=How can one approach reconciling confusing, seemingly disturbing, or otherwise troubling texts from the scriptures?=

==Adopt a solid hermeneutic==

The bible has been read many ways by scholars over a long period of time. Hermeneutics are the general frameworks that people read the scriptures with in order to process information from it. Some readers process the bible very literally, historically accurate, always morally sound, etc. Others read the scriptures as interesting literature only and don’t have very set beliefs on anything regarding revelation and how it works.

For our purposes, we will suggest one hermeneutic to read the scriptures (and the bible in particular). This we will do by looking at modern revelation and combining the views of two scholars of the bible: Paul Copan and Kenton Sparks. The two men actually hold views that are close to each other, yet Sparks stands a part from Copan in that—where Copan affirms that God was behind the inspiration of these less-than-ideal laws, Sparks sees no way to provide a "full-orbed, detailed explanation" to trace things back to God.<ref>Kenton Sparks, ''Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture'' (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 48&ndash;49.</ref> However both men affirm that the Old Testament contains less than ideal circumstances and that scripture does have a redemptive move to it. The author would agree with both men in that the Old Testament does move beyond its morally inferior context in sometimes startling ways, but that because they are less than ideal, they can stand in need of redemption—of Christ’s redeeming power.  

First, modern revelation. We suggest readers see our discussion of the nature of revelation [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_How_do_Mormons_understand_prophetic_revelation%3F here].

We know that many products on the market have a built-in, planned obsolescence. They’re designed for the short-term; they’re not intended to be long-lasting and permanent. The same goes for the law of Moses: it was never intended to be enduring. It looked forward to a new covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). It’s not that the Mosaic law was bad and therefore needed to be replaced. The law was good (Rom. 7:12), but it was a temporary measure that was less than was less than ideal; it was in need of replacement and fulfillment.

Though a necessary part of God’s unfolding plan, the Sinai legislation wasn’t God’s final word. As the biblical scholar N. T. Wright affirms, "The Torah [law of Moses at Sinai] is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished."<ref>N.T. Wright, ''The Climax of the Covenant'' (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 181</ref> This is the message of the New Testament book of Hebrews: the old Mosaic law and other Old Testament institutions and figures like Moses and Joshua were prefiguring "shadows" that would give way to "substance" and completion. Or as Paul put it in Galatians 3:24, the law was a "tutor" for Israel to prepare the way for Christ.

How then did God address the patriarchal structures, primogeniture (rights of the firstborn), polygamy, warfare, servitude/slavery, and a number of other fallen social arrangements that were permitted because of the hardness of human hearts? He met Israel partway. As Jesus stated it in Matthew 19:8, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." We could apply this passage to many problematic structures within the ancient Near Eastern context: "Because of your hardness of "heart Moses permitted servitude and patriarchy and warfare and the like, but from the beginning it has not been this way." They were not ideal and universal.

After God invited all Israelites—male and female, young and old—to be a nation of priests to God, he gave them a simple covenant code (Exod. 20:22– 23:19). Following on the heels of this legislation, Israel rebelled against God in the golden calf incident (Exod. 32). High priests would also have their own rebellion by participating in deviant, idolatrous worship (Lev. 10). As a result of Israel’s turning from God, he gave them more stringent laws (Jer. 7; cf. Gal. 3:19). In the New Testament, Paul assumes that God had been putting up with inferior, less-than-ideal societal structures and human disobedience:

• Acts 17:30: Previously, God "overlooked the times of ignorance" and is "now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent."

• Romans 3:25: God has now "demonstrate[d] His righteousness" in Christ, though "in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed."

Like two sides of the same coin, we have human hard-heartedness and divine forbearance. God put up with many aspects of human fallenness and adjusted accordingly. So Christopher Hitchens’s reaction to Mosaic laws ("we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human animals") actually points us in the right direction in two ways. First, the Mosaic law was temporary and, as a whole, isn’t universal and binding upon all humans or all cultures. Second, Mosaic times were indeed "crude" and "uncultured" in many ways. So Sinai legislation makes a number of moral improvements without completely overhauling ancient Near Eastern social structures and assumptions. God "works with" Israel as he finds her. He meets his people where they are while seeking to show them a higher ideal in the context of ancient Near Eastern life. As one writer puts it, "If human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand."<ref>Alden Thompson, ''Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God?'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 33.</ref> Given certain fixed assumptions in the ancient Near East, God didn’t impose legislation that Israel wasn’t ready for. He moved incrementally. As stated repeatedly in the Old Testament and reinforced in the New Testament, the law of Moses was far from ideal. Being the practical God he is, Yahweh (the Old Testament title for the covenant-making God) met his people where they were, but he didn’t want to leave them there. God didn’t banish all fallen, flawed, ingrained social structures when Israel wasn’t ready to handle the ideals. Taking into account the actual, God encoded more feasible laws, though he directed his people toward moral improvement. He condescended by giving Israel a jumping-off place, pointing them to a better path.

So when we read in Joshua 10:22–27 that Joshua killed five Canaanite kings and hung their corpses on trees all day, we don’t have to explain away or justify such a practice. Such actions reflect a less morally refined condition. Yet these sorts of texts remind us that, in the unfolding of his purposes, God can use heroes such as Joshua within their context and work out his redemptive purposes despite them. And, as we’ll see later on, warfare accounts in Joshua are actually quite tame in comparison to the barbarity of other ancient Near Eastern accounts.

Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old Testament, we should freely acknowledge them. We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1–2 and affirm with our critics that we don’t have to advocate such practices for all societies. We can also show that any of the objectionable practices we find in the Old Testament have a contrary witness in the Old Testament as well.<ref>Bruce C. Birch, ''Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life'' (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 43.</ref>

The Old Testament’s laws exhibit a redemptive movement within Scripture. It’s easy to get stuck on this or that isolated verse—all the while failing to see the underlying redemptive spirit and movement of Scripture that unfold and progress. For example, William Webb’s book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals<ref>William J. Webb, ''Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).</ref> unpacks this "redemptive-movement" perspective found in Scripture. The contrast is the static interpretation that rigidly "parks" at certain texts without considering the larger movement of Scripture.

• God’s ultimate ideals regarding human equality and dignity as well as the creational standard of marriage made their appearance at the very beginning (Gen. 1–2).

Stage #1: Ancestral wandering clan (mishpachah): Genesis 10:31–32

Stage #2: Theocratic people/nation (‘am, goy): Genesis 12:2; Exodus 1:9; 3:7; Judges 2:20

Stage #3: Monarchy, institutional state, or kingdom (mamlakah, malkut): 1 Samuel 24:20; 1 Chronicles 28:5

Stage #4: Afflicted remnant (she’erit): Jeremiah 42:4; Ezekiel 5:10

Stage #5: Postexilic community/assembly of promise (qahal): Ezra 2:64; Nehemiah 13:1

With these differing contexts come differing ethical demands. Each new situation calls for differing ethical responses or obligations corresponding to them. Don’t get the wrong idea, however. It’s not as though this view advocates "situation ethics"—that in some situations, say, adultery is wrong, but in other situations it might be the "loving thing to do". Rather, the Old Testament supplies us with plenty of permanent moral insights from each of these stages. So during the wandering clan stage, we gain enduring insights about commitments of mutual love and concern as well as the importance of reconciliation in overcoming conflict. The patriarchs trusted in a covenant-making God; this God called for full trust as he guided them through difficult, unforeseeable circumstances. And during Israel’s theocratic stage, an enduring insight is the need to acknowledge that all blessings and prosperity come from God’s hand—that they aren’t a right but a gift of grace. The proper response is gratitude and living holy lives in keeping with Israel’s calling.

After this, Israel had to wait 430 years and undergo bondage in Egypt until the bag of Amorite sins was filled to the point of bursting (Gen. 15:16). God certainly didn’t act hastily against the Canaanites! God delivered Israel out of slavery, providing a place for her to live and making her a political entity, a history-making nation. A theocracy was then formed with its own religious, social, and political environment.

==Kenton Sparks on recognizing that scripture is in need of redemption and not immune from criticism==

<blockquote>What we face, I think, is the ethical difficulty I mentioned earlier in passing: the problem of scripture is the problem of evil. Just as God's good and beautiful creation stands in need of redemption, so

Scripture -as God's word written within and in relation to that creation, by finite and fallen humans -stands in need of redemption. Scripture does more than witness explicitly to the fallenness of the created order and humanity. Scripture is implicitly, in itself, a product of and evidence for the fallen world that it describes.  

Given what we have said so far, I would join other scholars in suggesting that a robust doctrine of Scripture should not presume that "the text is immune from criticism."<ref>My phrase "immune from criticism" is taken from Francis Watson, ''Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 173&ndash;87, 231. For similar sentiments, see Ellen F. Davis, "Critical Traditioning: Seeking an Inner Biblical Heremeneutic," ''The Art of Reading Scripture'', ed. E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 163&ndash;80; Werner Jeanrond, ''Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance'' (London: SCM Press, 1994), 114&ndash;15; I. Howard Marshall, ''Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology'' (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); Eric A. Seibert, ''Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God'' (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009); Miroslav Volf, ''Captive to the Word of God: Engaging Scriptures for Contemporary Theological Reflection'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 35. Perhaps, too, Walther Moberly, "What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?" ''JTI'' 3 (2009): 161&ndash;78.</ref>

<blockquote>Anything in the divine writings that cannot be referred either to good, honest morals, or to the truth of the faith, you must know is said allegorically.... Those things ... which appear to the inexperienced to be sinful, and which are ascribed to God, or to men whose holiness is put before us as an example, are wholly allegorical, and the hidden kernel of meaning they contain is to be picked out as food for the nourishment of charity.<ref>''On Christian Doctrine'', 3.10, 12 (NPNF1 2.560&ndash;62).</ref></blockquote>

While I do not fully agree with Augustine's allegorical solution, I very much agree with his sense of the problem. Scripture's natural meaning sometimes runs contrary to the Gospel and, where it does, begs for a hermeneutical explanation. Unlike Augustine, I would attribute these theological tensions to the fact that the Bible is both sacred and broken, which reflects God's choice to sanctify the broken, human voices of Scripture as his divine word.<ref>By saying Scripture is "broken," I do not mean to suggest that it "does not work" or "cannot serve its purpose." Rather, I mean that Scripture, like everything created by God but touched by the Fall, is at the same time both beautiful ''and'' in need of repair. Nothing claimed here is in tension with "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). John's words are not a denial of sin's effect on Scripture. Rather, they merely restate the Jewish assumption that Scripture "always remains in force." See Barnabas Lindars, ''The Gospel of John'' (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 374.</ref><ref>Kenton Sparks, ''Sacred Word Broken Word'', 46&ndash;48.</ref></blockquote>

It should be mentioned that "broken" in Sparks' view is labeling what he sees as the identification of things in scripture that absolutely cannot be traced back to God in any sense. The author does agree with Sparks that it is not immune from criticism. "Broken", though, to the author of this article, is seen better as recognizing the following that makes up the suggested hermeneutic:

# Laws that rise above the fallen and morally inferior context (and with it a need to read the scriptures contextually and holistically).  

