Soren Kierkegaard
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
the deep, strong, blessed restlessness
Soren Kierkegaard
Friday, February 3, 2012
Chronicling, Commanding and Condoning
I've seen this image floating around on websites like Facebook and Pinterest.
The point I believe it's trying to make is that, first of all, gay marriage shouldn't be wrong because it's a lot better than some other marriages cited in the Bible, and second of all, that "traditional marriage" isn't even necessarily one man and one woman. Yes, I understand that it's a joke. But I also understand that it could give rise to some big problems.
In the process of getting its point across, it suggests harmful half-truths. There is a lot of damage being done because people are seeing this graphic who have not read the Bible, and they are now thinking that the Bible is a backwards, outdated book no one should take seriously today (actually, this is probably just reinforcing previous conceptions). Graphics like this give people an excuse to write off the Bible (not just write off, but downright hate it) and doubt its relevance. This graphic does not allow for the complexity and the massive time span of the book, which is unlike any other in the world as far as the sheer number of writers and the incredible span of time and cultures.
Because I'm reading through the Bible chronologically, I just finished reading probably the most "shocking" books in the Bible, and they all appear on this graphic: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (also Judges, which does not appear on this graphic but is also a pretty rough book to read). So this stuff's all pretty fresh in my memory.
First of all, let me say that I'm not writing this as someone who's just trying to raise a defense for my own point of view. I will be honest and say up front that there are some things in the Bible that I don't understand, and that at this point in time am not qualified to explain. But I also feel that I have to stand up for the whole truth, and I'd like to think that I would uphold this principle even if it meant fighting for someone who does not share my point of view.
Some fundamental truths to understand about the Bible: Much of it is comprised of stories that are not necessarily meant to be parables, or to be emulated in any way, but rather to be historical accounts of events that occurred. In fact, there are two books that most people find very boring - 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles - that really are just lists of who was whose son and how long each guy lived. Just because something is chronicled in the Bible does not mean that God condoned it or commanded it, or that it's an example for our behavior.
Another fundamental truth: God is holy, and His standard of justice is higher than ours. Even as a Christian, this is one aspect that I often find difficult to understand or even agree with on my own. As a human, my way seems right to me, but in reality, God alone is the judge (Proverbs 21:2). So sometimes the things God condones or commands may seem very harsh, especially in the older books of the Bible, but these instances underline the fact that God hates wrongdoing much more than we do. But in the same way, He loves goodness and truth much more than we do.
The Bible does chronicle that many men had several wives and/or concubines in the old times, even men who were counted righteous before God and otherwise served him with all their hearts. However, nowhere does God command or commend this behavior. In fact, Deuteronomy 17:17 even says that kings should not have multiple wives. Other than that, old books of the Bible are not didactic about this matter. Nevertheless, anyone who studies the Old Testament cannot help but come away with the knowledge that having multiple wives causes problems. (Who'd have thought, right?) Just look at the relationship struggles of Abraham, Jacob, and David, for starters. Seriously, what a headache.
The "wives subordinate to their husbands" phrase does not do justice to the Hebrew ezer kenegdo, which means something like a helper who comes alongside. This is the term God used to describe woman at the beginning. Other than woman, guess who the phrase usually refers to when it's used in the Old Testament? God. The phrase does not refer to a servant to be trampled upon, but rather help that comes from above, a kind of rescue in times of trouble. Granted, at the Fall, God said that the husband would rule over the wife, but this is a result of sin twisting the way we relate to each other; this is not the way God wants relationships between husbands and wives to be. Later, in the New Testament, we are told that a godly husband's leadership should take the form of Christlike love and sacrifice. I could go more deeply on this subject, but there are entire books that do that. As for interfaith marriages, they are forbidden for the people's own good, because God wants us to be of one heart and mind rather than having strife and distance in marriage. Also, arranged marriages were the rule for hundreds of years across cultures, and still are in many. This practice was definitely not confined to the Bible, and I would argue it is not inherently bad but can be twisted by sin, like everything else.
God's commands are probably the most difficult issues to wrestle with here. Some of them are much easier to understand within context. For instance, the law about a brother-in-law marrying his brother's widow was actually of benefit to the woman in that time period. As many stories in the Old Testament reveal, having a child, especially a son, was considered vital. A woman often would agonize until she had been blessed in that way (Rachel and Leah even used having children as a kind of one-upmanship). Most women must have seen this law as a way to ensure their happiness. Hardly any would have dreamed of saying, "What?! I'm being forced to marry my brother-in-law since my first husband died and left me without a son?!" They just wouldn't have seen it that way. They would have rejoiced that they still had a chance to have a son.
