the winter of despair. So critics should be careful about assuming that Jephthah (or Samson) was in peak moral condition.

Some might wonder, "Didn't 'the Spirit of the LORD' come on Jephthah?" (Judg. 11:29). Yes, but we shouldn't take this as a wholesale divine endorsement of all Jephthah did no more so than the Spirit's coming on Gideon (Judg. 6:34) was a seal of approval on his dabbling with idolatry (Judg. 8:24-27), or of Ehud's, for that matter (Judg. 3:26). Yes, these judges of Israel would surely have known idolatry was wrong. Likewise, "the Spirit of the LORD" came upon Samson to help Israel keep the Philistines at bay (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14). Yet his plans to marry a Philistine woman, cavorting with a prostitute, and getting mixed up with Delilah all reveal a judge with exceedingly poor judgment! We can surely find a lesson in here somewhere about how God works despite human sin and failure.

The theology of Judges emphasizes a remarkable low point of Israelite morality and religion, with two vivid narratives at the book's end to illustrate this (chaps. 17-21). Israel continually allowed itself to be "Canaanized." And in light of Judges' repeated theme, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (17:6; 21:25; cf. 2:10-23), we shouldn't be surprised that Israel's leaders were also morally compromised. We don't have to look hard for negative role models in Judges, when Israel was in the moral basement. The Jephthah story needs no explicit statement of God's obvious disapproval.

Some might press the point: doesn't the Old Testament refer to offering the firstborn to God (Exod. 22:29-30)? Following Ezekiel 20:25-26, they claim that God literally gave harmful ("not good") statutes by which Israel could not "live"-commands involving sacrificing the firstborn child in the fire. They assert that Yahweh just didn't like it when Israel sacrificed children to other gods!

However, no such distinction is made; infant sacrifice whether to Yahweh or to Baal or Molech-is still detestable. Yes, this was a common practice in Israel and Judah (e.g., 2 Kings 17:17; 23:10), and kings Ahaz, Manasseh, and others made their sons and daughters "pass through the fire" (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chron. 33:6). But commonality here doesn't imply acceptability Exodus does refer to the "redemption" not sacrifice of the womb-opening firstborn child; God himself redeemed his firstborn Israel by bringing him up from Egypt (Exod. 13:13; cf. 4:23).

What then is Ezekiel talking about? The text clearly indicates that God gave the Sinai generation "statutes" (chuqqot) (e.g., Sabbath commands) by which an Israelite might "live" (20:12-13). Israel rejected these laws given at Sinai; they refused to follow them (v. 21). So God "withdrew [His] hand." God responded to the second (or wilderness) generation as he does in Romans 1: he "gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by" (Ezek. 20:25 NIV). Ezekiel not only distinguishes this word statutes (the masculine plural chuqqim) from statutes elsewhere in the context (the feminine noun chuqgot). The text also involves quite a bit of irony God sarcastically tells Israel to "go, serve everyone his idols" (Ezek. 20:39); to put it another way "go, sacrifice your children." This ironic "statute" to stubborn Israel to continue in idolatry and infant sacrifice is comparable to God's sarcasm in Amos 4:4: "Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more" (NIV). The same is true of the prophet Micaiah, who tells the disobedient, Yahweh-ignoring king of Israel, "Go up and succeed, and the LORD will give it into the hand of the king" (1 Kings 22:15). These are the sorts of sarcastic "commands" that aren't "good" and by which Israel can't "live."1"

The Value of Unborn Life

One of the big differences between Old Testament laws and their ancient Near Eastern counterparts is the value of human life. Despite this, it's not unusual to hear that in ancient Israel unborn life wasn't as valuable as life outside the womb. Indeed, certain proabortion advocates have sought theological justifi-cation for permitting abortion in the following passage:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [some advocate an alternate reading: "she has a miscarriage"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (Exod. 21:22-25 NIV).

The key issue is this: should the Hebrew word yalad be translated "give birth prematurely" or "have a miscarriage"? If the mother miscarries, then the of-fender only has to pay a fine; the implication in this case is that the unborn child isn't as valuable and therefore isn't deserving of care normally given to a person outside the womb. Apparently, this Old Testament passage shows a low(er) regard for unborn life.

Let's skip to another passage, Psalm 139, which strongly supports the value of the unborn:

For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (v. 13-16 NIV)

Keep this text in mind as we go back to the Exodus 21 passage.

Contrary to the above claims, Exodus 21 actually supports the value of unborn human life. The word yalad means "go forth" or "give birth," describ-ing a normal birth (Gen. 25:26; 38:28-30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer. 1:5; 20:18). It's always used of giving birth, not of a miscarriage. If the biblical text intended to refer to a miscarriage, the typical word for "miscarry/miscarriage" (shakall shekol) was available (e.g., Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Job 21:10; Hosea 9:14). Miscarry isn't used here.

Furthermore, yalad ("give birth") is always used of a child that has recog nizable human form or is capable of surviving outside the womb. The He-brew word nepel is the typical word used of an unborn child, and the word golem, which means "fetus," is used only once in the Old Testament in Psalm 139:16, which we just noted: God knew the psalmist's "unformed body" or "unformed substance."

This brings us to another question: Who is injured? The baby or the mother? The text is silent. It could be either, since the feminine pronoun is missing. The gist of the passage seems to be this:

If two men fight and hit a pregnant woman and the baby is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury [to the child or the mother), then the offender must be fined whatever the husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury (to the baby or the mother), you are to take life for life, eye for eye.

These verses then actually imply the intrinsic value of the unborn child-that the life of the offender may be taken if the mother's or the child's life is lost. The unborn child is given the same rights as an adult (Gen. 9:6).

New Atheists and other critics often resort to caricatures or misrepresentations of the Old Testament laws. While Mosaic laws do not always reflect the ultimate or the ideal (which the Old Testament itself acknowledges), these laws and the mind-set they exhibit reveal a dramatic moral improvement and greater moral sensitivity than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts.

Further Reading

Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor's Bible Com-mentary. Vol. 1. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. New American Commentary 2. Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2008.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Com-mentary 4. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Chapter 10. Misogynistic? Women in Israel

When we start talking about the treatment of women in the Old Testament, the pandemonium begins! Feminists accuse Old Testament writers of endors-ing all kinds of sexism, patriarchy (socially oppressive structures favoring men over women), and even misogyny (hatred of women). Misogynistic is one of the adjectives Richard Dawkins uses to describe the Old Testament God.

Why does Sarah refer to her husband as "my master" (Gen. 18:12 NIV)? Why do Hebrew girls belong to their "father's house" (e.g., Lev. 22:13)? Why does an Israelite woman remain ceremonially unclean for only forty days after giving birth to a boy but eighty days after having a girl (Lev. 12:2-5)? Why can't women participate in the priesthood of Israel? What about all those concubines? What about levirate marriage? Why does God permit polygamy? Doesn't the Old Testament endorse a bride-price, which only reinforces the idea of women as property?

In this chapter, we'll look at the underlying male-female equality in the Old Testament and some passages that allegedly suggest otherwise. Then in the next chapter we'll review some key passages related to polygamy (multiple wives) and concubines as well as related passages that critics commonly mention.

Genesis 1-2: The Original Ideal

However we understand the levitical laws and Old Testament narratives regard-ing women, Genesis 1-2 points us to the ideal view of women, which is far from a fallen, skewed, or demeaning attitude. God creates male and female in his image (Gen. 1:26-27). Eve is taken from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:22), a picture of equality and partnership, not one of a superior to an inferior. Marriage is to be a partnership of equals, and sex (the one-flesh union) is to be enjoyed within the safety of lifelong, heterosexual marriage (Gen. 2:24).

Although Genesis 1-2 spells out the ideal of male-female equality, laws regarding women in Israel take a realistic approach to fallen human structures in the ancient Near East. In Israel's legislation, God does two things: (1) he works within a patriarchal society to point Israel to a better path; and (2) he provides many protections and controls against abuses directed at females in admittedly substandard conditions. Do we see examples of oppressed women in the Old Testament? Yes, and we see lots of oppressed men as well! In other words, we shouldn't consider these negative examples endorsements of op-pression and abuse.

The Equality of Women-from Various Angles

Reading the Old Testament reveals two important parallel features: (1) pa-triarchal social structures in Israelite families alongside (2) the honoring of women as equals, including a bevy of prominent matriarchs and female lead-ers in Israel.

On the one hand, fathers had legal responsibility for their households (often reaching fifteen to twenty members); this included matters of family inheri-tance, property ownership, marital arrangements of sons and daughters, and being spokesman for family matters in general. For instance, when a daughter or a wife took a vow, such solemn promises were to be approved by the father/husband as the legal point person in the home (Num. 30). This represents more than just legal protection for a wife or a daughter, though. Embedded social attitudes and ideas die hard, especially in places like the ancient Near East. Patriarchal attitudes were strongly held in the ancient Near East-attitudes that were a far cry from the equality language at creation. Genesis 2:24 affirms that a man was to leave his parents and "cling" to his wife as an equal partner (NRSV). But the fall deeply affected human relationships. As a result, Sarah followed the ancient Near Eastern custom of calling her husband "lord ['adon]" (Gen. 18:12). She gave her handmaid Hagar to Abraham to produce a child (Gen. 16:3), a common ancient Near Eastern practice. Later king Abimelech "took" Sarah as his wife (Gen. 20:2-3). And when Sarah gave birth to Isaac, she "bore a son to Abraham" (Gen. 21:2-3).

On the other hand, these embedded patriarchal attitudes distorted the many strong biblical affirmations of female dignity and equality. Mothers/wives deserved honor equal to that of husbands/fathers, and strong matriarchs both helped lead Israel and had sway within their households. Yes, the husband was the legal point person for the Israelite family, but we shouldn't automatically assume that women considered this an oppressive arrangement. In fact, wives in many Old Testament marriages were, for all practical purposes, equal and equally influential in their marriages and beyond (e.g., Prov. 31).

In fact, many passages speak more of protection and care for those who are often taken advantage of, especially widows or divorced women. God is concerned about justice for widows and the other vulnerables of society such as orphans and non-Israelite strangers or aliens. God sternly warned would-be oppressors that he's on the side of the weak and defenseless (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 24:17, 19; etc.).

Now, feminists would dispute the claim that Israelite women/wives were considered equal in personhood and dignity to men/husbands. Let's address this point. Yes, patriarchal structures strongly influenced the mind-set of Israelite society. Yet we see undeniable affirmations of equality in the Old Testament from theological, historical, and legal perspectives.

Theological: Female equality is presumed in the following passages (em-phasis added):

Genesis 1:27: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you" (cf. 21:15;

Deut. 5:16; 21:18-21; 27:16).

Leviticus 19:3: "Every one of you shall reverence his mother and his father" (cf. 20:9).

Proverbs 6:20: "My son, observe the commandment of your father and do not forsake the teaching of your mother."

Proverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD."

Proverbs 19:26: "He who assaults his father and drives his mother away is a shameful and disgraceful son."

Proverbs 23:22: "Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old."

Proverbs 23:25: "Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her rejoice who gave birth to you."

Song of Songs 6:3: "I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine" (cf. 7:10).

When it comes to Genesis 2:18, where Adam's wife is called a suitable "helper ["ezer)," we should recall that, rather than suggesting inferiority, the same word is used of God elsewhere in Scripture (Pss. 10:14; 30:10; 54:4). We could list more passages on these theological aspects, but you get the idea.

Historical: The Old Testament is full of powerful matriarchs who were highly valued and exerted a great deal of influence. The testimony of the Old Testament authors reveals a perspective that can hardly be called mi-sogynistic. Consider the following list for starters: Sarah, Hagar, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, and Tamar (all in Genesis); the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah (Exod. 1); the Egyptian princess (Exod. 2); Miriam and Jethro's seven daughters, including Zipporah, Moses's wife (Exod. 2, 4, 15); the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27); Deborah, Ruth, Naomi, Abigail, and Bathsheba (Judg. 4-5; Ruth 1-4; 1 Sam. 25; 1 Kings 1-2); and let's not forget that excel-lent Proverbs 31 woman. These strong women stepped forward and wielded influence with the best of the men.

Legal: The moral and ceremonial laws of Israel presumed that women were not only equal but also shared equal moral responsibility with the men. One author writes that the system of Israel's ritual impurity laws is "rather even-handed in its treatment of gender." Some might quibble with the ceremonial uncleanness of menstruation, which obviously affects women and not men. But as we'll see, men have their own issues! And the purity laws also address these (e.g., Lev. 15:16-18, 32; 22:4; Deut. 23:10).

The moral-not just ceremonial-aspects of the levitical laws that ad-dress incest and adultery (e.g., Lev. 18, 20) apply to men and women without distinction. In fact, those claiming that committing adultery against one's neighbor's wife was a "property offense" in Israel are incorrect. Both the man and the woman can be put to death for adultery, but, unlike the Code of Hammurabi, Old Testament law never requires the death penalty for property offenses.

Texts That (Allegedly) Promote Female Inferiority

Now it's time to look at some of those potentially embarrassing passages that put down women.

The Trial of Jealousy: Numbers 5

Let's summarize the theme of this text. If a man suspected his wife of adultery, he could bring her before the priest to accuse her. In this case, two or three witnesses weren't available (Deut. 17:6-7); the only "witness" was the husband's suspicion that his wife had been cheating on him. Critics charge that this would have been a terrifying ordeal: a cheating wife's abdomen would swell and her thigh would shrivel after drinking "the water of bitterness. Critics raise the question, "Why couldn't a woman bring her husband before the priest if she suspected that he was guilty of adultery?"

As it turns out, critics have chosen a poor text to illustrate oppression of women. For one thing, consider the context, which gives us every reason to think that this law applied to men as well. Before and after this passage, the legislation concerns both men and women: "Israelites" (Num. 5:2 NIV), "a man or woman" (Num. 5:6), "a man or a woman" (Num. 6:2). It wasn't just the husband's prerogative to call for this special trial; the wife could as well. Second, this priestly court was actually arranged for the protection and defense of women, not to humiliate them before proud husbands or prejudiced mobs. This law protected women from a husband's violent rage or arbitrary threat of divorce to get rid of his wife cheaply And if the woman happened to be guilty, then she'd rightly be terrified by a supernatural sign affecting her body. In fact, as with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in the early church (Acts 5), the Israelites would have a sobering warning regarding God's attitude toward adultery

Some critics have compared this event to "the River Ordeal" practiced in non-Israelite ancient Near Eastern cultures (Babylon, Assyria, Sumer). How did this work? When criminal evidence was inconclusive, the accused would be thrown into a bitumen well that is, a natural petroleum tar commonly used as a sealant and adhesive and as mortar for bricks. In Sumer, this tar "river" was the abode of the god Id (which means "river"). Sometimes these "jump-ers" and "plungers," who went "into the god," were overcome by the liquid and its toxic fumes; most survived (they were "spat out" by the river god), but it was still a nightmare to endure. If one was overcome by the "river," he was guilty since his death was the river god's "judgment." If he survived, he was innocent and the accuser was guilty of making false charges.

There's a big difference between this "ordeal" and Numbers 5, though. The river ordeal was the general treatment for inconclusive criminal evidence across the board. In the Mosaic law, however, a charge couldn't be established unless two or three witnesses were available; otherwise, the prosecuting side didn't have a case-end of story (In the unique trial of jealousy in Numbers 5, though witnesses weren't available, it's understandable that certain clues might tip off a husband or a wife to something fishy going on with a spouse-strange behavior, irrational reactions, breaking out into sudden sweats, or simply the husband's belief that he wasn't involved in his wife's conception of a child.)

Second, if the accused couldn't swim and get out of the tar, he looked guilty even if he were innocent! Not so if an Israelite wife (or husband) was falsely accused. A telltale supernatural sign was provided to prove guilt. Third, the river ordeal assumed guilt until innocence was proven; in the trial of jealousy, the court assumed innocence unless guilt was exposed by a divinely given miracle.

Impurity at Childbirth: Leviticus 12:1-8

This passage, some claim, implies female inferiority: the woman is cer-emonially impure for forty days (7 + 33 days) after giving birth to a boy but eighty days (14+66 days) after giving birth to a girl. Surely this reveals a lower social status for females.

Again, not so fast! Various sensible explanations have been proposed. Some scholars argue that more days for the female actually indicate a kind of protec-tion of females rather than a sign of inferiority Others suggest the motive may be to preserve Israel's religious distinctiveness over against Canaanite religion, in which females engaged in religious sexual rites in their temples.

In general, a Jewish mother's lengthier separation from the tabernacle (or temple) after giving birth to a girl made a theological and ethical statement. In ancient Near Eastern polytheism, the strong emphasis was on fertility rites, cult prostitution, and the dramatization of the births of gods and goddesses. The distance between the birth event and temple worship-especially with baby girls was carefully maintained.

Another plausible explanation focuses on a natural source of uncleanness-namely, the flow of blood. Verse 5 refers to the reason: it's because of "the blood of her purification." The mother experiences vaginal bleeding at birth. Yet such vaginal bleeding is common in newborn girls as well, due to the withdrawal of the mother's estrogen when the infant girl exits the mother's womb. So we have two sources of ritual uncleanness with a girl's birth but only one with a boy's.

Notice also that when the time of purification is over, whether "for a son or for a daughter," the mother is to bring the identical offering (whether a lamb, pigeon, or turtledove); this is to be a purification offering (12:6)-not technically a sin offering and its purpose is to take away the ritual (not moral) impurity

Levirate Marriage: Deuteronomy 25:5-10

If a man died without a son to carry on the family name, then his unmarried brother could marry his widow in order to sustain the family name. Legally, the firstborn son from this union was officially the deceased husband's son. Since the first husband was deceased, this wasn't considered incest (sexual relations with an in-law). The term levirate comes from the Latin word for "husband's brother" or "brother-in-law," levir. This legislation sounds quite strange to modern ears, and it certainly does reflect a patriarchal background. A similar practice was carried out by the Hittites. Their law stated that if a man has a wife and then dies, his brother must take the widow as his wife."

While levirate marriage was an admittedly patriarchal arrangement, we should keep certain things in mind. First, if the widow did marry her deceased husband's brother, this would help keep the widow's property (which she may have brought to the marriage) within the family. Marrying outside the family meant running the risk of losing it. Second, although the man could refuse, this was discouraged. And if he refused to comply the widow herself could exert her role and her rights in the shaming "sandal ceremony." So the widow had a certain natural advantage in this arrangement.

It's instructive to place this levirate scenario next to the story of Zelophehad's daughters (Num. 27:1-11). In the ancient Near East, there existed patriarchal laws of primogeniture the firstborn's right to receive property and inherit family headship from the father. Deuteronomy 21:17 reveals that this meant a double portion for the firstborn over his brothers. Yet primogeniture is subtly overturned at various points in the Old Testament. Though Mosaic legisla-tion operated within patriarchal structures of the ancient Near East, the Old Testament reveals a certain dynamism and openness to change. The daughters of the deceased, sonless Zelophehad appealed to Moses regarding the male-favoring inheritance laws. In light of the women's particular circumstances, Moses took this matter before God, and the daughters' appeal was granted. When humans sought to change social structures in light of a deeper moral insight and a determination to move toward the ideal, we witness an adapta-tion of ancient Near Eastern structures. Even earlier in the Old Testament, various narratives subtly attack the primogeniture arrangement; the younger regularly supersedes the elder: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph/Judah over Reuben." This biblical sampling reveals a subversive and more democratic ethic; though not ideal, it's a drastic improvement over other ancient Near Eastern laws.

Your Neighbor's Wife: Exodus 20:17

"You shall not cover" is the tenth commandment. It prohibits longing for what rightfully belongs to another. What's included in this prohibition? A neighbor's house, wife, male or female servant, ox, donkey, and "anything that belongs to your neighbor." Critics complain that a wife is unflatteringly and inappropriately viewed as property in the same category as a neighbor's house, ox, or donkey!

One big problem: just a few commands earlier (Exod. 20:12), children are commanded to give their mother honor equal to that of the father. A mother was to have equal authority over her children. (Check out the string of verses cited earlier in this chapter.) Another big problem: women in Israel weren't saleable items like houses, oxen, or donkeys. A further revealing fact is that in other cultures in the ancient Near East, the mother was often under the control of the son." Yet the Mosaic law presents a striking contrast in this regard. Leviticus 19:3 commands a son to revere mother and father alike-and the mother is even listed first.

No Female Priests?

Why couldn't women participate in the priesthood? Why was this restricted to males alone? Many critics have a beef with this males-only religious club.

But if you think about it, most Israelite males were excluded too! Priests had to be from the tribe of Levi and from the line of Aaron; also, non-Israelite males weren't allowed to be priests.

But it's not as though the Old Testament automatically places female and priesthood in opposite categories. The Bible says plenty about female priests. Back in Genesis, Eve herself had a priestly role in Eden's garden; biblical schol-ars see this location as a sanctuary that foreshadows the tabernacle (cf. Gen. 2:12). Both Adam and Eve carried out priestly duties of worship and service to God, who would walk and talk with them (Gen. 2:15; 3:8).

Later, the priesthood was extended to the entire nation of Israel-male and female. God desired that all Israelites approach him as a "kingdom of priests" (Exod. 19:6). However, they refused to go up to the mountain; so Moses went in their place (20:19, 21). As a result, an official male priesthood was formed to function within the tabernacle/temple structure.

So having female priests is not inherently problematic or unbiblical. Indeed, the New Testament reaffirms this: with the death and resurrection of Jesus, a new Israel-the church-was created; it is a holy priesthood and a kingdom of priests who offer up spiritual sacrifices to God (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

Why then no females in the Old Testament tabernacle/temple? The reason is this: to prevent the contamination of pure worship in Israel. In ancient Near Eastern religions, the gods (and goddesses) themselves partook in grotesque sex acts. They engaged in incest (e.g., Baal with his sister Anat). They partici-pated in bestiality (e.g., Baal having sex with a heifer, which gives birth to a son). And they engaged in sexual orgies and seductions. And all this without a hint of condemnation!"

The religions of the ancient Near East commonly included fertility cult rituals, goddess worship, and priestesses (who served as the wife of the god). Temple prostitutes abounded, and sexual immorality was carried out in the name of religion. To have sex with priestesses meant union with the goddess you worshiped. In fact, sex with a temple prostitute would prompt Baal and his consort Asherah to have sex in heaven, which in turn would result in fertility all the way around-more kids, more cattle, more crops. Sex was deified in Canaan and other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Adultery was fine as long as sex was "religious."" If we become what we worship, then it's not surpris-ing that Canaanite religion and society became corrupted by "sacred sex." Therefore, Canaanite female and male cult prostitutes were forbidden (cf. Gen. 38:15, 22-30; Deut. 23:18-19; also Hosea 4:14). Israel wasn't to imitate the nations whose deities engaged in sexual immorality

Were these religions tolerant? Yes, in all the wrong ways! From the gods downward, all kinds of sexual deviations were tolerated, but to the detriment of society and family Indeed, many ancient Near Eastern law codes permitted activities that undermined family integrity and stability. For example, men were permitted to engage in adulterous relations with slaves and prostitutes. The laws of Lipit-Ishtar of Lower Mesopotamia (1930 BC) take for granted the practice of prostitution." In Hittite law (1650-1500 BC), "If a father and son sleep with the same female slave or prostitute, it is not an offence." As an aside, Hittite law even permitted bestiality: "If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offence."1"

The law of Moses sought to prevent Israelites from glorifying adultery (or worse) in the name of religious devotion. Keeping an all-male priesthood, then, helped create this kind of religious distinction as well as preserved the sanctity of marriage. It wasn't a slam against women. It was a matter of preserving religious purity and the sanctity of sex within marriage.

Keep in mind that in Israel priests carried out three kinds of duties:

1. teaching, judicial, administrative

2. prophetic (e.g., discerning God's will through the casting of lots, known as the Urim and Thummim)

3. cultic (religious ceremonies/rituals)

In Old Testament Israel, women like Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4-5, esp. 4:4), and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) fulfilled the first two roles as teach-ers, judges, and prophetesses. The third area was prohibited to women-and most other males. In fact, even Israel's kings couldn't carry out various cultic duties (2 Chron. 26:16-21). So while patriarchalism was embedded in Israelite attitudes, that wasn't what kept women from being priests; rather, it was a matter of Israel's religious identity and moral well-being.

We could cover more territory than this, but hopefully these responses to the critics' arguments will help put these passages in context and put some of the contentiousness to rest.

Further Reading

Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.

Jones, Clay, "Why We Don't Hate Sin so We Don't Understand What Hap-pened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to 'Divine Genocide' Arguments." Philosophy of Christ n.s. 11 (2009): 53-72.

Chapter 11. Bride-Price? Polygamy, Concubinage, and Other Such Questions

Since the time of Thomas Jefferson, rumors have been swirling regarding his fathering a child through his slave girl Sally Hemings. During the 1990s, the discussion was ramped up, and President Jefferson was allegedly exposed as a hypocritical founding father. Further research, though, has shown that the likely culprit was Thomas's younger brother Randolph, who was at Monticello around the very time Hemings conceived and who was known to spend time with the slaves. On the other hand, Thomas, who was sixty-four at this time, was battling severe health problems, including intense migraines. Randolph, though given to drunkenness, was in better health, and his character wasn't nearly as refined as Thomas's."

Now, if Thomas were the father of Hemings's child, then so much the worse for him! And his having slaves (with conflicted feelings, we should add) still wouldn't undermine the Declaration of Independence's affirmation that all humans are "created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The same is true in the Old Testament. Even if prominent Old Testament figures had more than one wife or had concubines, this still doesn't overturn the standard of monogamy in Genesis 2:24. But was polygamy legally permitted? Or did Israel's laws prohibit this practice, even if Elkanah, David, Solomon, and others disregarded the prohibition?