# Because of less-than-ideal laws, a need for redemption and fulfillment in Christ. Also, since less then ideal, the laws don't remain entirely immune from criticism. Though they do deserve our careful attention including a contextual reading that helps us how they fulfill #2.  

# Christ’s atonement that covered the sins of all of fallen mankind. God tolerated the fallen structures and hard-heartedness of the Israelites while promising to one day make a new heart of them. Because God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (Alma 45:16; Doctrine and Covenants 1:21), and because these passages do not fully accord with the law of love, the Savior, through an act of grace, was needed to atone for the the sin of the Israelites. Thus the Savior can become part of the Latter-day Saint solution to the so-called Old Testament problem.  

It’s the author’s belief that this hermeneutic shouldn’t be troubling to Latter-day Saints who have traditionally understood the law of Moses to be a "lesser" law. This understanding may deepen with continued study of the scriptures and the moral questions associated with some confusing (and sometimes very troubling if not properly understood) passages. This hermeneutic allows us to both believe in the inspiration of all scripture while also recognizing and acknowledging the fallen aspects of it.  

=How can one reconcile scriptures in the Bible that appear to endorse genocide, pillage, and/or plunder?=

==There are many lenses that we should view the text through in order to see this picture accurately==

==What’s the story?==

The story that the criticism stems from takes up a major part of the Old Testament. The "Conquest Narrative" has parts that go from Numbers to Judges. The main narrative is summarized in its entirety in Joshua and is explained in this excellent video from the Bible Project. They introduce the general narrative and the concern over "genocide".

We’ll dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.

War was a cultural reality for Israel and members of the ancient near east. It was a fight or die situation for many of them. Most of Israel's battles were fought on the defensive. It has been pointed out that Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling (Exodus 17:8) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites (Numbers 21:1); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry (Numbers 25,31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them (Deuteronomy 2, Numbers 21), and so on.  By this moment in Israel’s history, they had become a theocratic people-nation that wanted to continue to show their counterparts their faith in Yahweh and his sovereignty as the only true God. The Canaanite command came at this unique part of history where war was their reality. God was giving a specific command for a specific purpose. The picture that we get from the whole of the biblical text tells a story of gradual infiltration, strategizing, victory here and there, and so on.  

As initial groundwork for understanding this picture, we need to understand what the Israelites thought of these texts as they wrote them. Did they intend the text to be literal? How would they have understood them? How did God "speak unto them according to their language that they might come to understanding?" (2 Nephi 31:3). Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan give an answer to this, which summarizes the view of "most scholars generally"—that the Canaanite account contains "hagiographic hyperbole":

<blockquote>The basic idea is that the accounts of Israel’s early battles in Canaan are narrated in a particular style, which is not intended to be literal in all of its details and contains a lot of hyperbole, formulaic language and literary expressions for rhetorical effect. We argue in our book that the evidence both from within the Bible and from other ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts supports this conclusion.<ref>Matthew Flanagan, Paul Copan Interview with Jonathan Merrit "Did God command genocide in the Bible?"< https://religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible/> (accessed 5 January 2019). See also Pete Enns, "The Canaanites weren’t the "worst sinners ever": engaging Copan and Flannagan on Canaanite extermination" <https://peteenns.com/the-canaanites-werent-the-worst-sinners-ever-engaging-copan-and-flannagan-on-canaanite-> (accessed 5 January 2019) extermination/</ref></blockquote>

 

Let’s now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It’s true that Joshua 9–12 utilizes the typical ancient Near Eastern literary devices for warfare. But at the book’s end, Joshua matter-of-factly assumes the continued existence of Canaanite peoples that could pose a threat to Israel. He warns Israel against idolatry and getting entangled in their ways: "For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you" (Josh. 23:12–13). You get the idea.

Earlier in Deuteronomy 7:2–5, we find a similar tension. On the one hand, God tells Israel that they should "defeat" and "utterly destroy [haram]" the Canaanites (v. 2)—a holy consecration to destruction. On the other hand, he immediately goes on to say in the very next verses:

<blockquote>Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away "from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus, you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim [figures of Asherah, who was the Canaanite goddess of sexuality/sensuality], and burn their graven images with fire. (vv. 3–5)</blockquote>

If the Canaanites were to be completely obliterated, why this discussion about intermarriage or treaties? The final verse emphasizes that the ultimate issue was religious: Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. In other words, destroying Canaanite religion was more important than destroying Canaanite people.<ref>Gordon J. Wenham, "Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 137.</ref> This point was made earlier in Exodus 34:12–13: "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim." In Deuteronomy 12:2–3, we read the same emphasis on destroying Canaanite religion: "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.

As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (herem) was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [herem] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, "Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy" (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>

Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land (Ps. 106:34–35). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel (Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; Judg. 1:19, 21, 27–35).<ref>Copan, Paul "Is God a Moral Monster?" (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011) Ebook</ref></blockquote>

*The language is not literally tied to all men, women, and children as can be seen by simply reading the entire narrative holistically.

An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term "haram" usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely. This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).

We started with Culture and Language because it informs the archaeology on the issue. Indeed, there is a paucity of archaeological evidence to support the widespread, instantaneous, crush, kill, destroy, massacre that some critics and other uninformed people make. This should not be troubling though as the science should inform our theology (D&C 88: 77-79).  

<blockquote>As I argue (along with biblical scholars in general) in The Bible Tells Me So, the hyperbolic nature of Israel’s accounts combined with the extremely unfavorable archaeological evidence for a conquest of any sort suggests that "the conquest" didn’t happen. The biblical accounts reflect later storytelling of perhaps ancient battles and tribal tensions (which may or may not have involved early Israelites.)<ref>Pete Enns "Canaanite genocide: it’s OK because it wasn’t THAT bad (was it?)" <https://peteenns.com/canaanite-genocide-its-ok-because-it-wasnt-that-bad-was-it/> (accessed 3 December 2018)</ref></blockquote>

The only point of disagreement for the author here is that the conquest "didn’t happen". There is indeed evidence of destruction at this time in Israel’s history. Just not a lot.<ref>Marc Brettler "The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible".</ref>

Latter-day Saint Biblical Scholars David Rolph Seely, Dana Pike, and Richard Holzapfel summarized the theories that have stemmed from the paucity of archaeological evidence and also offer some valid pushback on them.Their rejections of the theories are disregarded but their summary of some of the archaeological evidence in favor of the conquest is informative:

It has become common among biblical scholars to downplay, if not eliminate all together, the biblical account of a large number of Israelite "outsiders" conquering Canaan as the explanations for the origins of the Israelites. Those who accept that at least a small group of people managed to escape Egyptian bondage and flee to Canaan see this groups’ experience as becoming normative for a much larger and diverse population that eventually became known as "Israel." More extreme views deny that any outsiders from Egypt played a role in the formation of Israel in Canaan. Such view denies the historical value of the Old Testament, a position that is not warranted.

 

Based on archaeological evidence, the most common alternative theories explaining Israelite origins in Canaan are the "infiltration" theory, that mitigating pastoralists peacefully and gradually coalesced in the highlands of Canaan, and the theory of "internal emergence," that the Israelites were really displaced Canaanites who, for various reasons, broke off from the city-state system and established themselves in the highlands. But neither of these latter theories explains the unique national account of Egyptian bondage contained in the Bible. Nor do scholars with such views generally accept the biblical depiction of Israelites as a covenant people in some ways distinct from others in the region. Rather, they propose a development of Israelite identify and practices that eventually differentiated them from others in the region. While there may well be portions of the Israelite population that arose in ways other than what the Bible depicts, the general biblical account is given primacy in this volume…

One major reason for these alternative proposals is the challenge of matching the biblical account of the conquest with the current results of archaeological excavations in Israel. For example, most archaeologists accept the existence of a walled city at Jericho in the Middle Bronze II period (ending about 1550 B.C.), but suggest there were no walls and little or no population at Jericho during the 1200s, the period in which we think the Bible places Joshua’s conquest (a few archaeologists do suggest the Middle Bronze Age walls were standing in the 1200s). If one accepts that situation, then how does one interpret the narrative about conquering Jericho?

 

Similarly, archaeologists think the city of Ai was uninhabited in the 1200s. A different situation exists for cities like Lachish, Shechem, and Hazor. For example, the book of Joshua claims the Israelites "burnt Hazor with fire" (Josh 11:11). Excavators did find evidence that Hazor was destroyed about 1230 B.C., including a thick layer of ash resulting from a massive fire. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from this evidence who was responsible for this destruction, whether Israelites, the Sea Peoples, or some other group. So even when archaeological evidence as is currently available and interpreted matches the basic account of Joshua—sometimes it does, sometimes it does not—the physical evidence alone is not conclusive as a testimony of the validity of biblical claims.

