Double Predestination?

We all know that "predestination" is an invention of John Calvin and only Calvinists buy into it. Well ... most of us. And, of course, we'd be wrong. It's not a Calvinist invention. It's not even a Pauline invention. God practiced it when He saved Noah and when He called Abraham. Throughout the Old Testament God kept choosing people, not because of their deeds, but because of His mercy. Jesus expressed it clearly in the New Testament. "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you" (John 15:16). That's only one example. It's in multiple places in the Gospels. The disciples affirmed it after He ascended. They agreed with God that He had anointed Jesus and appointed the Jews "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). So Paul just ran with it. He referred often to believers as "chosen" or "elect." He assured the Ephesians that they were chosen and predestined (Eph 1:4-5). He said, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). It's not Calvin. It's God.

There is a corollary that is disturbing. Paul told the Ephesians they were "chosen before the foundation of the world." John warned, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:19) and that book was "written from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). God has chosen. He has chosen in advance. He has chosen not on the basis of our choice or actions. But this suggests ... requires? ... the opposite, doesn't it? Doesn't it imply that ... others are not chosen? Well, no, not imply ... it is true. But doesn't that mean that, one way or another, others are predestined ... to damnation? The biblical answer is ... yes. Jude wrote, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). Ouch. Doing a language dance, many have assured us that's not what it means ... but the language is unavoidable. "Long beforehand." Before time. The King James Version says "before of old." No matter where you put "before of old," it precedes the people about whom this is written. So they were "marked out" before they existed for ... condemnation. When their names were not written in the book of life before time ... the outcome was predetermined.

Now, this does not require action on the part of God. It doesn't require that God actively blocks people from the kingdom. In order for anyone to be saved, they must, in Jesus's words, "be born again" (John 3:3-15). They must be "born of God" (1 John 5:1). That requires action on God's part. That requires divine intervention. If God does not intervene ... the outcome is certain, but not because He didn't intervene. It's because of their sin (Rom 3:23; 6:23). So God doesn't cause anyone to go to hell. That is their own choosing. But it is as certain as His choice of you (1 Thess 1:4).

Jesus on Penal Substitutionary Atonement

During His time here on Earth, Jesus said a lot of things about His purpose in coming. He told His parents early on that He had to be in His Father's house (Luke 2:40-52). He came to do His Father's will (John 6:38). He came to be a servant (Matt 10:28). We know these things. Jesus also told us that He came to die (John 2:19-21). He came to lay His life down for His sheep (John 10:11). He clearly stated, that He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

It shouldn't be a surprise. Isaiah famously wrote about the Messiah as a suffering servant. "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way. But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isa 53:4-6). Isaiah's Messiah took our punishment for our sin on Himself -- smitten by God -- and died "for our transgressions" -- in our place. His death served as a substitution for the punishment we so richly earned. He "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed" (Titus 2:14).

Jesus said He came to give His life as a ransom for many. He came to pay the redemptive price that we owed. (That's the meaning of the term, "ransom".) He gave Himself as a substitution in our place and took our sin and our punishment. Jesus said, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28). Dance around it if you like, but you do so in direct opposition to Jesus's own words and to the rest of Scripture (John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18; Rom 6:23; Matt 20:28; John 10:18; Rom 3:25-26; etc.). One has to wonder, then, why there are those who oppose this clearly biblical principle, even in the face of Christ?

Shave and a Haircut

²⁶ "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. ²⁷ You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. ²⁸ You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD" (Lev 19:26-28).

This text is a one of several that are a favorite among skeptics. "Don't hear you lousy Christians preaching on this very much, do we? And you call yourself followers of the Bible!" Well, since I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and means what it says, I think it is wise to examine ... what it says. So, what have we here?

First, I'd like to avoid the standard pitfalls. One common response is, "Ignore it; it's Old Testament." In fact, many make that argument and then carry it over to "A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" and other biblical commands. They do the very thing the skeptic complains about and pick and choose what works and what doesn't. We don't want to pick and choose. The other problem occurs if we take this text and, just because we want to, say, "It's about making the Israelites separate" (or something like that). I believe that there are commands given to Israel for that purpose, but here's the problem in this context. If we say, "That's just for Israel", look at what else we're going to set aside.

"Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father" (Lev 19:3).
"Do not turn to idols" (Lev 19:4)
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another" (Lev 19:11).
"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him" (Lev 19:13).
"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong" (Lev 19:33).

And that's just a sampling. You see, if you say, "That hair cutting thing is just to make Israel separate", then you'll also need to say, "That 'honor your father and mother' thing and that whole prohibition against idolatry is just to make Israel separate. We can steal, oppress our neighbors, and do wrong to visitors because that was just to keep them separate, not Christians." It's the problem I have with those who say, "The prohibition against a man lying with a man as with a woman is a religious thing", because if you look at the context we'd also need to pile adultery, incest, and bestiality as perfectly acceptable behaviors as long as they weren't religious in nature. Doesn't work. Don't go there.

So, avoiding those errors, where do we go? It is really verse 27 that catches all the attention. "Christians shouldn't be getting haircuts if they say they believe the Bible!" That's what it says, right? And, indeed, the (commendable) orthodox Jew has uncut locks of hair on the sides of his head and an uncut beard. I say "commendable" because of the attitude. "If that's what it says, that's what I'll do." Regardless of the text, that should be our attitude as well. But, does the text say that? Notice that it speaks of rounding off hair and marring the beard. That's not quite the same as cutting the sides of your hair or grooming a beard. These appear to be indications of something beyond a shave and a haircut. So, am I splitting hairs (a little humor there), or are there reasons to think that this may not be a de facto command not to shave the sides of your face?

As always, I recommend text and context. What do we learn from the context? Well, I put the immediate context in the quote above because, if you're paying attention, verse 27 is not a verse in a vacuum. It starts with a command ("You shall not...") and ends with a reason ("I am the Lord."). This structure of terminating in "I am the Lord" is repeated throughout the chapter. So we have Lev 19:2-3 tied together, verse 4 as a command, verses 5-10 tied together, and so forth. Each of these is completed in the statement, "I am the Lord." Thus, Lev 19:26-28 is a thought, a set of commands tied together by a central theme and punctuated with "I am the Lord." What is the central theme? It appears to be a central theme of false worship, including eating flesh with blood on it, fortune telling, and cutting or tattooing for the dead. In the midst of this is something about rounding hair and marring beards. These are all tied together. What ties them together? Most obvious is the reason to obey: "I am the Lord." But if these are all tied together and if you don't get mixed up by verse markings, you'll see a second item tying them all together: "for the dead".

"Wow, Stan," I can hear you saying, "that's really stretching it." Is it? Let's trace the idea of "for the dead". In Lev 21, God tells the priests, "No one shall make himself unclean for the dead." Among the ways listed in which the priests should not make themselves unclean for the dead is this: "They shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body" (Lev 21:5). Hmmm, the same things we see in Lev 19. Then again in Deuteronomy, the repeat of the Law, we read, "You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead" (Deut 14:1). I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's the intent. Indeed, the vow of the Nazirites, intended to separate these further, included the command not to cut their hair. If no one was allowed to cut their hair already, what was the point of the vow? No, I don't think that the most reasonable reading of Leviticus 19:27 in context is that God was commanding His people not to cut their hair. It just doesn't fit.

The complaint of the skeptic is that we don't follow the Bible even though we claim to follow the Bible. I would argue that too often they're right ... and that ought to stop. Too often we dismiss stuff that shouldn't be dismissed. It's in there. Let's conform our lives to God's Word rather than vice versa. On the other hand, tying ourselves to a text that doesn't say what they think it says and trying to conform to it makes little sense either. This text commands that we don't perform some religious practices that were intended to honor the dead. We shouldn't eat flesh with blood on it (like the Zabians who regarded it the food of the devils) or seek divinations or mar your hair or beard for the dead (as the Arabians, according to Herodotus, did to imitate Bacchus) or cut or mark your body for the dead (as the Scythians did). Far from dismissing this as "Old Testament" or "That was just for Israel", I would argue that we, too, should avoid all of this as a matter of obedience to God. I simply suggest that we submit to what God says rather than to what skeptics argue it says out of context and content.

