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

The scriptures contain a lot that we cannot understand at first without a lot of context. Biblical scholars have, for many decades, been trying to understand the original context of each of the Bible’s pericopes in order to understand God’s will with each verse. We advise readers to see [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Latter-day_Saint_scripture/Interpretation#Question:_How_can_one_best_read_and_understand_the_scriptures.3F this article] in order to understand context.  

Once read in context, many passages that seem confusing now can be clarified with additional insights that highlight symbology, progress compared to contemporary civilizations, etc.

When one can read the scriptures holistically, that is, noting everything that they have to say on a certain topic, the theology can make greater sense and one can know all that God has currently revealed on any given topic.  

It should be noted and remembered that just because something is ''de''scribed in Scripture that such behavior may not always be ''pre''scribed. Readers should be careful to read the scriptures with this in mind. Just because the scriptures record something that is strange, offensive, or repulsive, does not mean that the scriptures are stating that someone ought to act similarly. It has been pointed out that some things mentioned in scripture are just the author pointing to examples of bad behavior that one need not follow ({{s|1|Cor.|10|1-12}}).

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 ({{s||Jer.|1|}}; {{s||Ezek.|6|}}). It’s not that the Mosaic law was bad and therefore needed to be replaced. The law was good ({{s||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 {{s||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 {{s||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 ({{s||Exod.|20|22}} – {{s_short||Exodus|23|19}}). Following on the heels of this legislation, Israel rebelled against God in the golden calf incident ({{s||Exod.|2|}}). High priests would also have their own rebellion by participating in deviant, idolatrous worship ({{s||Lev.|0|}}). As a result of Israel’s turning from God, he gave them more stringent laws ({{s||Jer.|7|}}; cf. {{s||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:

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.

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.

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.

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>

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" ({{s||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>

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 ({{s||Alma|45|16}}; {{s||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.  

== 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.

== Cultural Lenses ==

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 ({{s||Exodus|17|8}}) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites ({{s||Numbers|21|1}}); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry ({{s||Numbers|5|}},31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them ({{s||Deuteronomy|2|}}, {{s||Numbers|1|}}), 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?" ({{s|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":

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>

Paul Copan elaborated more in a different book:

Most Christians read Joshua’s conquest stories with the backdrop of Sunday school lessons via flannel graph or children’s illustrated Bible stories. The impression that’s left is a black-and-white rendition of a literal crush, kill, and destroy mission. A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuance—and a lot less bloodshed. In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.

Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries<ref>Copan lists many of those that used this type of rhetoric on page  328 of "Is God a Moral Monster?" This list includes Egypt’s Tuthmosis III, Hittite king Mursilly II, the "Bulletin" of Ramses II, the Merneptah Stele, Mesha of Moab, and Sennacherib the Assyrian Ruler. </ref>, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric. This language sounds like bragging and exaggeration to our ears. Notice first the sweeping language in {{s||Joshua|10|40}}: "Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded." Joshua used the rhetorical bravado language of his day, asserting that all the land was captured, all the kings defeated, and all the Canaanites destroyed (cf. 10:40-42; 11:16-23: "Joshua took the whole land . . . and gave . . . it for an inheritance to Israel"). Yet, as we will see, Joshua himself acknowledged that this wasn’t literally so.

Scholars readily agree that Judges is literarily linked to Joshua. Yet the early chapters of Judges (which, incidentally, repeat the death of Joshua) show that the task of taking over the land was far from complete. In {{s||Judges|2|3}}, God says, "I will not drive them out before you." Earlier, {{s||Judges|1|21}}"21, 27-28 asserted that "[they] did not drive out the Jebusites"; "[they] did not take possession"; "they did not drive them out completely." These nations remained "to this day" ({{s||Judg.|1|21}}). The peoples who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the story. Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck around.

