Original Sin vs Whiteness: the Irreconcilable Nature of CRT and Christianity

The following was originally a research paper for undergraduate studies with Whitefield College.

Introduction: Secular rallies for justice base their claims and solutions upon presuppositions that are fundamentally anti-Christian. Critical Race Theory (CRT) presents an alien view of original sin, one of whiteness, generational hegemony, and oppression. Beginning from faulty assumptions about the problem, CRT then can only provide faulty answers. CRT as a philosophical system sets itself up against Christianity and the gospel.

These dangerous ideas are such that Paul warns his hearers, “…beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8 King James Version). Therefore, the hamartiological assumptions taken by CRT make it irredeemably opposed to historical, orthodox Christianity. Disguised with the language of justice and equality, CRT deceives many into adopting radical leftist ideologies. Critical theory is a toxic worldview that is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Original sin is man’s problem.

“In virtue of their connection with Adam all men are, after the fall, born in a sinful state and condition. This state is called original sin and is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man” (Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, 145). This state of original sin is the beginning point of the Christian understanding of man’s problem. Man was charged with stewardship of God’s creation, and forbidden only from the act of eating from one tree. But Adam rebelled against God and ate the fruit. In Adam’s fall, all men have become corrupt. Adams sin broke God’s covenant of works and imputed to all of his posterity sin and corruption. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (623) explains that the term Original Sin refers to two interrelated doctrines, first, that of “…the fall, that tragic, primal disobedience of Adam in the garden of Eden…” and second the “innate moral corruption” of mankind. “They commit sins because of a prior ontological state of sinfulness.” It is this doctrine which is referred to when considering the source of the universal corruption of man. Of this corruption, the Westminster Shorter Catechism Q. 18 teaches, 

The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Thus, all men are born in sin. As Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This corruption makes man wholly incapable of pleasing God. For man in the flesh cannot please God, and is unable to submit to his law (Romans 8:8).

Original sin carries with it the inclination to all sin and puts men subject to the wrath of God. “In consequence…[mankind] became totally depraved, that is, depraved in every part of his being and utterly incapable of doing spiritual good.” (Berkhof 137) As Ephesians 2:3 states, “…[men are] by nature the children of wrath…” Thus, men justly are under the condemnation of the holy God, while being helpless to change. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) chapter 6 section 4 explains, “From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” All men inherit the guilt of Adam and are under the condemnation of God for both their corruption and their actual sins which proceed from it. 

Christianity teaches that the punishment for man’s sin is death and eternally bearing the wrath and torment of God. The WCF continues, (6.6) 

Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Therefore, all men stand condemned before God in their sinful state. All men commit wickedness and sin. Those who remain in this state of sin will be eternally condemned to hell. Christianity presents original sin as the source of man’s pain, the basis for his depravity, and the beginning of his damnation. There is no other Christian answer for these things other than sin. Many secular ideologies posit theories of psychology, or sociological explanations like Critical Theory to explain the injustices and evils of our day. But as Berkhof concludes,

“The Bible, however, directs our attention to the fall of man. It teaches us that the root of all moral evil in the world lies in the first sin of Adam, the natural and representative head of the human race.” (135)

Whiteness and power are the original sin of leftist CRT.

Man as God’s image-bearer is dependent upon God’s reality. Critical Theory shows this dependence by borrowing categories from Christianity of original sin, rebranding it as “whiteness.” Critical Theory is an umbrella of sociopolitical ideology in contemporary secularism. It can be seen as fundamental in disciplines such as feminism and anti-racism. Anti-racism is not simply being opposed to racism. “Anti-racism” as used by the CRT leaders in the social justice movement is the attempt at justice and equity through CRT and intersectionality. In this system of thought you are either a racist or an anti-racist. White people are inherently racist, and racism is defined as systemic by nature.

Shenvi briefly defines Critical Theory in his article Intro To Critical Theory, 

“Contemporary critical theory views reality through the lens of power, dividing people into oppressed groups and oppressor groups along various axes like race, class, gender, sexuality orientation, physical ability and age. [sic] Critical Theory can broadly be identified with viewing the world through the lenses of intersectionality; it can be viewed as emphasizing the intersections of power, and oppression.”

Critical Race Theory is a branch of this broad critical theory tree. Critical Race Theory is man’s attempt to explain man’s relation to each other across ethnic boundaries. Black Lives Matter demonstrates this foundation on their website, saying the following,

“We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks…women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum…We are doing that [moving towards justice,] through our continued fight against elected officials, be it Democrat or Republican, who don’t share a vision that is radical and intersectional.”

The intersectional approach is seen in the emphasis upon each type of “disadvantaged” person, “queer and trans folks, disabled folks…women…” etc. The intersectional approach gains popular favor by using categories of justice and equality, terms that Christians agree with.