Another law that makes sense within the culture is that of a rape victim marrying her rapist. Again, this is definitely not God's ideal marriage. Nevertheless, this law was given to protect the woman. I just got done watching Pride and Prejudice. The situation with Lydia in that movie is a little bit different because, of course, she loves Mr. Wickham and deliberately runs away with him. But the principle is similar. Had Lydia parted from Mr. Wickham without getting married, she would have been seen as "tarnished forever" in Victorian culture. Her only chance for marriage and children, and therefore "happiness" for her in that time period, was with this man. Free him from his obligation to marry her, and the woman will hardly rejoice in either culture. In fact, this Old Testament law could be seen as much better than what happened in Lydia's situation. Mr. Wickham had to be secretly bought off in order to marry her, whereas the Old Testament law commands that the man who has done such a thing pay restitution.
But then there are other commands that seem shocking even given the historical context. Moses commanding that every Midianite be killed seems horrific, as well as his commanding that the soldiers take the unmarried women for themselves. However, the book of Judges sheds a little light on this situation. In Judges, God also commands that the Israelites kill every single person in the places they are overtaking, without mercy. But this time, they do not obey. And by the end of Judges, the things that are happening in Israel are so depraved that even the reader almost wants God to smite the people off the face of the earth. The Israelites are completely corrupted by the people they let survive. Again, the Bible isn't didactic about this. It doesn't say, "Now see kids, if the Benjamites had just obeyed...." No. The book relates the monstrous things that are happening, the twisted moral code, the unthinkable ways people are treating each other, and simply says repeatedly, "In those days Israel had no king; every man did as he saw fit." So even though God's standard of justice might seem too harsh much of the time, we discover that it is necessary because of human depravity.
God does command that a woman be stoned who is found to not be a virgin when she is married, but this is in line with all the rest of his commands on adultery and many other sins, which generally demand death. The fact is, the penalty for sin has always been death, according to the Bible. When Jesus came and fulfilled all the requirements of the law by his death, our obedience to God took a different form, but the principle remains the same. I can only receive mercy because Jesus took my judgment, not because God lowered his standard of justice. I deserve death and am spiritually dead in my sin (and in most countries, including the United States and especially my beloved Texas, can easily be put to physical death for my sin), and I cannot stand before a holy God. The only way to the life abundant here as well as life eternal is to be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Again, this is not my standard of justice. Mine is much lower. But then again, I am not God. I did not watch as my beautiful creation that I had breathed into existence and carefully crafted into perfection welcomed death and destruction with open arms. I did not watch as my creations began murdering each other, began raping each other, began stealing from each other. I am not qualified to be the ultimate Judge.
I know these explanations will not settle all the issues brought up by the graphic, nor will they persuade people to agree with the biblical point of view who don't already, but hopefully they at least shed some light on what is really written and the meaning behind it.
Love,
Your fellow truthseeker
The point I believe it's trying to make is that, first of all, gay marriage shouldn't be wrong because it's a lot better than some other marriages cited in the Bible, and second of all, that "traditional marriage" isn't even necessarily one man and one woman. Yes, I understand that it's a joke. But I also understand that it could give rise to some big problems.
In the process of getting its point across, it suggests harmful half-truths. There is a lot of damage being done because people are seeing this graphic who have not read the Bible, and they are now thinking that the Bible is a backwards, outdated book no one should take seriously today (actually, this is probably just reinforcing previous conceptions). Graphics like this give people an excuse to write off the Bible (not just write off, but downright hate it) and doubt its relevance. This graphic does not allow for the complexity and the massive time span of the book, which is unlike any other in the world as far as the sheer number of writers and the incredible span of time and cultures.
Because I'm reading through the Bible chronologically, I just finished reading probably the most "shocking" books in the Bible, and they all appear on this graphic: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (also Judges, which does not appear on this graphic but is also a pretty rough book to read). So this stuff's all pretty fresh in my memory.
First of all, let me say that I'm not writing this as someone who's just trying to raise a defense for my own point of view. I will be honest and say up front that there are some things in the Bible that I don't understand, and that at this point in time am not qualified to explain. But I also feel that I have to stand up for the whole truth, and I'd like to think that I would uphold this principle even if it meant fighting for someone who does not share my point of view.
Some fundamental truths to understand about the Bible: Much of it is comprised of stories that are not necessarily meant to be parables, or to be emulated in any way, but rather to be historical accounts of events that occurred. In fact, there are two books that most people find very boring - 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles - that really are just lists of who was whose son and how long each guy lived. Just because something is chronicled in the Bible does not mean that God condoned it or commanded it, or that it's an example for our behavior.
Another fundamental truth: God is holy, and His standard of justice is higher than ours. Even as a Christian, this is one aspect that I often find difficult to understand or even agree with on my own. As a human, my way seems right to me, but in reality, God alone is the judge (Proverbs 21:2). So sometimes the things God condones or commands may seem very harsh, especially in the older books of the Bible, but these instances underline the fact that God hates wrongdoing much more than we do. But in the same way, He loves goodness and truth much more than we do.
