JOSHUA 11

Joshua 11

Literary Considerations

Figure 1: Structure of the Book of Joshua

I. Conquering the Land (chs. 1-11)

A. Introductory Scenes (1:1- 5:9)

B. Cities for the Lord (5:10-8:35)

C. Taking the Inheritance (9:1-11:23)

D. Summary of Conquered Kings (ch. 12)

II. Dividing the Land (chs. 13-24)

C'. The Tribes' Inheritance (chs. 13-19)

B'. Cities from the Lord (chs. 20-21)

A'. Final Scenes (chs. 22-24)

Appropriately, Section C concludes with “And the land had rest from war.” Interestingly, this identical statement appears only one other place in the book, near the start of Section C' (14:15), forming another symmetry between the first and second halves of Joshua. Also, this final verse in Joshua notes that all the conquered land was intended “for an inheritance to Israel according to tribal allotments.” And that allotment will be the sole subject of the last half of the book, as evidenced by the fact that the word “inheritance” occurs over forty times in Josh. 13-24 as the major theme of the second half.

By contrast, Butler sees the “rest theology” of the book announced in 1:12-18 ending the first major section with ch. 12, and summarized in 21:43-45. He states that “the entire book is to be read in light of these [latter] verses.” In fact, as I have said above (in agreement with Boling and Wright), it is more precise to state that this theme finds its more explicit statement at 11:16-23, rather than with ch.12.

As for the three separate sections constituting Section IC, Figure 2 demonstrates their parallel nature as seen in their respective opening statements.

Figure 2: Structure of Joshua 9-11

1. The Treaty with the Gibeonites (ch. 9)

“When the kings [of the seven Canaanite nations] heard of this, they gathered together...to fight Joshua and Israel.”

2. Defending the Gibeonites (ch. 10)

“When ...king of Jerusalem heard..., he...sent to [four other kings] saying, "Come up...and let us smite Gibeon; for it has made peace with Joshua and with the people of Israel. Then the five kings...gathered their forces, and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon...”

3. Defeating the Kingly Coalition (ch. 11)

“When...king of Hazor heard of this, he sent to [various kings and the seven Canaanite nations]...And all these kings joined their forces and came and encamped together...to fight with Israel.”

Moving through these three subsections, there is a progression of sorts with the three sets of challenges becoming more and more overwhelming. Also note the important fact that in each conflict, it is Israel's enemies who make the first move. That may be considered as a somewhat mitigating factor lessening the impression of the Israelites as bloodthirsty conquerors.

Gray notes: “The pattern of this account [i.e. ch. 11] is the same as in ch. 10, a native coalition (vv. 1-5; cf. 10:1-5),...a sudden and decisive attack (vv. 7-9; cf. 10:9-14), the over-running of the country and the general destruction of certain towns under the ban (vv. 10-15; cf. 10:28-39) in the convention of the Holy War.”

Woudstra adds, “Each account speaks of a single instigator of the coalition: the king of Jerusalem in ch. 10, and the king of Hazor in ch. 11.”

That brings us to the organization of Joshua 11 itself. And here, the picture is not quite as clear. For example, my review of five modern English translations shows that no two agree exactly as to where the division points in the chapter lie. However, one may accept the structure in Figure 3 as a rough approximation in which at least the sections endings at verses 9, 15, and 20 are accepted by the majority of the versions.

                                           Figure 3: Structure of Joshua 11

    1. Introduction: Enemies Assemble Against Israel (vv. 1-5)

            2. God Hands Them Over (vv. 6-9)

                    3. Towns and Kings Taken (vv. 10-15)

                            4. Land Taken (vv. 16-19)

            2'. God Hardens Enemies' Hearts (v. 20)

                    3'. The Anakim Taken (vv. 21-22)

    1. Conclusion: Israel Has Rest (v. 23)

Throughout these battles, it is obviously Yahweh who is not only winning the battles, but also the one who ultimately initiated the conflicts. God's actions in those two respective regards are specifically mentioned in the parallel sections 2 and 2'. That latter fact also can be seen in the similar closing statements shown in the diagram below at verses 9, 12, 15 and 23. Actually, the only failure recorded is when the Israelites contravened the letter of the law by sparing the Gibeonites, much as Rahab and her family were spared in a previous section.

Sometimes confirming and other times supplementing the above symmetries based on topical considerations are the following mirror-image constructions present in the text which are based on repeated language:

        Israel (6a)

                I will hand over (6b)

                        struck them down (8a)

                the LORD handed them over (8b)

        Israel (8c)

-----

by the sword (10a)

                      struck their kings down (10b)

                                    utterly destroyed (11b)

                                                    took (12a)

                                    utterly destroyed (12b)

by the edge of the sword (12c)

                    struck them down (12d)

-----

        took (16)

                Israelites (19)

                        Israel (20a)

                                utterly destroyed (20b)

                                utterly destroyed (21a)

                        Israel (21b)

                Israelites (22)

        took (23)

And a final way in which the text is tied together comes from the exact number of times certain key words are repeated, keeping in mind that “seven” and “ten” represent completion or perfection in Hebrew symbology while 6 = imperfection Thus, Joshua 11 contains:

    “all” – 17x=10+7 (As Younger points out, “The word all characterizes these verses, emphasizing the totality of the conquest.”)

    “no/none/nothing/not any – 7x

    YAHWEH – 10x if “I” in v. 6 is included

    Joshua – 14x=2x7

    lands in the “hill country” – 6x=7-1

Problem Areas

Historicity of the Account

Blair talks about the excavations made by Y. Yadin since 1995: “Yadin found conclusive evidence that Hazor was destroyed about the middle of the 13^th century BC, and attributed this destruction to Joshua. Of special interest are the remains of a Canaanite temple and objects of worship, which reveal that the religion of Hazor involved the worship of the sun-god in association with a bull.”

Contra Yadin's assertion, however, Boling and Wright state: “It has been plausibly argued that the destruction of Hazor in the late thirteenth or earlier twelfth century [B.C.] can be as readily traced to the Sea Peoples.” But those same two authors admit that the lack of evidence for any other widespread destruction at that time is perfectly understandable: “The forts and villages were in fact so small that a serious military blow might very well not show in the form of a 'destruction layer.”

Holy Wars

Probably the greatest barrier people today have when they read passages like this is the apparently inordinate amount of bloodshed the conquering Israelites caused, especially in light of the fact that God hardened the enemy's heart. This is too large a topic to completely discuss here, but here are a few relevant comments from scholars:

The Jerusalem Bible: “Cf. Dt 7:2f and 20:16-18 where reasons for this massacre are given: the conquest is a holy war, the land of Yahweh must be purified of its pagan inhabitants, Israel is holy and therefore a people apart, Deut 7:6ff; it must use no half-measures or its faith will be compromised. This did not in fact happen...the reason for failure (the sins of Israel) and why God allowed it (to test his people) are explained in Jg. 2:20-3:4 (see Jg. 2:6ff).”

“Deuteronomy commanded Israel to obey God, destroy the inhabitants, have no mercy, make no covenant, make no marriages (7:1-3). Such a command had a divine purpose. It removed the temptations to follow other gods. From the days of the Judges and especially from the period of Solomon onward, the great temptation was to make political alliances through covenants and political marriages between royal families (1 Kgs 11:1-8; 16:31; 20:30-43).” (Butler)

Why Were the Horses Mutilated?