Some might accuse Joshua of being misleading or of getting it wrong. Not at all. He was speaking the language that everyone in his day would have understood. Rather than trying to deceive, Joshua was just saying he had fairly well trounced the enemy. On the one hand, Joshua says, "There were no Anakim left in the land" ({{s||Josh.|11|22}}); indeed, they were "utterly destroyed [haram]" in the hill country (11:21). Literally? Not according to the very same Joshua! In fact, Caleb later asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (14:12-15; cf. 15:13-19). Again, Joshua wasn’t being deceptive. Given the use of ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, he could say without contradiction that nations "remain among you"; he went on to warn Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods ({{s||Josh.|23|7}}, 12-13; cf. 15:63; 16:10; 17:13; {{s||Judg.|2|10-13}}). Again, though the land "had rest from war" ({{s||Josh.|11|23}}), chapters 13 and beyond tell us that much territory remained unpossessed (13:1). Tribe upon tribe failed to drive out the Canaanites (13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13, 18), and Joshua tells seven of the tribes, "How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?" (18:3). Furthermore, God told the Israelites that the process of driving out the Canaanites would be a gradual one, as {{s||Deuteronomy|7|22}} anticipated and as {{s||Judges|2|20-23}} reaffirmed. Whatever the reason behind Israel’s failure to drive them out—whether disobedience and/or God’s slow-but-sure approach—we’re still told by Joshua in sweeping terms that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites. Just as we might say that a sports team "blew their opponents away" or "slaughtered" or "annihilated" them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day.

Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true.<ref>Christopher J. H. Wright, "Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 474-75; and Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 149.</ref> This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation—which didn’t (from all other indications) actually take place—proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used "utterly/completely destroy" and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way.

Let’s now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It’s true that {{s||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" ({{s||Josh.|23|12-13}}). You get the idea.

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)

Peter Enns summarized:

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>

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" ({{s||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>

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>

Scholar Paul Copan has made similar points about the archaeology as those made by Holzapfel, Seely, and Pike and summarized why it is difficult to pin some things down:

With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation ({{s||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 ({{s||Josh.|6|24}}; 8:28; 11:13). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. {{s||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 ({{s||Gen.|41|50}}); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them ({{s||Exod.|12|23}}; {{s||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"({{s||Judg.|3|15}}), "Izban of Bethlehem" ({{s||Judg.|12|8}}), "Elon the Zebulunite" ({{s||Judg.|12|11}}).

On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archaeology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a "shrine" (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians’ notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., {{s|2|Kings|23|10}}; cf. {{s||Lev.|18|21}}; {{s||Deut.|18|10}}). However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I’m assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC.)36 Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh ("the Lord"). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere—say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.

 

We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia’s culture didn’t change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Canaan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We’re reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.<ref>Paul Copan "Is God a Moral Monster?" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 351-52 </ref>

 

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

*The language is aimed at getting Canaanite religion and driving the people out. Evidence of this is the command to not intermarry or make treaties with the Canaanites after the battles. This is reinforced by the "sending of the wasp before you to drive them out". Indeed, by the time that the Israelites arrived, most people would have fled before the judgement of God.

*Large populations are left alive as is made clear by the end of the Book of Joshua and the beginning of the Book of Judges.

*The language is typical of other ancient near eastern cultures

*The word translated as "utterly destroy", Herem, is directed only at cities with combatants like the military encampments of Jericho, Ai, and so forth..

 

 

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" ({{s||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" ({{s||Lev.|18|25}} NET). Sodom and Gormorrah, on the other hand, were ready; not even ten righteous people could be found there ({{s||Genesis|8|19}}). Even earlier, at the time of Noah, humans had similarly hit moral rock bottom ({{s||Gen|6|11-13}}). Despite 120 years of Noah’s preaching ({{s||Gen|6|3}}; cf. 5:32; 7:6; {{s|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" ({{s||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. {{s||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.

"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>

Nephi also affirms that the Canaanites were wicked and that they were driven out by the Israelites:

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>

=== 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.  

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>

=== The Midianites ({{s||Numbers|5|}}, 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

The story of Rahab ({{s||Joshua|2|}}) is telling of the intent of destroying Canaanite religion. Here is a Canaanite woman that is actually an aid to two of Israel’s spies before the conquest. She was not killed, thus reinforcing the narrative of driving out and incapacitation.

We already mentioned Sihon who attacked Israel after they had already offered peace. Following instructions in {{s||Deuteronomy|0|}}, the Israelites may have done this for other Canaanite cities. This is a minority view among scholars. But there are examples of this like the Gibeonites and there are other insinuations to offers of peace among the Canaanites. {{s||Joshua|11|19}} reads, for example, "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle."