Christians should seek justice, and should advocate for the marginalized. But Samuel Sey in his article, Don’t Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory, warns in strong terms, “Critical race theory isn’t just bad theology, it produces a false gospel—a false gospel that’s influencing many Christians to reject what the Bible says about racism and justice.” This is based on one of the foundational concepts of intersectionality and CRT, that of the original sin of whiteness. Borrowing from the Christian worldview, CRT treats being white as something which makes you inherently racist. Shenvi agrees, “…the concept of privilege exhibits uncanny similarities to the concept of Original Sin” (Important Articles on Critical Theory). This guilt is not based upon any specific action or attitude of prejudice against someone because of their ethnicity. Rather, it is based upon the privileges enjoyed by white people in a society believed to be built upon racism. 

“White privilege is the secular white person’s Original Sin, present at birth and ultimately ineradicable. One does one’s penance by endlessly attesting to this privilege in hope of some kind of forgiveness” (John McWhorter, The American Interest). Thus, the source of injustice by this worldview is the original sin of whiteness. This is the basis, according to CRT, of contemporary oppression. Popular anti-racist book White Fragility speaks of this foundation,

“DiAngelo forces us to see that all politics have rested on identities…We cannot possibly name the nemeses of democracy or truth or justice or equality if we cannot name the identities to which they have been attached. For most of our history, straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future free of past encumbrances and sins.” (Michael Eric Dyson, White Fragility 15)

Christianity teaches the forgiveness of sins for all men, black and white, Jew and Gentile. This forgiveness is based on Christ’s work, in which he has united his church from all the tribes of Adam, to himself. They come to him without identities or ethnicity, status, or power. For they are all one in Christ, and dependent upon him for their forgiveness and righteousness. All men are equally undeserving of his mercy. For God says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). And “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us” (Ephesians 2:14).

But this unity the gospel brings is not what the anti-racist movement seeks. Sey comments, “In anti-racism, the gospel is irrelevant and racist. Essentially, anything that isn’t in conformity to anti-racism is racist—including the gospel of Jesus Christ” (White Fragility is Pro-Racism). For CRT any attempt to remove the label of racist from a white person is itself racist. Therefore, the cleansing of the gospel is actively in opposition to the anti-racist movement. The condemnation based on original sin/whiteness in CRT is diametrically opposed to the gospel. 

Objective Truth in Christianity

“…What is truth?” (John 18:38) Pilate asked Jesus in his trial. A metanarrative is an overarching story, a tale of events and explanations that is true in all contexts. It is considered as objectively true, meaning true outside the perceptions of its adherents or dissenters. The Christian doctrine of original sin is a metanarrative, objectively true, serving to explain reality. Original sin is true in the United States, and in South Africa, and everywhere else. Original sin is not the only doctrine of Christianity which claims universal and objective truth. Christianity as a worldview proclaims that Jesus is “…the way, the truth and the life…” (John 14:6) to the exclusion of any alternative. Jesus says that no man comes to the Father, but through him. This statement is absolute, and it is objectively true. Christ is not the savior just for Christians. He objectively came in the flesh, suffered and died in history, rose from the dead, and reigns at the Father’s right hand. The truth of all of this is outside the perceptions of Christians. Christians do not make a world by their beliefs, but all men live in the world of reality. Christianity is the story of reality, recounting the truth that is binding on all men.

God commands that all men repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30-31, Mark 1:15). The Muslim, the Mormon, and the Buddist all are obligated to repent of their idolatries and trust in the living Christ. Likewise, all the ethical teachings of God in his law are objective by nature, and they are binding on all men. The nature of reality is objective and universal. The ethics of God’s world are universal, and they are objective. Christianity cannot abide with any relativistic or subjective forms of truth which are foreign to reality and the Christian worldview. 

Standpoint Epistemology in Critical Theory

Contrasted to the view of truth in Christianity is the standpoint epistemology of Critical Theory. Critical Theory, like postmodernism, emphasizes narratives over the metanarrative. Instead of one overarching story that explains all of the world, each story from an individual or community is “truth.” The addition that CRT brings is that the further one is intersectionality oppressed, the closer their experience brings them to truth. Pat Sawyer and Neil Shenvi write in their article, The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity,

“…critical theory claims that members of oppressed groups have special access to truth because of their “lived experience” of oppression. Such insight is unavailable to members of oppressor groups, who are blinded by their privilege. Consequently, any appeals to “objective evidence” or “reason” made by dominant groups are actually surreptitious bids for continued institutional power. This view is rooted in standpoint theory (organic to Marxism and repurposed by feminist theory), which argues that knowledge is conditioned and determined by social location.”

This means that truth is determined by the intersectional framework of the individual. Those with some form of hegemony are rejected as just reinforcing their own power. Any that would fit within the defined “oppressed” class who disagree with the CRT orthodox metanarrative are dismissed as having internalized oppression. Therefore, the women who oppose abortion are simply internalizing the patriarchy. Black people who disagree with the systemic racism narrative are dismissed as internalizing this systematic racism. Thus, the metanarrative of intersectionality claims an objective truth which cannot be disproven. The religious zeal and dogmatism of this view of truth is noted by Sullivan in his article, Is Intersectionality a Religion? 

“Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue — and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It’s Marx without the final total liberation.”

To attempt to then blend this heresy with the truth of the Christan worldview is incoherent. It cannot be done, and those who attempt to do such will find they must compromise.

Dr. Voddie Baucham in his lecture, Ethnic Gnosticism, notes the striking parallels of this view of truth to the ancient heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism preached that the material world was inherently evil and the spiritual was good. Gnosticism’s truth, however, was secret knowledge only available to the enlightened few. In Critical Theory, there is a secret knowledge available only to an enlightened few as well. This secret knowledge is gained by experiences that are only available to those of that particular ethnic identity. Other disciplines of Critical Theory would point to the same “sacred lived experience” of other intersectional identities, LGBT, religion, etc. All of this is unchangeably subjective, and attempts to dismiss the ultimate and objective claims of truth found in the Christian worldview. 

The Redemption of Man is a Restoration From Original Sin.

Christians talk much of the concept of salvation, but without the prior background of original sin, it can lack focus. Without acknowledgment of the problem, there can be no accurate understanding of the solution. The solution is Christ and his work. “Now the natural condition of man is exactly the opposite of that holiness which is so indispensable. Consequently, a radical internal change is necessary…” (Berkhof 238) In answer to man’s helpless estate it pleased God to redeem a people for himself for his own glory. God the Father elected from eternity past elected those who he would redeem from the state of sin unto life. God the Son was incarnated and suffered, died, and rose again to secure this redemption. God the Spirit does apply this redemption to the elect through the “radical internal change” of regeneration. Thus the Godhead works in unison to restore mankind from his state of sin. When Christ returns, all things will be made new and man will finally be free of the indwelling state of sin. Speaking of Christ’s marvelous work, Gamble writes in his article, The Great Exchange, 

“After Adam’s fall, the world stood condemned for both original and actual sins. In Christ’s cross, this condemnation was lifted from our weak shoulders and placed upon Christ’s massive, divine strength. Christ could bear the weight of the guilt of sin in a way that no other human was able. Having borne sin’s burden, Christ then liberated believers from the curse.”

So Christians declare in the gospel what God has done in Christ to reconcile sinners to himself. This is the restoration of man from the state of original sin, the cleansing of his actual sins, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. 

The eternal second person of the Trinity was conceived in the womb of a virgin, thus being spared from being born in the state of original sin. He was born in flesh and lived on this earth without sin. At the right time, he gave up his life, crucified by the hands of wicked men. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ in his body bore the sins of his people, being smitten with the wrath of God in their stead unto death. For “it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10). The glorious hope of the Christian is that because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, by faith they are united to him and will one day be resurrected with him. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The effects of Christ’s work are just as thorough as Adams’s failure, and many times as glorious. 

Peace, Peace, When There is No Peace

“Anti-racism isn’t interested in changing sinners, it’s interested in changing systems. This is why they label Biblical Christians as racist. This is why anti-racists hate it when we Christians say: ‘just preach the gospel’” (Sey, White Fragility is Pro-Racism). As opposed to the glorious salvation of the gospel, Critical Theory offers only a goal of social upheaval, and perpetual condemnation. The gospel of Christ is concerned with the salvation of souls, and the establishment of true justice in this earth as an implication of the lordship of Christ. In contrast, Critical Theory seeks “justice” by damning souls. The anti-racist solution can only ever be more of the same problems they recognize. Intersectionality can only seek to put those it identifies as “privileged” down to an “oppressed” status, and exalt the “oppressed” to the “privileged”. In the secular CRT worldview there is no basis for any equality. And there is never peace or forgiveness. The “powerful” whites must with religious zeal continually recognize their inherent racism which they will never be cleansed of. They must self abase, and continually grovel at the feet of their “victims.” This, despite the fact that the victim never experienced any racist action at the hand of the alleged perpetrator. 

“This brand of [white] self-flagellation has become the new form of enlightenment on race issues. It qualifies as a kind of worship; the parallels with Christianity are almost uncannily rich. White privilege is the secular white person’s Original Sin, present at birth and ultimately ineradicable. One does one’s penance by endlessly attesting to this privilege in hope of some kind of forgiveness.” (John McWhorter, The American Interest)

But there is no forgiveness, only perpetually recognizing one’s own racism. In Critical Theory there is only condemnation and division. 

