Welcome to Judaism Demystified, a podcast for the perplexed.
Join us as we explore some of the most fascinating Jewish and
Torah related topics with our esteemed guests.
By tackling some of the biggest questions you likely won't find
addressed elsewhere, we aim to shed light on important issues
and inspire a return to the fundamentals.
Enjoy the show. Thank you for joining the
Judaism Demystified podcast. Doctor Kopin, although you are
Christian and we are Jewish, we deeply value the importance of
emphasizing what unites us. Too often, interfaith dialogue
becomes centered around debates, but our focus today is on
finding common ground. We don't have to agree on
everything. In fact, especially during a
time when anti-Semitism is so horrifyingly widespread, we
truly appreciate the love and support many Christians offer to
our people, a virtue you exemplify.
With that said, our audience consists most mostly of Orthodox
Jews, who may not be familiar with you or your work.
Can you briefly introduce yourself and share your
expertise? Sure.
I have. Just want to say thank you first
of all for inviting me to be part of this program.
I'm grateful for another audience than what I typically
speak to and I'm grateful for the Jewish community that you
represent and again stand with you all during this time of
anti-Semitism on the rise and just and again, grateful to to
show solidarity with you and your Jewish community.
So God bless you all. Thank you so much.
We really appreciate that. In terms of my background, I
have an undergraduate degree in, in biblical studies.
I also went on to to do further study in, in the biblical
languages, you know, old, Old and New Testaments in, you know,
at a graduate level and also added to that degree the master
divinity degree, Master of Arts in philosophy of religion.
Actually, William Lane Craig was a professor of mine during those
days. And then I went on eventually to
get my PhD in philosophy. So I have a basically this kind
of integrated background in biblical studies, theology and
philosophy and, and those things have stood me in good stead.
And and so I've worked on various books in all of those
areas and I when it when the my first book on the on you know,
his God, a moral monster came out to defending the, the, the
God of the Hebrew Bible against some of the critics from the new
atheist movement. I basically wrote an article and
then would eventually write that book is got a moral monster and
it received a very good response.
The book continues to do well and I added to that collection
with another scholar, Matt Flanagan.
We co-authored a book called Did God Really Command Genocide in
2014. So the Moral monster book in
2011. The the Did God Really Command
Genocide in 2014. And then in 2022 I came out with
another book. The the third of the trilogy to
to write a book is God of Vindictive Bullying, which I
cover even more questions from the Hebrew Bible, the
imprecatory Psalms, the the flood of Noah, the first born of
Egypt, and so forth. Trying to add a lot more
material to what I covered in the previous books.
And so I hope this will serve as a helpful complimentary guide to
to readers who want to have a breadth of understanding of some
of these difficult passages. It's often misunderstood
passages from the Hebrew Bible. Well, we really appreciate that
and we actually are are so thrilled.
Hopefully we can cover must some of those topics.
I'm I'm sure it's going to be difficult, but here goes with
the first question, which is modern readers often fall into
the trap of recency bias approaching the Bible through a
21st century lens. This can cause them to miss how
revolutionary the Bible truly was for its time.
What are some key examples that would help a skeptic appreciate
the Torah's positive impact on humanity?
Could you also compare these examples to the more primitive
laws of the Engineer E like the Code of Hammurabi to highlight
the radical and groundbreaking nature of the Mosaic laws?
Sure. Yeah, happy to cover those.
And it's a, a very dense and robust question set of questions
that we can try to unpack. First of all, in the question,
I, I wanted to just address the, the matter of the, of the golden
rule, as it were, of interpretation that you, when
you're writing, you would want someone else's, someone else to
treat your texts fairly. And so when you're reading
someone else's text, you, you do that as well.
And unfortunately, a lot of people who are critical of the
Old Testament are very dismissive.
They haven't looked at context. They haven't looked at the
ancient Near Eastern background. They have done often very little
homework. And here sometimes it can be
very frustrating to kind of build a case carefully looking
at words and comparing context and so forth, only to be
dismissed by the, the wave of a hand and showing little regard
for the, you know, for the, you know, the, the patience that it
requires to, to unpack these things.
And so when we're talking about a, the ancient Near Eastern
setting that is far different from our own, it's far removed
from our own modern situation in, you know, both language,
culture, it is a, it is a world a couple of worlds away from us,
as it were. And, and so there are some, some
things about the, you know, the ancient Near Eastern setting
that relate to, say, blood and semen, you know, certain taboos
related to, to, you know, impurity or uncleanness.
And, and, and we don't have a context for that.
And so showing patients and, and saying, well, what does these,
what do these, you know, taboos mean in an ancient Near Eastern
setting, rather than saying, oh, that's, that's primitive, that's
crazy, which is often often the response that that one gets from
kind of the casual, you know, less than serious minded critic.
So, so basically we want to ask, well, what if we approached the
old test, the, the hippie, the Hebrew Bible?
I see Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible in, in, in a way that is
basically taking into account the, the history, the context.
What if we treated it with charitability rather than
suspicion? How would we go about doing
that? And and so one of those, you
know, one of the ways in which we would, we would approach this
would be to, to simply look at how certain practices were
understood. When we look at, say,
sacrifices, how were sacrifices understood in the ancient Near
East? What is their significance?
Is there some kind of a carry over for us even today as we
look at the nature of sacrifices and, and, and you could see
something that is much more, I think, tangible in terms of say,
you know, our, our basic religious impulse that we all
have being made in the image of God that we are.
We are made for something transcendent.
We are made for something deeper.
And so we deal with issues such as guilt and shame and feeling
impure. And, and that's why so many
different religions in the world.
And even we have our own psychotherapeutic ways of doing
this of, of kind of funny cleansing for ourselves, of
purifying ourselves, of riding ourselves of, of, of filth, of
impurity, of kind of feeling of dirtiness.
So we, we, we, we do those sorts of things.
And when we make those sorts of connections with how we
understand something that could be similar in our day, we say,
Oh, there's, there's a, there's a point of comparison here that
we could, that we could undertake.
So that's those are just a few examples and, and what I try to
do in in addressing the new atheists like Richard Dawkins
and Daniel Dennett and others who are mocking a lot of these
sorts of practices to say, hold on of it.
Let's pull back and see the actually the very rich
significance that you may be surprised by the sorts of things
that you see that actually are rich and deep and very relevant
to, to to our lives. So another way of looking at
this too is when we use certain words like in the old in in the
Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, the the the translation slave or
slavery has very loaded emotive connotations that connect to the
antebellum South. And I know we'll get to that
later on, but what is what is often transferred is a modern
understanding of quote slavery. And it is basically thrust upon
the biblical text. And there is no nuance.
There is no shading. It's assumed that it's one of
the same. And what I'm trying to do is say
we need to pull back from this and say that there is a first, a
better way of rendering these texts, you know, lower trend,
you know, like a word like evid, you know, servant.
And, and also looking at what was actually practiced in
ancient Israel, Does this look like the antebellum South or is
this something quite different? And, and as I try to point out,
this is indeed quite different. And there is a, a portion in my
book is God of vindictive bully where I try to draw these
various comparisons between the, the Torah and the, and the the
other ancient Near Eastern law collections to show how
remarkably different they are in their, in their heartbeat.
You know, in, in their, their tenor and how they view persons
and so forth. So for example, in in in
Deuteronomy chapter 4, you know, the there is this impulse for
the Israelites to to show their own distinctiveness so that the
nations around them will say, surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people. This is what the Lord wants the
outside observers to see about Israel and and that they're and
so you see that as you explore more deeply, you see that behind
that exhortation is actually a worldview of difference between
what we see in the Mosaic law and these other ancient near
Eastern collections. So for example, we could talk
about how the the dignity of persons is so strongly
highlighted in the Mosaic law, whereas in other ancient Near
Eastern law collections, instead of having this fundamental
equality, all human beings made in the image of God, You have
these hierarchies that are that are created.
You have a hierarchical structure.
