Old Testament Laws
Dateline: February 23, 2000
Introduction
There are a lot of really awful things in the Old Testament. This seems like a simple and obvious statement, but there are two slight problems with it. First, although nonbelievers and skeptics will superficially agree with it, many are unaware of what some of the specific laws and events actually are. This is particularly true when it comes to the laws because, lets face it, reading those lists of ritual laws can be quite boring.
The Second problem lies with believers: some agree that there are awful things in the Old Testament, but like skeptics and nonbelievers, they can be quite unaware of what and where they are. Others, however, flatly disagree that there is anything wrong with any of the events or laws appearing in the Old Testament. They assert that the Bible - all of the Bible - stems from their god, is infallible and/or inerrant, and represents just as good a moral guide for modern life as it ever did.
Now, as awful as much in the Old Testament can be, I'm not arguing that any of it is significantly worse than what we can find in cultural documents from the same eras. Life and religion was typically cruel and barbaric - why should the ancient Hebrews have been any different? From the skeptical and even liberally theological position, there is simply no reason to imagine otherwise.
Only if we are expected to believe that the ancient Hebrews really were supposed to be the "chosen" tribe of a real and all-loving God might we hope for them to rise above everyone else. Certainly the laws this allegedly all-loving God was handing down should have represented that love, even if we accept that the people weren't quite able to follow them very well.
But that isn't what we find. The laws and commands from this god aren't particularly representative of an expansive and eternal love of the god's alleged creation, humanity. They don't give any indication of having a divine origin. Instead, they look every bit like the attempts of typical tribe of a barbaric age doing the best they could with what they had.
This article, then, does not suggest that they were any worse than anyone else, but instead that they were no better and no worse than anyone else. It serves to educate skeptics and nonbelievers of some of the more cruel laws which might otherwise go unnoticed. It does no good for everyone to "know" about the cruelties in the Old Testament without being able to cite specific references.
This article also, as a result, serves to contradict the assumption and claim that the Bible represents an adequate moral guide for today. The laws might have served more than 2000 years ago, but we have moved beyond them. The Illiad might be great literature and a fair representation of what people were like at the time, but we shouldn't pretend that means it's a book to live by.
Women
If a god created humanity, then it created half of all that humanity as one gender (male) and half of another gender (female). And how was the latter half treated by the former half through history? Pretty badly, for the most part. It isn't surprising to find this trend continued among the ancient Hebrews, but should we expect an all-loving God to support and reinforce such mysogyny?
In Numbers, chapter 5, we find this god giving Moses commands about what to do with jealous husbands. The first thing to note is that this god apparently doesn't care about jealous wives - if they suspect their husband of infidelity, their god offers them no recourse.
The second thing to note is that the husband requires no evidence that his wife has been unfaithful. The whole passage is about a husband who is jealous, nothing more. He merely has to *think that his wife has been less than faithful in order for him to bring here before the priests for testing.
And what's the test? The priest is to gather up dirt from the tabernacle floor, mix it with water, and force the woman to drink the concoction. With the state of sanitation at the time, I'm not sure I want to know what might have lived in that dirt - but any woman with a jealous husband had to consume it. If she was guiltless, nothing would happen as a result of the cursed water. If she was guilty, she would become ill.
Such "trials by fire" were not uncommon in primitive cultures - but should we expect an all-loving god of all humanity to encourage them, much less promote their use on only half his creation? The above is certainly not the only case where women are treated as being inferior to men:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. (Deut. 24:1-2)
If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. (Deut. 20:11-14)
Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days. (Lev. 12:2-5)
A man can divorce a woman merely because he finds something - anything - objectionable about her. A woman, however, appears to be stuck no matter how objectionable the husband is. Women are treated like war booty - if they are virgins, that is. Although this may be preferable to being killed like all the men, it does indicate that virgin women are regarded as little more then property. Bearing a female child renders a mother unclean for twice as long as bearing a male child - apparently, this god views women as being inherently unclean and less worthy. It is not to be wondered at, then, that only men could be priests.
It should not be surprising to find such laws among those written by humans from other cultures - in particular, men. Humans are prejudiced against those who are different, and men have long harbored prejudices against women. Some prejudices have continued to this day. But would a god worthy of even a modicum of our respect really promote laws which treated half of humanity as property and less worthy than the other half.
Children
Let's turn our attention now to that group of any society which is perhaps its most defenseless: children. A society can often be judged by how it treats its children. Unfortunately, the laws supposedly handed down by this "god" to the ancient Hebrews were not always very 'kid-friendly".
Folly is bound up in the heart of a boy, but the rod of discipline drives it far away. (Prov. 22:15)
Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol. (Prov. 23:13-14)
Although corporal punishment was certainly the norm at the time, it is instructive to notice the claim you won't kill your kids by beating them but will instead save them from "Sheol."
