Human Rights Put God's Name at Stake
Now that I've caught you off guard, and hopefully earned your ear, let me make the case that our noble crusades for justice may in fact disgrace the Name of God, for which He is fiercely jealous...
Much of today's rhetoric regarding justice and human rights attributes such values to God's character and will. Understandably, we take God's greatest commandments to us--love God and love others--and infer infinite possibilities of how we might "love our neighbor." For if we knowingly allow injustice to happen to our neighbor--and we are indeed in a position to prevent or counter it--then we are failing to love him/her. This line of reasoning is then extended as far as the imagination can stretch, and increasingly so as globalization emerges as an inescapable reality for all of us. It is extended into government: We are obligated to participate in government, because government presents opportunities for relief of the oppressed and a platform for preventing mass chaos not unlike what is presently happening in the Middle East (and such mass chaos brings mass suffering). It is extended into military action: We are obligated to participate in the military, because military action is required to impose a threat to totalitarian regimes which otherwise would commit holocausts day after day, year after year (a military who never uses violence to substantiate their threats will quickly be found out). It is extended into liberation movements of all types into what is termed "liberation theology": We are obligated to participate in all efforts to liberate every man and woman who is under any type of oppression (By the way, punitive measures for lawbreakers does not constitute oppression unless it becomes "unreasonable" for the crime committed).
With this in mind, it should follow that God is at least as adamant about fighting injustice today as we are, and has been since the creation of mankind (or at least this is what we imply when we fight injustice in His name). And if He has been and continues to be at least as abhorred by human injustice as we humanists are, then it follows that He would act and give instruction in such a way as to reflect this, from the beginning of time until now. I would like to examine, for a moment, the evidence for or against this.
A few days ago, I read Exodus 21, which immediately succeeds the passage which records God's giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses. The chapters following Exodus 20 contain extensions of the Law. They are the standards to which all of Israel had to adhere until the New Covenant era instituted by Christ (which was the fulfillment of that Law). In other words, these were not obscure regulations for a select group of people in a short window of time. They were the norm for God's people throughout history, pre-Christ.
A couple of these laws strike a dissonant chord with the liberation theology espoused by a majority of contemporary Christian thinkers. In Exodus 21:2, God begins relating the laws to Moses concerning slavery: "If you buy a Hebrew servant..." Stop right there. God had the opportunity right from the get-go to set the record straight with regard to slavery. If the practice of buying, selling, trading, and exploiting human beings for personal gain was abhorrent to God, He had the power and authority to ban it right then and there. God's failure to ban slavery in Exodus 21 indicates one of two things: Either (a) He ordained that slavery should happen, that it was the most beneficial method of agricultural labor available to fallen humanity (similar to the way he ideally opposed human government, but ordained it because of the need for it to bring order to a fallen world), or (b) He did a wicked thing by neglecting to utilize His power and authority to prevent the institutionalization of one of the most heinous forms of injustice known to mankind.
As if that's not alarming enough, in verse 7 He instructs: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." God fails once again to prevent a horrendous injustice, according to our standards. All He had to say was, "Do not participate in the buying and selling of slaves. This is detestable in my sight, for I have created all men and women equal." But as is, we are stuck with a delimma. He is either in favor of slavery, even selling one's own children into slavery, or else He is horridly cruel for giving commands which indicate this. There is no other alternative (If you feel I am painting a false dichotomy, please read the text I am referencing for yourself and come up with a solution for this delimma. I should be relieved to learn of legitimate alternatives). And if there is any inclination that the work of Christ and New Covenant in the Church finally set the record straight with regard to human rights, then we are still left pondering the Apostle Paul's command for slaves: "Obey your masters." And even if Paul had commanded Christians outright to rid themselves altogether of the practice of slavery, we would be stuck with a form of heresy which was present in the early Church, where Christ supplanted God as a "new God" with "new rules".
Before I go any further, please note that I have not staked out my position on this. I'm merely exploring the options available for us so as to better discuss the implications of each on present day Christian liberationism and egalitarianism.