Woudstra states, “In view of what was said above [i.e. “Israel knew that reliance on chariots and horses was vain (see Ps. 20:7)], the command to hamstring the horses in order to render them unusable for further combat can be easily understood...Israel is to rely on the Lord, although the more common forms of combat are not thereby ruled out (see also v. 7; cf. 10:9).”

Freedman adds that hamstringing horses made them still “employable for domestic occupations.”

Why Did God Take Away the Enemy's Free Will?

“To protect Israel against the major sin of idolatry, God commanded her to show no mercy to the enemy. To enable her to keep the commandment, God caused her enemies to fight her rather than seek mercy and peace.” (Butler)

“This destruction of the Canaanites is due to God's hardening them, but this in no way exonerates the Canaanites. The other way was open, as is shown by what the Gibeonites did.” (Woudstra)

“God is not the author of evil. There is no suggestion that he violated the freedom of Pharaoh's will or that he manipulated Pharaoh in order to heap further vengeance on the Egyptian people. God is not opposed to the cooperation of pagan monarchs. Pharaoh could have cooperated with God just as Cyrus did in the Babylonian exile...It is Pharaoh, not God, who is to be blamed for the hardening of his own heart. Note that this same topic is raised again in Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:20 and 1 Samuel 6:6. While these allusions are briefer, one can be sure that the process of accountability and human responsibility was just as fair as in the case of Pharaoh.” (Kaiser)

Joshua and the Pentateuch

Schaeffer sates that “Chapter 11, like the earlier chapters insists on the continuity of the law of Moses...(Josh. 11:15,23). This insistence is important because liberal theologians try to drive a wedge between the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible. It cannot be done. The rest of the Bible, beginning with Joshua, stands in total continuity with the Pentateuch. Joshua was acting on the basis of God's revelation through Moses.”

Who Conquered Hebron?

A note in the Jerusalem Bible on Joshua wiping out of the Anakim in v. 21 states, “This observation of the editor's does not square with Jos 15:13-14 where it is Caleb who conquers Hebron.” But as Lilley rightly replies, “This doubtless refers to Caleb's successes, here attributed to Joshua as overall leader.” He goes on to explain: “The Anakim were a symbol of terror to the early Israelites (Num. 13:13; Dt. 9:2). They may well have been foreign warlords, but the origin of the name is still a mystery.”

Why Was Hazor Singled out for Destruction?

Blair admits, “The utter destruction of Hazor was exceptional, perhaps because of its size and importance; other cities that stood on mounds (Heb. tel) were not destroyed. Perhaps now that the Israelites were established in the land these were no longer a danger, but rather an advantage to settlers.”

“The burning of Hazor was an exception [as a example to others]. Other cities that stood on their mounds were not burned (v. 13). This seems to mean, among other things, that the Israelites took possession of the other cities and lived in them. Such a procedure would bear out the truth of the promise made in Deut. 6:10, where Israel is said to be living in cities they had not built.”

And Younger points out that “Hazor, the most important northern city, is totally destroyed by burning just like Jericho and Ai (cf. 6.24; 8.8,19). Jericho and Hazor frame the 'conquest' of the land of Canaan.”

Was There Really “Rest in the Land”?

It has been rightly pointed out that even in the time after this statement in v. 23, much fighting continued in the effort to totally conquer Canaan. But Woudstra responds: “The enemy's chief resistance had been broken, though much work remained to be done (13:1). For purposes beneficial to Israel, the driving out of the Canaanites was meant to take along time (see Exod. 23:29-30; Deut. 7:22; but cf. Judg. 2:20-23 for a different application of the same thought).”

Blair: “The land had rest from war in the sense that no more pitched battles were required. But the completion of the campaign took 'a long time' (v. 18), and even at the end of Joshua's life there remained 'very much land to be possessed' (13:1). To deal with the parts of the country still unsubdued was now to be the responsibility of the individual tribes.”

 

PSALM 69

This is a longer than usual psalm. Holladay states that “the very length of Psalm 69 is striking...” Therefore I will confine my comments here to those which apply to the psalm as a whole rather than attempt to address each individual verse.

Place in the Psalter

This Davidic psalm occurs in the second of the five books in the Psalter, where it is symmetrically located in parallel with the other Davidic psalms in that book.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 42-72

A. Sons of Korah (Ps. 42-49)

B. Bridge (Ps. 50)

C. Psalms of David (Ps. 51-65)

D. Anonymous Praises (Ps. 66-67)

C'. Psalms of David (Ps. 68-70)

B'. Bridge (Ps. 71)

A'. Psalm of Solomon (Ps. 72)

Superscription, Author and Date

The note in the text before verse 1 reads, “To the leader: according to Lilies, Of David.” This raises several questions. Kselman speaks for most Bible scholars in feeling that the reference to Lilies “probably refers to a melody.” Similar references are found before psalms 60 (“Lily of the Covenant”) and 80 (“Lilies, a Covenant”).

Concerning Davidic authorship, it is interesting that Holladay notes that a papal commission of 1910 “stated that it is not necessary to maintain that David was the sole author of the Psalms, but one must maintain that David was the principal author, and in particular that he was the author of Psalms 2, 16, 18, 32, 69, and 110.” But with time even that requirement was dropped. Even conservative Protestant scholars are hesitant in ascribing authorship of this psalm to King David. The reasons are explained below.

Anderson: “If the concluding verses (35-6) are authentic, then the setting of the Psalm may be the period of reconstruction., soon after 537 B.C., and the author may have been one of the Jews anxious for the rebuilding of the Temple. On the other hand, the Psalmist may have advocated certain changes in the Temple ritual, or he may have been critical of certain aspects of the worship of the day.”

Kselman: “If this psalm is a royal lament, zeal for your house [v. 9] could refer to the king's responsibility for the construction and provisioning of the Temple. If in its final form it dates from the exile the zeal would be directed toward the rebuilding the Temple.”

Rather than taking the above as an anachronistic reference to David, Jacobson translates ledawid as “Davidic” instead of “Of David.” He explains: “We believe that it is likely that the superscription ledawid did not originally indicate authorship – particularly, it did not originally indicate authorship by King David...In Old Testament Hebrew, the name David itself does not always refer to the founder of the Judean dynasty, but can refer to the Judean people (Isa. 55:3), the Davidic dynasty (Jer. 23:5), Ezek. 37:25), or the expected future ideal Davidic king (Jer. 30:9; Hos. 3:5). The Hebrew phrase ledawid is translated most literally 'to David' (the preposition ['l'] in its most generic sense means 'to'). If the lamed is understood as indicating possession ('belonging to'), it is plausible to interpret it as indicating authorship. But a more likely construal of the lamed of possession would be as indicating that the psalm in question belonged to a group of psalms that belonged to the royal temple in Jerusalem...Alternatively, the preposition may indicate that a psalm was composed 'in honor of,' 'dedicated to,' or 'inspired by' the king.”

Theme

Scholars like to classify each of the psalms into categories so that Holladay, for example, calls Psalm 69 “a lament of the individual” along with psalms 6-7, 22, 31, 35, 38, 42-43, 51, 55, 63-64, 86, 88, and 140-141. But in the case of Ps. 69, the situation is not that clear.

