The Old Testament has always been something of a challenge for me. The apparent inconsistencies in comparison with the message of the New Testament are troubling to say the least.
How does one reconcile the message of love, mercy, justice, and forgiveness presented by Jesus Christ with many of the Old Testament stories?
Under God's direction, The Israelites attack Jericho, and slay every man, woman, child and animal. Why would a loving God do this?
God instantly kills Uzzah for attempting to steady the Ark - an act that would seem to be a reflexive attempt to prevent it from tipping over after the Oxen carrying it jostle it. Yet David remains alive and King for some time after committing adultery, and murder. How is this fair?
One prophet lies to another prophet and gets him killed by God.
Some youths tease the prophet Elisha for his bald head, and his response is to curse them, causing them to be torn apart by bears.
I can accept (though barely) that the world is unfair, but in these events, God himself seems to be a participant, even an instigator of unfairness. How does this make sense?
I generally cope by assuming there is an issue with incorrect translation, or missing context, or that the story morphed over time. Someday, we'll learn that the youths were twenty-somethings, and they were dragging the prophet into the woods to lynch him, and they got too close to a mother bear with cubs, and God intervened so that Elisha wasn't also killed.
There is one issue which I recently managed to logic through in a way that made sense.
That is the issue of laws governing slavery.
Slavery is wrong. Forcing another person into bondage is wrong. Why then did God give laws governing slavery, seemingly condoning it? How does the existence of these laws fit with the idea of an unchanging, perfect God?
First, in brief summary, the laws set a maximum term of six years of service, after which the slave goes free, along with their spouse and any children - families are kept intact. There is a provision that if they don't want to go free, they are permitted to remain as a servant.
So, the laws, in essence, provided protection from hardship for slaves. They ensured a certain quality of life.
Now, under what circumstances would an Israelite obtain a slave?
The commandments "Though shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not covet" would eliminate a war of aggression as a possible avenue.
According to Jewish scholars, the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" was actually "Thou shalt not kidnap", when correctly translated.
What does that leave then?
Individuals who were unable to repay debts, and the spoils of a defensive war, are the only two I can think of.
If that is the case, then these are individuals who are in a state of extreme hardship. Either they lost a war they started, meaning they are likely wounded, widowed, or orphaned, in a kingdom (or tribe) which has just been decimated, or they are deeply indebted, and impoverished.
Either way, they are likely homeless, and with little to no prospect of being able to feed, clothe and shelter themselves.
So, considering the time period, this six-year sentence of servitude provided a degree of security for the servant, while at the same time allowing some means of recompense for outstanding financial or war debts. Thus, there is both justice AND mercy in these laws, when considering the period in history, and the interaction of other laws.
No, I don't think this justifies slavery, nor would it be applicable in our times (however, had the spirit of these laws been applied after World War One, it is quite likely World War Two would not have happened).
But there is a way in which it at least makes sense, a way in which there is congruity.
No comments:
Post a Comment