|
|
The Law of Moses was given to the Israelites when they were still a band of ex-slaves struggling to survive. Many of the laws were specific for the worship system and agricultural life of ancient Israel (Exodus 12:14-16, Leviticus 1:10-13, 11:1-23, 15:19-20, 19:19, 19:27-28, 27:30-32, Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Like life in those times, many were harsh and cruel compared to the teachings of Jesus (Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, 21:18-21, 22:23-24). But there are also many moral teachings that form the basis of Christian morality (Exodus 20:1-17, 23:6-9, Leviticus 19:9-10, 19:18, Deuteronomy 6:5).
A similar loving and merciful view of God is seen in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 10:15, 17-18, Psalms 103:17-18, Deuteronomy 4:31). But sometimes, God is seen as capricious, vindictive and cruel, especially in early Old Testament writings (e.g., Numbers 21:4-6, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, 1 Samuel 15:1-3). This inconsistency has for centuries been a source of distress for Christians and an opening for critics to attack the validity of Christian faith.
The Bible tells of many wars, both defensive and offensive, involving the Israelite nations of Israel and Judah. In earlier Old Testament times, the Israelites viewed all their wars as holy wars, directed by God (Deuteronomy 7:1-4, 20:16-17, Joshua 6:20-21, 10:28, 1 Samuel 15:1-3). Later in history, the prophets taught that wars were God's punishments against Israel and Judah for their sins and disobedience (Isaiah 1:21-25, 1 Kings 14:15-16 Jeremiah 20:4-5). War stories where God directed the Israelites to destroy entire cultures, including women and children, are particularly difficult to reconcile with belief in a loving God.Some explanations that have been proposed include: 1) The victims of God's wrath were evil and deserved destruction, 2) The Old Testament God was not the same God as that of the New Testament, 3) God changed, 4) The Old and New Testaments simply emphasize different aspects of God. But all those explanations contradict Bible teachings that God is loving, merciful, and unchanging forever (Malachi 3:6, Psalms 90:2, 102:26-27, Matthew 5:43-45, James 1:17).
Progressive Revelation is one reason for the differences between the Old and New Testaments. God has revealed Himself gradually throughout the ages (Matthew 13:17, Romans 16:25-26, Hebrews 1:1-3). Around 1300 B.C., the Israelites escaped from slavery in Egypt and spent 40 years wandering in the desert before coming to their new homeland. God gave the original Old Testament Law to Moses at that time. As the Israelite civilization developed, God sent numerous prophets to correct their errors and to refine their understanding of Him and His intentions. Finally, God sent His Son, Jesus, to further refine our understanding. It is a cornerstone of Bible interpretation that New Testament teachings have priority and supplant conflicting Old Testament teachings. Without the knowledge brought by the prophets and Jesus, the ancient Israelites tended to assume God was a capricious warrior god like the pagan gods of that time, and that view is reflected in the Old Testament writings.
Other common explanations of Old Testament war stories treat these stories as allegories, similar to Jesus' parables, which teach a lesson rather than relating historical facts:
Bishop Robert Barron draws on the work of third century Christian scholar Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 - c. 253) to say that we should read these difficult war stories allegorically. The stories use militaristic metaphors showing that we must completely destroy the evil in ourselves just as Israel completely destroyed the cultures of its enemies in the story. The militaristic metaphor may be disturbing, but these allegorical war stories serve as a spiritual lesson rather than a literal description of Israel's battles:
Origen says that we should read these passages in a metaphorical, allegorical, and symbolic way, as about the spiritual struggle. Israel stands for all that is in accord with God’s purposes, for love and forgiveness and compassion, and therefore, the enemies of Israel up and down the centuries, from the Amalekites to the Philistines, are not just about those ancient people. It stands for all the things that stand athwart God’s purposes.3
In its analysis of Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Collegeville Bible Commentary states that these stories have meaning theologically rather than literally:
This text is one of the harshest condemnations in the whole Bible, requiring Israel to annihilate the indigenous population of Canaan in the process of settling in the land promised to the ancestors of Israel (v. 2). Such a command is clearly abhorrent to the moral sensitivities of contemporary readers, but we should remember that this command was never carried out, nor was it ever intended to be. What, then, would have been the point of forbidding covenants and marriage with non-Israelite nations (vv. 2b–3)? This chapter represents a theological judgment on the nations, not a historical account of Israel’s treatment of them.4
Oxford Bible Commentary interprets Deuteronomy 7:1-4 as a warning against adopting pagan practices rather than as history:
According to vv. 1–5, the land is a territory where the religious habits of many ancient ‘nations’ prevail and where, because of this, Israel’s identity is in danger. This idea is being expressed through the imagery of a military conquest. v. 2 represents the same concept which underlies 2:32–5; here as in 20:16–17 it is shaped as a command to ‘utterly destroy’ the nations of the land. ... However, v. 2 does not intend to document ancient military practice, but rather to construe an ideal of Israel’s conquest of the land. This ideal does not tell anything about Israel’s early history, but mainly has two functions: it serves as a basis for explaining the defeat of Jerusalem in 587 BCE in terms of Israel’s apostasy which is seen to have been induced by her assimilation to the nations of the land in defiance of a Mosaic command (cf. 20:18; 29:25–8 (MT 24–7); Josh 23:1 to Judg 3:6), and it serves as a warning against assimilation for the community of those who are faithful to the law, probably at some time in the Second Temple period.5
Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded on those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just mere superficial compliance with the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
Christians have struggled to understand exactly what Jesus meant. At first reading, this seems to say that all the Old Testament rules and rituals must still be observed. But Jesus and His disciples did not observe many of those rules and rituals, so it could not mean that.
It is frequently pointed out that the term "the Law" could have many different meanings at the time of Jesus:1,2
Therefore, Jesus may have been specifically teaching that the moral and ethical laws in the Scripture would endure until the end of time. That would be consistent with His actions and other teachings. Through His teachings and actions, Jesus revealed the true meaning and intent of the Law.
So Jesus came to fulfill God's Law, not abolish it. But Jesus gave us a new understanding of the Law, not as the scribes had interpreted it, but as God had intended it. The true essence of the law is not in rules and regulations, but in universal love (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:25-28, John 13:34-35).
In about the year 49 A.D., Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and other Christian leaders met in Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15:1-29). It was agreed, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that nothing was required of the Gentile converts except faith in Christ; they were not bound by the Law of Moses. However, the council directed the Gentile Christians to abstain from certain things that were particularly offensive to Jewish Christians - food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality (Acts 15:29).
However, God has not revoked His original covenant with Israel and the Jewish people (Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25, Romans 9:4-5, 11:26-29, Galatians 3:17). The New Covenant does not condemn the Jews, nor does it in any way justify persecution of Jews.
Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).
However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral standards. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-48, 7:1-5, 15:18-19, 25:37-40, Mark 7:21-23, 12:28-31, Luke 12:15, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Galatians 5:19-21, James 1:27, 2:15-16, 1 John 3:17-19).
1William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible,
Westminster Press, various dates.
2Bruce Barton, ed., Life Application Bible Study Notes, Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., 1991.
3Bishop Robert Barron, Violence in the Bible,
https://media.wordonfire.org/ebooks/Bishop-Barron-on-Violence-in-the-Bible.pdf,
undated
4Dianne Bergant and Robert J. Karris, Commentary on Deuteronomy 7:1-6, in
The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989,
p. 204.
5John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., Oxford Bible Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), Dt 7:1.