Law of Moses vs Hammurabi

[Athée]

Paul says in Romans 2 that the moral law of God is written on every human heart. This means that every person, more or less, has a basic sense of what God requires from them even if they've never read the Bible.

Wisdom literature in the OT says that the moral law of God concords with wisdom. This means that what God morally requires also happens to be the lifestyle that makes society work best. Wisdom, while it comes from above, can be discerned through trial and error.

So it is not at all surprising that all nations and cultures have, more or less, correctly discerned God's moral law. Indeed, it would be surprising if the moral code in the OT were radically different than what is found throughout the other nations.

Here is another story we could tell about that.
Humans have evolved as social animals and selection pressures have reinforced the communal nature of our species. Given the facts of reality and our nature there are a set of behaviours that generally contribute to human flourishing, these form the basics of human morality and account for the general similarities as well as making sense of the regional and cultural differences. On this model the reason the code of Moses and the code of Hamurabi are similar is because they arise at the same time (roughly) in human moral evolution and in a similar cultural milieu.
Moreover, it seems to me, that in the model you proposed we would expect the moral tenets presented in the bible to be the same as the tenets held to today or at least where we differ from the Bible we should consider our morality deficient (and you will have an extremely hard time convincing me that slavery is a more moral system than emancipatuon). Given by a timeless god (whatever that means ) wouldn't we expect the morals to be ahead of the curve? Wouldn't we expect that a law given to describe in detail how to live a perfect life in the eyes of a god who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow would be at least as morally progressive as we are today?
What do you think.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Tree of Life]

Moreover, it seems to me, that in the model you proposed we would expect the moral tenets presented in the bible to be the same as the tenets held to today or at least where we differ from the Bible we should consider our morality deficient (and you will have an extremely hard time convincing me that slavery is a more moral system than emancipatuon). Given by a timeless god (whatever that means ) wouldn't we expect the morals to be ahead of the curve? Wouldn't we expect that a law given to describe in detail how to live a perfect life in the eyes of a god who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow would be at least as morally progressive as we are today?
What do you think.

Yeah and I think this is exactly what we get from Scripture. The moral code offered in Scripture is perfect. Yet not a single person in the history of mankind (sans Jesus) has been able to live up to this code. So the code itself is light years ahead of us.

As far as slavery is concerned I'm not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be suggesting that the Bible approves of slavery. This is news to me. Could you elaborate?

 

[Athée]

Yeah and I think this is exactly what we get from Scripture. The moral code offered in Scripture is perfect. Yet not a single person in the history of mankind (sans Jesus) has been able to live up to this code. So the code itself is light years ahead of us.

As far as slavery is concerned I'm not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be suggesting that the Bible approves of slavery. This is news to me. Could you elaborate?

This is a neat idea and as usual I have a few questions [emoji3]
I understand you to be saying that the moral code in the bible is so progressive that only Jesus was able to live it perfectly. Does that mean that we, living today, understand the code perfectly (even if we can't live up to it) or would you say there are future moral revelations to come as we study the texts of scripture?
Given your view about the moral perfection of scripture would you be surprised to find moral injunctions in the bible that you disagree with?
One such might be slavery and if you read about the rules governing how to do slavery without sinning in God's eyes mostly found in Exodus 21 but a bit in Leviticus 25 as well, I think you will see an example of a moral stance you disagree with. Does that mean that the Bible is not morally perfect or does it mean that we have yet to realize how perfect those commandments actually are or is this a false dichotomy and there is another option that you would advance instead?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Tree of Life]

This is a neat idea and as usual I have a few questions [emoji3]
I understand you to be saying that the moral code in the bible is so progressive that only Jesus was able to live it perfectly. Does that mean that we, living today, understand the code perfectly (even if we can't live up to it) or would you say there are future moral revelations to come as we study the texts of scripture?

It was not understood perfectly at the time it was given. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is his exposition of the 10 commandments and his explanation is clarifying and even surprising. So I believe that God's moral will has already been perfectly revealed and I think that since the time of Jesus we have been growing in our understanding of it. But I do not believe that we, at this time, understand it completely. I don't, however, think that we need further revelation. I think we need deeper illumination into what's already been revealed.

Given your view about the moral perfection of scripture would you be surprised to find moral injunctions in the bible that you disagree with?

Since I am a sinful man I would not be surprised to find moral injunctions in Scripture that disagree with me. I hope to discover more of these every day as I receive course corrections from the Lord through daily Scripture reading and meditation.

