Apologetics and hermeneutics: defending the Bible

In a previous blog post, I point to Deuteronomy Chapter 13 as an example of the kind of literal Bible that somewhere between 25% and 35% of the US population believes, if the results of a Gallup poll can be taken at face value. Sophisticated Christians (of the Michael Novak variety) are not unaware of Deuteronomy Chapter 13, and other embarrassing parts of the Bible. They’ve developed several lines of defense, which I outline below. In a subsequent post (which may take some time) I will outline my objections to these lines of defense.

(Note: I link to Wikipedia entries in the beginning but later in the post provide links to the writings of Christian apologists as well).

Christian apologetics (Wikipedia entry) is basically a branch of Christian theology that seeks to defend the Bible in rational, historical, and philosophical terms. Practitioners of Christian apologetics are termed Christian apologists. “Apologetics” and “apologists” are not merely derogatory terms used by critics but rather a label that Christian apologists happily embrace.

A key weapon in the apologist arsenal is Biblical hermeneutics (Wikipedia entry), a collection of sophisticated tools that, together, allow one to “interpret” any Biblical passage to obtain a meaning in stark contrast with what the passage appears (to the naive, untrained eye) to clearly say.

One principle that some apologists use to defend Deuteronomy and similar embarrassments is the Covenant principle, which basically argues that God chose different ways to “relate” to his “subjects” in different eras, and “signed” different Covenants with his subjects in each era. A covenant that was suitable in the time and place where Deuteronomy was situated is not applicable today. In this telling, there is nothing per se wrong with killing people who worship other Gods, because these people (including those living in different cities) have all “signed” a covenant with God to worship him (of their own free will, perhaps?) so that it is justified to kill them for violation of “contract.”

Let’s consider Christian apologist Aaron Brake making a valiant effort to describe the relation between Old Testament law and what Christians should do today. Brake makes three points, which I quote here (preserving bold and emphasis):

First, it must be remembered that the Mosaic Law is a covenant and this covenant is a binding contract between two specific parties: Yahweh and Israel. Christians under the new covenant are not in view here. This means “we should assume… that none of its stipulations (laws) are binding on us unless they are renewed in the new covenant.”(5)

This leads to the second point: many (though not all) of the civil and ritual laws of the Old Testament are clearly not renewed in the New Testament. These laws served to govern the daily life of ancient Israel both in their relationship with God and their relationship with one another. Even though these laws are God’s self-revelation revealing the character of God, it must be remembered that no Christian today is a citizen of ancient Israel.(6) Furthermore, the ritual laws within Israelite worship and ceremony found their fulfillment in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Finally, some laws and aspects of the old covenant are renewed in the new covenant and therefore are binding on Christians. These include the two great commandments found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 as well as the Ten Commandments.

In summary, while the Law may not be regulatory for Christians it continues to be revelatory.

An article on the Tektonics website titled The Law and The Christian considers three different kinds of laws:

• First, some laws are universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, and others. There is no disagreement that these laws should indeed be continued to be obeyed today, so we need not discuss them further.
• Second, some laws are cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel’s culture that have a universal moral law behind them. As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the universal behind this cultural would be, don’t do the occult. But here is my favorite example, from Deut. 22:8-9: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” One Skeptic says, “One would be hard-pressed to find home builders” who follow this rule. But actually they do follow the modern equivalent. In ancient Israel, the flat roof of a house would be used for many purposes, such as sleeping, household chores, and entertaining. These chores included drying and storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations. We don’t use our roof the same way — the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter. At any rate, it would also be agreed that the universals behind these cultural applications should continue to be followed.
• Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example, are definitely in this, as are sacrificial laws. What else belongs in here? Most likely the dietary laws belong here, as their purpose was to make the Jews “different” and to serve as a testimony to their difference in the most intimate ancient setting, that of meal fellowship.

Another article on the Tektonics website, titled Deuteronomy and the JEDP thesis, considers the specific problem of interpreting Deuteronomy. A somewhat oblique passage considers the subtleties behind Yahweh’s crystal clear rules for killing apostates:

Chapter 13 contains a number of regulations concerning apostasy from the faith of Yahweh. Von Rad [VR.Dt, 15] supposes that these rules must have a late source because the chapter assumes that the apostasy is initiated by a prophet; and:

…(S)uch a suggestion can, after all, have come only from a class of prophets which was already seriously contaminated by Canaanite syncretism; moreover the nebiim (prophets) during Samuel’s time did not possess such a leading position in the people’s life.

Likewise, von Rad supposes that the misleading of an entire city is something that could only have happened under the monarchy.

Why was a “class” of prophets necessary? Did the position of “prophet” not exist before this time? Did not the Egyptians and the Canaanites and others well before Moses have alleged “prophets”? (Cf. Gen. 20:7 – the role of the prophet is “abundantly attested” in the ANE as one who was an “ambassador of the gods” – Merr.Dt, 230) Are not the social roles of the charismatic and the dupes one that has existed since time immemorial? Does syncretism wait for evolution? (Not according to the way modern cults operate!)

Sophisticated Christian theologian William Lane Craig makes the case for divinely ordered genocide, while speaking out against humanly decided genocide in this blog post:

Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt.

By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4). This command is part and parcel of the whole fabric of complex Jewish ritual law distinguishing clean and unclean practices. To the contemporary Western mind many of the regulations in Old Testament law seem absolutely bizarre and pointless: not to mix linen with wool, not to use the same vessels for meat and for milk products, etc. The overriding thrust of these regulations is to prohibit various kinds of mixing. Clear lines of distinction are being drawn: this and not that. These serve as daily, tangible reminders that Israel is a special people set apart for God Himself.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss some of my objections to Christian apologetics (many of which will also apply to apologetics for other religious doctrines).

Advertisement