 

One set of data that indicated change at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B.C.) is the evidence of a large increase in the number of small, unwalled settlements in the central hill country of Canaan that attest several new architectural features Some scholars see this as evidence of the emergence of Israel in the land. While this seems likely, such evidence still only tells us someone arrived, not who. This evidence does correlate well with the biblical depiction of where the Israelites settled and with the Merneptah inscription, which indicates a "people" named Israel lived in the land (see Inscription: The Merneptah Stela, page 150). Also, in a literary vein, the book of Joshua shares similar styles and claims (as well as some differences) with most ancient Near Eastern texts describing military victories.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, David Rolph Seely "Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament" (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, UT 2003) 160</ref></blockquote>

 

It should be noted that this volume was published in 2003 and since then archaeological evidence has still not given the amount of support to a literal interpretation of the entire biblical account but the evidence they cite to push against some of the ideas still stand.

 

Jeffrey Bradshaw makes similar points about archaeology (following the majority of biblical scholars) [https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-ot|18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites/ here].

 

Other scholars have made some intriguing discoveries regarding archaeology:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=3e8FRcOJf5E&t</embedvideo>

 

 

<blockquote>With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation (Josh. 13:1–7; 16:10; 17:12), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed—namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn’t take place and that gradual assimilation did.35 Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we’ve seen) were burned—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (Josh. 6:24; 8:28; 11:13). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. Deut. 6:10–11: "cities which you did not build"). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region—a lot less clean-up!

 

What’s more, Israel itself wasn’t a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them (Exod. 12:23; Num. 11:4); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections—for example, "Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite"(Judg. 3:15), "Izban of Bethlehem" (Judg. 12:8), "Elon the Zebulunite" (Judg. 12:11).

According to the biblical text, Yahweh was willing to wait about 430 years because the "sin of the Amorite [a Canaanite people group] has not yet reached its limit" (Gen 15:16 NET). In other words, in Abraham’s day, the time wasn’t ripe for judgement on the Canaanites; the moment wasn’t right for them to be driven out and for the land to "vomit them out" (Lev. 18:25 NET). Sodom and Gormorrah, on the other hand, were ready; not even ten righteous people could be found there (Genesis 18-19). Even earlier, at the time of Noah, humans had similarly hit moral rock bottom (Gen 6:11-13). Despite 120 years of Noah’s preaching (Gen 6:3; cf. 5:32; 7:6; 2 Peter 2:5), no one outside his family listened; his contemporaries were also ripe for judgement. But it was only after Israel’s lengthy enslavement in Egypt that the time was finally ripe for the Israelites to enter Canaan—"because of the wickedness of these nations" (Deut 9:4-5).

What kind of wickedness are we talking about? We’re familiar with the line, "The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree." In the case of the Canaanites, the Canaanites’ moral apples didn’t fall far from the tree of their pantheon of immoral gods and goddesses. So it the Canaanite deites engaged in incest, then it is not surprising that incest wasn’t treated as a serious moral wrong among the Canaanite people. As we’ve seen adultery (temple sex), bestiality, homosexual acts (also temple sex), and child sacrifice were also permitted (cf. Lev, 18:20-30).

Humans are "imaging" beings, designed to reflect the likeness and glory of their Creator. If we worship[ the creaturely rather than the Creator, we’ll come to resemble or image the idols of our own devising and that in which we place our security.<ref>See G.K. Beale, "We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008)</ref>The sexual acts of the gods and goddesses were imitated by the Canaanites high places, the more this would stimulate the fertility god Baal to have sex with his consort, Anath, which meant more semen (rain) produced to water the earth.

Let’s add to this the bloodlust and violence of the Canaanite deities. Anath, the patroness of both sex and war, reminds us of the bloodthirsty goddess Kali of Hinduism, who drank her victim’s blood and sat surrounded by corpses; she is commonly depicted with a garland of skulls around her neck. The late archaeologist William Albright describes the Canaanite deity Anath’s massacre in the following gory scene:

 

"The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees—nay, up to her heck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at the butchery is described in even more sadistic language. "Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Anath (was full of) exultation(?)" Afterwards Anath "was satisfied and washed her hands in human gore before proceeding to other occupations<ref>William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), 77. See also Richard M. Davidson, "Footsteps of Joshua" (Hagerstown, PA: Review and Herald, 1995), 95.</ref></blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.

33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.

35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it. </blockquote>

The next question is about the purpose of the conquest. What does it actually accomplish then? Why the command in the first place? We’ve already established their wickedness. But the conquest narrative goes a bit deeper. The narrative is about taking possession of the land so that God’s people obtain their promise from him and rule as his people. It is this war over who holds reign in the common cosmological vision. Thus the need, in the view of Matthew Flanagan, John Walton, Paul Copan, John Goldingay, and others to destroy Canaanite religion instead of Canaanite people. If the Israelites could begin and end a cosmic war, then Israel could prepare the way for the Gospel to come to that land. The conquest also had the benefit of preventing oppression of the Israelites by Canaan after they had spent several years under the autocratic slavery of the Egyptians.  

===Does God command us to destroy the religion of others?===

It is a common question, does God, then, want us to destroy the religion of others? The answer is an emphatic no! As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the command came at a specific time in Israel’s history, with a specific purpose, that was unique to the entire history of Israel.  

<blockquote>We must also insist that not all commandments which are found in the Bible are to be obeyed by contemporary Christians. For example, God commanded Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees, and commanded Jonah to preach in Nineveh; it would be silly to suppose that it is part of every Christian’s duty to obey these commandments<ref> Richard Mouw, "Biblical Revelation and Medical Decisions," in On Moral Medicine, ed. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 56. As cited in Paul Copan, Matthew Flanagan Did God Really Command Genocide? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014) 53</ref></blockquote>

===What if innocents were actually killed during the conquest?===

If non-combatants and/or other innocents were killed during the conquest, then this would be condemnable as it is murder and such was against Israel’s law (Exodus 20:13). If innocents were killed, they were taken to the God that gave them life (Job 1:21) and the perpetrator would likely be punished (whether by God and/or Israel).

*God does pour out wrath on people if they are wicked and he has sufficient moral reason to do so

*God did not intend to kill the Canaanites but "drive them out".

*God gave these commands at a very particular part of Israelite history and with a specific purpose. Thus, God limits this command to the Israelites and it is not extended to us.  

*The conquest sought to begin and end the cosmic warfare that would have happened.

*The conquest sought also to prevent the oppression of Israel by Canaan after they had already been oppressed for a number of years under the Egyptians.

*If any innocents were killed, this would have been a violation of Israel’s law and thus condemnable.

===The Midianites (Numbers 25, 31)===

Some have misinterpreted a few aspects of the Midianites. Specifically, they claim that Israel defeated the Midianites because of racism and that they raped their women. We have addressed these in other articles

5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, <b>that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them</b>.

6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, <b>to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.</b>

8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; <b>and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.</b>

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; <b>therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.</b>

10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.

This ethic is much, much more palatable from a Latter-day Saint’s [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-76-the-vision-of-the-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng soteriological point of view] where no one is damned to hell (or in the Latter-day Saints' case: "outer darkness") unless under very, very harsh and unique circumstances and instead receive differing levels of glory based upon our works, the desires of our hearts, and our potential (or future potential) to receive the Gospel. Under this view, the Canaanite Conquest becomes much more reconcilable. Of course, the knowledge of the [[Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?|Three Kingdoms]] would have been anachronistic to the Israelites who fought against Canaan. That wouldn't come (even in seed) until New Testament times<ref>Cheryl A. Kirk-Douglas, "Heaven" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible ed., David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 564. "In the NT...Heaven, the seat of redemption and reconciliation, is beyond time; it may appear as a series (three or seven); and is foundational for this world where on experiences happiness, praise, and service."</ref>. They would have been under the understanding of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol Sheol], which is similar to the Restored Gospel's concept of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_world_(Latter_Day_Saints) Spirit World]. However, the concept would obviously not be unknown to God who, in theory, had not revelaed the entire Plan of Salvation&mdash;including knowledge of the three degrees of glory&mdash;in its fullness.

Some scholars take the view of the conquest being the result of "accommodation". As a very general summary, these men and women define that term as God accommodating and allowing the view point of the Canaanites instead of inspiring. To them, the conquest narrative came without inspiration of God but allowance from God for their preservation in the scriptural text. This, they argue, is something that God allows to teach us from negative examples of behavior today. Among the most popular of these individuals are people such as Peter Enns, Kenton Spaks, and Gregory Boyd. These scholars have laid out their viewpoints in great detail to tease the nuance in it.

Below is a list of resources that were consulted for the creation of this article and other potentially helpful miscellany. Also included are links to other articles addressing other supposed instances of "genocide" in the Bible.

* Paul Copan, Matthew Flanagan, "Did God Command Genocide?" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2014)

*Jeff Chadwick, "Did Joshua ‘Utterly Destroy’ the Canaanites?" <https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites/> Interpreter Foundation, May 10, 2018 (accessed 13 February 2019)

*Richard Holzapfel, Dana Pike, David Rolph Seely "Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament" (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2009)

*Kenton Sparks, "Sacred Word Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012)

*Kenton Sparks, "God’s Words in Human Words" (Ada, MI: Baker Books, 2008)

*Peter Enns, "The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It" (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2015)

*The Bible Project, <https://www.youtube.com/user/jointhebibleproject>  

As Latter-day Saints turned their attention to the Old Testament for the 2022 Come Follow Me curriculum, our attention was drawn towards a problem that has vexed theologians and Christian philosophers for many years and that is the problem of scriptural violence. The problem can be best summarized by the following "What ethical principle(s) is (are) meant to be taught to modern believers by the existence of violence in the scriptures (and particularly the Old Testament) that is either commanded by God or personally effectuated by him?"

How could the Jesus of the New Testament be the God of the Old Testament? The same man that said to "forgive seventy times seven" is also the same one that appeared as vindictive as the God of the Old Testament?<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/18?lang=eng Matthew 18:21&ndash;22]</ref>

If you think you’re alone in asking these types of questions, think again. 4th century Christian theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nazianzus Gregory of Nazianzus] struggled in reconciling the conquest of the Canaanites depicted in Deuteronomy and Joshua with the God revealed in Jesus in the New Testament.<ref>Kenton Sparks, ''Sacred Word, Broken Word: Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing, 2012), Kindle Loc 558.</ref> 1st century Christian theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope Marcion of Sinope] believed that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament were distinct beings and that the God of the New was superior to the God of the Old. Marcion was pronounced a heretic and excommunicated from the Church around 144 A.D.<ref>Diarmaid MacColloch, ''Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years'' (London: Penguin Books, 2011), 125–27; Justo L. Gonzalez, ''The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation'' (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 73&ndash;80.</ref> This is a problem which has haunted the Church for sometime.  