Thinking it Through

One of the very popular spots that skeptics attack the Bible is the passage where God orders the death of innocent men, women, and children (and, in fact, donkeys, camels, and sheep as well). Horrible ... simply horrible.

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'" (1 Sam 15:2-3).

The anti-Christian skeptic accepts the text as written and uses it to point out how contradictory (Is it or isn't it wrong to kill children?) and evil (In all cases, genocide is wrong.) God is. The ... non-anti-Christian simply says, "Yeah, that's what it says, but that's not what it means. It's a ..." and they'll explain that it is myth or legend or epic literature that is only loosely based on genuine events but not an actual representation of what God actually said or it is an actual event but not really commanded by God, but simply an attempt by early Israelite writers to justify what they did. So one side assaults God with it and the other assaults the Bible (my conclusion, not theirs). Is there an alternative? Or are we going to hold that God indeed ordered the deaths of innocent men, women, and children and it's all good?

I will point out from the outset that this logical construct that I've just offered (and is often offered to us) is what is known as the fallacy of the false dilemma. The suggestion here is that either we can concur that either God or the Bible are not quite right in what is given here or God is actually in favor of killing innocent people and we're happy with that. As if those are the only two options. "Mr. Jones, answer yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?" But ... but ... there is another alternative!

The other alternative, retaining both the righteous status of God and the historical narrative accurately portrayed in Scripture, is that God did not order the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, but guilty ones. Is there a reason to conclude such a thing?

First, the account itself offers the reasoning behind the command. "I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt." It is not, in the account, simple genocide to remove a group of people that God (or Israel or whomever) doesn't like. These people did something wrong. In the story I like so well in Exodus 17, it was Amalek that came against Israel right after Moses (rightly) struck the rock to give them water. In this event, for no apparent reason, Amalek attacked Israel and it was only by a miracle (Moses holding his arms up) that Israel defeated them (Exo 17:8-16). At the end of that battle, the text says, "The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation" (Exo 17:16). Thus, this event in 1 Samuel was an outworking of that vicious attack in Exodus (as well as another in Numbers 14). What else do we know about the Amalekites? Well, they were part of Canaan, the offspring of Esau. Thus, by birth they were opposed to God's chosen people. And we know of Canaan that Israel was in slavery in Egypt until the iniquity of Canaan was complete (Gen 15:16). In fact, according to Jewish law, among the Orthodox Jews, of the 613 mitzvot (commandments), three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. These were commands from God to be followed. So, keeping the biblical accounts intact, we see that Amalek was part of the group known as the Canaanites, and Amalek was marked out by God for their sinfulness and their opposition to God's people.

It's not too hard to see, then, that in the list of those to be killed, "men" and "women" would fall into the category of "guilty" rather than "innocent". Reading later texts like Romans 3:23 would certainly confirm this. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That would certainly include all the men and women of Amalek. But we're still left with the question of the children. The passage in question specifies "child and infant". And we all know that children (likely) and infants (certainly) are innocent. I mean, they haven't even had the opportunity to know what sin is let alone commit it, right? How could they not be innocent?

The Bible takes a different view on innocence than we do. David claimed, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). That's not a reference to his mother, but to himself. From birth he was a sinner. All humans since Adam have been born spiritually dead, opposed to God, sinners at the outset. The events we recognize as sin are the natural results of this condition, not the other way around. We sin because we are sinners; we are not sinners because we sin.

"But, really, are you claiming that infants are not innocent? What could be more innocent than a baby??" Well, I make the claim based primarily on various statements in Scripture. But it's not just me. The Telegraph reports that behavioral experts have determined that children begin lying very early in life. Psychologists thought they couldn't do it before the age of 4, but new studies suggest they're lying as early as 6 months. "Dr Vasudevi Reddy, of the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, says she has identified seven categories of deception used between six months and three-years-old." That's science. Scripture says that humans are born spiritually dead and require a new birth in order to be spiritually alive. Scripture says that the best human righteousness is "filthy rags". And while this sounds outlandish on the surface, it becomes not so hard to see when we realize that the fundamental rule of living is "to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31) and "by faith" (Rom 14:23). In fact, in the absolute indictment against all humans of Romans 3:23, the claim is that "all have sinned" -- we got that -- and "fall short of the glory of God". Since this is the baseline rule and since James assures us that "whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (James 2:10), who is it that has never failed to bring glory to God and, therefore, who is it that is genuinely innocent? Including babies.