And you also have punishments that correspond to that
hierarchy, such that those people who are at the top of the
hierarchy have a more diminished punishment and those at the
bottom have more severe punishments.
So there is a kind of selectivity going on in terms of
how you view human dignity and also how you view these
corresponding punishments that go along with it.
So there's as there's an intrinsic dignity in the Mosaic
Law, but there's a selective dignity in the in the other
nations law codes. We also have a certain
treatment. You know, how do you treat
foreigners, for example, those who are treated as, you know,
those who are outsiders in Israel, for example, or a
runaway slave who comes from another nation is allowed to
settle at any of Israel's cities.
But you don't have that same sort of regard for, for the for
the foreigner in other nations. You have a very strong emphasis,
for example, on personhood in the law code of Moses.
But in, you know, there's a greater emphasis on things
property in other ancient Near Eastern law collections.
You also have, for example, what's unique in the ancient
Near East is the Sabbath law for the people of Israel.
And there is no, no parallel, no comparable law that gives people
rest, both the native as well as the foreigner in Israel.
So there is a, a great understanding of the need for
those rhythms for giving rest and refreshment to, to, to the
people and even to, to animals. There is a, there is a greater,
much stronger emphasis on in the ancient Near East, on the
surrounding laws on the, on the kind of the rights of kings and,
and a diminished sense of rightness or rights for for the
average citizen. We can talk about, you know,
concern for the poor, how there are provisions for the poor in
in Israel gleaning laws that you're not to charge interest.
But again, in the nations surrounding Israel, you don't
have those provisions like gleaning laws.
You don't have term limits of of six years and then the 7th year
the contract is over. And then the person who's been
in servitude is free from debt and free to move about as before
the indenture. You have you have, you know, all
manner of concerns for the poor in Israel, but those things
cannot be said for the surrounding nations.
I keep going, but hopefully that gives an idea of the the greater
out of humanity that is shown in the Mosaic law and how Israel is
to be informed by this very significant event, the exodus.
And how because the Israelites were were, you know, were in
bondage as aliens in the land of Egypt.
The Lord is reminding them to look out for the orphan, the
widow, the alien, because you 2 are once aliens in the land of
Egypt. So that's that's, you know,
three dozen. Sometimes that exhortation is
given to the people of Israel in the Mosaic Law.
So there are some those are obvious ones where you see like,
wow, there's care for the orphan and the widow and the stranger.
But like, even even to put into context something like the Soto
laws, right, The woman who's accused of, of having an affair,
it it when compared to like the trial by ordeal of like the
Hammurabi's law where women are just thrown into a river to die
and then say, oh, if they survive by miracle, then then
you know she was innocent. Which of course, would never.
Which would never happen, where this is a way of protecting a
woman who is being accused, who you know, she this is a way for
her to like just go home with your husband, everything.
So you drink this potion and then, you know, like nothing
happens, you go home. So I think like there, there's
little things like that that I think a lot of people don't
appreciate. There.
There is the embarrassment part, though that that's not that's
not trivial, of course. Not the whole but.
She, but she's. I had a tough extent.
I wouldn't go as like, I wouldn't say it like, oh, she
just did it and went home. Like it's a there, there's a,
there's an ordeal there, but, but yeah.
I mean, her head, her head is covered.
So there's some level of of, you know, protecting her identity.
Also she they uncover her head when she comes into the
ceremony. But anyway.
Yeah. But but I would say, I would say
this too, that there is kind of the reverse in, for example,
Deuteronomy 25, where there is the Leverett Law where the if an
older brother dies, then the younger brother is to marry the
widow in order to so that the name may not die out in Israel.
But if a brother, a younger brother refuses to do so, then
the then the woman, the brother's wife.
It says, you know, Deuteronomy 25 shall come to him in the
sight of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot and spit in
his face and shall declare this thus it is done to the man who
does not build up his brother's house.
So you do see the, the, the woman on the, on the other side
of that, that, that there is an empowerment for her as well, you
know, And again, there is a kind of empowerment for the woman
too, in that in Numbers 5, where there is the, where there is
the, the, the, the trial that she goes through.
But but again, as, as was mentioned, if she is innocent of
any adultery, then there is no consequence to her.
It is a she doesn't have to fear it.
There may be a being put on the spot but but it becomes clear
that the the husband's accusations were false and she
is vindicated and could hold her held head high.
Yeah, absolutely. And I, and I think that the
greater point that you're making is, and we'll get into
specifics, you know, difficult passages and difficult,
difficult areas in the Bible. But I, I, I think what you're
trying to say is that when you look at the, at the, at the
Torahs as a whole, right. There is a lot of room to say
that, that the Torah, that the Torah should be given a
charitable approach because the track record of almost the
entire book is trying to build a moral society.
And it is starkly different from all other books that were, that
were in existence. And we should, we should take
that into consideration instead of just projecting, you know,
today's modern values and assuming it onto the Bible
without critical thinking, especially when you see on the
larger whole that the Torah is, is, is it takes morality very
seriously. Yes, and, and one of the things
that you see repeatedly in the Torah is the great concern for
those who could easily be taken advantage of, those who are
margin easily be marginalized, the vulnerable.
And again, that triad of the orphan, the widow, the alien,
the ones who can most easily be taken advantage of in, in
society, those are the ones here to look out for the most.
So, so it sounds though, there's some sort of a justification for
oppression. Oh, this person's a foreigner.
We can do what we want. We can be severe with that
person. No, there is this, you know, you
remember your origins. You remember that you were once
oppressed in the land of Egypt. Right.
And we also, we also, you know, don't even pay attention to
this, but honoring parents in the ancient world, you know,
especially the way we understand the honoring of father and
mother is also responsible for for them as they get old and
taking care of them. That that is something that was
unnatural to the ancient world when, when they become a burden
on you. And also children.
I think the the story of, of the, you know, the al Qaeda,
the, the whole, the whole Abraham and Isaac.
Yeah, Abraham and Isaac, that whole story is really like an
amazing statement in the ancient world where children were
property and, you know, people would sacrifice their children
to the gods, and that was like, normal.
And we, we take it for granted because we're just reading this
all the time and we're just like, OK, it's a very strange
story. Why is he want to sacrifice his
son? But I think the Torah is making
a very strong statement there that we don't own our children.
Yeah, yeah. And not to mention that the the
the gods of the nations surrounding Israel are engaged
in all sorts of immoral, grotesque practices, you know,
bestiality, rape, incest, and so forth.
And those are the very practices that the Israelites are told to
avoid, to stay away from. So they remain set apart as the
people of God. Yes.
And, and one thing now that you mentioned the set apart that
Kedusha is often mistranslated as holiness, but it really means
to sanctify, right? We sanctify the Sabbath from the
other days. We, we were sanctified from
other nations, not because we're better, but because we, we make
distinctions between things, right?
We, we have to distinguish between the realm of God and the
realm of man. And making distinctions is is a
very, very important part of of growth understanding, you know,
where we are in the world and where, where we're supposed to
go. So I think that that is one of
the important points. So Bentley, if you'd like to
take the next question. Absolutely.
OK, so one of the most common critiques levelled at the Torah
is that it seems to depict a God who endorses genocide, such as
with the Canaanites and the Amalekites, or the killing of
the Egyptian first borns during the 10th plague.
Scholars like Doctor William Lane Craig take a literalist
view and focus on justifying these events as God, condemning
the evil of these groups. And given the horrific actions
of terrorist groups like Hamas today, it's hard to entirely
dismiss this line of reasoning. Whoever, what I appreciate about
what I appreciate about your approach is the attention to
context, including the Torah's use of hyperbole.
One example that stands out is King Shahul's command to wipe
out all of Amalek. Yet just a few chapters later,
we find David's camp being raided by Amalekites, and
centuries later, Haman, a descendant of Amalek, emerges as
an enemy of the Jews in Persia. Could you provide further
insights into this, perhaps highlighting other examples
where the Torah uses exaggerated or poetic language?