As Tanner says, “Its petitions are complex, covering multiple themes.” These include descriptions of the Psalmist's troubles, confession of his sin, complaint concerning God's apparent inaction, suffering that appears to be due to God, and suffering because of following God. “In and of themselves, none of these motifs are unusual in prayers for help. What is unusual is that all appear in one prayer. This psalm shows just how complicated life can be...”

Organization

Since several subjects appear to be addressed by the Psalmist, it is helpful to appropriately identify those individual paragraphs or section divisions. But in this particular case, it turns out to not be an easy thing to do. Just witness how a number of modern English translations and scholarly commentators disagree with one another on this subject:

RSV, NRSV – 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-29, 30-33, 34-36

NEB – 1-18, 19-28, 29-31, 32-35

Living Bible – 1-4, 5-15, 16-19, 20-28, 29-33, 34-36

TEV – 1-3, 4-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

NIV – 1-4, 5, 6-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

JB – 1-5, 6-18, 19-28, 29-31, 32-36

Tanner – 1, 2-4, 5-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-33, 34-36

Anderson – 1-4, 5, 6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-21, 22-28, 29, 30-36

M'Caw and Motyer – 1-12, 13-21, 22-28, 29-36

Baigent – 1-29, 30-33, 34-36

If we count the RSV and NRSV together as just one opinion, that leaves the following summary of the verses where the above sources see major breaks in thought:

vv. 3 (2), 4 (3), 5 (2), 6 (2), 12 (6), 15 (3), 18 (4), 21 (5), 28 (8), 29 (5), 31(2), 33 (6)

The only half-way agreements, besides the obvious break after the last verse, are found following vv. 12, 21, 28 and 33. Since this approach based on perceived changes in subject matter is far short of an overwhelming consensus, it is best to supplement it with a study of the specifically repeated language in the psalm. When one does that, the following exact verbal parallels can be seen:

O God (1a)

    I sink in deep mire (2a)

        deep waters and flood (2b)

my God (3)

            my enemies (4)

O God (5a)

                hidden (5b)

                    shame (6a)

O Lord God of hosts (6b)

                       dishonored (6c)

O God of Israel (6d)

                    shame (7)

                        children (8)

                      insult-3x (9-10)

----

   O LORD (13a)

O God (13b)

                            answer me (13c)

    sinking in the mire (14a)

            my enemies (14b)

        deep waters, flood (14c-15)

                            answer me (16a)

   O LORD (16b)

                   hide (17a)

                            answer me (17c)

            my enemies (18)

                      insults (19a)

                shame (19b)

                    insults (20)

-------

                                curses (22-25)

                                    reason (26)

                                curses (27-28)

-------

O God (29)

     the name of God (30b)

   LORD (31)

God (32)

   LORD (33)

----

 God (35a)

                                        live (35)

                children (36a)

     his name (36b)

                                        live (36c)

One interesting observation that can be gained from this outline is that there are exactly14 mentions of God overall. This is an indication that great care was taken in composing this psalm since the number 14 is twice “seven,” a number symbolizing in biblical usage completion or perfection.

As a first stab at combining the subject matter of the individual section together with the linguistic data, here are the respective titles given by M'Caw and Motyer for units which take the Psalmist through various stages of his experience. I chose their divisions since they most closely approximate the majority view:

                                                Figure 2: Organization of Psalm 69

                A. Despair under Affliction (vv. 1-12)

                                B. Dependence upon God (vv. 13-21)

                A'. Denunciation of Foes (vv. 22-28)

                                B'. Dedication to the Lord (vv. 29-36)

Note how these sections alternate between negative and positive reflections. In agreement with the above view I have omitted a division after 33 in view of the overall verbal pattern in v. 29-36:

                God

                                name

                                                praise

                                                                LORD

                God

                                                praise

                                                                LORD

                God

                                name

One can also note that there is a very close verbal correspondence between the Psalmist's complaints in A and his turning those same complaints over to God in Section B (see Figure 2).

REVELATION 11:15-19

Before the seventh angel blows his trumpet and after the second woe has passed, there occurs an interlude which may be diagrammed as below.

                                             Figure 1: Structure of Revelation 11:15-19

    “There were” great voices (15a)

                in the heaven (15b)

                        saying (15c)

                                statement (15d)

                        singing (16-17a)

                                song (17b-18)

                in the heaven (19a)

        “There were” lightnings and voices...and great hail (19b)

The identically paired-up language in this passage is indicated in this figure. In addition, the statement (15d) and song (17b-18) are related linguistically since both contain the words “Lord,” “earth/world,” “reign” and “great.” That makes four appearances altogether of the word “great,” symmetrically disposed at the start, end, and two in the middle of the passage.

Concerning the use of megas, “great,” in Revelation, Theile says the following: The megas word-group is attested 258 times in the NT...it is in Rev. that the greatest number of occurrences (80) are to be found...The reasons for the 80 instances of megas in Rev. are bound up the the literary form in which apocalyptic thought is expressed. Megas also occurs in the apocalyptic discourses in the Gospels (Matt. 24:21,24,31; Mk. 13:2; Lk. 21:11,23). It is used in the larger-than-life symbolism which characterizes the eschatological dimensions of events, e.g. the day (Rev. 6:17), the earthquake (16:18), and the city (18:2,10,16,18f,21). Particularly striking is the occurrence (21 times) of phone megale, 'with a great [i.e. loud] voice'. The expression indicates especially the sovereignty of God which drowns out all other sounds in the voices of his messengers (e.g. Rev. 1:10; 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 11:15; 16:1; 21:3).”

Even within the song itself, there is a degree of symmetry with its alternation between God's respective treatments of the saved and damned. Also note how the damned are appropriately judged according to to their works.

                                            Figure 2: Structure of Revelation 11:18

        Your 'wrath' has come upon the 'wrathful' (18a)

                for rewarding your servants (18b)

        and for 'destroying' the 'destroyers' (18c)

So much for how this passage is organized. But since the book of Revelation cannot be understood without realizing that it is almost wholly built of of images, next are citations from a number of anonymous scholars writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery who have commented on these verses from that viewpoint.

Revelation 11:15

“The book of Revelation can serve as a summary of what music means to the biblical imagination. Trumpets serve a ritualistic purpose of announcing the advent of times of judgment and redemption.”

“In the Bible the word trumpet generally refers to ram's horns used as sound makers. The trumpets commissioned by Moses, however, were probably straight metal instruments (Num 10:10). All were used for a variety of proclamatory and signaling purposes. Probably none of the biblical trumpets were primarily musical instruments...The seventh, climactic trumpet (Rev 11:15) signals the complete investiture of Christ and beginning of his total and eternal domain of the world (the end of the battle and recall of troops).”

“The ultimate vindication of the city comes in the apocalyptic vision of the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven (Rev 21:2), symbolic of its divine origin and its transcendence of human and earthly reality. With the appearance of this heavenly city, the kingdom of the world has become 'the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ' (Rev 11:15). Its ancient rival, Babylon, which attempts to subvert it, will ultimately be destroyed and cast down (Rev 18).”