Keeping with the nature of God's attitude toward human injustices such as slavery, let us look now at how our preoccupation with human rights may actually put God's name at stake. First, we need to know whether this is of any import. How exactly does God feel about His name? Allow Him to speak for Himself:
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7)
"Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)
"...you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 18:21b)
"...anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." (Deuteronomy 18:19-20)
"If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name--the Lord your God--the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses." (Deut. 28:58-59)
"For the sake of his great name the Lord will not reject his people." (1 Samuel 12:22a)
"He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake." (Psalm 23:3b)
"I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols." (Isaiah 42:8)
"For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off." (Isa. 48:9)
(Italics mine)
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. God is terribly jealous of His name. Every act and command of God aligns with the purpose of propagating, protecting, and glorifying His Name. He most certainly is not going to slip up and say or do something that would cause it to be profaned among the nations. His name is above reproach, and as such, we should be above reproach as carriers of His name.
How then do our liberation efforts in the name of God jeopardize the glory of that name? To start with, we pin God's words against Him. We cite Micah 6:8 ("do justice, love mercy") and Matthew 22:38-40 ("Love the Lord...Love your neighbor") over against passages like Exodus 21, 1 Corinthians 5, Ephesians 5 & 6, 1 Timothy 2 & 3, and so on. We say that these are inconsistent with love for our fellow man, and we very well may be right. However, in condemning slavery, women's omission of ordination for eldership in the Church, exclusion of unrepentant brothers from the fellowship of the Church, and other "unloving" practices, we make God appear to contradict Himself, thus profaning His name.
In conclusion, I simply do not know how to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I do not feel a sense of admiration for a God who condones slavery and oppression of any kind (again, excluding punitive "oppression"). But neither am I able to cling to the passages that paint a picture of a loving, impartial, humanistic God at the willful ignorance of passages like Exodus 21 which paint a different picture. The question I am left with--and I hope you are able and willing to work with me on formulating an answer--is, Is there any way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory paintings of God? Must we choose one over the other? What would it look like if we chose both?
I must confess, that I am madly in love with this God. I do not believe that He should be subjected to our standards (which are always lower than His), however noble they may seem to us. He has, however, revealed His standards to us in the Bible--Old Testament and New. Because of my love for His name and my desire for it to be honored and revered, I long with great intensity to dispel the confusion surrounding issues like this one. Even in the midst of my love for God, I am conflicted by scriptures that seem to me to demonize God. I want to be able to read His word and say with confidence, "That's why He said this or did that!" when I come upon a difficult passage. But currently, I am unable to do so with regard to this particular issue. That's why I need you to share what insight God has granted you as you have encountered these same struggles. We're in this together. The forum is open. My conclusions are not drawn. It's your turn to enter the arena. What do you have to offer?
Much of today's rhetoric regarding justice and human rights attributes such values to God's character and will. Understandably, we take God's greatest commandments to us--love God and love others--and infer infinite possibilities of how we might "love our neighbor." For if we knowingly allow injustice to happen to our neighbor--and we are indeed in a position to prevent or counter it--then we are failing to love him/her. This line of reasoning is then extended as far as the imagination can stretch, and increasingly so as globalization emerges as an inescapable reality for all of us. It is extended into government: We are obligated to participate in government, because government presents opportunities for relief of the oppressed and a platform for preventing mass chaos not unlike what is presently happening in the Middle East (and such mass chaos brings mass suffering). It is extended into military action: We are obligated to participate in the military, because military action is required to impose a threat to totalitarian regimes which otherwise would commit holocausts day after day, year after year (a military who never uses violence to substantiate their threats will quickly be found out). It is extended into liberation movements of all types into what is termed "liberation theology": We are obligated to participate in all efforts to liberate every man and woman who is under any type of oppression (By the way, punitive measures for lawbreakers does not constitute oppression unless it becomes "unreasonable" for the crime committed).
