Hermeneutics 101 - The Bible Doesn't Approve of Everything it Regulates

Have you ever told your children in no uncertain terms that they are not to do something, and then provided rules for what they must (or mustn't) do if they violate your instructions? For example, maybe you've taught your children that it is wrong to treat others with disrespect, but you've made a rule that when they do treat someone disrespectfully they must apologize. If you have teenagers, maybe you've forbidden them from drinking alcohol until they are old enough to drink legally and responsibly, but in order to protect their lives and the lives of others you've made a rule that if they do drink, they absolutely must not drive, even if that means calling you to come pick them up.

I imagine we can all think of examples like these when we, or others, have regulated behaviors of which we don't approve, but for some reason this concept becomes confusing when we see it in the Bible.

For example, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 provided regulations for divorce and re-marriage in order to protect women in a culture in which they were greatly dependent on men. Some people, including many Jewish religious leaders, understood this to mean that God approved of divorce, but Jesus made it very clear that this was not the case at all; rather, the regulations were given because of their hard-heartedness.1 That is, sinful, fallen men living in a patriarchal, ancient Near Eastern culture were not always concerned with the well-being of the women who depended on them, but God was and so He provided laws for what should happen in the regrettable situation that a man should divorce his wife, contrary to God's ideal in Genesis 2.2

The treatment of servants/slaves is another example. Although the Hebrew word ebed (servant, employee) typically should not be translated "slave",3 we cannot help but raise our eyebrows at laws that regulate what is to be done, for example, if a servant is beaten to death or severely injured4 unless we understand that the Bible does not approve of all that it regulates. Genesis 1 set the enduring standard for how all people are to be treated when it affirmed that every human being is an image-bearer of God, and as image-bearers every person has dignity and worth. Therefore, no one is to be beaten, enslaved,5 or otherwise treated as less than valuable.

However, the harsh reality in the Ancient Near East was that people found themselves in desperate financial situations and sold themselves into indentured servitude. Although servants were treated far better in Israel than in surrounding nations,6 they were sometimes disciplined corporally and some may have been injured or even killed. Because God is not indifferent, and because He has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, He provided instructions for what should be done in this abhorrent situation, but that is not an endorsement of this type of servitude (or slavery), much less of mistreating those who are indebted to us. After all, the Mosaic law also regulated theft, lying, and adultery, but it would be absurd to argue that these regulations imply approval of those actions.

It is also helpful to remember that the Mosaic law was never meant to be universal, permanent, or ideal.7 Rather, it sought to regulate broken societal structures in a fallen world in order to protect the vulnerable, set apart the Israelites from neighboring cultures, point them forward to the coming Messiah and the New Covenant, and move them incrementally toward God's ideals as established at the very beginning (Genesis 1-2).8

Without contextual awareness and basic principles of biblical interpretation, we will have tremendous difficulty making sense of the Old Testament, much less responding to critics. As we read difficult passages that were written to a vastly different culture in a far-removed time and place, let's keep this (and additional principles to come) in mind.
___________________________________
[1] Matthew 19:1-8

[2] Paul Copan. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 100-109.

[3] Ibid., 125.

[4] Exodus 21:20-27

[5] Contrary to popular belief, the Mosaic law did not allow for anything like 18th- and 19th-century slavery in America. See my upcoming post, Slavery in the Bible.

[6] Paul Copan. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), chs. 12-14.

[7] The law was not universal but rather only meant for Israel - Exodus 2:24-25; Exodus 20:2; Leviticus 22:31-33; Deuteronomy 5:1-7 ff. The law was not permanent but pointed the Israelites to the coming Messiah and the New Covenant - Jeremiah 31:31; Ezekiel 16:60; Galatians 3:23-24. The law was not ideal but rather worked within the realities of a fallen and broken world to protect, set apart, and point the Israelites toward God's ideals - Matthew 19:1-9, esp. v. 7-8; Genesis 1-2

[8] Paul Copan. Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 59.