The Old Testament Wrap –up VII: The Really Outdated Parts of the Old Testament

Posted on September 7, 2013 by virgowriter

I play softball, and although my team has a great time, we don’t win a lot of games.  When we come up against a really good team, they will go a bit easy on us when their lead has reached double digits—why trounce all over a team just because you can?

And so, with this mindset, it feels sad to pick on a book written so long ago, but, given how often it is used against me, it’s worth mentioning the parts that really don’t hold up.  I’m not splitting hairs here.  These parts are the ones that most rational people perhaps acknowledge but, when pressed, will probably tell you: yeah, those are the parts I skip or pretend aren’t there.

The laws from Leviticus that don’t hold up (sans the gay part, which I already covered) are too numerous to mention, though a few that are worth mentioning:

  • Don’t get tattoos (19:28). Why aren’t people picketing tattoo parlors these days? Where is the incensed rage over inking people?
  • If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law (which, of course he should not do), then BOTH of them should be put to death (20:12). No mention of him raping her designated as a an excuse for her;
  • If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death (20:9). Not that you should disrespect your parents, but death?
  • Don’t plant your field with two kinds of seed (19:19). I’m no farmer, but I’m sure this happens. A lot. What would God think about genetically engineered seeds by Monsanto?
  • After a man touches his discharge (not pus from an infection, mind you), he is to count seven days for his ceremonial cleansing. On the eighth day, he must take two doves or two young pigeons and give them to the priest at the house of the Lord, where they will be sacrificed (15:13). I’m all for cleanliness, but how many pigeons do you think our culture would go through in a year following this one?

These made sense back then—when cleanliness was a bigger issue—but we’ve advanced, yes? And if these pique your interest, I highly recommend visiting (or revisiting) this Bible book.

And then there are the marriage laws in the Book of Ruth, which put the widow Ruth at a decided disadvantage.  Since women couldn’t own property, laws were created to keep property in the family.  So, the relative who was in line to inherit the property would acquire marriage “rights” to the widow. This nearest relative was known as the “kinsman redeemer.”

There’s a happy ending to this story, for the man who falls for Ruth, Boaz, jumps through a number of legal hoops to secure her hand. I’m trying to picture how much fun this would be in Judge Judy’s court, where modern people could fight over who has the right to marry the widow in the family.

But even more startling in light of our way of looking at the world—and other human beings—are the Rape laws discussed in Deuteronomy (and here I will quote what I already mentioned in a post on this topic):

If a man approached a betrothed woman in a city and sleeps with her (presumably by force), they would BOTH be stoned.  Given that they were in a city, she clearly could have yelled or put up more of a fight.  Screams would have brought help.  And since she didn’t call for it, she must have wanted it (22:23-24).

So it appears to be lucky if you were a woman who was raped in the countryside, for there, few people would be able to hear you if you screamed, so then the man who raped you would only be stoned (22:27).

But perhaps the real prize comes if the rape involves an unpledged female and he is caught in the act.  If so, he had to pay her father fifty shekels of silver, was forced to marry her, and then—the true penalty!—never be able to divorce her (22:28-29).  Ah, that will teach him a lesson! Why care about divorcing her if he can just go out and rape more women?

Now, I don’t have a problem with this (any of this) being in the Bible—these ideas are clearly a product of their time. So, although it might be easy to point a finger at such an old text and say see, things were messed up back then… the real issue, then, is not in the Bible.  The issue is when things like this are glossed over in favor of other ideas that—to some people—are not outdated (like a stance on homosexuality, for example).

Therefore, the issue is how the Bible is used by some people.

I know a number of people who hold strong beliefs, have deep faith, and follow the Bible, to a certain extent.  To them, the Bible provides a worthwhile guideline to live a just and happy life. To do this, they abide by the common sense aspects of the Bible (by today’s standards). In general, doing this makes them better people.

This is a wonderful use of the Bible.