Additionally, how should we understand why God would commend
any kind of collect collective punishment in the first place?
All right, well, there's a tall order.
Let's try to take things one at a time here.
And so so yes, I, you know, I have a of course, high regard
for William Lane Craig, my, my mentor in in so many ways.
And you know, he does hold the, the line on the on basically
this being a unique instance of genocide that it is commanded by
God, that there is that God is morally justified in issuing
this command. And I would say that as I read
this passage from First Samuel 15 and other passages saying,
Joshua, I just don't see this happening.
I see basically a war of between combatant armies.
It's not, you know, even when you have say, man, woman, young
and old, these are typically scenarios where you're not going
to have elderly people, women and children hanging around.
So let me just say the something about the First Samuel 15 for
starters, and then we can work our way around some of these
other texts. So in first Samuel 14, we see
that the in verse 48, the the Amalekites have raided the the
Israelites territory. And so the Lord says to to
Samuel to you know, to you know, you know, he tells him to tell
Saul to to quote, you know, Haram.
However, let's be translated often translated utterly
destroy. But you know, the, you know,
man, woman, young and old of the Amalekites.
And so as we read this, there are a few things that are
happening. First of all, there is a pitched
battle mentioned in verse 5 at a city of Amalek.
So at the city of Amalek, you have the Kenites who are also
there. And so Saul sends word to the
Kenites because they're friendly with the Israelites and he
doesn't have any problem with them.
They're not the opponent, they're not the enemy.
The Amalekites are. And so he sends word and says
we're going to fight against the Amalekites.
So the Kenites end up going away.
And so the battle takes place between Israel and and the
Amalekites. So if the Kenites are leaving,
knowing that there's a battle to be fought, certainly they're not
going to be women and children hanging around this encampment.
They're going to be the first ones to go.
In fact, now they, they go on from there to, you know, the the
text says not just Saul, but the narrator also tells us that
after the battle, it says Saul utterly destroyed, you know,
again, Haram utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
Now, as I point out in my book, is God of vindictive bully.
Sometimes the sometimes the word Haram simply means something
like exile without any kind of genocide or obliteration.
Sometimes it can just simply mean a decisive victory, but
we're not told about any of the results and we can come back to
Joshua later. But but basically it it does not
at all. It doesn't have that loaded
indication of annihilation as some people assume.
There's some, you know, a number of scholars who say that Haram
sometimes rendered utterly destroy is actually a
mistranslation. And then there's more to to it
that I can go into. But but, but, but even as you
compare, as you look at the text itself and compare other
passages in the context and the same book, for example, you see
that that is not going on at all.
There is no genocide. There has not been literal utter
destruction. So as as was mentioned, we see
later on in the what we see later on in the book of First
Samuel that David is fighting against the Amalekites and the
Malachite army. 400 of them end up fleeing on camels.
It seems like they're Amalekites all over the place as you read
chapters 27 and 30 of First Samuel.
And there's a there's a common rhetorical device that that is
used to emphasize this exaggeration where you have in a
lot of ancient Eurasian war texts mentioned of a particular
pitched battle, which we do have in First Samuel 15, five, the
city of Amalek. And then there is a picture of
universal conquest after that. So, so Saul is fighting the
Amalekites after this battle in, you know, it says he's fighting
them from Arabia to Egypt again, a vast territory.
And that is a common feature in ancient Near Eastern war texts
where you have a localized battle and then this this kind
of universal conquest motif. The same thing happens with
David. He has a pitched battle and then
he fights the Amalekites again in that same basic terrain.
You also. So again, we don't have at all
any kind of genocide here. As we look at the cities of of
of Joshua, we go back there and say, you know, the term Haram is
used and it says we left no survivor, man, woman, young and
old. That same sort of language is
being used. But we know from archaeology,
from a number of indicators that these cities that are, are
mentioned in the book of Joshua are actually military
installations or administrative centers.
They aren't places of that, that, that house general, you
know, civilian populations. And, and so the, the argument
that these are just, you know, these people are these cities
are teeming with civilians just is not the case.
And so I, I, I make that argument in, in, in both of my
books, moral monster and vindictive bully.
But but it's interesting that even as you so when you see
there were no survivors, you see often those survive that there
are survivors just a chapter or two later.
So even though it uses that sweeping language which is
common in ancient Near Eastern war texts, what the ancient
other ancient Asian war texts don't say is that there were
survivors. But the book of Joshua does
mention abundant survivors. In fact, you get to Judges
chapter one. We read repeatedly that the
Israelites could not drive them out.
They could not drive them out. They could not drive them out.
So, so we have very clear indications that there's a lot
more going on here. And it is not a genocidal sort
of a thing. It basically is a matter of
combatant armies fighting against one another.
And I, I use this, I, I, I mentioned this in my vindictive
bully book where I talk about the, the battle of, you know,
Sihan and Ogg in, in numbers 21. Well, in that battle, it's
clearly combatant. We see the people fleeing the
villages. And then there is this battle
between two combatant armies. And we're told that the king,
his sons and his army are fighting against, they're going
out to fight against the Israelites.
And then they also have to go between the, the, the, you know,
the, the two rivers in, in Moab, the, the, the Arnon and the
Jabok rivers that they are there.
So a 20 mile hike, you know, that they have this all night
hike that they're going from one place to another, carrying their
gear and everything. Certainly that you're not going
to have women and children on this, on this military March.
But Deuteronomy 2 and 3 recounts this battle from Numbers 21.
And keep in mind that Deuteronomy intensifies the
rhetoric that is found. That is a more tame language, as
it were in say, Exodus and Numbers.
But it says in Numbers two and three that that these two kings,
it says that that man, woman, young and old were obliterated,
that they were, quote, utterly destroyed.
But we know that women and children were not around because
it's just basically between two combatant armies, the Israelites
and these Amorite kings were fighting against, against
Israel. So it, it has that sense of
exaggeration, hyperbole, rhetoric.
But when you look more closely at the, the battle scene that
took actually took place, it, it does not have those, those,
those civilians included in that, in that battle scene.
So those are a few examples I could go into into more details
here, but but that's something that I think is important to to
note. So with the Canaanites, with the
with the Amalekites, I do talk about the the first born of
Egypt. I can I can discuss that if
you'd like, but. Well, I actually want to just
add to that, you know, in the modern times, we say even like
in sports, you know, like we wet the floor with them or we, you
know, we use this kind of language and it's understood in
the context of like where where we live and when we live.
And if somebody, you know, just, I've heard that 1000 years from
now, that'd be like, what, what does that even mean?
I'm so hungry I can eat a cow. You know, these are things that
when we talk and the Torah does this, we see it even in like the
God destroying the Pharaoh's army with a mighty hand and an
outstretched arm, which is also, you know, kind of like a
appropriating a phrase from the, the battle of Kadesh of, of
Ramses. So, so, so the Torah uses this
kind of and, and in other places, you know, like the most
famous one, I think is where the Torah says, you know, there,
there are cities that reach the heavens or there there are, you
know, that God took us out of Egypt on the wings of eagles.
So the language being poetic or or hyperbolic is is very common.
Exactly right. Yeah.
And it's so, so keeping keeping that intensification in mind and
knowing that this is this fits squarely within the ancient Near
Eastern rhetoric. You mentioned Kadesh, There are
other battles that the Pharaohs have against sea peoples or the
the armies of Mitani north of what is modern day Iraq and so
forth that they're saying, you know, that we slew, you know,
the Pharaohs slew, you know, he, he destroyed millions, only he
was left. And and you know, or even this
battle against the Sea Peoples, Ramses the Third basically said
that, you know, it is fight against the Philistines and
other sea peoples, that they basically were rendered non
existent. Well, as it turns out, the the
Sea peoples, the Philistines would actually come and colonize
the eastern part of Egypt. So, so there's great
exaggeration on the part of Ramses the Third talking about
his great, great, great victory, but he overextended himself and
became vulnerable to the Sea Peoples who would later colonize
eastern Egypt. So So yeah, you do have that
that remarkable, you know, that that type of genre that we need
to understand. And if you understand that kind
of a setting, these other texts from Joshua and First Samuel and
so forth make a lot more sense and and you understand that that
there is indeed a lot of hyperbole.