One such might be slavery and if you read about the rules governing how to do slavery without sinning in God's eyes mostly found in Exodus 21 but a bit in Leviticus 25 as well, I think you will see an example of a moral stance you disagree with. Does that mean that the Bible is not morally perfect or does it mean that we have yet to realize how perfect those commandments actually are or is this a false dichotomy and there is another option that you would advance instead?

Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 represent just laws given by God to a society that practiced a form of indentured servitude or debt slavery in order to protect the rights of these vulnerable people. They are morally laudable.

 

[RDKirk]

Fair enough I suppose, what if we take the example of an army Sargent or other figure of authority over the daily lives of the soldiers. Is that a position that should only be gender segregated? If not this, are there any roles that you see today that would meet the definition of the relationship you described?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

Not even an army sergeant has that kind of authority over troops in normal daily situations.

However, in basic training it comes very close to that. The different US military services over the last couple of decades have been experimenting with "co-ed" basic training in various ways.

What is "shaking out" is that a gender-integrated service does much better if at least the first critical weeks of basic training--the period spent in learning how to be a unified corps ("corps" is French for "body")-- are gender segregated. During that period, the drill instructors previously actually lived with the new troops, watching them constantly, guiding them constantly. Where they have tried to mix different genders of troops and sergeants, they have had to pull back from that close guidance and indoctrination into the Body has suffered; when they have failed to pull back, they have had sex scandals.

So basically, to get the close training necessary to instill the concept of Body, they are discovering a need to separate the genders initially, get both up to the same speed, then join them together. After the individuals of the two genders have each learned what it means to be members of a Body, then they can come together to continue training and work.

 

[Athée]

It was not understood perfectly at the time it was given.

It sounds like you are saying that God gave them a perfect moral law by which to live but didn't do whatever would have been required to make sure they understood that law? Am I reading that correctly?

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is his exposition of the 10 commandments

That's an interesting perspective and would be a good topic in another thread! I wonder though about all the elements of the law outside the 10 commandments, did Jesup address those in the sermon on the Mount as well?

But I do not believe that we, at this time, understand it completely. I don't, however, think that we need further revelation. I think we need deeper illumination into what's already been revealed.

Fair enough, so based on your model would you predict that as the societal morals shift and change, untethered as the are to the Bible, that the broad Christian understanding would change along with them or would it change to go in a different direction?
I also wonder how would you distinguish between an influence of the culture around you as opposed to a new and deeper understanding of scripture? What mechanism would you use to differentiate?

Since I am a sinful man I would not be surprised to find moral injunctions in Scripture that disagree with me. I hope to discover more of these every day as I receive course corrections from the Lord through daily Scripture reading and meditation.

So it seems like you are saying that anytime you disagree by instinctively with a moral tenet of scripture that your basic assumption is always that you are in error and that the precept in the scripture is perfect? Correct me if I am not understanding you correctly

Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 represent just laws given by God to a society that practiced a form of indentured servitude or debt slavery in order to protect the rights of these vulnerable people. They are morally laudable.

Well we disagree here that exodus and leviticus describe only indentured servitude but let's set aside the labels of indentured servitude and slavery and look at the content of the law from a modern moral standpoint.
Exodus 21:20 recounts for us gods perfect moral law regarding a specific aspect of owning other humans as property. Specifically it describes the notion of beating them. By reading the law it is clear that God is not in favor of striking a slave dead on the spot, a punishment for breaking gods perfect law would be imposed. However we must also note that if you beat this human, made in god's image, so badly that they he morale internally and die 3 days later, that you have not violated gods moral law.
So I ask you, do you agree with God's law on this poin that it is moral to beat human that you own as property, so long as they take awhile to die? Or perhaps your moral intuition is that this is not acceptable but what then do you do with that feeling of injustice, do you set it aside as an artifact of your imperfect, sinful humanity that simply just doesn't understand how perfect god's comand in this instance is, or do you set aside the comand and look for a justification to do so?

 

[Athée]

Not even an army sergeant has that kind of authority over troops in normal daily situations.

However, in basic training it comes very close to that. The different US military services over the last couple of decades have been experimenting with "co-ed" basic training in various ways.

What is "shaking out" is that a gender-integrated service does much better if at least the first critical weeks of basic training--the period spent in learning how to be a unified corps ("corps" is French for "body")-- are gender segregated. During that period, the drill instructors previously actually lived with the new troops, watching them constantly, guiding them constantly. Where they have tried to mix different genders of troops and sergeants, they have had to pull back from that close guidance and indoctrination into the Body has suffered; when they have failed to pull back, they have had sex scandals.