“The seed of the kingdom of God is rooted and growing under the unwitting guardianship of the great Roman Empire where Caesar is king. Here is an anticipation of the time when 'the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ' (Rev 11:15).”

Revelation 11:16

Regarding the 24 elders in this verse, we must first understand the imagery behind the number 12: “As a symbol, twelve is one of the most important numbers in the Bible...the importance of this number derives from the emergence of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen 49:28)...The significance of twelve carries over into the NT. Jesus appointed twelve apostles (Mk 3:14), probably as a symbol of the restoration of Israel...The symbolism of twelve appears frequently in the book of Revelation.”

At this point, the author of this comment cites Revelation 7:5-8; 12:1-2; 21:1-4,12,14,16,21; and 22:2. However, he/she leaves out 11:16 in which we see 24 elders, obviously representative of the leadership of God's chosen people in both the OT and NT.

Revelation 11:17

“References to harps lend an otherworldly atmosphere to the picture of heavenly realms (Rev 5:8; 14:2; 15:2). Most pervasive of all is the singing of the saints in heaven over their redemption and glory (Rev 5:12-13; 7:12; 11:17; 14:3; 15:3).”

Revelation 11:18

“In Revelation 11:15-19 the events surrounding the blowing of the seventh trumpet are given. This is the time for the 'judging of the dead' (v. 18). At the climactic moment God's heavenly temple appears, and within it is seen the ark of the covenant, God's mobile battle standard. This vision is accompanied by convulsions of nature associated with the appearance of the divine warrior.”

“In very many instances the Bible uses small as an opposite to great, in reference to rank, station, the range of society and possibly height. A common phrase refers to crowds, the 'small and great' (e.g., Esther 1:5: Job 3:19: Jon 3:5; Rev 11:18).”

Revelation 11:19

“Specific types of place fill out the spatial pictures of heaven. The nearly dozen references to God's throne in heaven lend a royal quality to it, indicative both of the splendor of the place and the authority of the God who rules the universe from heaven...Sometimes heaven has the features of a celestial temple (Is 6:1; Rev 3:12; 11:19; 15:5), in keeping with the worship that occurs there.”

“From [the] association of earthquakes with God's revealing himself comes the substantial presence of this imagery in apocalyptic literature. Thus Hebrews, drawing on Haggai 2:6, looks forward to the final shaking of the heavens and earth (Heb 12:16-17). Revelation, also drawing on the many references in Scripture, includes a number of references to earthquakes (Rev 8:5; 11:13,19; 16:18-20). The fact that the area of the seven churches in western Turkey is prone to earthquakes...must have heightened the imagery to the original hearers.”

“Revelation's images of Gods heavenly throne room allude back to the wilderness tabernacle. It contains an altar of incense (Rev 5:8), an altar of sacrifice (Rev 6:9), the ark (Rev 11:19; cf. Rev 15:5-8) and so forth...Revelation promises that the heavenly ark, once concealed (like the earthly one, behind a curtain), will be exposed to public view (Rev 11:19).”

Conclusion

And it is appropriate to close with one final comment on the passage as a whole:

“A final repository of imagery of worship is the book of Revelation, where worship is perhaps the central ingredient in heavenly ritual. Revelation 4 is an entire chapter devoted to the portrayal of worship. Elaborate attention is devoted to the transcendent setting of the worship and to the strange beings who conduct it. Worship occurs around the throne of God, and its keynote is praise of God's worthiness. Thereafter we find interspersed scenes that resemble the opening scene (Rev 5:6-14; 7:9-12; 11:16-19; 15:2-8). Much of the imagery in the Apocalypse draws upon OT references to temple worship and the theophanies [i.e. divine appearances] of God (with imagery of thunder and lightning).”

 

RIDICULOUS SINS IN THE BIBLE

I must admit that I enjoy reading the posts on the atheistic website Quora. They provide a wealth of misinformation regarding the Bible. One enlightening post came from Jason Brody, who offers as his credentials the fact that he had “studied with many Masters such as Osho, Gangaji, Ichazo, and Sat Shree.”

Forgive me for not bowing down to his superior education, but I must also admit that I have never heard of any of these “Masters” before. Instead, let's just consider his gripe with the Bible, which concerns the fact that it labels as “sins” a number of common human traits that by no means should be considered as evil at all. I will address these ridiculous “sins” one at a time.

Telling Jokes (Ephesians 5:4)

Among a litany of practices which Paul says are not pleasing to God is constantly engaging in foolish talking and jesting. Simpson explains that this refers to the sort of “drolleries verging on obscenity ...sallies of festal license in vogue, and squalid indecency” common in Ephesus at the time of writing. “

These crying evils would flaunt as established, conventions of society in such libertine environments as Ephesus.” Thus, this teaching does not at all apply to simple jokes themselves. After all, Jesus was actually known for his lighthearted and humorous approach to teaching others.

Killing a Bird in its Nest (Deuteronomy 22:6)

I am amazed that Brody, with all his training under Eastern “masters,” finds any objection at all to this overtly humanitarian treatment of animals that went far beyond teachings of any other nation at the time. After all, the Hindus treat all animal life, including gnats, as holy.

Craigie discusses the Jewish rationale behind such a prohibition, which only specifically applies to a bird which is raising young chicks at the time. He feels that it is a practical conservation measure since “to take the mother and leave the others would not be possible, for they would not be able to survive without the mother. Thus by taking the young birds (or eggs) but letting the mother go, food was acquired without the source of food for the future being cut off. The legislation thus has something in common with modern conservation laws. The large-scale killing of any species can lead to a serious diminution in its numbers and to eventual extinction.”

Being a Vegetarian (I Timothy 4:1-4)

Now with this objection I can certainly see why Brody, with his background in Eastern beliefs, would balk at labeling vegetarianism as a sin. But that is not at all what Paul is implying. His objection instead is on those who attempt to impose their own restrictive diets on others. And in a Jewish context this meant strict observance of the Jewish food laws as a means of earning God's favor. More specifically, in the specific context of living a Christian life in the midst of a pagan culture, that applied to abstention from meat not prepared by kosher standards and from meat sold in the marketplace that could have possibly been earlier offered as a sacrifice to a pagan god.

Such externally imposed limitations on what is and is not acceptable to eat have no place in the Christian life, which instead is to be centered on gladly receiving what God has provided mankind for nourishment, rather than becoming embroiled again in the nit-picky arguments of the rabbis concerning the minutia of a diet acceptable to God. So it is not at all a case of labeling vegetarianism itself as a sin, but just misguided attempts to force others into accepting your personal perspective on the issue and/or insisting that any other view is a sin.

Being Imperfect (Matthew 5:48)

As a conclusion to a litany of the various ways in which a believer can please God, most having to do with loving attitudes and behavior toward others, Jesus summarizes it all with the admonition: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

The first, and most important, thing to point out is that nowhere does Jesus even hint that lack of perfection in a Christian is a sin, as Brody states. Perfection is obviously being presented as the ultimate goal which a believer should pursue even though fully achieving it is impossible this side of the grave.

Secondly, as Albright and Mann note, “the word teleios in this context does not refer to moral perfection, but 'truth, sincerity'...It does not have here the later Greek meaning of being 'totally free of imperfection'...”