Don't we, don't we have an inscription, the Merneptus?
I'm, I'm not so great with this stuff, but there is one that we
have an inscription that says Israel is laid to waste and no
more, right? Right.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
So his. Yeah.
So, yeah. We have clearly.
Yeah, exactly. You're, you're, you have, you
know, King Misha saying that, you know, that that basically
Israel is no more. And of course he was speaking
prematurely by 100 years. The Assyrians would come into
the northern part of, you know, the northern Kingdom of Israel
and would basically do that what what King Misha was boasting
about. This this was a language that
was that was used to express total victory.
It's from what I'm. Right, exactly right.
Yeah, so. Basically decisive victory is
another, you know, is basically the way to render, at least in,
in a lot of contexts, what Haram is.
So yeah. And we, we, we also, one of our
earliest guests we had is Doctor Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman, who
actually. Yeah.
So so he he also writes about like numbers, numbers being used
as symbols in the ancient world. And the numbers mentioned in the
Bible are often not meant to be taken literally there.
So. So there are so many things, you
know, we we can keep digging into these things.
But for the skeptic who is listening to this episode, like
you said, we we need to be more careful and we need to be, you
know, basically, you know, when we read the text, we have to
understand that there's a lot more going on and we have to
really appreciate the context. In Hebrew, the the word of the
simple meaning of the reading the text is called the peshat,
but it actually really means the context.
You have to understand the context.
So actually we appreciate the fact that you read the Torah
like, like a rabbi in a way, because your your analysis takes
into account all these other things that are going on, which
is extremely important, understanding what's going on.
Well, I appreciate the compliment.
I I do want to take the text seriously.
So, so I want to get into that topic of the first born son
because obviously genocide, you know, we, we, we've, we've
tackled that and punishment in general, a lot of people are
uneasy about it. How can, how can God even be OK
with wiping out the, the, the first born children of Egypt?
Like how is that justified? So can you give us a little bit
of a background on that? Sure.
Well, of course, when we come into the book of Exodus, we see
a great severity, indeed, evil treatment of the the Hebrew, the
Hebrew boys, yeah, that they are to be drowned in the Nile River.
And and so, of course, is the context in which Moses is
rescued, you know, and, and and brought into the household of
Pharaoh's daughter and so forth. And is, is trained in the
learning of the Egyptians, et cetera.
But you know, so, but the, the very outset, you have a Pharaoh
who had doesn't remember Joseph. You have an, an attack out of
fear that the, that the, that the Hebrews are rising up and
who knows, maybe they could overthrow the Egyptians.
And so let's, let's take pre emptive action and get rid of
the, the Hebrew baby boys as they're being born.
And and that's so, so that's kind of phase one.
Then you get to phase two where there is a, another Pharaoh who
rises up who is himself nasty, that when people talk about
God's hardening Pharaoh's heart, we cease.
I mean, that's just kind of a, you know, kind of an add on.
We already see a very hardened heart in Pharaoh from the very
beginning. And so that's just kind of an,
an additional kind of an, another layer of hardening that
we see going on. But this, this Pharaoh is cruel,
he is oppressive. And so the Lord sends Moses into
the setting. And keep in mind the language
that takes place in, for example, in Exodus chapter 4,
where where Israel is God's first born that that the that
the Pharaohs have been mistreating, say the Hebrew
boys. They've been trying to have them
wanted to put them to death in in chat.
In the 1st chapter of Exodus, we see that the Lord is telling
Pharaoh that he is to have show regard for the Lord's first
born, namely the people of Israel.
And so if he is going to mistreat the Lord's first born,
then there will be again, there's that language of God's
rendering to everyone according to his deeds, that there is this
language of proportionality. Just as you have done to these
people, so it will be done to you.
Either one it's it's called MIDA connected MIDA.
Right, right. Measure for measure.
Yep, exactly right. You know, the, you know, kind of
the the eye for an eye sort of principle, the lex talionis that
that this is a this is a basically some people see that
as quote barbaric, but it's simply usually that, yeah, it's
basically a monetary payment that takes place unless there is
murder and then it's life for life.
But basically it is a proportional judgement that is
to be rendered. And so God is doing that.
We see that the and, and there's plenty of warning leading up to
that first born of Egypt plague where God is basically giving
opportunity to relent and, and not to come to this last resort
plague where in a course it does turn out that Pharaoh, you know,
finally let's the the people of Israel go.
But it is, and keep in mind too, that the, it's not as though
it's just Pharaoh who's been involved, but it's, it's an
entire, it's a widespread system of oppression against the
Israelites and, and other and other peoples who are also doing
work in, in, in, in Egypt. But the, but there is this
hostility, there is this hierarchy of a power structure
that is oppressing the people of Israel.
And so, so there is a, there is widespread guilt that comes
along with this too. Let's not forget.
So, so that is part of the, the part of the ethos here that that
God is, if you're going to, if you're going to bring harm to
the first born, my first born, then God is going to bring harm
to the first born of Egypt, unless, of course, they take
measures to, to protect themselves from, from the
destroyer, from the Angel of death.
So that is the kind of context that we're speaking it that the
scriptures are speaking into. And, and, and I think that, you
know, we, we may say, oh, that the, the first born of Egypt,
that's a terrible thing. But keep in mind what was being
done to the, to God's first born in the 1st place.
So we we need to understand that kind of a setting of that
language of the first born before we come to that 10th
plague. Right, like they, they made
their bed and now they're sleeping in it.
But, but, but you know, the interesting thing for just our
listeners, you mentioned the, the hardening or in, in Hebrew
also covet has used the the heaviness of the heart is
actually a call to what the Pharaohs would do when it when a
previous Pharaoh would die, they would put his heart on a scale
and measure it with A and put it on the other side of the scale.
They would put a feather on. And if the heart was heavier,
then it would mean that that that Pharaoh was evil.
This is a way of the new Pharaoh saying like, I'm not going to be
like that previous Pharaoh. So the the Torah is actually
making a poetic statement by saying that that that you want
to know how evil is. This is the heaviness of the
heart that they're it's calling to that to that practice that
was done. Another thing is regarding what
you mentioned with with the first born the the fighting
against the the 10 plagues are actually repudiation of or
polemic against the ancient Egyptian gods.
So the Nile, the gods, the Nile was used as the the deity that
that consumed the Jewish, you know, the Israelite children and
and killed them. And also the second plague,
which was frog, which is the God Hecat, which is the fertility
goddess in Egypt. The the frog head and the and
the human body. So this is like the the the 1st
2 plagues are basically media connected media.
It's it's a measure for measure against trying to stop the
Israelites from procreating and from from growing their
population. Right, yeah.
And in fact, Exodus 12/12 reminds us that these plagues
are directed, you know, kind of a couture statement that they're
directed against the the the deities of Egypt.
And what's interesting about the, you know, the actions of,
of God and the plagues is that they are directed against the,
the superpower of the day that they, that this is the world's
leading nation of that time. And here the people of Israel
are, you know, the Israelites are enslaved in Egypt.
And instead of, you know, it's, it's, it's it's kind of an
interesting thing because the Lord, the God of those slaves,
is the one who is bringing judgement upon this superpower.
And it's not as though he needs some kind of home court
advantage, you know, to fight on his own turf.
No, he is going on foreign turf and winning the battle against
those deities there. Right.
And, and one thing maybe that ties into this as well is so we
have like that kind of punishment, we also have capital
punishment and we also have, you know, punishment where in the
story of the flood, you have, you know, the world or the
irates of that, that region basically suffering a flood that
wipes out, you know, a large group of people.
So how do we understand that in in context as well?