It is true that babies do not have the knowledge that adults do to commit sins. I have seen, on the other hand, where extremely young children respond with guilt when caught doing something they knew they shouldn't before they were told they shouldn't. But experience is not the measure. Nor is ignorance. Sin in ignorance is still sin. The Bible indicates that humans are sinners from birth. If this is accurate, then there is no "innocent infant" in the absolute sense -- in God's standard of measure. And if this is the case, then it would not be an order in the text in question to kill innocent people, but an act of divine judgment on genuinely guilty people (of all ages) using God's chosen people as His tool to accomplish it. In fact, the question would not be "Why would God command the deaths of the Amalekites?" but "Why would God not command the deaths of each and every one of us?" The alternatives to that give us an evil god or a questionable Bible ... and the ramifications of questions to the sin nature, the failure of the New Testament to recognize that the Old Testament wasn't literal history, the error of Judaism and the Church to see this truth, the failure of the Holy Spirit to tell anyone until modern days -- oh, this goes on and on.

One other point. Regardless of whether or not infants are innocent, the history of the Amalekites versus Israel is long and singular. The only relationship was one of tension and attack. Amalek attacked them in the desert. They attacked them at the border to Canaan. They attacked them during the period of the Judges. It was an Amalekite who killed King Saul (2 Sam 1) and it was an Amalekite who planned the annihilation of all Jews. (In the book of Esther, Haman was an Amalekite.) The fact is that offspring of people that hated Israel continued to hate Israel. I would think that God might know that.

The Midianite Assault

One of the most troublesome passages of Scripture can be Numbers 31. It is a popular one for skeptics to flag as proof that the Bible is false (at best). It is a popular for so-called Christians to point to as proof that we can't take the Bible as written. Even the genuine Christian who is trying to make sense of the Bible will find that this one can be tough.

The first problem is the text. Taking the text out of context is a real problem (and that's usually how you're going to get it):

"Have you spared all the women? Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. And you, camp outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves, you and your captives, on the third day and on the seventh day. And you shall purify for yourselves every garment and every article of leather and all the work of goats' hair, and all articles of wood" (Num 31:15-20)

See? That's pretty tough. So let's take a look at it. First question: Who is speaking? If you guessed that it is God, you'd be normal ... but wrong. It's Moses. Second question: What exactly is Moses telling them to do ... and why? That is the real question.

Note, first that this text follows Num 25. In that passage, Midian and Moab launched a massive campaign to destroy Israel. Balaam had been called in to curse Israel but couldn't. But before he left, he told Midian how they could get Israel's God to destroy them. The attack wasn't by army, but by sex. Based on the fact that 24,000 Israelites died in Numbers 25, the sex attack must have been massive. Tens of thousands of Midianite women were involved with their husbands' and fathers' and government's full knowledge.

Note that the first to pay for this sin was Israel (24,000 dead).

Only 12,000 Israelites went to war (Num 31:5). That fact combined with the Midian nomadic culture of the day and the fact that Midian came back later to cause more problems for Israel says that this was not genocide. It was a small portion of Midian that was attacked. Note, also, that the one(s) who commits a crime is responsible for the crime. Taking away someone's freedom may seem bad, for instance, but a judge who sends a thief to prison isn't guilty of anything bad; that's the responsibility of the thief.

Note that this fight was not to gain sex slaves. Moses was angry that they spared the women (Num 31:15). Justice was in mind, not conquest.

The women that were not killed in the battle were ordered put to death because of their involvement in the Midianite plot. Girls not involved in the plot were spared.

