It can’t be BOTH so which is it?

Not EVERYTHING in the Bible is spelled out as consistently and clearly as say God’s jealousy, the rights of slaves, the property that is women or its utter inconsistency between old and new covenants. Let’s not get into the weeds by dissecting adjectives or comparing chapter and verse. Let’s take a Sinai view from 7500 feet above sea level at some overarching themes.

EYE FOR AN EYE v TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

There is a lot of bloodlust in the Hebrew Bible, a collection of stories, songs, poems and prophesies we find in our Old Testament. The Law of Moses was that justice requires “an eye for an eye,” and that justice was meant to be carried out quickly and severely. So severe were the edicts of God, who we’ll get to below, that not even babies or livestock were spared. On several occasions, YHWH commanded the Israelites to commit utter genocide that didn’t stop with the humans. His bloodlust was such that not a living thing was to be spared! YIKES. Sorta like the concept of hell, this justice seems unduly harsh. But that was the “old way.”

The “new way” of looking at justice, according to Jesus, was DON’T strike back, don’t repay evil with evil. That’s now considered barbaric. Instead, we are to turn the other cheek. Justice in the New Testament became self sacrifice, embodied in the man-god (demigod) Jesus. No babies or goats were harmed after 33 CE. Nowhere in the second half of the Bible—the good half, the Jesus part—is anyone instructed to plunder, rape and pillage. Nope. If you were wronged, bend over and say, “Thank you Father, may I have another?” First Peter 4:12-19 asserts that sharing in suffering makes you one with Christ.

These two concepts, while written 500-800 years apart scholars believe, couldn’t be more opposite than if they were the North and South poles. What is God’s justice, then, because it can’t be both! Does judgment come in this life at the hands of God’s elect or in the afterlife at His hands? Are we to pluck out our attacker’s eye as one covenant suggests? Or turn the other cheek and endure double the pain?

TRIBAL WAR GOD v ABBA FATHER

The Old Testament God, YHWH, is a brute force who led his tribe, Israel, into battle. This was not a foreign concept at the time, say two millennia BEFORE Common Era. The Canaanite God, Ba’al, was the son of the Most High, El, and a tribal warrior god. Scholars believe ancient Israelites revered and worshipped them all (see Exodus). But as we pointed out above, this version of the Biblical God, seems bloodthirsty, unsatisfied until every living thing is killed. I mean there was that whole flood narrative in Genesis. Gods in the ancient world were bloodthirsty and YHWH was no different. Look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Blood sacrifice was known in the ancient world to appease the gods.

I won’t belabor that point. But when Jesus arrives on the scene, he paints a VERY dissimilar portrait of YHWH. In fact, that Hebrew alliteration is abandoned for the Greek Adonai or the Aramaic Abba for father. Never before in Hebrew culture was God depicted in this way. He was unknowable, unfathomable. Only the anointed High Priest was able to survive in the presence of the Almighty, according to Hebrew scripture. He was unapproachable. That is, until this hippie rabbi comes along telling a completely different story. So which is it?

Is the God of the Bible a bloodthirsty warrior God of ancient tribal people housed in a tent? Or is he the cuddly daddy God of Jesus, who is totally approachable, kind and compassionate, housed in Heavenly Glory?

You can’t read the Bible cover to cover and say there are no inconsistencies! Just like his two vastly different covenants, God himself seems to transform right before our eyes (somewhere between Malachi and Matthew). How is one to make logical sense of this? And these are just two overarching themes! When you dig down to verse level, there are TONS of incongruencies. It cannot be read literally or you’ll go mad making sense of it. Prove me wrong.

Was Judaism Henotheistic Prior to Babylonian Captivity?

I am quite fascinated by the scholarly study of theology and religion, namely as it pertains to the roots of Christianity and Judaism. During the deconstruction of my faith in the mid 2000s, I still took for granted that the stories in the Bible were based in some historical fact. I believed that stories like Moses and the Exodus and King David’s reign and the great empire of King Solomon were somewhere rooted in truth and historical fact and that there was evidence to back it up.

But very recently as I’ve started to deconstruct the myths about Jesus and Christianity, and even the Old Testament patriarchs, and even God himself, I am beginning to question everything that I was ever taught about our religion.

As I discuss in the video, above, the very origin of the God Yahweh in the Old Testament came from the ancient Canaanite myths about God. Just like the pantheon of gods that existed in the mythology of the Roman and Greek people, or the Egyptians, or other Mesopotamians, The God El in Canaan was considered the high God among many. In fact, his name translates as the eternal. Isn’t it interesting that Yahweh identified himself as the Eternal One, the I Am? 

This Henotheism, present in Canaan when Moses and his nomads arrived, is also evident throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Take the First Commandment from Exodus 20, “You shall have no other gods…“ That very statement denotes the existence of other gods. But Yahweh was instructing his people to worship him as the most high of all the other gods. That, by definition, is Henotheism.

And look what happens 12 chapters later, Moses descends the mountain only to find Aaron and the priests have erected a golden calf. And what the scripture doesn’t tell you is that the bull, which more than likely it was, is the symbol of El the Canaanite god. Moses comes down and finds them worshiping another god, the one from which their God was fashioned.

