Many Jews are of the opinion that Christians still hold a grudge against them for being responsible for the death of Christ. Not so. If Christians have a biblical cause for disliking the Jews, it has to be because, as portrayed in the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites were a bunch of whiners.

We all know that God came along and instructed Moses on how to deal with Pharaoh, sent down the plagues, and so on, and ultimately freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt. So now they’re on the run, in the wilderness, being pursued by Pharaoh’s men, and are understandably perturbed by their current condition, having fallen, so to speak, out of the frying pan and into the fire.

“Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?” (Exodus 14:11). “For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness,” (Exodus 14:12) they cry, unaware that the Lord is on the verge of parting the Red Sea and thus ensuring their escape.

However, this is merely an escape from Pharaoh, not from the harshness of the wilderness, which is woefully incapable of providing bread for the multitude. Being even more of a slave to his belly than to any human master, a man naturally becomes ungrateful when he is hungry, ungrateful even for being rescued from bondage:

“Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” (Exodus 16:3)

God’s a good sport, and understanding, and sends down manna from heaven, enough to feed the entire people. Pretty sweet, but still not enough, because now they’re out of water:

“Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?” (Exodus 17:3)

Again God heeds the cries of the people, directing Moses to strike a rock to bring forth water, which finally satisfies them:

“All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be obedient.” (Exodus 24:7)

That is, they remain satisfied until we get to the book of Numbers. Now they’re sick of manna; they remember fondly the variety of dishes they enjoyed in Egypt, and now they want meat to eat, too. (Numbers 11:4-6)

At this point, God is starting to get a little testy. He provides the meat, but hits those who eat it with a plague while the flesh is yet between their teeth. (Number 11:33)

Finally the Israelites reach the promised land, and wouldn’t you know? It’s occupied. The heavens again resound with their groaning:

“And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? Were it not better for us to return into Egypt?” (Numbers 14:2-3)

Now God is no fool; he’s put a lot of work into this project, and he’s getting pissed.

“And the Lord said unto Moses. How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?” (Numbers 14:11)

It’s up to Moses now to talk him down. He convinces the Lord not to smite the Israelites on the grounds that the Egyptians will hear about it and poo-poo God’s abilities and power:

“Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.” (Numbers 14:16)

In the end, the Lord heeds Moses’ eloquent plea:

“Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” (Numbers 14:19)

But matters worsen even further when their travels lead them into the desert of Zin. Again Moses is forced to strike a rock to bring forth water, and again the Israelites begin cursing him for ever even leading them out of Egypt.

“Would God that we had had died when our brethren died before the Lord!
And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?
And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us into this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” (Numbers 20:3-5)

Chosen people or no, now God has had enough. The next time the Israelites start complaining, he lets loose his temper.

“And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water: and our soul loatheth this light bread.
And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.” (Numbers 21:5-6)

The Israelites finally learn their lesson, admitting their sin in questioning the ways of the Lord and asking Moses to pray for them. Back on God’s good side, they begin taking possession of the lands which were promised them. Which is potent proof that, in spite of the holy wrath which runs as an undercurrent throughout the Old Testament, that the God of the Hebrews was in fact merciful, patient, and forgiving; a parent with a wayward child who somehow cannot cease to love, even when the little brat sasses and disobeys him at every turn.

In Biblical times, much like today, murder was an offense punishable by death. But also much like today, there were certain exceptions. In the Old Testament, the Lord directs the designation of cities of refuge for those who have committed justifiable or unintentional homicides. Qualifying offenders who are not legally subject to the death penalty may flee to these cities in order to escape the blood-vengeance of their victim’s families (Numbers 35:15).