With this in mind, it should follow that God is at least as adamant about fighting injustice today as we are, and has been since the creation of mankind (or at least this is what we imply when we fight injustice in His name). And if He has been and continues to be at least as abhorred by human injustice as we humanists are, then it follows that He would act and give instruction in such a way as to reflect this, from the beginning of time until now. I would like to examine, for a moment, the evidence for or against this.
A few days ago, I read Exodus 21, which immediately succeeds the passage which records God's giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses. The chapters following Exodus 20 contain extensions of the Law. They are the standards to which all of Israel had to adhere until the New Covenant era instituted by Christ (which was the fulfillment of that Law). In other words, these were not obscure regulations for a select group of people in a short window of time. They were the norm for God's people throughout history, pre-Christ.
A couple of these laws strike a dissonant chord with the liberation theology espoused by a majority of contemporary Christian thinkers. In Exodus 21:2, God begins relating the laws to Moses concerning slavery: "If you buy a Hebrew servant..." Stop right there. God had the opportunity right from the get-go to set the record straight with regard to slavery. If the practice of buying, selling, trading, and exploiting human beings for personal gain was abhorrent to God, He had the power and authority to ban it right then and there. God's failure to ban slavery in Exodus 21 indicates one of two things: Either (a) He ordained that slavery should happen, that it was the most beneficial method of agricultural labor available to fallen humanity (similar to the way he ideally opposed human government, but ordained it because of the need for it to bring order to a fallen world), or (b) He did a wicked thing by neglecting to utilize His power and authority to prevent the institutionalization of one of the most heinous forms of injustice known to mankind.
As if that's not alarming enough, in verse 7 He instructs: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." God fails once again to prevent a horrendous injustice, according to our standards. All He had to say was, "Do not participate in the buying and selling of slaves. This is detestable in my sight, for I have created all men and women equal." But as is, we are stuck with a delimma. He is either in favor of slavery, even selling one's own children into slavery, or else He is horridly cruel for giving commands which indicate this. There is no other alternative (If you feel I am painting a false dichotomy, please read the text I am referencing for yourself and come up with a solution for this delimma. I should be relieved to learn of legitimate alternatives). And if there is any inclination that the work of Christ and New Covenant in the Church finally set the record straight with regard to human rights, then we are still left pondering the Apostle Paul's command for slaves: "Obey your masters." And even if Paul had commanded Christians outright to rid themselves altogether of the practice of slavery, we would be stuck with a form of heresy which was present in the early Church, where Christ supplanted God as a "new God" with "new rules".
Before I go any further, please note that I have not staked out my position on this. I'm merely exploring the options available for us so as to better discuss the implications of each on present day Christian liberationism and egalitarianism.
Keeping with the nature of God's attitude toward human injustices such as slavery, let us look now at how our preoccupation with human rights may actually put God's name at stake. First, we need to know whether this is of any import. How exactly does God feel about His name? Allow Him to speak for Himself:
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." (Exodus 20:7)
"Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:14)
"...you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 18:21b)
"...anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." (Deuteronomy 18:19-20)
"If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name--the Lord your God--the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses." (Deut. 28:58-59)
"For the sake of his great name the Lord will not reject his people." (1 Samuel 12:22a)
"He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake." (Psalm 23:3b)
"I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols." (Isaiah 42:8)
"For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off." (Isa. 48:9)
(Italics mine)
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. God is terribly jealous of His name. Every act and command of God aligns with the purpose of propagating, protecting, and glorifying His Name. He most certainly is not going to slip up and say or do something that would cause it to be profaned among the nations. His name is above reproach, and as such, we should be above reproach as carriers of His name.
How then do our liberation efforts in the name of God jeopardize the glory of that name? To start with, we pin God's words against Him. We cite Micah 6:8 ("do justice, love mercy") and Matthew 22:38-40 ("Love the Lord...Love your neighbor") over against passages like Exodus 21, 1 Corinthians 5, Ephesians 5 & 6, 1 Timothy 2 & 3, and so on. We say that these are inconsistent with love for our fellow man, and we very well may be right. However, in condemning slavery, women's omission of ordination for eldership in the Church, exclusion of unrepentant brothers from the fellowship of the Church, and other "unloving" practices, we make God appear to contradict Himself, thus profaning His name.
In conclusion, I simply do not know how to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I do not feel a sense of admiration for a God who condones slavery and oppression of any kind (again, excluding punitive "oppression"). But neither am I able to cling to the passages that paint a picture of a loving, impartial, humanistic God at the willful ignorance of passages like Exodus 21 which paint a different picture. The question I am left with--and I hope you are able and willing to work with me on formulating an answer--is, Is there any way to reconcile these seemingly contradictory paintings of God? Must we choose one over the other? What would it look like if we chose both?
I must confess, that I am madly in love with this God. I do not believe that He should be subjected to our standards (which are always lower than His), however noble they may seem to us. He has, however, revealed His standards to us in the Bible--Old Testament and New. Because of my love for His name and my desire for it to be honored and revered, I long with great intensity to dispel the confusion surrounding issues like this one. Even in the midst of my love for God, I am conflicted by scriptures that seem to me to demonize God. I want to be able to read His word and say with confidence, "That's why He said this or did that!" when I come upon a difficult passage. But currently, I am unable to do so with regard to this particular issue. That's why I need you to share what insight God has granted you as you have encountered these same struggles. We're in this together. The forum is open. My conclusions are not drawn. It's your turn to enter the arena. What do you have to offer?
Welcome to the glorious contradiction. I find Christianity is nothing without it.
ReplyDeletewhat about the concept of progressive revelation? (ie, attitude toward divorce--read Jesus' comments vs. those in the OT)
ReplyDeleteJenn,
ReplyDeleteI'm just postmodern enough to embrace paradox (or, apparent contradiction). True contradiction is different story. If the Bible isn't consistent from cover to cover, then it's worthless as far as I'm concerned. If that were the case, who would have the time of day to mull through it all, verse by verse, commentaries, lexicons and archaelogical studies in hand, a Ph D under his belt, every time he opened it just to figure out which portions were accurate and which ones were not? If the original manuscripts were not without error and the Bible's message is not 100% consistent from start to finish, then it's of no use whatsoever to 99% of Christians. Of course, there are those who don't really want to wrestle with the complexities the Bible presents, who are happy with the preacherman just feeding it to them with no questions asked. And that puts them in the same boat as ignorant followers of every other religion who fail to subject their beliefs to scruple. Anyway, for what that's worth...
Anon,
Can you elaborate? I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't see a correlation here. In my understanding, progressive revelation is used in messianic prophecy, as a sort of climactic tool. Is there some other basis for p.r. that you're getting at? I'm not quite sure what purpose would be served by God's delaying of the revelation that all men are created equal and therefore slavery is wicked.
just a thought: if God's revelation of Himself and His nature "progressed" through time in some areas, would it be impossible to consider Him doing so in other areas; I'm not arguing that God's demands on humanity decreased through time, rather that they increase as His nature (and ours) becomes more "filled out." For instance, looking at the Sermon on the Mount passage, where the OT and tradition stopped and allowed for more "human" and "carnal" responses to difficult issues (ie divorce and [possibly] value of women), Jesus puts the hammer down on mediocracy and points to a much tougher and interior standard.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, remember Paul lived in a society that embraced the idea of slavery as an institution, and likely couldn't fathom the idea of society without slavery--so how could we expect him to make the leap from equality in the eyes of God to personal freedom from "forced labor." Also, the Roman/Grecian form of slavery has only some resemblance to 16th-19th century American slavery in light of how slaves were treated, how they were "enslaved" (often willingly), and how they were viewed by society as a whole.
Jesus is Messiah in salvation context, but He is also Teacher, Revolutionary, and Philosopher Unequaled, and I think He deserves our consideration and respect as such. (josh w, spfld)
My dear Josh, so kind of you to stop in! Your family's picture is on our fridge and Madelyn stares at it everyday, naming all of you off. It's adorable.
ReplyDeleteI don't even begin to consider Paul's context until I wrestle with the Exodus context. In my best understanding, Paul is merely keeping in step with God's precedent established "in the beginning" of Israel. His admonitions to Christian slave owners was not actually revolutionary, because God set the same standard from Exodus. It just so happened that secular, Roman culture (like most other pagan cultures) engaged in a form of slavery more harsh than the one God seems to have ordained in Exodus. The conditions of the New Covenant era were merely a culmination or continuation of the conditions which began at the outset of the Original Covenant era. So it won't do us much good to ponder Paul's contemporary teaching until we deal with the painting of God's attitude toward human rights in Exodus.
I absolutely agree that we have every right to give a fair hearing to the possibilities inherent in progressive revelation as they relate to the standards He set. However, when you look at Moses' context, God had most likely revealed the details of the creation account to Moses by the time of the giving of the Law. And human equality is clear from Genesis. We were given dominion over the earth and the animals, not one another. We were each commanded to work to support ourselves & families, not exploit one another. It was sin which caused mankind to institute the practice of slavery--sin that needed to be rebuked by God, but wasn't. Why wasn't it? That's all I want to know. Why is some sin overlooked and other sin dealt harshly with? Is He not a completely just and impartial God? He claims to be. I'm just taking Him at His word.
I once again go back to the divorce issue as a parallel: Jesus said, "it was because of the hardness of your hearts" that God allowed divorce to begin with. It wasn't His plan or purpose or desire--God was just accomodating them as much as He felt He could (I'm making an "educated" guess ... I know God's mind as little as anyone!).
ReplyDeleteStaying with the OT, why didn't Abraham get blasted for polygamy? For that matter, why didn't David? (He didn't have the excuse of not having the Law.) Why did Adam and Eve only have ONE rule to follow? It seems to me that God hasn't ever "placed more than [we] can bear" on us, whether it be hardship or Law.
On a completely different angle of the same perspective, please recall that the type(s) of slavery referred to in the OT and NT were often actually beneficial to the slaves. They were fed, cared for, and sometimes even paid. Many NT era slaves earned their freedom through exceptional service, received a writ of freedom at their owner's death, or purchased back their freedom from the meager "wages" they were paid and were allowed to accumulate (or spend as they saw fit). These facts make these particular forms of slavery seem more akin to "long-term indentureship" than "modern" slavery. In the case of Hebraic slavery (OT), slaves were (supposed) to be freed every Year of Jubilee (if not more frequently ... I can't recall specifics right now). I understand your concern about human equality and God's view of it; however, I'm not sure that slavery is the most pressing cause for concern. Why did God call for the total destruction of resident people groups during the Exodus? Were their lives worh less than the Israelites'? Why did God send a prophet to Ninevah, but not to Sodom and Gomorrah? These questions (I think) ask the same basic question you ask about human equality, but instead of "allowances" ("if" speech) we're talking about commands and Divine Judgments.
On the other topic you address concerning the Name of God: following your statement logically, NO ONE BUT GOD could ever make a statement about God's character that isn't already clearly delineated in scripture. Which means that the human co-authors (writers/scribes, however you prefer to term them) were only allowed to describe God because of the active inspiration of His hand. (Which brings up a totally unrelated question: did those who penned scripture {Moses, Amos, David, Paul, etc.} KNOW they were penning scripture?) Not only is it in the character of men to attempt to define God, it is in God's character a desire to be known by men. (That's not well-written, but I don't know how to simplify the statement.) God created man to fellowship with Him. Fellowship can not occur without some measure of understanding. The Bible (as important as it is) is not the ONLY mode or method of transmitting knowledge or understanding of God. Thus, as much as we must be careful to honor the Name (ie character, person, authority, etc.) of God, we must also not shrink from sharing our personal experiences and insights (that are not contradicted by scripture) about God--indeed we must if we are to share Him. For instance, here is a non-exhaustive list of God's characteristics: He is loving, merciful, forgiving, just, righteous, and (sometimes?) jealous. I can't explain how they all mesh together. I won't argue that one is predominant over another. I just know they ARE, because He says He is these things.