Yeah, yeah. And I, I too, sounds like you're
taking the flood as something regional rather than global,
which is my, my take as well that the, you know, the audits
in, in that is, you know, that is covered as you even read in
Chapter 11 that the, the whole land audits spoke one language
and then it says it moved eastward.
So if it's the whole globe, it's, it would be strange for
everyone to move eastward. But if it's a, a region that is,
that is describable, say, moving east of the land of Canaan
towards, you know, toward, say, Babylon, Shinar and so on, then
then that makes a lot more sense.
So they go and build that tower of, you know, of, of Babel.
And then and so you have a picture of this flood then that
impacts humanity. But what is interesting is that
the, that the God is simply finishing the job that human
beings have begun. It is God is he is pained in
doing this. It grieves him.
This is something that is done with reluctance, with a heavy
heart that God brings judgment upon upon the people.
But but basically human beings have already done most of the
damage. And basically God is saying, I'm
going to start over. It's not as though God abandons
humanity. God is going to start to
rebuild. And so we have the language in,
in Genesis 6 through 9 of a recreation of, you know, the
mention in Chapter 9 of the, of the, you know, the, the image of
God of being fruitful and multiplying and so forth.
But also giving human beings the capacity, the power, the
authority to when they shed blood, that their, that their
blood should be shed because they're taking the lives of
those who are made in the image of God.
And so there is this kind of a governing role that, that human
beings are to have and to, to keep the violence at Bay and to
and to protect those who are being who, who others would want
to harm as, as God's image bearers.
So, so you have that kind of a rebuilding of, of, of, of the
creation and that God is also setting out certain measures and
also making promises about this kind of a, you know, catastrophe
not happening again. So, so, yeah, there is a lot
more that can be said in terms of the theology of the, of the
flood of what is going on there. A lot of important theological
principles that could be unpacked.
But but yeah, that's, that's basically where I don't know.
I'll just maybe leave it there for my comments.
Yeah, so I, if I can add to that, the if we understand the
Torah in the context of the ancient world, there was this
idea of a flood was was well known in in other previous store
epics like the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis.
These are these are describing similar.
So something did happen, right? There was some kind of flood
that did happen. But I think what we have to take
out of this is what is the Torah's message of what is the
lesson the Torah's trying to teach us?
And it's actually veers completely away from where the
ancients understood the story, whereas where the Torah actually
says that, you know, God created everything Ketova and it was
very good, right? But but when it came to creating
man, man chooses between good and evil, right?
It puts the onus on man, not on the gods or not on God.
Where And then at least the, the culmination of, of this whole
story was that, you know, there was the word is Hamas, but there
was violence among, you know, the people who were, who were
they were doing it was anarchy. They were doing whatever they
wanted to each other. And you said they, they did it
to each other. God is just kind of finishing
what they started. And there was regret.
The Torah mentions that he had regret.
So, so clearly we, we have to see, I think this the character
of Noah as somebody who, you know, he is, he is somebody
who's reflecting after what happened as kind of like a
missed opportunity. He he starts to drink because
you realize maybe he could have helped some people.
This isn't at least in the Jewish tradition that he could
have helped and he could have tried to save others.
And later on we're introduced to Abraham, who's kind of look
correcting that, that part, that that characteristic.
OK, so we're going to go to the next question, which is the
institution of slavery, which is universally condemned as morally
abhorrent. And that's something we all
agree on. How then do we make sense of the
Bible condoning both Israelite and non Israelite slavery?
It's important to distinguish between the chattel slavery
practice by the American South and the slavery described in the
Torah, which was not permanent and dehumanizing in the same
way. So can you give us some context
on how the Bible's teaching on this topic were transformative
for their time? After all, it was the influence
of judeo-christian values that eventually led to the
eradication of slavery in the modern world.
And while we're on the subject, how should we interpret the
Bible treatment of women, particularly in areas of
marriage, divorce and captivity? Yeah, OK, Let's tackle the
matter of servitude. And I, I speak of servitude.
I, I don't use the term slavery because that language, even
though a lot of modern translations use it, even though
older ones don't use that term slavery.
Even, you know, whether it's English, like the King James
Version only has the term slave once.
And that's not even in the Hebrew text, but it's but, but
other, you know, like German and, and Dutch and Spanish and
so forth that the older renderings don't have the, the
heavier kind of, you know, kind of emotionally laden slave
language. But that's, that's really kind
of strange with all that's taken place in terms of modern
slavery, that they would bring this into modern translations
and, and I think mislead many people into thinking, oh, it's
we're just basically revisiting modern slave just by going
backward in time. And So what I try to do is
highlight that the term servitude is something that
doesn't rig the conversation. So you look at a, it's sort of
like using the term king. You, you don't just go ahead and
somebody may be a puppet king, but you don't go ahead and
translate that as puppet king. You just leave it as king and
you let the context to shape how that king is to be understood in
the same way in terms of servitude, for example, you have
you have Moses, you have Joshua, who are described as, you know,
I mean, each of them is described as an Eben Adonai, the
servant of the Lord. And that this is an honorific
title. And what we mean by servitude is
basically a kind of, you know, kind of a dynamic dependency
relationship, and especially one that in ancient Israel is
shifting with the say, with the payment of, you know, when you
pay off your debts, you are free to go, you know, you're no
longer an indentured servant. And and so there is a certain
dynamism here, but it basically reflects a dependency
relationship. And we use this kind of language
in our, you know, we have a kind kind of, you know, you know, a
transactional language in our own, with our own sports teams.
Like we have owners, we have players that are bought, that
they're traded and so forth. And that this is obviously not
diminishing the humanity of these basketball or baseball
players or whatever. It is simply using that kind of
a transactional language. And in the same way we had that
kind of transactional language that is used of both the
Israelite servant as well as the foreign servant.
So for example, the, the, the, the Israelite servant is, you
know, can be acquired kana just as you have, for example, in, in
Leviticus 25, the foreign servants who, who can be
acquired kana. So the, the, the evidim, the
Toshaveen those you know, the, the, the sorry, the sort of the,
you know, the gharim and the Toshaveen, the those who are
sojourning, those who are, you know, who are, you know,
dwelling among, you know amongst you as as resident aliens, that,
that, that language is used later on in Chapter 25.
These foreigners who can be acquired, they, that they, those
people can become persons of means.
As you keep reading the chapter, a lot of critics will stop at
the end of being able to acquire them and so forth.
But keep reading those you know that person who is sojourning as
an alien is also may become a person of beings to the point
that he may acquire Kana, an Israelite servant of his to work
for him. So so you have language of of
prospering. If the foreigner in Israel
prospers, then he can acquire an Israelite just as the foreigner
can be acquired, the the Israelite can be can prosper.
At the end of Leviticus 25 S the same sort of language is being
used of both the foreigner as well as the Israelite.
And there isn't a diminishing of their humanity.
So, so we can go in to talk about, you know, some people
will, you know, we'll, we'll talk about certain treatments of
the say the Israelite serve the Hebrew servant.
And in Exodus 21, where it says that you may, you know, you
know, there are certain, you know, regulations regarding the
Israelites. So if you if, if you, if you
strike a servant, a Hebrew so that he dies.
Well, it's interesting that this the term that is used is
typically used of capital punishment that he will be he
should be avenged that this is basically affirms the dignity of
the of the of the, in this case, the Hebrew servant.
And so if he is struck so that he dies, then the one who struck
him, his quote, master or employer, his life is, you know,
is to be taken. Now, some people that the
critics will sometimes say, well, look at what it's
continues to say that if he survives a day or two, then then
this person is, you know, then then there is no that that there
is no death penalty or anything like that.
And, and that this person basically it says, it goes on to
say some translations will say he is his property or he is his
silver. Well, what is the context here?
It's actually the context of accidental death and paying for
medical fees. And so Harry Hoffner, the late
Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, said that basically
what we're talking about here is that if you pay someones medical
fees, that this is a way of kind of in a sense diminishing the
severity of the punishment because you've taken the
initiative to pay for the person whom you've injured paying those
medical bills. And that same sort of a thing is
happening in the, you know, because that is the context of
accidental injury. That that if you're paying for
the, if you're using your silver to pay for this medical fee, you
know, it's, it's not as though it says there's that rendering.