We consider it evil that the male children were killed, and that's tough for anyone to defend. However, keep in mind that in a blood-succession based civilization like Midian's, the living males represented a threat. (See, for instance 1 Sam 29. David served slave the Philistines, but the Philistines recognized that he could turn on them.)

Please, please, please, when you get this accusation against the Bible and against God, be sure to notice this. There is no reference in the text to rape. When it says to keep them "for yourselves", this is not a reference to sexual slavery, but used in distinction to statements regarding things "for the Lord". Since females wed as soon as they were able to bear children and these girls were virgins, it is most likely that these girls were under the age of 12. They were absorbed into Israel's care as household servants, not sex slaves.

This passage, without a doubt, is not pleasant to our modern thinking. I don't like it either. However, keep in mind that there is no command to rape. The intent of this battle was not conquest or loot or acquiring sex slaves, but divine justice. There are no innocents. The fact that they saved so many speaks of a greater mercy than might have been expected. Assuming that rape took place requires an assumption, an a priori belief that God is bad or Scripture is unreliable (in the final analysis) or both. Nor did the command regarding women and children come from God. Don't make the mistake of seeing this as either a false representation or normative. The suggestion that "God commands killing the men and saving the women for sex slaves" is a lie, and, again, we know who the father of lies is.

More on Biblical Slavery

The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. - Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996, 4:1190f.

It is important to note, as I have multiple times, that biblical slavery is not the same thing as modern slavery. Consider this. Modern slavery has basically been 1) involuntary 2) for the economic advantage of the elite, 3) typically included mistreatment, 4) where slaves lived separately from their owners, 5) were considered property (and could be disposed of as with any property), 6) could not own property, and 7) were slaves forever.

Old Testament slavery was different. It was 1) normally voluntary 2) for the purpose of solving a debt problem 3) with strict rules against mistreatment. Typically, 4) slaves lived in the homes of their masters, 5) were not property, 6) could own property and, in fact were given property when released, and 7) were only in the position temporarily. Old Testament slavery wasn't very much at all like the modern version.

Further, to suggest that God approved of slavery would be as wrong as saying that God approved of divorce. God's preference was no slavery at all. His original plan for marriage was no divorce. His original plan for His people was no poor (Deut 15:4-5). So He orders His people to give freely to those in need (Deut 15:7-8). He provided for a cancellation of debts (Deut 15:1, 9). He commanded farmers to leave food in the field for those in need (Exo 23:10). He ordered that money be lent without interest (Lev 25:35ff). If we were faithful to our marriage vows, there would be no divorce, and if Israel had followed the commands of God, there would be no poor among them. Since they wouldn't, God made provision to protect people in trouble.

There were two other types of slaves in the Bible. One is outlined in Deut 20, and it appears that it never actually happened. The text explains how to treat slaves from nations conquered outside of the Promised Land. Israel was never authorized to conquer people outside of Canaan. (Why do I say it is outside of Canaan? Read Deut 20:15-18.) Therefore, the type explained in Deut 20 didn't actually exist. The other type was the foreign slave. Hebrew slaves were bountifully protected. Foreign slaves were purchased and apparently owned (Lev 25:46). Foreign slaves were exempt from Jewish dietary laws (Deut 14:21), the 7-year debt cancellation plan (Deut 15:1-3), and no-interest loans (Deut 23:20). Female foreign slaves were to be elevated to wife status with special protection (Deut 21:10-14).

On the matter of captured females, I think it is important to point out that this particular passage has been sorely abused. It is not about "going to war to steal women". That would be a gross mischaracterization. The passage is about being at war and finding a woman in that situation. Not the same thing. Look, here's how it would work. The men of Israel go to war. They kill the men they are fighting with. Soldier A (whoever that might be) notices a virgin daughter of such a slain man and falls in love with her. He has two options. 1) Leave her to die or, perhaps, be cared for by the survivors, or 2) marry her. There was no command to carry off sex slaves nor any provision for such a conquest. Those who would argue for such a reading of the text can only do so from the viewpoint of Titus 1:15 -- a defiled mind.

