Transcription
One of the biggest issues brought up with the bible is the Mosaic Law within the Old Testament. Why would God command certain forms of capital punishment for minor offenses? Why does the law contain odd commands that rarely apply? Does this reflect God's moral character and reveal his insecurity?
Well, the problem is we're trying to understand the Mosaic Law with our cultural context in mind. The Torah was not assembled in our modern Western culture but with the cultural mindset of the ancient Near East. Therefore, God's intentions and the Torah must be understood with that cultural world in mind.
The first thing we must note is when we read through the Torah and the Pentateuch, we assume we're reading a law code, which is why we refer to it as the Mosaic Law. But scholars routinely note we're not really sure if this is the case. In fact, many scholars believe this was not the purpose of the Torah. Christine Hayes summarizes the issue: "We would do better to under understand these materials as legal collections and not codes."
I know the word "code" gets thrown around a lot—Code of Hammurabi and so on—but they really aren't codes. Codes are generally systematic and exhaustive, and they tend to be used by courts. We have no evidence about how these texts were used. In fact, we think it's not likely that they were really used by courts, but they were part of a learned tradition, and scribes copied them over and over and so on. They are also certainly not systematic and exhaustive. So, for example, in the court of Hammurabi, we don't even have a case of intentional homicide; we only have a case of accidental homicide. So we really don't even know what the law would be in a case of intentional homicide. We can't really make that comparison with the biblical law.
Similarly, John Walton refers to ancient Near Eastern legal collections as "treatises on judicial wisdom." What we have here is not an attempt to necessarily lay down universal moral laws to follow or national legislation, but to teach one how to understand justice and to reason through judicial wisdom. Essentially, when we look at ancient Near Eastern legal collections like the Mosaic collection, we find that they are more didactic, meaning they are trying to teach judicial lessons and expressing the importance of order and justice. There is no indication ancient Near Eastern legal collections were prescriptive or understood as national legislation.
Dilbert Hiller says, "There is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases." As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them.
Let's spend some time taking a look at how other ancient Near Eastern legal collections functioned. Because our culture is so far removed from the ancient world, it will take some time to fully understand what is going on with these legal collections like the Torah.
Gene Batero has studied the Code of Hammurabi extensively, an Old Babylonian law code that predates Moses. However, it is erroneous to even call it a law code. The king did not set laws; he gave decrees. Batera notes, "It was the Greeks who have taken us further to the universal concepts, the absolute formulations that allow us to clear perception and the distinct expression of the principles and the laws in all their abstraction." But prior to this, in the ancient Near East, they didn't really have the concept of universal legislation.
Michael Lefevre refers to the cultures of the ancient Near East as "non-legislative societies." So, the Code of Hammurabi is not prescribing laws, and a word for "law" doesn't even exist in their language. So no one read this inscription and assumed it was an attempt to enact universal legislation for all people who lived under Hammurabi. This is not to say there were no laws as we understand them, but Patera notes they were unformulated, just like they had a folk understanding of the principles of science, even though they remained unformulated and unspoken.
What mattered and what everything centered around was order, and the king's job was to establish and maintain order. However, the king could establish and maintain order through his decrees, which is what his subjects had to follow. So, the concept of justice was a means to an end. They didn't care about justice for justice's sake or ethics for the sake of doing good; they cared about establishing and maintaining order. All else was a means to that end.
For example, in today's world, we would rather forsake order for equality under the law. If the president was guilty of murder, we would rather him go on trial and suffer the consequences of the law. Such a process would create disorder, as the nation would go into turmoil. In the ancient Near East, order was the highest good. They would consider such a modern process a disaster because of the disorder it created. It would be better for the leader of the nation to get away with a crime than to go to prison because of the disorder it would cause. Again, there was no sense of justice for ethical means; justice was a way to promote and keep order.
It was more of a sin for a prostitute to leave the brothel and find honest work because that disrupted the order of things and her place in society, whereas today we would consider this a good thing, even if it disrupted societal order. This is why the Babylonians use two words to express justice, which combined would most likely mean "to establish firmly," "to be in order." The king made decrees to keep order because the gods demanded it. And so, ancient Near Eastern legal collections are not really prescribing legislation for the people to follow.
Batero says, "The Code of Hammurabi is essentially a self-glorification of the king." His subjects would have read it as descriptive, not prescriptive. It was meant to display his wisdom by explaining what justice looked like through what are most likely hypothetical cases or models to be considered in the spirit of analogy. Some scholars have suggested the laws came from actual cases and actual decisions that were made instead of merely being hypothetical cases. This is plausible, but this also doesn't mean they establish universal laws for future cases, but merely served as models for future judges to learn from.