Seeking Wealth (I Timothy 6:9-10)

As most commentators will point out, being wealthy itself is not a sin and neither is even wanting to have more money. The problem is is what such desires can easily lead to, and it is these which are the actual sins. Both Jesus and Paul enumerate the nature of these very real temptations which are generally associated with an overwhelming desire for monetary gain – placing money rather than God as your idol, gaining money at the expense of other people, never being satisfied enough to stop accumulating more, and hoarding your possessions without sharing your blessings with others. These sins separate a person from both God and his fellow man. Knight notes that the desires here are called anoptos, 'foolish.' with “the primary emphasis being moral rather than intellectual...and blaberas, i.e., 'harmful' or injurious'...”

Planning Your Future (Matthew 6:34)

Hendricksen states, “Providing for tomorrow is one thing. To a certain extent this cannot be condemned. See Luke 16:8,9...becoming anxious for tomorrow is always wrong. The only right way to provide for tomorrow without at the same time being anxious is to take care that today the admonition of verse 33 ('But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness') is obeyed.”

Additionally, Jesus in his teachings warned against thinking that you are the complete master of your own fate and can by your own hard work achieve whatever goals you have set for yourself. To do that is to put yourself in the place of God and ignore the fact that you are ultimately dependent on Him as well as random circumstances totally beyond your control.

Asking for a Pay Raise (Luke 3:14)

This criticism is way out of line since it ignores the whole verse, which reads, “Soldiers also asked him [i.e. John the Baptist], 'And we, what should we do?' He said to them, 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusations, and be satisfied with your wages.'”

Ellis explains that these were probably Jewish soldiers who were assigned to protect the tax collectors or soldiers of the Jewish puppet ruler. In either case, they were obviously government workers who did not have a union to protect them and had no way of increasing their income without using their power and position to illegally defraud others. John tells them them that that is not a viable option pleasing to God. This example says absolutely nothing regarding an employee in the private sector who feels he is being underpaid and complains to his boss.

If Brody wished to find a more applicable example, he should have instead chosen Jesus' parable of the workers in the field who were hired as day-laborers. Those people reached a mutually agreeable wage with their employer but then later complained when those hired later in the day received the same amount of money for much less time worked. (see Matthew 20).

But even this far more appropriate Scripture passage does not prove Brody's assertion that sins in the Bible are ridiculous since (a) the landowner defrauded absolutely no one in the process and (b) the parable is really teaching about God's rewards in heaven being equal for each person independent of how much of their life was spent serving the Lord. As France puts it, “[God's] generosity transcends human ideas of fairness. No one receives less than they deserve, but some receive far more.”

Loving Your Life (John 12:25)

“The parable in v. 24 is followed by a maxim-like saying concerning loving and hating life. For people of the world, even today the idea of 'hating life' seem to be too much to swallow. But one must remember the Semitic love for absolute contrasts in argument. Similar types of argument can be found in Mark 8:35 and Luke 9:24 concerning saving and losing one's life and in Matt 10:39 concerning finding and losing life.” The commentator who framed these words (and I have unfortunately lost his name) also points to passages such as Genesis 29:30-31; Malachi 1:2; Matthew 5:43; and Romans 9:13 which utilize this same literary device.

Being Anxious (Philippians 4:6)

To some extent, this issue was already addressed above when talking about Matthew 6:34. In addition, the comments of Hughes bear citing here: “Paul wasn't lounging under a palm on the Isle of Capri sipping a cool drink, dictating, 'Don't worry, be happy!' No detachment here. Paul's whole existence was on the bubble; danger was everywhere. Few things were going right for him, humanly speaking. So understand that the apostle's command came with feeling...Paul's command is an echo of Jesus' teaching to his disciples in Matthew 6:25-34. There Jesus identifies worry as simply pagan (v. 32) and asked his hearers to consider the birds of the air as examples of God's provision...The corollary to not worrying is to take up Paul's following command to pray ...(v.6b).” The result will be the peace of God.

Conclusion

Before ending this post, it needs to be pointed out that not a single one of the examples above really falls under the category of SIN. Instead they constitute rather gentle reminders and valuable advice to believers as to actions and mindsets that may pose potential pitfalls to their pursuit of the godly life.

BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS THAT ARE NOT CONTRADICTIONS

The Quora website sent out an invitation for its atheistic readers to submit their favorite biblical contradictions. Most of them were the same old tired reruns that appear again and again in various places, and which I have attempted to address in numerous posts (see especially any posts starting with the words “Biblical Contradiction”). Now a biblical contradiction almost always means a conflict between two or more different passages of Scripture, and that was certainly what the editor of Quora intended. But apparently not all atheists are capable of understanding that concept. I have already dealt with one such “contradiction” which even the author admitted was no contradiction at all, but just some passages she couldn't stand. And below are two more such contributions:

“God couldn't be omniscient as it would violate this universe's speed of light limit on the transfer of information.”

That comment is of course a supposed contradiction between theological claims based on a number of passages in the Bible and what we now know regarding the laws of science. And it actually sounds rather similar to something I, when an aspiring scientist in high school, thought I had discovered in the Bible.

My naive “insight” was based on Revelation 8 which begins with silence in heaven for one-half hour followed by an angel given incense to mingle with the prayers of the saints. I figured that these must have been spoken prayers since that was how people prayed in biblical times. And since they couldn't travel any faster than the speed of sound, it must have taken one-half hour to reach heaven. Therefore from that information, I was able to calculate how far heaven was away from earth. As I recall, I managed to prove in that manner that heaven was located somewhere in our solar system between the orbits of two of the further planets.

I realize that this sounds utterly ridiculous, but it is no more audacious and an example of gross hubris than the sophomoric attempt to try to put limitations on a Being who created the whole universe along with the “laws” to govern it, and to do so by quoting one of those “laws” that He came up with in the first place. Assuming that there is such an omnipotent Deity, His thoughts and His ways are obviously so far above us, that the best we can possibly do, and then only partially due to our limited earthly and intellectual perspective, is to “think God's thoughts after Him,” as Johann Kepler put it.

By the way, this same general train of argument was used by the Deists generations ago. They were utterly shocked at the very concept that God would possibly resort to any miraculous means whatsoever to accomplish His will. They felt that this would be highly underhanded and unfair of Him and demanded that He not “disobey” the very rules that He was making the rest of us abide by.

We must also keep in mind that time after time, accepted and “universal” verities in science have later been overthrown or shown to apply only under certain conditions. For example, Einstein's findings were not accepted until verifiable experiments proved them to be true. And then in turn, Einstein refused to accept later theories that introduced uncertainties into the equation and spent the last part of his life vainly attempting to disprove them. And in my own restricted field of the synthesis of heterocyclic compounds, I have even been a very small part of that process of correcting past findings and breaking new ground during my career as a research scientist.

“The peaceful tale of shepherds visiting a new baby before the parents peacefully returned home to present their new offspring at their own home temple.”

I fully realize that there are difficult passages in the Bible which need careful study to properly understand. But understanding these is nowhere near as difficult as trying to make sense out of the above comment. It appears to be a total non sequitor. So please forgive me if I am just too obtuse to see what the above sentence has anything to do with a biblical contradiction. I am therefore going to try to read the author's mind and propose the following interpretations as to what that person is driving at.