In the ancient Near East, a married man could take a concubine-or second-class wife-when his situation was "inconceivable," that is, if his first wife was presumed to be infertile (or even if she became sick). In such cases, it wasn't unusual for a man to take another wife to produce offspring. When we look at Israel's history we see the influence of this practice fairly early on. The family was central, and having children was vital to carrying on the family memory To be childless and therefore heirless-was considered a tragedy and even a disgrace. So a second-tier wife was often brought in to remedy the situation.

In the ancient Near East, polygamy was taken for granted and not offi-cially prohibited. It was legally sanctioned in the Code of Hammurabi, which permitted the owner of a female slave, since she was property to utilize her sexual and reproductive powers to bear children; if she produced children, she could go free on the death of her master.

The earliest reference to polygamy (bigamy) in the Old Testament is the not-so-nice Lamech, who takes two wives (Gen. 4:19, 23-24)-the first of over thirty references to polygamy in the Old Testament. Later on in Genesis, Abraham couldn't produce a child with Sarah; so she gave him her servant Hagar as a "wife" (Gen. 16:3), and Ishmael came as a result. His birth produced conflict between Sarah and Hagar, with Abraham in the middle of it all. Hagar had apparently won in this game of one-upwomanship, until Sarah sent her away (We'll look at the Sarah-Hagar story when we get to slavery and the New Testament.)

The same problems came to Jacob. Through trickery, he ended up with two wives instead of one. When Rachel and Leah realized they were infertile, in desperation they gave Jacob their handmaids in hopes of producing children in this honor-shame competition. One of these handmaids, Bilhah, is called both "concubine" and one of Jacob's "wives" (Gen. 35:22; 37:2), a second-string wife.

So there was apparently something official in this arrangement, even though the handmaids were second-tier wives. Concubines at times were simply second-class wives, though still officially married. Or the term can refer to a second wife who comes after the first one has died. For example, after Sarah died, the widower Abraham took another wife, Keturah. First Chronicles 1:32 refers to her as a "concubine [pilegesh]," but this term can be used of a legitimate wife, just not the original wife of a man. Even the concubine mentioned in Judges 19 wasn't a mistress; she was considered married to a "husband" (v. 3). The text uses "father-in-law" and "son-in-law" to indicate genuine marital status (vv. 4-5, 7, etc.).

While polygamous marriages (including concubines) occurred in the Old Testament without God's stamp of approval, keep in mind that such marriages still brought with them a husband's commitment to protect and provide for his wife. By contrast, if a child came through a woman hired for sexual pleasure, this brought shame and no inheritance (e.g., Jephthah in Judg. 11:1-2).

When it came to Israel's rulers, political maneuvering-not simply sexual pleasure was often involved in taking concubines. Things eventually get ridiculous with Solomon having seven hundred wives and three hundred con-cubines (1 Kings 11:3), often taken from other nations for purposes of political alliances. Yet Deuteronomy 17:17 strictly warned that Israel's future king(s) shouldn't "multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself"; nor should he accumulate (chariot) horses or return to Egypt.

As it turns out, Solomon did all of these things, which were his downfall (1 Kings 11:1). In 1 Kings, the biblical narrator uses irony to denounce Solo-mon's leadership and spiritual qualifications. From the very start of his reign, he violated all of these prohibitions: (1) marrying Pharaoh's daughter and other foreign wives (3:1; 11:1-8); (2) accumulating (chariot) horses (10:26); (3) hoarding silver and gold (10:27); (4) making an alliance with Egypt through marriage (3:1). Solomon was also a tyrant who, according to his son Reho-boam, put a "heavy yoke" on Israel and "scourged [them] with whips" (12:4, 14 NIV). Solomon's disobedience and heavy-handedness eventually led to Israel's divided kingdom. Solomon squandered the potential and the gifts God had given him. He failed to meet God's conditions: if Solomon would obey, God would establish his kingdom; if he worshiped false gods, then Is-rael would be cut off from the land God had given them (1 Kings 9:4-8). The appointed moral, spiritual example in Israel failed spectacularly, especially in the area of marriage.

Endorsements of Polygamy?

There's the joke: "I treat both my wives equally Isn't that bigamy?" We see a good deal of bigamy (two wives) in the Old Testament, and it's not unusual to hear critics say, based on certain Old Testament texts, that God actually endorses polygamy/bigamy However, if God commended or commanded such a practice, this would be a deviation from the assumed standard of heterosexual monogamy in Genesis 2:24 and elsewhere. We'll look at several key texts on this topic.

No Polygamy: Leviticus 18:18

An excellent case can be made that Leviticus 18:18 prohibits polygamy: "Do not take your wife's sister [literally, 'a woman to her sister'] as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living" (NIV). This text is regularly overlooked in discussions of polygamy in the Old Testament. Part of the reason for this oversight is where this verse happens to be found. This verse's significance is obscured because it's preceded by various anti-incest laws (vv. 6-17). We'll see, however, that Leviticus 18:18 is a transitional verse and shouldn't be included in the anti-incest section. A major break occurs between verses 17 and 18.

Each verse in 7-17 begins identically, starting with the noun "the nakedness (of) ['erwat)," and it leads up to the command, "You shall not uncover's nakedness." Also, in each of these verses (except v. 9) an explanation is given for the prohibition (e.g., "she is your mother"); this explanation isn't found in verse 18, which we would expect if it were an incest prohibition.

By contrast, each verse in 18-23 begins with a different construction. Even if you don't read Hebrew, you can truly just glance at the text and immediately see the difference in structure starting with verse 18. Verses 18-23 each begin with what's called the waw conjunctive (like our word "and") followed by a different word than "nakedness" ('eruat); also, instead of the consistent use of the negative (lo) plus the verb "uncover" (tegalleh, from the root galah), as in 7-17, here the negative particles are used before verbs other than uncover. Why are these contrasts important? In verses 6-17, we're dealing with kinship bonds while verses 18-23 address prohibited sexual relations outside of kinship bonds.

Furthermore, the key word in 18:18 is sarar that is, "to make a rival wife." The same word in noun form (sarah) is also found in 1 Samuel 1:6, the story of Elkanah and his wife Hannah and the "rival" wife Peninnah. Hannah and Peninnah weren't biological sisters, just two female Israelite citizens (or "sisters"). This fits what we find in the non-kinship section of Leviticus 18. So this law in 18:18, then, explicitly prohibits the taking of a second (rival) wife in addition to the first the interpretation taken by the Qumran (Dead Sea scrolls) community, established in the second century BC.

One final point here: the wording of 18:18 (literally, "a woman to her sister") itself indicates that this is not a literal sister. This phrase "a woman to her sister" and its counterpart, "a man to his brother," are used twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and never do they refer to a literal sister or brother. Rather, they are idioms for "one in addition to another." So this verse doesn't refer to incest; rather, it refers to the addition of another wife to the first (i.e., polygamy).

What then about other instances in Scripture that seem to endorse po-lygamy? God forbids it in Leviticus 18:18, yet people practiced it in Israel. Of course, the same could be said about many prohibited practices: idolatry, infant sacrifice, oppressing the poor, and so on. Yet some will argue that polygamy is implied or even divinely encouraged in certain passages. So let's explore some of these texts.

Servant Girl as Prospective Wife: Exodus 21:7-11

If a man sells his daughter as a servant ['amab], she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself [i.e., he refuses to go through with a possible engagement), he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. (Exod. 21:7-11 NIV)

As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law)." Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter..."). But we'll see that even if conditions are less than ideal, the goal is to protect women in unfortunate circumstances. Later on, we'll come back to this passage in the context of Israelite servanthood (slavery).

We're left to wonder: "What kind of father would sell his daughter?" Actu-ally, when a father sells his daughter, he's doing so out of economic despera-tion, as we'll see later on in the chapters on servanthood, which is more like contracted employment. In fact, the father is doing this out of concern for his family, and Israel's laws provided a safety net for its very poorest. Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial circumstances. Temporar-ily contracting out family members to employers, who also provided room and board, was the most suitable alternative during hard times. Safety nets shouldn't become hammocks, and a typical servant tried to work off the terms of his contract and become debt free.

As far as the marriageable daughter goes, a father would do his best to care for her as well. Here, he is trying to help his daughter find security in marriage; the father would arrange for a man with means to marry her.

Some people will argue, "Look, the man has a son. Therefore, he must be married, and so he's looking into the possibility of getting a second wife, maybe to produce children if his first wife is barren. So we have implicit sup-port of polygamy here, don't we?"

This conclusion is too quick, however. It goes beyond the evidence. Two obvious options present themselves: (1) the man's first wife died; or (2) the man and his first wife divorced. Let's not forget that the son was of marriage-able age-typically, in his twenties (as was the girl). So whether the man takes this young servant woman to be his wife or the wife of his son, we still have no polygamy either way

Furthermore, this particular passage involves some issues in translation. The Hebrew text of verse 8 indicates that the man decides not to take the servant girl as his wife. In verses 9-10, two other possibilities arise: (1) the man (whether wid-owed or divorced) might give her to his son, or-and this is the tricky part-(2) he "marries another woman." Some suggest that this is an endorsement of polygamy: the man takes the servant girl and marries another woman in addition. But this is a misreading. We're already told in verse 8 that the man doesn't choose to take the servant woman as his wife. In that case, we should understand verse 10 to mean that he marries another instead of the servant woman.

Then what of the "marital rights" the man owes her? Doesn't this also sound like polygamy here? The problem with the translation "marital rights"

('onah) is this: it's a stab in the dark with a term used only once in the Old Testament. Words occurring once can often be tricky to handle, and translators should tread carefully. Some scholars have suggested more likely possibilities. For example, this word could be related to a word for oil (or possibly oint-ments); the servant girl should be sent out with three basic necessities: food, clothing, and oil.

However, an even more plausible rendering is available. The root of the word is associated with the idea of habitation or dwelling (ma'on, me'onah); for example, "God is a dwelling place," or heaven is God's holy "dwelling place" (Deut. 33:27; 2 Chron. 30:27). We can more confidently conclude that quarters or shelter (though possibly oil) are in view here, not conjugal rights. So the servant girl should be guaranteed the basic necessities: food, clothing, and lodging/shelter. So we're not even talking about polygamy here, let alone some implied support of it.

To review, the three issues here are:

1. If the man rejects the servant woman as a wife, she is to be given her freedom (redeemed/bought back).

2. If his son wants to marry her, she's to be taken in as a family member and treated as a daughter.

3. If the man marries another woman, the servant woman is to receive food, clothing, and lodging.

Although we'll touch on this passage again (in light of Deut. 15), I think we can set aside the polygamy question as far as Exodus 21 is concerned.

David: 2 Samuel 12:8

Allegedly, God's own commentary here (through Nathan the prophet) sug-gests an endorsement of polygamy. After David's power-rape of Bathsheba and the murder of her husband, Uriah, God tells David, "I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care...; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these" (2 Sam. 12:8). Isn't God graciously providing multiple wives for David?

We should be careful about reading too much into the word gave. After all, the same word is used in 2 Samuel 12:11: "Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your companion." Certainly God didn't demonstrate his approval of polygamy by "giving" David's wives over to his treacherous son Absalom. Furthermore, the "master" mentioned in 12:8 is Saul. The sentence indicat-ing that God "gave" Saul's "house" and "wives" to David is probably a general reference to the transfer of Saul's estate to the new monarch, David. If David took Saul's wife Ahinoam (1 Sam. 14:50) to be his own, this would be in violation of levitical law: Ahinoam was the mother of Michal, whom Saul gave to David as a wife, and Leviticus 18:17 forbids marrying one's mother-in-law. So this passage hardly lends support to God's endorsement of polygamy

The Unloved Wife: Deuteronomy 21:15-17

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn. (Deut. 21:15-17)

What does this legislation do? It helps protect against favoritism. The firstborn's inheritance shouldn't be withdrawn just because his mother happens to be the unfavored wife.

Does this passage slyly endorse polygamy? Not at all. "If a man has two wives..." is an example of case law. It doesn't necessarily endorse a practice but gives guidance for when a particular situation arises. For example, Exodus 22:1 states, "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep." This law isn't advocating stealing! It offers guidance in unfortunate circumstances-namely, when a theft takes place.

Similarly, in Matthew 19, Jesus is questioned about Deuteronomy 24:1, which begins, "When [if] a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house..." Jesus tells his questioners that Moses didn't command this legislation (which was to protect a divorced woman from the whim of her husband, who later decides he wants her back); rather, he permitted it because of human hard-heartedness (Matt. 19:8).

Also, some scholars suggest that Deuteronomy 21:15-17 doesn't state that both wives are living and in the same house. The verb form of "has" suggests that the man may have remarried after his first wife's death."

Let's try to wrap up the polygamy question by summarizing the appropriate response to polygamy in the Old Testament:

*The Old Testament makes clear the ideal built into creation. In Genesis 2:24, note the singular "wife" as well as "father and mother."

*Leviticus 18:18 expresses strong disapproval for polygamy, even if this law wasn't always carried out.

*The biblical writers hoped for better behavior.

*Some scholars have suggested that polygamy may have been tolerated for the practical reason that its prohibition would have been difficult to enforce.

*From Lamech's wives to those of Abraham, Esau, Jacob, David, and Solomon, wherever we see God's ideal of monogamy ignored, we wit-ness strife, competition, and disharmony The Old Testament presents polygamy as not only undesirable but also a violation of God's standards.

*Old Testament narratives subtly critique this marital arrangement.

*God warns the one most likely to be polygamous-Israel's king: "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away" (Deut. 17:17).

God himself models covenant love for his people; this ideal union of mari-tal faithfulness between husband and wife is one without competition.

The advice of Proverbs 5:15-18 is the presumed standard. A man should find delight and sexual satisfaction with his wife in monogamous marriage: "Drink . fresh water from your own well" (v. 15).

The Bride-Price

The idea of bride-price is presented by the New Atheists as though it's a matter of buying a wife like you would a horse or a mule. In actual fact, the bride-price was the way a man showed his serious intentions toward his bride-to-be, and it was a way of bringing two families together to discuss a serious, holy, and lifelong matter. Having sex with a young woman without the necessary prepa-rations and formal ceremony cheapened the woman and sexuality The process surrounding the bride-price reflected the honorable state of marriage.

Think of the dowry system used in places like India. In this case, the family of the bride-to-be gives money to the future husband's family Such a transac-tion hardly means that the groom-to-be is mere property! Why automatically conclude that a woman is property because this marriage gift is given in the Old Testament but that a man isn't property under the dowry system?

The bride-price was more like a deposit from the groom's father to the bride's father. The Hebrew word for this deposit (mohar) is better translated "marriage gift." It not only helped create closer family ties between the two families but also provided economic stability for a marriage. This gift given to the bride's father (often several years' worth of wages) compensated him for the work his daughter would otherwise have contributed to the family The marriage gift-preserved by the husband throughout the marriage-also served as security for the wife in case of divorce or her husband's death. In fact, the bride's father would often give an even larger gift of property when the couple married. Hitchens's complaint about the Old Testament's bride-price is misguided.

Was Rape Allowed?

Some critics say that the law of Moses permits the rape of women or may condemn rape but with little concern for the victim's well-being. We should note two related passages. The first is Exodus 22:16-17:

If a man seduces [patab] a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.

Extending and expanding on the discussion of Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:23-29 (which can be divided into three portions) reads this way:

If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death, the girl, because she did not cry out in the city [i.e., where her screams could be heard), and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (vv. 23-24)

But if in the field [i.c., where the girl doesn't have much chance to be heard] the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. (vx. 25-27)

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes [tapas-"takes/catches" a weaker verb than "forces" in v. 25] her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (vv. 28-29)

Upon closer inspection, the context emphasizes the protection of women, not the insignificance of women. We should first distinguish among three scenarios in the Deuteronomy 22 passage:

1. adultery between two consenting adults a man and an engaged woman (v. 23), which is a violation of marriage ("he has violated his neighbor's wife")

2. the forcible rape of an engaged woman (x. 25), whose innocence is assumed

3. the seduction of an unengaged woman (v. 28), an expansion on the seduction passage of Exodus 22:16-17

In each case, the man is guilty. However, the critics' argument focuses on verses 28-29: the rape victim is being treated like she is her father's property She's been violated, and the rapist gets off by paying a bridal fee. No concern is shown for the girl at all. In fact, she's apparently forced to marry the man who raped her! Are these charges warranted?

Regarding verses 28-29, various scholars see Exodus 22:16-17 as the back-drop to this scenario. Both passages are variations on the same theme. Even if there is some pressure from the man, the young woman is complicit; though initially pressured (seduced), she doesn't act against her will. The text says "they are discovered" (v. 28), not "be is discovered. Both are culpable. Tech-nically, this pressure/seduction could not be called forcible rape, falling under our contemporary category of statutory rape. Though the woman gave in, the man here would bear the brunt of the responsibility

As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price-a kind of economic security for her future-would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn't a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away. This passage is far from being demeaning to women.

Both passages suggest two courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn't required to marry the seducer.

2. The girl's father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn't marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn't required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement, she is still treated as a virgin."

Again, we don't see a lack of concern for the woman. Her well-being is actually the underlying theme of this legislation.

Women POWs as War Booty?

How amazing it would be to live in a war-free world. Although lately many Western democracies have been fairly free from the traumas and devastation of war, warfare in the ancient Near East was a way of life. (We'll say more on this in future chapters.) War brought with it certain unavoidable realities in the ancient world, and ancient Near Eastern peoples had different ways of

"minimizing" the effects of war. One concern was prisoners of war (POWs). In the wake of battle, the problem arose: What was to be done with survivors? Let's look at two texts that deal with foreign female POWs: Deuteronomy 20 and 21. We'll deal with them in reverse order.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. (Deut. 21:10-14)

In this scenario, the law served as a protective measure for the woman POW. She was the one who benefited from this legislation. The law defended her rights and personhood. For one thing, she wasn't raped, which was common practice in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. The would-be Israelite husband couldn't simply marry-let alone have sex with her immediately. No, she was to be treated as a full-fledged wife. Unlike many Las Vegas weddings or the phenomenon of mail-order brides, the matter of marriage in Israel was not entered into lightly (motivated by, say, lust). That point is strongly reinforced in this passage.

The separation process allowed for a period of reflection. Before a woman POW was taken as a wife by the victorious Israelite soldier, she was allowed a transition period to make an outer and inner break from her past way of life. Only after this could she be taken as a wife. Given the seriousness of marital commitment, the time period allowed for the man to change his mind. The line "if you are not pleased with her" doesn't suggest something trivial, however, since the Mosaic law took seriously the sanctity of marriage. If, for some reason, the man's attitude changed, the woman had to be set free.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14

When the Lord your God gives it [i.e., the city which has rejected Israel's terms of peace) into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself. (Deut. 20:13-14)

We'll discuss warfare later. For now, the concern is the well-being of cap-tured women and children. Although rape was a common feature in ancient Near Eastern warfare, Israelite soldiers were prohibited from raping women, contrary to what some crassly argue. Sex was permitted only within the bounds of marital commitment, a repeated theme laid out in the Mosaic law. Rape in warfare wasn't a grand exception to the requirement of sexual fidelity. As with Deuteronomy 21:10-14, the scenario is the same namely a sol-dier's taking a wife. Rather than being outcasts or the low woman on the totem pole, women captured in war could become integrated into Israelite society through marriage. Understandably, it was far less likely that men would have been as readily integrated into Israel's life and ways.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12: An Offhanded Excursus

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity (Deut. 25:11-12)

This passage refers to "the immodest lady wrestler," as one scholar humor-ously put it. Her action was considered a shameful act, and, what's worse, the man could possibly be permanently injured and thus deprived of future children. At first blush, this passage apparently requires that a woman's hand be cut off if she seizes the genitals of a man fighting with her husband. Now, if this were the case, it would be the only biblical instance of pun-ishment by mutilation; beyond this, where ancient Near Eastern laws call for bodily mutilation for various offenses, the Mosaic law does not. Before we explore the text in more detail, we should compare this to other fearsome punishments in the ancient Near East. As we've seen, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi insisted that certain crimes be punished by cutting off the tongue, breast, hand, or ear-or the accused being dragged around a field by cattle. The law of Moses, though not ideal, presents a remarkable improvement when it comes to punishments.

A more plausible interpretation of this passage is the punishment of de-pilation ("you shall shave [the hair of] her groin"), not mutilation. The word commonly translated "hand" (kaph) can refer to the "palm" of a hand or some rounded concave object like a dish, bowl, or spoon, or even the arch of a foot. The commonly used word for "hand" (yad) isn't used here. It would be strange to cut off the palm of a hand!

Furthermore, in certain places in the Old Testament, the word kaph is clearly used for the pelvic area-either the concave hip socket (Gen. 32:26, 32) or the curve of the woman's groin area: "I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles [plural: kaphot] of the lock" (Song of Songs 5:5 NIV). This language alludes back to the "locked garden" in 4:12: "You are a locked garden, my sister, my bride; you are an enclosed spring, a sealed-up fountain" (NET). Scholars generally agree that the garden language is a metaphor for a woman's sexual organs, and its being "locked" implies her purity/virginity"

Also, in the Deuteronomy 25 text, there is no indication of physical harm to the man (as some commentators commonly assume). For those who assume a literal "hand for a hand" punishment, remember that the man's hand hasn't been injured or cut off (if so, then the idea of cutting off her hand would make slightly more sense). In addition, shaving hair-including pubic hair-as a humiliating punishment was practiced in Babylon and Sumer (see also 2 Sam. 10:4-5; Isa. 7:20). This isn't mutilation for mutilation, but humiliation for humiliation.

In addition, the specific Hebrew qal verb form (in Deut. 25:12) has a milder connotation than the stronger, intensified piel verb form, meaning "cut off" or "(physically) sever [qatsats]." Whenever it appears in this milder form (Jer. 9:26; 25:23; 49:32), it means "clip/cut/shave [hair]." There's just no linguistic reason to translate the weaker verb form ("shave") as a stronger form (i.e., amputation). In this particular case, we're talking about the open concave region of the groin, and thus a shaving of pubic hair. In short, the woman's punishment is public humiliation for publicly humiliating the man-something still very severe and for which no mercy was to be shown. From a textual point of view, the superior view is clearly the "shaving" view, not the mutilation view, 15

Is this an ideal punishment for all time? Not at all! However, it does stand out in marked contrast to the severe and excessive mutilation punishments common in the ancient Near East. In fact, Middle Assyrian laws (around 1100 BC) present a similar scenario (in the case of injury to the man), though with far more drastic consequences. If a woman in a quarrel injured a man's testicle, her finger was cut off. If the other testicle was injured, both of her eyes were gouged out." Again, even if Deuteronomy 25 were dealing with an actual mutilation punishment, this would be (1) the only such punishment in the Mosaic law and (2) a dramatic contrast to the frequent mutilation pun-ishments in the rest of the ancient Near East. But as we've seen, the language simply does not allow for this "amputation" rendering.

Israel's laws weren't perfect, to be sure. But when we compare them with various ancient Near Eastern law codes (whether regarding sexuality or other matters), the general impression noted by scholars is a range of dramatic-even radical-moral improvements in Israel.

Further Reading

Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.

Jones, Clay. "Why We Don't Hate Sin so We Don't Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to 'Divine Genocide' Arguments." Philosophia Christi n.s. 11 (2009): 53-72. 

Wenham, Gordon J. Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narratives Ethically. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.

Chapter 12. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (I) Slavery in Israel

The runaway slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass (1817-95) wrote in his autobiography about his first slaveowner, Captain Anthony.

He was a cruel man, hardened by a long life of slave-holding. He would at times seem to take great pleasure in whipping a slave. I have often been awakened at the dawn of day by the most heart-rending shrieks of an own aunt of mine, whom he used to tie up to a joist, and whip upon her naked back till she was literally covered with blood. No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest. He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush; and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood-clotted cowskin. I remember the first time I ever witnessed this horrible exhibition. I was quite a child, but I well remember it. I never shall forget it whilst I remember any thing. It was the first of a long series of such outrages, of which I was doomed to be a witness and a participant. It struck me with awful force. It was the blood-stained gate, the entrance to the hell of slavery, through which I was about to pass. It was a most terrible spectacle. I wish I could commit to paper the feelings with which I beheld it.

Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-96), author of the powerful bestseller Uncle Tom's Cabin, wrote that Southern masters had absolute control over every facet of their slaves' lives: "The legal power of the master amounts to an absolute despotism over body and soul," and "there is no protection for the slave's life."

Biblical Indentured Service

A mistake critics make is associating sertunthood in the Old Testament with antebellum (prewar) slavery in the South-like the kind of scenario Douglass described. By contrast, Hebrew (debt) servanthood could be compared to similar conditions in colonial America. Paying fares for passage to America was too costly for many individuals to afford. So they'd contract themselves out, working in the households often in apprentice-like positions-until they paid back their debts. One-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to Britain's colonies were indentured servants.

Likewise, an Israelite strapped for shekels might become an indentured servant to pay off his debt to a "boss" or "employer" ('adon). Calling him a "master" is often way too strong a term, just as the term 'ebed ("servant, employee") typically shouldn't be translated "slave." John Goldingay comments that "there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an 'ebed." Indeed, it is an honorable, dignified term. Even when the terms buy, sell, or acquire are used of servants/employees, they don't mean the person in question is "just property" Think of a sports player today who gets "traded" to another team, to which he "belongs." Yes, teams have "owners," but we're hardly talking about slavery here! Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob's working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel. In Israel, becoming a voluntary servant was commonly a starvation-prevention measure; a person had no collateral other than himself, which meant either service or death. While most people worked in the family business, servants would contribute to it as domestic workers. Contrary to the critics, this servanthood wasn't much different experientially from paid employment in a cash economy like ours." 