Conclusion

“Many Christians suggest critical race theory is just a little theoretical framework that doesn’t replace their theology. But critical race theory doesn’t just redefine racism and justice. It’s an all-encompassing ideology that redefines a biblical understanding of righteousness and sin—it’s a little leaven that leavens the whole lump.” (Sey, Do Not Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory)

It has been demonstrated that Critical Theory is fundamentally anti-Christian. CRT ideology presupposes a new original sin, a new epistemological standing, and the perpetual condemnation and division of its adherents. This perpetual condemnation for the penitent is not of God. Doug Wilson agrees, “…there can be no peace between the God of forgiveness and the god of recrimination, the God of no condemnation and the god of all condemnation” (Minneapolis Burning and Black Privilege). And as Sey notes above, these facets of CRT make it completely incompatible with Christianty. Christianity presents a universal original sin, and salvation from sin in the blood of Christ alone. Christianity presents the objective truth of Christ and his word. Christianity presents the gospel of God for salvation. The societal implications of the gospel is peace across all tribes that Christ has purchased, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. CRT and Christianity have no part in each other. Shenvi and Sawyer comment, 

“Or consider the question of our fundamental problem as humans: Is our fundamental problem sin, in which case we all equally stand condemned before a holy God? Or is our fundamental problem oppression, in which case members of dominant groups are tainted by guilt in a way that members of subordinate groups are not?”

Like oil and water, Christianity and CRT cannot mix. For as Paul says, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Corinthians 6:15).

Christians should be the true anti-racists, as they seek justice by God’s standards, rejecting all forms of tribalism and ethnic prejudice including Critical Theory. For CRT is hated by God, as spoken in Proverbs, “[The Lord hates]…A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:19). And just as the church of Ephesus was commended by our Lord for their hatred of the works of the Nicolaitans, Christians should hate what God hates, including CRT. “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6). Instead of proclaiming the anti-racist agenda, Christians should proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. For it is through his blood that peace is made between tribes and nations. Ultimately, there are two races that matter, those who are covenantally in Adam, and those who are in Christ (Romans 5). CRT is a false gospel, and a cracked cistern which holds no water. Christians must fly to their Lord, the giver of life who is himself the living water.

Works Cited and Referenced

“6 Years Strong.” Black Lives Matter, 28 Aug. 2020, blacklivesmatter.com/six-years-strong/. 

“About.” Black Lives Matter, 16 Oct. 2020, blacklivesmatter.com/about/. 

Baucham, Voddie. Cultural Marxism. YouTube, Founders Ministries, 21 Feb. 2019, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRMFBdDDTkI&t=765s. 

—. Ethnic Gnosticism. YouTube, Founders Ministries, 28 Mar 2019, 

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Christian Liberty Press, 2003. 

The Confession of Faith: Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, with the 

Assistance of Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, as a Part of the Covenanted Uniformity in Religion Betwixt the Churches of Christ in the Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland: Approved by the General Assembly 1647, and Ratified and Established by Act of Parliament 1649, as the Publick and Avowed Confession of the Church of Scotland: with the Proofs from the Scripture. Banner of Truth Trust, 2012. 

DiAngelo, Robin J., and Michael Eric Dyson. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People 

to Talk about Racism, Beacon Press, 2020, p. 15. 

Elwell, Walter A., and Daniel J. Treier. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic, a 

Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017. 

Gamble, Rick. “The Great Exchange.” Ligonier Ministries, 1 July 2009, 

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/great-exchange-gamble/. 

McWhorter, John. “Atonement as Activism.” The American Interest, 16 Jan. 2020, 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/. 

Sawyer, Pat, et al. “The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity.” The Gospel Coalition, 

15 May 2019, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/incompatibility-critical-theory-christianity/. 

Sey, Samuel. “Do Not Grow Weary Rejecting Critical Race Theory.” Slow To Write, 23 Dec. 

2020, slowtowrite.com/do-not-grow-weary-rejecting-critical-race-theory/. 

— “How To Be A Racist.” Slow To Write, 23 Dec. 2020, slowtowrite.com/how-to-be-a-racist/. 

— “White Fragility Is Pro-Racism.” Slow To Write, 10 July 2020, 

slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/. 

Shenvi, Neil. “Important Articles on Critical Theory.” Apologetics, 25 Feb. 2020, 

shenviapologetics.com/important-articles-on-critical-theory/. 

— “Intro to Critical Theory.” Apologetics, 16 July 2020, 

shenviapologetics.com/intro-to-critical-theory/. 

Steinbuch, Yaron. “Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Describes Herself as ‘Trained Marxist’.” New 

York Post, New York Post, 25 June 2020, 

nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/. 

Sullivan, Andrew. “Is Intersectionality a Religion?” Intelligencer, Intelligencer, 10 Mar. 2017, 

nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html. 

The Westminster Shorter Catechism: with Scripture Proofs. Banner of Truth Trust, 2008. 

Wilson, Douglas. “Minneapolis Burning and Black Privilege.” Blog & Mablog, 2 June 2020, 

dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/minneapolis-burning-and-black-privilege.html. 