It could, it says he, you know who, you know, the Hebrew word
is, is his silver. Well, it could also be
translated that that medical fee is his silver.
And so, so there's another way of rendering that rather than
seeing the, the Hebrew servant as property, basically the
medical fee is that silver that actually is to be figured in
when the judge is rendering a verdict about, you know, the
person who has struck the person so that he doesn't die, you
know, but for a day or two and then, and then he dies.
So that is figured into the, into the broader judicial
equation. So anyway, there are a number of
other texts that we could get into to talk about servitude.
But, but I, but I think it's important to remember that
servitude is basically what happens when you're impoverished
and you have no, no recourse. And so you quote sell yourself,
whether you're a foreigner or you know, or you know, maybe you
might be acquired in, in, in warfare or something like that.
But, but, but those who are quote acquired say within Israel
that, that there is a term limit of six years and you cannot keep
that Israelite servant beyond six years.
That that to, to keep him from getting out of or from even
going into poverty or to servitude.
In the 1st place, you have leaning laws, you have no
interest loans and so forth. That there are provisions for
the, for those who are for Israelites to keep themselves
from having to sell themselves into servitude.
You know, we also have various arrangements such as in, at the,
you know, in also in Exodus 21. That, that if there is a person
who says, I love my master, my employer, then that person can
through a, you know, through this piercing of his ear,
through that ceremony, using the all, that he then would become
a, a permanent servant. But this would be voluntary.
And so the the biblical scholar David Klein's said that if you
had, you have these two laws, one that says about the foreign
runaway slave, that if the foreign runaway slave comes to
Israel, he could settle in any of Israel's cities.
And so if, if it's if it, if a foreign servant is running away
to get away from a harsh, oppressive master, how much more
would that apply within Israel? In fact, when we read about, for
example, when David's men go to, to, to Nabal, you know, Nabal
who is, you know, you know, Abigail's husband and they say
we're David servants. And he said, who is David?
Who are his servants? We've got people, we got
servants running away from their masters all the time.
So that was a basically done in Israel that if you had had a
tough time with someone who was your you to whom are your
indentured servant, you could get out from under that
oppression by virtue of runaway. And so David Klein says that if
you have the option of runaway or if you have the option of
aligning yourself to, you know, belonging to the household of
your employer, quote, master, he said this basically undermines
any kind of institutionalization of slavery or servitude within
in Israel because the there is free will that is involved.
There is protection also for those who are being oppressed.
In fact, there's a law, you know, that that's that's of
course mentioned in Leviticus about tattooing.
What is tattooing all about? Well, to have a tattoo, some
people have associated that with, say, a foreign deity, You
know, that perhaps you're tattooed because you belong to a
foreign deity, and so therefore you shouldn't do that.
Or it could be sometimes associated with, you know, with
cutting. Practice cutting, you know, you
know, for the dead. But probably the most plausible
interpretation of that is that it's related to being enslaved
to another person, that you have a tattoo because you belong to
another person, but God is prohibiting that that you do not
belong to another person as that person's property, that you are
owned by someone else. No, that is prohibited in
Israel. So that tattoo, which is a mark
of ownership of another person, is being prohibited within
Israel because that is not how you should treat people.
No, Oh, sorry. Oh, I was going to mention the
the two verses that you mentioned.
I don't have the verses in front of me.
I'm, I'm in a hotel room. So but the one where if he, if,
if he kills the mention servant, then he gets killed and then if
he injuries him, there's a, you know, the monetary pay payout.
Yeah, right. So it's actually 20. 112 Exodus
2112. Yeah. 2112 OK, so I actually was
during the portion of the week which fell on it, I was actually
doing that with my older daughter.
I was going through the first is and she caught me on that one
because she was like, wait a minute, like, you know what I
mean? The the and I didn't I didn't I
didn't it was I was on the spot and I didn't really reflect on
it yet. So I really appreciate that you
said this. I'm I'm even asked her to listen
to it. But as you were saying this, it
would be inconsistent and sort of illogical if.
Why wouldn't the use of Because he is your property used for the
payout versus then not apply when you killed him, right?
Exactly right. Yeah, it, it, it's just, you
know, all of a sudden that doesn't apply and, you know,
you're put to death. If, if the, if the quintessence
of the whole idea here is that it's your, if that he is your
property, then logically speaking, and you, you know,
people, people, there's a lot of opinions regarding, you know,
how to understand morality and, and the Bible.
But being illogical, usually there is a extremely consistent
logic, right? Internal internal logic within
the Bible is, is pretty much people can pretty much see that
there is a, an internal logic within within the Bible.
So for that logic of he's your property to not be applied when
he kills that invention servant makes no sense.
And that was that. That is what was coming to my
mind as you were going through the sequence.
And I appreciate you speaking about this because that's it's
very enlightening. Yeah, Yeah.
Well, I appreciate your, yeah, your mentioning that, that
that's, yeah, very, very critical to, to keep that in
mind. So, yeah.
And and so the there, you know, obviously if the person strikes
him so that he dies, then he will be put to death.
There will be, you know, he'll be avenged.
Clearly the humanity of the Hebrew servant is, is is is is
very much in focus here. Absolutely.
There's human rights for sure. Exactly, Yeah.
OK, so I did want to touch on one thing regarding that because
Alex O'Connor famous, I guess you can call it agnostic or, or
atheist. I don't know what he considers
himself, but he, he famously had on William Lane Craig and, and
and Shapiro and others challenging the Bible.
And he, he, he poses this question.
Is that OK? Fine, we, we, there's all these
explanations for why, like you just mentioned, for why this is
an actual slavery. But why would why wouldn't God
just say no slavery at all? No servitude at all.
Yeah, well, yeah, I I would say, well, if you're, if you're using
the term slave in a way that connotes Southern antebellum
slavery, well, you know, you've already rigged the debate.
You've already kind of, you know, loaded the stack, the deck
against the Scriptures. But if you understand this as
servitude, if you understand this as, say, indentured
servitude, I mean, this is, yeah, we, we did this say when,
when our, you know, forebears from Europe came to this
country, they would have to pay for their passage after they
came here. So they'd be indebted for, say,
7 years to pay the passage that they, you know, for their ship
to come from Europe to the New World.
And, you know, was that oppressive slavery?
No, that's just a, a way of taking care of your debts.
If you can't handle payment on the spot, well, you've got to
work overtime to pay off that debt.
And then you're free to go about as an ordinary free citizen now
that your debt is paid. We have certain sorts of debts
that, that we enter into voluntarily through, you know,
serving in the army or something like that, or maybe even having
a kind of a mundane job. There's nothing else to do
except maybe a, a, a tough grinding job that we have to do
something that's not tantamount to slavery.
They're just going to be some jobs that are harsh, that are
difficult, that we may not want to do, but that may be the only
way to, to earn our earn our, you know, our livelihood.
And so we, we, we go with it. But but when it comes to the,
you know, when it comes to this notion of, you know, that should
have been banned all together, well, you know, we're not
living. You know, this is not a, a
society that has a say, a democracy, a welfare system,
Social Security and so forth. There's, you know, people can
fall through the cracks very easily.
And of course there's family and so forth.
And we see a lot of dependency upon, say, those who are part of
your clan to help keep you out of debt to to, you know, to
sense redeem you if you had to, you know, to to, you know, sell
yourself to to someone for a period of time that they can buy
you out. But sometimes that isn't
possible. And So what do you do?
Well, in a sense, the the Mosaic laws that were is doing the best
it can with the kind of situation on the ground it it
just so we need to be careful about forcing a modern Western
viewpoint of things on an ancient Near Eastern culture
where these structures just simply were not in place.