For the Restored Church, we believe that this is fortunately not an insurmountable obstacle to it. We believe that the picture of God given in the Old Testament can be reconciled with the New Testament and other Restoration Scripture by drawing on all scriptural resources available to Latter-day Saints and the unique ideas that flow from them. We hope to outline those ideas in this article.

These ideas are gathered in part from the scriptures and the teachings of modern prophets and apostles. We believe that when the Old Testament and other scripture is read with these ideas in mind, that we can discover the agapic God that we know behind the seemingly petty bravado of Jehovah.

These ideas are not all mutually exclusive, and our hope is that interested Latter-day Saints will use them in the combinations that help them make the most sense of the various instances of human and divine violence in the Old Testament and other scripture.

Some of these ideas may not be as developed and well-defended as they need to be. They may be inchoate. But we hope that with whatever deficiencies may exist in these ideas that those deficiencies can be used as a means of stimulating reflection and, hopefully, improvement or more documented and well-thought-out defenses of them.

These ideas are not presented as the final word on this issue nor is the author married to these ideas. Rather, these are simply all the logical possibilities that the author sees for potentially reconciling this issue with faith. These ideas are free to be embraced, rejected, strengthened, or weakened as other readers/analysts see warranted and possible.

==Response to Question==

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is a big distinction between the scriptures ''de''scribing a certain behavior and ''pre''scribing it. Many people take almost all instances of violence in scripture as ''pre''scriptive when more are meant to be merely ''de''scriptive. In some cases, scripture is ''pre''scribing that you don't follow the same course of violent action as the people that it is ''de''scribing.

===Justification for Violent Action Can Be Both Inside and Outside of the Text===

Many of the following ideas for why God either commands or personally effectuates violence in scripture require that certain conditions be met before that act of violence is justified. It is important to keep in mind that sufficient justification may occur and be described within the text of the scriptures or occur outside of the text of the scriptures and not be described within the text of the scriptures. By keeping this in mind, we won’t hastily jump to any conclusion that a particular instance of violence is unjustified.

Christian scholar and apologist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Copan Paul Copan] writes that "''love'' is God's central attribute, and God's severity ''flows out of'' his love. God desires the ultimate well-being of humans, but he will sometimes have to say 'enough is enough.' He will have to act in judgement to stop dehumanization and other evils that undermine human flourishing."<ref>Paul Copan, ''Is God a Vindictive Bully? Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 5. Emphasis in original.</ref>

Copan then quotes eminent New Testament scholar and Anglican theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright N.T. Wright]:

<blockquote>Face it: to deny God's wrath is, at bottom, to deny God's love. When God sees humans being enslaved . . . if God doesn't hate it, he is not a loving God. . . .When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone's political agenda, if God doesn't hate it, he isn't a loving God. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grifting and preying on one another, if God were to say, "Never mind, I love you all anyway," he is neither good nor loving. The Bible doesn't speak of a God of generalized benevolence. It speaks of the God who made the world and loves it so passionately that he must and does hate everything that distorts and defaces the world and particularly his human creatures.<ref>N.T. Wright, "The Word of the Cross," NTWrightPage.com, accessed March 26, 2023, https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/03/30/the-word-of-the-cross/. As quoted in Copan, ''God a Vindictive Bully'', 5&ndash;6.</ref></blockquote>

The scriptures certainly treat murder as a type of action that deserves violence as the only just punishment. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/9.6?lang=eng Genesis 9:6] reads "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Modern revelation echoes this idea. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.19?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 42:19] reads "And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die."

The Book of Mormon presents a unique doctrine that we believe will be useful for anyone studying the Old Testament and other scripture. We’ll call it the doctrine of ''Preventative Clemency''. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/8?lang=eng 3 Nephi 8] records great destruction by Christ just prior to his appearance to the Nephites. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/9?lang=eng 3 Nephi 9] records that the Savior could then be heard thundering decrees from heaven. He declares that he has buried the lands of Zarahemla, Moroni, Moronihah, Gilgal, Onihah, Mocum, Jerusalem, Gadianhi, Gadiomnah, Jacob, Gimgimno, Jacobugath, Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen. Among the reasons given for destroying these lands, the Savior says that it was so that "the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/9.5,7-9,11?lang=eng 3 Nephi 9:5, 7-9, 11]). You can see that the Lord is having clemency on these cities by not allowing them to damn themselves more by committing more murder and, perhaps, other heinous sins.

Given that murder has always been seen in scripture as an abominable sin even in the Old Testament ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ex/20.13?lang=eng Exodus 20:13]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/5.17?lang=eng Deuteronomy 5:17]), and that murder is unforgivable ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.18-19?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 42:18&ndash;19]), it seems reasonable that God would not allow us to kill more so that we do not damn ourselves more.

This idea does not necessarily have to be limited to instances of future murder. Could there be sins that are just as heinous in the eyes of God like murder that might warrant preventative clemency? That remains a question ripe for exploration. These might include rape, child torture, child sacrifice, and other heinous acts.

This doctrine will be strengthened if we can show that perhaps our psychological dispositions change as we murder such that we are more likely to commit them in the future and likely damn ourselves more. We believe the strength has been found in the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity neural plasticity] identified by neuroscientists.

Closely related to the idea of preventative clemency is ''defensive violence''. What differentiates this idea from preventative clemency is that defensive violence is taken when the violence hasn't yet occurred but must be countered with violence from the defender in order to preserve the defender's life. The scriptures record instances of the Lord helping his people in defensive battles. Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling (Exodus 17:8) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites (Numbers 21:1); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry (Numbers 25, 31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them (Deuteronomy 2, Numbers 21), and so on.

[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98?lang=eng&id=33-38#p33#33 Doctrine & Covenants 98:33–38] clarifies that in any case that the ancient Israelites needed to fight a battle against another, they were first to offer peace and reconciliation to their would-be attackers. This procedure of offering peace is given as a stipulation for other people to follow when they encounter potential death at the hands of another group of people:

:33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

:36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

:38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

Important in this scripture is that the Lord via revelation endorses defensive violence when certain requirements are met. Defensive violence is a scriptural doctrine.

Latter-day Saints hold that all humans had a pre-mortal existence as spirits in the presence of the heavenly hosts. According to the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, there is at least a part of our human spirit that has always existed into infinity past and will always exist into infinity future ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.18?lang=eng Abraham 3:18]). This part is called our ''intelligence'' in Latter-day Saint scripture. This intelligence is a self-conscious, spiritual, material entity ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 131:7&ndash;8]) that has apparently always existed ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng&id=29#p29 Doctrine & Covenants 93:29]).

Well, during that time, it is certainly possible that a spirit or a large group of spirits can learn a lot about God’s laws and the way in which, by obedience to those laws, they can become like God. Could it be that the moral education we have received in perhaps eons past is sufficient enough to hold us deeply accountable for at least a portion of our actions such that we lose our lives for disobeying that moral law? This is what we’ll call God’s ''moral disappointment'' in his children.

[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.30-32?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 93:30&ndash;32] seems to teach this idea:

:30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

:31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

:32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

It is certainly the case that there is a part of our experience that required getting a body. Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a coveted thing&mdash;crucial to our learning. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.33-34?lang=eng  Doctrine & Covenants 93:33&ndash;34] tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected. It is clear in scripture, though for reasons not fully explained, that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/8.28-32?lang=eng Matthew 8:28&ndash;32]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45.17?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 45:17]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138.14-15,18,50?lang=eng 138:14&ndash;15, 18, 50]). All this mentioned, it seems that there is something about wickedness and righteousness that is known by anyone no matter what stage of development they find themselves at. We obviously know from scripture that Satan and a third part of the hosts of heaven in the premortal life turned away from God because of their agency ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29?lang=eng&id=36-39#p36 Doctrine & Covenants 29:36&ndash;39]). Thus there must be something of a moral and intellectual education that we can receive or perhaps have always held from all eternity and by which God can judge all of us as we enter this mortal life and have the Light of Christ placed within us ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.16?lang=eng Moroni 7:16]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.46?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 84:46]).

To add to this, we know that God’s ultimate destiny for his children is for them to become as he is ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20]). We know that if one disobeys the moral Good, they can lose their status as a god ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/42.13,22,25?lang=eng Alma 42:13, 22, 25]). Could it be that the law of Moses and some of the violent punishments attached to it are meant to be the means of instilling the gravity and seriousness with which one should obey the law, given the high responsibility and award that awaits a person after this life? This is what we’ll call ''proximate motivation''.

<blockquote>We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked and of His acting in His wrath against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God "institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself." God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/11/love-and-law?lang=eng Love and Law]," ''Ensign'' 39, no. 11 (November 2009): 27.</ref></blockquote>

Under this idea/theory, the violence of the God of the Old Testament and the more non-violent God of the New are not two separate gods as Marcion theorized; but the same God acting under two different modes of pedagogy for helping his children know the seriousness with which they must take their future role as a god. The atonement and ministry of Jesus Christ broker a new mode of pedagogy to be installed. Christ became the new sacrifice and object of God's harshness and violence (instead of animals and humans as in the Old Testament) so that we could have a prolonged period of time to repent and become like God. Christ then asks us, in return for his suffering, for [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/triple-index/broken-heart-and-contrite-spirit?lang=eng a broken heart and a contrite spirit].

Proverbs, Hebrews, and Helaman teach that God chastens us and even scourges us because he loves us ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/prov/3.11-12?lang=eng Proverbs 3:11&ndash;12]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/heb/12.5-6?lang=eng Hebrews 12:5&ndash;6]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/15.3?lang=eng Helaman 15:3]). This so that people will be humbled enough so that they will turn back to him. Could it be that these divine punishments serve ends to restore certain people’s connection back to God or provide them motivation to establish connection with him for the first time? [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/hel/15.3?lang=eng Helaman 12:3] tells us that "except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him." Perhaps violence turns people to God and spurs them to believe in him and be in alignment with his will. This is what we’ll call ''generative chastisement''.  