Now, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. Whether because of failed crops or serious indebtedness, a father could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement ("sell" himself) to work in the household of another: "one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself (Lex 25:47 NIV). Perhaps his wife or children might "be sold" to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times. If his kinfolk didn't "redeem" him (pay off his debt), then he would work as a debt-servant until he was released after six years." Family land would have to be mortgaged until the year of Jubilee every fifty years (see Leviticus 25, which actually spells out successive stages of destitution in Israel in vv. 25-54). In other words, this servanthood wasn't imposed by an outsider, as it was by slave traders and plantation owners in the antebellum South. What's more, this indentured service wasn't unusual in other parts of the ancient Near East either (though conditions were often worse). And later on, when inhabitants of Judah took back Hebrew servants they had released, God condemned them for violating the law of Moses and for forgetting that they were once slaves in Egypt whom God had delivered. God told the Judahites that because of their actions they were going to be exiled in the land of their enemies (Jer. 34:12-22).

Once a servant was released, he was free to pursue his own livelihood without any further obligations within that household. He returned to being a full participant in Israelite society. Becoming an indentured servant meant a slight step down the social ladder, but a person could step back up as a full citizen once the debt was paid or he was released in the seventh year (or in the fiftieth year). Nevertheless, the law was concerned that indentured servants were to be treated as a man "hired from year to year" and were not to be "rule[d] over... ruthlessly" (Lex 25:53-54 NIV). In fact, servants in Israel weren't cut off from society during their servitude but were thoroughly embedded within it. As I mentioned earlier, Israel's forgiveness of debts every seven years was fixed and thus intended to be far more consistent than that of Israel's ancient Near Eastern counterparts, for whom debt-release (if it occurred) was typically much more sporadic.

So unavoidable lifelong servanthood was prohibited, unless someone loved the head of the household and wanted to attach himself to him (Exod. 21:5). Servants-even if they hadn't paid off their debts were granted release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Deut. 15). As we'll see, their legal status was unique and a dramatic improvement over law codes in the ancient Near East. One scholar writes that "Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood."

An Israelite servant's guaranteed release within seven years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood wasn't an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, it was a voluntary (poverty-induced) arrangement and not forced.

Means to Help the Poor

In the ancient world (and beyond), chattel (or property) slavery had three characteristics:

1. A slave was property.

2. The slave owner's rights over the slave's person and work were total and absolute.

3. The slave was stripped of his identity-racial, familial, social, marital."

From what we've seen, this doesn't describe the Hebrew servant at all, nor does it (as we'll see in the next chapter) fit the non-Israelite "slave" in Israel.

Israel's servant laws were concerned about controlling or regulating-not idealizing an inferior work arrangement. Israelite servitude was induced by poverty, was entered into voluntarily, and was far from optimal. The intent of these laws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalize servitude.

When we compare Israel's servant system with the ancient Near East in general, what we have is a fairly tame and, in many ways, very attractive arrangement for impoverished Israelites. The servant laws aimed to benefit and protect the poor-that is, those most likely to enter indentured service. Servanthood was voluntary: a person who (for whatever reason) doesn't have any land "sells himself" (Lev. 25:39, 47; compare Deut. 15:12). Someone might also sell a family member as an indentured servant in another's household to work until a debt is paid off. Once a person was freed from his servant obliga-tions, he had the "status of full and unencumbered citizenship."

Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude. A good deal of Mosaic legislation was given to protect the poor from even temporary indentured service. The poor were given opportunities to glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites harvested the land (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-21). Also, fellow Israelites were commanded to lend freely to the poor (Deut. 15:7-8), who weren't to be charged interest (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36-37). And if the poor couldn't afford high-end sacrificial animals, they could sacrifice smaller, less-expensive ones (Lex. 5:7, 11). Also, debts were to be automatically canceled every seven years. In fact, when debt-servants were released, they were to be generously provided for without a "grudging heart" (Deut. 15:10 NIV). The bottom line: God didn't want there to be any poverty in Israel (Deut. 15:4). Therefore, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

The Ultimate Goal: No Poverty, No Servanthood (Deut. 15:1-18)

At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts. This is the manner of remission: every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor; he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the LORD'S remission has been proclaimed. From a foreigner you may exact it (which was typically for business transactions, as we'll see later], but your hand shall release whatever of yours is with your brother. However, there will be no poor among you, since the LORD will surely bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, if only you listen obediently to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today. For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.

If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother, but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, "You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land."

If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat, you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you, therefore I command you this today. It shall come about if he says to you, "I will not go out from you," because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you, then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also you shall do likewise to your maidservant. It shall not seem hard to you when you set him free, for he has given you six years with double the service of a hired man; so the LORD your God will bless you in whatever you do. (Deut. 15:1-18)

This legislation commands the forgiveness of the poor person's (i.e., servant's) accumulated debt; this debt remission was to take place every seven years, which shows God's remarkable concern for the impoverished in the land. Now some will point to various Mesopotamian kings during the second millennium BC who released slaves and debtors during the first or second year of their reign-and another time or more beyond that. But such releases were typically sporadic, unlike the fixed intervals required in Israel every seventh and fiftieth year."

If you just glanced over the Deuteronomy 15 text and didn't catch its significance, go back and really read it. The overriding, revolutionary goal expressed in this text is to totally eradicate debt-servanthood in the land: "there will be no poor [and therefore no debt servanthood] among you" (v. 4). Being a realist, however, God was aware that inferior conditions would exist and that poverty (and thus servanthood) would continue in the land (v. 11). Even so, this undesirable situation was to be battled rather than institutionalized. In keeping with this "eradicate poverty/eradicate servitude" spirit, a servant's release was to be accompanied with generous provisions and a gracious spirit. The "master" was to have no wicked thought toward his servant; instead, he was to generously load him up with provisions (vv. 13-14). The motivating reason for this kindness and goodwill was that "you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today" (v. 15). Even if poverty (and therefore servitude) couldn't be eradicated, Israel was to strive toward this goal.

The Dignity of Debt-Servants

Rather than relegating treatment of servants (slaves) to the end of the law code (commonly done in other ancient Near Eastern law codes), Israel's law code put the matter front and center in Exodus 21. For the first time in the ancient Near East, legislation required treating servants as persons, not property. In other ancient Near Eastern cultures, it was the king who was the image of their god on earth-and certainly not the slave. By contrast, Genesis 1:26-27 affirms that all human beings are God's image-bearers. This doctrine serves as the basis for affirming the dignity and rights of every human. Likewise, Job 31:13-15 clearly reveals the inescapable humanity-and thus equality-of master and servant alike: "If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" (NIV).

Servants (slaves) in Israel, unlike their ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, were given radical, unprecedented legal/human rights, even if not equaling that of free persons (who could, if unfortunate circumstances prevailed, find themselves needing to place themselves into indentured servitude). As the Anchor Bible Dictionary's essay on "Slavery" observes, "We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters. By comparison, "the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regu-lar society was apparently alien to the laws of the [rest of the] ANE," where slaves were forcibly branded or tattooed for identification (contrast this with Exod. 21:5-6). Indeed, in "contrast to many ancient doctrines, the Hebrew law was relatively mild toward the slaves and recognized them as human be-ings subject to defense from intolerable acts, although not to the same extent as free persons."" As we'll see, the protection of runaway slaves who fled to Israel was strikingly different from the slave laws in surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures, and this was due to Israel's own history as slaves in Egypt. This fact would in effect turn slavery into a "voluntary institution."

Some will argue at this point that Hittite laws were softened when they were upgraded; they became more humanizing. True enough, but the results weren't always as positive as one might think. For example, murder no longer carried with it the death sentence-except for slaves. Free persons were punished by fining and by mutilation. The improvements were at best a mixed bag!

In the rest of this chapter, we'll see not only how three key laws in Israel were distinct in the ancient Near East but also how if they had been heeded by "Bible-believing" Southerners in the US. and "Christian" Europeans, slavery would not have been an issue. Let's look at these more closely

Release of Injured Servants

Another marked improvement of Israel's laws over other ancient Near Eastern law codes is the release of injured servants (Exod. 21:26-27). When an employer (master) accidentally gouged out the eye or knocked out the tooth of his male or female servant/employee, he or she was to go free. No bodily abuse of servants was permitted. And as we'll discuss in the next chapter, if an employer's discipline resulted in the immediate death of his servant, that employer (master) himself was to be put to death (Exod. 21:20; note that the word for "punished" is very strong, always connoting the death penalty).

By contrast, Hammurabi's Code permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave's ear." Typically in ancient Near Eastern law codes, masters-not slaves were merely financially compensated for injuries to their slaves. The Mosaic law, however, held masters accountable for their treatment of their own servants, not simply another person's servants. As we'll see shortly, if the servant died because of an employer's physical abuses, this was considered murder. All of this was unparalleled in other ancient Near Eastern codes."

Some might ask whether releasing a servant for gouging out an eye or a tooth is a better reason for freeing servants than in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. After all, Hammurabi allowed for the release of a slave woman and her children (sired by the master) if the master decided not to adopt them." Of course, the question itself is skewed." As we've seen, Israelites were to release their servants every seven years, unless they wanted to stay on. In 1 Chronicles 2:34-35, Caleb's descendant Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant Jarha-not a bad move up the social ladder!

As an aside, keep in mind that many perhaps most-servants were young people who were parceled out by destitute parents to more prosperous families who would feed, clothe, and shelter them. Other adults served in loco parentis-in the place of parents which typically included discipline of servant children. As Proverbs 29:19 puts it: "A servant cannot be corrected by mere words; though he understands, he will not respond" (NIV). The downside of this was that sometimes the head of the household would likely overdo the punishment, possibly resulting in injury."

Anti-Kidnapping Laws

Another unique feature of the Mosaic law is its condemnation of kidnapping a person to sell as a slave, an act punishable by death:

He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death. (Exod. 21:16)

If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die, so you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deut. 24:7) (Note the prohibition of kidnapping in 1 Tim. 1:10)

This ban against kidnapping is a point lost on, or ignored by, those who compare servanthood in Israel with slavery in the antebellum South, let alone the ancient Near East.

Helping Runaway Slaves

Up to this point, we've primarily referred to Israelite servants, not foreign ones. But this particular law reveals just how different Israel's laws were from the antebellum South-despite the Confederacy's claims of following the Bible faithfully. Also, this fugitive-harboring law would have applied to Israelite servants who left harsh employers for refuge. Another unique feature in Israel's "slave laws" was this: Israel was commanded to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16). The Southern states' Fugitive Slave Law legally required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. This sounds more like the Code of Hammurabi than the Bible. Hammurabi even demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves.

In other less-severe cases in the Lipit-Ishtar, Eshunna, and Hittite laws-fines were exacted for sheltering fugitive slaves. Some claim that this was an improvement. Well, sort of. In these "improved" scenarios, the slave was still merely property, and ancient Near Eastern extradition arrangements still required that a slave be returned to his master. And not only this, but the slave was going back to the harsh conditions that prompted him to run away in the first place. Even upgraded laws in first millennium BC Babylon included compensation to the owner (or perhaps something more severe) for harboring a runaway slave. Yet the returned slaves themselves were disfigured, including having their ears slit and being branded. This isn't the kind of improvement to publicize too widely! Yes, positive trends and moral improvements took place in ancient Near Eastern laws. But repeatedly we see a general, noteworthy moral difference between the law of Moses and other ancient Near Eastern law codes.

One more matter: although some claim that the runaway slave in Deuter-onomy 23 isn't a foreigner but an Israelite, we have plenty of reason to reject that idea. For one thing, no mention of the word brother or neighbor is used. In addition, according to Leviticus 25, Israelites weren't allowed to enslave fellow Israelites. Also, the foreign fugitive slave could freely choose a place to live in Israel ("in your midst," "in one of your towns" [Deut. 23:16]), unlike the rest of the Israelites, who had to stay put on the land allotted to clans (cf. Numbers, Joshua). Thus, those who benefited weren't society's elite but vulnerable, marginalized foreign persons in the midst of a completely dif-ferent society Furthermore, Israelites entered servitude voluntarily whereas runaway slaves would likely have become slaves against their will. So if alien slaves received protection from harsh masters, how much more would this be so for Israelites."

Summary Comments

In Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865) we find these familiar words regarding the North and the South:

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully The Almighty has His own purposes."

Yes, clearly both sides read from the same Bible and sought divine support to overcome their adversaries. However, the critics' common association of Israel's servant laws with those of the antebellum South is seriously misguided. We can plainly affirm that if the three clear laws of the Old Testament had been followed in the South that is, the anti-kidnapping, anti-harm, and anti-slave-return regulations in Exodus 21:16, 20, 26-27 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 and 24:7-then slavery wouldn't have arisen in America.

If you had to choose between servanthood in Israel and slavery in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, the sane person would pick Israel every time. The indentured servanthood model wasn't ideal, but Israel's laws reflected a greater moral sensitivity than their ancient Near Eastern counterparts.

In his classic Theology of the Old Testament, Walther Eichrodt summarizes the contrast well:

The norms given in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20-23) reveal, when com-pared with related law-books of the ancient Near East, radical alterations in legal practice. In the evaluation of offences against property, in the treatment of slaves, in the fixing of punishment for indirect offences, and in the rejection of punishment by mutilation, the value of human life is recognized as incomparably greater than all material values. The dominant feature throughout is respect for the rights of everything that has a human face, and this means that views which predominate universally elsewhere have been abandoned, and new principles introduced into legal practice. Ultimately this is possible only because of the profundity of insight hitherto undreamt of into the nobility of Man, which is now recognized as a binding consideration for moral conduct. Hence in Israel even the rights of the lowliest foreigner are placed under the protection of God; and if he is also dependent, without full legal rights, to oppress him is like op-pressing the widow and orphan, a transgression worthy of punishment, which calls forth God's avenging retribution."

In Israel, indentured servants (slaves) were to be treated as human beings-not as things and they were protected from "inhuman abuse." In Old Testament law, though there was a social distinction between a servant and a free person, a servant was certainly protected by the law. Abusing a ser-vant would result in his going free. In the seventh year, a servant would be debt free and able to strike out on his own in his new status as a free person. Though there were some release laws in the ancient Near East, the contrasts between Israel's laws and other laws are more striking than the similarities. "The Israelites had six years of labor?" the critic asks. "Hammurabi allowed only three!" Generally speaking, though, in the ancient Near East, a "slave's right of manumission [gaining freedom] belonged exclusively to the slave's owner.

The Code of Hammurabi and other ancient Near Eastern law codes stressed class distinctions and legislation corresponding to slaves, free persons, govern-ment officials, priests, and so on. These ancient Near Eastern laws were quite unlike the fairly nonhierarchical Old Testament. In Israel, even kings like David or Ahab weren't above the law. Indeed, when they were guilty of murdering Uriah and Naboth (respectively), God's prophets confronted them for taking the innocent lives of two ordinary citizens. (Though Canaanite kings assumed that the land belonged to them and their royal families, Naboth knew that the land belonged to God, which he graciously gave for Israelite families to use.)" Although God didn't use Israel's judicial system on kings, he certainly didn't give these kings a pass. God repeatedly brought severe judgments directly on the royal perpetrators of heinous crimes and acts of covenant disloyalty God divided the kingdom because of Solomon's idolatry (1 Kings 11:13); he sent leprosy on Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:19); he sent Manasseh into exile (2 Chron. 33:10-11); and the list goes on. These incidents illustrate what Leviticus 19:15 commands: "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly," whether king or ordinary citizen.

Yes, Israel's treatment of servants (slaves) was unparalleled in the ancient

Near East:

No other ancient near Eastern law has been found that holds a master to ac count for the treatment of his own slaves (as distinct from injury done to the slave of another master), and the otherwise universal law regarding runaway slaves was that they must be sent back, with severe penalties for those who failed to comply

Though Israel's laws on servitude weren't the moral ideal, they show far greater moral sensitivity than other ancient Near Eastern texts. In doing so, they point us back to God's ideal at the beginning: all humans are God's image-bearers (Gen. 1:26-27). Contrary to what Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris say, servanthood in Israel can hardly be called "a warrant for trafficking in humans" or a means of treating people "like farm equipment." No, God's ultimate intention wasn't for humans to "keep slaves."" In fact, the Genesis ideal is that all humans are equal and that they do not work for another; rather, each person under God's care is to be his own "master," sitting under his own vine and fig tree (1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; Zech. 3:10).35

Further Reading

Chirichigno, Gregory C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOT Supplement Series 141. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1993. 

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology III: Israel's Life. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. See esp. pp. 458-75. 

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Chapter 13. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (II)

Challenging Texts on Slavery

We've given context and background regarding servitude in Israel-a note-worthy improvement on the slavery laws in other ancient Near Eastern texts. Yet there are still some challenging texts to consider.

Beating Slaves to Death (Exod. 21:20-21)

If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished [nagam). However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished [nagam], for he has suffered the loss. (Exod. 21:20-21 NET)

Allegedly, this treatment of the servant (the word slave is misleading) sug-gests to some that he's owned as a possession by another. This impression is reinforced by various translations that render the word loss as "property" Now, the word literally means "money"; so is this person is a commodity to exchange rather than a person to value?

The Old Testament affirms the full personhood of these debt-servants (e.g., Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18), and this passage is no exception. It affirms the servant's full personhood. If the master struck a servant so that he immediately died, the master would be tried for capital punishment: "he shall be avenged" (Exod. 21:20 ESV). This verb naqam always involves the death penalty in the Old Testament the implication is that judicial vengeance is the result.¹

This theme is reinforced by the mention of taking "life for life" (Exod. 21:23-24), which follows on the heels of the servant-beating passage. This confirms that the servant was to be treated as a human being with dignity, not as property

The staff or rod wasn't a lethal weapon, nothing like a spear or a sword. What if the servant didn't die immediately from the rod beating? What if he died after "a day or two"? In this case, the master was given the benefit of the doubt that the servant was likely being disciplined and that there was no murderous intent. Of course, if the slave died immediately, no further proof was needed. And if any permanent injury resulted (e.g., losing an eye or a tooth), then the servant was to be released debt free. This is an extraordinarily different treatment compared to other ancient Near Eastern laws in this regard. For example, Hammurabi insisted that payment went to the master for such injuries to a slave. In the ancient Near East, where masters could treat slaves as they pleased, this passage upholds the dignity of debt-servants. 3

Why then does the passage say that the slave is the master's "money" or "property"? The suggestion here isn't that servants were chattel or property The servant/employee came into the master's/employer's house to get out of debt. So the employer stood to lose money if he mistreated his employee; his harsh treatment toward an employee could impact his money bag. And if he killed his employee/servant, then he was to be executed. Whether of a servant or a free person, murder was murder in Israel.

Let's go a bit deeper, though. Ancient Near Eastern scholar Harry Hoffner (a Hittitologist at the University of Chicago) rejects the common rendering "he [the servant] is his money" in favor of this one: "that [fee] is his money/silver." This "fee" reading is based on the context of Exodus 21:18-19 (part of a section on punishments dealing with quarrels and accidental killing): "If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed." Like the modified Hittite law that required masters who had harmed their slaves to pay a physician to provide medical treatment, so here the employer had to pay the medical bills for the servant he had wounded. In verse 21, the Hebrew pronoun bu refers not to the servant ("he") but to the fee ("that") paid to the doctor tending to the wounded servant. Hoffner writes, "The fact that the master provided care at his own expense would be a significant factor when the judges respond to a charge of intentional homicide."

Are these Exodus laws perfect, universal ones for all people? No, but in this and other aspects, we continually come across improved legislation for Israelite society in contrast to surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures. As the Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna observes about this passage, "This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation."5

Leaving Wife and Children Behind (Exod. 21:2-6)

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out free without paying anything. If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will belong to her master, and he will go out by himself. But if the servant should declare, "I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free," then his master must bring him to the judges, and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever. (Exod. 21:2-6 NET)

Nuzi was located near Kirkuk, Iraq, close to the Tigris River. Thousands of tablets the Akkadian Nuzi texts from the second millennium BC were found there. They mention legislation similar to this: if a slave entered a master's home single, he left single. If he entered with a spouse, then he left on his marry way! Now, if a wife had been given to him by his master, then she (and any children from this union) belonged to the master.

According to this Exodus passage, if a man was given a wife by his master/employer and they had children, then he had a choice: he could either leave by himself when the seventh year of debt release came, or he could continue as a permanent servant to be with his wife and children. It's a less-than-ideal setting to be sure, but let's probe the text more deeply

At first glance, this text seems to treat females (and children) unfairly. The (apparently) favored male can come into a service arrangement and then go out of it. Yet the wife he married while serving his employer and any children who came while he served were (so it seems) "stuck" in the master's home and couldn't leave. That's not only male favoring; it strikes us as criminal! Wasn't this an earlier version of slave families during the antebellum South (like Frederick Douglass's) who were broken up and scattered by insensitive slaveowners?

Our first point in response is this: we're not told specifically that this scenario could also apply to a woman, but we have good reason to think this situation wasn't gender specific. (We'll see shortly that Deuteronomy 15 makes explicit that this scenario applied to a woman as well.) This is another example of case law: "if such and such a scenario arises, then this is how to proceed." Case law typically wasn't gender specific. Furthermore, Israelite judges were quite capable of applying the law to male and female alike. An impoverished woman, who wasn't given by her father as a prospective wife to a (widowed or divorced) man or his son (Exod. 21:7-11), could perform standard household tasks. And she could go free by this same law, just as a male servant could." Various scholars suggest that the Scripture text could be applied to females quite readily: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, she is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, she will go out free. If her master gives her a husband, and they have sons or daughters, the husband and the children will belong to her master, and she will go out by herself." The law makes perfect sense in light of this shift; its spirit isn't violated by doing so.

Some critics, though, would rather fight than shift. Rather than applying these case-law scenarios to both men and women, they'd rather put up resis-tance in order to make this law look its very worst. But we have no compelling reason to do so. Again, Israel's judges would have looked to this general passage for guidance regarding female servants. Simply because many verses in the law happen to use a masculine gender pronoun rather than alternating between "he" and "she" hardly means that women are thereby being excluded.

As an aside, the term Hebrew (at this stage in Israel's history) was broader than the term Israelite; the two terms would later be equated. The habiru were people not formally attached to established states like Egypt or Babylon; they were considered foreigners and noncitizens from the speaker's perspective. So this passage may well refer to a non-Israelite. That means this servant-possibly a foreigner was to be released after six years unless he preferred the security of his employer's household. In this case, he could make the arrangement permanent. For now, we'll assume that this passage refers to an Israelite servant, but we'll revisit this issue when discussing Leviticus 25.

For our second point, let's (for the moment) stick with a male servant/em-ployee scenario. Let's say his employer arranges for a marriage between him and a female employee. (In this case of debt-servitude, the employer's family would now engage in marriage negotiations.) By taking the male servant into his home to work off a debt, the boss has made an investment. He would stand to suffer loss if someone walked out on the contract. Think in terms of military service. When someone signs up to serve for three or four years, he still owes the military, even if he gets married during this time. Likewise in Israel, for debts to be paid off, the male servant couldn't just leave with his wife once he was married. He was still under contract, and he needed to honor this. And even when his contract was completed, he wasn't allowed simply to walk away with his wife and kids. After all, they were still economic assets to his boss.

What could the released man do? He had three options.

1. He could wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. His wife and kids weren't stuck in the employer's home the rest of their lives. They could be released when the wife worked off her debt. Yet if the now-free man worked elsewhere, this would mean (a) he would be separated from his family, and (b) his boss would no longer supply him with food, clothing, and shelter. On the other hand, if he lived with his family after release, he'd still have to pay for room and board. So this scenario created its own set of financial challenges.

2. He could get a decent job elsewhere and save his shekels to pay his boss to release his wife and kids from contractual obligations. What a great option! Why not take this route? Because it would have been very difficult for the man to support himself and earn enough money for his family's debt release.

3. He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer-a life contract (Exod. 21:5-6). He could stay with his family and re-main in fairly stable economic circumstances. He would formalize this arrangement in a legal ceremony before the judges (God) by having his ear pierced with an awl.

Before coming up with all sorts of modern Western solutions to solve these ancient Near Eastern problems, we should make greater efforts to better grasp the nature of Israelite servitude and the social and economic circumstances surrounding it. We're talking about unfortunate circumstances during bleak economic times. Israel's laws provided safety nets for protection, not oppres-sion. It's obvious that this arrangement was far different from the South's chattel slavery, in which a slave wasn't a temporarily indentured servant who voluntarily sold himself to live in another's household to pay off his debts.

The Engaged Servant Girl (Lev. 19:20-21)

Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave [i.e., servant] acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. (Lev. 19:20-21)

This passage is different from Deuteronomy 22:23-27, which we addressed ear-lier and which deals with an engaged free woman. Here the situation involves a free man and a servant girl promised to another man. The man is clearly guilty of adultery; he seems to be a seducer who is taking advantage of his position over a servant girl, something like what King David did with Bathsheba. We're dealing with statutory rape between the seducer and the servant girl, who was pressured to consent (see our discussion of Deut. 22:28-29).

In this murky and oft-debated passage, two issues are highlighted. First, the girl was engaged and not married. Second, she was a servant girl and not free; she hadn't yet been redeemed by a family member or liberated by her master. (This is the reason given for not punishing the girl or the seducer.) So her master wouldn't have had the typical claim on her, nor could he be compensated because she was engaged. This presents a kind of gray area in Israel's legislation with a mixture of a free person and an engaged servant (see the immediately preceding passage on mixtures in Lex. 19:19).

As with other laws regarding women, the goal of this law was to protect those who were more vulnerable. We know that it's easier for persons in vulnerable situations to be taken advantage of and even sexually harassed.

In this case, the girl was taken advantage of, and she isn't punished. Notice too that, though she has a diminished social status, this status is viewed as temporary. It doesn't prevent her from being "given her freedom" (Lev. 19:20). Now, there's no death penalty for the man here (and we've seen that only murder requires the death penalty, while for adultery and other potential capital offenses, other compensation could be made). The offense is still very serious, and expensive reparations are required (i.e., a sacrificial ram). Yet clearly the law protects girls who are taken as servants for their parents' debt.