The accusation is made by skeptics and so-called Christians alike that God commanded Israel to attack their enemies to steal their virgin women and force them into sexual slavery. I could mince words and call it a misunderstanding or an exaggeration, but it is nothing less than a lie. The Jewish perspective never allowed for it. The biblical accounts never allowed for it. The practice of slavery at the time didn't allow for it. The standard Mosaic Law didn't allow for it. Don't buy into such a lie. It can have only two possible outcomes. Either God is a monster for ordaining such practices or the Bible is not a reliable source as it is written, or both. Neither option is acceptable to a genuine Christian.

God and Sex Slaves

One of the ever-so-popular objections that skeptics and critics like to raise is the complaint that the Bible approves of slavery. Now, I've already dealt with that. Remember two key points. First, regulating something is not approving of it. (We see this quite clearly in the parallel of divorce.) Second, slavery in the Bible was not the same thing as the slavery we recognize today. But this doesn't smooth too many ruffled feathers (as if reasoned arguments are what would do so), and when they get hold of the more powerful "ammunition", they think they really have something. What ammunition is that?

If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money (Exo 21:7-11).

Well, there it is in plain language. God has approved of the sex slave trade. Worse, He has approved of selling your daughter into sexual slavery! Talk about morally reprehensible!! What a fiend!!!

Now, remember, we are to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). Is there a response that would "make a defense"? Let's see.

The most common defense I see is appalling to me. "That was then; this is now." It's "Old Testament" and we don't do that anymore. The suggestion is that somehow God changed. I'm not sure how. Maybe He figured out it was a bad idea. Maybe He saw the light and came around to a better way. Maybe He didn't really have an opinion back then, but has a more reasonable one now. This approach admits that God ordained the sex slave trade and we're just past it now. No, thanks. I'm not going with that answer.

Others suggest that this isn't real. It is indicative of a time, written about by men, not condoned in any way by God. It is simply the rules they made for themselves. It should not be used to reflect negatively on God. This, of course, eliminates the Bible as "the Word of God" and, as such, a reliable authority for faith and practice in the Christian life. Not going there, either.

Let's try out the text and see what it says. First, for purposes of transparency, I will point out that older translations indicate that she was sold as "a maidservant", but almost all newer translations say "slave". Having given that caveat, it should be abundantly clear that this is not intended to be a command. No father is commanded to sell his daughter. There is no command to do so. Instead, this is clearly an attempt to protect people in this condition. (We'll need to get to what "this condition" is, but let's finish this first.) The buyer can marry her, have his son marry her, allow her to be redeemed, or release her without obligation. He can't use her, sell her, abuse her, or diminish her. These are not bad things. These are protections.

"Yeah, sure," I can hear the critics saying, "but it's still a sex trade!" Why do they say that? Well, it says, "If she please not her master" which is clearly a reference to how good she is in bed. He takes her for a "trial spin" and if he "likes how she performs in bed", he can marry her. There it is, plain as day. Really? What in the text requires such a reading? Indeed, doesn't it violate the rest of the Law that forbids sex outside of marriage? Are we going to go with an irrational God as well as an evil one? I don't think so. So let's look at what else it might be saying.

First, the various translations do differ. Is it "slave" or not? The question is there because "slave" in the Near East in this time was a different concept than today. A "slave" could be someone owned for work or someone hired for work or even someone who was lower on the social ladder (see A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.). These don't really meet our vision of "slavery". Second, that culture operated on a different method of courtship ... as in, not at all. The parents arranged the marriages. Marriages included a price paid for the bride. Indeed, the dowry was called "the bride price". In other words, every father "sold" his daughter. It was a means of insuring her welfare. So there is ample reason to question whether or not this is slavery in the sense that we understand the term, and that is why the various translations differ.

Now, it would appear from the text that the family is in financial crisis and almost all commentators agree. This isn't the normal "bride search" kind of thing. The term applied for this situation is "concubine". Today's "concubine" is a mistress, not a wife, but among the people of those days, a concubine was a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank. It wasn't that they weren't considered married. It simply means that there was a "primary" wife and she was a "secondary" wife. Often, the concubine's offspring weren't considered heirs. So this would appear to be the situation here. The discussion is not regarding a sex slave trade, but protecting a daughter by giving her for the purpose of marriage to someone else for a price. Note that the purpose is clear. It is not a sex slave. No such possibility existed. The one who paid the price could marry her, give her in marriage, allow the debt to be paid by someone else, or release her without obligation. I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope! Nothing in there about "Keep her around as a sex slave to abuse as he wishes."

