Andrew, I'm curious about your use of the phrase "in this day and age". Do you believe that the Bible was telling certain people in a certain time and/or place that they should, indeed *must*, stone their child? I can't believe in that sort of God, but on the other hand I can't believe that I have a higher morality than God, so to me the only conclusion is to discount the authority of some parts of the Bible.
But I'm interested to know how you resolve that problem.
Leviticus doesn't come up in the lectionary very often, so maybe substitute the account of Abraham making a sacrifice of Isaac. In a similar way, I can't believe in a God that would *ever* ask a person to put their child to death (and changing the request at the last minute doesn't alter that).
Good question. See my other post that crossed this for an OT passage I find even more challenging. (And BTW I think the passage to which Allan referred is actually Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I don't think Leviticus has any exactly corresponding regulation, although it has many with similar themes.)
I don't find the story of Isaac so very troubling. I think that, as Allan points out, we need to see it in the perspective of the original writers. More important still, I think we need to see it in the perspective of the original *hearers*. This again comes back to the theory of speech acts. And most important of all, from the perspective of the *participants*. I think that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob existed. My understanding of the passage is affected by this.
I also believe that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob existed. I believe their narratives were handed down by oral tradition, and that material may have been added or lost. In addition, when the first written records were made, the author certainly would have applied some editorial input. And later revisionists had their own separate agenda.
If a repetition of the story of Isaac were to occur today, I would find it deeply troubling. So what has changed over a few thousand years? Certainly people have changed. And we could argue that the way God interacts with people has changed. But I think we would say that God has not changed. So, I find the story of Isaac disturbing.
As an aside, I find HG Wells' Short History of the World (or an equivalent title) to be quite revealing in this area. His thesis is that human sacrifice was part of many primitive religions. Over time this gave way to animal sacrifice, which in turn eventually faded in importance. In this context, the aborted sacrifice of Isaac seems me to be more part of primitive religion in general than a revelation of the Hebrew God in particular.
If Isaac *had* been sacrificed, I'd have a lot more trouble. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I don't agree with you that changing the request isn't important. I think it's very important indeed (and I'm sure Isaac would agree with me (;-> ).
I didn't say that it wasn't important. I'm saying that it doesn't lessen the barbarism of the initial request (and I have a hunch Isaac would agree with me).
In mathematics, we have a constant debate over the nature of our subject. Is it creative, or is it analytic? That is, are we *inventing* new structures, or are we merely *discovering* structure that already exists? Both approaches are valid and profitable in mathematics.
It seems to me that you and I are on the opposite poles of a similar divide in theology. I am asking what God is like, while you are laying down the rules as to what sort of God you can believe in.
I preach caution. Unlike mathematics, I think theology is strictly descriptive. We don't have the freedom to invent the sort of God we'd like. God is there before us.
Yes, theology is descriptive. But it is also largely discerned. So if we discern a God that is ugly, I think it is reasonable to press further and look for possible human reasons for that.
Of course I can't make rules for God. But if I was forced to accept a barbaric God then I certainly would not worship him/her. It would only be fear that might make me give up time and money for that God. And as the consequences of unbelief (as observed in a large part of the population) seem to be minimal, that would be a natural course.
Going back to Allan's example, let's just assume that God *did* ask for children to be stoned (well, specifically, a son who is old enough that he "spends all his time drinking and partying" (CEV) and has been punished, not just warned, for this before). Why would God say this? For the same reason he condoned slavery, and Israel having a King, and marriage customs which gave some protection to women but at enormous cost to their human rights and dignity. None of these were ever God's idea of the world he wanted.
You raise many topics here. To take up one of them - Israel's King. According to the OT, God does not want Israel to have a king and repeatedly warns them of the dangers. But eventually God gives in. How can that be parallel to say, God *not* wanting human sacrifice, but asking Abraham to carry it out?
This is not in contrast to the God I see at work in the world today. It's very consistent. I don't believe God wants children to die of malaria, or AIDS, or hunger, either. But they do, daily. Why? Another big topic, and all I want to say for now is, God seems to me to be the same today as then.
Children dying of hunger or disease is a completely different matter to God asking for a child to be sacrificed.
The question that Allan asked was, how do I reconcile this with my concept of Biblical authority? And the answer is, there's a big difference between a naive reading and a simplistic one. I'm happy to take the Bible at face value, which is what I call a naive reading. But I won't defend a simplistic reading. I don't think this passage commits me to stoning my children, and I don't know anyone who does, and if you do then let's lock them up and arrange medication as a matter of urgency. They can be helped. (;->
If we would lock them up today, then I think it is a consistent standard to say that Abraham *should* have been locked up back then. When we decide that slavery is not acceptable, we don't decide that its acceptability has changed from one day to the next, even though changes to the law might mean that it is legal one day and not the next.
But let me see if I am understanding you ... in the same way that you have agreed that saying "this is the word of God" does not mean "these are the words of God", is it that by saying "the Bible is all authoritative" you do not mean "all the statements in the Bible are authoritative (at face value)".
Because it seems to me that your statement that the Bible is all authoritative (and that we cannot pick and choose which bits are authoritative) is not bourne out by your discourse.
I think we often underestimate the barbarism both of the past and of the present. Children were executed for being uncontrollable only a few hundred years ago in England. Women are executed on suspicion of unchastity in some parts of the world today.
Barbarism from humans is a norm in most of history. But we are talking about barbarism from God.
Allow me to propose a different scenario. Supposing that you took two groups of people today and asked each group to draft a model criminal code. If you like, they could all be faithful people. But one group consists of say Pauline Hanson (before her time in jail) and like-minded souls. The other group is more left-wing in bent, including prison visitors, charity volunteers, social workers, the disabled and dispossessed.
I think that the first group would probably come up with something a lot like the law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy - long lists of offences with specific, fixed, harsh punishments. The punishments are designed to act as a deterrent, a rehabilitation, and a redress.
The second group might come up with something a bit like the 10 commandments. Broad principles of justice, fairness and mutual respect. And no mention of punishment but rather a statement that this code would lead to a cohesive community of generally (spiritually, psychologically) healthy individuals.
Both groups would genuinely believe that together they had discerned the wisdom of God.
Then when the two groups get together to combine their insights, they naturally find that to be impossible and arguments break out.
Which group really did discern God's wisdom? I'm not sure that there is a global answer to that. Faithful on-lookers must make their own prayerful decision.
But one thing is clear, trying to combine the two codes while maintaining the integrity of each, is impossible. What is possible is to opt for one or the other, or to force a compromise by combining some of each, and dropping some of each.
I guess this has got a bit long-winded but I'm coming to the point:
The point is, that to embrace the entirety of both codes (regard them both as authoritative, if you like) is impossible in practice.
And yet that is exactly the problem we face in reconciling the law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy with much of the rest of the Bible. And in sitting on the fence, we get splinters :-)
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash (*not* Linz Cullen).
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