LGBT and Progressive Christianity: A Response To An Apostate

Introduction: Apostasy and Love

It seems every year I learn that more of the children I grew up with have denied the faith, turning from the living water to cracked cisterns. One such recent instance was an announcement by a highschool classmate that he now identifies as “non-binary.” This announcement was done on social media, in the form of an “article” if you could call it that. The announcement met with the approval and praise of virtually everyone on his friends list. The few who did not affirm this announcement were summarily silenced, blocked, and shouted down, including myself. This classmate of mine purports to be a Christian. He all the while asserted in his announcement that any variety of gender identity and sexual expression are fully legitimate and acceptable from a Christian worldview. The summary of the points made in the article are thus: 

1. The Bible is not an obstacle to the full range of LGBT+ expression and identity.

2. Gender and Sex are unrelated and independant from each other. 

3. To love someone who is presently identified with the LGBT agenda means to affirm them without any qualification.

My classmate set forth several supports from various sources and interpretations of biblical texts to support these arguments. I fear for those who would make such arguments, and for those swayed by them, including many Christians. The following will be an examination of these arguments from a historical, Christian, theological and exegetical perspective. I believe that this position is irrational, dangerous, and contrary to Christian truth with dire consequences.

I hope for the Christian to believe the historical position of the Christian faith in the areas of sex and sexuality, based on God’s revealed word. I pray that non-Christian or confused readers would, by God’s grace, repent of their sin, and trust in the risen Savior for their salvation. Short of this, that they would not feign fealty to the Lord. 

The Lord Jesus articulated the two greatest commands of God’s law as, “love God, and love Neighbor,” (Matthew 22:36-40). My effort in this writing is to do both, however, love must be defined by the Scriptures, not our emotions or societal whims. 1 Corinthians 13:6 says, “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.” So a Christian’s first obligation is to love God. Second, they must love their neighbor. Love cannot be a celebration of things that are damning. The Christians example for this point is that of Christ. The Lord Jesus never, affirmed someone in their sin. The Lord Jesus never affirmed someone finding their identity in something that God had forbidden. However, this with unanimity is what the LGBT movement and its advocates proclaim.

The Beginning

God created humans in His image in Genesis 1:27. Humanity reflects God. Humans “image” God by living in community, exercising dominion, and expressing moral agency. There are numerous aspects to the image of God, but relevant to our topic is gender and sex in the image of God. In the Genesis account, Adam is found without a suitable mate. He is alone, and none of the animals that God created are suitable for a helper. God declared that this was the only “not good” part of His creation. God then created Eve, to be his wife. 

Eve was taken from Adam’s side. Eve is called “woman” because she came from man. Together, the sexes serve together as God’s image. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them [plural],” (Genesis 1:27). This is significant because of the distinction. There are very clearly two sexes seen here. And there are two corresponding genders. Walker expresses this, “Male and female, according to the biblical portrait, are fixed, bodily realities; meaning they are not interchangeable or eradicable.”

There are different roles for the sexes seen in Genesis. Adam works and leads (1 Corinthians 11:3). Eve supports Adam and produces children (1 Timothy 2:15). At the irreducible core of the distinction of the sexes are these roles, which continue throughout the Biblical account of redemptive history. The union of marriage points to the relationship of Jesus Christ with His bride, the church (Ephesians 5:23). Jesus leads, and does the work necessary for the salvation of the church. The church submits to Christ the Lord, and serves as a “helper.” They do this by preaching the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20). In a spiritual sense, the church is the vessel that “bears fruit” in bringing forth children by discipling new believers that are born by the Holy Spirit (John 3:3).

To blur the lines between the distinctions of the sexes approaches Christological heresies. Anything said about the sexes must be translatable to Ephesians 5 and the nature of Christ and the church. If there is no real objective sex, or if gender is fluid, then Christ and the church are interchangeable; if this is the case, the gospel is nonsense and there is no true redeemer. Would the church redeem Christ?? Surely you see the problem. Critics protest the unity of sex and gender, which they argue are two different concepts. Biblically, however, the distinction between gender and sex is completely absent. My classmate addressed this in his article, at length arguing that the state of being male is expressed differently in different cultures. However, masculinity is masculinity… A scholar, a football star, a soldier, a hunter, a waiter, a chef, a writer, and a painter can all be masculine. Any of these may be valid representations of masculinity, and just because masculinity varies in different contexts, does not represent a spectrum of genders. Jesus Christ is the standard of true masculinity. He sacrificed Himself for His bride. He leads, He makes hard decisions, and He subdues all His enemies. Jesus kneeling to wash the feet of His disciples was not taking an effeminate role but being truly masculine in leading His people to serve after Him. This is then the same masuline Jesus who rides a white horse, clothed in white, with his robe dripping the blood of his enemies. It isn’t a spectrum. 