So basically, to get the close training necessary to instill the concept of Body, they are discovering a need to separate the genders initially, get both up to the same speed, then join them together. After the individuals of the two genders have each learned what it means to be members of a Body, then they can come together to continue training and work.

That is an excellent insight. I wonder based on your position so far if there are any modern roles you think a woman should not have if there is a mixed gender group. Would a female head pastor be OK? An elder? I think you delt really well the the examples that I suggested and so I wonder if there are any distinct roles in your worldview?

 

[Tree of Life]

It sounds like you are saying that God gave them a perfect moral law by which to live but didn't do whatever would have been required to make sure they understood that law? Am I reading that correctly?

No. The fault is not with God's Law or his revelation. The fault is the sinfulness of mankind. Indeed, one of the most important purposes of the Law was not to give mankind a system of justice in order to create a well functioning society. The Law would do that if it were obeyed. But the true purpose of God's law is more covert - to expose to mankind its sinfulness and utter inability to keep the Law.

That's an interesting perspective and would be a good topic in another thread! I wonder though about all the elements of the law outside the 10 commandments, did Jesup address those in the sermon on the Mount as well?

Yes. Jesus addresses more than just the 10 commandments in the SoTM. The SoTM, to be more precise, is an exposition on the whole law of God. Jesus also comments on other aspects of the Law in many of his other sayings.

Fair enough, so based on your model would you predict that as the societal morals shift and change, untethered as the are to the Bible, that the broad Christian understanding would change along with them or would it change to go in a different direction?

Since the Christian understanding of morality is always tethered to the Bible it will be unable to follow the culture in a wrong direction for very long.

I also wonder how would you distinguish between an influence of the culture around you as opposed to a new and deeper understanding of scripture? What mechanism would you use to differentiate?

Good question. Culture is always wrong in some way and the progress of history is a continual conversation between God's word and culture's grasp of God's word. So throughout history you can see the church understanding things with more clarity. The only mechanism that I know of to differentiate between a new idea of the culture and wisdom from God is the Scripture itself.

So it seems like you are saying that anytime you disagree by instinctively with a moral tenet of scripture that your basic assumption is always that you are in error and that the precept in the scripture is perfect? Correct me if I am not understanding you correctly

You got it. It's also possible that I'm misunderstanding Scripture. But if Scripture and I ever legitimately disagree then Scripture is always in the right. This is because Scripture is God's word.

Well we disagree here that exodus and leviticus describe only indentured servitude but let's set aside the labels of indentured servitude and slavery and look at the content of the law from a modern moral standpoint.

Who do you think sold these people into slavery? Kidnapping for the purposes of selling into slavery was unlawful and punishable by death. If anyone became a slave in Israel it was because they sold themselves into it (the case of a father selling a daughter is seen as an extension of this principle).

Exodus 21:20 recounts for us gods perfect moral law regarding a specific aspect of owning other humans as property. Specifically it describes the notion of beating them. By reading the law it is clear that God is not in favor of striking a slave dead on the spot, a punishment for breaking gods perfect law would be imposed. However we must also note that if you beat this human, made in god's image, so badly that they he morale internally and die 3 days later, that you have not violated gods moral law.

You've misunderstood this text. If the slave dies then he is to be avenged because the master has committed murder. But if the slave survives then the master is not guilty of murder - he has only harmed himself by putting his servant out of commission. This law is in place in order to protect the sanctity of the life of the slave.

 

[Athée]

No. The fault is not with God's Law or his revelation. The fault is the sinfulness of mankind

That makes sense inside the Christian worldview so fair enough. What I find puzzling though is that you said they didn't understand it. So not only could they not obey properly the parts they did understand, there were parts they didn't understand at all. I guses I wonder why God would go to the trouble of telling them how to live perfectly but not male sure they knew what he meant. What do you think?

Since the Christian understanding of morality is always tethered to the Bible it will be unable to follow the culture in a wrong direction for very long.

Interesting. I think we will see this borne out or not now that several countries have the separation of church and state as part of their constitutions. I see sone evidence for both possible outcomes so it will be interesting to see how it works out. For example there is ano element of Christianity that strongly opposes gay marriage but yet other elements of Christianity that endorse it, along with many denominations that seem undecided. I wonder which way it will go. It used to be the case that Christians (and everyone else) thought that mixed race marriages were sinful but now both culture and church agree that this was an error in moral judgement. Interesting time to be alive

So throughout history you can see the church understanding things with more clarity. The only mechanism that I know of to differentiate between a new idea of the culture and wisdom from God is the Scripture itself.