The Lord told Brigham Young that "[m]y people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom."<ref>[https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/136.31?lang=eng#/ Doctrine & Covenants 136:31]</ref> The Lord told the Saints in August 1833 that "I will prove you in '''all things''', whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.14-15?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 98:14&ndash;15]. Emphasis added.</ref> In December 1833 he said that "they must needs be chastened and tried, '''even as Abraham''', who was commanded to offer up his only son."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101.4?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 101:4]. Emphasis added.</ref> King Benjamin taught us that "the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, '''willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father'''."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/3.19?lang=eng Mosiah 3:19]. Emphasis added.</ref>

===Ethical Deterrence===

Going along well with the already-mentioned ideas is the idea of ''ethical deterrence''. Violence against those that don't keep God's commandments will surely act as good motivation to not follow the deceased's same course of action and to keep God's commandments.

<blockquote>The ancient King Solomon was one of the most outwardly successful human beings in history.<ref>An msn.com poll listed Solomon as the fifth richest person to ever live. "According to the Bible, King Solomon ruled from 970 BC to 931 BC, and during this time he is said to have received 25 tons of gold for each of the 39 years of his reign, which would be worth billions of dollars in 2016. Along with impossible riches amassed from taxation and trade, the biblical ruler’s personal fortune could have surpassed $2 trillion in today’s money" ("The 20 Richest People of All Time," Apr. 25, 2017, msn.com)

</ref> He seemed to have everything—money, power, adoration, honor. But after decades of self-indulgence and luxury, how did King Solomon sum up his life?

"All is vanity,"<ref>See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/eccl/1.1-2?lang=eng Ecclesiastes 1:1–2].</ref> he said.

This man, who had it all, ended up disillusioned, pessimistic, and unhappy, despite everything he had going for him.<ref>See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/eccl/2.17?lang=eng Ecclesiastes 2:17].</ref><ref name="uchtdorf>Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/believe-love-do?lang=eng Believe, Love, Do]," ''Ensign'' 48, no. 11 (November 2018): 46.</ref></blockquote>

Only a little more than three minutes after broaching the story of Solomon and these words from him, Elder Uchtdorf triumphantly declares that "Solomon was wrong, my dear brothers and sisters–and life is not ‘vanity.’ To the contrary, it can be full of purpose, meaning, and peace."<ref name="uchtdorf"></ref>

It is true that there are times when scripture intends to give us a negative example of how to behave morally so that we can learn from it today. Such is almost certainly the case with the book of Judges and its chronicle of the fall of Israel. But could there be times when scripture intends to portray a given teaching or phenomena as divinely-approved or inspired and yet not actually be divinely approved or inspired? We think it is possible, and Elder Uchtdorf is at least one example of an orthodox, faithful Latter-day Saint who saw no problem with this possibility. Elder Uchtdorf recognizes the moral impracticality and, indeed, falsity of proclaiming that all is vanity. Jacob informs us that we were created with the end of keeping God’s commandments and glorifying him forever ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.21?lang=eng Jacob 2:21]). This is certainly in contradiction with a teaching that all is vanity. There remains the why would God allow a false teaching to be portrayed as inspired in scripture? As an answer to this, we propose an idea we’ll call ''scriptural allergism''. Scriptural allergism is the affirmation of a small collection of propositions.  We're almost certain that this set of ideas is not entirely our own.  

We’ve already mentioned how Latter-day Saints believe that at least a part of our spirit is eternal both backwards and forwards and how there can be a moral law that we have known from all eternity past and will know to all eternity future that allows us to achieve mutual self-realization. Along with these propositions, scriptural allergism would affirm that God exists, that he reveals his will through mortal messengers such as prophets, that those prophets record their teachings in sacred texts, and that God allows seemingly false moral ideas to be incorporated into scripture (and even allowing those propositions to appear morally inspired) so that readers have an almost allergic reaction to those ideas given the moral law that they have written on their hearts and have known from all eternity past.

We hesitate to propose this idea because we can already sense that it will be exploited by those who wish to disregard any prophetic directive that doesn’t immediately appeal to their current, culturally-conditioned morals. Joseph Smith taught that "[i]f the Church knew all the commandments, one half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance."<ref>''History of the Church'', 2:477; George Q. Cannon, in ''Conference Report'', April 6, 1900, 57.</ref> Thus, let us state here and emphasize that [[When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?|we believe it is the duty of any Christian (Latter-day Saint Christian or otherwise) to defend the moral teaching of scripture as correct as much as humanly possible]]. That said, we can believe it plausible that there may come a time where we simply won’t be able to, and that’s where an idea like scriptural allergism can apply.

The beauty of the doctrine is that it teaches us that God exalts the fallen to teach us exaltation. It reaches down to the depths and basest desires of humanity and uses it as a means of bringing us all collectively higher. That is where, perhaps counterintuitively, scriptural allergism finds its strength. Lehi tells us in his valedictory that "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.11?lang=eng 2 Nephi 2:11]). Perhaps the Old Testament serves as a kind of "opposition" to the New and other scripture. If we didn't have this stark portrayal of rather disturbing violence and other ethical dilemmas in the Old Testament, then perhaps we wouldn't more plainly recognize and appreciate the good and divinity of the light and moral progress demonstrated in the New Testament and other scripture.

This doctrine may find scriptural support in a particular interpretation of [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/morm/9.31?lang=eng Mormon 9:31] in which Moroni exhorts us as follows: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." The exact nature of the imperfection that Moroni is exhorting us not to condemn is not certain. A couple of verses later in Mormon 9:33, Moroni says that "if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." Does Moroni, then, refer to moral imperfection in 9:31? Or perhaps a scribal imperfection? Moroni says that we need to learn to be "more wise" than Book of Mormon authors, and that language ("more wise") seems to lend itself more naturally to interpreting the passage as referring to morality rather than scribal practice. Correct interpretation of this passage remains uncertain, however.

Evidence in favor of scriptural allergism may be found in the fact that, in many cases, archaeological evidence for the type of violence described in scripture is lacking. But, [[How can one best read and understand the scriptures?|as we've written elsewhere]], the evidence of absence needs to be taken with caution if want to understand God and the scriptures:

<blockquote>There may be some unresolved difficulties when weighing science and scripture. We can take a lack of archaeological evidence for the Canaanite conquest as depicted in the Bible. Does the lack of evidence mean that the conquest didn’t happen as depicted in the Bible or that God made it so that that kind of evidence wasn’t available to us? It’s an unanswerable question and many like these will arise during the course of weighing scripture and science. Keep in mind that God not allowing the evidence to exist doesn’t necessarily make him deceitful nor a trickster. It just means that there needs to be a degree of evidentiary separation between him and us so that we can come into relationship freely with him instead of being coerced into it by overwhelming proof of his existence. Who ''really'' knows how exactly he could have bent time and space in order to make these miraculous events of scripture happen and then to not leave sufficient evidence of their happening? Who ''really'' knows ''exactly'' what level of evidence is sufficient for leading us a long a path of breadcrumbs to God vs. coercing us too forcefully into believing in his existence? Who knows whether God has chosen to remove evidence from us to allow faith or whether something just never occurred in the first place? We must be careful when weighing science with the scriptures.</blockquote>

To be clear, we are not claiming that one ''cannot know at all'' whether an event happened or not. We are simply saying that one must be very careful and methodical with how they come to the conclusion that a given event (in this case a violent one) never happened.

Another idea might go like this: [[Mormonism and difficult Bible questions|we know that there are fallen social structures in the Old Testament]]. For instance, Leviticus clearly allows a form of chattel slavery&mdash;Israelites enslaving non-Israelites ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/lev/25.44-46?lang=eng Leviticus 25:44&ndash;46]). Perhaps [[Why are Old Testament penalties for disobedience so harsh?|the instances of capital punishment for even trivial offenses]] can be a type of moral compromise. If you're going to be allowed to engage in morally repugnant activities, then you are going to be held to higher standards elsewhere. The penalty for not abiding by these little rules is death itself, given the atrocities that the Lord is allowing the Israelites to indulge in elsewhere.

You might not think that this is a very palatable idea, but Jesus already seems to teach this idea in the New Testament. He says in the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19.7-8?lang=eng Matthew 19:7&ndash;8]:

:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Do you catch that? Jesus is saying that God compromised with humans to allow divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. It admittedly doesn't say that God stipulated harsher punishments elsewhere for other sins, but it does show that God conceded something to humans because of the hardness of their hearts&mdash;which can make this idea more plausible. God's compromise to Israel and giving them a less-than-ideal moral law&mdash;including the scriptures that support the idea&mdash;is explored and documented more on YouTube by Christian philosopher and apologist Michael Jones.

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=93JdjLqBQqE</embedvideo>

===Blake Ostler on Categories and the I-Thou Relationship===

Latter-day Saint theologian and philosopher Blake Ostler in his book ''Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement'' (2013) gave an interesting insight and possibility for understanding the God of the Old Testament and other scripture.

Ostler begins by citing the work of German philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant Immanuel Kant]. Kant argued that humans come into the world with a set of categories that are pre-loaded and that make sense of all experience. Prior to any experience, there are categories that are ready to take in experience and interpret it; label it and categorize it. These categories include space, time, and quantity. Ostler next turns to Austrian-Israeli philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber Martin Buber] (1878&ndash;1965) and his thought on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Ich-Du I-Thou relationship]. Buber attempts to make sense of how persons can fully and properly relate to one another. Persons cannot be objects but must be full subjects. When two persons encounter each other as full subjects, they are part of the I-Thou relationship. When one of the persons becomes an object, the relationship between one person and the other becomes an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Ich-Es I-It relationship]. Fuller explanations are available at the hyperlinks.