=== Biblical envisioning of the Canaanite Future ===

The Bible envisions that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through the Israelites ({{s||Genesis|12|3}}). {{s||Zechariah|9|}} offers the envisioning of redemption and salvation for the Jebusite, a Canaanite nation. A list of Israel’s enemies is given in Psalm 87: Egypt, Babylon, and Philistia. Their redemption is also envisioned. Isaiah prophesied that Egypt and Assyria would be incorporated into Israel ({{s||Isaiah|19|23-25}}). In the New Testament, Jesus reaches to a Canaanite woman in Tyre and Sidon ({{s||Matt|15|22}}).

=== A Moral/Philosophical Note for Consideration from the Latter-day Saint Soteriological Point of View ===

Many people are&mdash;very understandably&mdash;troubled with the portrayal of many people losing their lives in the scriptures and other pericopes that appear to condone some form of murder. When taken from their mortal sojourn, it may be that God is showing mercy to people by allowing them not to make any more bad choices. That may allow us to see the scriptures in a new light. God is the creator of the universe including our spirits and bodies ({{s|2|Nephi|2|13}}) and it is his right to act upon us according to his will since he is the author of our life. When he causes destruction, he is acting in mercy by not allowing a person to sin more. Consider what Christ spoke to the Nephites before his appearance to them at Bountiful ({{s|3|Nephi|9|5-11}}):

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>

11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, <b>I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.</b>

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.

= Why does God act so violently in scripture and especially the Old Testament? =

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?"

It’s no secret that the scriptures and especially the Old Testament can be gruesome. Theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_A._Kirk-Duggan Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan] writes that there are over 600 instances of human violence and over 1000 instances of divine violence scattered throughout the Bible.<ref>Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, "Violence" in ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1358.</ref> [[Why are Old Testament penalties for disobedience so harsh?|There are crimes for which capital punishment is required]] and some of these can seem quite trivial. Among those crimes are blasphemy, cursing your parents, divination, and rebelliousness.

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.

It’s rather likely that the ideas we propose here are not entirely new nor entirely unique to Latter-day Saints. The germs of these ideas have probably been articulated elsewhere. We tend to believe that most "new ideas" aren’t really new. There is perhaps only the first people to articulate and popularize them. The corpus of Christian theology is also simply too gargantuan and large to believe that any idea is newly-articulated.

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.

With that, let's get to our response.

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.

 

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.

 

Are there certain evils that, when enacted, are properly responded to only through violence and other harsh punishment? Most of us would probably answer yes. This is what we'll call the idea of ''mere justice'' in responding to God's violence in the Old Testament and other scripture.

 

 

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

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>

The scriptures certainly treat murder as a type of action that deserves violence as the only just punishment. {{s||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. {{s||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''. {{s|3|Nephi|8|}} records great destruction by Christ just prior to his appearance to the Nephites. {{s|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" ({{s|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 ({{s||Exodus|20|13}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|5|17}}), and that murder is unforgivable ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|42|18-19}}), 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 ({{s||Exodus|17|8}}) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites ({{s||Numbers|21|1}}); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry ({{s||Numbers|5|}}, 31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them ({{s||Deuteronomy|2|}}, {{s||Numbers|1|}}), and so on.

{{s||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.

:34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

: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.

:37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

: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 ({{s||Abraham|3|18}}). This part is called our ''intelligence'' in Latter-day Saint scripture. This intelligence is a self-conscious, spiritual, material entity ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|131|7-8}}) that has apparently always existed ({{s||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.

 

 

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.  {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|93|33-34}} 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 ({{s||Matthew|8|28-32}}; {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|45|17}}; 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 ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|29|36-39}}). 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 ({{s||Moroni|7|16}}; {{s||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 ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|132|19-20}}). We know that if one disobeys the moral Good, they can lose their status as a god ({{s||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''.

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught:

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>

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 a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Proverbs, Hebrews, and Helaman teach that God chastens us and even scourges us because he loves us ({{s||Proverbs|3|11-12}}; {{s||Hebrews|12|5-6}}; {{s||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? {{s||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>{{s||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>{{s||Doctrine & Covenants|98|14-15}}. 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>{{s||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>{{s||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.