But it is your own flawed human interpretation of scripture that is causing you to have an imperfect view if morality to begin with, how can appealing to your bible help if you can't be sure that you even proprely understand what it is telling you?

Who do you think sold these people into slavery? Kidnapping for the purposes of selling into slavery was unlawful and punishable by death. If anyone became a slave in Israel it was because they sold themselves into it (the case of a father selling a daughter is seen as an extension of this principle).

I assume from Leviticus 25:41 onwards that they would be from the nations around them, or tribes passing through. Have I misread Leviticus?

You've misunderstood this text. If the slave dies then he is to be avenged because the master has committed murder. But if the slave survives then the master is not guilty of murder - he has only harmed himself by putting his servant out of commission. This law is in place in order to protect the sanctity of the life of the slave.

I don't share your reading if this text so maybe you can convince me I am wrong It seems to me that there are three problematic elements to this story from my moral viewpoint .
1) A human being is owned as property by another.
2) It is clear that beating your slave with a rod is acceptable.
3) It specifically says that if they survive for a day or two the owner is off the hook but if the slave were to die beyond that time frame no punishment is forthcoming. Therefore if we follow this law as it is written, no consequence would result from the case of such a bad bea ting that the slave bleeds internally and dies 4 days later.
1 and 2 seem beyond changing by any possible reading of the passage but you could convince me about 3 if you can show me elsewhere in scripture a provision about slaves that would make my reading incorrect. In any event I woder what you make of 1 and 2 while we work away at 3.

 

[RDKirk]

That is an excellent insight. I wonder based on your position so far if there are any modern roles you think a woman should not have if there is a mixed gender group. Would a female head pastor be OK? An elder? I think you delt really well the the examples that I suggested and so I wonder if there are any distinct roles in your worldview?

I don't think a woman can teach a man how to be a man. Those roles.

 

[Athée]

I don't think a woman can teach a man how to be a man. Those roles.

Hmmm...so would it be biblical to require single mothers and father to put their opposite gendered children up for adoption or to require them to find a new spouse?

 

[RDKirk]

Hmmm...so would it be biblical to require single mothers and father to put their opposite gendered children up for adoption or to require them to find a new spouse?

Is that what you have read in scripture? Is that really the only solution you can think of, or are you just baiting for pleasure? You really haven't heard of even secular solutions such as Big Brothers of America?

If you're looking for understanding of other positions, I'm glad to continue the conversation, but at this point I've grown tired of you jerking my chain instead of having an honest discussion.

 

[Athée]

Is that what you have read in scripture? Is that really the only solution you can think of, or are you just baiting for pleasure? You really haven't heard of even secular solutions such as Big Brothers of America?

If you're looking for understanding of other positions, I'm glad to continue the conversation, but at this point I've grown tired of you jerking my chain instead of having an honest discussion.

Well I am sorry you feel that way and you are of course welcome to refrain from responding if you like. For my part I am only asking the questions that your views bring to mind, as I try to understand why we view things differently.
As a follow up to your last post , yes I am aware of the organization, I have in fact volunteered with them, mentoring sexually abused boys. As for such a thing being a solution to the posed dilemma I find it wanting. Having a male mentor chose for the boys who sees them at most a few hours a week does not equate to raising them as a man. But even before that objection, I reject your assertion that a woman can not teach a boy how to be a man. Perhaps you could provide an example of what you mean because I can't think of anything about being a man that could not be taught by a woman.

 

[Tree of Life]

That makes sense inside the Christian worldview so fair enough. What I find puzzling though is that you said they didn't understand it. So not only could they not obey properly the parts they did understand, there were parts they didn't understand at all. I guses I wonder why God would go to the trouble of telling them how to live perfectly but not male sure they knew what he meant. What do you think?

When I say that they didn't understand it I mean that they didn't fully understand it - just like we don't fully understand it today. The words were easy enough to understand. But they didn't - and we still don't fully today - understand the depths of the implications of the Law.

For example the Law commands: "You shall not commit adultery." Jesus revealed in the Sermon on the Mount that this command includes even looking at a woman lustfully - an implication or depth of application that has not always been clearly understood.

But it is your own flawed human interpretation of scripture that is causing you to have an imperfect view if morality to begin with, how can appealing to your bible help if you can't be sure that you even proprely understand what it is telling you?