We can first assume from the information given above that he or she is referring to the nativity story as narrated in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1-2 since neither Mark nor John record these particular events.

Possibility #1

Since the author of this “contradiction” repeats rather needlessly the word “peaceful(ly),” I might guess that it is to be read sarcastically. If so, then the point may be that this story is just too sickeningly sweet to take seriously. But in fact this narrative was never meant to be taken as a peaceful story. It is anything but that, as evidenced from the following taken from those same passages in the Synoptic Gospels:

Mary is a teen or pre-teen who, probably though an arranged marriage, is forced to marry an elderly widower who may have already had two sons who could have been older than Mary herself.

Not only that, but she becomes pregnant while still engaged to Joseph, and it is only by the goodness of Joseph that he decides to cancel the marriage quietly rather than bring total disgrace on Mary. But that would of course have left her alone to raise her child.

They must travel to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth while Mary is nine-months pregnant.

The reason they need to travel is to obey the command of their conquerors, the Romans, who ruled the land at the time.

The purpose of the travel was to conduct a census of the people for the purpose of assessing future taxes on them, which the poor, such as the Holy Family, could ill afford to pay.

The town is so crowded that they can't even find a decent place to stay and are forced to occupy a stable, which may have been nothing more that a simple lean-to.

They share their abode with a group of smelly animals.

Mary has to put her newborn baby in an empty feeding trough.

They have to put up with a group of even smellier shepherds, generally accepted to represent the very dregs of Jewish society.

Possibility #2

Perhaps the objection is that Luke's account purposely ignores the gory details found in Matthew's version. Thus it leaves out the subsequent events in which Herod attempts to kill Jesus; he murders the children of Bethlehem instead; and the family is forced to flee to Egypt in exile until Herod dies. There is no disputing the fact that of the four Gospels, each one contains details that the others leave out. So you can chose to take that as a contradiction if you wish. However, there is a good reason for all four narratives being included in the Bible. All are needed to get what one commentator calls a stereoscopic view of the events that transpired. It is only natural that different people would emphasize or de-emphasize one or another of the details in order to make their own theological points. In short, no one who has really read the story in all four complementary accounts would take it to be a pleasant, whitewashed account of reality. And the differences between the accounts, at least concerning the nativity and early events in Jesus' life do not contradict one another.

Possibility #3

Or perhaps the “contradiction consisted of the fact that it is unrealistic to assume that the parents would have had an audience with a group of mere shepherds before presenting Jesus at “the local temple.” That would have been an insult to God.

This approach makes just as little sense. Did the author of the objection really think that there would be any high officials, political or religious, around at the time of the birth in a tiny backwater village? Or perhaps he/she thinks that Joseph and Mary should have sent the shepherds on their way because they were too unworthy to see their child. But then why didn't they alternatively go to the “local temple” immediately instead of waiting a whole eight days before doing so?

At this point, it is helpful to inject a little reality into the situation. The fact is that even the mention of a “local temple” would have been considered heretical to a Jew at the time. There was only one temple and that was in Jerusalem.

As to waiting eight whole days before getting the child circumcised, that was the legally specified waiting time. And the procedure was not carried out at the Jerusalem temple at all, but done by some local person trained to do it, presumably in Bethlehem itself although that fact is not mentioned in the narrative.

Also, the Jewish law said that a whole 40 days after the birth needed to transpire before the mother and son were allowed to go to the Jerusalem temple for a purification ceremony. Thus, the biblical story demonstrates how Joseph and Mary were quite scrupulous in obeying all of the Old Testament laws governing their situation.

 

CRITICISM OF EZEKIEL 23

 

One female reader of the Quora website took advantage of a call that the editor sent out for atheists to send in their favorite Bible contradictions. Instead she replied: “I personally like Ezekiel 23:20. It's not really a contradiction though, just misogyny and sexual repression of desire at its Biblical finest.”

It turns out that she is by no means alone in her view of that chapter of Ezekiel (which I urge you to read yourself before proceeding with the commentary below). Some radical scholars have even dismissed the whole book of Ezekiel as being the uncontrolled ravings of a madman. And many others (who, by the way, remain Christians nevertheless) have begun to question the text from a feminist viewpoint. Let's consider this last-mentioned school of Bible criticism first along with some moderating views.

Feminist Interpretations

“Feminist approaches consider the prophetic literature to be intrinsically culturally conditioned against women. This shortcoming, it is argued, is manifest in the negative portrayals of Israel as a wayward, unfaithful wife and in the descriptions of judgment as terrible abuse perpetrated on her (note Jer 3-4; Ezek 16;23; Hos 1-3). At the same time, the God of the prophets is portrayed as a male, a jealous and violent husband...” (M.D. Carroll)

Carroll goes on to characterize this as “a hermeneutics of suspicion that questions texts and encourages resisting the literary strategies of their encoded ideologies, which can be blatantly expressed or subtly disguised as subtexts. This subversive reading 'against the grain' often is done self-consciously from a certain interested position (such as feminism). Primacy is given to the reader as over against any written text, even the Bible...”

Tiemeyer points out: “There are two ways of looking at Ezekiel 16 and Ezekiel 23. One can interpret the text in its historical setting and focus on the underlying tenor of the metaphor – that is on Judah's political alliances and God's anger at Judah's lack of trust in his ability to preserve perspective or concentrate on the vehicle of the metaphor – that is, on the interplay between the man (God) and his wife (Judah). Most feminist scholarship on Ezekiel 16 and Ezekiel 23 approaches the text from this [latter] perspective.”
“Feminist scholars...have taken the words of Hosea 1-3 and Ezekiel 16; 23 as literal descriptions of actual marriage practices. This leads these feminist scholars to condemn the culture, the prophets and the God of these texts as misogynistic. Other scholars...have urged caution in reading the rhetoric of these prophets as literal descriptions of marital practices. When reading powerful texts such as Hosea and Ezekiel, one needs to focus on their powerful use of metaphor in the rhetoric they employ.” And if that latter tack is taken, “we find that the texts are powerful metaphorical pieces that point to the oncoming destruction of a people who have been unfaithful to their covenant with Yahweh.” (Parker)

Greenberg responds to feminist interpretations in the following way: “There can be no doubt that such readings are authentic expressions of the pain and outrage experienced by feminists who search Scripture for reflections of their constructions of reality and meet with Ohilah and Oholibah. The feminist project, promoting a new female reality, necessarily clashes with Scripture – one of the fashioners of the reality to be superseded. At bottom what feminists criticize is not what the texts meant to those who composed and received them in their historical context, but what the text means in today's context...Whether aiming to savage Scripture or to salvage it, feminists are judgmental. They applaud or decry, approve or disapprove. They write to promote a new gender reality.”

Literary Considerations

The above comments point out accurately the limitations of a strictly feminist approach to this chapter.