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf told a story about Solomon based in Ecclesiastes in the October 2018 General Conference of the Church:

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 f{{s||rom|0|}} 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)

"All is vanity,"<ref>See {{s||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 {{s||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>

 

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 ({{s||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.

 

This doctrine may find scriptural support in a particular interpretation of {{s||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 {{s||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:

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.

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.

=== Moral Compromise ===

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 ({{s||Leviticus|25|44-46}}). 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 {{s||Matthew|19|7-8}}:

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>

 

 

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>

 

 

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.

 

#That same redemption for children is offered to "all them that have no law" according to the same chapter: {{s||Moroni|8|}}.<ref>{{s||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. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|42|18-19}} lists it as an unforgivable sin but does not describe the exact punishment ascribed to the sin of murder.

#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 ({{s||Jeremiah|1|}}; {{s||Ezekiel|6|}}). 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 ({{s||Romans|3|21}}&ndash;4:25; {{s|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 ({{s||Hebrews|10|12}}; {{s|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 ({{s||Moses|5|13}}; {{s||Abraham|2|6}}; 2:11). the Bible can be read as inclusive in that those that were covenant people were merely those that became circumcised before God ({{s||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 ({{s||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 ({{s||Acts|10|44-45}}). 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.-->

 

 

 

{{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? =

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

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 ({{s||Num|31|25-37}}), by default on debt ({{s||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 ({{s||Lev|25|39}}; {{s||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 ({{s||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 ({{s||Exod|12|24}}; {{s||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 ({{s||Lev|25|43-55}}; {{s||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 ({{s||Exod|21|2}}; {{s||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 ({{s||Jer|34|8-22}}; cf. {{s||Exod|1|}}; {{s||Lev|5|}}; {{s||Deut|5|}}).<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>

The law provides the death penalty for those who kidnap people to sell them into slavery ({{s||Deuteronomy|24|7}}). Slaves could not be forced to work on the Sabbath ({{s||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 ({{s||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 ({{s||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 ({{s||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>

 

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:

  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 ({{s||Gal|3|28}}); masters were to show concern for their slaves; slaves were encouraged to gain freedom ({{s|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 ({{s||D&C|101|79}}).

How should we explain this moving forward? Latter-day Saint Bible scholar Ben Spackman notes:

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>

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

<br>

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

<br>

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 {{s||Deuteronomy|5|}} 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 ({{s||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 {{s||Leviticus|5|}}.

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.

# He could wait for his wife and kids to finish their term of service while he worked elsewhere. His wife and kids weren’t stuck in the employer’s home the rest of their lives. They could be released when the wife worked off her debt. Yet if the now-free man worked elsewhere, this would mean (a) he would be separated from his family, and (b) his boss would no longer supply him with food, clothing, and shelter. On the other hand, if he lived with his family after release, he’d still have to pay for room and board. So this scenario created its own set of financial challenges.

# He could get a decent job elsewhere and save his shekels to pay his boss to release his wife and kids from contractual obligations. What a great option! Why not take this route? Because it would have been very difficult for the man to support himself and earn enough money for his family’s debt release.

# He could commit himself to working permanently for his employer—a life contract ({{s||Exod.|21|5-6}}). He could stay with his family and remain in fairly stable economic circumstances. He would formalize this arrangement in a legal ceremony before the judges (God) by having his ear pierced with an awl.

Before coming up with all sorts of modern Western solutions to solve these ancient Near Eastern problems, we should make greater efforts to better grasp the nature of Israelite servitude and the social and economic circumstances surrounding it. We’re talking about unfortunate circumstances during bleak economic times. Israel’s laws provided safety nets for protection, not oppression. It’s obvious that this arrangement was far different from the South’s chattel slavery, in which a slave wasn’t a temporarily indentured servant who voluntarily sold himself to live in another’s household to pay off his debts.<ref>Copan, ''Is God A Moral Monster'', 137&ndash;39.</ref>

The only error in this quote is to not recognize more similarity to the South's treatment of slaves. {{s||Leviticus|25|44-46}} clearly endorses a form of chattel slavery. Israelites were allowed to own non-lsraelites as slaves in perpetuity:

:45 Moreover of the children of strangers that 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.

:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This text does not, however, endorse the abuse of slaves as was practiced in the south. The text of Leviticus expressly forbids the abuse of foreign slaves ({{s||Leviticus|19|33-34}}). Exodus also forbids the abuse of foreign slaves ({{s||Exodus|21|23-27}}). If the slave was abused, then he or she was automatically freed.

