George,
While I'm not sure exactly where I come down on the issue of
accomodation as a general principle. A question here is "is there a
difference between accomodationist language and phenomenological
language (e.g., the sun rising and setting--we still use that
language despite our nearly universal knowledge that it is the earth
which moves and not the sun)?"
I'm not sure of all your examples:
1. polygamy -- Jesus points to the creation account as the basis for
the argument against divorce/polygamy. Why it was tolerated/not
condemned in the OT is a different question, but I think that the
norm is there.
2.holy war/genocide -- Are you familiar with intrusion ethics--the
idea that the final judgment intrudes into this present age? On this
point, if the final judgment and destruction of the wicked is just,
then so is this divinely commanded judgment against the Canannites. I
don't think there is any Biblical warrant for such activity today,
but I don't have a problem with it.
3. slavery -- Again, a Biblical case can and has been made (by the
Old School Presbyterians) for the institution of slavery. I'm not
sure that slavery in and of itself is wrong (other than a consequence
of the fall). Ill-treatment of slaves is immoral, as was, the
18th-19th century slave trade. But, I'm not sure that I can declare
immoral a "kind and gentle" slavery of prisoners of war or of
criminals or a voluntary slavery for economic security. Of course, in
modern America we don't see such slavery, but I'm not so sure that
I'm ready to declare it un-Biblical.
4. protection racket -- I'll have to look at that again, but being a
man after God's own heart did not make everything he did right. And
just because the Biblical account no where condemns such an action
doesn't me that we approve it. Hopefully, we know enough about
Biblical interpretation to not use history as a basis for ethics.
TG
>There is often resistance to the idea that the Holy Spirit & the
>biblical writers accomodated themselves to scientific understandings of
>the world of their times & cultures, views which we now know to be very
>limited or wrong. The same people seem to have no problem accepting
>this with some of the morality accepted in scripture.
> Polygamy is perhaps the most obvious example. Many of the
>heroes of the OT had lots of wives, concubines &c & nothing at all is
>said in condemnation of this. Some of the consequences may be bad, like
>Solomon's wives leading him to idolatry, but polygamy itself isn't
>condemned. N.B. This isn't simply a matter of reporting historical
>facts. Polygamy is not only reported but is accepted.
> There are other examples. David is a man after God's own heart,
>except for the Bathsheba-Uriah affair. But what about the protection
>racket he's running in I Samuel 25, as well as other less than
>progressive aspects of his tactics & policies?
> & of course there's the whole holy war business with
>extermination of populations &c, and slavery. Again, these are not
>simply reported but approved & even commanded.
> This kind of argument has often been used in village-atheist
>type Bible debunking & I do NOT want to use it in that way. But such
>examples do make it very clear that the biblical writers, and ultimately
>the Holy Spirit, accomodated themselves to moral behaviors which the
>Jewish and Christian communities would eventually find unacceptable.
> So why is it so hard to believe that the biblical writers and
>the Holy Spirit could have accomodated themselves to a now-outdated
>cosmology?
>
>Shalom,
>
>George
>
>George L. Murphy
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 12:27:05 EDT