Ostler says that in order to truly encounter God and treat God as a full subject&mdash;a true Thou&mdash;he must do things that break free of the categories that we impose on him&mdash;including moral categories. If he didn't, we would continue to ossify our relationship with him and treat him as an It.<ref>Blake T. Ostler, ''Fire on the Horizon: A Meditation on the Endowment and Love of Atonement'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 35&ndash;42.</ref>  

Ostler explains and explores this more on [http://www.exploringmormonthought.com/2019/05/ep81-human-sacrifice-plural-marriage.html this podcast episode of Exploring Mormon Thought].

At least some of these solutions and some of the logical implications of them will naturally will bring up questions about how to conceive the purpose of the atonement of Jesus Christ and how people will be judged in the next life. For example, say that we take the scriptural allergism approach to reconciling a thorny passage or two. What if a writer or group of people from Old Testament times or other scripture faked receiving revelation from God to hurt and kill innocent people who had never heard of the Gospel? How is God going to judge the innocent people? How will he judge the writer and people? Do either get a chance at the Celestial Kingdom? Does baptism for the dead cover the innocents? But what if baptism for the dead didn't exist or wasn't instituted until New Testament times (since there's no evidence of it in the Old Testament nor Book of Mormon)? Does the atonement cover them and offer them ability to receive ordinances necessary for salvation? Can it?  

Much of the answers that might be offered to these questions, especially if such answers attempt to be exhaustive and definitive, will involve speculation that goes beyond scripture and attempting to articulate a formula for every situation (considering all the questions that we're attempting to answer and moving parts of a potential answer) would thus be irresponsible and perhaps bring more obfuscation and frustration than light. But here are some scriptural truths that, when considered, should bring us comfort and at least ''enough'' answers to be at peace with these questions.

#God is an [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng all-knowing], [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/triple-index/god-goodness-of?lang=eng perfect] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ-judge?lang=eng judge].

#God judges people factoring in all relevant considerations including the light people received before they came into this world ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.30-32?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 93:30&ndash;32]) and the light they receive and act in adherence to while in the world ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/56?lang=eng&id=2#p2 Doctrine & Covenants 59:2]).

#That same redemption for children is offered to "all them that have no law" according to the same chapter: Moroni 8.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/8.22?lang=eng Moroni 8:22]</ref> The atonement may cover those people that never received essential ordinances if not instituted during the mortal life of someone. It may also cover those that don't have the chance to receive ordinances via the vicarious work of those that are still living including New Testament Christians and modern Latter-day Saints.

#[[Do the scriptures endorse murder?|God condemns murder]] and has done so throughout the ages. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.18-19?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 42:18&ndash;19] lists it as an unforgivable sin but does not describe the exact punishment ascribed to the sin of murder.

#Sin is to know what is right and fail to do it, according to [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/4.17?lang=eng James 4:17]. It is to disobey the explicit law of God as defined by [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-jn/3.5?lang=eng 1 John 3:5] and, apparently, [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-jn/3.17?lang=eng 1 John 5:17].

#No one is damned to hell (or in the Latter-day Saints' case: "outer darkness") unless under very, very harsh and unique circumstances and instead receives differing levels of glory based upon their works, the desires of their hearts, and their potential (or future potential) to receive the Gospel. Under this view, the [[How can one properly view scriptural texts that appear to endorse genocide, pillage, and plunder in the Bible?|Canaanite Conquest]], for example, becomes much more reconcilable. Of course, the knowledge of the [[Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?|Three Kingdoms]] would have been anachronistic to, for instance, the Israelites who fought against Canaan. That wouldn't come (even in seed) until New Testament times.<ref>Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, "Heaven," in ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', 564. "In the NT...Heaven, the seat of redemption and reconciliation, is beyond time; it may appear as a series (three or seven); and is foundational for this world where one experiences happiness, praise, and service."</ref> Ancient Israelites would have been under the understanding of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol Sheol], which is similar to the Restored Gospel's concept of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_world_(Latter_Day_Saints) Spirit World]. However, the concept of the Three Degrees of Glory would obviously not be unknown to God who, in theory, had not revealed his knowledge of the Plan of Salvation&mdash;including knowledge of the three degrees of glory&mdash;in its fullness.

The preeminent authority on the atonement in Latter-day Saint thought is Latter-day Saint philosopher and theologian Blake Ostler. Ostler has written a now-4-volume series on Latter-day Saint theology entitled ''Exploring Mormon Thought''. Ostler has two chapters from that series that are relevant for discussions about the atonement since they describe and critique all historical theories of atonement (except for one called [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Christus Victor] theory) including some of the unique theories pioneered by Latter-day Saint thinkers.<ref>Blake T. Ostler, ''Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God'' (Salt Lake City, Greg Kofford Books, 2006), chap. 7; ''Exploring Mormon Thought: God's Plan to Heal Evil'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2020), chap. 12.</ref>

An understanding of this problem begins with knowing that the Old Testament represents a fallen-world ethic. Christian philosopher and apologist Paul Copan [[How can one approach reconciling confusing, seemingly disturbing, or otherwise troubling texts from the scriptures?|has observed]] how the ethic of the Old Testament was provisional and inferior&mdash;accomodated to the hardened hearts of Israel's day. At a point in the future, God promised to circumcise Israel's heart in a new covenant ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/jer/31?lang=eng Jeremiah 31]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ezek/36?lang=eng Ezekiel 36]). The people of Israel also progressed through different stages as a people: starting as an ancestral wandering clan, then becoming a theocratic people-nation, then a monarchic institutional state or kingdom, then an afflicted remnant of people, and finally a post-exilic community united by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple second temple].<ref>Paul Copan, ''Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), Ebook loc. 91–108.</ref> Thus, the ethic of the Old Testament must respond to differing circumstances. Evangelical scholar Kenton Sparks [[How can one approach reconciling confusing, seemingly disturbing, or otherwise troubling texts from the scriptures?|has observed]] that the Old Testament is in need of redemption. Being a part of God's fallen creation, it needs redemption through the atonement of Christ. The author of this article takes the view that these perspectives can be merged.

Given that the Old Testament and much of its ethic represents a less-than-ideal ethic, and God cannot look on sin the least degree of allowance,it presents us with an opportunity to think about how we might think about the atonement of Jesus Christ to reconcile that ethic. The author of this article follows a line of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement substitutionary atonement] thought that might be helpful.  

We can imagine a scenario in which a father and son are playing catch outside. The son throws the ball far over the father's head and ends up hitting the next door neighbor's window. Furious, the neighbor can come outside demanding some means of fixing his window. Knowing that the son has no money, the father can render some to the neighbor in order to repair the window and the damage done by the son.  

This scenario is much different than many that have been proposed to explain the atonement. Importantly, it dodges one of the main criticisms (and the criticisms that stem from this main one) of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution penal substitutionary theory] of atonement: that there is a presumption of guilt of the father.<ref>Ostler himself spends ten pages arguing against penal substitution in ''The Problems of Theism''. It's amazing that all of his criticisms of penal substitution are avoided when there is no presumption of guilt on Christ.</ref> The son is the one who is morally culpable, but he doesn't have to pay the price for his culpability. The father has resources to both appease the anger of the neighbor and, by so doing, demonstrate his love to his son.

This type of substitutionary thought can explain why God might have allowed this type of inferior ethic to exist in the Old Testament and how the Old Testament&mdash;including the prophets and historians that wrote it as well as the Israelites with their hard hearts that wouldn't bend more towards light and love&mdash;can be redeemed.

It can also explain other problems that arise when considering the violence in the Old Testament as well as the insular covenantal status of Israel. What if innocent people were killed that didn't need to be killed? What if innocent children were killed? What about people outside of the covenant Israelite people and their salvation. Will they need to have baptisms for the dead and other ordinances done for them?

We know that "little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons".  Perhaps Christ's atonement can also extend to pre-Christ advent, non-covenant peoples that did not have the chance to become part of the covenant people nor hear the true Gospel of God and Christ. Perhaps Christ's atonement can be the currency that "purchases" the opportunity for these people, and those who were killed innocently, to have the chance to hear the Gospel from angels that preach the Gospel in the Spirit world. While this latter part is speculative and without much scriptural support, it fits in the narrative of the scriptural canon and may be confirmed explicitly by future revelation. Common metaphors in scripture for the atonement are acquittal in a court of law ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/rom/3.21-31?lang=eng Romans 3:21]&ndash;[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/rom/4.1-25?lang=eng 4:25]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-cor/1.30?lang=eng 1 Corinthians 1:30]), payment for one's release from slavery (exemplified in any use of the word "redemption" in scripture which uses are numerous), and a sacrificial offering of a paschal lamb or other offering that expiates or eradicates sin ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/heb/10.12?lang=eng Hebrews 10:12]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-cor/5.7?lang=eng 1 Corinthians 5:7]). Thus the metaphor has ''some'' support. There is some evidence that the ancient covenants offered to Israel were meant to be more inclusive than they are sometimes portrayed.<ref>The best examination of this issue is offered in Kerry Muhlestein, ''God Will Prevail: Ancient Covenants, Modern Blessings, and the Gathering of Israel'' (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2021), 34&ndash;42. There, Dr. Muhlestein astutely observes that the covenant family could theoretically include all people. From the beginning the covenant was meant to be made available to all people ([https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.13?lang=eng Moses 5:13]; [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/2.6?lang=eng Abraham 2:6]; [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/2.11?lang=eng 2:11]). the Bible can be read as inclusive in that those that were covenant people were merely those that became circumcised before God ([https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ex/12.48?lang=eng Exodus 12:48]). Some non-Israelites were expressly said to be part of the covenant including Caleb the Kennizite: a non-Israelite that was sent as a spy to reconnoiter the land of Canaan. Others included Ruth, a Moabite and thus non-Israelite, who expresses a desire to be part of the covenant people, indicating that non-Israelites were thought of as having the potential to enter the covenant people ([https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ruth/1.16?lang=eng Ruth 1:16]). The inclusive covenant was made much more exclusive unfortunately with the enacting of strict laws against interracial marriage during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Peter was shocked to see Gentiles have the Spirit of God rest on them ([https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/10.44-45?lang=eng Acts 10:44&ndash;45]). The Savior came to undo much of the covenant insularism from the inside out by first establishing his Church and changing the hearts of the Jews so that they could more effectively and clearly minister to Gentiles.</ref> However, with times of covenantal insularism, perhaps the Savior's atonement can counteract that and "pay the price" for these souls' chance to hear and accept the Gospel in the Spirit world.