# If we change the phrase to "for it is his money", then this would require us to understand what it is. It could refer to the servant. But it may also mean money paid to the servant. This stems from the context of the preceding verses in which men who fight, one injuring the other and causing the other to take up his bed for a while, had to pay the injured man for his time in bed and cause a full recovery. The verse may be stipulating that the master had to help his servant. This reading may be strengthened by the eye and teeth laws of verses 26 and 27. This is the argument made by Paul Copan and Hittitologist Harry Hoffner Jr.

# If we render the translation "for he is his property" then the reading is self-evident.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

If one's female slave is designated for marriage to another man, sexual relations with her are illicit. Only by legal technicality (since the woman is not yet free, she is not strictly "betrothed" in the legally binding sense) are the two exempt from the death penalty mandated for adultery (see {{s_short||Leviticus|20|10}} n.) but the offense against God must be expiated. The '"asham" sacrifice is prescribed (see {{s_short||Leviticus|5|14-26}}) even though no desecration of the sacred has taken place, because the "l).ata't" sacrifice (see {{s_short||Leviticus|4|1-35}}) does not atone for deliberate acts. 20: There shall be an indemnity. This translation is uncertain. A simpler one is: "a distinction shall be made."

Thus the servant girl’s personhood is actually maintained with dignity with this law—protecting the weaker from the stronger.  

=== Foreign Slaves ({{s||Leviticus|25|42-49}}) ===

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

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.

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.

<br>

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

47 ¶ And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family:

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.

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>  

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

=== Israel Possessing the Nations as Menservants and Maidservants in the Lord’s Land? ({{s||Isaiah|14|1-2}}) ===

This passage has restoration themes involved. Restoration themes often have verses describing God subduing his people’s enemies but aren’t necessarily to be taken as literal. According to the Jewish Study Bible, these verses introducing Isaiah’s poem were added during the Babylonian exile. God’s ultimate goal was to bless the nations of the earth ({{s||Genesis|12|3}}). As we will see in the following sections, slavery was something important to address and do away with somehow in the New Testament.

 

The bulk of 4:18-19 comes from {{s||Isaiah|61|1-2}} and {{s||Isaiah|58|6}}. In those verses, The language of "release" echoes the jubilary language of {{s||Leviticus|5|}}. The year of jubilee was prescribed as the year that slaves were released. This time came every 7 years. It is widely recognized that {{s||Isaiah|8|}} 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 ({{s||Galatians|3|28}}; {{s||Colossians|4|1}}; {{s||Ephesians|6|5-9}}; {{s|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 ({{s||Col|3|22-25}}). It has even been argued that he encouraged slaves to gain their freedom wherever possible ({{s|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 [{{s|1|Peter|1|18-20}}]) try to immediately abolish slavery?  Paul Copan lays out an argument:

Critics wonder why Paul (or Peter in {{s|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 ({{s|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 ({{s||Col.|4|1}}). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons ({{s||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 ({{s||Col.|4|1}}). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons ({{s||Col.|3|22-25}}) who, like their Christian masters, were brothers and part of Christ’s body ({{s|1|Tim.|6|2}} ).<ref>O’Brian, Ephesians, 455.</ref> Christian slave and master alike belonged to Christ ({{s||Gal.|3|28}}; {{s||Col.|3|11}}). Spiritual status was more fundamental than social status.

Paul (and Peter) didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right; even if they were mistreated, their conscience would be clear ({{s|1|Peter|2|18-20}}). Obligations fell to these slaves, yes, without their prior agreement. So the path for early Christians to take was tricky, very much unlike the situation in Old Testament Israel. On the one hand, a slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice and prove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g., "Masters, release your slaves!" or "Slaves, throw off your chains!"). Rome would meet any flagrant opposition with speedy, forceful, lethal opposition. So Peter’s admonition to unjustly treated slaves implies a suffering endured without retaliation. No, suffering in itself is not good (which would be a sadistic attitude to adopt and certainly not the view of Scripture); rather, the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.

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 ({{s|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.