Sorry, I'm probably not helping you with your quandry ... but if we could understand all of this stuff, how big could God be?
(josh)
Matt, I think this is quite possibly the best thing you've ever written.
ReplyDeleteAs Josh will attest, we discussed a related issue on Sunday... in part, our responsibility to accept that we may not like the truth we discover. If we are pleased as punch with everything we believe, chances are we have just devised our own customized theology, which has no thorough resemblance to God's reality.
What I'm saying is, we humans are constantly prone to reverse theology. That is, we take something we "know" is wrong, and then wonder why God doesn't condemn it like we want him to. Or, we put words in his mouth to make him agree with us.
Christina and I stepped inside Springfield Pottery last night, and I was reminded of a wonderful and biblical metaphor for this: we are God's pottery, and he owns it all. It is his prerogative to make some of it stunning, some of it simple, and throw some of it away. That's what makes his grace so astonishing. He has the Potter's Prerogative.
Since we don't even know what is right and wrong apart from God's revelation, located primarily and ultimately in the Bible, we have to remember that God's words are the starting line, not the finish line. We may not like slavery, or polygamy, or the death penalty, or gender inequity, but what right does the clay have to criticize the Potter?
Specifically about slavery: I will echo some of Josh's statements. God clearly did not intend for slavery ever to take the form it did in early America, or Egypt. Racism was not part of the equation. From reading Moses AND Paul, we can see that God intended for masters to care for their slaves, and also release them when the time comes.
In our anti-authoritarian society, it's hard to imagine this, but remember that God actually allowed for some slaves to choose to commit themselves their masters to life, by having their ear pierced. Why would anyone want to do this unless their form of slavery had some positive qualities? And what a beautiful foreshadow to our servant-master relationships with Jesus!
Coreman, thanks for the flattery. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for being completely genuine. You're right-- sometimes I don't like what I read in the Scriptures (such as Exodus 21). And while it's spirituall irresponsible to perpetually dislike certain scriptures, I think admitting and confessing that certain passages rub us the wrong way (or flat out infuriate us) is the necessary first step toward dealing with them appropriately. That was my goal for this post.
I find the most hope for reconciling my picture of a loving, impartial God in the prospect that I have a skewed understanding of slavery. From a humanistic perspective, there is no humane form of slavery. But from a Biblical perspective, there may be. It seems as if in Exodus 21, God was saying, "Don't conduct slavery the way the ruthless pagans do. Do it in a way that provides the maximum benefit to your slaves." If slavery operated more along the lines of indentured servanthood, then that's understandable. However, it still seems that slavery is unnecessary in any context. If they merely called farm hands "slaves", then fine. But what praiseworthy reason could there be for neglecting to pay one's hired help a living wage? Is not the distinction between hired help and slaves the simple fact that they aren't paid enough to subside on their own? But of course, what a Western, individualistic thing for me to ask! Does God ever promise us that we will live in single-family homes, free to live our own isolated lives as we please?
If bondservanthood was the most optimal option available to the slaves at that point in time, then I suppose that still fits with God's character.
Josh, I never responded to your last comment...
I don't know if the questions you pose are the right ones to address this particular issue, although they are good ones at face value. I do think they merit commenting, however. Do you really think that sticking to one wife was an unbearable burden, so much so that the only feasible solution was polygamy, harems, concubines, and the like? I understand that propagation of the clan was of utmost importance, especially in the Covenant scheme, but this was only to ensure that one male was born to his father. I get very frustrated by the fact that the New Testament comes down so hard on sexual sin--even so much as lust--while the Old Testament gives it a hall pass again and again. David's run-in with Bathsheba is revealing, but I have to wonder whether if would have ever been mentioned in Scripture had he not had Uriah murdered. If true worship is offering oneself as a living sacrifice (in which honoring God with one's body becomes paramountly important), then David surely was not a man after God's heart, right? But this of course would contradict scripture (it is a contradiction either way). Which leads me to the question (which I think you were getting at), is sexual sin culturally construed? Or is there some God-given standard that transcends all times and cultures?