It would appear to me that we're the victims again of a smear campaign without any real basis, lazy attackers intent on diminishing God and His Word. Slavery in those days was not the slavery we know. Further, marriages were arranged. Clearly this text is a protection scheme for people in financial problems who need to collect money. Their daughters are protected, offered as wives, and not as sex slaves. The only way to come to another conclusion is to begin with the premise that the only means by which a woman can please a man (Exo 21:8) is sexually. I would suggest that that is a thoroughly reprehensible perspective. We don't sell ourselves into jobs to pay off debts anymore and we don't think it's reasonable for parents to arrange marriages anymore (at least, most of us don't), but these are the things in view here, not selling into lifelong abuse and ownership. Sorry. That just doesn't work with the times, the text, or the character of God.

Does the Bible teach slavery?

Does the Bible teach slavery? Well, of course it does! Everyone knows that! Silly question! Or ... is it?

There is no doubt whatsoever that the word "slave" in its variety of forms (slave, slavery, bond-servant, servant, etc.) appears in the Bible. There is no doubt, either, that there are many regulations given in the Old Testament about slavery. I wish to point out first and foremost that nowhere does the Bible command slavery. So don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The biblical regulations around slavery limit slavery rather than command and endorse it.

One thing that should be noted right off the top is that biblical slavery was not the same thing that we moderns recognize as slavery. For instance, stealing a person and selling them was punishable by death (Exo 21:16). Further, the regulations in Exodus (ch 21) gave real protections to slaves. If a master knocked a tooth out, the slave was set free. Killing a slave resulted in the death penalty. They could only be kept for seven years unless they chose to remain. (Think about that. If slavery then was the same as the slavery we know, why would anyone want to choose it?) Note that slavery was primarily a means of paying off a debt. However, that debt was considered paid after 7 years regardless of how much was actually owed or paid in the transaction. In Deut 15, these laws are expanded. Not only did they have to release their slaves after 7 years, but they had to release them with goods. "You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him" (Deut 15:14). Slavery of a sort existed, but it was not the same thing that we know today. Did you know that it was a matter of divine command that you were not allowed to return an escaped slave to his master (Deut 23:15-16)? This is not your great, great grandfather's slavery. It was not a matter of kidnapping or force. It was not a matter of ownership or lifelong bondage. Hebrews sold themselves into slavery. Nor was it a matter of cruelty, but, rather, protection.

Another reason we know this to be true is the repeated terminology of the New Testament. James, Peter, Jude, and Paul all referred to themselves happily as bond-servants -- doulos -- slaves of Christ. Further, Paul assured us that we are either slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness, and that, obviously, we should prefer the latter. Now, assuming that slavery is the evil that we think it to be, in what possible sense would Paul be pleased to be a bond-servant of Christ? How could that be a good thing? So it must be that our version of slavery is not the same thing as their earlier version.

Does the Bible approve of slavery? The Bible does not forbid it. But is that approval? I don't think so. Paul says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) " (1 Cor 7:21). Apparently "free" is better than "slave".

In spite of all this, we end up with a bottom line question. Slavery isn't good. No matter what we say -- "It was different" "It's not the same as today's slavery" "There were regulations and protections" all that stuff -- what we cannot say is that slavery is good. It begs the question. Why didn't God simply outlaw it? Why didn't He say, "No slaves!" The question, of course, requires a delving into the mind of God to which we aren't privy. However, I think there is a possible parallel that might shed some light. In the book of Deuteronomy God gives instructions on divorce. He doesn't command divorce. He regulates it. In fact, He doesn't regulate divorce, but remarriage. Later we read, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). So, wait, God, if You hate divorce, then why didn't You outlaw it rather than simply regulate it? We get the answer to that from the lips of none other than Jesus Himself. "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Please note, then, that it may be that God does not approve of slavery (as He does not approve of divorce) but did not outlaw it (as He did not outlaw divorce) because of human hard-heartedness. As such, given what we know to be true about the parallel of divorce, it is not safe to say that the Bible approves of slavery just because it is not forbidden. Nothing in the Bible approves of slavery; it regulates it. It assumes it and gives rules for it. That is not "approval" like regulating divorce is not "approval".