And there's a kind of building that needs to be done, a kind of
kind of a network, kind of a Social Security system that's
being built. But it certainly is far from
complete. It is not not a developed sort
of thing that we have say in in the modern world.
Absolutely. It's easy to to want to dispel
things, but was was there any capability of having anything
different really at that time? It's like you said, it's it's,
it's it's asking, it's asking for a for, for something that
might not it it's not something that the world was capable of to
be able to contain at that. You know, today we live in a, in
a whole different world. It's built differently and
allows for different opportunities.
That just wasn't wasn't there at that time.
Yeah. And even if you have this kind
of a structure that is not optimal, even though he had that
in place, you are still not to oppress your fellow Israelite.
You're not to oppress the foreigner who is in your midst.
So. So whether an Israelite, whether
a foreigner, you are not to be an oppressor of those people,
especially when they're vulnerable.
This is really the heartbeat of the the Mosaic Law.
Do not oppress those who could be easily taken advantage of.
You know all the more that they are to be looked out for.
And would you also make the case that whether it eradicated
slavery at the time, but eventually these values that the
Bible presents became kind of the building blocks for the
eradication of slavery in the in the modern Western world.
Would you agree with that? Oh, no, absolutely.
I mean, I some people will say, look, you've got the biggest 25,
you've got some of these texts, but you also have kind of the
modern, well, one, you have a reinforcement of the image of
God that all people are made in the image of God.
A lot of you know, it's something that was not the case
in the ancient Near East, where you have now a kind of a racial
racializing of slavery in the modern world.
You know that this is, and you have A, and a, you know, you
have abused texts like the, you know, the, the, the, the, the,
the curse of Cain or the mark of, you know, kind of the, you
know, you have this presumption that say the, the curse against
Canaan is, is some sort of a, you know, a skin color or
something like that. So, so really a terrible misuse
of the scriptures taking place by these, you know, modern
interpreters who are trying to justify slavery in this, in, in
that very oppressive sense. And basically what I write about
in in both my books, the moral monster book, the vindictive
bully book, is to say that if the Mosaic law were actually
being followed, you would not have had the kind of problems
with slavery in the modern world that we have experienced.
If you, for example, gave opportunity for the for the
Well, for one thing, kidnapping was prohibited not just in
Israel, but widespread throughout the ancient areas.
Kidnapping was something that's capitally punishable.
So that's how modern slavery got started in the 1st place.
So there's that. And then you got again,
provisions that are given to the Israelites, sorry, given to the
Israelites to to to gleaning laws that are going to poverty
and have to sell themselves into servitude.
You've got the you have the six year term limits that that
you're not to go beyond. And once you're done, you're
debt free. You also have the the
remarkable, you know that runaway slave law that if a
foreign slave runs away, he is not to be returned to his harsh
master. Well, the the antebellum S had
the fugitive slave laws that again had you had to return the
runaway slave to his master because that was his property.
And in fact, in the ancient year E you had extradition treaties
between the Babylonians and the Hittites and so forth to return
those runaway slaves. And often very much a you know
that there was a there were stiff penalties, so sometimes
body mutilations if you are a runaway slave.
And the code of Hammurabi says that if from Babylon, it says
that if you are harboring a runaway slave, then you too
could be capitally punished. So, so there is that very strong
penalty that goes along with harboring runaway slaves.
But the law, the Mosaic Law says if there's a foreign runaway
slave, he has to be able to, you could, he could settle in any of
Israel's cities. So a remarkable contrast here.
Beautiful. Really amazing.
And, and the last part that we want to touch on is the, the
idea of, of women being kind of owned or children being owned
with like the, the rebellious son and the, the capital
punishment with that. And, and maybe, you know, like
we could touch on a captive woman from a war.
How do you understand this in within the context?
Yeah, it's there is the well, of course, we see at the very
beginning that there are laws that reflect the basic
understanding of human beings being made in the image of God.
So when you have the, when you have the 10 commandments, for
example, mentioning that you're to honour your father and your
mother, not your, not honour your father and a piece of
furniture. You are, you know, your honor,
your father and, and property. And there is a, a dignity that
is being upheld about the woman. Even when you read, for example,
the, the ancient Kyle, the, the, the, the strong, virtuous woman,
the woman of character. And of course, Ruth herself is
called an ancient Kyle. You know, in, in the, in the
book of, you know, in the book of Ruth, again reflecting, you
know, again, of course, in the, in the Hebrew Scriptures, you
know, the book of the book of Proverbs is followed by the book
of, of Ruth. And so that kind of Ruth is
exemplifying that, that Asia Kyle, who is this, this, this
strong, virtuous woman, this, this woman who, who makes things
happen. Just reading Proverbs 3031, you
see a woman who is taking initiative.
You see a woman who is in a sense, the professional in her
own sphere, who is engaged in real estate, engaged in
commerce. You know, of course, she's
clothing her family, taking care of them and and her husband is,
you know, is at this, you know, at the city gates, you know,
doing his own, you know, having his own leadership role there.
But basically you see the, there's A, and I talk about this
in the in the book is God of vindictive bully, where where
there is a heterarchy rather than a patriarchy, which is
actually an anachronistic term. There is a heterarchy that is
males have certain areas where they are skilled, where they are
the professionals. You also have women who are
engaged in areas where they are skilled, where they are, they're
doing their thing and that there is this interdependency given
those basic skill sets, you know, that correspond to what
males and females do, that they depend upon one another, that
they, that they reinforce one another, they complement one
another. Rather than seeing women as
being treated in a, in a denigrating sort of way, There
is a strong complementarity to, to make a family operate in a,
in a, in an integrated way, or even the society to operate in
that, in that integrated way. So, so, so, so again, I, I could
go into a lot more dealing. We see women who are rising in
leadership. I mean, of course you have
negative, you know, negative examples like Jezebel and
Adelaia and so forth. But you have the, you know, the
Shunamite woman. Who is this prominent woman, you
know, Gedola in Shunam and she persuades her husband to have an
upper chamber built for, for Elisha when he comes through,
when there is a, when there is a famine in the land, You know
that she, she basically mobilizes her household to leave
for Philistia. And then when she returns, her
property's been taken over by slaughter.
So she goes and appeals to the king in order to get back her
property, which he grants her. So, so you do see these
influential proactive women. We talk about Ruth, we talk
about Naomi. We can talk about the wise woman
of Takowa. We can talk about all these, you
know, Deborah and and and and Esther, the daughters.
Of the daughters of Saffad were like able to convince Moshe
through God to literally. Inherit property?
Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah, whatever she says.
Yeah, absolutely. So, so anyway, I want to, I want
to put that in in its proper context because so often that
gets minimized by looking maybe at, oh, look at this particular
passage, how look at how the women are treated.
And of course, it's often a misunderstanding anyway.
But I just want to offer the broader context that male and
female are they're both image bearers.
They're both to be treated with honor, honor in the household
that the children are to listen to both their father and their
mother, to honor their father to mother and so forth.
So anyway, but let me just mention a couple of things here.
You know that there are sometimes in, for example, in in
Deuteronomy 21, there is mention of this ceremony where they're
prisoners of war who come into Israel.
And there is the the possibility of a soldier taking on a foreign
woman as a wife and she would be incorporated into into Israel.
But some people see this as basically a, you know, that
base, you know that, that there is a, you know, rape, you know,
rape of, of women prisoners of war and so forth.
And that is again, an uncharitable reading of what we
see going on in the in that passage.
What is what is happening here? For one thing, you know, war
rape was was not permitted at all for Israelite soldiers that
yes, it was carried out by other ancient Near Eastern peoples in
warfare settings. And sometimes the, you know, the
the women prisoners of war were put into their, you know, the
temples of their gods as sex slaves and so forth,
prostitutes, but not for the Israelites.
There was to be a waiting period that, that you know, even as you
look at the, the example of Uriah the, the Hittite, who even
when he's called home from the battle to to lie with his wife
to cover up David's sin. You know, he, he said, how can I
do so when that when my, my, when my comrades are on the
front lives, risking their lives.