Based on Leviticus 19 (and a surface reading of Exod. 21), it may seem that women were treated as property However, we've observed that, despite Israel's inherited and imperfect patriarchal structure, these laws actually served to protect women as well as the family structure, which was central to Israelite society Rather than viewing these law texts as demeaning women, we should actually see them as protecting the vulnerable.

To get further perspective, however, consider again other ancient Near Eastern cultures in this regard. Punishments were often of the vicarious sort. For committing certain crimes, men would have to give up their wife, daughter, ox, or slave a clear indication that a woman was often deemed the property of a man. Middle Assyrian laws punished not a rapist but a rapist's wife and even allowed her to be gang-raped. In other ancient Near Eastern laws, men could freely whip their wives, pull out their hair, mutilate their ears, or strike them-a dramatic contrast to Israel's laws, which gave no such permissions." Again, despite some of Israel's problematic social structures and corresponding laws, Israel's legal system-if faithfully followed-created a morally preferable environment to other societies in the ancient Near East. (The operative words are "faithfully followed," which Israel wasn't very good at doing.)

Foreign Slaves

For they [Israelites) are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners [tosbabim] who live as aliens [ger] among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Now if the means of a stranger [ger] or of a sojourner [tosbab] with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him, or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. (Lex 25:42-49)

Here we come across a jarring text, a significant distinction between Isra-elite servants/employees and foreign workers in Israel. Does this text regard foreign workers as nothing more than property?

Before we jump to this conclusion, we should look at what precedes this text-and at other scriptural considerations. When we do so, we'll continue to see that (1) these foreigners were still nowhere near the chattel slaves of the antebellum South; (2) a significant presence of apparently resentful foreigners required stricter measures than those for cooperative aliens who were willing to follow Israel's laws; (3) since only Israelites were allowed to own land (which ultimately belonged to Yahweh), foreigners who weren't in Israel just for business purposes were typically incorporated into Israelite homes to serve there, unless they chose to live elsewhere; and (4) strangers in the land could, if they chose, not only be released but potentially become persons of means. For poor foreigners wanting to live in Israel, voluntary servitude was pretty much the only option.

Being Nice to Strangers

In Leviticus 19:33-34, the Israelites were commanded to love the stranger in the land: "When a stranger [ger] resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God." This is reinforced in Deuteronomy 10:19: "So show your love for the alien [ger], for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." So before we jump to conclusions about "harsh and oppressive" Old Testament laws regarding outsiders, we should take such texts seriously Since the land belonged to Yahweh (Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19), who graciously loaned it to the families of Israel, foreign settlers couldn't acquire it. Yet a foreigner (nokri) could become an alien (ger) if he embraced Israel's ways fully; he would no longer be a permanent outsider. Allowances were made for aliens in terms of gleaning laws and other provisions. The foreigner didn't need to feel excluded in the host country; presumably he wasn't forced to remain in Israel either. Though without land, he could share in the community life and religious celebrations of Israel with many improved economic and status perks; think of Rahab or Ruth here.

The Foreigner and the Alien

The established alien (ger) and the sojourner (toshab) were those who had embraced the worship of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. They had come from another land and had sought refuge in Israel for perhaps political or eco-nomic reasons-like Abraham in Hebron (Gen. 23:4), Moses in Midian (Exod. 2:22), Elimelech and his family in Moab (Ruth 1:1), or the Israelites in Egypt (Exod. 22:21). Perhaps the best term for such persons is ethnic minorities-persons with "distinctive racial or cultural traditions [who] are vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination by dominant groups in the population. They had settled in the land for some time. They didn't have their own land but had come under the protection of Israel (Deut. 10:19). Furthermore, these resident aliens were proselytes or converts to the religion of Israel. (In fact, the term ger is typically translated proselytos in the Greek Old Testament.) Aliens (and foreigners [nokrim]), however, were permitted to eat nonkosher food (Deut. 14:21), but aliens couldn't eat food with blood in it (Lev. 17:10, 12-13). They kept the Sabbath laws, and they were circumcised, which meant they could celebrate Passover (Exod. 12:48-49; Num. 9:14). God is said to love the alien (Deut. 10:18), and the alien was not to be oppressed. However, the well-to-do alien (ger) was restricted from having an Israelite servant in his home (Lev. 25:47-49). An Israelite could not be a debt-servant of a non-Israelite alien-especially in light of God's delivering Israel from Egypt.

Foreigners (nokrim or sometimes bene-nekar [literally, "sons of a foreign land")) were in a different category. Perhaps they came into Israel as pris-oners of war, or they came voluntarily to engage in business transactions. They didn't embrace Yahweh worship and remained uncircumcised. 13 The foreigner didn't show concern for Israel's purity laws, and he was allowed to eat nonkosher foods. He likely didn't have a problem eating a dead animal not killed by a human. What's remarkable in Israel's legislation is the accommodation to the foreigner: if an Israelite saw an animal that had died by itself, he couldn't eat it (it would make him unclean), but he could give it to an alien (ger) or sell it to a foreigner (nokri) living in his town (Deut. 14:21). This was a way to show love to the alien and foreigner alike, even if the foreigner didn't embrace Israel's purity laws and didn't identify as fully as possible with God's people.14

Further, we've already noted that in a postwar situation (Deut. 21:10-14), a foreign woman could follow certain requirements to separate from her former culture and embrace her new one. After this, she could be elevated to the status of Israelite wife, a far cry from acquiring chattel.

Just because an outsider to Israel came to live in the land didn't mean he would necessarily become a household servant. The stranger (ger) or sojourner (toshab) often used synonymously could become a person of means (e.g., Lev. 25:47). The foreigner (nokri) the word typically, though not always, has a negative connotation often came to Israel for business transactions: "foreigners were normally present in a country for purposes of trade," which meant that "goods or money given to them on credit were usually investments or advance payments on goods, not loans because of poverty"15 We should factor all of the above into our discussion of foreigners before looking at the downside of foreigners as servants.

There's more to the word foreigner than first meets the eye. In the Old Testament, the term is associated with someone who is dangerous or hostile to what is good and to God's purposes for Israel. The foreigner is frequently associated with idolatry (cf. Josh. 24:20; Jer. 5:19; Mal. 2:11), hostility (Neh. 9:2; 13:30), or the enemy (2 Sam. 22:45-46). Solomon married foreign wives who led him into idolatry (1 Kings 11:1; cf. Ezra 10:2). Proverbs warns against the strange or foreign woman, who is an adulteress (Prov. 2:16; 5:20; 7:5; 23:27, etc.). Because of difficulty of integrating into Israel, foreigners may have served as forced laborers (mas) who worked for the state (cf. Deut. 20:11). They per-formed public works such as construction and undertook agricultural work as well. Under kings David and Solomon, Ammonites and Canaanites engaged in such work (2 Sam. 12:31; 1 Kings 9:15, 20-22; cf. Judg. 1:28-35). We don't know if they served part-time or permanently

Overall, the alien or stranger/temporary resident in Israel wasn't to be op-pressed but was to be dealt with fairly (e.g., Exod. 22:21). Repeatedly in the law of Moses, God showed concern that outsiders/foreigners be treated well.

Special Considerations

What about loan discrimination? For Israelites, loans were given at cost; no interest was permitted. However, loans with interest were allowed when it came to the foreigner (wokri) in Israel (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36-37; Deut. 15:3). Wasn't this unfair? Some have argued so. But as we've seen, typically foreigners sought loans for business/investment purposes, not because they were destitute and needed money to relieve their debt, let alone to keep from starving.

In other instances, the presence of foreigners was tricky If Israel fought against other nations, some POWs might need to be assimilated into Israelite society. Structures were needed to prevent them from rising up in rebellion against their new masters or remaining consolidated in their own land where they could muster forces and launch a counterattack. In cases where Israel's captured enemies (especially the males) didn't care for the "laws of the land" and posed an internal threat to Israel's safety (e.g., Num. 21-22; 25; 31), ser-vanthood was one way of subduing or controlling this menace. Certain economic, military, and social realities made things messy. Even so, Israel couldn't oppress or exploit foreigners. Deuteronomy 23 shows con-cern for desperate, threatened foreign slaves, and this text sheds light on-or even improves on-previous legislation in Leviticus 25. And there's no hint of racism here, as though being a non-Israelite was justification for Israelite slave keeping. In fact, as Roy Gane argues, the laws of Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27 protect from abuse all persons in service to others, not just Jews. 19

Notice something important in Leviticus 25:44-47, which is typically over-looked by the critics. We've seen that kidnapping and slave trading were clearly prohibited by the Mosaic law, but foreigners would come to Israel as prisoners of war and, given the dangers of an internal uprising, would be pressed into supervised construction or agricultural work. Yet the very sojourners and aliens who were at first pressed into service (v. 45) were the same ones who had the capability of saving up sufficient means (v. 47). Yes, in principle, all persons in servitude within Israel except criminals could be released.20

At this juncture, let's note several important points about the "foreign servitude" passage of Leviticus 25: First, the verb acquire (qanah] in Leviticus 25:39-51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 (Eve's having "gotten a manchild") and 14:19 (God is the "Possessor of heaven and earth")." Later, Boaz "acquired" Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10), although she was no inferior but rather a full partner in Boaz's eyes.

Second, in some cases, foreign servants could become elevated and apparently fully equal to Israelite citizens. For instance, a descendant of Caleb ended up marrying an Egyptian servant. "Now Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. And Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant in marriage, and she bore him Attai" (1 Chron. 2:34-35). Not only do we have marriage between a foreign servant and an established freeperson with quite a pedigree, but the key implication is that inheritance rights would fall to the servant's offspring (the genealogy lists Jarha's son Attai, who had a son Nathan, whose son was Zabad, and so on).

Third, foreign runaway slaves were given protection within Israel's borders and not returned to their harsh masters (Deut. 23:15-16). Kidnapping slaves was also prohibited (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). So serving within Israelite households was to be a safe haven for any foreigner; it was not to be an oppressive setting, but offered economic and social stability

Fourth, we've seen that the "Hebrew" servant in Exodus 21:2 could well have been an outsider who had come to be a resident alien and was to be released in the seventh year, presumably to go back to his country of origin. However, he could make the arrangement permanent if he loved his master/employer and wanted to stay under his care. Given the security and provision of room and board for landless aliens, this arrangement could apparently be extended into the next generation(s). This setup wasn't to be permanent, unless the servant chose to stay with his master. John Goldingay writes, "Perhaps many people would be reasonably happy to settle for being long-term or lifelong servants. Servants do count as part of the family" He adds, "One can even imagine people who started off as debt servants volunteering to become permanent servants because they love their master and his household" (cf. Deut. 15:16-17).22

Fifth, the text of Leviticus 25 makes clear that the alien/stranger could potentially work himself out of debt and become a person of means in Israel:

"if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient" (v. 47). This is another indication that he wasn't stuck in lifelong servitude without a choice. The terms stranger (ger) and sojourner (toshab) are connected to the terms used in verse 45 "sojourners who live as aliens/strangers among you"). That is, these "acquired" servants could potentially better themselves to the point of hiring servants themselves (v. 47). Of course, an alien could not hire an Israelite.

As we've seen in other scenarios, these situations weren't ideal given the inferior social structures of the time. God instituted laws for Israel that began where the people were. But we see a remarkable humanization encoded in Israel's laws for foreign and Israelite servants alike.

Membership Has Its Privileges

If a foreigner happened to be poor, this circumstance could help create an incentive for the foreigner to become part of the Israelite community and share in, say, the Passover, something the alien could celebrate (Exod. 12:48-49). The foreigner (ben-nekar) wasn't allowed to participate in this feast (12:43) since he didn't care to identify himself with Israel's covenant and with Yah-weh. Again, why should loans be at cost for people who chose to live in (and off) Israel without entering into the corporate life and worship of Israel? We should expect some difference between them.

Think of America's illegal immigration situation, a complex matter that's often emotionally charged on both sides of the debate. We all know how this goes: illegals slip across the United States-Mexico border to benefit from the U.S.'s economic way of life. Meanwhile, many foreigners desiring to live in the US. may follow all the legal channels to acquire a US. green card (resident alien status) in order to (perhaps) eventually become naturalized citizens; they wait a long time for their applications to be processed. Even so, their applica-tions may be rejected. Yet illegals completely bypass the legal channels and maneuver their way across the border.

Now, I'm not unsympathetic with the concerns of illegals looking for a better life in the United States, and we should extend kindness and personal concern to them. Perhaps churches can try to assist undocumented aliens in getting a fair trial and making sure they're treated respectfully as God's image-bearers; perhaps churches could even sponsor them in hopes of their becoming naturalized citizens. But for the sake of maintaining order and preserving the privilege and dignity of citizenship in a country (cf. Rom. 13), priority should be given to tax-paying citizens over illegals when it comes to health care, drivers' licenses, insurance, and the like. It's understandable that when legal protocols aren't followed, certain privileges are withheld.23

The same held true in ancient Israel. The foreigner (nokri) was more like an illegal immigrant. The resident alien/sojourner (ger), however, sought to play by Israel's rules. Unlike the resident alien, foreigners weren't willing to abide by Israel's covenant relationship with God, so they shouldn't expect to receive all the privileges of an Israelite citizen. Ruth the Moabitess embraced the God of Israel and of her mother-in-law, Naomi: "Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" (Ruth 1:16). If Gentiles like Ruth or Rahab or Uriah the Hittite were willing to fully embrace Israel's God, people, and laws, then they could become more easily incorporated into mainstream life in Israel, even if they couldn't own land. And foreigners didn't have to come to Israel at all.

Like the credit card company (American Express) used to say, "Membership has its privileges." The same pertained to membership within Israel.

Final Considerations

Leviticus 25 reflected an attempt to regulate and control potential abuses that often come through greed and social status. This legislation created a safety net for vulnerable Israelites; its intent was to stop generational cycles of poverty. The story of Ruth and Naomi actually puts flesh and bones on the Sinai legislation. It brings us from the theoretical laws to the practical realm of everyday life in Israel. We see how the relevant laws were to be applied when death, poverty, and uncertainty came upon an Israelite. We also witness a Gentile who came to Israel with her mother-in-law. Both were vulnerable and seeking refuge with relatives who could assist them. They were provided for as Ruth was able to glean in the fields of Boaz, a kinsman-redeemer. Naomi was cared for in her old age.24

We should consider Leviticus 25:44 in light of the Ruth narrative: "You may acquire [qanah] male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." Interestingly Boaz announced to the elders in Bethlehem that he had "acquired" Ruth as his wife: "Moreover, I have acquired [qanah] Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon" (Ruth 4:10). Does this mean that Boaz thought Ruth was property? Hardly! Boaz had the utmost respect for Ruth, and he viewed her as an equal partner.

Was a foreign worker of a lower social rank than an Israelite servant? Yes. Was this an ideal situation? No. Am I advocating this for contemporary society? Hardly. Let's not forget the negative, sometimes God-opposing association bound up with the Old Testament use of the term foreigner. We often detect in this term a refusal to assimilate with Israel's ways and covenant relationship with God, which conflicted with God's intentions for his people. Again, foreigners could settle in the land, embrace Israel's ways, and become aliens or sojourners, which would give them greater entry into Israelite social life and economic benefit. And, as I've emphasized, the foreigner could have chosen to live elsewhere rather than in Israel. So we have a lot of complicating factors to consider here.

Even so, if we pay attention to the biblical text, the underlying attitude toward foreigners is far better than that found in other Near Eastern cultures. God constantly reminded Israel that they were strangers and aliens in Egypt (Exod. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 5:15; 10:19; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22). This memory was to shape Israel's treatment of strar strangers in the land. That's why God commanded the following: caring for the needy and the alien (Lev. 23:22); loving the alien (Deut. 10:19); providing for his basic need of food (Deut. 24:18-22); promptly paying for his labor (Deut. 24:14-15). In addition, the Old Testament looks to the ultimate salvation of, yes, the foreigner and his incorporation into the people of God (Isa. 56:3 ["the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord"]).

Lest we think that a foreigner's permanent servitude (which could well be understood as voluntary in Lex. 25) meant that his master could take advantage of him, we should recall the pervasive theme throughout the law of Moses of protection and concern for those in servitude. They weren't to be taken advantage of. So if a foreign servant was being mistreated by his master so that he ran away, he could find his way into another Israelite home for shelter and protection: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him" (Deut. 23:15-16). This provision wasn't simply for a foreign slave running to Israel but also for a foreign servant within Israel who was being mistreated. Israel's legislation regarding foreign slaves showed concern for their well-being, very much unlike the Code of Hammurabi, for example, which had no regard for an owner's treatment of his slaves, 25

Comparing Servitude Texts

Let's try to tie up some loose ends here. We looked at Deuteronomy 15:1-18 in the last chapter; so we won't cite the text in full here. This is the famous release text where God commanded generosity and goodwill toward debt-servants who were being released. God expressed the desire that there be no poor in the land at all.

Scholars have claimed that this passage stands in tension with the earlier servitude laws of Exodus 21:1-11 and Leviticus 25:39-46 (and we could add here Lev. 19:20-21). If so, the tension may not be as great as some have assumed. For example, Exodus 21:7 doesn't expressly say that female servants were to be set free after the seventh year. We've argued, though, that this is implied; this verse is an instance of case law. Tension exists if we assume that gender switching isn't allowed by the text. But that's not so. We could add that verses 26-27 mention that a male or female servant may be freed if injured; if he or she was killed by an employer's abuse, the employer was to be put to death.

At any rate, Deuteronomy 15:12 explicitly affirms that both male and female servants were in view. Both were to be given freedom in the seventh year, the sabbatical release. If a genuine tension exists, then this passage suggests that the arrangement for acquiring a wife in Exodus 21:7-10 had later been dropped in Israel.27

What about the law that a male servant couldn't leave with his wife and children if his wife were given by his master (Exod. 21:4)? This appears to change by Leviticus 25:40-42 (in the Jubilee year laws), where the children (and presumably the wife) were to go free with the husband/father. Also, in contrast to Exodus 21:2-6, Leviticus 25:41-42 doesn't distinguish between children born before and children born during indentured servanthood. Yet already in Leviticus 25:40-42, in the Jubilee year (every fiftieth year), the children (and presumably the wife) were released with their father (husband).

We do see some tensions between earlier texts (like Exod. 21) and Deuter-onomy 15. We don't need to thrown up our hands in despair at hopelessly contradictory texts. Rather, what we have here is a dynamic adjustment and a moral upgrade taking place within a short span of time in national Israel's early life. Remember the daughters of Zelophehad, who petitioned Moses for adjustments of the law (Num. 27)? Moses took their case before Yahweh, who approved their request. This is another example of an adjustment in Israel's laws, a move from inferior legislation to improved legal status. This is a far cry from Christopher Hitchens's notion of "unalterable" Old Testament laws.

Christopher Wright points out that in the final editing of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy), the editor(s) would certainly have been aware of these differences and tensions yet kept all of these texts in place. The editorial hand shows remarkable skill in handling the text. 28 In fact, the majority of scholars see Exodus giving the oldest law and Deuteronomy later revising and expand-ing it (which could also apply to the Leviticus text). So the fact that these texts coexist in the same body of work itself suggests a possible reconciliation or rationale for doing so. Wright sees Deuteronomy "modifying, extending, and to some extent reforming earlier laws, with additional explicit theological rationale and motivation. "3" Even the ancient Israelite would recognize that Exodus 21, which emphasizes the humanness of servants (slaves), stood in a certain tension with the later text of Deuteronomy 15 (and Lev. 25).

So to obey Deuteronomy, to a certain extent, "necessarily meant no longer complying with Exodus (or Leviticus). "31 These texts were deliberately kept together, in part to reflect this adjustment. Apparently, these tensions didn't seem all that wildly contradictory to the final editor of this portion of the Bible. This point serves to illustrate the "living, historical and contextual nature of the growth of Scripture, 32

By the time we get to the prophet Amos (whose ministry was in the Northern Kingdom of Israel), God levels harsh words against those who are "buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat" (836 NIV; cf. 2:6). Corrupt judges were bribed by the rich to make slave labor available to them. The poor were heavily fined and, when unable to pay, sold into servitude at low prices-thrown in with the sweepings of wheat. In Amos, the Israelite poor were being mistreated and even being traded for a pair of sandals. How much worse it must have been for aliens in Israel, whom God commanded Israel to protect.

Isaiah expresses similar concern for Gentile fugitives fleeing Moab. Notice the great concern shown for the vulnerable and those escaping dangerous situations: ""Hide the fugitives, do not betray the refugees. Let the Moabite fugitives stay with you; be their shelter from the destroyer." The oppressor will come to an end, and destruction will cease; the aggressor will vanish from the land" (Isa. 16:3-4 NIV).

In the prophetic book of Joel (2:29), God made an egalitarian promise to pour out his Spirit on all mankind, young and old, male and female-including male and female sertunts. This same theme is found in Job 31:15, where master and slave alike come from the same place the mother's womb. They are fundamentally equal.

Reflecting on the wider context of Scripture passages reminds us not to focus on a single text but to see how each passage fits into the broader whole. Furthermore, any deviations from ideal moral standards of human equality and dignity set down at creation are the result of human hard-heartedness. Over and over, we're reminded of Israel's superior legislation in contrast to the rest of the ancient Near East.

Further Reading

Chirichigno, Gregory C. Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East. JSOT Supplement Series 141. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1993.

Gane, Roy Leviticus, Numbers. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Hoffmeier, James K. The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009.

Chapter 14. Warrant for Trafficking in Humans as Farm Equipment? (III)

Slavery in the New Testament

The three-day Battle of Gettysburg in early July 1863 took the lives of ap-proximately fifty thousand Confederate and Union soldiers. Abraham Lincoln was invited to commemorate their deaths, dedicating the cemetery where over thirty-five hundred Union soldiers are now buried. His brief but powerful Get-tysburg Address (November 19, 1863) began with these immortalized words: "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Lincoln appealed to the Declaration of Independence in his argument against slavery, something he had done throughout the Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858) and well before.

Lincoln regularly appropriated this founding document to reshape Ameri-cans' thinking regarding slavery and the alleged subhumanity of blacks. Al-though America had fallen short of this ideal-whether in its breaking of treaties with Native Americans or the mistreatment of blacks-Lincoln called on his fellow citizens to think through the implications of this document. So at Gettysburg, Lincoln urged his hearers "to be dedicated here to the unfin-ished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced"; he longed to see fulfilled the vision articulated in the 1776 declaration: a "new birth of freedom."

The declaration's role in Lincoln's presidency illustrates a similar phenom-enon in the Old Testament. Genesis 1 was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"! In the Mosaic law, God was pointing back to this creational "founding document," affirming that treating humans as property or inferiors was fundamentally at odds with it. Despite human fallenness, Old Testament readers were continually pointed toward the ideal.

Though our focus has been on the Old Testament, we should say something about slavery in the New Testament. The New Testament presupposes not only a fundamental equality because all humans are created in God's image (James 3:9) but also an even deeper unity in Christ that transcends human boundaries and social structures: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). We'll look at the implications of this Christian manifesto.

A Little Background

We need to reorient our thinking away from the Old Testament situation of (primarily) Hebrew debt-servanthood (from which male and female were to be freed in the seventh year). The landscape of the Roman world was much different namely, the existence of institutionalized chattel (property) slavery Rome (unlike Old Testament legislation) sought to institutionalize not merely servanthood but (chattel) slavery

During the first century AD, 85 to 90 percent of Rome's population consisted of slaves. Although slaves were considered their masters' property and didn't have legal rights, they did have quite a range of other rights and privileges. These included (1) the possibility of starting a business to earn potentially large sums of money, (2) the capability of earning money to eventually purchase freedom (manumission) from their masters, or (3) the right to own property (known as the peculium). The work of slaves covered the spectrum from horrid conditions in mines to artisans, business agents, and other positions of respect and prestige such as civil or imperial servants. So slavery wasn't unkind to all slaves in the Roman Empire.

The New Testament's Affirmations of Slaves as Persons

You've probably heard the complaint, "Jesus never said anything about the wrongness of slavery." Not so! Jesus explicitly opposed every form of op-pression. Citing Isaiah 61:1, Jesus clearly described his mission: "to proclaim release to the captives, to set free those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18). This, then, would mean Rome's oppression and its institutionalizing slavery Now, Jesus didn't create an economic reform plan for Israel, but he addressed heart attitudes of greed, envy, contentment, and generosity to undermine op-pressive economic social structures. Likewise, New Testament writers often addressed the underlying attitudes regarding slavery How? By commanding Christian masters to call their slaves "brother" or "sister" and to show them compassion, justice, and patience. No longer did being a master mean privi-lege and status but rather responsibility and service. By doing so, the worm was already in the wood for altering the social structures."

As faithful followers of Christ, Paul and other New Testament writers likewise opposed dehumanization and oppression of others. They, for in-stance, fully rejected the idea that slaves were mere property The status of slave or free was irrelevant in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). In fact, Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian masters as well. Slaves were ultimately responsible to God, their heavenly Master. But masters were to "treat your slaves in the same way"-namely, as persons governed by a heavenly Master (Eph. 6:9 NIV). New Testament commentator P. T. O'Brien points out that "Paul's cryptic exhortation is outrageous" for his day Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves could even take on leadership positions in churches.

Paul would have considered the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century slave trade an abomination, an utter violation of human dignity and an act of human theft. In a "vice list" of Paul's in 1 Timothy 1:9-10, he expounded on the fifth through the ninth commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5; there he condemned "slave traders" (v. 10 NIV) who steal what isn't rightfully theirs."

Critics wonder why Paul (or Peter in 1 Peter 2:18-20) didn't condemn slavery outright and tell masters to release their slaves. Yet we should first separate this question from other considerations, even if the New Atheists aren't necessar-ily interested in nuance. Paul's position on the status of slavery was clear on various points: (1) he repudiated slave trading; (2) he affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; and (3) he encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:20-22). Paul's revolution-ary Christian affirmations helped to tear apart the fabric of the institution of slavery in Europe.

Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow slaves of the same impartial Master; so they weren't to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant "justice and fairness" to their slaves (Col. 4:1). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Col. 3:22-25) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers and part of Christ's body (1 Tim. 6:2). Christian slave and master alike belonged to Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Spiritual status was more fundamental than social status.

Paul (and Peter) didn't call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right; even if they were mistreated, their conscience would be clear (1 Peter 2:18-20). Obligations fell to these slaves, yes, without their prior agreement. So the path for early Christians to take was tricky, very much unlike the situation in Old Testament Israel. On the one hand, a slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice and prove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g., "Masters, release your slaves!" or "Slaves, throw off your chains!"). Rome would meet any flagrant opposition with speedy, forceful, lethal opposition. So Peter's admonition to unjustly treated slaves implies a suffering endured without retaliation. No, suffering in itself is not good (which would be a sadistic attitude to adopt and certainly not the view of Scripture); rather, the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.

On the other hand, the early Christians undermined slavery indirectly and certainly rejected many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it, such as Aristotle's (slaves were inherently inferior to masters, as were females to males). Just as Jesus bore unjust suffering for the redemption of others and entrusted himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2:20-24), so Christian slaves could bear hardship to show others including their masters-the way of Christ and redemption through him, all the while entrusting themselves to God." Thus, like yeast, such Christlike living could have a gradual leavening effect on society so that oppressive institutions like slavery could finally fall away This is, in fact, what took place throughout Europe, as we'll see in the final chapter.

This was also the type of incremental strategy taken by President Abraham Lincoln. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately. Being an exceptional student of human nature, he recognized that political realities and predictable reactions required an incremental approach. The radical abolitionist route of John Brown and Wil-liam Lloyd Garrison would (and did!) simply create a social backlash against hard-core abolitionists and make emancipation all the more difficult."

Paul's ministry illustrated how in Christ there was neither slave nor free. He greeted people in his epistles by name. Most of these individuals had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7 and 9, he refers to slaves like Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as "kinsman," "fellow prisoner," and "fellow worker." The New Testament approach to slavery was utterly contrary to aristocrats and philosophers like Aristotle, who held that some humans were slaves by nature (Politics 1.13). New Testament Christianity hardly endorsed slavery; it leveled all distinc-tions at the foot of the cross. In Revelation 18:11-13, doomed Babylon stands condemned because she had treated humans as "cargo," having trafficked in "slaves [literally 'bodies'] and human lives." This repudiation of treating humans as cargo reflects the doctrine of the image of God in all human be-ings. No wonder the Christian faith was particularly attractive to slaves and lower classes:" it was countercultural, revolutionary, and anti-status quo. No wonder slavery in Europe eventually fizzled: Europeans Christians had the mind-set that owning another human being was contrary to creation and the new creation in Christ.

The Question of Onesimus

Now it has been alleged that Paul's returning the "runaway slave" Onesimus to his owner Philemon was a step backward-toward the oppressive Code of Hammurabi! The Old Testament prohibited such an action (Deut. 23:15-16), but Babylon's laws required returning a slave. So here it looks like Paul is siding with Hammurabi against the Old Testament! Do such charges have any merit?

It's been said that reading a New Testament epistle is like listening to just one party in a phone conversation. This is certainly true of the letter to Philemon. We hear only Paul's voice, but plenty of gaps exist that we'd like to have filled in. What was Paul's relationship to Philemon ("dear friend and fellow worker" and "partner" [vv. 1, 17 NIV])? What debt did Philemon owe Paul? How had Onesimus wronged Philemon (if he even did)? Many interpreters have taken the liberty to "help" us fill in the gaps. Yet a common result is that they can read too much into the text. The stock fugitive-slave hypothesis (that Onesimus was a runaway slave of Philemon's) dates back to the church father John Chrysostom (347-407). However, genuine scholarly disagreement exists about this interpretation. For one thing, the epistle contains no verbs of flight, as though Onesimus had suddenly gone AWOL. And Paul revealed no hint of fear that Philemon would brutally treat a returning Onesimus, as masters typically did when their runaway slaves were caught.

It's been plausibly suggested that Onesimus and Philemon were estranged Christian (perhaps biological) brothers. Paul exhorts Philemon not to receive Onesimus as a slave (whose status in Roman society meant being alienated and without honor); rather Onesimus was to be welcomed as a beloved brother: "that you might have him back for good-no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord" (Philem. 1:15-16 NIV). Notice the similar-sounding language in Galatians 4:7: "Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." This may shed further light on how to interpret the epistle of Philemon: Paul wanted to help heal the rift so that Onesimus (not an actual slave) would be received back as a beloved brother in the Lord, not even simply as a biological brother. To do so would be to follow God's own example in receiving us as sons and daughters rather than as slaves.

Even if Onesimus were an actual slave in the Roman Empire, this still doesn't mean he was a fugitive. If a disagreement or misunderstanding had occurred between Onesimus and Philemon, and Onesimus had sought out Paul to intervene somehow or to arbitrate the dispute, this wouldn't have made Onesimus a fugitive. And given Paul's knowledge of Philemon's character and track record of Christian dedication, the suggestion that Onesimus's return was "Hammurabi revisited" is way off the mark. Again, if Onesimus were a slave in Philemon's household, Paul's strategy was this: instead of forbid-ding slavery, impose fellowship! Indeed, the New Testament church showed itself to be a revolutionary, new community united by Christ-a people that transcended racial, social, and sexual barriers.

Hagar, Sarah, and Paul

We should probably bring up the Hagar-Sarah story here. In Galatians 4:30, Paul refers to Sarah's act of sending Hagar away (Gen. 21). Some caricature this allegorization by asserting Paul's endorsement of Sarah's cruel desire to cast her out-and God told Abraham to go along with this (21:12)! Let's keep this in context. We've already seen that both Hagar and Ishmael contributed their share of difficulty and tension within the household; they were hardly blame-less. God had also assured Abraham (as he had told Hagar previously) that God would take care of them and would make Ishmael into a great nation. Paul refers to this passage (Gen. 21:10) to give the Galatians a message: get rid of the slave woman (4:30)! That is, they were to stop adhering to and depending on the Mosaic law to gain/maintain acceptance before God. The critics' misportrayal of Paul that Paul was actually encouraging the mistreat-ment of slaves-is actually quite humorous." (This is typical of left-wing fundamentalism.) It completely misses the very thrust of the allegory and the tone of Paul's strong opposition to Judaizers. The point was that their heresy mustn't be tolerated in the church. This doesn't reflect Paul's endorsement of slavery In fact, Paul's heart cry was that his Jewish brothers would find salvation (Rom. 10:1), and his opposition to the Judaizers was accompanied with tears (Phil. 3:18).

God's Ultimate Goal: Enslaving Everyone?

From the very beginning, Scripture affirms that all persons are made in God's image-essentially, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Though humanity deviated from this ideal, Scripture regularly undermines human institutions that exist because of hardened human hearts, pointing people back to the creational ideal as well as forward to the new creational ideal in Christ, the new Adam.

Some critics claim that God's far-reaching goal is to enslave all people, the ultimate tyranny and dehumanization. Look at Isaiah 14:1-2 as a prime example:

The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob. Nations will take them and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will possess the nations as menservants and maidservants in the LORD's land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors. (NIV)

The critic tends to make this slave analogy walk on all fours that is, the slavery image is extended far beyond the intended point of comparison. A less-selective look at Scripture reveals that the slavery image is just one swatch taken from a larger tapestry God ultimately sought to bring blessing to all the nations (Gen. 12:3). Biblical pictures of God's subduing his and his people's enemies suggest that God's opponents won't have the final word; their oppo-sition to God will have to give way to acknowledging God's lordship over all. Those refusing to acknowledge God's rightful place in the end freely separate themselves from God, the source of joy, hope, and peace. They will receive their divorce from God.

What about those who belong to Christ? To describe those wholly dedicated to God, the New Testament uses the language of slave (doulos). A number of modern translations render this word "servant," but the servant's bond to his employer is often temporary and detachable. But rather than being a picture of oppression, the "slave of righteousness" is no longer in bondage to sin (John 8:34; Rom. 6:17-20). We've seen earlier that by nature humans are worshipers; they're slaves to what they worship, whether false gods or the true one. To worship the true God with full devotion is actually a picture of genuine freedom and abundant living rather than oppression; false worship actually oppresses (John 10:10).

So the slave image shouldn't dominate the spiritual picture. Abraham is called God's servant ('ebed) as well as God's friend (Isa. 41:9; James 2:23). Jesus told his disciples that he no longer called them slaves (douloi) but friends (philoi). Jesus himself would lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13-15). The Son of Man, who himself came to serve humankind (Mark 10:45), took on the form of a slave-God in the flesh serving and dying for humanity (Phil. 2:5-11).

So are we slaves? Yes and no-something along the lines of what Martin Luther famously said: the Christian is both free and subject to none of his fellow human beings as well as dutiful servant who is subject to all." Likewise, God is concerned about removing oppression by enabling us to find true freedom in loving and obeying God, who is both Master and Father. The Scriptures use the imagery of slavery and fear that is transformed into adoption as God's children with full security in God's love (Rom. 8:14-16; Gal. 4:3-8). The Scriptures refer to the privileged status as God's people and God's dwelling in their midst (Rev 21:3). God's people are also the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2).

God's kingdom rule isn't intended to oppress. In Matthew 20:1-16, the landowner who hires workers throughout the day asks the one grousing about bearing the heat of the day while others worked only a short time, "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?" (v. 15). This is hardly despotism, as some claim. After all, the landowner was generous and certainly did no wrong; indeed, the master initiated the opportunity to work, and the worker agreed to the wage of a denarius, just like everyone else did.

As we review the New Testament, slavery language is one part of the bigger picture. Christ's ultimate goal isn't to oppress and destroy but to give life, to redeem, and to release (Luke 4:18). And Paul in Galatians 3:28 (the "Christian manifesto") doesn't abolish slavery; rather, he makes it ultimately irrelevant! All the structures that separated Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free were radically overturned by their sharing a common meal together to celebrate the Lord's death (see 1 Cor. 11:17-34). Indeed, this was a defiant, countercultural act against Rome's embedded social structures a far cry from the critics" "passive resignation" argument (that Paul didn't speak out against slavery but accepted it). Furthermore, the Lord's Supper was also a culturally shameful act: not only did these Christians worship a shamefully crucified (yet risen!) Messiah, but those who were "dishonorable" or of lower social status-females, Gentiles, and slaves were treated as equals with males, Jews, and free persons. This "meal of shame" actually symbolized the removal of all dishonor at the foot of the cross. In the early church, a social revolution had begun!"

Further Reading

Harris, Murray Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999, 

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Chapter. 15. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing?

The Killing of the Canaanites (I)

Probably the most difficult Old Testament ethical issue is the divine command to kill the Canaanites. Theologian-turned-atheist Gerd Lüdemann wrote that "the command to exterminate is extremely offensive" a far cry from the merciful God frequently proclaimed in Scripture. Consider just one of these passages:

Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. (Deut. 20:16-18)

This is a tough question, and we'll take four chapters to tackle this and related issues. First, we'll review some introductory matters, then we'll address two possible scenarios regarding the Canaanite issue, and finally we'll look at the question of religion (whatever that term means) and violence.

Were the Canaanites That Wicked?

According to the biblical text, Yahweh was willing to wait about 430 years because "the sin of the Amorite [a Canaanite people group] has not yet reached its limit" (Gen. 15:16 NET). In other words, in Abraham's day, the time wasn't ripe for judgment on the Canaanites; the moment wasn't right for them to be driven out and for the land to "vomit them out" (Lev. 18:25 NET). Sodom and Gomorrah, on the other hand, were ready; not even ten righteous people could be found there (Gen. 18-19). Even earlier, at the time of Noah, humans had similarly hit moral rock bottom (Gen. 6:11-13). Despite 120 years of Noah's preaching (Gen. 6:3; cf. 5:32; 7:6; 2 Peter 2:5), no one outside his family listened; his contemporaries were also ripe for judgment. But it was only after Israel's lengthy enslavement in Egypt that the time was finally ripe for the Israelites to enter Canaan "because of the wickedness of these nations" (Deut. 9:4-5). Sometimes God simply gives up on nations, cities, or individuals when they've gone past a point of no return. Judgment-whether directly or indirectly is the last resort.

What kind of wickedness are we talking about? We're familiar with the line, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." In the case of the Canaanites, the Ca-naanites' moral apples didn't fall far from the tree of their pantheon of immoral gods and goddesses. So if the Canaanite deities engaged in incest, then it's not surprising that incest wasn't treated as a serious moral wrong among the Canaan-ite people. As we've seen, adultery (temple sex), bestiality, homosexual acts (also temple sex), and child sacrifice were also permitted (cf. Lex 18:20-30).

Humans are "imaging" beings, designed to reflect the likeness and glory of their Creator. If we worship the creaturely rather than the Creator, we'll come to resemble or image the idols of our own devising and that in which we place our security The sexual acts of the gods and goddesses were imitated by the Canaanites as a kind of magical act: the more sex on the Canaanite high places, the more this would stimulate the fertility god Baal to have sex with his consort, Anath, which meant more semen (rain) produced to water the earth.

Let's add to this the bloodlust and violence of the Canaanite deities. Anath, the patroness of both sex and war, reminds us of the bloodthirsty goddess Kali of Hinduism, who drank her victims' blood and sat surrounded by corpses; she is commonly depicted with a garland of skulls around her neck. The late archaeologist William Albright describes the Canaanite deity Anath's mas-sacre in the following gory scene:

The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees-nays, up to her neck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at the butchery is described in even more sadistic language: "Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Anath (was full of) exultation (?)." Afterwards Anath "was satisfied" and washed her hands in human gore before proceeding to other occupations.

Canaanite idolatry wasn't simply an abstract theology or personal interest carried out in the privacy of one's home. It was a worldview that profoundly influenced Canaanite society Given this setting, it's no wonder God didn't want the Israelites to associate with the Canaanites and be led astray from obedience to the one true God. He wanted to have Israel morally and theologi-cally separate from the peoples around them.

In other words, the land of Canaan was no paradise before the Israelites got there. Israel had no inherent right to inhabit the land (as an undeserved gift from God), and neither did the Canaanites have a right to remain in it. In fact, both the Canaanites and the Israelites would experience (partial) removal from the land because of their wickedness.

I'm not arguing that the Canaanites were the worst specimens of humanity that ever existed, nor am I arguing that the Canaanites won the immorality contest for worst-behaved peoples in all the ancient Near East. That said, the evidence for profound moral corruption was abundant. God considered them ripe for divine judgment, which would be carried out in keeping with God's saving purposes in history

Some argue that God is intolerant, commanding people to have "no other gods before Me" (Exod. 20:3). They state that Israel's laws illustrate the denial of religious freedom at the heart of Israelite religion. And didn't other ancient Near Eastern religions value religious diversity? Couldn't non-Israelites worship whatever god they wanted? Israel had committed itself to be faithful to Yahweh; as in any good marriage, spouses shouldn't play the field in the name of marital freedom. As for the Canaanites, God judged them not only because they happened to worship idols but also because of the corrupting moral practices and influences bound up with this idolatry Notice that God judges the nations listed in Amos 1-2 not because they don't worship Yahweh but because of outrageous moral acts. I've already addressed the topic of divine jealousy, but I'll come back to some of these themes later.

So was God just picking on the Canaanites but not other peoples? No, Yahweh frequently threatened many nations with judgment when they crossed a certain moral threshold. For example, in Amos 1-2, God promised to "send fire" on nations surrounding Israel for their treacheries and barbarities. And he promised the same to Israel and Judah. Later, Jesus himself pronounced final judgment on nationalistic Israel, which would face its doom in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans (Matt. 24).

What's more, we moderns shouldn't think that severe divine judgment was only for biblical times, as though God no longer judges nations today Despite many gains over the centuries in the areas of human rights and reli-gious liberty, due to the positive influence of biblical ideals in America and other Western nations, Westerners have their own share of decadence, and we may resemble the Canaanites more than we realize. We should proceed cautiously about what counts for direct divine judgment, as we may not be able to determine this precisely. These sorts of acts serve as illustrations of a cosmic final judgment yet to come. Ultimately, God's judgment will come to all who refuse to submit to God's kingdom agenda and instead seek to set up their own little fiefdoms. God grants humans freedom to separate themselves from God. In the end, humans can have their final divorce from God both as a just judgment as well as the natural fruit borne out of a life lived without God. As a last resort, God says to them, "Thy will be done."

Who Determines the Point of No Return?

Israeli psychologist Georges Tamarin undertook a study in 1966 involving 1,066 schoolchildren ages eight to fourteen. Presented with the story of Jer-icho's destruction, they were asked, "Do you think Joshua and the Israel-ites acted rightly or not?" Two-thirds of the children approved. However, when Tamarin substituted General Lin for Joshua and a Chinese kingdom three thousand years ago for Israel, only 7 percent approved while 75 percent disapproved. The critic is baffled at this: "We rightly condemn the killing of an ethnic group when carried out by Nazis or Hutus. But Israel seems to get a pass-indeed, a divine order when doing the same thing to the Canaanites!"

What guidelines do we have to determine when a culture is irredeemable, beyond the point of no moral and spiritual return? Don't we need something more than mere mortals to assess a culture's ripeness for judgment? Aren't these considerations too weighty for humans to judge? Yes, they are! Any such determinations should be left up to God-namely, through special revelation. The Israelites, when they went into battle against the Philistines with the ark of the covenant but without divine approval, were roundly defeated (1 Sam. 4). The requirement of special revelation before any such undertaking is precisely what we have in Scripture. The one true God told his prophet Moses or Samuel when the time was right. Likewise, without such clear divine guidance, Israel wouldn't have been justified in attacking the Canaanite strongholds.

Some TV stunt shows warn children, "Kids, don't try this at home!" Likewise, we could say about Israel's "holy war" situation: "Don't try this without special revelation!" These matters aren't up to humans to decide. Yahweh-initiated battles were never intended for non-prophet organiza-tions! Think of the disastrous results when Israel attempted to go into other battles without divine approval (e.g., Num. 14:41-45; Josh. 7). As we've seen already, God's call to battle was unique to Israel's situation. Such a call, though, isn't an enduring, universally binding standard for all time and all cultures.

Did the Canaanites Know Better?

Some scholars have questioned whether we can hold the Canaanites morally accountable. After all, weren't they just practicing their religion, which they received from their parents, who received it from their parents? Shouldn't God have enlightened them about himself and his requirements for humans?

As we look at history, we see that nations and civilizations have been ca-pable of moral reforms and improvements. We shouldn't be surprised at this. After all, God reveals himself to humans through conscience, reason, human experience, and creation. This revelation opens the door for moral improve-ments from one generation to the next. People without the Scriptures can still have access to what is good and right.

For a little support, let me quote a notable theist and a notable atheist. The notable theist is the apostle Paul, who affirms that special revelation isn't necessary for people to know about God or to recognize right and wrong:

That which is known about God is evident within them (human beings]; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20)

The notable atheist is philosopher Kai Nielsen:

It is more reasonable to believe such elemental things (as wife beating and child abuse] to be evil than to believe any skeptical theory that tells us we cannot know or reasonably believe any of these things to be evil.... I firmly believe that this is bedrock and right and that anyone who does not believe it cannot have probed deeply enough into the grounds of his moral beliefs."

We've seen how Amos 1-2 illustrates these two quotations nicely God had warned the morally accountable Gentile nations surrounding Israel. Al-though they knew their moral duties, they disregarded them. Knowing better, they stifled compassion, suppressed their conscience, and carried out terrible atrocities, such as ripping open pregnant women or betraying vulnerable, dis-placed populations into the hands of their enemies. The author of Hebrews called the Canaanites "disobedient" (11:31)-that is, having a moral awareness but disregarding it. In C. S. Lewis's Abolition of Man, he lists moral codes of many cultures across the ages. They are strikingly similar at key points: honoring parents, being faithful in marriage, not stealing, not murdering. not lying, and so on. In other words, doing the right thing isn't as elusive as some may think.

Consider Rahab and her family (Josh. 2). Though immersed in Canaanite culture, they prove to be a clear sign that other Canaanites could potentially have been rescued as well. Israel's God had convincingly delivered his people from Egypt. He had supplied signs and wonders, revealing his reality and sur-passing greatness, and the Canaanites were fully aware of this (Josh. 2:9-11; 9:9-10). Some charge that Rahab was selling out her people to save her own neck. But is that fair? For one thing, Rahab risked a lot by taking in the foreign spies and hiding them. And surely loyalty to one's race or ethnic group isn't the ultimate virtue, particularly when it goes against what's right and true. Many Afrikaners in South Africa who protested apartheid broke with the traditions of their racially prejudiced ancestors, which was the right thing to do.

Was It Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing?

According to Richard Dawkins, the killing of the Canaanites was an act of ethnic cleansing in which "bloodthirsty massacres" were carried out with "xenophobic relish." Were the Israelites truly xenophobic fearful of strang-ers (non-Israelites)?

Terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing evoke negative emotions in all of us. Dawkins isn't exactly interested in accuracy; so he resorts to mislead-ing rhetoric to sway the jury Ethnic cleansing is fueled by racial hatred. The alleged in-group pronounces a pox on the out-group and then proceeds to destroy them. Does this scenario really mesh with the facts about the Israelites, though? As it turns out, xenophobic attitudes didn't prompt the Israelites to kill Canaanites.

From the beginning, God told Abraham "all the families of the earth" would be blessed through his offspring (Gen. 12:3). We're not off to a very xenophobic start. Then we read many positive things about foreigners in the chapters that follow. Abraham met and honored Melchizedek (Gen. 14). He encountered just and fair-minded foreign leaders among the Egyptians (Gen. 12) and the Philistines (Gen. 20) who proved to be more honorable than Abraham. A "mixed multitude" left with Israel from Egypt (Exod. 12:38). Moses married a dark-skinned Cushite/Ethiopian (Num. 12:1). The Gentile Rahab and her family joined Israel's ranks (Josh. 6:23), in ironic contrast to the Israelite Achan, who stole goods from Jericho and was put to death for his disobedience (Josh. 7). Also, the very language of "dedication to destruction/the ban [berem]" could be applied equally to Israel as well as to a Canaanite city (Deut. 13:16). Later on, Israel's prophets would readily condemn Israel's wickedness, as they would that of the surrounding nations. In general, God's judgments fall on those practicing evil and wickedness-whether Jew or Gen-tile, as Paul makes clear in Romans 1-3.

Furthermore, God also repeatedly commanded Israel to show concern for (non-Israelite) aliens or sojourners in their midst (e.g., Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:18-19). Why? Because the Israelites had been strangers in Egypt. God frequently reminded his people to learn the lessons of their history so that they wouldn't be doomed to repeat it with Gentiles in their midst.

Furthermore, according to Israel's civil law, the stranger living in Israel had the same legal rights as the native Israelite: "There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God" (Lev. 24:22; cf. Num. 35:15). As we've seen, the alien (ger)-one who embraced Israel's covenant and Israel's God-could participate in events such as the Passover (Num. 9:14). Negative concerns regarding the foreigner (nokri) had to do with theological compromise and idolatry; such negativity wasn't assumed when a non-Israelite like Rahab or Ruth or Uriah embraced Yahweh, the God of Israel. We could add that God exhorted Israelites to show concern even for their personal enemies: "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it" (Exod. 23:4-5).

What about God allowing Israelites to take interest from foreigners but not from fellow citizens (Deut. 23:20)? We've seen that interest was charged to foreigners, who were temporary residents and not members of society They typically borrowed money to invest in profit-making pursuits and trad-ing ventures; these weren't loans given to help foreigners escape poverty." This regulation had a built-in incentive: the outsider (who didn't have to live in Israel) could choose to become a part of Israel and embrace the one true God; if so, he could benefit from divinely commanded economic perks and displays of Israelite concern. Instead of hostility, God commanded the Israelites to love and show concern for the resident aliens in their midst. The command to love the resident alien and to treat her the same way as a citizen (Lev. 19:33-34) is remarkable and unique in the ancient Near East's religious thoughts and practices."

Critics will point to Deuteronomy 23:3: "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD." That doesn't seem very kind. However, earlier (in Deut. 2) three nations were favorably mentioned: Edom, related to Israel through Esau, Jacob's brother; and Moab and Ammon, nations from the sons of Abraham's nephew Lot. Notice that Israel is prohibited from fighting against them (vv. 4-6, 9, 19). So let's not misread 23:3 as xenophobia. That said, God took treachery against Israel very seriously Genesis 12:3 implies judgment on those who would mistreat Israel. And Deuteronomy 23:4 reveals the reason for the Ammonites' and Moabites' exclusion from the assembly: "because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you" (see Num. 22-25). Even so, remember that generations later Ruth the Moabitess was readily received into the midst of Israel. A lot depended on whether the alien from Moab (or Ammon) fully embraced Israel's covenant, which meant his acceptance into the assembly as a genuine worshiper of Yahweh." As John Goldingay writes:

Being of non-Israelite origin is not a disqualification for membership of the [Israelite] community in any period. The question is, what God do you serve? The reason for not marrying a Canaanite is that this will turn you away from following Yhwh and lead to your serving other deities (Deut 7:3-4). A Canaanite who has made a commitment to Yhwh is a different matter."

So we should put to rest this idea of divinely inspired racism or ethnocen-trism. In fact, God regularly reminded his people not to get so high and mighty. He frankly told Israel that possessing the land wasn't due to their righteousness and uprightness of heart. It was because of the wickedness of the Canaanites. What's more, God considered the Israelites "a stubborn people" (Deut. 9:4-6). The most-favored-nation status was given with the goal of inviting others to experience God's gracious favor-and God could revoke that status. Likewise, just as he would give the land to a group of wandering, landless Israelites as an inheritance (Exod. 12:25; Num. 34:2), he could revoke it as well (Deut. 4:26). Those in the land-whether Canaanites or Israelites were only tenants, not owners (Pss. 24:1; 50:12).