Walton says, "Legal treatises serve as manuals that are compiled to teach principles to practitioners through paradigms. They instruct by circumscribing the field of knowledge with examples." It might best be explained by comparing it to elementary school math questions. When we were children and learned math, it would be taught to us through hypothetical cases like, "If Jim has 12 apples and sells 4 to Sally and 5 to Jake, how many does he have left?" Such a question in a math textbook is not trying to teach you economics or prescribing actions; it is not even a story about a real event. It is teaching and describing mathematics through hypothetical cases.
Another and more similar example to ancient legal collections would be a collection of modern wisdom sayings like, "Do not count your chickens before they hatch," "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," "Do not keep all your eggs in one basket." If these things were collected and put into a book, we would not look at them as prescriptions or laws to follow. They are wisdom sayings to get you to think. If you saw a person with all their eggs in one basket instead of separated into two baskets, we would not think they broke a modern law or committed an ethical violation. This saying is not meant to prescribe an action, even if it's formatted like one; it is meant to teach one how to be wise. The Code of Hammurabi functions more like this and not like modern legislation. It was meant to inspire someone on how to think about justice and what justice looked like.
Patero says, "A law applies to details; a model inspires, which is entirely different."
In conclusion, we have here not a law code nor a charter of a legal reform, but above all, in its own way, a treatise with examples on the exercise of judicial powers.
When it comes to the Torah, it most likely functioned in a similar way. We translate Torah as "law," but this is not what Torah means; it refers to instructions. Walter Kaiser says, "Torah is much more than mere law. Even the word itself does not indicate static requirements that govern the whole of human experience." The meaning of Torah, then, is directional teaching or guidance for walking on the path of life. So, it's more about guidance given to Israel on how to be holy and orderly, not prescribing actions or consequences.
John and J. Harvey Walton argue it is better to understand the Torah like we understand the Book of Proverbs. Proverbs is not necessarily prescribing actions; it's teaching us how to be wise and how to think about morality. One of the most famous proverbs is in 26:4-5: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." These two sayings are obviously contradictory, but neither is a prescription on how to deal with a fool. This saying is teaching about the nature of a fool and a wise man. Well, no, you cannot win with a foolish person. A person who is truly wise will know what to do in circumstances where one has to deal with a fool.
Proverbs 13 is also a place where people assume prescriptions are in play, but this is not necessarily the case. Verse 22 reads, "A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous." This does not mean you have failed if you cannot leave an inheritance for your grandchildren. For some parents, it might be better to will their inheritances to charities, especially if their children are corrupt or better off than they were. It is merely a wisdom saying that cannot apply to all real-life cases, nor is it prescribed to all people.
Likewise, a few verses later, it reads, "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." This is not prescribing that you beat your son with a rod; it is metaphorically teaching that if you're wise, you will discipline your children in the proper way. The surrounding context should show this, as it contains numerous verses that are metaphorical. The very next verse is, "The righteous has enough to satisfy his appetite, but the belly of the wicked suffers want." This is not teaching that sinful people are always hungry, but metaphorically teaching it is better to be content with what you have than to be greedy and constantly chasing after the next best thing.
So, Proverbs is not necessarily prescribing actions. Instead, Proverbs is teaching one how to think and how to understand morality and wisdom. We are meant to understand Proverbs holistically. You cannot take select sayings out of Proverbs and only apply those; you are meant to apply the whole book to understand how to be wise. Circumstances will always factor as you apply the wisdom of Proverbs to your life.
Likewise, given the ancient Near Eastern cultural context, the Torah is teaching what justice looks like, not prescribing actions. It is a description of what justice and order looks like for Israel in their cultural context, and like Proverbs, it's also supposed to be understood holistically. Meaning, the compilers did not intend for you to pick certain sections out. You cannot understand the sections on slavery without reading them in the light of loving the stranger and caring for the poor and underprivileged. Israel was meant to understand the Torah in whole, not as individual sections.
Skeptics will often note there are sayings in the Torah that contradict, but this is not an issue if the stipulations are not prescriptive but didactic. For example, Leviticus 23:22 says that when you harvest a field, to not harvest it all, but leave the edges for the poor and the foreigner to harvest. But in Deuteronomy, it implies you should harvest your whole field and leave some of the collected bundles for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, but it doesn't mention the poor. However, neither of these are really prescriptions on how to harvest, so they don't contradict. Both verses are just trying to teach a general way to live, namely, to find ways to make sure the less fortunate are fed.
This is the mentality you should have when reading the Torah, not looking for specific laws on what Israelites were to do in specific circumstances. Just like Gene Batero notes the Code of Hammurabi was didactic, the Torah was also most likely understood as didactic, meaning the sayings within it expressed the moral importance of something. They were not necessarily prescriptive in how to act when a certain incident mentioned.