It also appears to have been the standard to punish children for the "iniquities" of the parents. Observe:
Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. (Deut. 23:2)
Thus a person who, through no fault of their own, was born of out of wedlock (or of a "forbidden marriage," possibly indicating a half-breed - the original meaning is unclear) is denied admittance to the temple for religious services. Even worse, this prohibition is perpetuated through 10 generations, even if all those interening children are born of legitimate unions. This is just an extreme example of the standard which was set in Numbers 14:18, where it is declared that this god would be "visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation."
It is also an expression of the idea that physical abuse is actually a positive thing, as stated in Proverbs 20:30 "Blows that wound cleanse away evil; beatings make clean the innermost parts." Such ideas would eventually make it easier for Christian theologians to support the physical abuse and torture of whichever heretics or rebels the political and religious leaders happened to dislike at the time.
One of the worst things any child could do, apparently, was be disobedient, as we see in this infamous passage:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "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 the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21)
Disobedience is clearly labeled as a crime of "evil", and something which must be purged from the tribal group for its own good. At the time, life was hard and tribal groups could be besieged on all sides by enemies. Obedience was certainly necessary to help promote survival. Yet this again is a human response to a human concern - what god worthy of any respect would command the death of rebellious children?
Strangers
One of the issues worth looking at is how those from other tribes and nations were to be treated. It is unsurprising for people to wish to treat their extended kin relations better than outsiders, but would a god who created all humanity and who is supposed to be all-loving really try to reinforce and promote such an attitude?
You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. (Deut. 14:21)
For an animal to "die of itself," it is dying of old age or disease. Such animals were nasty enough that God had to tell them not to eat such animals themselves - evidently, doing so would contradict their holiness. But such animals were not so nasty that they couldn't be fed to foreigners - who, presumably, were just as much this god's creations as the Hebrews.
This is not the only way in which the alleged god taught them to treat outsiders worse than insiders:
On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess. (Deut. 23:20)
When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. (Exod. 21:2)
So, we find that charging interest is a bad thing, but only when charged against other tribe members - it's OK to do it to outsiders. Keeping slaves is OK, but if the slave is another tribesmember, you can only keep him for six years. Foreigners, evidently, can be kept forever.
Once again, none of this is really surprising for the time - every tribal group did such things. Laws like this are very human, and that's the point. They were human expressions of human prejudices, fears, and xenophobia. Many people have barely progressed beyond it. Some haven't managed to progress beyond it at all. If we cannot expect better from a god, then it isn't worth worshipping. So either the laws come from humans who hadn't learned any better yet, or they come from a god who isn't worth our time.
Disobedience
This god's focus upon obedience was certainly not limited to children following the commands of parents. This god handed down a lot of laws - some of which even today appear reasonable and others which, as we have seen, are beyond any modern merits. So what was this god's policy towards those who might question or even disobey his commands? What happens to someone who thinks that maybe women, children, and even strangers should be treated a bit better than this particular god decrees?
Chapter 26 in Leviticus gives a thorough explanation of what awaits both those who obey and those who disobey. The worst is perhaps Lev. 26:29, where it is declared to potential troublemakers that should they fail to toe the line, "You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters."
And what about someone who finds the commands of this alleged god to be as abhorrent as we find them, and suggests going off and finding a more amenable god? Deuteronomy 16 informs us that even if this person is "your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend," your duty is clear:
...you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. (Deut. 13:6-11)
Death is the only option for such a person. And in the last sentence we see an addition which has appeared before: the penalty is designed to create fear among the rest of the population in order to keep everyone else in line. Humans have always ruled each other at least in part by fear - after all, fear can be a very strong motivating factor. Unfortunately, it is a dangerous motivator - fearful animals, even humans, can be unpredictable.
Regardless of that, however, which is more reasonable: that very typical humans created all of these laws in an attempt keep people in line and preserve their power by fear and intimidation, pretending to attribute the rules to a powerful god who would enforce them? Or that a loving god who created all of humanity instituted barbaric laws based upon death and fear so that some of its creations could rule over others?
Skeptics, nonbelievers and more liberal believers will be more likely to vote with the former. It should be clear to a reasonable observer that these laws are simply an expression of their time. From our perspective it was a barbaric age - so of course we'll find barbaric laws. Some will certainly object to this article by pointing out that there are other laws which aren't so bad - indeed, which are quite good.
They'd be right, because there are such laws, such as the command in Leviticus 19:15 which states that "You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor." But that isn't really an objection to this article, because I am not showing that the Old Testament laws are wholly evil and without redeeming quality.
Instead, what I am showing - and have shown, I believe, - is that there are laws which are simply too much an expression of a barbaric age to be anything but a human creation. They are inconceivably a product of an all-loving, infinite god - and any god which could have decreed them is unworthy of respect, much less worship.
Conservative and fundamentalist believers, however, cannot manage to accept the idea that their bible is a very human creation, with both good and evil human qualities showing through. For them, it is ultimately a divine creation and, in essence, wholly good. There is nothing wrong with it except insofar as fallen, sinful humans misread it. The laws described here should, however, make it clear that there is equally as much "sin" in having such laws as there might be in enforcing them.
|
Make your opinions be heard on the |