Take, for example, the case of accidental homicide or manslaughter:

“And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worth of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.” (Deuteronomy 19:4-6)

The presence of malice aforethought is therefore key in determining the defendant’s guilt. Accidents may happen, and one whose temper flares suddenly and without warning is not held to the same level of culpability as one who plans a murder:

“But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood, and . . . restore him to the city of his refuge.” (Numbers 35:22-25)

Interestingly, the Old Testament also provides for extradition from the cities of refuge in the case of murder in the first degree:

“But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:
Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.” (Deuteronomy 19:10-12)

The Bible also advises caution when judging capital offenses, requiring the confirmation of multiple witnesses before a defendant may be condemned to death:

“One witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.” (Numbers 35:30)

“At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.” (Deuteronomy 17:6)

As we know, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is the Ninth Commandment, which I believe has its roots in the politics of its time. According to Claudius, in ancient Rome, persons accused of certain offenses could have their property confiscated by the state. Less honorable and more extravagant Emperors (Caligula, for example) were suspected of hiring witnesses to make false accusations against more prosperous citizens, thus boosting their coffers at the expense of the heirs. Of considerably less relevance today, this historical practice is likely the reason why that particular commandment was included among the original ten.

In the case of merely attempted manslaughter, the guilty party must recompense the other for his lost wages and medical bills:

“And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only shall he pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.” (Exodus 21:18-19)

However, in accordance with popular legend, you are permitted to kill someone caught breaking and entering:

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” (Exodus 22:2)

In other words, even in Holy Writ, not all murders or murderers are alike. It’s not purely eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life; extenuating circumstances can and must be taken into account. Thus even the simplest system of justice must expand beyond mere right and wrong, sin and good; even an omnipotent God requires a myriad of rules to govern adequately the countless subtle nuances of human behavior. 

“When thou comest into thy neighbor’s vineyard, and thou mayest eats grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.” (Deuteronomy 23:24-25)

This finally explains it: why my Mom never thought it was stealing to eat grapes from the bin while at the grocery store.

This is my personal favorite. In general, if an ox kills a person, the owner is absolved of responsibility and only the ox is stoned. Except in the following circumstance:

“But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)

Maybe reviving that clause would get people to keep better control over their attack dogs, eh?

“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.” (Deuteronomy 22:11)

That’s right. Blended fabrics are prohibited. God must have foreseen the invention of polyester, and tried to head it off, but thou art a stiff-necked people. Don’t feel too bad, though, because apparently only some Native American Indian tribes (and perhaps some cowboys) were getting it right, anyhow:

“Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.” (Deuteronomy 22:12)

Is The Bible a religious text or a codebook of law? Read the following, and judge for yourself.

We all know about The Ten Commandments, of course, but a rather large portion of the first several books of the Old Testament goes further than merely “Thou shalt not.” In fact, it not only differentiates right from wrong, but also prescribes sentences for wrongdoers, and it is difficult not to admire the simplicity with which it addresses the issue of crime and punishment, particularly when one calculates the legal expenses which might be saved if our courts abided by a more Biblically-styled system. Unfortunately, it appears that the writers of The Bible lacked the foresight to divine that in two thousand years few human legal disputes would revolve around oxen, sheep, and the treatment of slaves. And so we have been left to derive our own applicable punishments for modern crimes which are entirely absent from the code of Moses’ time, perhaps the most conspicuous of which is fraud, that bane of contemporary society which is either incredibly profitable or incredibly expensive, depending upon whether you are its perpetrator or its victim, and what degree of success you enjoy as either.  

But, concerning the major crimes, Biblical law, which, no doubt, itself carries forward from more ancient traditions, resonates remarkably with our own, in conceptual theory if not always in practical application. Except, perhaps, that the ancients appeared to believe much more strongly in capital punishment. According to the King James Bible, the following offenses are punishable by death:

Murder:
Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man. (Genesis 9:6)
The land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. (Numbers 35:33)

Well, death to murderers fits within our own system, at least in some states. Certainly everyone would agree that if we have to have capital punishment, that murder would be an offense to be punished with it. But the reasoning here is interesting. A murderer should be killed for two reasons: one, because if he kills a man, he kills an image of God, and that’s a big no-no, and two, because it is necessary to avenge the dead in order to cleanse the land of the crime. In other words, murder is an offense against both God and the land on which it occurs. Modern people, I think, see it more as an offense against the person murdered. Of course, we get our whole “eye for an eye” thing from the Bible, too, but very few of our crimes are punished in that manner. Although, come to think of it, personally I feel it would be very entertaining if I got to egg the kids who keep egging my car, and might even discourage others from following suit, especially if the eggs were rotten.

Interestingly, The Bible also provides a number of caveats even in the case of murderers, exceptions which are still very much present in the American law of today, but that is a subject for another post.

On to capital crimes numbers two and three:
Smiting one’s mother or father. (Exodus 21:15)
Cursing one’s mother or father. (Exodus 21:17)
     
You can be put to death for either smiting or cursing your parents. That’d get teenagers to honor their folks, eh? Or would we simply run out of teenagers?
     
Stealing a man:
If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him, then that thief shall die (Deuteronomy 24:7)

Interesting. The Lord seems to frown upon slavery. Or at least, of making slaves of your own people.

Working on the Sabbath:
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)

God is really serious about this one. In Numbers 15:35, he even orders a stranger, a non-Jew, stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Of course, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees, Jesus went a little soft on the whole Sabbath thing himself, arguing that it was okay to heal the lame or pick corn if your men were hungry, but as Lord of the Sabbath, he couldn’t really be faulted anyway. Which is really fortunate for us – I’m sure you can imagine the carnage which would ensue at the mall on Sundays if we still adhered to this no-working thing. Of course, the real fundamentalists stay home and watch football and thus avoid trouble either way.

Worshipping other gods:
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:20)

The Lord spends a lot of the Old Testament trying to make this point. The Jews seem to have some trouble getting it.

Being mean to those who have lost husbands and fathers:
Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. (Exodus 22:22)
I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:24)
This really surprised me. I’d be really curious to know why that was so important. I’m inclined to suspect that it had to do with war. You want your soldiers to be reassured insofar as possible that their loved ones won’t be mistreated in the event of their death.

Numerous sexual offenses also require capital punishment, including committing adultery, lying with one’s father’s wife, one’s daughter-in-law, or a woman and her mother (Leviticus 20:10-14; Sorry, fans of Stacy’s mom; that fantasy is strictly forbidden). For a man to lie with another man is an offense punishable by death, and also for a man to lay with a beast, although I’m not sure why the beast is called onto the carpet for it:

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. (Leviticus 20:15)
     
But these are only the capital offenses: fear not, there’s lots and lots more crime and punishment to come.

Apart from the Gospels, Genesis is arguably the best known book in The Bible. It’s got the creation, the fall, the flood, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his coat of many colors, and so on, all tied nicely together with the occasional so-and-so begat so-and-so. Now, until last month, I had not read Genesis since I was about twelve, at which time, not having formal religious guidance, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah went completely over my head. Later in life, it seemed obvious that the derivation of the word sodomy could be traced to the biblical story, and I assumed that this must have had something to do with the “wickedness” of the towns in question, but I admit that I was shocked when I recently read the actual account.

Now, bear in mind that God has already been planning to destroy the city, but Abraham talks him into sparing it if ten righteous men can be found within its walls. That evening, his nephew Lot accepts two angels disguised as men into his house. And here is how the King James Bible describes what happens next:

“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.” (Genesis 19:4-8)

If one were unfamiliar with the Biblical sense of the verb “to know,” one might believe merely that the men of the town were being friendly, and wished to become acquainted with the strangers. In fact, in a Gideon’s Bible, which I found in a hotel room, to my neverending surprise, the word “carnally” had been added to the passage in order to clarify its meaning. So how are we to interpret this particular story? Since the angels whisk Lot away from the city before it is destroyed with brimstone and fire, it must be presumed that his acts are righteous. Speaking to the very strict code of hospitality to which the ancients generally adhered, he protects the strangers under his roof, if necessary, even at the expense of sacrificing the virginity of his own daughters, which leads one to suspect that perhaps chastity was of less value in biblical times than previously believed. (Of course, afterwards, he goes on to impregnate his two daughters himself, but that is a subject for another post.) By contrast, in their “unrighteousness,” every single man of Sodom turns out to barge in Lot’s door in order “know” the men within, an orgy of homosexual indulgence which even the gayest of men could hardly be expected to endure. 