We'll explore the phrase "utterly destroy" (haram) below. Suffice it to say here that God's charge to Israel to "utterly destroy" the cities of the morally bankrupt Canaanites was turned on Israel when groups of Israelites were seduced into following false gods (Deut. 13:15; cf. 7:4; 28:63). God was con-cerned with sin, not ethnicity. In fact, as we read the Old Testament prophets, they (with God) were angered about Israel's disobedience, and they threatened divine judgment on Israel/Judah more often than they did on the pagan na-tions. If we read carefully, it's obvious God was opposed to Israel's sin just as much as he was to that of their oppressors.

Inefficient Means?

Some critics raise a potentially embarrassing question: if God wanted to destroy Canaanite religion by removing the Canaanite peoples, didn't he fail spectacularly in achieving this purpose? Wasn't Old Testament Israel continually getting sucked into pagan idolatry? Why not a more effective divine judgment-perhaps scorching fire and brimstone to clear the land of Canaanite idolatry so that Israel wouldn't get entangled spiritually and morally?

Many critics focus on efficiency, that it's somehow immoral or un-Godlike to be less than efficient. But what theological reason compels us to assume that God must operate with maximum efficiency? Are we too Western in our assumptions about what God ought to do? Is God obligated to expedite his purposes? Must God's purposes be less "clunky" to reveal his divinity? Don't such questions take for granted knowing God's purposes in detail?

God doesn't seem to think it's a problem that a small planetary speck is home to all the universe's inhabitants while the rest of the cosmos is (from all we can see) uninhabited and uninhabitable. Throughout Scripture, God took plenty of time and utilized seemingly inefficient means to accomplish his purposes. For instance, God didn't exactly jump-start the descendants-as-numerous-as the-stars program. Rather, he began with a barren, elderly couple-Abraham and Sarah-and then continued to work through a stubborn and rebellious nation. Biblical categories such as grace, covenant faithfulness, relationship, obedience, perseverance, and love are the more relevant considerations. Effi-ciency doesn't seem to figure in all that prominently As a friend of mine says, "God is always almost late."

The Scriptures reveal a sufficient God, not necessarily an efficient one. And the question of efficiency revolves around what the particular goal is: "efficient" to do what and to exclude what, exactly? Getting hot-house-grown tomatoes from your supermarket may be efficient, but if maximal satisfaction is up-permost in your mind, then growing tomatoes in your backyard and enjoying their vine-ripened taste would be the way to go. Yes, it's more work and time, but the results are far more enjoyable and tasty

Why then didn't God make sure that wo Canaanite was left in the land just to make sure that Israel wouldn't be lured by the lifestyle encouraged by Canaan's idolatry? The Scriptures reveal a God who works through messy, seemingly inefficient processes including human choices and failures (Gen. 50:20) to accomplish his redemptive purposes in history That humans see God's grace, holiness, and love is more of a priority than efficiency The route God chose didn't require the death of every last Canaanite. Not only were the Canaanites sufficiently driven out so as not to decisively undermine Israel's spiritual and moral integrity in the long run, but, as we'll see below, Canaanites participate in God's redemptive plan in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Zech. 9; Matt. 15:22; cf. Ps. 87:4-6; Isa. 19:23-25).

Despite occasional spiritual revivals and moral successes in Israel's history, her failure to eradicate idolatry led to many troubles. She paid for her com-promises with an Assyrian captivity of the Northern Kingdom (722 BC) and then a Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom (587/6 BC; cf. 2 Kings 17:7-41; 2 Chron. 36:15-21). The theological and moral threat of foreign re-ligion, however, didn't so damage Israel that its monotheism and covenantal awareness were totally eclipsed. By the first century AD, the theological stage had been sufficiently set: Israel's Scriptures were preserved, her national identity forged, her temple worship restored, her messianic expectations rekindled, and her monotheistic dedication secured. Despite Israel's compromises and rebellions over the centuries, Jesus's arrival on the scene came "in the fullness of time" (see Gal. 4:4). Was this efficient? Not in an obvious way Was it sufficient? Very much so.

Cosmic Warfare

The worship of idols wasn't innocent or harmless. The Old Testament con-nects idolatry with the demonic that is, with the cosmic enemies of God who rebelled against him: "goat demons" (Lev. 17:7); "strange gods... demons ... gods" (Deut. 32:16-21); "demons... idols" (Ps. 106:37-38); "demons" (Isa. 65:3, Greek Septuagint). Even Pharaoh the earthly representation of Egypt's gods was a picture of this cosmic opposition. So in the exodus, Yahweh is the cosmic warrior who engages the evil powers of Egypt and the forces that inspire them. The New Testament picks up on this theme (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:19-22; 2 Cor. 6:14-16; Eph. 6:12-18). God's act of engaging in battle is not for the sake of violence or even victory as such but to establish peace and justice."

God's commands to Israel to wipe out Canaan's idols and false, immoral worship illustrate the cosmic warfare between Yahweh and the dark powers opposed to his rule. This theme of spiritual warfare is certainly much more pronounced in the New Testament, which clearly exposes Satan and his hosts as the ultimate enemies of God and of his kingdom's advance. Yahweh-"the LORD of hosts" (cf. Ps. 24:7-10) is a "warrior" (Exod. 15:3) who opposes all that mars the divine image in humans, all that threatens human flourishing, and all that sets itself in opposition to God's righteous reign. "Yahweh wars" aren't simply a clash between this and that deity; they represent a clash of two world orders: one rooted in reality and justice, the other in reality-denial and brute power; one representing creational order, the other anticreation."

Israel's taking Canaan, then, is unlike the General Lin analogy, in which a stronger nation happens to invade and overpower a weaker nation. This would rightly draw the reaction, "What gives the stronger nation the right?" So perhaps we should think more along the lines of the Sicilian police invading a Mafia stronghold to remove a corrupting network of crime so that citizens can live in peace rather than in fear.

Just as the plagues in Egypt were a demonstration of Yahweh's judgment on her gods, so Israel's wars revealed God's sovereign rule over the presumed gods of the nations. In Israel's officially sanctioned wars, God's supernatural power and supremacy were revealed:"

God didn't allow Israel to have a standing army (cf. David's unlawful census in 2 Sam. 24:1-17); Israel's wars weren't for professionals but for amateurs and volunteers. Fighting, however, wasn't for the fainthearted or for those distracted by other concerns. Those lacking courage or who had other reasons for not wanting to fight were allowed even invited-to excuse themselves from battle (e.g., Deut. 20:5-8).

Soldiers fighting in a Yahweh war weren't paid, nor could they take per-sonal plunder, unlike warfare tactics elsewhere in the ancient Near East.

Kings, tribal leaders, and high priests weren't authorized to call for a war, only a prophet through divine revelation.

Victories for Israel's (mainly) ragtag army clearly signaled that God was fighting on their behalf (e.g., 2 Chron. 20).

In Old Testament Israel's physical battles, God wanted to show forth his greatness, not a display of sheer human power. And though the true Israel-the church-doesn't wage war against "flesh and blood" (Eph. 6:12) today, our warfare against Satan and his hosts has its roots in Yahweh wars in the Old Testament.

Further Reading

Boyd, Gregory God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

Hess, Richard S. "War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview." In War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. New American Commentary 2. Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2008. See esp. pp. 395-97.

Chapter 16. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing?

The Killing of the Canaanites (II)

As we've said, the Old Testament's "holy wars"-or, more accurately, "Yahweh wars" are the most emotionally charged biblical problem raised by the New Atheists and by critics generally. Like it or not, war is a common feature of our fallen world. Indeed, we know that warfare was a way of life-and often a matter of survival-in the ancient Near East. However, the problematic wars take place primarily during and shortly after Israel's second historical stage under Joshua, the theocratic stage of Israel's existence. As we've mentioned, this Yahweh warfare wasn't the standard for the other stages in Israel's history. It wasn't intended as a permanent fixture in Israel's story. It was unique to Israel at a particular point in time and was not to be repeated in later history by Israel or by other nations. Without God's explicit command (and thus his morally sufficient reasons), attacking the Canaanites would not have been justified.

Infiltration, Internal Struggle, and Conquest

How did the Promised Land come to be inhabited by the Israelites? Bibli-cal scholars and archaeologists continue the effort to uncover the nature of Israel's relationship to the Canaanites, and they are finding something more complex than the traditional Sunday school version of the conquest model. The bigger picture includes not just conquest but rather a combination of other factors. Besides military engagement, some type of infiltration took place (e.g., Judg. 1:1-2:5). Internal struggle was another feature that is, Israel often did a poor job staving off idolatry and distinguishing itself from surrounding pagan lifestyles. Scripture's realistic acknowledgment that the Canaanites continued to live in the land suggests that something more than a military campaign took place.¹

The books of Joshua and Judges suggest that taking the land included less-than-dramatic processes of infiltration and internal struggle. Israel's entrance into Canaan included more than the military motif. Old Testament scholar Gordon McConville comments on Joshua: we don't have "a simple conquest model, but rather a mixed picture of success and failure, sudden victory and slow, compromised progress." Likewise, Old Testament scholar David How-ard firmly states that the conquest model needs modification. Why? Because "the stereotypical model of an all-consuming Israelite army descending upon Canaan and destroying everything in its wake cannot be accepted. The biblical data will not allow for this." He adds that the Israelites entered Canaan and did engage militarily "but without causing extensive material destruction." We'll come back to this significant point.

Ancient Near Eastern Exaggeration Rhetoric

Most Christians read Joshua's conquest stories with the backdrop of Sun-day school lessons via flannel graph or children's illustrated Bible stories. The impression that's left is a black-and-white rendition of a literal crush, kill, and destroy mission. A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuance-and a lot less bloodshed. In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.

Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric. This language sounds like bragging and exag-geration to our ears. Notice first the sweeping language in Joshua 10:40: "Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded." Joshua used the rhetorical bravado language of his day, asserting that all the land was captured, all the kings defeated, and all the Canaanites destroyed (cf. 10:40-42; 11:16-23: "Joshua took the whole land... and gave... it for an inheritance to Israel"). Yet, as we will see, Joshua himself acknowledged that this wasn't literally so.

 Scholars readily agree that Judges is literarily linked to Joshua. Yet the early chapters of Judges (which, incidentally, repeat the death of Joshua) show that the task of taking over the land was far from complete. In Judges 2:3, God says, "I will not drive them out before you." Earlier, Judges 1:21, 27-28 asserted that "[they] did not drive out the Jebusites"; "[they] did not take possession"; "they did not drive them out completely" These nations remained "to this day" (Judg. 1:21). The peoples who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the story Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck around.

Some might accuse Joshua of being misleading or of getting it wrong. Not at all. He was speaking the language that everyone in his day would have understood. Rather than trying to deceive, Joshua was just saying he had fairly well trounced the enemy. On the one hand, Joshua says, "There were no Anakim left in the land" (Josh. 11:22); indeed, they were "utterly destroyed [haram]" in the hill country (11:21). Literally? Not according to the very same Joshua! In fact, Caleb later asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (14:12-15; cf. 15:13-19). Again, Joshua wasn't being decep-tive. Given the use of ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, he could say without contradiction that nations "remain among you"; he went on to warn Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods (Josh. 23:7, 12-13; cf. 15:63; 16:10; 17:13; Judg. 2:10-13). Again, though the land "had rest from war" (Josh. 11:23), chapters 13 and beyond tell us that much territory remained unpossessed (13:1). Tribe upon tribe failed to drive out the Canaanites (13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13, 18), and Joshua tells seven of the tribes, "How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you?" (18:3).

Furthermore, God told the Israelites that the process of driving out the Canaanites would be a gradual one, as Deuteronomy 7:22 anticipated and as Judges 2:20-23 reaffirmed. Whatever the reason behind Israel's failure to drive them out whether disobedience and/or God's slow-but-sure approach-we're still told by Joshua in sweeping terms that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites. Just as we might say that a sports team "blew their opponents away" or "slaughtered" or "annihilated" them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day

Joshua's conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The lan-guage is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren't understood to be literally true. This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation which didn't (from all other indications) actually take place proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used "utterly/completely destroy" and other obliteration language even when the event didn't literally happen that way Here's a sampling:

Egypt's Tuthmosis III (later fifteenth century) boasted that "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent." In fact, Mitanni's forces lived on to fight in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC.

Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making "Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)" and the "mountains of Tarikar-imu empty (of humanity)."

The "Bulletin" of Ramses II tells of Egypt's less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (around 1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew "the entire force of the Hittites, indeed "all the chiefs of all the countries," disregarding the "millions of foreigners," which he considered "chaff."

In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II's son Merneptah announced, "Israel is wasted, his seed is not," another premature declaration.

Moab's king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of "Israel has utterly perished for always," which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.

The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: "The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped."

You get the idea. Let's now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It's true that Joshua 9-12 utilizes the typical ancient Near Eastern literary devices for warfare. But at the book's end, Joshua matter-of-factly as-sumes the continued existence of Canaanite peoples that could pose a threat to Israel. He warns Israel against idolatry and getting entangled in their ways: "For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you" (Josh. 23:12-13).

Earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2-5, we find a similar tension. On the one hand, God tells Israel that they should "defeat" and "utterly destroy [haram]" the Canaanites (x. 2)-a holy consecration to destruction. On the other hand, he immediately goes on to say in the very next verses:

Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim [figures of Asherah, who was the Canaanite goddess of sexuality/sensuality), and burn their graven images with fire. (vv. 3-5)

If the Canaanites were to be completely obliterated, why this discussion about intermarriage or treaties? The final verse emphasizes that the ultimate issue was religious: Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. In other words, destroying Canaanite religion was more important than destroying Canaanite people. This point was made earlier in Exodus 34:12-13: "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going. or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim." In Deuter-onomy 12:2-3, we read the same emphasis on destroying Canaanite religion:

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (berem) was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as pos-sible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [herem] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn't "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction.

Even so, the Israelites didn't do an effective job removing the snare of idola-try from the land (Ps. 106:34-35). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel (Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; Judg. 1:19, 21, 27-35).

The Amalekites

In 1 Samuel 15 we encounter the remaining set of "destruction" references-reserved for an enemy hell-bent on Israel's annihilation. Here, God tells Saul to "utterly destroy [haram]" and "not spare" the Amalekites: "put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (v. 3). Ву the end of the chapter, Saul has apparently killed all the Amalekites-except king Agag-and he has spared lots of livestock. Saul didn't obey God fully, and the prophet Samuel had to step in and finish off Agag himself. Because Saul didn't carry out God's command completely, God rejected him as king. As with the stories in Joshua, the surface reading here is that Saul wiped out all the Amalekites. We'll come back to this point, but first let's ask: Who were the Amalekites? These nomadic people were Israel's enemies from day one after the Red Sea crossing (Exod. 17). Weary and unprepared to fight, Israel faced a fierce people who showed no concern for the vulnerable Israelite population. The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel's side for generations (e.g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc.).

Again, the 1 Samuel 15 story appears to be a clear-cut case of complete obliteration. No Amalekites remaining, right? Wrong! In 1 Samuel 27:8, "David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites and the Girzites" and the "utterly destroyed" Amalekites! But was that the end of them? No, they appear again in 1 Samuel 30: the Amalekites made one of their infamous raids (v. 1); David pursued them to get back the Israelites and the booty the Amalekites had taken (v. 18); and four hundred of them escaped (v. 17). So contrary to the common impression, Saul didn't wipe out all the Amalekites, something 1 Samuel itself makes clear. And even David didn't complete the job. The Amalekites were still around during King Hezekiah's time 250 years later (1 Chron. 4:43).

Then we get to the time of Esther, when the Jews were under the rule of the Persian king Ahasuerus/Xerxes (486-465 BC). Here we encounter "Haman... the Agagite" (Esther 3:1). Remember King Agag the Amalekite from 1 Samuel 15:8? Yes, Haman was an Amalekite who continued the Amalekite tradition of aggression against God's people. An "enemy of the Jews" (Esther 3:10), Haman mounted a campaign to destroy the Jews as a people (3:13).

Knowing that callous Amalekite hostility would continue for nearly a millennium of Israel's history, God reminded his people not to let up in their opposition to the Amalekites (Deut. 25:15-17). Otherwise, the hardened Amalekites would seek to destroy Israel. If the Amalekites had their way, Israel would have been wiped off the map. Unlike other Canaanites, the Amalekites just couldn't be assimilated into Israel.

The moral of the story? Don't simply adopt the surface reading about Saul "utterly destroying" the Amalekites. When we read phrases like the destruction of "everything that breathes," we should be more guarded. In fact, for all we know and based on what we've seen in Joshua (and what we'll see below), Saul could well have been engaging combatants in battle rather than noncombatants. The "city of Amalek" (1 Sam. 15:5) was probably a fortified (perhaps semipermanent) military encampment. Yes, decisive defeat is certainly in view, but something more is going on here. We'll continue to explore this below.

One more related point, however: the herem ("ban" or "consecration to destruction") language connected to Israel's warring against other nations first focuses on the Canaanites (herem used thirty-seven times); the second cluster of herem warfare (herem used ten times) focuses on the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. The use of herem for the conquest period-with its additional application to Israel's longstanding Amalekite enemies-indicates that the language is restricted. The language is not applied to Israel's warfare with other nations, nor do Israel's "holy wars" with other nations go beyond this limited time period."

Men, Women, and Children

Old Testament scholar Richard Hess has written in great detail about the Canaanite question, and he offers further important insights on this topic. He argues persuasively that the Canaanites targeted for destruction were political leaders and their armies rather than noncombatants. For example, Deuteronomy 20:10-18 mentions the "ban" or "dedication to destruction" (berem, its verb form is haram), which refers to the complete destruction of all warriors in the battle rather than noncombatants."

However, doesn't Joshua 6:21 mention the ban-every living thing in it-in connection with men and women, young and old, ox, sheep, and donkeys? This stock phrase "men and women" occurs seven times in the Old Testament in connection with Ai (Josh. 8:25); Amalek (1 Sam. 15:3); Saul at Nob (1 Sam. 22:19 [only here are children explicitly mentioned]); Jerusalem during Ezra's time (Neh. 8:2); and Israel (2 Sam. 6:19; 2 Chron. 16:3). Each time-except at Nob, where Saul killed the entire priestly family except one (1 Sam. 22:20)-the word "all" (kol) is used.

The same idea applies to earlier passages in Deuteronomy: "we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city We left no survivor" (2:34); and again, "utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city" (3:6). The expression "men and women" or similar phrases appear to be stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, "without predisposing the reader to assume anything further about their ages or even their genders." (This becomes clearer in the next section.)

Let's remember that mercy was always available to any Canaanite who responded positively to the God of Israel. Although the ban was applied in specific settings, this doesn't preclude the possibility of sparing people like Rahab and her relatives. The ban allowed and hoped for exceptions.

Jericho, Ai, and Other Canaanite Cities

Joshua's language concerning Jericho and Ai appears harsh at first glance: "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every liv-ing thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys" (6:21 NIV); "twelve thousand men and women fell that day-all the people of Ai" (8:25 NIV). The average person isn't going to pick up on the fact that this stereotypical ancient Near Eastern language actually describes attacks on military forts or garrisons, not general populations that included women and children. There is no archaeological evidence of civilian populations at Jericho or Ai.

Given what we know about Canaanite life in the Bronze Age, Jericho and Ai were military strongholds. In fact, Jericho guarded the travel routes from the Jordan Valley up to population centers in the hill country. It was the first line of defense at the junction of three roads leading to Jerusalem, Bethel, and Orpah. That means that Israel's wars here were directed toward government and military installments; this is where the king, the army, and the priesthood resided. The use of "women" and "young and old" was merely stock ancient Near Eastern language that could be used even if women and young and old weren't living there. The language of "all" ("men and women") at Jericho and Ai is a "stereotypical expression for the destruction of all human life in the fort, presumably composed entirely of combatants." The text doesn't require that women and young and old must have been in these cities.

The term city ['ir] reinforces this idea. Jericho, Ai, and many other Ca-naanite cities were mainly used for government buildings and operations, while the rest of the people (including women and children) lived in the surrounding countryside. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century BC)-correspondence between Egyptian pharaohs and leaders in Canaan and surrounding regions-reveal that citadel cities or fortresses such as Jerusalem and Shechem were distinct from (and under the control of) their population centers." Again, all the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua. Other biblical evidence of various cities used as fortresses, citadels, or military outposts also exists (e.g., Rabbah in 2 Sam. 12:26; Zion in 2 Sam. 5:7 and 1 Chron. 11:5, 7).

This fact is made all the more clear by an associated term, melek ("king"). This word was commonly used in Canaan during this time for a military leader who was responsible to a higher ruler off-site. What's more, the battles in Joshua do not mention noncombatants women and children (we'll get to Rahab later). According to the best calculations from Canaanite inscriptions and other archaeological evidence (i.e., no artifacts or "prestige" ceramics indicating wealth/social status, as one would expect in general population centers), Jericho was a small settlement of probably one hundred or fewer soldiers. This is why all of Israel could circle it seven times and then do battle against it on the same day"

As a side note, we could add that translating the numbers used in warfare accounts in the Old Testament can be tricky The numbers simply may not be as high as what typical translations indicate. The Hebrew word 'eleph (commonly rendered "thousand") can also mean "unit" or "squad" without specifying an exact number."

So if Jericho were a fort, then "all" those killed therein were warriors along with political and religious leaders. Rahab and her family would have been the exceptional noncombatants dwelling within this military outpost." The same applies throughout the book of Joshua. While the biblical text mentions specific "kings" (military leaders) who were killed in battle with Israel, it does not mention specific noncombatants who were killed. The cumulative case suggests quite the opposite of what we were taught in Sunday school class.

In addition, Saul's destruction of the Amalekites could have been a similar scenario (1 Sam. 15:3). The target could simply have been fortified Amalekite strongholds, not population centers. Again, the sweeping words "all," "young and old," and "men and women" were stock expressions for totality, even if women and children weren't present. This point is further reinforced by the fact that the Amalekites were far from annihilated. As we've already seen, Amalekites appear within the very book of 1 Samuel and well beyond (27:8; 30:1; 1 Chron. 4:43; etc.).

Rahab the Tavern Keeper

Why did the two Israelite spies hang out at a harlot's place? Doesn't this sound just a little fishy? On closer inspection, we can safely conclude that Rahab was in charge of what was likely the fortress's tavern or hostel; she didn't run a brothel, though these taverns were sometimes run by prostitutes. Traveling caravans and royal messengers would commonly stay overnight at such places during this period." The Code of Hammurabi parallels what we see in Joshua 2, complete with a female innkeeper: "If conspirators meet in the house of a [female] tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death. "22

Furthermore, such reconnaissance missions were common in the East. An innkeeper's home would have been an ideal meeting place for spies and con-spirators. Such places notoriously posed a threat to security; because of this, the Hittites (in Turkey and northern Syria) prohibited the building of an inn or tavern near fortress walls.

What about the idea of a sexual liaison? The book of Joshua goes out of its way to state that no such activity took place. The text says the spies "stayed there" not that they "stayed with her" (2:1 NIV). And it says they "came into the house of... Rahab" (2:1) not that they went in to Rahab," which would imply a sexual relationship. Consider Samson, by contrast, who "saw a harlot and went in to her" (Judg. 16:1). The Old Testament doesn't recoil from using such language; we just don't have any sexual reference here. Instead, the book of Joshua depicts Rahab as a true God-fearer. Yes, such taverns in the ancient Near East would draw people seeking sexual pleasure, but this doesn't apply to the Israelite spies, who visited there because it was a public place where they could learn about the practical and military dispositions of the area and could solicit possible support."

The Canaanites' Refusal to Acknowledge the One True God

Unlike Rahab and her family, her fellow Jerichoites (and most of the Canaan-ites) refused to acknowledge the one true God. The example of Rahab and her family (and to some extent Gibeon) reveals that consecration to the ban (berem) wasn't absolute and irreversible. God was, as we've seen, more concerned about the destruction of Canaanite religion and idols than Canaanite peoples. God repeatedly expresses a willingness to relent from punishment and preserve those who acknowledge his evident rule over the nations (cf. Jer. 18:8).

For those demanding, "If God exists, let him show himself," it doesn't get much more dramatic than the Red Sea parting. The Creator and the God of Israel had made the headlines in Canaan! In the words of Rahab, "We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt.... When we heard of it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath" (Josh. 2:10-11). In the words of the Gibeonites, "Your servants have come from a very far country because of the fame of the LORD your God; for we have heard the report of Him and all that He did in Egypt" (9:9; cf. Exod. 15:14-17; Deut. 2:25). Just as a pagan Nineveh repented at the sight and message of the beached (and bleached!) prophet Jonah, the Canaanites also could have repented-unless, of course, they were too far gone morally and spiritually.

In the New Testament, Jesus asserts that without a willing heart, a person won't turn to God even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31). The re-peated, visible pounding of Egypt's gods could have prompted the Canaanites to turn to the one true God, given they had a "heart condition" like Rahab's. Even Israel's sevenfold march around Jericho exhibited a formal opportunity for its king, soldiers, and priests to relent. The Hebrew word nagap ("circle, march around" in Josh. 6:3) involves various ceremonial aspects, including rams' horns, sacred procession, and shouting (cf. 2 Sam. 6:15-16). The word is found in Psalm 48: "Walk about Zion and go around her; count her towers; consider her ramparts" (vv. 12-13; also 2 Kings 6:14). The word suggests the idea of conducting an inspection. In the case of Jericho, the inspection was conducted to see if the city would open its gates. The city, however, refused to do so. Each time the Israelites circled the city meant an opportunity for Jericho to evade the ban; sadly, each opportunity was met with Jericho's refusal to relent and acknowledge Yahweh's rule.