So let's begin to understand it in its historical and literary context, as we would with any other portion of Scripture. The first thing to admit is that Ezekiel 23 is rather over-the-top in its language. Block says, “If this chapter is recognized as the locus classicus for bawdy vocabulary, it is because it has intensified the sex-related imagery of ch. 16...” One feminist commentator has even called it pornoprophecy. And as hinted at above, this is obviously not to be taken as literal in any way whatsoever. Instead, this chapter has been characterized as a metaphor, allegory, or parable – literary forms known for often going to outrageous extremes in order to get their point across. Just witness some of the NT parables with people building houses on sand, loaning huge amounts of money to servants, killing owners of a field so that they can have it for themselves, going into poverty in order to purchase a pearl, burying money that was meant for investment, etc.

For example, Greenberg speaks of “Oholibah's extraordinary obtuseness, leading her into unheard-of promiscuity, resulting in unprecedented punishment.”

As for the use of sexual imagery to get a point across, two articles in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery say the following:

“The unfaithfulness of God's people is personified by images of Zion as a barren woman who prostitutes her sexuality, thus frustrating her fertility (Jer 3:1-3; Ezek 23; Hos 9:11,12).”

“In expressing his message of judgment, Ezekiel uses a wide variety of vivid imagery. He employs the language of unfaithfulness. Jerusalem is like an adopted daughter that has rebelled (Ezek 16), Jerusalem and Samaria are like two sisters united in their addiction to prostitution (Ezek 23).”

“The nation (Jerusalem, Samaria, Nineveh) as a shameless, abused and disgraced degenerate prostitute, who is punished by being publically abused and disgraced, is a recurrent metaphor (Jer 13:22,26; Ezek 23; Hos 2:3,9; Nahum 3:5-6).”

Confirming that the main meaning of the chapter does not lie at all in its sexual imagery are the many scholarly analyses which take each verse one by one and identify the historical event in the history of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms which is being described there. It is a sad history of Israel being seduced into running toward one after another foreign country in order to make alliances with it rather than trusting that God would take care of them if they only remained faithful to Him.

But despite the above, I would imagine that some feminist critics would still ask the question: “Why are the negative images always of women in the Bible?” That issue does need facing.

It is first of all best to admit that God is almost always pictured as a man in the Old Testament. And the fact that He later came to earth in the form of a man only reinforces that image. One could, however, argue that the Holy Spirit seems to share more traditionally female characteristics such as offering comfort to those in need. In any case, to refer to God gender-free as “it” is not a good option either because of that pronoun's highly impersonal nature. And to turn God into a goddess instead would have been no better since in biblical times and locales goddesses generally had sexually charged implications and were closely associated with fertility. So if by process of elimination we are stuck with a “masculine” Deity, the proper relationship of His creation to Him is naturally pictured as that of a loyal spouse. And conversely, any fracture of that relationship by the wife must be pictured as adultery or prostitution.

Adding to the appropriateness of that male-female imagery is the fact that cities and nations were generally referred to by using feminine pronouns.

In my reading up on the subject, I came across the comments of one scholar (unfortunately, I can't recall his name) who came up with what I thought was a very helpful slant on the problem. He pointed out that Ezekiel's comments were not directed at all to women and their behavior since they had little or no say on political decisions at that time. Instead, God through the prophet was squarely addressing the male leadership of the straying nations. And to shake them up and get their attention, they were being overtly compared, in the crudest terms possible, not only to women (which alone would probably have been taken as an insult in that predominantly patriarchal society), but actually as utterly shameless, nymphomaniacal prostitutes.

The Whole Counsel of Scripture

It is an accepted tenet of responsible biblical hermeneutics that all of Scripture must be taken into account before making any rash generalizations regarding God's will based on only a few passages. This is especially true in light of the fact that the full revelation of God's will for man took centuries to come about. Thus, let us first consider some other OT passages before making any generalizations concerning the Bible's “sexual repression of female desire.”

Women are sometimes pictured in the OT narratives as being “liberated” sexually, but some are rightly taken as negative examples. Lot's two daughters wait until their father is drunk and then take sexual advantage of him; Jacob's two sister-wives fight over the right to sleep with him and resort to an aphrodisiac; Potiphar's wife takes an undue interest in the young Joseph while he is in slavery; Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute in order to have sex with her father-in-law; and Bathsheba certainly does not put up much of a fight when David summons her to his bedchamber. But, of these examples, the only cases which could be attributed to unrepressed female desire are those of Potiphar's wife and possibly Bathsheba, who may have purposely bathed when she knew David was watching her. Neither case is condoned in the Bible. And the other examples appear not to be due to female sexual desire as much as the wish to have a child at all costs.

But to get a fuller picture of what the OT has to say on the subject, it is best to look at the wisdom literature found there. In the opening chapters of Proverbs, there is no denying that the “loose woman,” a sexually liberated wife who attempts to lure in young men who pass by her door, is intended to be a wholly negative figure in that such men who succumb to her wiles are flirting with disaster. But she is balanced by the even more powerful positive feminine image of Lady Wisdom who urges such men to follow her instead if they wish a long and prosperous life.

A step even further in the direction of sexual liberation is seen in The Song of Songs. Unique for biblical writings, this book appears to concentrate wholly on the acceptable satisfaction of both male and female sexual desires, expressed through rather explicit figurative language. But in this case, the only appropriate means for satisfying such desires is seen to be found in a devoted monogamous relationship.

The New Testament goes even further in giving examples and teachings to go by. Thus, we are treated to the following:

    Jesus' favorable comments regarding the loose woman who anointed his feet,

    His refusal to go along with the Jews' demand that the adulterous woman be stoned,

    His kind treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well who practiced a life of serial monogamy and worse,

    Paul's pronouncement in Galatians in 3:28 regarding the equality of male and female in God's sight,

    the picture of the church as the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27,

Paul's full recognition of both male and female sexual desire leading to his admonitions to marry rather than give into the desires without a marriage commitment (I Cor. 7:8-9) as well as teaching that any abstaining from sexual relations within a marriage must be of a temporary basis only (I Cor. 7:1-6).

In conclusion, if the woman I quoted at the start of this post who objected to the practice of sexual repression of female desires means by that the Bible teaches that sexual relationships should be confined to those between married parties, then I would have to agree with her. There is certainly no warrant for free sex found in the pages of Scripture.

DID THE HEBREWS OPPRESS FOREIGN SLAVES?

 

In response to a call on the Quora website for atheists' favorite Bible contradictions, one reader posted the following: “The Hebrews are never supposed to oppress a 'stranger' but then they are allowed to buy the children of strangers to use as lifetime slaves.”

One of the first problems in dealing with such blanket accusations is that the respondent did not bother to provide any specific Old Testament passages to which he/she was referring. And thus I am not 100% sure that I am responding appropriately. However, there were passages referring to Hebrews in debt being forced to sell their children to fellow Hebrews on a temporary basis. So here is the best I can do to try and answer this objection.

It all starts with an understanding what words such as 'stranger,' 'oppress,' and 'slavery' actually meant in OT times within the Jewish community. This is necessary before proceeding since to those in today's society,

    Stranger generally connotes anyone that we don't personally know.

    Oppress means any form of compulsion whatsoever that interferes with our right to live as we please.

    Slavery conjures up the worst excesses of Southern exploitation of blacks before the American Civil War.

With such a mindset, it is not at all surprising that some would self-righteously pass judgment on those living roughly three thousand thousand years ago in a completely different cultural setting than today. But the quotations below from noted Bible scholars on these issues may help to set the record straight.