The Bible does chronicle that many men had several wives and/or concubines in the old times, even men who were counted righteous before God and otherwise served him with all their hearts. However, nowhere does God command or commend this behavior. In fact, Deuteronomy 17:17 even says that kings should not have multiple wives. Other than that, old books of the Bible are not didactic about this matter. Nevertheless, anyone who studies the Old Testament cannot help but come away with the knowledge that having multiple wives causes problems. (Who'd have thought, right?) Just look at the relationship struggles of Abraham, Jacob, and David, for starters. Seriously, what a headache.
The "wives subordinate to their husbands" phrase does not do justice to the Hebrew ezer kenegdo, which means something like a helper who comes alongside. This is the term God used to describe woman at the beginning. Other than woman, guess who the phrase usually refers to when it's used in the Old Testament? God. The phrase does not refer to a servant to be trampled upon, but rather help that comes from above, a kind of rescue in times of trouble. Granted, at the Fall, God said that the husband would rule over the wife, but this is a result of sin twisting the way we relate to each other; this is not the way God wants relationships between husbands and wives to be. Later, in the New Testament, we are told that a godly husband's leadership should take the form of Christlike love and sacrifice. I could go more deeply on this subject, but there are entire books that do that. As for interfaith marriages, they are forbidden for the people's own good, because God wants us to be of one heart and mind rather than having strife and distance in marriage. Also, arranged marriages were the rule for hundreds of years across cultures, and still are in many. This practice was definitely not confined to the Bible, and I would argue it is not inherently bad but can be twisted by sin, like everything else.
God's commands are probably the most difficult issues to wrestle with here. Some of them are much easier to understand within context. For instance, the law about a brother-in-law marrying his brother's widow was actually of benefit to the woman in that time period. As many stories in the Old Testament reveal, having a child, especially a son, was considered vital. A woman often would agonize until she had been blessed in that way (Rachel and Leah even used having children as a kind of one-upmanship). Most women must have seen this law as a way to ensure their happiness. Hardly any would have dreamed of saying, "What?! I'm being forced to marry my brother-in-law since my first husband died and left me without a son?!" They just wouldn't have seen it that way. They would have rejoiced that they still had a chance to have a son.
Another law that makes sense within the culture is that of a rape victim marrying her rapist. Again, this is definitely not God's ideal marriage. Nevertheless, this law was given to protect the woman. I just got done watching Pride and Prejudice. The situation with Lydia in that movie is a little bit different because, of course, she loves Mr. Wickham and deliberately runs away with him. But the principle is similar. Had Lydia parted from Mr. Wickham without getting married, she would have been seen as "tarnished forever" in Victorian culture. Her only chance for marriage and children, and therefore "happiness" for her in that time period, was with this man. Free him from his obligation to marry her, and the woman will hardly rejoice in either culture. In fact, this Old Testament law could be seen as much better than what happened in Lydia's situation. Mr. Wickham had to be secretly bought off in order to marry her, whereas the Old Testament law commands that the man who has done such a thing pay restitution.
But then there are other commands that seem shocking even given the historical context. Moses commanding that every Midianite be killed seems horrific, as well as his commanding that the soldiers take the unmarried women for themselves. However, the book of Judges sheds a little light on this situation. In Judges, God also commands that the Israelites kill every single person in the places they are overtaking, without mercy. But this time, they do not obey. And by the end of Judges, the things that are happening in Israel are so depraved that even the reader almost wants God to smite the people off the face of the earth. The Israelites are completely corrupted by the people they let survive. Again, the Bible isn't didactic about this. It doesn't say, "Now see kids, if the Benjamites had just obeyed...." No. The book relates the monstrous things that are happening, the twisted moral code, the unthinkable ways people are treating each other, and simply says repeatedly, "In those days Israel had no king; every man did as he saw fit." So even though God's standard of justice might seem too harsh much of the time, we discover that it is necessary because of human depravity.
God does command that a woman be stoned who is found to not be a virgin when she is married, but this is in line with all the rest of his commands on adultery and many other sins, which generally demand death. The fact is, the penalty for sin has always been death, according to the Bible. When Jesus came and fulfilled all the requirements of the law by his death, our obedience to God took a different form, but the principle remains the same. I can only receive mercy because Jesus took my judgment, not because God lowered his standard of justice. I deserve death and am spiritually dead in my sin (and in most countries, including the United States and especially my beloved Texas, can easily be put to physical death for my sin), and I cannot stand before a holy God. The only way to the life abundant here as well as life eternal is to be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Again, this is not my standard of justice. Mine is much lower. But then again, I am not God. I did not watch as my beautiful creation that I had breathed into existence and carefully crafted into perfection welcomed death and destruction with open arms. I did not watch as my creations began murdering each other, began raping each other, began stealing from each other. I am not qualified to be the ultimate Judge.
I know these explanations will not settle all the issues brought up by the graphic, nor will they persuade people to agree with the biblical point of view who don't already, but hopefully they at least shed some light on what is really written and the meaning behind it.
Love,
Your fellow truthseeker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)