But Jesus Never Said Anything…

It is often alleged that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality. Likewise, that he was silent on transgenderism. However, Jesus when challenged to address divorce in Matthew 19 quotes Genesis. Jesus affirms the definition of sex/gender and marriage there from the beginning, leaving no room for any variation. Jesus says, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Matthew 19:4b-5). Christians confess Jesus to be God in the flesh, the second person of the Trinity, who died for the sins of the world, and rose from the dead on the third day. Progressive Christians are forced to believe Jesus not once took the opportunity to affirm the LGBTQ+ individuals in second temple Jewish society. Instead, Jesus took this opportunity to perpetuate the classical understanding in correcting the unjust practice of no-fault divorce. A source quoted by my classmate demonstrates the problem, “On the one hand, if God loves human beings, then God cannot abide the pain of gender dysphoria. It is not real love to allow such harm to take place…” (Michaelson). 

The Bible on Transgenderism: Paul, Jacob, and Deborah?

My classmates article expresses the argument as follows, 

“…the Bible obviously never explicitly references being Transgender, but celebrates people who rebelled against their gender roles. Everyone from Deborah the Judge, to Jacob, to even Paul. The only one explicit condemnation being against eunuchs [Deut. 23:1] (in Deuteronomy) which is later revoked in both Isaiah and by Jesus himself in Matthew [Matt 19:12].”

(My classmates article, anonymous by request)

But this treatment of the biblical text is lacking here to a frankly stunning degree. The Bible does not explicitly mention being transgender, because the dichotomy between gender and sex is entirely absent from the Biblical worldview. Esau was a man, and Jacob was a man. Esau liked hunting, and Jacob liked cooking. Esau was hairy and Jacob didn’t have much body hair. This is hardly proof that Jacob was transgender, or even that he was feminine. These are all completely morally neutral facts that are not presented in a moral light. Their masculinity was expressed in different, but valid ways. The Bible mentions Jacob with male pronouns (and every other male in the Bible) consistently. Likewise, Deborah is identified as a woman. A woman who tries desperately to not take the role that she was forced into. She reluctantly lead the forces of the Jews into battle (Judges 4). The book of Judges chronicles a dark time in Israel’s history, and the point of the narrative is that the men are being abdicating, disobedient, and cowardly. The point is not that Deborah was a man (or defying her God-given gender or sex). 

Deuteronomy 23:1 says that men with damaged genitals cannot enter the temple. This is then interpreted by my classmate to be a moral prohibition of eunuchs and by extension gender fluid, transgender, or intersex people. Astoundingly, he argues that this is later reversed by Jesus, “there are eunuchs made such for the Kingdom of Heaven.” The article even goes so far as to say that Paul was effeminate and defying gender roles by being a eunuch, of sorts, by being celibate. Deuteronomy 23:1 is a law of ceremonial purity. Laws like these pointed forward to Christ and His holiness (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8).  In Matthew, Jesus speaks of those like Paul, who functioned as eunuchs in that they were celibate because of the dedication they gave to the things of God (1 Corinthians 7). Jesus likewise was celibate, and yet Jesus is presented as thoroughly male. Jesus is the Son of man (Daniel 7), the Son of God, with whom the Father is well-pleased (Matthew 3:15). Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, in a resurrected and glorified male body, (Psalm 110:1-2, Acts 2:32-34, John 20:27). To state that celibacy makes Jesus or Paul effeminate is incoherent and deceptive. 

Clobber Texts: Sodomy and Hospitality

“Clobber texts,” are clear Scripture that condemn homosexual practice. The progressive article references several, explaining them away. First, the destruction of Sodom. Genesis 19 details the destruction of this wicked city by God. Two angels come to Sodom to confirm the wickedness of the inhabitants. The men of the city surround Lot’s house, where the angels are staying for the night. They demand that Lot bring out his visitors so that they can gang rape them. Lot refuses, inciting the mob to violently take the house (ironically, the men Lot fends off from the angels accuse Lot of judging them). But, before they can be harmed, the angels miraculously blind the wicked men. The text says the men literally exhausted themselves trying to find the door to rape Lot’s guests. This description of the events of Genesis 19 requires only a face value reading of the text. 

 The new progressive interpretation, however, is that the crime of the Sodomites is that they were inhospitable. This is based on poor exegesis of Matthew 10:12-14. Matthew writes of when Jesus sent His disciples to preach the gospel to the surrounding towns. Jesus warns that for those who don’t receive the disciples and their message, it will be “better for Sodom than for those on the day of judgment.” Proponents of the progressive interpretation argue that Christ’s indignation is for their lack of hospitality. The assumption then is that it is the same sin committed by these cities as by Sodom… since Sodom is referenced. However, this interpretation is entirely novel to the gospels and does violence to the text of Genesis 19. The point Jesus is making is found in the immediately following passage in Luke’s account (Luke 10:11-14). Luke tells of Jesus rebuking the cities that He had ministered in that refused to repent (turn from their sin). Jesus says that if Tyre and Sidon (other famous cities destroyed in the past), had heard His preaching and seen His miracles they would have repented… This principle is that of “to whom much is given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). Jesus is condemning the cities that reject his disciples because they reject the gospel. This was a chance that Sodom, Tyre and Sidon were never given… a chance to repent and welcome the King, Jesus. The disciples represented Jesus, and the Jewish cities that rejected Christ and His disciples were given more revelation than Sodom, Tyre and Sidon, therefore their guilt was that much worse. 