The Bible is a north star even though I may only understand it through a fog of my own finitude and sinfulness. But I have the help of God's Holy Spirit and the rest of the church. So I don't think I'll ever understand it perfectly. But by God's grace I believe I will understand it sufficiently.

I assume from Leviticus 25:41 onwards that they would be from the nations around them, or tribes passing through. Have I misread Leviticus?

Leviticus 25:44-46 does speak of owning "slaves" or "servants" that come from other lands. I don't have the time to comment fully on this now but I'll return to this point when I do.

Below I'll simply comment on the Israelite-owning-Israelite situations.

I don't share your reading if this text so maybe you can convince me I am wrong It seems to me that there are three problematic elements to this story from my moral viewpoint .
1) A human being is owned as property by another.

Yes and no. The Law exists in part to show that human beings could not be properly owned by another. All Israelite "servants" or "slaves" (Hebrew aved can mean either) were to be released after six years for nothing. There was a strict limit to how long their debt-slavery could last. God says why:

Leviticus 25:54-55 - 54 And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. 55 For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

The Israelite servants could not be permanently owned because they belong to God alone. They could serve a debt-slavery for up to 6 years if they chose to sell themselves into it.

2) It is clear that beating your slave with a rod is acceptable.

I disagree. Just because a law recognizes the occurrence of something does not mean that it approves of it or sanctions it. This is an example of OT casuistic law (or case law). The case is when a master beats his slave. In other words, the Law is saying this...

"When a master beats his slave, if his slave then dies then X consequence... if the slave does not die then Y consequence."

Such casuistic law does nothing to validate the situation that it is regulating. Similar casuistic law occurs with other behavior that is explicitly condemned. For instance, we see laws in the OT that say something to the effect of...

"When a man commits adultery, then X consequence..."

Just because the law recognizes that this action occurs does not mean it is approving of this action.

3) It specifically says that if they survive for a day or two the owner is off the hook but if the slave were to die beyond that time frame no punishment is forthcoming. Therefore if we follow this law as it is written, no consequence would result from the case of such a bad bea ting that the slave bleeds internally and dies 4 days later.

As I read it the slave does not die in the latter situation. Another way to translate "survive" is "recover". So the NIV renders it this way:

Exodus 21:20-21 - 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

To kill an Israelite, slave or free, was a capital offense. There are other laws that even speak of bodily harm to Israelite slaves. Consider this:

Exodus 21:26-27 - 26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

So other laws give consequences for beating slaves. If the slave is injured to a serious extent then the slave must be set free, as you can see.

 

[Athée]

When I say that they didn't understand it I mean that they didn't fully understand it - just like we don't fully understand it today. The words were easy enough to understand. But they didn't - and we still don't fully today - understand the depths of the implications of the Law.

Why do you think God went to the trouble, then and now, to create a perfect law but not help his children understand it perfectly?

The Bible is a north star even though I may only understand it through a fog of my own finitude and sinfulness. But I have the help of God's Holy Spirit and the rest of the church. So I don't think I'll ever understand it perfectly. But by God's grace I believe I will understand it sufficiently.

So how is it that Christians disagree with each other on these things so profoundly of the all have access to the church, the bible and the Holy Spirit?

Leviticus 25:44-46 does speak of owning "slaves" or "servants" that come from other lands. I don't have the time to comment fully on this now but I'll return to this point when I do.

OK

Yes and no. The Law exists in part to show that human beings could not be properly owned by another. All Israelite "servants" or "slaves" (Hebrew aved can mean either) were to be released after six years for nothing. There was a strict limit to how long their debt-slavery could last. God says why:

I think if anything your example illustrates that the law shows you can only own another human as property for a set amount of time. That said this doesn't take into account non Hebrew slaves but even on the Hebrew slaves I think thereally is an issue. Specifically Exodus 21:1-6 says in a clarification about jubilee, that Hebrew slaves can be made lifelong property.

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
EXO 21:1‭-‬6 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.1-6.ESV

I disagree. Just because a law recognizes the occurrence of something does not mean that it approves of it or sanctions it

This is a great point and one I often wonder about. Is living a life according to the law the same as living a sinless life? When someone breaks the laws god gave do they also sin, and conversely if they keep the law in a particular instance have they refrained from sinning and done what is good and holy in his eyes?

As I read it the slave does not die in the latter situation. Another way to translate "survive" is "recover". So the NIV renders it this way:

I agree that your reading is possible, the problem is that the law isn't really clear on what would happen in that internal bleeding scenario , a human judge would have seen this problem and been more precise, are we better at writing laws than God?