This was also the type of incremental strategy taken by President Abraham Lincoln. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately. Being an exceptional student of human nature, he recognized that political realities and predictable reactions required an incremental approach. The radical abolitionist route of John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison would (and did!) simply create a social backlash against hard-core abolitionists and make emancipation all the more difficult.<ref>See Ronald C. White, ''Lincoln: A Biography'' (New York: Random House, 2009) which explores these themes in detail.</ref><ref>Copan, ''Is God a Moral Monster?'', 152&ndash;53.</ref>

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.

= 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] ({{s||Genesis|4|}}), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamar_(daughter_of_David) Tamar] ({{s|2|Samuel|3|}}), and the concubine in {{s||Judges|9|}} (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 {{s||Exodus|22|16-17}}, Leviticus, {{s||Numbers|31|7-18}}, {{s||Deuteronomy|22|23-29}}, and {{s||Zechariah|14|1-2}}.<ref>{{s||Genesis|4|}}, {{s||Deuteronomy|21|10-14}}, 22:20-21, {{s||Judges|19|22-26}}, {{s||Judges|21|10-24}}, {{s||Lamentations|5|11}}, and {{s|2|Samuel|13|1-14}} 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>

{{s||Exodus|22|16-17}} reads:

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

</blockquote>

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

The misconception generally stems from misreading the phrase "lay hold on her". The NET notes the following about this:

tn The verb תָּפַשׂ (taphas) means "to sieze, grab." In all other examples this action is done against another person’s will, as in being captured, arrested, attacked, or grabbed with insistence (e.g. 1Sam 23:26; 1Kgs 13:4; 18:40; 2Kgs 14:13; 25:6; {{s||Isa|3|6}}; {{s||Jer|26|8}}; 34:3; 37:13; 52:9; {{s||Ps|71|11}}; 2Chr 25:23.) So it may be that the man is forcing himself on her, which is what leads the NIV to translate the next verb as "rape," although it is a neutral euphemism for sexual relations. However, this is the only case where the object of תָּפַשׂ is a woman and the verb also also refers to holding or handling objects such as musical instruments, weapons, or scrolls. So it possible that it has a specialized, but otherwise unattested nuance regarding sexual or romantic relations, as is true of other expressions. Several contextual clues point away from rape and toward a consensual relationship. (1) The verb which seems to express force is different from the verb of force in the rape case in v. 25. (2) The context distinguishes consequences based on whether the girl cried out, an expression of protest and a basis for distinguishing consent or force. But this case law does not mention her outcry which would have clarified a forcible act. While part of what is unique in this case is that the girl is not engaged, it is reasonable to expect the issue of consent to continue to apply. (3) The penalty is less than that of a man who slanders his new wife and certainly less than the sentence for rape. (4) The expression "and they are discovered" at the end of v. 28 uses the same wording as the expression in v. 22 which involves a consensual act. (5) Although from a separate context, the account of the rape of Dinah seems to express the Pentateuch’s negative attitude toward forcible rape, not in advocating for Simeon and Levi’s actions, but in the condemnation included in the line {{s||Gen|34|7}} "because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel." This is very like the indictment in {{s||Deut|28|21}} against the consenting woman, "because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel." (6) The penalty of not being allowed to divorce her sounds like v. 19, where the man is punished for disgracing his wife unfairly. His attempted divorce fails and he must provide for her thereafter (the probable point of not being allowed to divorce her.) Here too, if his holding her is not forced, but instead he has seduced her, he is not allowed to claim that his new wife is not pure (since he is the culprit) and so he must take responsibility for her, cannot divorce her, and must provide for her as a husband thereafter.<ref>Commentary on {{s||Deuteronomy|22|28}}, footnote 51 <https://netbible.org/bible/Deuteronomy+22> (accessed 30 December 2018)</ref>

The meaning of "humbled" here seems difficult to ascertain. It is translated as "humiliated" in the NET and "violated" in the NRSV. Depending on how we look at the preceding text will determine how this is translated.  

At first glance the passages do seem to be repugnant and treat women like property. A contextual reading yields a more redeeming view. Evangelical bible scholar and Christian apologist Paul Copan writes:

<blockquote>

Upon closer inspection, the context emphasizes the protection of women, not the insignificance of women. We should first distinguish among three scenarios in the {{s||Deuteronomy|2|}} passage:

#Adultery between two consenting adults—a man and an engaged woman (v. 23), which is a violation of marriage ("he has violated his neighbor’s wife")

#The forcible rape of an engaged woman (v. 25), whose innocence is assumed.

