Social Justice in the Bible

[Loran Howard Blood]

As usual, Loran, I'm afraid that I'm not interested in addressing most of your writings, for the extent to wish you wish to debate the application of these concepts in the modern political world is irrelevant to my objectives and/or interests. I will, however, address your comments connected with scriptural analysis.

Well then, I must say that I have equally little interest addressing the highly iconoclastic biblical exegesis of someone with a high and rarefied degree of knowledge in a small, highly specialized niche of academic study that has so little relevance to either the contemporary world and/or to other subject areas upon which it impinges, or to the restored gospel, grounded in modern, continuing revelation, that no common ground for discussion and debate is possible.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the primary/sunday school interpretation you support. In reality, Old Testament authors believed in divine vicarious punishment and deferred trans-generational guilt. There's simply no way around it. This may not accord with your political views and/or religious ideology, but it is an important biblical conception. Note that David did not receive the death penalty for his sins; instead, the penalty was transferred to his unborn son:

No doubt David, these nearly barbaric conceptions common to the OT, to the extent you are correct in your assessment, are a major reason the OT law of carnal commandments and its blood curdling severity was done away and ended in Christ some two thousand years ago. The ancient Israelites may have, being a barbaric, tribal people, needed such a "schoolmaster." We are living under the "new and everlasting covenant" of the gospel that superseded the Law of Moses but was rejected by many of the House of Israel in Christ's day. We don't sacrifice animals. We don't send menstruating woman outside the city until they're "clean." We don't stone people for adultery, our own daughters for fornication, or boys for slapping their father. We don't impute guilt to any but the guilty, nor does the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is important because the Law of Moses was a highly truncated, rough hewn version of a much fuller gospel the children of Israel rejected at Sinai. Its application appears to be localized and centered in the ancient children of Israel due to specific conditions obtaining among and specific to them, and would appear to have virtually no direct relevance to the gospel, when it has been available in its fullness, as lived in other dispensations, and certainly not in ours.

[Loran Howard Blood]

A debtor who borrows knowing he'll never have to pay it back is far more immoral than the lender who parts with capital only sufficient to preserve life, knowing it'll never be paid back.

Anyone wishing to take a look at America's government subsidized and politically motivated "affordable housing" policies over the last 30 years or so, and coming to fruition in 2007, will gain an object lesson in just what USU is talking about here.

[mercyngrace]

Where please, is it taught anywhere in the restored gospel that one's own righteousness can be imputed to others? Where is it taught that, without these other's personal, individual choosing of repentance and righteousness, your influence can ever be anything more than another alternative from which they may choose, or "list" as the NT would have it?

Consequences on an entire community or nation can be determined by the righteousness of a few:

Elder Groberg suggests that our individual Sabbath observance can hold back the power of the destroying angels against our communities. Source.

Maybe he got the idea that the righteousness of a few can spare an entire society from Helaman 13 where we are told of the wicked city of Zarahemla:

But behold, if it were not for the righteous who are in this great city, behold, I would cause that fire should come down out of heaven and destroy it. But behold, it is for the righteous

[Nathair/|\]

Thank you, David, even when I disagree with you, I always learn a lot from you. (Of course, I am completely loony, so my opinion isn't worth much.)

This story is starting to seem relevant to this thread. (Or maybe I'm having a discordian moment. I don't know)

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well... are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

[WalkerW]

That is easy to say. But the truth of the matter is that "social justice" becomes the high ground word. And to ask one side or the other to "adapt" is to ask the one side or the other to give up their term for social justice so that the other side can take "the high ground".

To suggest that if someone is "truly interested" is to suggest that if they are not interested in your point of view, how interested can they be? I am sure one side will use the word to "promote" understanding from their point of view, while denying it to the otherside.

That is why the term is more like a political football than it is an honest appraisal of the best course of action.

You should enjoy economist Don Boudreaux's article "Capitalism and Slavery."

Matt Ridley has an excellent chapter entitled "The Release of Slaves: Energy After 1700" in his The Rational Optimist.

I too believe the concept is misunderstood. I also believe the rhetoric regarding it on both the "left" and "right" is unflattering.

[David Bokovoy]

Well then, I must say that I have equally little interest addressing the highly iconoclastic biblical exegesis of someone with a high and rarefied degree of knowledge in a small, highly specialized niche of academic study that has so little relevance to either the contemporary world and/or to other subject areas upon which it impinges, or to the restored gospel, grounded in modern, continuing revelation, that no common ground for discussion and debate is possible.

I didn't say that these issues do not have relevance to the contemporary world. They certainly do. I'm just not interested in debating and/or getting up on a soap box in order to preach on how best to apply these principles to the present American political sphere, or argue over how they do or do not relate to any particular man made -ism that you embrace.

No doubt David, these nearly barbaric conceptions common to the OT, to the extent you are correct in your assessment, are a major reason the OT law of carnal commandments and its blood curdling severity was done away and ended in Christ some two thousand years ago.

Simply because Old Testament conceptions do not accord with your worldview does not make them barbaric. Thus far we

[zerinus]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the primary/sunday school interpretation you support. In reality, Old Testament authors believed in divine vicarious punishment and deferred trans-generational guilt. There's simply no way around it. This may not accord with your political views and/or religious ideology, but it is an important biblical conception.

You are referring to this quote from your earlier post (emphasis added):

The community is very much a living entity capable of accumulating collective guilt from a biblical perspective. To begin to understand this biblical view, you should start with the effects of punishment versus blessing in Deuteronomy:

"I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments" (Deuteronomy 5:9-10; NRSV).

God punishes people for sins that their parent committed up until the third and fourth generation after the act, i.e. group responsibility (this becomes the justification of the Babylonian exile according the the Deuteronomistic historian).

I am afraid your scriptural interpretation is seriously in error. You overlooked the highlighted part. The meaning of this teaching is clarified in the Bible and in modern revelation beyond the possibility of doubt:

Exodus 20

:

5 . . . for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation

of them that hate me

.

Deuteronomy 5

:

9 . . . for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation

of them that hate me,

D&C 98

:

46 And upon his children, and upon his children's children

of all them that hate me,

unto the third and fourth generation.

D&C 103

:

26 . . . in avenging me of mine enemies, unto the third and fourth generation of

them that hate me

.

D&C 105

:

30 . . . and avenging me of mine enemies unto the third and fourth generation

of them that hate me

.

D&C 124

:

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation,

so long as they repent not, and hate me,

saith the Lord God.

* * *

52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation,

so long as they repent not, and hate me,

saith the Lord your God.

The punishment is meted out to those who continue to hate the Lord, to the third or fourth generation, as long as they repent not. In fact under the law of Moses it is strictly forbidden to punish children for the sins of their fathers, or visa versa:

Deuteronomy 24

:

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

See further Ezekiel chapter 18, which is too long to quote here.

That is point #1. Point #2 is, let us assume that you are right, and God does arbitrarily punish children for the sins of their parents; how does that amount to

[WalkerW]

Well then, I must say that I have equally little interest addressing the highly iconoclastic biblical exegesis of someone with a high and rarefied degree of knowledge in a small, highly specialized niche of academic study that has so little relevance to either the contemporary world and/or to other subject areas upon which it impinges, or to the restored gospel, grounded in modern, continuing revelation, that no common ground for discussion and debate is possible.

Putting aside the fact that I completely disagree with this comment, I think it is worth pointing out how insensitive and uncalled for it is.

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you, David, even when I disagree with you, I always learn a lot from you. (Of course, I am completely loony, so my opinion isn't worth much.)

This story is starting to seem relevant to this thread. (Or maybe I'm having a discordian moment. I don't know)

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well... are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Thanks so much. This story gave me a great laugh! Yours has my vote for one of the best posts in the entire thread. So true!

Warm regards,

--DB

[WalkerW]

David's knowledge of the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East has clarified my understanding and strengthened my testimony of the coming of Jesus Christ and the Restoration through Joseph Smith (particularly his temple theology). What could be more relevant?

I for one am thankful for his "highly iconoclastic biblical exegesis" and "high and rarefied degree of knowledge in a small, highly specialized niche of academic study."

[David Bokovoy]

David's knowledge of the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East has clarified my understanding and strengthened my testimony of the coming of Jesus Christ and the Restoration through Joseph Smith (particularly his temple theology). What could be more relevant?

I for one am thankful for his "highly iconoclastic biblical exegesis" and "high and rarefied degree of knowledge in a small, highly specialized niche of academic study."

Thanks, Bro. We need to get together so you can teach me about capitalism. Let me know next time you make a visit to BYU.

[zerinus]

David's knowledge of the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East has clarified my understanding and strengthened my testimony of the coming of Jesus Christ and the Restoration through Joseph Smith (particularly his temple theology). What could be more relevant?

LOL! Apart form everything else, this forum is a good place for having a good laugh.

[David Bokovoy]

LOL! Apart form everything else, this forum is a good place for having a good laugh.

You're just still angry because of that Law of Consecration thread were I proved you wrong by citing the original form of the revelation. Don't worry, I'll deal with your post soon enough.

[WalkerW]

LOL! Apart form everything else, this forum is a good place for having a good laugh.

What exactly is so funny?

That my testimony of the Savior's Atonement, the Restoration, and the temple was strengthened?

That David has an incredible knowledge regarding the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (considering he is finishing up his Ph.D. in it, I would certainly hope that he would be knowledgeable)?

By all means, elaborate on the hilarity that obviously alludes me.

[zerinus]

You're just still angry because of that Law of Consecration thread were I proved you wrong by citing the original form of the revelation. Don't worry, I'll deal with your post soon enough.

ROFLASTC!

If you had taken the trouble to reply to this post, I might have believed you.

[volgadon]

Nonetheless, we're all children of God, even dirty socialists.

I promise I'll take a shower once I'm done drenching the world in burgeouis blood.

[WalkerW]

I promise I'll take a shower once I'm done drenching the world in burgeouis blood.

Your glorious

awaits.

[Jeff K.]

You should enjoy economist Don Boudreaux's article "Capitalism and Slavery."

Matt Ridley has an excellent chapter entitled "The Release of Slaves: Energy After 1700" in his The Rational Optimist.

I too believe the concept is misunderstood. I also believe the rhetoric regarding it on both the "left" and "right" is unflattering.

I think we can both agree on that point. It is like people using the Bible to sustain their own agendas. So too do some people use Adam Smith without understanding the context of what he said.

[Vance]

Consequences on an entire community or nation can be determined by the righteousness of a few:

Elder Groberg suggests that our individual Sabbath observance can hold back the power of the destroying angels against our communities. Source.

Maybe he got the idea that the righteousness of a few can spare an entire society from Helaman 13 where we are told of the wicked city of Zarahemla:

But behold, if it were not for the righteous who are in this great city, behold, I would cause that fire should come down out of heaven and destroy it. But behold, it is for the righteous

[mercyngrace]

Although you make an interesting point, it isn't exactly relevant to the point being discussed.

I think these examples are perfectly relevant to Loran's suggestion that the righteousness of individuals does nothing more than influence the choices of other individuals. Obviously, the righteous serve also as intercessors, their offerings of faith "sparing" the community at large.

[USU78]

I

[Vance]

I think these examples are perfectly relevant to Loran's suggestion that the righteousness of individuals does nothing more than influence the choices of other individuals. Obviously, the righteous serve also as intercessors, their offerings of faith "sparing" the community at large.

Ok, I see now what your point was, but ONLY as long as they remain in the community. At some point the Lord may call them away.

[David Bokovoy]

I am afraid your scriptural interpretation is seriously in error.

I love it! As is usually the case when it comes to your posts, this is going to be fun.

You overlooked the highlighted part.

I really didn

[volgadon]

One of the reasons why social justice is a key concern of the Hebrew Bible has everything to do with the concept of Israel as God's kindred.

Ancient tribal societies (and some until fairly recently) were formed around a figure know as the father (ab) or brother (ah), though both can be expressed by "kinsman." People were bound together as family through a covenant. This kinsman lead his kin in battle, protected his kin, provided for their needs, shared his land and possesions with them, rescued them from dire straits, and administered justice. In return his kin are obligated to love their kinsman and be loyal to him. These obligations towards the kinsman are also applied towards each member of the group. They are considered as one. As a Beduin formula has it: "They pursue and are pursued together." This of course relaates to blood feuds, but these are rooted in the idea that the group bears responsibility for the actions of its individuals. Not only were Korah, Dothan and Abiram swallowed up by the earth but so were their families. David has provided many more examples of this collective guilt. Love and grace (or acts of familial loyalty) were proper responses to kinsfolk. Meyer Fortes wrote that "Kinsfolk are expected to be loving, just and generous to one another and not to demand strictly equivalent returns of one another." Frank Moore Cross (friend to both Nibley and Madsen, even appearing in a short church video about temple worship) describes their obligation as upholding the welfare of their fellow kinsmen. The laws of the Bbible, such as Jubilee years, or not holding a coat as pledge overnight, or the proscription of interest and the demands to care for the most vulnerable segments of society might seem odd and unrealistic, but they conceive of society as being family. Property was held in common, with each member obligated to care and love for his brother as he does his own soul. These social terms extended to Israelite theology, and interestingly enough, as society got bigger and kinship ties less and less practical, the more the terms associated with kinship were used.

Most of this information is drawn from Frank Moore Cross "From Epic to Canon."

[Calm]

The text makes clear that God killed off everyone in Ahab