Israel's Warfare Methods

We've discussed Richard Dawkins's flawed claim that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing, those "bloodthirsty massacres" carried out with "xenophobic rel-ish." A review of Israel's warfare methods reveals otherwise. Israel's army simply didn't act like a horde of bloodthirsty, maniacal warmongers.

For one thing, the aftermath of Joshua's victories are featherweight de-scriptions in comparison to those found in the annals of the ancient Near East's major empires: Hittite and Egyptian (second millennium BC), Ara-maean, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Greek (first millennium BC). Unlike Joshua's brief, four-verse description of the treatment of the five kings (10:24-27), Assyrians exulted in all the details of their gory, brutal exploits.

The Neo-Assyrian annals of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) take pleasure in describing the flaying of live victims, the impaling of others on poles, and the heaped up bodies for show. They boast of how the king mounded bod-ies and placed heads into piles; the king bragged of gouging out troops' eyes and cutting off their ears and limbs, followed by his displaying their heads all around a city

Second, a number of battles Israel fought on the way to and within Canaan were defensive: the Amalekites attacked the traveling Israelites (Exod. 17:8); the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some Israelites (Num. 21:1); the Amorite king Sihon refused Israel's peaceful overtures and attacked instead (Num. 21:21-32; Deut. 2:26-30); Bashan's king Og came out to meet Israel in battle (Num. 21:33; Deut. 3:1); Israel responded to Midian's calculated at-tempts to lead Israel astray through idolatry and immorality (Num. 31:2-3; cf. 25; 31:16); five kings attacked Gibeon, which Joshua defended because of Israel's peace pact with the Gibeonites (Josh. 10:4).

Besides this, God prohibited Israel from conquering other neighboring nations. These nations were Moab and Ammon (Deut. 2:9, 19), as well as Edom (Deut. 2:4-5; 23:7), even though they had earlier refused to assist the Israelites (Num. 20:14-21; cf. Deut. 2:6-8). Land-grabbing wasn't per-mitted by God, and Israel had no right to conquer beyond what God had sanctioned.

Third, all sanctioned Yahweh battles beyond the time of Joshua were defen-sive ones, including Joshua's battle to defend Gibeon (Josh. 10-11). Of course, while certain offensive battles took place during the time of the Judges and under David and beyond, these are not commended as ideal or exemplary" We've also seen that fighting in order to survive wasn't just an adventure; it was a way of life in the ancient Near East. Such circumstances weren't ideal by far, but that was the reality.

The Midianites (Numbers 31)

As with Israel's lifelong enemies, the Amalekites (cf. Deut. 25:17-19), the Midi-anites also posed a serious threat to Israel. Whereas Amalek endangered Israel's very existence, Midian profoundly threatened Israel's spiritual and moral integrity as the people of God. With the help of the devious pagan prophet Balaam, the Midianites devised a plan to lead Israel into pagan worship. This involved ritual sex, feasting before their Baal, and bowing and sacrificing to him (Num. 25:1-2; 31:16). When he couldn't bring a curse down on Israel (Num. 22-24), he sought another way

This is why Moses gives the command, "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Num. 31:17-18 NIV). This command must be under-stood in the context of Numbers 25. At Peor, the Midianite women deliberately seduced the Israelite men into orgiastic adultery as well as Baal worship.

The death sentence for all males is unusual. However, males were the po-tential enemy army to rise up against Israel. (Keep in mind that the Israelite males who participated in the seduction were also put to death.) Midian's brazen, evil intent to lead Israel astray called for a severe judgment. The intent of Moses's command was to undermine any future Midianite threat to Israel's identity and integrity.

What about the taking of young virgins? Some critics have crassly sug-gested that Israelite men were free simply to grab and rape young virgins. Not so. They were saved precisely because they hadn't degraded themselves by seducing Israelite men. As a backdrop, have a look again at Deuteronomy 21:10-14. There, a Gentile female POW couldn't be used as a sex object. An Israelite male had to carefully follow proper procedures before she could be taken as a wife. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel's soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.

Making Offers of Peace First

In light of Deuteronomy 20's warfare procedures, many scholars argue that Israel was to offer terms of peace to non-Canaanite cities but not to Canaanite cities. This is the majority view, to be sure. However, others (including traditional Jewish commentators) have argued that the destruction of Canaanite cities wasn't unconditional and that treaties could have been made under certain conditions. As with Gibeon (despite being sneaky treaty makers), a straightforward peace pact could have been available to any Canaanite city As we saw with Jericho, a sevenfold opportunity was given for Jericho to make peace with Israel, which it refused to do. Consider Joshua 11:19: "There was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon; they took them all in battle." Like Pharoah, who opposed Moses, these Canaanite cities were so far gone that God simply gave them up to their own hardened, resistant hearts (v. 20).

Again, the primary focus in passages like Deuteronomy 7 and 20 is on Israel's ridding the land of idols and false, destructive religious practices. The ultimate goal isn't eliminating persons, as the inspection march around Jericho also suggests.

Driving Them Out

What adds further interest to our discussion is the language of "driving out" and "thrusting out" the Canaanites. The Old Testament also uses the language of "dispossessing" the Canaanites of their land (Num. 21:32; Deut. 9:1; 11:23; 18:14; 19:1; etc.).

I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you. I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. (Exod. 23:27-30)

Driving out or dispossessing is different from wiping out or destroying. Expulsion is in view, not annihilation (e.g., "dispossess [yarash]" in Exod. 34:24; Num. 32:21; Deut. 4:38 NET). Just as Adam and Eve were "driven out [garash]" of the garden (Gen. 3:24) or Cain into the wilderness (4:14) or David from Israel by Saul (1 Sam. 26:19), so the Israelites were to "dispossess" the Canaanites. The Old Testament uses another term as well-"send/cast out [shalach]"-that sheds light on the Canaanite question: just as Adam and Eve were "sent out" from the garden (Gen. 3:23), so God would "send out" (or "drive out," Lev. 18:24; 20:23) the Canaanites. And upon examination, the driving out references are considerably more numerous than the destroying and annihilating ones.

In fact, even the verbs "annihilate/perish ['abad]" and "destroy [shamad]" aren't all that the critics have made them out to be. For example, God threatened to destroy Israel as he did the Canaanites. How? Not by literal obliteration but by removing Israel from the land to another land. Both verbs are used in Deuteronomy 28:63: "it shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it." Even when Babylon destroyed the city of Jerusalem, all cooperative Jews were spared (Jer. 38:2, 17)." In short, fleeing Canaanites would escape; only the resistant were at risk. This brief examination of terms connected to Yahweh wars provides yet further indication that utter annihila-tion wasn't intended and that escape from the land was encouraged.

How then does this dispossessing or driving out work? It's not hard to imagine. The threat of a foreign army would prompt women and children-not to mention the population at large to remove themselves from harm's way The noncombatants would be the first to flee. As John Goldingay writes, an attacked population wouldn't just wait around to be killed. Only the de-fenders, who don't get out, are the ones who would get killed." Jeremiah 4:29

suggests such a scenario: "At the sound of the horseman and bowman every city flees; they go into the thickets and climb among the rocks; every city is forsaken, and no man dwells in them."

Again, the biblical text gives no indication that the justified wars of Joshua were against noncombatants." We read in Joshua (and Judges) that, despite the obliteration language, plenty of Canaanite inhabitants who weren't driven out were still living in areas where Israel settled. Moreover, Canaanites (in general) were to be displaced or driven out, not annihilated.

Joshua Utterly Destroyed Them Just as Moses Commanded

In the following texts, Joshua's utter destruction of the Canaanites is exactly what "Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded":

"Joshua captured all the cities of these kings, and all their kings, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded" (Josh. 11:12).

"All the spoil of these cities and the cattle, the sons of Israel took as their plunder; but they struck every man with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. They left no one who breathed. Just as the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses" (Josh. 11:14-15).

"that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses" (Josh. 11:20).

Remember Moses's sweeping commands to "consume" and "utterly de-stroy" the Canaanites, not to "leave alive anything that breathes"? Joshua's comprehensive language echoes that of Moses; Scripture clearly indicates that Joshua fulfilled Moses's charge to him. So if Joshua did just as Moses com-manded, and if Joshua's described destruction was really hyperbole common in ancient Near Eastern warfare language and familiar to Moses, then clearly Moses himself didn't intend a literal, comprehensive Canaanite destruction. He, like Joshua, was merely following the literary convention of the day"

Scripture and Archaeology

With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation (Josh. 13:1-7; 16:10; 17:12), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed-namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn't take place and that gradual assimilation did. Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we've seen) were burned-Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites' culture buildings and homes would have remained very much intact (cf. Deut. 6:10-11: "cities which you did not build"). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region-a lot less clean-up!

Furthermore, if we had lived back in Israel in the Late Bronze Age (1400-1200 BC) and looked at an Israelite and a Canaanite standing next to each other, we wouldn't have detected any noticeable differences between them; they would have been virtually indistinguishable in dress, homes, tableware, pottery, and even language (cf. 2 Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 19:18). This shouldn't be all that sur-prising, as the Egyptian influence on both these peoples was quite strong.

What's more, Israel itself wasn't a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them (Exod. 12:23; Num. 11:4); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections-for example, "Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite" (Judg. 3:15), "Izban of Bethlehem" (Judg. 12:8), "Elon the Zebulunite" (Judg. 12:11).

On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archae-ology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a "shrine" (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians' notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., 2 Kings 23:10; cf. Lex. 18:21; Deut. 18:10).

However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I'm assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC.)" Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh ("the Lord"). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere-say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.

We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia's culture didn't change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Ca-naan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We're reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.

Summary

Let's summarize some of the key ideas in this chapter.

The language of the consecrated ban (herem) includes stereotypical lan-guage: "all," "young and old," and "men and women." The ban could be carried out even if women and children weren't present.

As far as we can see, biblical herem was carried out in particular military or combatant settings (with "cities" and military "kings"). It turns out that the sweeping language of the ban is directed at combatants.

The ban language allows and hopes for exceptions (e.g., Rahab); it isn't absolute.

The destruction language of ancient Near Eastern warfare (and the Old Testament) is clearly exaggerated. Groups of Canaanite peoples who apparently were "totally destroyed" were still around when all was said and done (e.g., Judg. 1).

The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite religion, not Canaanites per se, a point worthy of elaboration (see the next chapter).

The preservation of Rahab and her family indicates that consecration to the ban wasn't absolute and irreversible. God had given ample indications of his power and greatness, and the Canaanites could have submitted to the one true God who trumped Egypt's and Canaan's gods, sparing their own lives.

The biblical text, according to some scholars, suggests that peace treaties could be made with Canaanite cities if they chose to, but none (except Gibeon) did so (Josh. 11:19). The offer of peace was implicitly made to Jericho.

The biblical text contains many references to "driving out" the Canaan-ites. To clear away the land for habitation didn't require killing; civilians fled when their military strongholds were destroyed and soldiers were no longer capable of protecting them.

From the start, certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were subjected to forced labor, not annihilation (Judg. 1:27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; cf. Ps. 106:34-35). This was another indication that the ban wasn't absolute.

Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deut. 7 and 20), which means that Moses's language is also an example of ancient Near Eastern exaggeration. He did not intend a literal, all-encompassing extermina-tion of the Canaanites.

The archaeological evidence nicely supports the biblical text; both of these point to minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel's gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance there.

We have many good reasons to rethink our paradigm regarding the destruc-tion of the Canaanites. On closer analysis, the biblical text suggests that much more is going on beneath the surface than obliterating all the Canaanites. Taking the destruction of anything that breathes at face value needs much reexamination.

Further Reading

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology: Israel's Life. Vol. 3. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. See esp. chap. 5, "City and Nation."

Hess, Richard S. "The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua." In Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

-Joshua. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

"War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview." In War in the Bible and Ter-rorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The God I Don't Understand. Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 2008.

Chapter 17. Indiscriminate Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing?

The Killing of the Canaanites (III)

Critics argue that the killing of the Canaanites set a negative, brutal precedent for national Israel. Curiously, professing Christians (during the Crusades, for instance) who were inspired by the Canaanite-killing texts to justify their ac-tions completely ignored Jesus's own kingdom teaching. Jesus had informed Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting" (John 18:36). Again, "all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52).

On the other hand, we can confidently say that, precisely because of their commitment to Christ's kingdom not being of this world, Amish and Mennonite communities would most certainly not appeal to Joshua to justify engaging in atrocities. The difference is that some professing Christians are far more consistent in applying Jesus's teaching than others. It's one thing to say that holy war is at the very heart of a religion and its theology and another to misuse a religion's texts to justify warfare.

Furthermore, national Israel itself didn't utilize these Joshua texts to justify attacking non-Canaanite peoples. They may have defended themselves against other enemies, but that's a different story Israelites throughout their history have not sought to commit non-Canaanite peoples to destruction. To quote John Goldingay once more: "Saul does not seek to devote the Philistines and David does not seek to devote [to destruction] the surrounding peoples whom  he did conquer. Neither Ephraim nor Judah took on Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or the local equivalents of the Canaanites in the Second Temple period." He adds that Deuteronomy and Joshua do not set a pattern that "invites later Israel to follow, or that later Israel does follow.

The Canaanites as the Redeemed People of God

Another factor to include in our discussion is God's promise to bless all the na-tions through Israel, including the Canaanites! Israel's prophets after Solomon came to view the nations once singled out for judgment as the ultimate objects of Yahweh's salvation. Peoples who historically had been Israel's fiercest, most brutal enemies would partake in a new covenant as God's multiethnic people. For instance, in Zechariah 9, God begins with a promise to humble and judge the Philistines (vv. 1-6). And "then they also will be a remnant for our God, and be like a clan in Judah, and Ekron [a city in Philistia) like a Jebusite" (v. 7). In other words, the Philistines-Israel's longstanding enemies-will become a redeemed remnant and will be incorporated into God's people, like one of the tribes of Israel. They will be "like a Jebusite." The Jebusites were a Canaanite people (Deut. 7:1) that were eventually absorbed into the fold of Israel (1 Chron. 21:15, 18, 28). But beyond this, God's salvation extends to all peoples, even the Canaanites, some of whom ultimately become part of God's redeemed remnant.

This theme is reinforced in Psalm 87, which lists (among others) Israel's chief oppressors: Egypt, Babylon, and Philistia. These nations in Israel's Hall of Infamy will one day be incorporated into the people of God.

I will record Rahab [Egypt] and Babylon among those who acknowledge me-Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush [Ethiopia] and will say, "This one was born in Zion." Indeed, of Zion it will be said, "This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her." The LORD will write in the register of the peoples: "This one was born in Zion." (ve 4-6 NIV)

Isaiah prophesied that the Gentile nations of Egypt and Assyria would become incorporated into the people of God. These nearly topped the list of Israel's oppressors:

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance." (19:23-25)

In the New Testament, we begin to see this prophecy fulfilled, as Gentiles become incorporated into the new Israel, the church (Eph. 3:1-11; cf. Acts 15:16-17). In fact, in Jesus's own ministry, he extended concern to a Canaanite woman in the region of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 15:22). God's ultimate concern to save even his own (people's) enemies comes full circle with the redemption of the Canaanites.

The Canaanite Question and Noncombatants

We've given abundant evidence for claiming that approved Yahweh wars in the Old Testament were limited to a certain window of time in Israel's history to a certain smallish geographical location, and to a specific grouping of people. (Indeed, these specific divinely given parameters and controls were in marked contrast to other ancient Near Eastern nations, which had no such limits.)* This act of judgment was a corporate capital punishment that could be carried out only with the guidance of special, divine revelation.

Some people might argue that this scenario is a stretch. It may require too many qualifications. For example, what if Canaanite and Amalekite women, children, and the elderly really were targeted? What if the "all" doesn't apply only to combatants in Canaanite fortresses (cities) but is much more sweep-ing than this? Don't too many contingencies have to be just right to arrive at a palatable moral conclusion regarding the Canaanite question? If this were the case, then we could imagine how critics might exclaim, "I can't trust that God's character is the standard of goodness if he commands the killing of innocent children!" or "If that's the kind of God you worship, I want nothing to do with him!"

For anyone who takes the Bible seriously, these Yahweh-war texts will cer-tainly prove troubling. This issue is certainly the most weighty of all Old Testament ethical considerations. We shouldn't glibly dismiss or ignore such questions. On the other hand, we hope that critics won't do a surface reading of these Old Testament texts.

If our scenario doesn't cover all the bases, it still goes a long way in provid-ing perspective on what happened and didn't happen in Canaan. Simply put, the damage to and death of noncombatants would have been far less serious and extensive than what critics and believers alike have maintained based on a traditional surface reading of the text. Just review the previous chapter for a summary of all the qualifications and exceptions (e.g., exaggerated ancient Near Eastern language, the meaning of "driving out," destruction of idolatry over people, and so on).

Second, let's assume that women weren't combatants, like Joan of Arc against the English (1412-31) or Budicca (d. AD 60) against the Romans. Even so, Canaanite women would have participated in immoral, degrading activities (which we've reviewed). Deviant morality wasn't just the domain of men. We've seen how temple prostitution was religiously justified adultery, and how Canaanite gods themselves modeled adultery, bestiality, incest, and a host of other activities that their devotees practiced. Even before we get to Canaan, notice how readily the Midianite women sought to seduce Israelite men (Num. 25). Women may not have been combatants, but they were hardly innocent. And we could add that elderly Canaanites clearly shared blame in the moral corruption of their culture.

Third, if the evidence doesn't offer a complete answer, the lingering crucial question is, Why kill Canaanite infants and children? Surely they were innocent. From a theological side, we can say a couple of things.

1. God is the author of life and has a rightful claim on it as Creator. Therefore, humans can make no demands on how long a person ought to live on earth (Job 1:21). If God is God and we aren't, then our rights will necessarily be limited to some degree.

2. If any infants and children were killed, they would have entered the presence of God. Though deprived of earthly life, these young ones wouldn't have been deprived of the greatest good enjoying everlasting friendship with God.

Perhaps more could be said here, but we must address another aspect of the Canaanite problem. But keep in mind that this noncombatant, worst-case scenario isn't the position I'm taking.

Psychologically Damaging?

On March 16, 1968, American troops brutally slaughtered over three hun-dred Vietnamese civilians in a cluster of hamlets, now infamously known as My Lai. They disregarded all Geneva Convention protocols, which regard harming noncombatants or the sick and wounded as a crime. Wasn't the kill-ing of the Canaanites a brutal task comparable to the My Lai massacre? How could God command such an undertaking? The theologian John Stott admits, "It was a ghastly business; one shrinks from it in horror. In the context of another war, Confederate general Robert E. Lee affirmed, "It is well that war is so terrible; otherwise we should grow too fond of it.""

In the ancient Near East, however, warfare was a way of life and a means of survival. Fighting was a much less grim reality back then. In the ancient Near East, combatants and noncombatants weren't always easily distinguished. We've also observed that the hardness of human hearts (Matt. 19:8), in con-junction with the existence of fallen, morally blunted social structures in the ancient Near East, likely means that such actions would have been consider-ably less psychologically damaging for the ancient Israelite than for a citizen of Western culture. There is no evidence that Israelite soldiers were internally damaged by killing the Canaanites.

Beyond this, we should ask, What if there are some tasks that we would shrink from and that could even psychologically harm us but that still need to be done? The apostle Paul willingly gave himself up to "fill up what was lacking in Christ's afflictions" (see Col. 1:24). These are the allotted afflictions, tribulations, or birth pangs all believers must endure; they could include even the horrors of death itself. All that Paul endured for the sake of the gospel is startling (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:23-33), but he willingly shouldered this heavy burden.

Jesus reminded his followers to take courage because "I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). Christ permits his own people to endure persecution and even death's terrors (Heb. 11:36-40), just as he himself did. Yet he reminds his people that he suffers with them and doesn't forsake them (Matt. 25:40; Acts 9:4).

The Lord of the Rings describes the harrowing journey Frodo Baggins must take to Mount Doom, accompanied by his faithful Hobbit friend Samwise Gamgee. Into Doom's fires Frodo must throw the odious ring that has brought trouble not only to its wearers but to all of Middle Earth. This harsh, even detestable task fell to Frodo. It was perilous and emotionally exhausting. To fulfill this mission was in many ways psychologically damaging for him, though character-shaping in others. He loathed the burden of carrying the ring, which seemed to tear him apart inside. Yet Gandalf the Wise reminded him, "We cannot choose the time we live in. We can only choose what we do with the time we are given.""

We may not understand the tasks God assigns to us (whether we are think-ing of Abraham with Isaac or the killing of Canaanites), and a certain task or calling may bring its share of traumas and sorrows. Theologian Vernon Grounds's wise words are insightful and widely applicable:

An individual, quite completely free from tension, anxiety, and conflict may be only a well-adjusted sinner who is dangerously maladjusted to God; and it is infinitely better to be a neurotic saint than a healthy-minded sinner....Healthy-mindedness may be a spiritual hazard that keeps an individual from turning to God precisely because he has no acute sense of God.... Tension, conflict, and anxiety, even to the point of mental illness, may be a cross voluntarily carried in God's service."

A grander context should also be considered, something that couldn't be fully understood by Joshua's generation. If the Israelites hadn't done serious damage to the Canaanite religious infrastructure, the result would have been incalculable damage to Israel's integrity and thus to God's entire plan to redeem humanity Much was at stake in creating the necessary context-including a set-apart people in a set-apart land-in order to bring about redemption and an eventually restored creation. Just as Frodo's success was precarious from start to finish, so was the journey from God's promise to Abram (Gen. 12) to the coming of the Messiah. God's plan involved a certain mysterious messiness, but this shouldn't deter us from seeing God's ultimate purposes at work.

The Broader Picture

God's overarching goal was to bring blessing and salvation to all the na-tions, including the Canaanites, through Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:17-18; cf. 28:13-14). The covenant God made with Abraham is unique in its sweeping, outsider-oriented, universally directed nature. It is unlike any other ancient religious movement." Yet, for a specific, relatively short, and strategic period, God sought to establish Israel in the land with a view to fulfilling this long-term, global (indeed, cosmic) plan of redemption. God would simultaneously punish a wicked people ripe for judgment. Not doing so would have erased humankind's only hope for redemption.

God's difficult command regarding the Canaanites is also a limited, unique, salvation-historical situation. We could compare it to God's difficult com-mand to Abraham in Genesis 22. John Goldingay says it well: "the fate of the Canaanites is about as illuminating a starting point for understanding First Testament ethics as Gen 22 [Abraham's binding of Isaac] would be for an understanding of the family."" Behind both of these harsh commands is the clear context of God's loving intentions and faithful promises.

The first harsh command involved Abraham and the miracle child Isaac. God had promised Abraham that through Isaac he would become the fa-ther of many Previously, Abraham had seen God's provision for Ishmael and Hagar when he reluctantly let them go into the wilderness. God had reassured Abraham that Ishmael would become a great nation. In light of Abraham's previous experience, he was confident that God would somehow fulfill his covenant promises through Isaac even as they headed toward Mount Moriah. He was convinced that God would keep his promises even if it meant that God would raise Isaac from the dead. Thus, Abraham informed his servants, "We will worship, and then we will come back to you" (Gen. 22:5 NRSV; cf. Heb. 11:19). Abraham knew that God's purposes wouldn't be thwarted, despite this difficult command.

With the second harsh command regarding the Canaanites, we can't ignore the context of God's universal blessing to all nations, including national Is-rael's ancient enemies. The troubling, exceptional commands regarding both Isaac and the Canaanites must be set against their historical and theological context-namely, the background of Yahweh's enemy-loving character and worldwide saving purposes.

This is illustrated in the book of Jonah. God didn't punish the Ninevites-to the great disappointment of Jonah, who knew that this is the sort of thing Yahweh does: he loves his (and Israel's) enemies. "I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity" (Jonah 4:2; cf. Exod. 34:6).

An Untamable God

We sensitized Westerners wonder why God gets so angry with Israel. Why all the judgment and wrath? Why does the Old Testament seem so undemocratic? We live in a time when we're very alert to racial discrimination and intolerance, but we aren't as sensitized to sexual sin as past generations were. We live in a time that sees death as the ultimate evil. Perhaps we need to be more open to the fact that some of our moral intuitions aren't as finely tuned as they ought to be. The same may apply to our thoughts about what God should or shouldn't have done in Canaan.12

Yale theologian Miroslav Volf was born in Croatia and lived through the nightmare years of ethnic strife in the former Yugoslavia that included the destruction of churches, the raping of women, and the murdering of innocents. He once thought that wrath and anger were beneath God, but he came to real-ize that his view of God had been too low. Here Volf puts the New Atheists' complaints about divine wrath into proper perspective:

I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn't God love? Shouldn't divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That's exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God's wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century, where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandfatherly fashion? By refusing to condemn the bloodbath but instead affirming the perpetrators' basic goodness? Wasn't God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God's wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn't wrathful at the sight of the world's evil. God isn't wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love."

The apostle Paul brings these features together: "Behold then the kindness and severity of God" (Rom. 11:22).

Maybe the ideal "God" in the Westerner's mind is just too nice. We've lost sight of good and just while focusing on nice, tame, and manageable. We've ignored sternness and severity (which make us squirm), latching on to our own ideals of comfort and convenience. We've gotten rid of the God who presents a cosmic authority problem and substituted controllable gods of our own devising. We've focused on divine love at the expense of God's anger at what ultimately destroys us or undermines our fundamental well-being.

Philosopher Paul Moser observes:

It would be a strange, defective God who didn't pose a serious cosmic author-ity problem for humans. Part of the status of being God, after all, is that God has a unique authority, or lordship, over humans. Since we humans aren't God, the true God would have authority over us and would seek to correct our pro-foundly selfish ways."

Unlike ancient Near Eastern deities, the Savior of Scripture (like Narnia's Aslan) is not safe. As a fellow church member, Ellie, recently put it, he is "a butt-kicking God."