However, if you are using the Bible to support a stance, especially one that undermines or oppresses a person or people, you are being hypocritical.  Picking and choosing which of God’s laws others are to abide by suggests that you have greater wisdom than God.  YOU understand which ones should apply to people and which ones should not.  The way around this, of course, is to abide by ALL of God’s laws, as dictated by the Bible. This includes some of the above mentioned details. I understand—and respect—why an individual or a family or even a community would choose to do this. As a country, however, are we willing to do that?

Consider this analogy: do we only abide by PART of the Constitution or are we held to all of it? Sure, you can argue that people in power skirt some of these laws. Fine. For the rest of us? We must abide. And if a portion becomes obsolete, we amend it.

Instead of using bits and pieces of the Bible to control the actions of others, can’t we do what happens near the end of the Old Testament?  Can’t we reduce all the positive ideas to a simple guiding principal mentioned in Micah: To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?

I look forward to The New Testament.

Posted in The Old Testament Wrap-up | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible’s Old Testament Wrap–up VI: Homosexuality in the Old Testament

Posted on September 4, 2013 by virgowriter

I was a really gullible kid.  Perhaps playfully, my dad and brother would use this against me, teasing me while we were in the car, like they were going to drop me off at the wizard’s house for an extended vacation. At various points in my life, I also believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and (until I got to college and learned better) trickle-down economics.

I believed my dad and brother because I could not believe that people I cared about would steer me wrong.  The fact that I couldn’t isolate their playful tone worked against me too.  As far as Santa, et. al, I bought in because I WANTED them to be true. Who doesn’t want candy and presents? As far as trickle-down economics, well, my Dad loved Reagan.

Besides, it was just easier taking someone else’s word for the existence of something without having to invest any of my own brain power. Call it based on faith, perhaps.

And so it seems that a number of other people are taking some source’s (or multiple sources, perhaps) word for it when it comes to what the Bible thinks of homosexuality.  Unless there’s a whole lot said about it in the New Testament, there’s very little dedicated to the topic in the Old Testament.

And what is said (or shown) is not always bad. To be clear, there is a flat-out denunciation of homosexuality (Leviticus).  More on that in a minute. But other places that are used as evidence for God’s thoughts on gays (Sodom and Gomorrah, for example) are taken out of context. And one place actually presents a loving, clearly-homosexual relationship as good positive.

I have often heard how the example of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (in Genesis) illustrates what happens when a society gets so out of hand that God must wipe the slate clean.  Part of the issue, apparently, involves the male residents’ homosexual activity, illustrated when two angels come to visit and are given shelter by Lot. When the men of the town learn of these male visitors, they demand that the two men be sent from Lot’s house so they can rape them.

See, some people have said, gays are evil. And that’s why God destroyed this city.  But clearly the moral part of the story is that you shouldn’t RAPE people, not that you shouldn’t have homosexual sex.

In Judges, a similar story surfaces when the “Levite and the Concubine” are traveling and are finally shown hospitality by an old man.  Then, some male townspeople come to his door and demand the Levite be brought out so they can rape him.  Again, bad rape story, not gay story.

Regardless of how one might read these two stories, Leviticus seems to make the point quite clear—and in fact is the most cited evidence for the Bible’s stance on homosexuality.  Among the listing of laws in this Bible book, 18:22 states: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

This seems straight forward; however if taken literally, this can’t happen (men lack vaginas, which makes lying with a man as he would a woman impossible). Even if one were to discount this simple fact of biology, what about the other laws Leviticus contains? Leviticus also mentions (among several other things) that we must “not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (19:19) and that you must not “cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard (19:27).

Why aren’t people also then boycotting clothing stores and hair salons?

Now, Leviticus appears early in the Old Testament (it’s the third book). So, as things evolved in that era, later books reflect evolved attitudes.  This happens with God’s laws (moving from rather strict to more flexible) as well as the expanded role of women, etc. So when the story of David and Jonathan appears, we see perhaps an embracing of a homosexual relationship, one that, thankfully, is based on love and affection, not (necessarily) sex.

These two are REALLY devoted to one another, and perhaps their open affection is merely an indication of the era—they kiss each other and weep together (1 Samuel 20:41).  But this still seems strange, given how militant the ban against homosexual sex was in Leviticus.  Their relationship can be shown to a deeper degree than friendship when, after Jonathan’s death, David grieves, believing that his friend’s love was “more wonderful than that of a woman (2 Samuel 1:26).

