Context is probably one of the most important things to consider as we read the Bible. Context gives us understanding and colors the background to whatever we are reading. Using context, you can come to understand words or things that might not make sense to you. Today we are going to talk about context, and how by manipulating it, one can make the Bible look ‘evil’.

Context is probably one of the most important things to consider as we read the Bible. Context gives us understanding and colors the background to whatever we are reading. Using context, you can come to understand words or things that might not make sense to you. Today we are going to talk about context, and how by manipulating it, one can make the Bible look ‘evil’.

The way that anti-Christian writers are able to support their attacks is to take what they are reading away from the context and present it bare, and without the verses that actually explain what is being said, and to whom it is said.

Let’s make an example. I am going to create a quote for President Bush, one that might be close to something he might have said, and we will see if we can alter it and make it sound horrible and sinister.

“We will hunt you no matter where you run, we will destroy you no matter where you hide!” Now, consider this statement was reprinted, and you did not know who said it, or who it was directed at, and you can clearly see that you could possibly take it as a threat directed towards you.

Now, if I take and tell you it was Bush, and then I add the previous statement, it changes everything. Observe: “I have a message to the terrorists: We will hunt you no matter where you run, we will destroy you no matter where you hide!” Now we know that it is directed at a particular group, and only that group, of which we can determine if we are part of that group or not. This changes the dynamic of the statement.

And this is not even a very good example. I’m sure many of you can think of one better, but the point remains, the statement is presented without regard to context. By doing so, many people are deceived into thinking something that is not true, and was not said.

For example, take a movie review. “The movie was about as suspenseful as watching paint dry, and the female lead shined about as bright as a lump of coal.” You could, by selectively choosing what you present, turn that into a positive review. “Suspenseful…the female lead shined” That sounds like a good review when it was in fact quite badly panned by the critic.

So there’s the tactics used by the Bible critics. Before we get into the accusations, take a moment to pray that God opens their hearts and they find salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not hate these people that denounce us, nor should you. They are misguided in their views, but they are people too, and Jesus died for them as well. Correction is not anger, but an attempt to help people understand.

Let’s get started. First off, the Bible is the Word of God preserved for all mankind. There is nothing in the text that cannot be validated and, for lack of a better term, explained. It is a book of love, a book that teaches virtues and morals.

(1Co 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1Co 6:10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I am actually surprised by this one, since it is so readily explained. First up: (2Co 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. So if you are a thief before salvation, then when you are saved, and become a reborn Christian, the old things pass away, i.e. you have turned over a new leaf, as they say.

Now, the argument that some people claim Christianity before they commit their crimes is easily countered as well. (1Pe 1:23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever. So if someone was truly born again in Christ, they would not do those evil things anymore.

(Joh 14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments. Also, (1Jn 5:3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. And what are Jesus’ commandments? Well, our so-called ‘bad verse’ in 1^st Corinthians itself lists the commandments we are expected to obey.

If you are truly a Christian, you will not break those rules. But, if the attack is meant to say that it is mean to mock exclusion of the unrighteous, then that’s an even weaker argument.

The fellow putting this forth would likely not allow a murderer to live in his house, nor a thief, of someone that wants to commit adultery with his wife/girlfriend/sister/mother/children. He also wouldn’t let someone that tries to shake him down for money in either. So if people wouldn’t let those kinds of folks in their homes, why should God?

If the argument is on the rejection issue, then would anyone like to die, get to Heaven and run into someone like Hitler? Of course not. Another point is that society has many of these same commandments listed as law. Hence the whole idea if you rob someone you go to prison thing. So if society removes criminals from the ‘house’ and put them in a place reserved for them as punishment, so how is this different from God’s rules?

Before the idea of permanent punishment by God becomes an issue, remember that there are people that do horrible things and are given life sentences, and in some places even death. They are punished for their entire life, isn’t that a permanent sentence? It removes them from ever being in the regular world.

Next: (1Th 2:15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. Okay, again like my example, who is killing Jesus? Well, the critic inserts [Jews], and rightly so. But, this is not the whole picture painted, so we have to step back and take in the context, as following in 1^st Thessalonians 2:13-2:16:

(1Th 2:13) For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (1Th 2:14) For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: (1Th 2:15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: (1Th 2:16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

So what is the context saying? First off, in 2:13 we see that Paul is just absolutely thrilled that the Thessalonians have accepted Jesus, and have not taken it as the word of men, but have recognized that it was indeed from God. Then it is pointed out that they have believed as the Christian churches in Judea, noting that they were not following Judaism.

Then we see that the Thessalonians have been made fun of, despised, and persecuted by their own people, as the Christian church was persecuted by their Jewish brothers. This is saying that ‘hey guys, I know you are having a rough time over there, but know that you are not alone, the churches in Judea are going through the same thing.’

Then we are at the meat of the issue, that the Jews killed Jesus. Now stop for a minute. I am not, and you should not be either, anti-Semitic. I have pointed this out in a past episode denouncing racism. We’ll make a quick recap.

The Jews of that time convicted and carried out a death sentence on Jesus. He had to die, and He had to die without sin, without blemish, and as a perfect sacrifice to God. Thereby, someone had to bring Him to this fate. The Jews brought this fate to Him because He was that man who was foretold by the Jewish prophets.

The high priests demanded the death of Christ, appealing to Pilate first, and when he sent them away, they begged it from Herod as well, who also did not sentence Him. Back to Pilate, who, as we see in Matthew 27:24, washes his hands of the affair, giving Jesus back to the Jews to do what they wanted.

And they wanted to crucify Him, and they did so. But, what did Jesus say about this fate? First off, He knew it was coming. (Mat 26:39) And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. He knew the horrors that were about to happen, but nevertheless, He declared the will of the Father, denouncing any kind of fear that might have come from any part of His earthly existence.

Then later, when the Jews had nailed Him to that tree, (Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. So the fact that Jesus was tried by the Jews, and killed by them does not give you the right to hate them. In fact, without the accusers, the sacrifice that freed humanity could not happen. On top of this, if Jesus Himself, on that cross, beaten, bloody, tortured beyond anything we could probably imagine could forgive them for their actions, who are you to disagree with God?

So now, what about the rest of that verse, about them killing their own prophets? That is clearly supported in the Old Testament, which is speaking on Judaism, by the verse (1Ki 19:10) And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

Elijah is saying that he is the only prophet left, that all the others have been killed. Not only that, but there were those that sought to kill Elijah as well. For what reason was he hunted? (1Ki 17:1) And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. This is one reason. Elijah brought the word of the Lord God of Israel, and the message given him was one of punishment and correction.

By the will of God, Elijah told Ahab there would be no rain, and true to God’s word, there was no rain until God told Elijah He was going to allow the rain, 3 years after the drought started. During this time, Israel was not following God, but did great sin before His sight, and they did not want to hear about what they should do, just like we, as a society, do not want to hear of our sins either. Thereby, the prophets were killed, at a point where none were left beside Elijah.

Finally, apparently the Jews at the time did not like the idea of a Messiah that came for everyone, being used to dealing with the law, which separated them from most all Gentiles. But Jesus rocked their world when saying: (Luk 5:32) I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. This opens the door to anyone to be saved, and destroys the exclusivity of Judaism. This is in fact pretty common in many belief systems. Notably the principle of the Catholic Church at one point which did not allow the Bible to be printed in a common language, as a prime example. Other churches and even other religions have done the same, limiting the common follower’s access.

Moving on, we have “stone disobedient children” which is not the actual statement in the verse the critic is attacking. This is the complete text, as the critic actually lists. (Deu 21:18) If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: (Deu 21:19) Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; (Deu 21:20) And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. (Deu 21:21) And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Now this changes the feel of the statement does it? So our critic twisted the verse to his liking, even while listing the actual verses that invalidates his 3 word summary. This is a son that has been raised by his parents, and is rebellious to the lessons he should have learned. The parents are required to do everything they can to punish and get the son under control. This means, in my heart, that they do literally everything they can. These are parents that are at the point of throwing their hands in the air, not being able to do anything to help their child, and are in despair because of that.

I think you should consider this like those “My teen is out of control!” talk shows and such. Not all of them are real, but I imagine some were. Those parents, for whatever reason, could not change their children’s behavior, even after raising them properly.

So the son is repeatedly punished and yet he is still out of control. The parents might have sent him to the Old Testament version of a boot camp or something, maybe even had the kid put in some version of jail with no results.

The parents then have no choice but to take him to the authorities and tell them the truth, for example, their son is a rapist crackhead that steals all the time. This was the kinds of charges leveled at the son. A glutton as used here could mean the same as modern terms, someone who gorges themselves in some manner, or also loose morally, worthless as in a drain on society, and even vile.

A drunkard is just that, someone who is in the bottle all the time. In our times, this would also cover drug usage I believe. As you can see, these are serious charges, and not to be taken lightly. The kind of person we’re talking about is a pretty bad person.

If I was a wild child, and my parents exhausted their very last option to help me, if I did not change and remained a woman-beating murdering crackhead, my parents would turn me in. They would feel that that was the last option available. If the law sentenced me to death, my parents would be beyond heartbroken, but I honestly believe they would not fight it. The law is the law, and it was my fault for doing the horrible things I had done. My parents might encourage me to know Jesus so that I can meet them in Heaven, but they would point out that ‘if you dance the dance, you have to pay the band’.

This is not fault on my parents’ part, nor is it wrong. If your child breaks the law, then you must correct him, even if it means turning them in. If you don’t support the death penalty that’s fine, a life sentence is also another terrible punishment. If we break the law, and do so repeatedly, and show that there is no one that will dissuade us from our lawlessness, then tough love is the only option.

Clearly this verse does not apply to a kid that repeatedly leaves his dirty socks in the living room or commits some other minor infraction. The context along with study of the root words prove that the verse applies only to extreme cases.

(1Ti 2:15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Now our critic summarizes this as ‘only mothers will be spared hell’, which is not the intended meaning of this verse.

The prior verses were the rules that Paul recorded, including the infamous ‘women should not teach’ verse. (1^st Timothy 2:12) These rules define the woman’s role in a Christian’s life. Many women could easily become angry or feel despair because of the presentation of this role. Paul laid it down straight, and did not beat around the bush.

Here he takes a minute to encourage women, to make sure they would not provoked by his directness. I have found no evidence of Paul being a woman-hater, of which he is often accused like we see here.

The encouragement is that women are given the joys of motherhood. And if you say ‘yeah right’, then you clearly are not a parent. I am a father, and let me tell you that when you look on your child for the first time, you will absolutely know the joys of childbirth, and I’m a guy! I would imagine that mothers have it even better than us dads.

It is a most awesome feeling when you see your baby. The love for your child continues through their lives as well, being something that is a source of joy for your whole life. Most parents list the best day of their lives being the day(s) their child(ren) are born. (Pro 17:6) Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers. Solomon sure knew what he was talking about!

So this is a joy given to women, to be the source of this miracle of life, even if it is painful. Woman brings forth the children that are the crowns of grandfathers, and the apple of fathers’ eyes. How blessed are women that they are so important in all of this!

Not only are women responsible for all the wonders of family, but women were given an important place in the Bible as well, granted an honor, even if it comes at a price. (Gen 3:15) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Woman was given painful birth, but was given the honor to bring forth the one that crushes the serpent, Christ.

(Eph 5:22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. This is the price, but do not believe that men are just able to do as they please, they are commanded as well, many times over in fact. (Eph 5:25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Now, the final verse about motherhood. (Psa 128:3) Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Now, many people in this world would consider being fruitful and having kids to be a wonderful blessing. Go to a fertility clinic that helps women get pregnant and speak a word against motherhood. You better start running after you do. Great deals of women are heartbroken because they can’t have kids.

Having families and raising their kids up right is the dream of women from small girls to full grown adults. The Bible seems to me to think the idea of having a family as a good thing, which many women, including my wife, mother, sister, and aunts would agree with. So the idea that saying women being mothers who raise faithful children that’s because the Bible considers it to be so.

Odds are your mother thought so too. Even if you were an ‘oops’, as some of us were, it was still something wonderful to our mothers. There was no venom in any of those verses.

(Lev 27:3) And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. Oh no! The Bible is saying women are less than men, even using monetary values! This means the God of the Bible is just a big old meanie!

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the information, and what it was used for. As before, we’ll back up a step or two. (Lev 27:1) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, (Lev 27:2) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. (Lev 27:3) And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. (Lev 27:4) And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Our critic doesn’t list the fact that land and houses are even valued either the same as a man or more, as in the extra fifth required for a home.

A singular vow is just that, a promise to God. It is most likely done in thanksgiving for blessings, or supplication for something desired. The vow was often to dedicate a person, or persons, or livestock, or even lands to God in either gratitude or again, offered in petition.

The father offers any of those things in dedication, and then he is allowed to redeem them with the paying of a tax. This is where the numbers are coming from. If a person did not redeem his dedicated offerings, then they became property of the Lord forever.

Now, if many people were to default and not redeem their person and family, then the people would be forfeit, and given to the custody of the temple. This would become a massive issue should very many people not pay the tax they vowed to God.

The temple would become bogged down trying to manage a cumbersome number of devotees. So, the situation is resolved by making the vows more easily redeemed for women, children, and the elderly.

Men would be more easily put to work, should they default on their vows, whereas women were not as easily given tasks to serve. The tradition was for men to do the hard manual labor, and not the women. There’s only so much room, and so much tasks to do in either the tabernacle or the temple, depending on the situation.

This is just like today, for the most part. Most men do not want a woman throwing chain on an oil rig, nor are there many women that would want to do so. Sexist? How is not putting women to back breaking hard labor sexist? In fact, I saw a special one time, a good while back, that was very critical of a prison or maybe a jail, but anyways, they had made a chain-gang with their female population, and put them to work. The program was controversial to say the least. I think it was cancelled. Again, it was a long time ago, so my memory is fuzzy on it.

A man might vow to dedicate himself and family to missionary work, but for whatever reason, he was not physically able to fulfill this vow, he might offer a sum of money to the missionary fund, since financial support is, in my understanding, vital to the missionaries, and that man may give the offering several times, when he is able, instead of the one time to redeem the vow as was listed here in the Old Testament.

This was not a price on a woman’s life, this was a reflection of a woman’s marketability (and I mean in employment, not slavery) in the service of the temple. A man also likely did not make the vow and not redeem it via the tax. If the man did not have the money, that was planned for as well. (Lev 27:8) But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.

Since we have this exception, you can clearly see that every effort was made so that a man could fulfill his vow through redemption. Women weren’t sold, women weren’t given prices on their lives, they were given the value of redemption on how much the temple could use more female help. You can always put a man to ditch digging, but there are only so much sewing, cleaning, or cooking that needs to be done.

A man did not vow his wife to get rid of her. A man vowed this thing to show God that He is more important than the devotees temporal life. The temple was fully staffed, probably all the time, so the man would give money to the temple as a service since they didn’t need any more employees.

So this vow is the vow of a payment to support the work of those that did the will of God, i.e. the temple and priesthood for a request or for a joyful offering. Finally, remember that this vow was voluntary for the most part.

(Lev 21:17) Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. (Lev 21:18) For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, (Lev 21:19) Or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, (Lev 21:20) Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; (Lev 21:21) No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

What does this mean? Where is our rub? Well, this says that the sons of Aaron, who were the priests of the children of Israel, were required to be healthy, and without physical disabilities or deformities.

Why is this important? Think about it, if you have a guy that suffers from one of those physical problems, many in the congregation would spend more time gawking, rudely albeit, at the person’s affliction instead of listening to the teachings or other duties the person was doing.

Then, if he was allowed to enter the inner sanctum of the tabernacle or temple, then many might become contemptuous, reasoning in their hearts that they are superior to the priest with his infirmary and question why he would be allowed an honor they were denied.

So it would seem that God rejects these people who suffer from their handicaps right? No, which is made clear in (Lev 21:22) He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. So this means that he is allowed to eat and give sacrifice for sin, and also for tithing, but he was just not allowed to take up the priesthood. He had the rights of normal people, but just had to get another job.

Anything that hindered him from being able to perform his duties resulted in him being declined from the priesthood. This was a practical matter and in no way mean spirited. I say this as I was afflicted with a growth problem when I was a child. It was easily corrected, and I’m ‘normal’ I guess you could say, but I know how much having something wrong with you distracts everyone else around you.

So the person would be given the same rights and status as people from all the other tribes, but was not allowed to join the ‘family business’ as it could be said.

The critic offers this summary for our next verse: ‘men aren’t allowed to shave their head or trim their beards.’ The verse? (Lev 21:5) They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

What does this mean for guys like me who have buzz-cuts and goatees? It means absolutely nothing, as we are tipped off with the ‘cutting in their flesh’. Now, normal people don’t cut themselves for no good reason, so what reason could make people do something so drastic?

The answer is a funeral. The loss of an important person in someone’s life might lead them to doing something unusual or a bit crazy while they were in mourning. Doing something in memorial of someone is pretty common. You hear of people shaving their facial hair in honor of someone, or not cutting their hair, or even cutting it if it is long. Either way, wanting to do something in memorial of a loved one is something most people feel, even today.

Now, in some cultures, cutting oneself and other forms of self inflicted suffering were considered to a great show of sadness and suffering. Wailing and ripping of clothes were also signs of respect for the dead, and a show of despair of the living during the mourning period.

So, if these things were done for funerals, are we discouraged from mourning at all? Nope. The reason is because our critic is betting you will not check his information, for if you did, you will see this: (Lev 21:1) And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people.

The Lord was speaking only to the sons of Aaron, which is the priesthood. Then we see the command, that is that the priests have a job to do, and they cannot just wail and carry on, they are the priests, they must look to the service of God.

This happens even today. My grandmother went to a church for 25, maybe 30 years faithfully every Sunday, and even on Wednesday and other events when her health allowed. The pastor at the church had been there for a good amount of time, maybe even for a very long time.

My grandmother passed away, and her funeral was at the church, of course. The minister, a person that was her friend and brother in Christ, a man that came to her when she was too sick to go to church just to minister to her in any way she needed, was the most proper choice to deliver her eulogy.

He did just that. He had to put aside his own mourning and feelings of loss to tend to our family and friends, to support us through the Lord. He could not rip his clothes, cut his body, shave his head in grief, or do anything else shocking in his sadness. He was charged by virtue of being a pastor to be a rock for the family, and offer comfort and prayers wherever needed.

This is exactly what the verses mean. Nothing to do with how we cut our hair as regular folks, only dealing with overt shows of grief, and only for the priesthood or ministry.

The priests are allowed some forms of mourning, though they are restricted on the level of their involvement. They had to be quite mindful of making sure they did not come into contact with the body of the deceased, along with any other activity that would be considered to make them ‘unclean’.

They are also only allowed to take this time to be more man than priest with certain relatives. The immediate family like their moms, dads, siblings, and children were acceptable to grant the priest a leave. Sisters were an exception in certain circumstances, as in if she was married, then she was considered a member of her husband’s family, and therefore was more the wife of her husband than the sister of the priest. Of course, if she was unmarried, she was the daughter of her father, and the priest’s sister.

Relatives by marriage also did not grant the priest leave, since they were the blood relatives of someone else that will take care of the burial. Also, the chief priest was not allowed to take the posture of the mourners, even if it was a close relative. The high priest had a duty to God, a most solemn vow he had to fulfill, so he had to be a priest at all times. He was given a great responsibility and with that came a price.

This is not to say that they are not allowed to mourn in their hearts in private. Everyone, no matter who they are, would be heartbroken at losing a close relative. In regards to the mourning and actions therein, think about Princess Diana’s funeral. The Queen herself walked with the casket as people filled the area around the streets wailing and overtly expressing their misery.

The priests were only allowed to openly express their misery if it was a close blood relative, and they were limited in how much sadness they showed. They had to retain the dignity of their offices. The high priest was not allowed to show outward misery at all, needing to be the representative of the Lord when commanded, and be the representative of the people as well. They were priests, they were dedicated to putting the Lord before themselves, and they had to be a faithful example to the people.

I might be strange, but it makes sense to me. It would have made my grandma’s funeral much harder had the pastor lost his composure when he was performing the ceremony. It might have brought me to fall apart even more than I was, or it might have angered me, feeling slighted, I cannot say. Either way, the best answer was to have him speak with a touch of sadness in his voice, but with composure so that he could lead us to the words of the Lord to comfort us.

We will continue this subject in the future. Until next time, God bless.

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 17th, 2008 at 7:02 pm and is filed under Transcriptions | . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.