To be clear, the author is not saying that this line of substitutionary thought should/needs to be a complete account of the purposes and scope of the Savior's atonement. The author personally holds to a combination of this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement moral influence theory], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement#Moral_example_theory moral example theory], and parts of Ostler's "compassion theory" of atonement which is explained more in his books. All that is meant to be claimed here is that this line of substitutionary thought may need to become part of our thinking on the atonement in order to reconcile some of the thorny issues that the Old Testament's moral ethic and frequent violence present to believing Latter-day Saints.-->

One of the biggest reasons that people are concerned by the violence of God in scripture is that they rightly believe that scripture and the revelation of God is supposed to teach them something about ethics and morality. But they take this a step further and ask if the violence of God in scripture is supposed to tell them that they are supposed to be violent like God today.

Scripture tells us that vengeance is God's (Deuteronomy 32:35; Romans 12:19; Mormon 3:15 Mormon 8:20). There are many other scriptural reasons to reject that God will command someone to be violent towards others today that can be found at the article below:

{{Main|What might be the Latter-day Saint response to criticism from epistemic responsibility?}}

These ideas can perhaps find some more development and refinement as we continue to think, debate, pray, and do the work of the Restoration. We don’t expect this to be the final word on the question of scriptural violence. But we do think that it can show that Latter-day Saints have what we think are some unique resources to add to the conversation already in progress in other faiths.

*Copan, Paul. ''Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God''. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

*Copan, Paul. ''Is God a Vindictive Bully? Reconciling Portrayals of God in the Old and New Testaments''. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022.

= What is the best way to understand servitude in the Old and New Testaments?=

==There is no scripture commanding servitude. There are a number that regulate its practice.==

First, readers should see our suggested hermeneutic for reconciling difficult passages [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_difficult_Bible_questions#Question:_How_can_one_approach_reconciling_confusing.2C_seemingly_disturbing.2C_or_otherwise_troubling_texts_from_the_scriptures.3F here].

Many have questioned the presence of passages that indicate the practice of slavery or servitude in the Old and New Testament. Many wonder what the best way to understand these passages is in light of the Restored Gospel. Does God endorse slavery? Is he okay with people being put into horribly unfair circumstances like this? How do I understand it and reconcile it?  

Slavery in the bible is best understood both contextually and holistically while also keeping the nature of prophetic revelation in mind.

The Bible offers no record of God commanding the practice of slavery. It does, however offer motifs of celebration after subverting enemies into servitude. It also regulates the practice of slavery. That said, there is no explicit command not to practice it.  

Much of the bible deals with liberating the Israelites from bondage. So, what exactly is the difference between regular slavery and Israelite slavery? Why can God allow the Israelites to escape from bondage while also allowing them to practice it? We address these questions below.

 

Latter-day Saint Old Testament scholars Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, and David Rolph Seely address servitude in their book "Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament":

Slavery was ubiquitous in antiquity, and the institution and practice of slavery lies beneath the surface of almost every book in the Bible. Slaves were considered property and therefore had few legal rights. Laws governing slaves and slavery are found in many law collections, including the Laws of Hammurabi. Few questioned the institution, simple accepting that people could be bought and sold just as animals and personal possessions were. Unlike American slavery, ancient slavery was not based on ethnicity. People became slaves by capture in war (Num 31:25-37), by default on debt (Exod 22:2), and sale by family members (2 King 4:1). Some people voluntarily sold themselves as slaves either to get out of debt or to find security (Lev 25:39; Deut 15:16-17). . .Several Hebrew words meaning "slave" are translated in the KJV as "servant" or "maid". This means that Joseph was slave in Egypt and the Gibeonites became slaves to the Israelites (Josh 9:23). Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and all of the children of Israel are metaphorically called "slaves of Jehovah" when they are referred to as his "servants". Likewise, the English word "handmaid" translates a Hebrew word that means slave—indicating that Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah were slaves to Sarah, Rachel, and Leah. . .A slave’s life was often hard, but certain types of slavery were more difficult than others. For example, slaves who worked in mines and in fields had short lives full of strenuous daily work. In some societies, court slaves were often educated, held responsible positions, and wielded certain authority over others. Many slaves who were part of a household performed domestic and agricultural duties. The law of Moses required even non-Hebrew slaves in Israelite households to observe the Sabbath (Exod 12:24; Deut 12:12,18). Women and children were most vulnerable to abuse in this system, including physical and sexual abuse; therefore, most of the laws in the Bible regulating slavery attempt to humanely define the relationship between slaves and masters (Lev 25:43-55; Deut 15:12-18). People could be freed from slavery and there is evidence that this practice of manumission was common. Built into the law of Moses was a system that freed Israelite slaves every seven years (Exod 21:2; Deut 15:12, 18) although it is doubtful this ideal was regularly practiced by all Israelites. Some Israelite prophets questioned debt slavery and attempted to end its practice (Jer 34:8-22; cf. Exod 21; Lev 25; Deut 15).<ref>David Rolph Seely, Richard Neitzel Holzapfel,  and Dana Pike, ''Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2009), 66.</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The law provides the death penalty for those who kidnap people to sell them into slavery (Deuteronomy 24:7). Slaves could not be forced to work on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10), a concept unique to the Bible, indicating that Hebrew slaves were better treated than those anywhere else in the Near East at the time. People sold into debt-slavery were to be freed after six years of servitude (21:2–4). All Israelite slaves were to be freed in the Jubilee year, thereby abolishing the possibility of perpetual servitude for the descendants of slaves (Leviticus 25:39–46). Although slaves could be beaten, a master killing a slave was considered guilty of murder and could be executed for his crime (Exodus 21:20), while a slave maimed by his master was to be freed (vv. 26–27). Runaway slaves were to be given protection and not returned to their masters (Deuteronomy 23:15–16). While we have no desire to be apolo­gists for slavery in any form, it should be noted that the status of slaves in Hebrew law was in many ways superior to that of surrounding societies. Indeed, "we find in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake,"<ref>ABD, 6:65a.</ref><ref>William J. Hamblin, "[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol21/iss2/5/ The Most Misunderstood Book: Christopher Hitchens on the Bible]," ''Review of Books on the Book of Mormon'' 21, no. 2 (2009): 47–95.</ref></blockquote>

The Old Testament has been seen as an improvement on the then-common form of slavery. The New Testament as an improvement on the Old Testament. As Evangelical apologist and biblical scholar Paul Copan notes:

<blockquote> The original ancient near eastern context of slavery showed that masters were typically brutal to their slaves; runaway slaves had to be returned to masters of pain of death. The Old Testament improves on this in a redemptive move toward an ultimate ethic: there were limited punishments in contrast to other ancient Near Eastern cultures; there was a more humanized attitude toward servants/slaves; and runaway foreign slaves were given refuge in Israel. The New Testament improves on the Old Testament. Slaves in the Roman Empire were incorporated into the body of Christ without distinction from masters (Gal 3:28); masters were to show concern for their slaves; slaves were encouraged to gain freedom (1 Cor: 7:20-22). Note, though, that the Roman Empire had institutionalized slavery—in contrast to the Old Testament’s humanized indentured servitude. So, the New Testament writers had to deal with a new setting, one that was a big moral step backward.<ref>Paul Copan, ''Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011).</ref> </blockquote>

So, what is this all indicating? Ultimately it means that the Old Testament covenant was never meant to be a universal ideal. These regulations, provided under the law of Moses, were provisional and temporary. In the latter days, the practice has been completely disavowed (D&C 101:79).

<blockquote>It’s easy to rule out a few responses due to their reductionist simplicity. Slavery wasn’t merely a one-time blip, but a fundamental part of the Old and New Testaments. This prevents us from saying "oh, that prophet was just acting as a man," as if it were a one-off kind of thing. Nor can we say, "oh, *that* part isn’t inspired," because it’s the "whole" thing. I also don’t think we want to be apologists for Biblical slavery, just because it’s in the Bible. We think, "they were prophets, they should have known." And yet, they didn’t. Rather, we need to recalibrate our expectations about the nature of scripture. For example, scripture is not an encyclopedic repository of the platonically ideal unchanging ethics and doctrines. It is, rather, a human-but-inspired record (of sorts) of God’s line-upon-line, accommodationist dealings with fallen humans...Both the ideas of line-upon-line and accommodation imply progression, that God slowly brings us around. The New Testament "redeems" the Old in several distinct ways, evident both from things like the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is a new Moses and much more subtle things.<ref>Benjamin Spackman, "Gospel Doctrine Lesson 40: Colossians and Philippians, but mostly Philemon," <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/10/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/> (10 November 2018).</ref></blockquote>

We should understand the nature of prophetic revelation and how to read scripture. These are addressed in these articles. {{Seealso|How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?}}

 

 

 

Commentary on this verse:

Nuzi was located near Kirkuk, Iraq, close to the Tigris River. Thousands of tablets—the Akkadian Nuzi texts—from the second millennium BC were found there. They mention legislation similar to this: if a slave entered a master’s home single, he left single. If he entered with a spouse, then he left on his marry way! Now, if a wife had been given to him by his master, then she (and any children from this union) belonged to the master.

According to this Exodus passage, if a man was given a wife by his master/employer and they had children, then he had a choice: he could either leave by himself when the seventh year of debt release came, or he could continue as a permanent servant to be with his wife and children. It’s a less-than-ideal setting to be sure, but let’s probe the text more deeply.

At first glance, this text seems to treat females (and children) unfairly. The (apparently) favored male can come into a service arrangement and then go out of it. Yet the wife he married while serving his employer and any children who came while he served were (so it seems) "stuck" in the master’s home and couldn’t leave. That’s not only male favoring; it strikes us as criminal! Wasn’t this an earlier version of slave families during the antebellum South (like Frederick Douglass’s) who were broken up and scattered by insensitive slaveowners?