Today's version of spirituality is tame and makes no demands on us. A mere impersonal force behind it all doesn't call us on the carpet for our actions. We can play games with a pantheon of these kinds of deities. By contrast, the living God-a "hunter, king, husband," C. S. Lewis says is trying to get our attention by pulling from the other end at the cord of our lives. Because life isn't about us as the center of reality, God becomes the "transcendental Interferer"" and the hound of heaven to help our restless souls ultimately find their rest in him.

If we take God seriously, he will most certainly mess up our lives, make us uncomfortable, and even disorient us. After all, we can easily get accustomed to our own self-serving agendas and idols. The atheist has it almost right: humans regularly do make gods in their image. Yet the biblical God isn't the kind we make up. He refuses to be manipulated by human schemes. He makes us all-including his true devotees uncomfortable, which in the end is what we truly need to overcome our self-centeredness. "Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25).

Even so, this God also shows himself to be a promise-making God who is worthy of our tenacious trust, despite the puzzles, discomforts, storms, and even horrors we may endure. C. S. Lewis commends this "obstinacy of faith." He asserts that trust in a personal God (as opposed to a mere proposition) "could have no room to grow except where there is also room for doubt." Lewis goes so far as to say that love involves trusting a friend beyond the evidence, even, at times, against the evidence. He reminds us that we should give the benefit of the doubt to a friend, even if the friend may display seem-ingly puzzling and uncharacteristic behavior. For example, if a trusted friend pledges to meet us somewhere but fails to show up, which of us "would not feel slightly ashamed if, one moment after we had given him up, he arrived with a full explanation of his delay? We should feel that we ought to have known him better."1

The God Who Commands

Some critics argue that because God commands the killing of the Canaan-ites (a specific action in a specific historical context for a specific theological purpose), then we can generalize: "action X is always permissible." And, of course, if you allow this, then terrorism becomes permissible in the name of whatever authority: "Allah said it; I believe it; that settles it!" This isn't very good reasoning, of course, but it's all too common when it comes to the Canaanite question. The earlier discussion of Genesis 22 (see "Philosophical Reflections on God's Command to Abraham" in chapter 5) overlaps with the Canaanite question; you can revisit that chapter with the Canaanites in mind. However, here we'll look at things from another angle.

If infants are killed by God's command, they aren't wronged, for they will be compensated by God in the next life. So why not support infanticide? Why not kill all infants to make sure they are with God in the hereafter? This question commonly raised by critics doesn't follow, of course, for at least four reasons:

1. In the context of God's ongoing special revelation to Israel, God gave an unrepeatable command for a specific purpose, which the Scriptures themselves make clear; this command is not to be universalized.

2. Since life belongs to God, any harm caused due to specific purposes in a specific context would be overshadowed by divine benefits in the afterlife.

3. While the infant would go to God's presence, the killer has not only taken another's life but also sinned (primarily) against God (cf. Ps. 51:4).

4. The killer is responsible for the consequences of his own actions-namely, taking innocent life. He is not responsible for granting heavenly life. The giver of heavenly benefit cannot be the human agent but only God himself (another agent).

So when the killer takes matters into his own hands, he is acting presump-tuously The killer is not benefiting the infant; he is only harming the infant. The killer brings only death, not benefits; it is God who bestows the benefit of heavenly life. The killer isn't "responsible" for getting an infant to heaven; he isn't the one bestowing the highly valued benefit. The killer neither causes these benefits nor is responsible for them."

By contrast, in this worst-case scenario, God commands the Israelite sol-diers to take the lives of some civilians, including children. In this special circumstance, the soldiers would be instruments of bringing heavenly life to these young ones. Given God's specific purposes, this scenario would differ from the infanticide committed by, say, Susan Smith, who strapped her children into her car and let it roll into a lake. No, Smith didn't "give" her children a better life in heaven by drowning them. She defied God's purposes and sinned against God and her children.

Humans and the Worm's-Eye View

The book of Job sheds helpful light, reminding us that the full picture is not always available to us. We aren't necessarily in the best position to decipher God's purposes. Like Job, we may find ourselves left with a puzzling gap between what we clearly know of God and what seems to be a harsh exception. (Job's friends certainly thought they had the correct perspective regarding "when bad things happen to good people.") Though blameless yet severely afflicted, Job received no answers to his questions. And while he did eventually receive his audience with God, he still received no answer to his "why" question. Though baffled as ever, Job did obtain assurances of God's wisdom, which far surpasses ours. He learned that God's character is trustworthy and his presence sufficient, even when we remain stumped in the face of unanswered questions.

Back in 1997, my family was involved in a serious auto accident on a county highway in rural Wisconsin. The other driver tried to avoid a dog and struck our van instead. Peter, our second child, was five at the time. He was injured when his head struck the side window, resulting in a skull fracture and multi-layered lacerations to his forehead. He needed several surgeries and daily applications of a sticky ointment called Kelo-cote to get his forehead back to normal. Our last great task was removing Peter's postsurgical bandage from his crusted-over-but-healing forehead. (Previous experience told us this was at least a two-person operation.) We had talked up the event as a momen-tous occasion to celebrate. But Peter screamed, cried, resisted, and tried to run away, as though we were trying to harm him. An ignorant eavesdropper outside the bathroom door-no, the house! could possibly have concluded that we were evil torturers.

No doubt, children may draw all sorts of faulty conclusions about their "immoral" parents simply because they don't understand what their parents are doing. Parents, in order to train their children, may seem overly strict when they insist that kids apologize even when they don't feel like it. Parents may appear tyrannical when they override the freedom of a child who happens to be making all the wrong decisions about friendships or dubious activities. Par-ents may do things that strike their young children as utterly out of character or even immoral, yet the problem will be resolved with further information or the maturity of years and experience." Couldn't the Canaanite question fit into this category?

Think again of Frodo in The Lord of the Rings. He tells his faithful friend, "I can't do this, Sam." But Sam tries to put his task in proper perspective:

I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo-the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you-that meant something-even if you were too small to understand why.

Likewise, we may not be in the best position to understand the nature of God's commands regarding the Canaanites in light of his overarching purposes. Perhaps we have more of a worm's-eye view than we would like to think. As Isaiah 55:8-9 affirms: ""For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.'"

Several stanzas in William Cowper's hymn "God Moves in a Mysterious Way" express quite well the gap that exists between God and us and how we may misperceive what God is doing:

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense, But trust Him for His grace; Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour, The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err And scan His work in vain, God is His own interpreter, And He will make it plain."

Jesus and the Bigger Picture

As we grapple with difficult Old Testament questions, we can go beyond Job's limited perspective to glimpse God more clearly, as revealed in Jesus. In Christ's incarnation and atoning death, we see how the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob brings his unfolding purposes to fulfillment. As the Israelites had hoped, God showed up on the scene, though not in the way they had an-ticipated. He stooped to share our lot, enduring life's temptations, injustices, sufferings, and cruelties. However we view the Canaanite question, God's heart is concerned with redemption. This becomes especially evident in how low God was willing to go for our salvation, dying naked on a cross, endur-ing scorn and shame, and suffering the fate of a criminal or slave. Michael Card's song "This Must Be the Lamb" depicts this powerfully. He writes that the religious leaders mocked Christ's true calling, laughing at his fate, "blind to the fact that it was God limping by

Since God was willing to go through all of this for our salvation, the Chris-tian can reply to the critic, "While I can't tidily solve the problem of the Canaanites, I can trust a God who has proven his willingness to go to such excruciating lengths and depths to offer rebellious humans reconciliation and friendship. However we're to interpret and respond to some of the baffling questions raised by the Old Testament, we shouldn't stop with the Old Testa-ment if we want a clearer revelation of the heart and character of God.

In the New Testament, God redeems his enemies through Christ's substi-tutionary, self-sacrificial, shame-bearing act of love (Rom. 5:10). Though a Canaanite-punishing God strikes us as incompatible with graciousness and compassion, we cannot escape a redeeming God who loves his enemies, not simply his friends (Matt. 5:43-48). Indeed, he allows himself to be crucified by his enemies in hopes of redeeming them: "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34).

Further Reading

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology: Israel's Life. Vol. 3. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. See esp. chap. 5, "City and Nation."

Hess, Richard S. "War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview." In War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The God I Don't Understand. Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 2008.

Old Testament Ethics and the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity 2006.

Chapter 18. The Root of All Evil? Does Religion Cause Violence?

In Mark Juergensmeyer's book Terror in the Mind of God, he claims that religion is violent by nature. How so? It tends to "absolutize and to project images of cosmic war" even if a religion's ultimate goal is peace and order. Juergensmeyer's recommendation? Injecting into religion the softening Enlight-enment values of "rationality and fair play"; this will help stop the violence and killing to produce peace and harmony in this world.'

Three years earlier, Regina Schwartz wrote The Curse of Cain, challeng-ing the "violent legacy of monotheism" (which includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). Belief in one God (monotheism) and exclusive truth claims go hand in hand, which allegedly leads to problems for everybody else. Those embracing the "one true God" will reject, hate, and remove all outsiders, who don't accept their God or their worldview. Monotheism and exclusive truth claims create an us-them mentality: to preserve our identity and religious purity, they must be removed. This is what Richard Dawkins means about Israel's God being obsessed with "his own superiority over rival gods and with the exclusiveness of his chosen desert tribe.")

That's why Cain, whose offering was rejected by God in favor of his brother Abel's, rose up and murdered him. Likewise, God unfairly chose the younger Jacob over Esau, which produced conflict between them. For similar reasons, the chosen Israelites ended up killing the un-chosen Canaanites; God was on Israel's side, not the Canaanites'. Alienation and murder are the predictable results of monotheism. So we shouldn't be surprised by acts like the September 11 terrorist attacks the very claim the New Atheists make. The alternative to coercive religion would be Enlightenment values of tolerance favoring diversity and pluralism; these values generously welcome outsiders and don't stifle creativity

Do We Just Need Enlightenment Values?

To the contrary, we could argue that we don't need less religion and more Enlightenment values. Ironically, the barbarity of the Enlightenment's French Revolution turned the pursuit of liberty, equality, and fraternity into inhuman-ity and a nightmare of cruelty. As many have argued, institutionalizing plural-ism and diversity in society can have the effect of excluding and eliminating traditional religion from the conversation.

Properly understood, we actually need more religion, not less. But we need the right kind of religious values, not simply anything that calls itself religious (think Jim Jones, David Koresh, and jihadists). When given proper consid-eration, a truly biblical worldview should have a place at the table given its foundation for morality and its positive culture-shaping influence, a point we'll explore in the last chapters. The biblical faith actually supports tolerance: despite our disagreements, human beings are still God's image-bearers, and we are to seek to live at peace with all insofar as we're able (Rom. 12:18). It supports diversity: because of Christ's death, he has broken down dividing walls of race, class, and gender (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-22). While the apostle Paul talks about warfare, he refers to spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6. But while we can bracket the topic of fighting a just war (e.g., to stop Nazi aggression), the Christian's war doesn't require earthly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4). The kind of conquest Paul calls for is overcoming evil with good (Rom. 12:21).

So we're not talking about generic religion, as though all religions are alike and that any one religion is as harmful as the next. Also, we should ask if a religion is true. Does it square with and explain reality? We shouldn't make the mistake the conquering Assyrians did, who "spoke of the God of Jeru-salem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work of men's hands" (2 Chron. 32:19). So when we're talking about more religion, we're also talking about one that's true.

What about Schwartz's claim that monotheism leads to violence? It's hard to see how God's oneness could lead to violence in itself. For one thing, Schwartz ignores Old Testament references to God's grace, compassion, patience, and mercy (e.g., Exod. 34:6-7). Theologian Miroslav Volf argues that if one gets rid of monotheism, "the division and violence between 'us' and 'them' hardly disappears." In the eyes of pagan, Roman, emperor-worshiping polytheists (i.c., worshipers of many gods), Christians were persecuted as atheists: belief in one God was close enough. Ironically, monotheistic Christians were singled out for attack by the diversity-affirming religionists in the Mediterranean world! Beyond this, history (in addition to tomorrow's headlines) is littered with not-necessarily monotheistic tribes warring against each other or this com-munist government attacking that religious group. And why the focus on religion per se? Why not attack politics and political abuses of religion? What about ethnic tribalism that gives rise to hostility and violence, as in the former Yugoslavia? Why not consider complex sociological and historical factors that contribute to conflict? Alienation, poverty, disempowerment, racism/tribalism, power structures, historical feuding, and animosity may give rise to anger and then to violence. Religion often turns out to be the label used to justify violence between warring parties.

So why think that religion is the sole factor, the entire cause of blame? Rather than dragging God into the situation to cover over the root problem(s), we should resist the manipulation of God for our purposes. And what about the positive effects of a religion? What if more benefit than harm comes from a particular religion? The notion that religion causes violence or harm typically obscures a complexity of factors involved.

Raising Cain

What of Schwartz's problem of Cain? God didn't choose Abel at the ex-pense of Cain. God had warned Cain of his sinful attitude, saying that he must master the sin that is "crouching at the door" (Gen. 4:7). Cain could have offered an acceptable sacrifice if his resentment had turned to humility Though Cain was angry and his "countenance fell" (4:5-6), God reminded him that such a condition wasn't inevitable: "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?" (v. 7). Plainly, God didn't favor Abel at Cain's expense. In fact, even after Cain killed Abel, God still granted a protective grace to Cain.

The same applies to Jacob and Esau. Though Esau didn't receive the inheritance rights, he was still reconciled to his trickster brother at story's end (Gen. 33:4). Esau succeeded while Cain failed. God shouldn't be blamed in either scenario. And when it comes to Israel and the nations, God's choosing Israel didn't exclude other nations from salvation (e.g., Rahab, Ruth, Nineveh in Jonah's day). Indeed, God's desire is to include all who will come to him. Even within Israel, God chose the tribe of Judah, through which the Davidic Messiah would come. Again, this was a means of bringing salvation to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. Just because God chose to work through Judah, who had a besmirched reputation (Gen. 37:23-27; 38), didn't mean that Joseph (a man of faith and integrity) couldn't experience salvation or receive God's blessing through trust and obedience.

Besides this, consider how some persons are more intelligent, athletic, artistic, or pleasant looking than others. We don't have perfect equality here, except in the dignity and worth of each individual. Yes, those apparently less endowed can become resentful or jealous of those seemingly more endowed, or one can recognize the graces one has received and constructively deal with disappointments. In fact, some of the presumed assets of money, good looks, or intelligence can actually be spiritual hindrances and sources of pride and self-sufficiency

Think of the blind hymn writer Fanny Crosby (1820-1915). When she was six weeks old, a doctor applied the wrong medicine-a hot poultice-on her inflamed eyes, which resulted in permanent blindness. Rather than becoming resentful, she vowed to be content with her lot in life. She wrote some of the most uplifting hymns sung by Christians such as "To God Be the Glory, Great Things He Hath Done" and "Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross." Reflecting on her blindness, she wrote these stanzas:

Oh what a happy soul I am, Although I cannot see, I am resolved that in this world Contented I will be. How many blessings I enjoy, That other people don't; To weep and sigh because I'm blind, I cannot, and I won't."

The Rights of Self-Exclusion

Schwartz's problem is that she hasn't taken the doctrine of the Trinity seriously enough. The Triune God-Father, Son, and Spirit-is not a self-enclosed deity He graciously creates human beings to share in his life, joy and goodness. God is indeed humble and other-centered, serving his creatures and showing kindness to all (Matt. 5:45). A central distinguishing feature of God-and of those who take his rule seriously is love for one's enemies. This isn't the easy love of being good to those who are good to us but the tough, gritty, and most complete love over all other types of love (Matt. 5:46-48).

Someone may object: "Isn't there the doctrine of hell, the ultimate exclu-sion? Why doesn't God show absolute hospitality to all without exclusion? Isn't this the truly peaceful alternative?" Miroslav Volf astutely observes that "absolute hospitality" becomes difficult when the unrepentant perpetrators sit down with their unhealed, violated victims. Such a perverse view of hospi-tality would actually "enthrone violence because it would leave the violators unchanged and the consequences of violence unremedied." The older brother in the prodigal son story (Luke 15) was left with a decision: would he stay outside to sulk and pout, or would he come in to celebrate the return of his younger brother and thus show honor to his gracious father?

Hell itself is the act of self-exclusion from God, the final act of self-assertion and control. If we want a divorce from God, he will grant it. Hell isn't a tor-ture chamber of everlasting fire. Hell is ultimately a realm of self-separation and quarantine from God's presence (2 Thess. 1:9). Spirit beings (the devil and his angels) will have the final separation from God that they desire. C. S. Lewis puts it this way:

I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully "All will be saved." But my reason retorts, "Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say "With their will," my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"*

No, the problem isn't religion, although many religiously inspired actions are certainly perverse and grotesque. In the Old Testament, we see that God desires to include Jew and Gentile, friend and enemy alike in his saving pur-poses. When we come to the New Testament, this vision of one people from all ethnic groups is finally being realized.

Properly understood, the Christian faith (and not some generic category called religion), with its doctrine of the self-giving and other-centered Trinity is actually a beacon of hope for peacemaking and reconciliation (Rom. 5:6-11; Eph. 2:14-17). Some may refuse to participate and continue the conflict, but that is not the fault of the Christian faith.

What about the Crusades?

Critics mention the Crusades as evidence for the violence of Christianity We can readily admit that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Europe's religious wars were a tragedy, a blot on the history of Christendom. But do these events reflect the essence of Christianity? All this talk of religion causing war raises questions of its own. What do we mean by religion? Every religion that has ever existed? Confucianism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses? And the religion-war connection assumes that religion has little con-nection to truth. Any unique, authentic, honest-to-goodness divine revelation isn't even on the critics' radar screen. Nor is the question asked, Is violence imbedded in this particular religious tradition, or is it utterly inconsistent with that particular religion?

Those who (rightly) critique the Crusades as morally misguided will go further to lump the Crusades with Islamic jihad. Doing so is a mistake, and I can only sketch out the generalities here. The Arabic term jihad means "struggle," which can encompass inner, intellectual, or moral struggle as well as militant, violent struggle. However, the more traditional Islamic un-derstanding of jihad is the violent kind that has characterized the sweep of Islam's history; there's little support for jihad as mere spiritual/internal struggle."

Even if we compare the Crusades with militant, aggressive Islamic jihad, the Crusades come out looking considerably better:

The Crusades (1095-1291)

The Crusades lasted about two hun-dred years.

The Crusades have been criticized as the beginning of imperialism.

The Crusades began as an effort to recapture from Muslims land once oc cupied by Christians.

Jesus, in whose name the Crusades were fought, did not teach or exemplify violence against those who refused his

The earliest followers of Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament didn't advocate violence. In its earli-est centuries, the politically powerless Christian faith expanded through deeds of love and communicating the life-changing news of Christ.

Jihad in Islam

Jihad has been ongoing for more than thirteen hundred years.

Muhammad's imperialistic jihad expeditions began more than five hundred years prior to the Crusades.

Jihad began with the intent to take Christian ized territory never occupied by Muslims, to establish the umma (Islamic community).

Muhammad not only preached violence against nonbelievers but also engaged in it himself in over sixty aggressive military campaigns.

The Qur'an includes many militant, aggressive texts. After Muhammad's death, Islam was ex tended far and wide through violence. It over-ran previously Christianized areas and regu-larly posed a threat to established Christendom (e.g., Spain, France, Vienna).

Consider the comments of Bernard Lewis, the leading Western scholar on Islam. He nicely summarizes the significant differences between Islamic jihad and the Crusades-despite both being waged as holy wars against infidel enemies for the true religion:

The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of holy war, more commonly a just war, was familiar since antiquity Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history-in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate succes-sors. It has continued throughout Islamic history and retains its appeal to the present day. The word crusade derives of course from the cross [Latin, crux) and originally denoted a holy war for Christianity. But in the Christian world it has long since lost that meaning... Jibad too is used in a variety of senses, but unlike crusade it has retained its original, primary meaning."

Critics of the Crusades or the Inquisition are certainly correct that the Christian shouldn't advocate atrocities or execution for heresy in the name of Jesus. And we should ask the critics, "Why select these anti-Christian events as exhibits A and B for the Christian faith rather than looking to the example and teachings of Jesus himself, not to mention Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce, and other Christian peacemak-ers?" Indeed, atrocity and theological reigns of terror carried out in Jesus's name oppose all that Jesus stood for in his ministry

Are Yahweh Wars in the Old Testament Just Like Islamic Jihad?

Though I address this topic in more detail elsewhere, we should probably say something about the common accusation, "Aren't the Old Testament's Yahweh wars just like militant Islamic jihad?"

We should keep in mind that Islam traditionally has divided the world into two realms: "the abode of Islam/peace" (dar al-Islam/salam), where Islam dominates, and "the abode of war" (dar al-harb), where the rule of Islam should be extended by war, if necessary Islam is a dominant creed. Traditionally, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims has been ruler versus ruled, victor versus vanquished. Indeed, ancient Islam never gave thought to a Muslim liv-ing under a non-Muslim government."

Offensive warfare and quashing the opposition has been the heart of Islam from the very beginning. (1) Its founder Muhammad engaged in over sixty military campaigns; (2) the Qur'an contains many harsh, aggressive, and militaristic passages; (3) ever since Muhammad's death, his followers have spread Islam by violent means, often taking over vast segments of Christian-ized territories; (4) most Muslim countries today (with the exception of Mali and Senegal) have a terrible human rights record, and if most Muslims from these countries are to find political freedom, ironically, they must move to the West rather than stay in their country of origin.

Jewish Egyptian scholar Bat Ye'or has thoroughly documented the history of dhimmitude (the condition of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims [dhimmis] under Islamic law) in Muslim-dominated areas. Any Muslim toler-ance shown to non-Muslims could always give way to militant jihad if tribute (jizya) wasn't paid to Muslims. Ye'or thoroughly documents the oppression and even "open extermination of Christian populations and the disappearance of Eastern Christian culture.*14

The "myth of Muslim toleration," she says, didn't exist before the twentieth century. That is a modern creation of the West. It was the result of political and cultural difficulties once colonizing powers like England and France with-drew from North Africa and the Middle East-without the will to protect Christian minorities there. A whole literature developed praising Muslim tolerance toward Jews and Christians; they emerged for economic (think oil!) and political reasons. Not wanting to rock the boat, the withdrawing powers preferred an economically profitable pro-Islamic policy." And though the Qur'an declares, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256), compulsion has been part of the Muslim mind-set from the beginning. This isn't to deny the presence of many peace-loving Muslims throughout the world; I myself have come to befriend many of them over the years. We can be most grateful for such peace-oriented Muslims, though perhaps more of them could speak out more forcefully against violence carried out in the name of Islam.

What then should we make of the comparison between Islamic jihad and the approved Yahweh wars in the Old Testament? Here's a brief overview of the key differences:

Geography

Historical Length/Limit

Yahweh War in the Old Testament

War was geographically lim-ited to the Promised Land.

Such war was limited pri marily to one generation (around the time of Joshua), though minor conflicts con-tinued with persistent enemies of Israel.

Islamic Jihad

There are no geographic limita-tions to jihad. The non-Muslim world is the "abode of war."

There are no historical/tempo-ral limitations to jihad.

Objects of War

War was to punish a hopelessly corrupted culture (morally and theologically), not because they were non-Israelites or even because they didn't wor ship Yahweh. This punishment came after a period of over four hundred years when the Ca naanites' sin had ripened fully (Gen. 15:16).

Aggression/war is directed to-ward non-Muslims (including Christians and Jews "people of the book").

Objects of God's Love

Yalıweh loves even his enemies those who don't love him (cf. Gen. 12:3; Jonah). His redemp-tive plan encompasses the traditional enemies of Israel (Babylon, Assyria, Egypt) and incorporates them into the people of God.

God loves only those who love and obey him.

Standard of Morality

God's compassionate and gra-cious nature is the source of God's commands.

The Qur'an stresses God as sheer will (as opposed to a mor-ally good nature), who com mands whatever he likes.

Fulfilling God's Plan

Yahweh War in the Old Testament

The Messiah's kingdom is to be characterized by peace (Isa. 9:6; 11:1-10). In the New Testament, Jesus's task is to undermine the true enemy Satan and his hosts (John 14:30; Eph. 6:10-18; Col. 2:15)-not Israel's political enemies.

Normativity of War

Fighting against Canaanites was not intended to be norma-tive and ongoing (having the force of divine commands) but unique. God has a new nonnationalistic covenant in mind for his people (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36).

Islamic Jihad

Muhammad's military aggres-sion is viewed by many Muslims as normative (which sets back the clock on what the Messiah came to fulfill, undermining God's ultimate purposes). Note: As traditionally understood, the Qur'an's tolerant verses are ear lier and thus outweighed by the later more millitant verses.

The military aggression of Mu-hammad (Islam's founder), sup-ported by the Qur'an's milita-rism, Islam's aggressive history, and present political realities in the Muslim countries suggest an intrinsic pattern.

Does religion cause violence? Is religion dangerous? To say yes to these ques-tions would be a crass generalization. For one thing, this view fails to account for many variations within all the world's traditional religions, some of which are fairly tame and nonthreatening. Second, those who support this notion fail to ask whether militant texts in certain holy books are normative and perma-nent or unique and nonrepeatable. Third, this assumption doesn't distinguish between the essence of a religion and tragic abuses by its practitioners. Fourth, it doesn't consider truth in religion that some religious viewpoint may actually be true and therefore its competitors would be in error where they disagree with the truth. Finally, the view that religion is dangerous because it excludes other views is itself incoherent. It leaves us wondering, "Doesn't this mushy pluralism exclude or marginalize the very 'narrow' religious views of, say, monotheism?" To make any truth claim is to assert that its opposite is false.

Further Reading

Copan, Paul. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Volf, Miroslav. "Christianity and Violence." In War in the Bible and Violence in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Ye'or, Bat. Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Teaneck, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002.