One final point I wish to make. There are those who would like to say that the references to slavery were wrong and that the Bible is in error for it. I'm not speaking here about unbelievers. (From their perspective, the Bible is wrong about most everything.) I'm talking here about so-called believers. I need to point out Paul's statement on the topic.

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain (1 Tim 6:1-5).

You can say what you wish about the biblical perspectives on slavery. Just keep in mind that Paul said that slaves were to honor their masters, and that those who held otherwise were teaching doctrines contrary to "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ." That, by definition, is not "Christian".

Does the Bible teach ...?

Maybe I'll do a series here. Maybe an irregular series. I've heard too many of these accusations that the Bible teaches what you and I know to be wrong. Sometimes this stuff can be ignored as too stupid to visit, and sometimes it needs a response. So, does the Bible teach that a rapist is required to marry his victim?

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deut 22:28-29 ESV)

And, of course, there it is in black and white. Or ... is it?

In the text at hand, there is a word used that may suggest, but does not require "rape". The text uses taphas -- to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably. It can merely mean "to overlay" (to lay on) or even "to use unwarrantably" or "to handle". Several commentators seize on "to manipulate" and suggest that the man simply seduces her. Compare this with verse 25:

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. (Deut 22:25 ESV)

Both texts are translated in the ESV as "seize", but this is not the same word. The reference in verse 25 uses chazaq -- to fasten upon; hence to seize, to bind, restrain, conquer. It is a harsher word, indicating seizing by force. Thus, it would appear that what happens in verse 25 is not the same as what happens in verse 28. These are not the same words. They do not carry the same force. Further, if the author intended for them to be the same, he likely would have used the same word. Apparently, then, the intent is different.

Beyond the terminology, however, is the other text. Here is it in full.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her (Deut 22:25-27).

Why is the rapist (for in this case he is clearly that) executed but not the woman? In a previous scenario (adultery) both were executed. Why not in this case? In this case the man attacked and the woman resisted. That's what the text says. Thus, it is reasonable to surmise that in the case of Deut 22:28-29 the woman did not resist, the man did not attack, and this is not the same thing as either adultery or rape. Neither the text nor the context support the accusation that this text requires that a rapist marry his victim.

There is one more reason to think that this is not talking about a rapist marrying his victim. Deuteronomy is intended to be a repeat. The word means "second law" and you'll find that it echoes many sections of the Law from earlier accounts. Thus, this part, Deut 22:28-29, is an echo of an earlier account. As such, they should match. Do they?

If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins (Exo 22:16-17).

First, note that this doesn't even hint at rape. In this case, it is seduction. This is why John Gill says of the Deuteronomy passage that she is "yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deut 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent." Notice also that in the Exodus account the permission to do such a thing (marry) is in the hands of the father. He can deny it. The point, then, is protection of the daughter either by payment or by marriage without divorce.

One other minor point. Some of the older (medieval) commentators do call this rape. "There, see? They disagree with you!" Maybe. But keep in mind that the older, medieval use of the term "rape" made an unbreakable connection between "rape" and "seduction". That is, "rape" in medieval terms was defined as any unlawful sex. Thus, for a medieval commentator to refer to this passage in terms of "rape" is simply to affirm that such sex is unlawful. And one other minor point. There are no records anywhere in Jewish history of any woman who was raped and married her rapist. There are stories of women who were raped but did not marry their rapists, but none that would corroborate that this was the law.

Summarizing, then, text, context, parallel passages, and commentaries all say that this reference is not to rape as we understand it today. It would seem, then, that those who say it is either prove that God is immoral in His commands or that God is not reliable. Oh, wait, that's the same thing, isn't it? So why would someone who claims to trust God make such a claim? That's a question for someone else to answer.