If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
-Exodus 21: 20-21
So, yesterday I recommended that you read the rather extensive and peculiar collection of laws in Exodus and Leviticus. Just out of curiosity, I went and started giving them a look, because I often find that I am challenged in my approach to Scripture when I start to wrestle with exactly what things like the above passage are supposed to do for us.
Not that it means anything in a scholarly analysis, but Exodus 20 is in fact the very core of the laws of Moses, the Decalogue (aka 10 commandments). So the above injunction is not tucked away somewhere in the midst of miscellaneous laws it's right up next to the big boys.
There is something about this passage that I find rather troubling, but it's not the law itself. See, I understand the historical context of this law. I get that, in comparison to most of it's contemporary social codes, it's unusually humane. It was considered an "inalienable right" of slave owners in most ancient cultures to abuse, rape and murder slaves more or less at will. The Israelite legal code offered at least some limits on what was acceptable. Slavery was simply a fact of life, and human society as a whole was several thousand years away from even beginning to have an inkling that owning people as property was, in fact, a rather abominable practice. So hey, golf clap for the Chosen People, you're at least a little less savage than your neighbors.
What is really troubling to me is that many people, even now, insist on approaching Scripture as an infallible communication of God's will for humanity. If you do not adjust the literal reading of Scripture to account for an entirely different set of mores and values, what do you have?
A mandate from God to own slaves?
Divine sanction of beating said slaves within an inch of their lives?
What this comes down to is a challenge to how we interpret Scripture. Many people want to use Scripture as a tool to challenge the teaching of evolution in biology class, or to deny women equality in leadership within the church, or to claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. All of which, in my humble opinion, are rather tragic misuses of the Holy text.
Which is a point that bears emphasis: the text is indeed Holy. The laws are sacred, the rules are important, and I believe that God really is trying to call us to be better than we are.
God knows how to work with us in baby steps. If we are barely out of the stone age and slavery is as ubiquitous as McDonald's, it would be of no avail to say: thou shalt not own slaves. The only thing to do is to try and inspire the law givers to implement the most basic human rights for those who are unfortunate enough to be slaves (it's more than the shocking number of people who are enslaved today probably get).
So what does this mean for us?
It means that we ought to continue to take steps...
It means that the law, as a reflection of what God wants for humanity, should always challenge us to treat others better than the rules of our culture might otherwise demand. If our culture has abolished slavery as an institution, we shouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum. We ought to do everything in our power to resist other forms of enslavement and oppression and work for true justice. You know, "love your neighbor as yourself..." someone really rather amazing said that, and it finally got included in the sequel to the Torah.
As people who follow that rather amazing someone, it is unbecoming when we fall back into strict legalism. One of his most famous speeches challenges us repeatedly with the formula: "the law says ... but I say to you..."
I often find myself frustrated, disturbed or downright offended by some of the laws and how callous and merciless they seem, and then I remember that Jesus had some of the same issues. That makes me feel better... and I no longer want to beat anyone with a rod.
That's why I like being a Christian.
Not that it means anything in a scholarly analysis, but Exodus 20 is in fact the very core of the laws of Moses, the Decalogue (aka 10 commandments). So the above injunction is not tucked away somewhere in the midst of miscellaneous laws it's right up next to the big boys.
There is something about this passage that I find rather troubling, but it's not the law itself. See, I understand the historical context of this law. I get that, in comparison to most of it's contemporary social codes, it's unusually humane. It was considered an "inalienable right" of slave owners in most ancient cultures to abuse, rape and murder slaves more or less at will. The Israelite legal code offered at least some limits on what was acceptable. Slavery was simply a fact of life, and human society as a whole was several thousand years away from even beginning to have an inkling that owning people as property was, in fact, a rather abominable practice. So hey, golf clap for the Chosen People, you're at least a little less savage than your neighbors.
What is really troubling to me is that many people, even now, insist on approaching Scripture as an infallible communication of God's will for humanity. If you do not adjust the literal reading of Scripture to account for an entirely different set of mores and values, what do you have?
A mandate from God to own slaves?
Divine sanction of beating said slaves within an inch of their lives?
What this comes down to is a challenge to how we interpret Scripture. Many people want to use Scripture as a tool to challenge the teaching of evolution in biology class, or to deny women equality in leadership within the church, or to claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. All of which, in my humble opinion, are rather tragic misuses of the Holy text.
Which is a point that bears emphasis: the text is indeed Holy. The laws are sacred, the rules are important, and I believe that God really is trying to call us to be better than we are.
God knows how to work with us in baby steps. If we are barely out of the stone age and slavery is as ubiquitous as McDonald's, it would be of no avail to say: thou shalt not own slaves. The only thing to do is to try and inspire the law givers to implement the most basic human rights for those who are unfortunate enough to be slaves (it's more than the shocking number of people who are enslaved today probably get).
So what does this mean for us?
It means that we ought to continue to take steps...
It means that the law, as a reflection of what God wants for humanity, should always challenge us to treat others better than the rules of our culture might otherwise demand. If our culture has abolished slavery as an institution, we shouldn't be satisfied with the bare minimum. We ought to do everything in our power to resist other forms of enslavement and oppression and work for true justice. You know, "love your neighbor as yourself..." someone really rather amazing said that, and it finally got included in the sequel to the Torah.
As people who follow that rather amazing someone, it is unbecoming when we fall back into strict legalism. One of his most famous speeches challenges us repeatedly with the formula: "the law says ... but I say to you..."
I often find myself frustrated, disturbed or downright offended by some of the laws and how callous and merciless they seem, and then I remember that Jesus had some of the same issues. That makes me feel better... and I no longer want to beat anyone with a rod.
That's why I like being a Christian.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment on what you read, but keep it clean and respectful, please.