Stranger

The various Hebrew words translated as 'stranger' in the OT simply refer to non-Hebrew people, those not descended from Jacob. It has nothing at all to do with whether you happened to know the person, but only with genealogy. And as such, care was taken (or supposed to be taken) to maintain the purity of that line in keeping with the fact that that the Jews were “God's chosen people.” There are numerous examples in the OT of people like Solomon who ignored that principle and ended up being caught up in the worship of the pagan deities of his many foreign wives. On the other hand, one can cite the example of Ruth, who certainly met the definition of a “stranger,” and her incorporation into the Hebrew line that ultimately led to the Messiah.

Oppress

Stepping away from our modern presuppositions, the biblical definition of oppression meant unduly harsh treatment of those owned.

Slavery

Understanding the definition of a slave in Old Testament times starts with the realization that the same Hebrew words are often used to describe both a slave and servant. Also, the fact that most of the regulations regarding slavery applied to both Hebrew and foreign slaves.

With that brief background, here are some randomly arranged comments taken from the scholarly literature that may help clarify the situation. Unfortunately, since all three of the above issues are quite interrelated, there is no real systematic way of presenting what commentators have to say.

Varieties of Servitude

“Three types of slavery existed in Israel: by birth or purchase Hebrews served fellow Hebrews as security against poverty, Hebrews took non-Hebrews as slaves through purchase or capture in war, and Hebrews sold themselves to non-Hebrews as security against debt. In the first type slaves were eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Exod. 21:2-6; Lev. 25:10, 38-41). In the second type slaves were circumcised and sworn into covenant membership (Gen. 17:9-14, 23; Deut. 29:10-15) but were not eligible for sabbatical and Jubilee benefits (Lev. 25:44-46).” (Swartley)

The most common Hebrew word for slave is 'ebed, appearing about 800 times in the Old Testament. But Schultz explains that “there has been considerable debate concerning the basic concept underlying 'ebed, which allows it to describe both the lowest social status, abject slavery, and the highest privilege afforded a person – that of being God's servant. Since 'ebed can be used to describe relationships that involve no obligations, no social inferiority, and only temporary conditions..., it is best to understand the 'ebed as one who is dependent on another and accordingly carries out his will or acts for his benefit.”

One distinction between Hebrew slaves who were Jews and those who were not is that the jubilee release clause does not apply to the latter class. Wenham explains: “A theological reason underlies this discrimination: God redeemed his people from Egyptian slavery, to become his slaves (Leviticus 25: 42,55). It is unfitting that an Israelite should be resold into slavery, especially to a foreigner.”

Comparison with Other Societies

Next, it is necessary to compare Jewish laws on the subject of slavery with those of other nations in the Middle East at the time. And on this relative scale, the Bible proves to be much more enlightened. C. Wright says, “The OT did not eliminate all social structures, such as the subordinate social and economic status of the slave. It did, however, go a long way in mitigating the worst effects through a theology of essential human equality based on common createdness. OT law knows nothing of the graded penalties for crimes against different ranks of victim, as was common in ANE [the ancient Near East] law. God commanded both native and alien to be treated equally (Lev 24:22). The slave was given human and legal rights unheard of in contemporary societies (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27).”

As examples, Schultz points out that “slaves were to be protected from physical abuse by their masters (Exod 21:20-21, 26-27), and runaway slaves were to be given refuge (Deut 23:15-16).” Elsewhere he writes: “The Pentateuchal legislation does not criticize the institution of slavery, but includes numerous laws that protect salves and accord them many of the rights of a citizen, regardless of the circumstances leading to their enslavement...These laws are theologically significant, for there is wide agreement among scholars that Israelite attitudes toward and treatment of slaves were unique in the ANE.”

“Few pieces of literature, ancient or modern, come close to the prophetic defense of the poor against the wiles of the rich. Amos cries out against the rich who abuse the poor by means of slavery (Amos 2:6), through their uncaring lifestyles (4:1), through their denial of justice (5:12), and by economic exploitation (8:4,6).” (Domeris)

Ross states that “the indentured servants must not be treated harshly (25:44-46). The word perek means 'harsh, crushing.' The Israelites had indentured servants from time to time and they sometimes acquired other people as their possessions. They could not, however, rule over their servants with crushing or backbreaking force.”

One indication that slavery among the Hebrews was not that harsh comes from Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, which describe an ear-piercing ceremony carried out if a temporary slave wished to become a permanent one.

Kaiser provides a good summary of this subject: “What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20-21,26 applied to them. One evidence of mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14)...The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war...But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.”

Progressive Revelation

As with a number of other issues, it appears that God only revealed his full will for mankind in stages. This process began even within the OT. “A creditor was legally entitled to recover a debt from an insolvent debtor by taking into service the man's wife and children (cf. Exod 21:7). There are good grounds for thinking that the law in Deut 15:1-3 is later than both Exod 23:10-11 and Lev 25:27 and that its aim was to expand on the law of seventh year fallow so that compassion would be extended not only to the landless poor, but also to those landowners who had become burdened by poverty and debt...the Sabbath year and Jubilee laws demanded remission of both debts and bondages every seventh and fiftieth year, respectively.” (Wakely) But keep in mind that this release from bondage only applied to slaves who were fellow Hebrews.

To really obtain a biblical perspective on the subject of slavery, one must by necessity look at New Testament teachings and examples for the most complete revelation. Some of this is discussed in my posts titled “Why Philemon?” and “Philemon.” Paul presents the final word when he states in Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

One Final Comparison

I realize that some may not be convinced by any of the above and will argue that it only goes to prove that the OT teachings on slavery were marginally better than the practices of foreign nations at the time. So instead of going back 3,000 years, let's consider an example from our own “free” country at a time soon after of its founding. And rather looking at the sad example of oppressive slavery of blacks by plantation owners in the deep South, what about that universal idol of atheists and freethinkers today – Thomas Jefferson himself. He is deeply admired by many for his great intellect, wisdom and statesmanship. Atheists especially look up to him as a shining example for his willingness to rise above the restrictive Christian doctrines at the time, casting them aside and declaring himself not even a Theist, but a Deist who did not believe the impersonal Deity had any interaction with human beings or earthly affairs after setting the Creation in motion. One of the sacred texts of atheists and agnostics is the famous Jefferson Bible in which he cut and pasted only those parts of the Bible of which he approved along with equally applicable teachings from ancient philosophers.

This paragon of enlightenment was exposed not too many years ago when his diaries became readily available to the general public. It turns out that Jefferson took advantage of his position of master to sexually abuse a black servant and have children by her, and then refused to have them liberated on his death. In addition, he spent so much money on constantly redesigning Monticello, that he desperately needed more income from his estate. His main source of revenue came from the number of black children which were kept at work for long hours in his small manufacturing enterprise. And when the income from this source began to fall, he hired back an overseer whom he had earlier fired for his overly harsh treatment of the children. In that way he hoped to increase their output.

If one argues that Jefferson should not be judged by today's standards but by the society in which he lived at the time, then that is exactly what I have done above concerning biblical teachings on slavery. And even that is not an excuse for Jefferson since there are records showing clearly that when his neighboring landowning Virginians pleaded with him to emancipate his slaves as they had already done, he staunchly refused.