No, I'm not going to do this thing.
So he did not go into his wife to have sexual relations.
Why while his brothers were fighting on the front lines.
And also, you know, you look at David's men when they go to the
priest, you know, at DOB and, and he, they asked for the, for
the, the sacred bread and, and the, and the priest asks, you
know, he says, have your men had sexual relations with women?
And David says, no, they have not.
So there is that presupposition that you go into war.
There's a kind of ritual purity that you're undertaking as you
go into battle. So it's not something you, you
don't engage in sexual relations on the battlefield.
This is something that is like holy territory.
You are to be, you're to be, you know, abstaining from those
things while you're engaging in this task.
But anyway, we can, we can say that in, you know, when you have
this prisoner of war, this woman who is taken as a gentile into
the home of of an Israelite man, there is a 30 day waiting
period. And, and of course there is to
be a, you know, she, she shaves her head and clips her nails.
She puts on, you know, sackcloth and so forth to, to lament, you
know, to say farewell to the previous life that she lived and
basically as a transition to a new way of life now in Israel.
This is actually a very, I think, gracious and
compassionate sort of response. In fact, if the soldier decides
not to take her as his wife, he you know, he is reminded to to
treat her kindly with graciousness.
It says because you have humiliate her doesn't mean
you've had sex with her, but she's gone through that
ceremony, that of humiliation. And so she is not to be treated
in, you know, she's not to be mistreated.
There's a sense, a certain gentleness here that is being
depicted of these prisoner of war women.
And and so this is actually should be seen as an elevating
the the vulnerable woman who is making this sort of transition.
And keep in mind that this is a, you know, again, to be a
marriage ceremony. It's not as though this is a
sexual object here. This is entering into marriage.
So there's that month long waiting period, there's that
morning, there's a, there's a marriage covenant before there
are sexual relations and so forth.
So, so there's a concern for the woman's honor here that she
should not be shamed or humiliated and so on.
So, so that's a little bit of the context here when it comes
to say, the prisoners of war and and you know, the women and how
they're to be treated, how they're to be regarded.
One thing I would say it doesn't directly relate to your point,
but I I think it does in a way in that you see that the Bible
spends a lot of time narratively talking about women.
It's a huge focal point. I mean all over.
I mean especially in Genesis like the.
Daughter of the daughter of Pharaoh.
Yeah, yeah. Daughter of Pharaoh.
The the Bill, the the Shifran, the Shifran Pua.
You have a Rakhalandea with Bilan.
Zilpa, you have the Yeah, Tamar. Yeah, yeah, Tamar.
It's you know, if the if if the Bible was dismissive of women, I
doubt just intuitively, I doubt so much of the real estate in
the Bible would be would be focusing so much on the lives of
these women and what they have, how they they literally
established our nation. Yeah, absolutely.
From an intuitive perspective, I'm talking, you know, besides
the, the, the, the, besides just the literary points, I think
that when one reads the Bible as a whole, you really don't get
that feeling if you read it carefully and if you read it
with, you know, absolutely. Yep.
Very well said. So, so the last part, which is
really before we go, I know you have to run, but the the, let's
say the, the child, the wayward son, that whole story as in the
condition, we don't believe that there was ever such a case.
And it's used kind of like a scare tactic.
I'm wondering if you if you see that kind of the same way.
Right, yeah, I, I do there. That's, and one of the things
that I, I made a little bit of a modification in the from the
moral monster book to the vindictive bully book, where I,
I, I do take the view more strongly that these punishments,
you know, say stoning or, or burning, etcetera.
These are exaggerations for, you know, to in a sense, to, to have
the Israelite people straighten up and fly right, that they are
going to be attending to these things, that these are things
that are serious, that you, if you undertake these things,
that's going to lead to a breakdown.
It's going to be leading to destruction and so on.
And that this is going to bring harm to the community.
And so we see that first born son, if he, you know, that this
is a an example of a delinquent son who is, there's a
dereliction of duty here who should be rising up and
basically caring for the family rather than squandering his life
and bringing hardship to the rest of the family.
So, so, yeah, but the, the you, you have a couple of case
studies of capital punishment, but really that's the exception
rather than the rule. You have very severe
punishments. And again, we could extend this
to, to the code of Hummer, Robbie and other ancient Near
Eastern law collections where you'll have sometimes almost
overly severe punishments that you know, that you know, for a,
for a surgeon or a, you know, or a, you know, to have your hand
cut off or to have your child, you know, killed.
If you go into this profession and you are a slipshod builder
or you're, you're not careful as a surgeon, well, who's going to
go into the building profession? Who's going to go into the
surgical profession? If those of the drastic, you
know, outcomes that that could come to you.
So there is this sort of a an exaggeration for effect,
basically saying don't do these things, don't take shortcuts in
your work. Don't, you know, don't do
slipshod work. And so they they just serve as
severe warnings. You know, like I mentioned that
the, you know, in the, in the, in my vindictive bully book,
that the the Goring ox of, of chapter 20, Exodus 21, They're
very, you know, we have out of all of these, you know, case
laws and and descriptions and so forth that we have for the
ancient ear E, you have very little mention of any sort of
Goring ox. You'd think, Oh, Goring oxes
that happened all the time. No, it was just kind of a an
example that's kind of taken and, and using it as a case
study sort of like, you know, if you've got a Goring ox and
you're not taking control of it, if it's it has in the habit of
Goring people, you're being negligent and you could be
punished. It's kind of like having bad
brakes and you're riding with brakes that don't work very well
and you could be liable if you don't repair those brakes and
you're, you know, you run someone over because your brakes
have not been taken care of. So you have those sorts of
examples. But yeah, exactly to the point
that those those punishments are there's, there's something
drastic about them. But again, there's a high degree
of hyperbole or exaggeration in those punishments.
Yeah, and even even the way that in the rabbinic tradition, the
way they interpreted this is like the rabbi's were very, very
like careful about even capital punishment applying or enforcing
capital punishment. They they would say like one
that's every seven years or every seven years.
If there was ever some type of capital punishment, it was a
very like it was considered like a, you know, yeah, like a son
had dream that that took it too far.
But really like the emphasis on, on preserving life is, is very
much a part of the tradition. And I wanted to say, I think one
of the points you touched on, I think is probably the, one of
the most powerful statements that the Bible makes is that the
democratization of, of quote UN quote, divinity, where God gives
all of mankind, it's not just Israelites, but all of mankind
through Adam, he, he gives them this, this Talam Elokim.
And, and, and I think that it's extremely powerful because in
the ancient world, like you mentioned, there was a
hierarchical structure and, and there were man gods, right?
There was a divine like the Pharaohs and Nimrod and all
these characters, they, they took kind of the position of, of
God. So it's extremely powerful.
And before we go, I just want to sincerely thank you once again
for joining us and we truly appreciate your time.
And before we wrap up, can you tell our audience where they can
find more of your work and what your, you know, where your
online content is? Sure.
Yeah, I mean, I'm my website ispaulcopan.com, you know, PAULC
opan.com, where you can see some of the stuff that I've worked
on. If you want to look at the books
that I've written, edited, Co edited, etcetera, you can just
go to my authors page at at Amazon.com and you can see the
various books that I've worked on.
And we talked about, say the flood and, you know, even even
the use of numbers in in the Old Testament.
And I, I co-authored a book with Jake Douglas Jacobi on Genesis
one through 11 that looks at it from a kind of a theological and
and moral point of view and, and brings in some of those
insights. So that might be of interest as
a book called Origins that looks at this is one through 11.
But basically the books we've been talking about is God a
moral monster? Is God a vindictive bully?
Hopefully your your audience will find those helpful and that
they'll be able to have a a a greater understanding of the
biblical text of the ancient Near Eastern context and and
hopefully this will bring illumination and clarification
for them. Thank you so much.
Thank you. God bless you.
Thank you. And you as well.
A pleasure to be with you. All right, take care.
All right. Thank you.
Bye.