In each case, the man is guilty. However, the critics’ argument focuses on verses 28-29: the rape victim is being treated like she is her father’s property. She’s been violated, and he rapist gets off by paying a bridal fee. No concern is shown for the girl at all. In fact, she’s apparently forced to marry the man who raped her! Are these charges warranted?

 

As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price—a kind of economic security for her future—would have been in jeopardy. The man guilty of statutory rape seduced the unengaged woman; he wasn’t a dark-alley rapist whom the young woman tried to fight off or from whom she tried to run away. This passage is far from being demeaning to women.

 

 

# If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.

#The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment at would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. IN this arrangement, she is still treated as a virgin<ref>Davidson, "Flame of Yahweh", 359, 519</ref><ref>See Paul Copan, ''Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) Ebook loc 222&ndash;24.</ref>

 

In a similar vein, one article notes:

God’s punishment on the rapist of a virgin—a monetary fine and lifelong responsibility—was designed to deter rape by holding the rapist responsible for his actions. He ruined her life; it was his responsibility to support her for the rest of her life. This may not sound fair to modern ears, but we don’t live in the same culture they did. In {{s|2|Samuel|3|}}, Prince Amnon raped his half-sister, Tamar. The horror and shame of being violated yet unmarried made Tamar beg him to marry her (her half-brother!), even after he had rejected her. And her full-brother, Absalom, was so disgusted with the situation that he murdered Amnon. That’s how highly virginity in women was prized back then.

</blockquote>

 

Regarding {{s||Numbers|1|}}, the same article notes:

<blockquote>

Critics of the Bible also point to {{s||Numbers|1|}} (and similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics say this is an example of the Bible’s condoning or even promoting rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see {{s||Leviticus|15|16-18}}). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

We might also note {{s||Deuteronomy|21|11-14}} which provided protocols for a situation such as the one depicted in {{s||Numbers|1|}}.<ref>The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible provides reference to this in connection to Deuteronomy: "12-18: In contrast to ch 21, the women and children (and animals) are not killed but taken captive and (with other booty) brought before Moses, Eleazar, and the congregation. This may reflect the practice of holy war outlined in {{s||Deut|20|13-18}}, where a distinction is made between Canaanites and others more distant (e.g., Midianites)."</ref>The NRSV renders these verses as follows:

 

<blockquote>

 

12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails,

13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.  

14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

This procedure most likely originally applied to the Canaanite population (20.15-18n.). Female war captives routinely became concubines. This law accords such women dignity and protection against enslavement. 12-13: The rituals provide both captive and captor means to effect a transition from one status to another. 13: Full month, full period of mourning, as for Aaron and Moses ({{s||Num|20|29}}; {{s||Deut|34|8}}). Mourning, it is unclear whether the parents actually died in the war or are lost to her because of her captivity. The time to grieve implies legal respect for the female captive as a person. Go in to her, approach her sexually; consummation provides the legal means to become husband, and . . . wife. 14: Cf. {{s||Ex|21|7-8}}. Money, see 2.6n. Dishonored, "violated" sexually (22.24,29; {{s||Gen|34|2}}; {{s||Judg|19|24}}; {{s|2|Sam|13|12}}).

Readers may wonder what the New Testament has to say about rape:

Rape is not directly addressed in the New Testament, but within the Jewish culture of the day, rape would have been considered sexual immorality. The Matthean account of the Gospel records that Jesus and the apostles spoke against sexual immorality, even offering it as justifiable grounds for divorce ({{s||Matthew|5|32}}). Further, the New Testament is clear that Christians are to obey the laws of their governing authorities ({{s||Romans|3|}}). Not only is rape morally wrong; it is also wrong according to the laws of the land. As such, anyone who would commit this crime should expect to pay the consequences, including arrest and imprisonment.<ref>"What does the Bible say about rape?" GotQuestions, accessed January 25, 2023, https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html.</ref>

=== {{s||Zechariah|14|1-2}} ===

Another passage that has been seen as endorsing rape is {{s||Zechariah|14|1}}&ndash2