Clearly, this stretches beyond friendship. If the rule is that you should not lie with a man as you would a woman, surely this extends to not loving a man as you would a woman. For the physical act of intimacy is merely an extension of the emotional.

Why isn’t this brought out to discuss a positive example of homosexual love in the Bible, you know, the book that is supposedly crystal clear about its stance on gays and lesbians? But, of course, you would have to read the Old Testament for yourself to find this information, not rely on what someone else finds important (or worth mentioning).

Up Next: The Really Outdated Parts of the Old Testament

Posted in The Old Testament Wrap-up | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Old Testament Wrap –up V: The Messages Worthy of Embracing

Posted on September 2, 2013 by virgowriter

I was never one for soccer.  Games going on forever without a break + few goals scored =completely boring.  Then, in the summer of 2010, I didn’t have much going on, so I joined some friends for the televised World Cup matches.  And since we’d be watching at a bar, at least I wouldn’t stay thirsty.

The rest of the group was pretty amped for the matches—none of which included the US team.  They knew the major players, the teams’ strengths and weaknesses.  I watched the ball volley up and down the field.

At some point, my friend Tom, who had played soccer in college, explained the major rules and pointed out what was good or bad in the plays. When he did, the whole game opened up. Now I actually understood what I was watching, and this allowed me to develop an appreciation for the game that casual watching didn’t provide.

In some ways, the Bible is like soccer.  For me, anyway.

I read a few lines here and there, saw re-enactments of key scenes (birth of Jesus, for example), sat through films that have adapted its stories, and even read lines held up on handmade signs at demonstrations (like those who picket Pride events) or at Baseball games (I can’t wait to find out what John 3:16 means).

So I figured I’d had enough of an impression to form an opinion. But what I read in the Old Testament didn’t really fit with that impression.  Sure, some of it did—a small part, actually—but most of it is either glossed over or completely ignored when the Bible surfaces in conversation. It’s a shame, for what is often not held up all that often—at least where I would come into contact with it—is pretty interesting at times.

What makes these parts interesting? The stories and the messages imbedded in these tales.

Moses – You probably know his story already so I won’t rehash it here. However, it’s worth posing this question: Has there ever been a man who took on so much while getting so little in return? (Well, in the Old Testament, no.) Sure, he had God’s help, but it took a lot of faith to trek to Egypt and confront Pharaoh and then hold his band of Israelites together as they made their way to the promise land—and as the Old Testament makes clear, this was the hard part.  These people complained the whole way, and, in general, made his life difficult.

David – As a boy, he placed himself in harm’s way (against Goliath) because he felt like it was the right thing to do.  And then, he shunned celebrity and retained his loyalty to a king (Saul), even when the king tries to kill him. Says a lot about one’s devotion/loyalty to one’s community.

Esther – She puts her own life in jeopardy for the sake of protecting her people. And she does so without God’s help (one of the few Old Testament books without God’s explicit presence).

Noah – And talk about faith.  This guy builds a massive ship and loads it up in order to avoid the flood that no one else believes is coming.  The aftermath of the flood—as he releases the dove to search for confirmation of receding waters—comes to symbolize peace.

Ezra – Out of all the strong messages, this Bible book contains the real chestnut.  Ezra is to escort his people out of Babylon and back to the ravaged/sacked Jerusalem.  The king has had an epiphany of sorts: religious tolerance. Just because the Israelites believe something different than the king doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be respected and allowed to live their lives freely. Should this not be one of THE messages one should take from the Bible?

I may never plow through the Old Testament again—just as I may never spend marathon days following the World Cup.  But just as I appreciate soccer now, having had the game explained, I now appreciate the Bible in ways I never could had I not read it all the way through.  I probably won’t remember every passage or detail, but I will remember these strong people and the messages their journeys convey.

The people who rely on others to tell them what’s in the Bible miss out on some of this richness.

Up Next: Homosexuality in the Old Testament

Posted in The Old Testament Wrap-up | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment