Do the Ten Commandments leave room for interpretation?

Do the Ten Commandments leave room for interpretation?

I have always had this issue with the taking of a human life. Killing is wrong in my mind. I was raised in church and we are taught this very idea. In my teenage years I began to realize people kill other people all the time and use war to justification their actions. I have been told my whole life that killing in times of war is not sinning. Unless I have overlooked something in my readings the past few weeks, Moses didn’t put an escape clause in the Ten Commandments.

While reading the Book of Judges one theme became evident to me. It is stated repeatedly, “Once again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord (Judges 2:12)”. Whenever the Israelites sinned and turned away from God they would be punished.  Then God would save them from whomever. Each time thousands and thousands of people died.

God is adamant about obeying the first and second commandment.  In Exodus 20 verse 3-4: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” These commandments are the main reason the Israelites had to be punished so many times in the book of Judges. They couldn’t seem to continually obey. 

Next our focus brings us to the sixth and seventh commandment. Exodus 20 verse 13 and 15 says:  “You shall not murder and You shall not steal.” In the book of Judges, God allows Ehud to stab the King in the stomach with a sword after deceiving the King. No mention of war is present. Sounds like murder to me. Additionally Jael takes a tent peg and stabs a sleeping man Sisera, in the head. Gideon is also a nasty piece of work but we can contribute plundering issues  with him. In this time, plundering was a nice way of saying “Grave robbers.” God ordered the mass murder of nations to free the Israelites and they also get to steal from the dead. The reward is their freedom and the issue of the Ten Commandments never comes up. 

In doing my research, I found that Joseph Lewis justifies the Israelites course of actions by their religious beliefs. At   http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten62.htm Lewis explains that the Israelites saw their oppressors as less than human because they did not worship God. The Israelites were doing God’s will by ridding the earth of these creatures. This idea of redemption for the world had not yet entered their realm of thinking. The Israelites were God’s chosen people and their oppressors stood between them and God. 

Then I found this amazing blog by Slug1 at http://bibleforums.org/content.php/80-can-killing-be-justified which clearly defines murder vs. killing. God said not to murder but killing is a different matter. Slug1 used several different Bible verses (mostly out of Joshua and Judges) to justify his answer. God doesn’t leave his people defenseless. We are allowed to protect our family and our property. But God doesn’t want us going around murdering people just because we can. Christians going to war have a hard time with this concept. War is one of God’s tools in a world gone wrong.  He is still sorting out the evils of this world and His work is never done.

I think it comes down to human beings are inheritantly evil. It’s not so much that God allowed the Israelites to be victorious over their oppressors but that human beings are going to sin regardless. The Book of Judges is very gruesome with the amount of slaughtering contained within its pages.  However I think Judges is very important to grasp the understand of how human beings work. The Israelites had a direct line to God and they still sinned continuously. Judges exemplifies the great battle between man’s will verses God’s will. My concluding answers are that killing is part of human nature and life, however; murder is a direct violation of God’s will for us. The Ten Commandments stand.

Allusion #1

Edward P. Jones has three collections of short stories. One of his most recent collections is called “All Aunt Hagar’s Children and Other Short Stories”. The title of this book and the same reference of this passage in the book is an allusion to the Bible. It is also a symbol of hope for people who have nothing. 

Hagar is found in the book of Genesis. She was a handmaid to Sarah. Sarah gives Hagar to her husband, Abraham to produce an heir. It is only after Sarah gives birth to a son that Sarah becomes resentful of having Hagar and her son, Ishmael around. Abraham banishes Hagar and her son, Ishmael once a true blood line is established. Genesis 21 verse 17 says:  “And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is.” God did find favor in Hagar and her son because of their circumstance. God protected them and allowed Ishmael to prosper even after their banishment.

Hagar has become a symbol for African American especially during times of slavery. It is evident in the Book of Galatians that Hagar is associated with slavery. Galatians 4 verse 24 says: “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” Hagar is a symbol of God’s forgotten children. People use her as a symbol of hope.

Edward P. Jones uses the passage “All Aunt Hagar’s Children” in two different short stories in this collection. The first time he use it is in the title story of the book. The character, Aunt Penny uses the passage to reinforce the ideas that all people matter.  Aunt Penny is trying to persuade her nephew to do some detective work to find the murderer of his cousin. The passage reads: “One more colored boy outa their hair. It’s a shame before God, the way they do all Aunt Hagar’s children. (pg. 106)” The nephew throughout the story is struggling with self-importance over family responsibilities. The allusion of the Bible and the theme contained therein about forgiveness plays an important role in this story. The conclusion of the story leaves the reader with unanswered questions. Will the family forgive the daughter in law for murdering Ike? But we do know that the nephew acquires a greater appreciation for his family than he had at the beginning of the story and that his ties are strengthened.

The next time this passage appears is in the story Common Law. “She thought all Aunt Hagar’s children deserved a place in the ground (pg. 223).” Grandma Judy uses the passage to justify burying her husband after she murders him.  Jones restates this idea that all people matter. Here is the case of an abusive husband, who is murdered by his beaten wife, deserving to have a proper burial no matter what he did in his lifetime. The whole story builds Grandma Judy up as an upstanding woman of the community. This idea of “what is good” and “what is evil” is a mini allusion to the Bible in the story. God gave man a set of commandments stating in Deuteronomy 5 verse 17 “Thou shalt not kill.” So this idea that all people matter verses good and evil are somewhat conflicting in this work.

I was amazed to see what a powerful affect she has had on the world. I read about her in the book of Genesis but she is not a dominate presents. I briefly made note of her when her name came back up while reading this collection but had not idea of the profound affect she has had to slaves and African Americans as a whole. Hagar has become such an inspiration to millions over the years. She seemed like such a meager character when I first read about her, and now my view point on her has completely transformed.  I gather that basically people try to live the best way they can. That we can’t control the hand we are dealt in life but we can control how we deal with it. Everyone needs hope.  Hagar is an amazing example of life and hope.

Were the Leviticus' laws of cleanliness sexist?

The theme in which women were treated was very disturbing to me as I read through Leviticus and Numbers. The overall treatment of women is appalling. It seems to me that the Bible sets women up to be the excuse for all “MAN’s” sins. Women’s periods are discussed with no care or concern for a women’s feeling. It is sickening to see women treated this way. It appears to me that women are seen as no more than a household pet used for entertainment purposes and breeding, then left to do the daily chores with no regard to their value.

 Rich Deem’s article “Sexism in the Bible: Is Christianity Sexist?” found at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html#.UFSxLKMjU8U discusses how the Bible is not really sexist at all. His interpretation of the Hebrew language is very different from what we read and understand in the Bible. For example the word “Ezer” with is a term used to describe Eve as a suitable helper to Adam. The word suitable in the Hebrew language translates to someone completely opposite to themselves, and not the translation we are most commonly accustom to. This website presents many examples of how the “Church” has used the Bible in order to treat women as second class citizens. He however does not address the Leviticus' Laws in his examples. I think this is because there is no way that the Bible is not sexist when it comes to these Leviticus' Laws. Women were treated as second class citizens when Moses wrote these. In some parts of the world women are still treated this way based on these ideas laid out in the Bible.

The second site I used to try to prove my theory of how women are treated in the Bible was http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm. This site identifies how women were looked at and defines how women should be treated according to the Old Testament. It gives reference to specific Bible verses to support its findings. Most of the laws listed can be justified by women being the weaker race and how men have to keep women safe. It was Eve’s sin that caused Adam to sin. This theory that women will sin if a man is not around to protect us from ourselves is crazy. I live in the twenty first century. This idea is so far out there for me.

Were the Leviticus laws of cleanliness sexist? Yes. Leviticus chapter 12 verses 1-5 specifically describe how a woman giving birth to a boy child is unclean for far less time than giving birth to a girl baby. Leviticus chapter 27 verses 6 give the worth of a boy infant as being more valuable than a girl infant. Numbers chapter 3 verses 15 don’t even allow females to be counted in the census. It goes on and on. Sexism is very evident in the description of a women’s monthly cycle and how long they are unclean. This in contrast to a man who discharges semen is only uncleaned until night fall. A man is unclean for less than 24 hours but a female on her menstrual cycle is unclean for 14 days at the earliest. It is not hard to see why men in the Bible days would often have more than one wife. Even with the two websites listed, it is clear to me that the Leviticus' Laws very sexist in nature.

Who wrote the book of Genesis and how was the information contained therein obtained?

After reading all the historical background of Genesis, I was thinking who wrote this? It seemed like such a simple question with a simple answer. The Book of Genesis starts with the creation of the Universe, Earth, water, air, animal, and finally man. But there is no mention on whom or how this Book can about. I was think of Noah. It just seemed to me that he would have enough on his plate with saving mankind that he would not be gathering up written documents.

 I started my search with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis, and found that most people believe Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. Most scholars agree that the Pentateuch—which is the first five books of the Bible—was a collection of four sources. These sources are:  the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source. Since the 1970s, the Elohist is now regarded as a variation of the Yahwist.

It was very interesting to see that on this site that they believe that the Yahwist was written in the court of Solomon.  They also know the author of the Priestly source to be Ezra in the 5^th century.  Now later thinking is that the Yahwist was written around the Babylonian Exile of the 6^th century. So this theory contradicts the idea of Moses writing the Pentateuch. He would not of been alive during Solomon's rein. So it would of been very hard for him to knock off these books.

They also attempt to explain a “why” to the Book of Genesis. Their explanation is: a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial is "Persian imperial authorization". This proposes that the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple and who traced their foundation-myth to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had "given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.^[15]

It makes sense that the theory of the “Persian imperial authorization” would be over land disputes. Land disputes are still a major factor in this part of the world. It has been that way for ages which is depicted in the Bible beginning in the Book of Genesis.  Abraham and Lot left their families land to seek out a place of their own. Jacob and his sons were constantly moving around and claiming land. Land is livelihood to these nomadic people. It is what sets them apart from the rest.

What did the twelve emblems/seals of the sons of Israel look like and what was their historical significant?

I am a structured person. I like questions that have answers. I have been an avid church goer my entire life. It is very hard for me to look at the Bible as anything other than fact. So now that I have had a complete mental breakdown over this assignment, I am ready to discuss the book of Exodus. The main question that grabbed at my curiosity was the twelve emblems made of stone. I began to think what would these have looked like? What was the importance of each stone?

In Exodus Ch. 28 verse 17-21, the passages discuss twelve stones of Israel and how they are to be crafted. Verse 21 states: “There are to be twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel, each engraved like a seal with the name of one of the twelve tribes.” The passage goes on to say of what material each stone should be made of. It also talks about how each of the stones are to be arranged.

I found a really interesting website with pictures of what each seal might have looked like and their meaning under each seal. The website http://www.templesanjose.org/JudaismInfo/history/12tribes.htm discusses how each of the sons of Jacob lineage develops over the years. Zebulun lines became fishermen. They lived by the coastlines. Judah was a ruling and regal tribe. The list goes on. The information presented is very informative on the meaning of each stone used to make the collections of stones, however; we do not know according to the Bible which stones were used to represent which child.

Another site I used to find out information was John P. Pratt at http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/12stones.html .  Mr. Pratt tries to identify which stone would have been for each child, using birthstones. In this article he uses the birth dates and the birth constellations to identify whose stone is whose. Where he gets the birthdays is anyone’s guess. He justifies this by saying, “that this would have been Jewish tradition for one child to be born each month.” I find this very hard to believe. Jacob was producing babies with four women. It would have been a divine plan that was not mentioned in the Bible to have each child a different month.

Furthermore, I found a blog site called http://www.fisheaters.com/preciousstones.html; which further explained how the breastplate was to set the priest above all earthly kings according to the Jewish dictionary. This being a symbol to man that the priest is the way to God and no man is greater.  I like this site because it gives several different references to not only the Bible scripture but to religious books. This is helpful in explaining the historical value of the breastplate and the stones. It was a prestige thing. People could see the breastplate and know that person was chosen by God to do his work.

I have decided that according to the Jewish dictionary that the breastplate would have been a symbol of higher archery in this day in age would mostly be true. Only the priest and kings would have had this kind of fine jewelry. So as a logic based person, I can rationalize this theory. It was also very interesting to see the symbols used according to the Jewish faith for the son’s of Jacob, but with no proof it is left to the individual to determine what is the correct interpretation. Using the symbols in the Jewish faith for each stone and how it traced the lineage of each of the twelve sons was impressive. I can see the hard work and man hours put in to it. I just need more proof in order to adopt this way of thinking in to my life style.