Our first point in response is this: we’re not told specifically that this scenario could also apply to a woman, but we have good reason to think this situation wasn’t gender specific. (We’ll see shortly that Deuteronomy 15 makes explicit that this scenario applied to a woman as well.) This is another example of case law: "if such and such a scenario arises, then this is how to proceed." Case law typically wasn’t gender specific. Furthermore, Israelite judges were quite capable of applying the law to male and female alike. An impoverished woman, who wasn’t given by her father as a prospective wife to a (widowed or divorced) man or his son (Exod. 21:7–11), could perform standard household tasks. And she could go free by this same law, just as a male servant could.7 Various scholars suggest that the Scripture text could be applied to females quite readily: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, she is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, she will go out free. . . . If her master gives her a husband, and they have sons or daughters, the husband and the children will belong to her master, and she will go out by herself." The law makes perfect sense in light of this shift; its spirit isn’t violated by doing so.

Some critics, though, would rather fight than shift. Rather than applying these case-law scenarios to both men and women, they’d rather put up resistance in order to make this law look its very worst. But we have no compelling reason to do so. Again, Israel’s judges would have looked to this general passage for guidance regarding female servants. Simply because many verses in the law happen to use a masculine gender pronoun rather than alternating between "he" and "she" hardly means that women are thereby being excluded. As an aside, the term Hebrew (at this stage in Israel’s history) was broader than the term Israelite; the two terms would later be equated. The habiru were people not formally attached to established states like Egypt or Babylon; they were considered foreigners and noncitizens from the speaker’s perspective. So this passage may well refer to a non-Israelite. That means this servant—possibly a foreigner—was to be released after six years unless he preferred the security of his employer’s household. In this case, he could make the arrangement permanent. For now, we’ll assume that this passage refers to an Israelite servant, but we’ll revisit this issue when discussing Leviticus 25.

For our second point, let’s (for the moment) stick with a male servant/employee scenario. Let’s say his employer arranges for a marriage between him and a female employee. (In this case of debt-servitude, the employer’s family would now engage in marriage negotiations.) By taking the male servant into his home to work off a debt, the boss has made an investment. He would stand to suffer loss if someone walked out on the contract. Think in terms of military service. When someone signs up to serve for three or four years, he still owes the military, even if he gets married during this time. Likewise in Israel, for debts to be paid off, the male servant couldn’t just leave with his wife once he was married. He was still under contract, and he needed to honor this. And even when his contract was completed, he wasn’t allowed simply to walk away with his wife and kids. After all, they were still economic assets to his boss. What could the released man do? He had three options.

 

 

 

 

 

===Beating Slaves to Death? ([https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/21.20,21?lang=eng#19 Exodus 21:20-21])===

<blockquote> 20 ¶ And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.</blockquote>

The passage in question regards what happens when a master beats his slave. When the master has killed his slave with staff or rod, he was to be "punished". How is not specified. Perhaps it depended given a situation. The original Hebrew verb "naqam" differentiates itself from the verb used which means "to put to death" used in verses before this. But the such a vague refererence to "punishment" without specification likely means that capital punishment was possible. Murder was a capital offense (Exodus 20:13). Naqam has the connotation of being avenged. If the master beat his servant, but the servant died a couple of days later, the master was given the benefit of the doubt. Laws given just a few verses later suggest that if a man injured the eye or teeth of his slaves, those slaves were to go free (Exodus 21:26-27).

42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

<br>

43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

<br>

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

49 Either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

<br>

50 And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.

<br>  

51 If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for.</blockquote>

See above for positive regulations regarding foreigners. We have to keep in mind Leviticus 19:33-34 which commanded Israeel to love and support the foreigner. This is reemphasized  in Deuteronomy 10:19

===Israel Possessing the Nations as Menservants and Maidservants in the Lord’s Land? ([https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/14.1,2?lang=eng#1 Isaiah 14:1-2])===

 

<blockquote> 1 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.</blockquote>

 

We start with the Savior. In Luke 4:18, the Savior proclaims the mission that he had been given.

The bulk of 4:18-19 comes from Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 58:6. In those verses, The language of "release" echoes the jubilary language of Leviticus 25. The year of jubilee was prescribed as the year that slaves were released. This time came every 7 years. It is widely recognized that Isaiah 58 and 61 develop jubilary themes. Therefore, it may have been part of the Savior’s mission to abolish harmful servitude structures in the Roman Empire. But much more likely was that the Savior only preached against oppressive structures and sought only to reform them if they were oppressive. "Jesus didn’t necessarily create an economic reform plan for Israel, but he addressed heart attitudes of greed, envy, contentment, and generosity to undermine oppressive economic social structures."<ref>Copan, ''Is God a Moral Monster?'', 151&ndash;52.</ref>  In the case of Paul, he attempted to make the distinction between master and servant irrelevant and condemn those that would abuse slaves. This is documented in several passages (Galations 3:28; Collosians 4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 [translated "menstealers" in KJV but translated as "slavetraders" in most translations]). <ref>Bible Hub, 1 Timothy 1:10 <https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm> (26 February 2019).</ref> He treated slaves as morally responsible people (Col 3:22-25). It has even been argued that he encouraged slaves to gain their freedom wherever possible (1 Cor 7:20-22). Scholarship is divided fairly evenly, however, on the correct interpretation of those verses.<ref>Gordon D. Fee, "The First Epistle to the Corintians – The Guiding Principle –Remain as One was When Called" in ''The New International Commentary on the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2014), 350.</ref> Regardless, it is inaccurate to say that this issue was something that Paul and the Savior did not care about.  But then why didn’t the Savior and Paul (or Peter [1 Peter 1:18-20]) try to immediately abolish slavery?  Paul Copan lays out an argument:

Critics wonder why Paul (or Peter in 1 Peter 2:18–20) didn’t condemn slavery outright and tell masters to release their slaves. Yet we should first separate this question from other considerations, even if the New Atheists aren’t necessarily interested in nuance. Paul’s position on the status of slavery was clear on various points: (1) he repudiated slave trading; (2) he affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; and (3) he encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:20–22). Paul’s revolutionary Christian affirmations helped to tear apart the fabric of the institution of slavery in Europe.

Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow slaves of the same impartial Master; so they weren’t to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant "justice and fairness" to their slaves (Col. 4:1). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Col. 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers "and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant "justice and fairness" to their slaves (Col. 4:1). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Col. 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers and part of Christ’s body (1 Tim. 6:2).<ref>O’Brian, Ephesians, 455.</ref> Christian slave and master alike belonged to Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Spiritual status was more fundamental than social status.

On the other hand, the early Christians undermined slavery indirectly and certainly rejected many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it, such as Aristotle’s (slaves were inherently inferior to masters, as were females to males). Just as Jesus bore unjust suffering for the redemption of others and entrusted himself to the One who judges justly (1 Peter 2: 20-24) so Christian slaves could bear hardship to show others—including their masters—the way of Christ and redemption through him, all the while entrusting themselves to God.<ref>I. Howard Marshall, "1 Peter," ''IVP New Testament Commentary'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 89&ndash;90; and Karen H. Jobes, "1 Peter," ''Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 180&ndash;87.</ref> Thus, like yeast, such Christlike living could have a gradual leavening effect on society so that oppressive institutions like slavery could finally fall away. This is, in fact, what took place throughout Europe, as we’ll see in the final chapter.

 

===The Onesimus Question ([https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/philem/1?lang=eng# Philemon])===

The exact correct way to interpret this passage remains debated today.<ref>Margaret M. Mitchell, "Philemon," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' (New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2100.</ref> The difficulty of deciding proper exegesis is that we are getting so little information from Paul as to why Onesimus was there in prison with him and what Paul wanted Philemon to do once Onesimus returned to him. One plausible interpretation of the passage is that Paul is exhorting Philemon to accept Onesimus back as more than a slave but a fellow-brother in Christ—essentially making the master/servant distinction nil and reforming the social attitudes of the day towards slaves (Phil 1:16). This is strengthened by Paul’s acceptance of servants as leaders in the Church and his encouragement to find freedom wherever possible.

===Not Preaching the Gospel to "Bond-Servants" ([https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng# D&C 134:12])===

<blockquote> 12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.</blockquote>

<embedvideo service="youtube">CyLpygp4eSE</embedvideo>

=Did God endorse rape in the Old Testament?=

==The Old Testament text must be read holistically and contextually to understand actual cultural realities. Once done, one can see how claims regarding rape truncate the Bible’s actual view of women==

Many critics of the Bible frequently claim that God endorses rape in the Bible. This issue has been dealt with by several Christian scholars and apologists in the past. There is no such endorsement of rape in the Old Testament by God. There are instances in which women are raped such as that of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinah Dinah] (Genesis 34), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamar_(daughter_of_David) Tamar] (2 Samuel 13), and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubine_of_a_Levite concubine in Judges 19] (these passages all portray rape negatively) and it does reflect some of the horrible issues they dealt with in that society, yet there is law against rape in the Bible and rape is always seen in a negative light in the passages that are typically cited in favor it. We must be careful to keep in mind the difference between speaking predictively, prescriptively, and descriptively. Only if truly speaking prescriptively is the Bible offending morality.

The claimed offending verses of the Old Testament (that supposedly endorse rape) are Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 22:23-29, and Zechariah 14:1&ndash;2.<ref>Genesis 34, Deuteronomy 21:10&ndash;14, 22:20-21, Judges 19:22&ndash;26, Judges 21:10&ndash;24, Lamentations 5:11, and 2 Samuel 13:1&ndash;14 also have been said by scholars to be referring to and depicting rape. We advise the reader to examine those passages with a study bible. None contain something close to endorsements for rape. However, they may be used by critics to argue for an endorsement from the Bible on rape.</ref>

[https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/22.16,17?lang=eng#15 Exodus 22:16-17] reads:

:16 ¶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

[https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/deut/22.23,24,25,26,27,28,29?lang=eng#22 Deuteronomy 22:23-29] reads:

:23 ¶ If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

:25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: