INTRODUCTION: work based on thoughtful, credible scholarship; “The people of God are no longer national, ethnic Israel, whose homeland is in the Middle East. As the New Testament makes clear, the interethnic Christian community is the true circumcision in Christ whose citizenship is heavenly and who stand in a new relation to the Mosaic law. The law is a part of our heritage and self-understanding, even if a good deal of it doesn’t directly apply to the people of God.”

Part I: Neo-Atheism

1. NEW ATHEISM: “four horsemen” of atheism: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett; arguments: 1) angry rhetoric despite emphasis on scientific rationality 2) poor arguments against God 3) unwilling to own up atrocities committed by atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong) but expect Christians to own up all barbarous acts done in Jesus’ name (Stalin attended Orthodox seminary -> still “religious” after all); counterillustration to Inquisition: Jeffrey Dahmer (murderer, cannibal): “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.”; he wondered, if there’s no God and we all just came “from the slime,” then “what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”; refusal to acknowledge positive influence of Christianity (preserving literature, advancing education, laying foundations of modern science, promoting human rights, providing better working conditions, overthrowing slavery)

2. OLD TESTAMENT GOD: God is “not great” (Christopher Hitchens); “moral monster” (Richard Dawkins); Deut 14:6-11; we can be good without God (Sam Harris)

   Part 2: God

3. ARROGANCE: “seek attention, obsessed with his own superiority”; pride: inflated view of self <-> humility: realistic assessment of weakness and strength; worship: origin: weorthdcipe (Old English) “worth-ship”; God doesn’t take more credit than he deserves; imago dei: not vanity (creating man just to be praised by them) but privilege, overflow of his goodness; humans are “incurably religious” (Thomas Edison); “humans are wired to be religious therefore God doesn’t exist” -> doesn’t follow (non sequitur); genetic fallacy: proving/disproving the truth of a view based on its origin; biology of belief != rationality of belief; if God exists, religious tendency shows we are functioning well; if atheism is true, it’s hard to explain; God’s call for our worship: not rooted in pride but in ultimate reality; it’s not God but fellow creatures that command is to worship him (Ps 50:12); praise: expression of supreme value; true worship: not to earn reward / avoid punishment but enjoyment of God’s presence; God’s humility: appts in OT too (Isa 57:15; Ps 113:5-6), NT does expand it (eg incarnation, crucifixion) but doesn’t invent it; why do Christians wear crosses (instrument of torture) with pride? “If your brother were killed in an electric chair, would you wear an elect ahat around your neck?” -> “If my brother happened ro be Jesus of Nazareth and his death in an electric chair brought about my salvation and was the means by which evil was defeated and creation renewed, then he would have transformed a symbol of shame and punishment into something glorious.”

4. JEALOUSY: sign of pettiness, insecurity; but: jealousy can be good (if it springs from concern from other’s wellbeing) and bad (Gal 5:20); example: dog drinking water from toilet bowl (Jer 2:13); marriage analogy (Dutch wife: if husband cheats on her “I will shoot him” - not kidding); lack of jealousy: sign of lack of commitment; God is relational ~ passionate husband (Ez 6:9, Isa 65:2-3); God’s jealousy: response to spiritual adultery (idolatry); jealousy: sign of vulnerability, capacity of feeling pain (wounded husband); Head of Christ by Warner Sallman (painting): meek & mild, far cry from temple-cleaning, storm-calming Christ; anger: not necessarily wrong (Eph 4:26) can be even virtuous (when not self-centered but other-centered); God’s anger & jealousy springs from his love and care not from hurt pride or immaturity; God’s gracious rule vs human wellbeing: false dichotomy (<-> Westminster Catecism question #1: chief end of man: glorify God & enjoy him forever); sovereign coercion vs total human autonomy: false dichotomy; God is jealous for our best interest (“for your good” Deut 10:13; 8:16; 30:9); God’s jealousy aroused to protect relationship, to protect us from self-harm; “Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girl- friends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment.” (Tim Keller); “We are halt-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” (C S Lewis)

5. CHILD ABUSE: Abraham & Isaac (Gen 22); law of Moses condemned child sacrifice (one of reason for judging Canaanites); God temporarily suspended moral obligations (Kierkegaard); faith: key theme of Pentateuch; Abraham: positive example, trusted God’s promise without law of Moses <-> Moses: negative example: failed in his faith; “have faith/believe”: positive before mount Sinai, negative afterwards; Abraham obeyed the commandments even before they were given (Gen 26:5) because he lived by faith (Gen 15:6) <-> Moses died in the wilderness because of their unbelief (Deut 32:51); God asked Abraham to give up his past (leave his home in Ur) & his future (Isaac); Ismael: mis-conception; Abraham sent him away trusting that God would provide for them (without God’s promise he would have been wrong to send them away); God is testing Abraham (no intention to kill him); gentle request (“please take your son”) -> God understands the magnitude of request; God doesn’t demand, had Abraham rejected, he wouldn’t have incurred any guilt; Moriah = ‘provide, see, show’ -> hint of salvation/deliverance; command cannot be separated from promise; Abraham had confidence that even if Isaac died God would have accomplished his promise through the same person (“we will worship […] we will come back to you” Gen 22:5); Abraham knew God wouldn’t break his promises and he cannot lie (Heb 6:18, Tit 1:2); philosophical reflections: 1) God’s command to do X obligates person Y to do X 2) It is wrong to kill innocent human beings 3) God commanded Abraham to take an innocent life; 2) normally holds but depends on context (eg ectopic pregnancy; Sep 11 president’s justified order to shoot down the planes); also it is wrong because in our world dead people remain dead (if in another world God would order everyone to be killed at 18 and would immediately bring them back to life in and robust health, 2) wouldn’t be wrong); moral commands depend on certain givens in the world (eg if hitting people on the head would improve their health, it wouldn’t be wrong); Abraham knew that even after killing Isaac God would bring him back to life to fulfill his promise -> he didn’t act immorally; critic rejects supernatural being who is able to bring people back from the dead, and who keeps his promises; 2) applies in a world where dead people don’t come back to life after being killed -> not applicable; story of Isaac foreshadows God’s sacrificing his own son to redeem us; not child abuse (Richard Dawkins) -> Christ willingly laid down his life; God loves us more than he loves himself; crucifixion: no act of child abuse, but God giving his very self for humanity’s sake

   Part 3: Life in Ancient Israel

6. COMMANDMENTS: 613 laws in Pentateuch; chronological snobbery: “uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited” (C. S. Lewis); God’s laws: not permanent, divine ideal but temporary measure, accommodating to fallen people, shadow/tutor to prepare the way for Christ; God permitted divorce but it wasn’t ideal and wasn’t universal -> this applies to many problematic structures (eg servitude, warfare, patriarchy[?!]); God had been putting up with inferior, less-than-ideal social structures (Acts 17:30, Rom 3:25 [-> these are about sins not social structures!]) and adjusted accordingly; Mosaic law was temporary, crude and uncultured; God moved incrementally, he met his people where they were; Scripture itself acknowledges the inferiority of certain Old Testament standards; “Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old lestament, we should freely acknowledge them. We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1-2 and affirm with our critics that we don’t have to advocate such practices for all societies. We can also show that any of the objectionable practices we find in the Old Testament have a contrary witness in the Old Testament as well.”; redemptive movement of Scripture: 1) God’s ultimate ideal (human equality, dignity, marriage) already found in Gen 1-2 2) God accommodated to human hard-heartedness 3) Incremental steps are given in OT; example: slaves (Near East: brutal treatment -> OT: limited punishment -> NT: masters show concerns to slaves -> ultimate ideal: God’s image bearers); homosexuality: no redemptive movement, uniform negative evaluation; “Some claim that prohibitions against homosexual acts were “just cultural” or simply “on the same level” as the kosher or clothing laws given to Israel to set her apart from her pagan neighbors. This is too quick. Actually, the Mosaic law also prohibits adultery, bestiality, murder, and thett. Surely these go far beyond the temporary measures of eating shrimp or pork.” [<- How do you differentiate between the temporary and permanent?]; example: permit to divorce; key point: Israel’s Old Testament covenant wasn’t a universal ideal and was never intended to be so; adultery: death penalty in OT <-> excommunication in NT (it may be legally tolerated by the state but not by the church); Israel’s history: different stages (wandering, theocracy, monarchy, exile) -> different ethical demands (not situational ethics, but different ethical challenges); “is” didn’t mean “ought” (describing biblical character’s actions aren’t necessarily endorsing them: eg David & Bathsheba); many regulations are casuistic (if someone does A, then the consequence is B -> it doesn’t mean A is good!); biblical hero status rooted not in moral perfection but trust in God; in the Mosaic law God himself speaks (Ex 22:23-24) not Moses on God’s behalf (~other nations)

7. WEIRD LAWS 1: triangle: God - God’s people - Land of Israel; three aspects of law: theological - social - economic; social form in Israel: tribal/kinship structure, decentralized & non-hierarchical (<-> Canaanites: feudal system with powerful elite & peasants, king owned the land); law of Moses: intentionally temporal, even upgraded legislation (inheritance of Zelophehad’s daughters, Num 27:1-11); context of law: grace (God delivered Israel -> they should love and obey him & represent him among the nations); Manifest Destiny: Protestant settlers wanted to bring God’s kingdom to earth (theocracy <-postmillenism) <-> didn’t separate church and state; American nation isn’t the people of God, we don’t live in a theocracy <-> Israel did (even if it wasn’t intended to be ideal/permanent); laws covering everything -> holiness in every area of life; mere outward appearance without justice wasn’t enough (Am 5:21-24); lesson for us: living under God’s reign should affect all of life; cleanness vs uncleanness: symbol of life and death; impurity: not just health/hygiene but taboo (nonmoral off-limit); unclean isn’t identical to immoral; carnivorous animals: connected to death -> unclean; sin creates moral impurity: must be “cleansed”; impurity: 1) ritual (contact with natural processes of birth, death, sex) 2) moral (esp idolatry, incest, murder); holiness: hierarchy of set-apartness; symbolical laws against getting mixed up in the false way (with other nations, planting different crops, clothes with mixed fibers, sexual mixing across boundaries) -> wholeness (-> no deformity in animal sacrifices); unclean animals: “crossing”/”transgressing” spheres of air/land/waters; God separated light and darkness, waters and waters -> man must separate what God created separate

8. WEIRD LAWS 2: kosher laws: ‘kashrut’ = proper, correct; some unclean animals could still be used (eg camels for transportation); suggested reasons for distinction between clean/unclean: 1) health/hygiene (why aren’t poisonous plants considered unclean?) 2) other religions (why bulls are clean?); angles for good solution: 1) creation (clean animals: distinct in their own category, no mixed features) 2) fall/death/abnormality (slithering animals: reminder of serpent, animals represented what God required from his people - “without blemish”, unclean animals are either predators or vulnerable - not having what they need, eg scales and fins, “not because they are worth less but because of justice: eating is a form of predation and the poor are not to be a prey”); semen/blood: discharges represented what was “outside” of the body; vaginal blood/semen: powerful symbols of life but their loss is symbol of death (cooking baby goat/killing mother and baby cow on the same day: clash of life and death); “barriers” to sex: to keep it in its proper place; men had restrictions when they could have sex -> greater independence for women (unlike surrounding nations); “holiness gap”: between God and man; sequence of sacrifices: 1) purification (from sin) 2) burnt offering (dedication to God) 3) fellowship offering (ordination) -> nature of Christian discipleship: 1) confession of sin 2) dedication to God 3) fellowship with God; law revealed human inadequacy

9. BARBARISM: harsh punishments; similarities with other Near Eastern laws but Mosaic law had improvements; 1) certain laws were inferior to creation ideals 2) Mosaic laws were not permanent, universal standards for all nations; God takes sin seriously (Sabbath-breakers, slanderers; Uzzah, Nadab & Abihu) even in NT (Ananias & Sapphira); “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored” (Lev. 10:3); glutton & drunkard: repeat offender, picture of insubordination, parents don’t take matters in their own hands; sorcerers: Israel had bound herself to Yahweh (not democracy) -> foreign alliance not tolerated; people were free to leave Israel & live in other nations; beatings: only after proper trial, no self-legislation, supervision by judge, maximum penalty not to be exceeded (modern example: Michael Fay canning in Singapore); law prescribed maximum punishment (judge could lower it); other cultures had more brutal laws (eg Hammurabi: death for thief <-> Mosaic law: double compensation); eye for an eye (lex talions): in general wasn’t taken literally (eg compensation for bodily harm Ex 21:26-27); key point: punishment should fit the crime (also cannot exceed maximum punishment) -> protection against disproportionate retaliation (eg Mafia); human life has more value (eg killing owner of goring ox, not just financial compensation); killing a child for parents offenses not allowed (<-> Hammurabi); differentiation between accidental and intentional killing; 16 crimes in OT with death penalty, 15 cases ransom/substitute allowed (except premeditated murder); infant sacrifice: king of Moab (2Ki 3:27 - not approved by God), JephthahI’d daughter (Judg 11:30-40 - low moral), value of unborn life (Ex 21:22-25 - injury to the mother or baby)

10. WOMEN: ideal view: equality (Gen 1-2); patriarchism: less than ideal structure due to the fall [NO!]; patriarchal attitudes “distorted the many strong biblical affirmations of female dignity and equality”; equality of women strongly affirmed in OT (eg Gen 1:27, Gen 2:24 [most references are about children respecting mothers not just fathers]); “helper”: not inferior ([human dignity != social roles]); many strong women had great influence; trial of jealousy (Deut 17:6-7 - women could bring their husband too [???]); impurity at childbirth (different for boys & girls - not sign of inferiority); Levirate marriage (marrying diseases husband’s brother, not ideal but better than other Near Eastern laws); coveting neighbor’s wife (same category as animals - but both mother and father are to be respected); no female priests (to prevent adultery, most Israelite males were excluded too!)

11. MARRIAGE: concubines/second wife were allowed were first wife was infertile; polygamous marriages not approved by God but still involved commitment to protect/provide; sign of political alliances (eg Solomon) contrary to bible (Deut 17:17); polygamy prohibited (Lev 18:18 not just literal sisters, not about incest but about polygamy); if man sells daughter as servant (Ex 21:7-11 - reason: economic survival, not about polygamy); unloved wife (Deut 21:15-17 - protection against favoritism); bride-price (evidence of serious intention, compensation to bride’s father, security for wife in case of divorce); rape (Ex 22:16-17 - protection of women; female prisoner of wars (POW): rape not allowed, protection for woman, integration into society; “immodest lady wrestler” (Deut 25:11-12 - only instance of bodily mutilation, not mutilation but depilation: shaving of woman’s pubic hair); “Israel’s laws weren’t perfect, to be sure. But when we compare them with various ancient Near Eastern law codes (whether regarding sexuality or other matters), the general impression noted by scholars is a range of dramatic - even radical - moral improvements in Israel.” [<-> Ps 19:8]

12. SLAVERY 1: OT servanthood != antebellum (prewar) slavery in South but indentured servants (eg colonial America, people contracting themselves to work in household to pay off debt of coming to America); being traded doesn’t mean “just property” (cf sports player traded between teams); same experience as paid employment; voluntary; freedom after 7 years; servanthood existed because of poverty; ultimate goal: no poverty -> no servanthood; slaves treated as human beings (injured servant released, kidnapping prohibited, protection for runaway slaves - Deut 23:15-16); “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” (Abraham Lincoln)

13. SLAVES 2: beating slaves to death (Ex 21:20-21); leaving wife and children behind (Ex 21:2-6 - not gender specific); “Simply because many verses in the law happen to use a masculine gender pronoun rather than alternating between “he” and “she” hardly means that women are thereby being excluded.”; being nice to strangers (Lev 19:33-34); foreigners could become part of society (eg Ruth); loan discrimination (foreigners sought loans for investment, avoid rising up in rebellion); foreigner (nori) ~ illegal immigrant vs alien/sojourner (get) ~ resident alien; tensions between Ex 21 and Deut 15: dynamic adjustment/moral upgrade (eg daughters of Zelophehad); to obey Deuteronomy meant no longer complying with Exodus/Leviticus

14. SLAVERY IN NEW TESTAMENT: unity in Christ transcends social structures (Gal 3:28); Roman slavery: not debt-servanthood; Christ came to set the captives free (Lk 4:18); Christian masters commanded to call their slaves brothers and sisters; Paul repudiated slave trading (1Tim 1:9-10), affirmed slaves’ human dignity, encouraged them acquire freedom if possible (1Cor 7:20-22); no call for uprising against slavery (would have done the gospel a disservice) but indirect undermining, call for right response in unjust situation (no retaliation) -> gradual leavening effect -> slavery fell away in Europe (Abraham Lincoln: same gradual strategy, no radical abolitionist route); Onesimos: probably not an actual slave, but estranged (perhaps biological) brothers, even if slave, not fugitive

15. CANAANITES: killing of Canaanites (Deut 20:16-18); profound moral corruption and immorality (incest, temple sex, child sacrifice); God doesn’t judge nations because they don’t worship him but because of immoral acts (Amos 1-2); God judged Israel too (Mt 24) -> no cherry-picking; without God’s approval Israel would have sinned against these people; “What about God allowing Israelites to take interest trom foreigners but not from fellow citizens (Deut. 23:20)? We’ve seen that interest was charged to foreigners, who were temporary residents and not members of society. They typically borrowed money to invest in profit-making pursuits and trad-ing ventures; these weren’t loans given to help foreigners escape poverty. This regulation had a built-in incentive: the outsider (who didn’t have to live in Israel) could choose to become a part of Israel and embrace the one true God; it so, he could benefit from divinely commanded economic perks and displays of Israelite concern. Instead of hostility, God commanded the Israelites to love and show concern for the resident aliens in their midst. The command to love the resident alien and to treat her the same way as a citizen (Lev. 19:33-34) is remarkable and unique in the ancient Near East’s religious thoughts and practices.”; no genocide (God concerned with sin not with ethnicity); not efficient (Israel affected by paganism): God is sufficient, not necessarily efficient (“God is always almost late”)

16. CANAANITES 2: conquest model needs to be corrected; military intervention didn’t cause extensive material destruction; Joshua used hyperbolic language (eg “utterly destroyed” just like sports team); process expected to be gradual (Deut 7:22); God tells Israel to utterly destroy the Canaanites (Deut 7:2) but right after that also not to intermarry with them (Deut 7:3-5); destruction refers to Canaanites religion, but people (Deut 12:2-3); Amalekites: even after being “utterly destroyed” by Saul (except Agag the king - 1Sam 15), they are still present (1Sam 27:8) even later on (1Chron 4:43); Haman was an Agagite (Est 3:1); “consecration to destruction” (‘herem’): language restricted to Canaanites, Amalekites - not to every war; men/women/children: word “all” (kol) used -> stock expression for totality, stereotypical description of all inhabitants, doesn’t necessarily mean women/children also lived there (children only mentioned explicitly at Nob - 1Sam 22:19); Jericho/Ai: military strongholds, no archeological evidence of civilian population; Rahab & family: probably only non-combatants in charge of fortress’s tavern/hostel (not a brothel, but sometimes run by prostitutes); spies went “into the house” of Rahab, not went “in to” Rahab (like Samson Judg 16:1) and “stayed there” not “stayed with her” -> no sexual liaison; Rahab proves that consecration to destruction (herem) wasn’t absolute/irreversible; all battles sanctioned by God after Joshua were defensive ones; Midianites (Num 31:17-18): Israelite males were killed too, to preserve Israel’s identity and integrity, virgins were not sex objects but could be taken as wives; goal to “drive out” Canaanites (Num 21:32) -> not total annihilation; Joshua did as Moses commanded (Josh 11:14-15): if Joshua’s “utter destruction” was hyperbolic (Near Eastern warfare language) but he did as Moses commanded -> Moses’ command must have been hyperbolic too; archeology confirms gradual assimilation not widespread destruction (“cities which you did not build” - Deut 6:10-11); parallel scenario: gradual infiltration of Amorites into Babylon

17. CANAANITES 3: killing of Canaanites set negative example (eg crusades) <-> justification not applied to non-Canaanites (eg Philistines) -> Yahweh wars limited I’m time and location; damage on non-combatants not serious; women: may not have been combatants but they were not innocent either; children: God is the author of life, humans can make no demands on how long a person ought to live on earth (Job 1:21), they would have entered the presence of God; warfare can be psychologically damaging <-> “We cannot choose the time we live in. We can only choose what we do with the time we are given.” (Gandalf), “It is well that war is so terrible; otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” (Robert E. Lee), “it is infinitely better to be a neurotic saint than a healthy-minded sinner” (Vernon Grounds); God’s ultimate goal: bring blessings to all nations (including Canaanites); similarity with Isaac (blessing promised though Isaac <-> God asks Abraham to give him up ~ beings promised to all nations <-> God asks Israel to wipe out Canaanites); Jonah knew God would be gracious; today: sensitivity to racism but not to sexual sins, death is ultimate evil; “God is wrathful because God is love” (Miroslav Volf); part of being God is to have authority over humans; “obstinacy (stubbornness) of faith” (C S Lewis): loves involves trusting a friend beyond, even against evidence; killing infants (without God’s direct command) doesn’t cause them to get to heaven, killer not responsible for any benefits (only God can bestow them) <-> Susan Smith drowning his own children: he didn’t “give” them better life but sinned against God and his children; “God moves in a mysterious way”: hymn by William Cowper

18. RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE: monotheism leads to exclusion and conflict <-> Enlightenment: French Revolution turned pursuit of liberty, equality and fraternity into cruel nightmare -> we need more religion, not less but the right kind of religion; polytheist Rome: Christians persecuted as atheists; religion is rarely a single cause; God didn’t choose Abel at the expense of Cain; his choosing Israel didn’t exclude other nations from salvation; absolute hospitality: difficult with unhealed victim and unrepentant perpetrator; hell: self-exclusion from God; Crusades/Inquisition: definitely wrong but do they reflect the essence of Christianity?; Crusades: radical departure from basic Christian values for a limited time <-> Jihad: consistent with Mohammed’s life and teachings, still present; myth of Muslim toleration: creature of the West (Bat Ye’or)

    Part 4: Morality

19. MORAL FOUNDATIONS: people can be good without believing in God; “If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies … are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention…. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins); knowing what is good != being good; generosity is rooted in our genes (Dawkins) <-> why should we trust them? “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of mans mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Charles Darwin); how do we move from “is” (what we do) to “ought” (what we should do)?; naturalistic morality is arbitrary, could have developed in the opposite direction; value doesn’t come from valuelessness

20. CHRISTIANITY: “Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation” (John Adams); sense of history vs cyclical time; importance of humans; positive legacy of Christianity: human rights, tolerance, social justice, racial reconciliation; Jesus: climax of OT