Walton concurs: "One can propose that these are not laws, i.e., legislation, but selected samples that can serve the intended didactic function. It is in this sense that they offer model justice; they offer sample wisdom; they do not prescribe laws." So, for example, Exodus 35:2 is not necessarily prescribing the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. It lists the maximal punishment that could be applied, and it also is expressing the moral importance of the Sabbath and what justice would look like if Israel were to break it, but it is descriptive of justice. It describes how the Sabbath should be treated to Israelites in covenant with God. It does not intend to mean Sabbath breakers are to be killed left and right; it intends to describe how important the Sabbath should be treated by the Israelites.
Remember, as Hiller's notes, these legal collections gave considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them. This is supported by a Hebrew word we have often mistranslated. The word "obey" is used in our English translations, but John and J. Harvey Walton note the Hebrew word more likely refers to "hear and take heed." The one being instructed is repeatedly enjoined to heed the wisdom that is being conveyed. Much like Proverbs gives guidance on how to live a moral life, Torah is also laying down guidance, not laws. In other words, in order to live in covenant with God, take heed this wisdom and ignore it at your own peril.
The expected response to the Torah is far different from a response to legislation. Legislation carries a sense of "you ought"; instruction carries a sense of "you will know." Now, this does not mean one was never supposed to feel as though the Torah never prescribed rules of conduct or punishments were never applied. That would be taking things too far in the opposite direction and imposing a simplistic view. In that setting, one could obtain prescriptions for proper conduct from Proverbs, but once you understand the whole wisdom of Proverbs, you know how and when to apply it properly. Likewise, one should apply the wisdom of the Torah and know how to act properly in each circumstance, especially if certain commands were to contradict. One could see the law as setting an ideal standard, but that comes with the understanding that the ideal can hardly ever be realized.
For example, the Bible notes God was slow to anger instead of enacting punishment on Israel immediately. As He would have had the right to do, allowing a period for Israel to repent suggests that it was possible that the punishments were not always carried out when they could have been. So, in other words, Exodus 35:2, as part of the Torah, is trying to say, "Take heed and listen. The Sabbath is so important that to break it is worthy of death," but that doesn't carry the prescription to always kill Sabbath-breakers, even though the maximal punishment listed could be applied if the judge felt it necessary for those specific circumstances. Instead, it mostly expresses the moral importance so Israel would understand how important it was to God within their covenant with Him, but that ideal did not always play out in reality.
We can also see this reasoning in action in a later narrative in 2nd Samuel 12. When King David commits adultery with Bathsheba and has Uriah killed, he isn't prescribed the death penalty, even though the authors demonstrate knowledge of the Torah and that is what is taught in the Torah as the proper punishment for murder and adultery. So, it doesn't appear later Israelites understood the punishments of the Torah as universal laws or necessarily prescriptive.
This understanding of the Torah is also supported by the teachings of Jesus. He also appears to have understood that at times the laws could not always have applied because of circumstances. It was the Pharisees of his day that interpreted the Torah as unbreakable legislation, but Jesus understood that at some times certain aspects were more important than others.
In Matthew 12, Jesus allows his disciples to go through grain fields to gather food on the Sabbath. The Pharisees, believing Jesus has broken an unbendable law, state, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." But Jesus replies by quoting narrative passages outside of the Pentateuch on how early Israelites understood the teachings about the Sabbath. He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry and those who were with him, how they entered the house of God and ate the bread of the presence, which it was not lawful for them to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
There are two important points we can see here from Christ's teaching. The first is that he didn't understand the Torah as prescribing unbreakable laws regarding the Sabbath that always required capital punishment. He seems to understood it as providing wisdom or guidance which was meant to point to something more important, like living properly with God. It was about drawing the proper principles from the Torah, not laws. As J. Daniel Hayes remarked, "In essence, the Pharisees criticized him with the details of the law, but Jesus answered them with principles drawn from narrative." Craig Keener adds, "Jesus appeals instead to inspired narrative to show how God expected the legal statements to be qualified in practice—a precedent for allowing hunger to override the law." Jesus challenges not merely their interpretation of the Sabbath but their entire method of legal interpretation.
Second, Jesus reminds the Pharisees the need to remember mercy when applying the Torah. The Torah was merely descriptive of what justice and holiness looked like, but justice was not always supposed to be applied. God reminds us that we ought to apply mercy whenever able, not assume that Torah demanded endless justice through unbreakable laws. Keener says, "Not merely human life, but human need in general takes precedent over regulations—kindness towards others, genuine need, for example, that of hungry disciples, precedes rules whose purpose was to please the God who values such kindness more highly."