If we wonder at the veracity or import of this account, we must acknowledge that nearly the same story is told again in a different setting in the Book of Judges. A certain Levite and his concubine are taken in by an old man, when “certain sons of Belial beset the house round about, and beat at the door . . . saying ‘Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him,’ ” (Judges 19:22) to which the master of the house replies,

“. . .Seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.” (Judges 19:24)
     
Well, the Levite brings forth his concubine, and after the men have “abused her all the night until the morning,” (Judges 19:25) she dies on the doorstep, after which her man divides her corpse into twelve pieces and sends them to all of the coasts of Israel. What lesson are we to learn from this? That it is better to rape a woman than a man seems obvious; for a man to lie with another man is an “abomination” which leads the Lord to destroy entire cities, whereas to rape a woman is a crime which, in the Biblical context, may or may not be punished. And the intense fear of male homosexuals revealed in such stories may have been a reaction to the homosexuality openly practiced by the ancient Greeks and Romans, who often focused their attentions upon young and relatively helpless boys.

But what is particularly fascinating about the Biblical depiction of homosexuality is the manner in which it seems to have carried over into modern-day homophobia. The gay men of today are more often stereotyped as effeminate or weak; their masculinity is questionable and therefore, not intimidating. Yet the Biblical homosexual is not only uncontrollably promiscuous, but aggressive in the extreme, and it is perhaps this attitude which has led to the widespread yet unfounded perception of the predatory nature of the homosexual community, even in the current day, and even in spite of the characterization of homosexual men as fairies, queens, and other feminine creatures. Granted, I do not have statistical information at my fingertips to support this assertion, but to my knowledge, outside of prison and other all-male environments, which contain many more opportunistic than natural homosexuals, it is rare for a man to find himself with a penis in his posterior merely because he bent over in the presence of a gay man. In fact, isn’t it straight men who typically gang up on homosexuals and not the other way around? If heterosexual men are supposed to be tough and manly, it certainly makes little sense for them to fear a gay man, much less to require the assistance of a crowd to take one down. Then why the attitude?

Current wisdom in the non-homophobic community contends that homophobes fear homosexuals and homosexuality because it speaks to their own hidden inner tendencies. In some cases, yes, this is probably true, but in most, I would disagree. I now believe that it is far more likely to derive from The Bible and the issues of its own time which it has carried forth through the centuries. If your first impression of homosexuals is that they will cluster about your house en masse and then beat down the door in order to defile you, of course you will fear them; it’s natural to go on believing what you’re taught when you’re young – that’s how most of us get religion in the first place. It would also tend to explain why female homosexuals are so much more readily accepted than males; again, except in certain special contexts, women are generally perceived as non-threatening, and even people who are disgusted by lesbians in principle are much less likely to be afraid of them. And, interestingly enough, although The Bible laments male homosexuality on countless occasions, the sole oblique reference to lesbianism that I have located is in the epistle of Paul to the Romans:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” (Romans 1:26)
     
Of course, if you read Paul’s epistles, you get the distinct and sometimes overt impression that he’s supplementing a good portion of his given faith with his own  beliefs (also a subject for another post), and perhaps that is why his remark seems so particularly out of place given that female homosexuality is mentioned nowhere else in two massive testaments. In any case, although the homosexuality of today encompasses members of both sexes, it appears that, in biblical times, this was apparently not so, and one wonders whether it was because lesbianism was so uncommon, so clandestine, or so unoffensive in a way that male homosexuality never could be. Indeed, it makes one wonder whether it is the concept of homosexuality that the Biblical God finds so abhorrent or merely some of the forms in which it is practiced.