An Abomination

Leviticus 20:13 is more difficult for the progressive interpretation. “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (NASB). This is clarified by a previous verse, Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination” (ESV). There are not a lot of ways to condemn same sex acts with greater clarity. While I am not a Hebrew scholar, it is interesting to note that the word for wife and woman is the same in Hebrew, and must be determined by context. So this could be read as, “you may not sleep with a man as you do your wife.” Likewise, the word for man in both verses is the same word translated as husband. Remember, the context must determine the meaning. Leviticus 20:13 could read, “If a husband lies with a male as with his wife…” However, the clarity remains without this interpretation. The progressive interpretive argument is entirely based on the word “mankind” or “male” in Leviticus 20:13 being ambiguous and/or being in reference to temple prostitutes or children. Context grants clarity, but the NASB translated this Hebrew term as boy 4 times, and male 54 times (this is just the Old Testament). Online study tools show this, or see Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew interlinear/concordance. The opposing argument here is less than persuasive, typically appealing not to the actual text, or doing the work of exegesis; instead using arguments from extra-biblical usage of the term, or from later Bible translations.

Hospitality or Sodomy

Not included in my classmates original piece was the text of Ezekiel 16:48-49. This text is used as a common objection to the sin of Sodom and is worth a brief aside. “As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:48-49, English Standard Version) The argument is made that the sin of Sodom was that of pride, indulgence, and lack of concern for the poor (not sodomy). However, the Bible is really helpful when we read it. The next verse brings great clarity, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it,”(v. 50 emphasis mine). It doesn’t take an attentive eye to recognize the parallel to the passages in Leviticus discussed above. Sodomy, is specifically identified as an “abomination” by God’s law. And let us remember the scene of Genesis 19, where all the men of the city gather at Lots house to gang rape his guests. Was this a one time thing? In Genesis 19 It is clear that Lot is scared for the angels if they were to stay in the town square as they suggested. I think it is a reasonable assessment that this was a regular occurrence in Sodom, because the city is previously described as wicked (13:13), and the Lord had already declared his judgment upon the city (18:20).

However, this argument is not required for the sin of Sodom to still be understood to be homosexual sex. The New Testament writers also understood the sin of this city to primarily be sexual immorality. When Jude discusses the sons of God and their immorality, he compares them to Sodom, “…Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 7). Considered together with the previously discussed texts, the universal witness of Scripture is that the sin of Sodom was primarily that of sexual immorality: the act of sodomy. 

Suppressing the Truth

Another “clobber text” is Romans 1:18-32. Paul writes about rebels against God, and many of the external manifestations their rebellion reveals. Those who rebel against God will be given over to what they have chosen to their own destruction. The progressive interpretation presents the text as condemning either pedophilia, sex slave and master relationships, or cult prostitutes. Punt (a source cited by my classmate) comments, “The anti-homosexual use of Romans 1 generally harbours a thinly vieled [sic] heteronormativity…” The hinge that Punt refers to in his work is that of the word nature. He argues that this is speaking of heterosexual people committing homosexual acts contrary to their nature. However, the nature of man that Jesus references in His dealings with marriage (see above) is that of the created order, it is Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, man and woman created in God’s image. Man and woman covenant in marriage for a one-flesh union. Marriage is a unique bond of spiritual, emotional, physical, and sexual complementarianism that is integral to the created order. I may be assuming a “heterosexual-normality” to this passage… As does Paul, Jesus, and all of Christendom for 2 millennia. To dismiss this appeal to the created order is not to dismiss my opinion or even that of the historic Christian church, but that of the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 19.

Punt objects to the identification of homosexual acts as sin because it is given as an effect of judgment rather than a cause of judgment in this text. This is an astute observation, 

“In Romans 1, however, homoeroticism is already the consequence of sin, the failure to acknowledge God as God” (Punt). I agree. But this does not negate what has already been established in divine revelation through the Law. Paul’s argues that judgment is terrible because not only are you punished, but you keep sinning. In judgment you keep sinning in deeper perversion and wickedness. God removes His gracious restraint from you and lets you plunge into the mire that you love instead of Him. This is how the wrath of God is revealed even now against the wicked: God loosening His restraining hand and giving them what they have desired. He lets them serve the creature rather than Him. Ultimately, the creature they would rather serve is a god that looks very much like us. We do this because we hate God (v.30), and instead love self (2 Timothy 3:2). This is a sick inversion of God’s law which commands love for God and love for Neighbor.