Israel was meant to read the wisdom of the Torah to understand what justice and holiness look like, but Jesus reminds us God desired Israel to apply mercy and understanding when able to, and not assume the Torah demanded endless punishments to be doled out. Again, the Torah expressed the moral importance of something so Israel would understand how important it was to God within their covenant with Him.
The key to understanding the Torah is to understand it was about being in covenant with God. What we read are covenant stipulations, not the establishment of a moral code for all people in all times and all places. It contains things we can say are moral, but they are only there to aid Israel in holding to the covenant between them and God.
Unlike other ancient Near Eastern legal collections, the Torah is part of what we would call a suzerain treaty. Dilbert Hiller's notes: "In the Pentateuch, it teaches that Israel had become the vassal of God." A suzerain treaty is where a king would take on another nation as a vassal. The suzerainer lord would establish what the vassal would now need to do to please their new overlord in the form of stipulations, which would then be followed by the sections where the stipulations were met—what blessings they would receive and what repercussions would ensue if they did not keep the stipulations. However, like with wisdom literature, treaty stipulations do not legislate; they provide instructions in the wisdom on how to be a loyal vassal.
Suzerains took on vassals to glorify themselves and to make their name great. Vassals were seen as extensions of him, and what they did reflected the character of the suzerain. When the suzerain imposed his stipulations, he was not asserting law; he was extending his identity and realm through the vassal. And so, the stipulations were instructions in how to reflect his character. The stipulations were not extensive and exhaustive in order to cover all aspects of life; they were designed to get the new subjects to understand how to be loyal vassals in all ways by giving certain examples. But a vassal's loyalty was meant to extend beyond what was stated.
It is like if I'm going to teach you martial arts, I would teach you how to properly kick, punch, and block, but I'm not attempting to teach you specific motions or only things you can do if you're attacked, and I'm also not teaching you that you have to go out and start fighting. I would be trying to teach you how to think about fighting. If a potential fight arose, I would want, as your instructor, for you to know how to act, whether to defend or call the authorities. I would not be prescribing fighting, but teaching you how to think about fighting. Likewise, to be a loyal vassal extended beyond the stipulations; it was about teaching one how to think and how to understand what it meant to be loyal.
The Torah was mostly trying to describe and teach skills, namely, the skills on how to be a holy people and how to properly represent the Lord before the nations of the ancient Near East. God expected them to do certain things, but also have the knowledge on how to properly apply these skills. And by becoming a vassal, Israel became an extension of God, and they were meant to enhance and make the name of the Lord great to the surrounding nations. And the Torah was the instructions on how to exemplify the character of the Lord to those surrounding nations of that time period. It's not a moral code for all times and all people. It was not given as an ideal system; it is a culturally situated system. It was meant to bring enhancement to the reputation of the Lord among the nations of the ancient Near East.
In other words, the Torah was meant to teach Israel how to enhance the character of the Lord within the cultural world of their day, not our modern culture. What could they do so the other nations would see how great the Lord was? The Torah doesn't address issues like if slavery is wrong because it's not attempting to create the perfect moral code, and it was not written to our modern sensibilities. Issues like this were not being addressed in the world yet. Remember, to the world outside of Israel in that time period, order, not ethical laws, were what the ancient culture is focused on. So, the Torah is how to be a light to those nations of that time period, what would get their attention so God could eventually bring them back into the kingdom. In other words, it is working within the culture to enhance the name of the Lord. It is not trying to set up an ideal system for all people at all times in all places.
So, essentially, that means Torah is how Israel is to order itself so they can live in God's presence in the land of Canaan. It provides hypothetical cases which describe, not prescribe, what an orderly and holy way of living would look like for Israel as God's vassal. If the Torah gives illustrations of ways that order can be maintained in the society of ancient Israel, covenant order defined by preserving the sanctity of sacred space as God's. It is all culturally relative. So, the Torah itself is culturally dependent and descriptive wisdom on how to live as God's vassal. We should not wonder why it doesn't address certain moral questions that we have today; that was never its intent, as its intent was to teach Israel how to properly represent the Lord before the ancient nations of the Near East who were not asking the same moral questions we are asking today. It was not intended to be prescriptive, but more akin to Proverbs in teaching them how to act and think of justice and how they can maintain order in God's presence. And most importantly, it's not a law code or legislation. What we have here is a treatise on judicial wisdom for Israel's ancient cultural context. It taught them what it meant to be God's representative to the ancient Near East and what an orderly and holy people looked like.
So, once we understand the main purpose of the Torah, we can better grasp how it fits in the overall biblical narrative. It was never an ideal moral code or intended for all people of all times. It was culturally situated and must be read without context in mind.