Tag Archives: Is God a Moral Monster?

Difficult Bible Passages, Top Ten Posts of 2011

What Does “An Eye for an Eye” Mean? – #6 Post of 2011

9 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The biblical injunction to take a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – called lex talionis –  is repeated several times (e.g., Ex. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-22; Deut. 19:16-21).  Some people have read this punishment to literally mean that bodily mutilation is prescribed.  Is that what the biblical writers meant?

Not according to philosopher Paul Copan, who has written about this issue in his book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Copan points out that the phrase “eye for an eye” is not to be taken literally.  As an example, he asks us to continue reading in Ex. 21 through verses 26 and 27.

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.  And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Clearly there is no call for bodily mutilation in these verses which immediately follow the call for lex talionis.  Rather, there is a call for just compensation – freeing the servant.

So what is the point of lex talionis?  It is quite simple.  According to Copan, “The point of lex talionis is this: the punishment should fit the crime.  Furthermore, these were the maximum penalties; punishments were to be proportional and couldn’t exceed that standard.  And a punishment could be less severe if the judge deemed that the crime required a lesser penalty.”

Is there ever a case where the call for lex talionis is meant literally?  Yes, when a person is guilty of murder.  In this case, the call for “a life for a life” is to be taken literally and capital punishment is mandated.

Lex talionis was a principle which helped protect the poor from the rich, who were prevented from dictating harsher punishments of their own.  Copan adds that the principle “served as a useful guide to prevent blood feuds and disproportionate retaliation (think Mafia methods here).”

In conclusion, “When we compare Israel’s punishments with other Near Eastern legislation, the law of Moses presents a noteworthy moral development.  As biblical scholar Brevard Childs points out, the lex talionis principle ‘marked an important advance and was far from being a vestige from a primitive age.'”

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

What About Genocide in the Old Testament?

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I’ve mentioned Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God before, but I ran across this video clip where historical Jesus scholar Mike Licona interviews Copan about alleged genocide in the Old Testament.  Copan summarizes some very key arguments from his book during this informative clip.

httpv://youtu.be/4lap_BdOJQo

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages, Theology

Was the Mosaic Law Meant to Be Permanent?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

No, it wasn’t.  Not only does the New Testament book of Hebrews make clear that it was temporary, but the Old Testament itself promises a new covenant in Jer. 31 and Ezek. 36.  Should we completely ignore the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament where the Law is found, as hopelessly irrelevant for Christians today?

Not exactly.  The Torah does contain timeless commands that reflect God’s nature, but it also contains temporary laws that are directed at a deeply sinful people living in a flawed culture during a specific period of time in history.

Philosopher Paul Copan describes the situation in his book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God:

When we journey back over the millennia into the ancient Near East, we enter a world that is foreign to us in many ways.  Life in the ancient Near East wouldn’t just be alien to us – with all of its strange ways and assumptions.  We would see a culture whose social structures were badly damaged by the fall.  Within this context, God raised up a covenant nation and gave the people laws to live by; he helped to create a culture for them.  In doing so, he adapted his ideals to a people whose attitudes and actions were influenced by deeply flawed structures.

At the beginning of the Torah, God lays down the ideals for mankind in Gen. 1 and 2.  According to Copan, those first two chapters “make clear that all humans are God’s image-bearers; they have dignity, worth, and moral responsibility.  And God’s ideal for marriage is a one-flesh monogamous union between husband and wife.”  But the subsequent historical narrative, as recorded in the remainder of Genesis, and then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, is characterized by humanity’s precipitous fall into moral degeneracy.

How did God choose to move Abraham and his flawed descendants in the right direction?  After all, they had moved far away from the ideals laid down by God in the Garden.  We find in the Torah that God decided to meet them where they were, to accommodate imperfect, human-created social structures in order to move his people in the right moral direction.  Thus, the Mosaic Law (starting in Ex. 20) ends up being focused on a specific people living at a specific time.

Copan elaborates on God’s plans:

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 the law of Moses: it was never intended to be enduring.  It looked forward to a new covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36).

Copan quotes biblical scholar N. T. Wright: “The Torah 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.”