This theme rules the Old Testament in story after story of the Israelite people worshiping “false gods.” Gods like Ba’al, the son of El, and his consort Asherah. It’s why the prophets are always railing against the people of Israel. And the archaeological record bears this out. In the northern kingdom of Israel there were temples to these other gods at the time when the Bible CLAIMS they were strictly monotheistic, only worshipping one God, Yahweh. History indeed bears out that this isn’t true. The earliest Old Testament scriptures bear out that this isn’t true. If they were not polytheistic, which most scholars agree that they were until the Babylonian captivity, they were very much henotheistic. They believed Yahweh was THEIR God and the Most High of all other gods in existence at that time.

Scholars believe that the destruction of Solomon’s temple and then being driven into exile is what caused them to coalesce as a people around this monotheistic idea of Yahweh. They needed a unifying, cultural and religious ideal in which to rally around as a conquered nation. Think about the United States post 9/11 and how we all rallied around the patriotic ideal that no terrorist nation will attack us on our own soil and get away with it. In no other period of my lifetime have the citizens of this country united under the banner of “one nation under God.” So it was for the captive Israelites. And for that reason, scholars believe that’s when the religion turned monotheistic.

In fact, scholars also believe that that’s when the Hebrew Bible became canon. They believe that King Josiah trying to legitimize the new nation of Israel, centered in Jerusalem, began perpetuating the myth that Judaism had always been a monotheistic religion with Yahweh at the helm and that they had been brought together by King David. But we now know that none of that is probably true. Watch my video above on that and the one below on the Moses Myth.

If there’s no archaeological record, and the texts as we have them now point to Henotheism, at least, then how do we know any of the myths are true? Was monotheism rooted in the desire for a national identity as the chosen of God?

Inked in church pews and pulpits

Leviticus 19:28 (NIV), "'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.’” The Contemporary English Version says, “I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshiping the dead.” But the last part probably relates more to the shaving, as noted here.

Dial The Truth Ministries says:

"Could [Leviticus] be any more clear?
Simple. . . Straightforward. . .Settled. . .God Said It. . .
I Believe It. . . That Settles It. . .Right. . .?
Not hardly. . . The clear statement from the word of God does not settle anything for this generation of disobedient, carnal, worldy, tolerant, non-judgmental, Christians."

This site goes onto label Satan as the “master tattooist." I mean, just look at it! Doesn't that look evil???

On the other side of the coin, one reformed theologian writes, “If these actions do not have evil associations in our own time, there would seem to be no reason to forbid them.”

A blogger at All Things Ink says, “Historical context is paramount. When Leviticus was written, tattooing was largely a pagan practice, done to mark slaves or to show devotion to a pharaoh. Since tattooing has evolved the rule may be outdated.” Here’s a word from the Jewish community about the history of their belief.

Considering both sides from a Judeo-Christian perspective, what are we to do with the tattooed??? Should we kick them out of the Church? Should we limit their participation in worship services? How do we respond to the clear message of that one Old Testament Scripture?

Heaven help us if our denomination were to come out and endorse “those who are inked.” What if they allowed “the inked” to be ordained and practice as full-fledged members of the clergy? Would we be able to bear it? Would they have to cover all body art in order to officiate services or partake in the sacraments?

You know, some hardliners, like Dial-God-up-on-the-phone-we’ve-got-a-direct-line Ministries, would question their Christianity. If their denomination were to give credence to “satanic” body art, they would probably have to denounce such action with great public fanfare and accordingly leave the denom. At a minimum, they would certainly quit funding it with their offerings.

The reformers, on the other end of the spectrum, might see such a decree as a welcome sign of change, acceptance and openness. They might embrace the inked into their churches, love them as Christ and welcome the value they bring to the communion table. They might not even have a problem sitting under the leadership and counsel of such a person. And they certainly wouldn’t pull their support, financial or otherwise.

Two sides of one coin, or in this case, one Scripture. Two very different responses. Which one do you think sounds more like the Spirit and letter of Christianity?

Islamic holy day celebrated @ Jewish Synagogue

Buried at the bottom of Saturday's IndyStar.com headlines was a compelling story about faith, friendship and goodwill that read "Muslims to feast at synagogue." Many may have missed the significance in that one line and scrolled past. I, however, could not...not after my recent blog about Jewish persecution during WWII.


The article tells of an Indianapolis rabbi who opened his synagogue to a Turkish-American Muslim for a celebration of Ramadan, an Islamic holy day. Think of that for a moment. In today's socio-political climate where tensions between Arabs and Jews run redhot, these men in downtown Indy have not only found some common ground, they are fasting and feasting together!


Joining them in the celebration are two protestant congregations, as well, which made me very happy as a protestant Christian, myself. I don't often see my co-religionists reach across denominational boundaries, let alone religious and cultural ones. To me, this speaks to the "good news" of Jesus, who like these men, loved to sit across the table from those who were not like him and practice the fine art of fellowship. He was not afraid to befriend a so-called enemy or invite a hated member of society to his table. He knows firsthand the benefit of putting aside one's own wellbeing for the benefit of another.


And while these men are not laying down their lives one for the other, I'm not so sure they wouldn't. At least they've made a bold statement about religious reconciliation. And in this day and age of jihad and self-righteous rhetoric, it is a welcomed and appreciated gesture.