My classmate accuses Christians of cherry-picking what they want from the story of Sodom. Yet in an alternative interpretation of Romans 1:18-32, and Leviticus 20:13 chooses to condemn cult prostitutes, prostitution, and pedophilia. By what standard are these rejected? This is the logical fallacy of special pleading. These prohibitions are borrowed from Christian ethics while homosexuality is celebrated. The progressive rejects Jesus’ teaching on marriage, rejects the law of Moses, rejects Paul’s instruction to the church. All this in favor of one’s own ethic, thus losing all basis to condemn anything as wrong. The pedophile, the rapist, the incestuous, the animal abuser, or the polygamous can only be different, never wrong. When one loses the objective standard of God’s Word and God’s standard, they are left with no actual standard other than preference. One may retain some form of religion or moralism extracted from their preferences, but it isn’t Christianity. It is another religion altogether, serving a different god who is not the true God, and with a savior who offers no salvation.

What About…

Critics will often go to the “what abouts”, what about people born with multiple genitals? What about same-sex attraction? What about gender dysphoria? Gender dysphoria, same-sex attraction, and intersex people are a reality. These must be addressed with compassion in a case-by-case pastoral setting. There is a difference between these people, and the larger LGBTQ+ community. According to one expert, the percentage of the population that is intersex is 0.018% (Sax). This would amount to an approximate number of intersex people in the US of 58,896. However, according to recent estimates, there are 1.4 million transgender people in the US (Hoffman). This number is disproportionate if intersex is to be taken as God’s allowance of transgenderism; The discrepancy is because we are living in a Romans 1 world, in a society under the judgment of God. We have been given over to a reprobate mind to do what ought not to be done. We are collectively rebelling against our creator to serve ourselves instead of the triune God.

My classmate argues, “…When God fearfully and wonderfully made us, He also made us Trans and/or Gay. It is not a deviation from God’s plan and creation but a fulfillment of it.” However, the message of Christianity is that we live in a broken world because of sin (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:22). We await the Lord who will make all things new in His consummation and return (Revelation 21:5). We are born inherently under God’s wrath, and born dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). This means that we all are born with certain proclivities towards one sin or another. But because one man is naturally promiscuous, or a liar by nature, or drawn to murder or rape does not excuse these behaviors. The message of Christianity is that Jesus gives new life, He redeems those who were once homosexuals, drunks, gossips, murderers, and idolaters (1 Corinthians 6:11). He washes His people and makes them new so that their identity is not found in those sins (even though the temptation may remain) but their identity is found in their unity with the risen Savior (2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 6:4).

Contrite and broken people are not condemned by Jesus. They are welcomed and called to new life in Him. Jesus says to the contrite and humble (Psalm 51:17), “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” (Matthew 11:28) But the movement of LGBTQ+ is not contrite nor humble. The pride marches and abhorrence to all who dare disagree, mark the movement’s defiance. The LGBTQ+ movement represents rejoicing in the things that we know are against God’s law and defying their creator (Romans 1:32). Those who justify homosexuality are not the poor in spirit that Christ speaks of (Matthew 5:3). Paying Jesus lip service is not enough. Jesus says, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and yet do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Just trying to be loving will not save you. Even loving God and neighbor cannot save, “for by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin,” (Romans 3:20). So even trying to be loving will not save you anymore than trying to be a good person will save you. Jesus is the one who saves. 

Concluding Plea

The message of the gospel is that Jesus is King. The Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father after being raised from the dead. Jesus died for the sins of the world, and commands men and women to repent of their sin and trust in Him (Mark 1:15, Acts 17:30-31). There will come a day when He will return to judge the living and the dead. Regardless of your sexuality, your gender identity, or how you have lived your life, you will stand before His throne and give an account (Hebrews 4:13). Those found in Christ will be declared righteous and forgiven. The rest will bear the just wrath of God against their sin forever, (John 3:36). Paul writes of the gospel saying, 

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).

Jesus Christ by His death on the cross satisfied the wrath of God that the sinner deserves, and He offers free redemption for those who repent and trust in Him. If you have read this paper then you have been given much, and much will be required of you… In the name of Jesus Christ, I implore you to repent of your sin and turn to the living God. 

Soli Deo Gloria,

Asher Clark

Works Cited and Referenced

Hoffman, Jan. “Estimate of U.S. Transgender Population Doubles to 1.4 Million Adults.” 

The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 June 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/health/transgender-population.html.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments: ESV. 

Crossway, 2011.

The Holy Bible: Updated New American Standard Bible: Containing the Old Testament 

and the New Testament. Zondervan Pub. House, 1999.

Little, Becky. “Male, Female or Both? Reactions to Intersex People Through History.” History, 

Aug. 2019, http://www.history.com/news/intersex-people-casimir-pulaski-thomasine-hall.

Michaelson, Jay. “What Does the Bible Teach About Transgender People?” The Daily Beast, The 

Daily Beast Company, 4 Mar. 2018, 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-transgender-people.

Punt, Jeremy. “Romans 1:18-32 amidst the Gay-Debate: Interpretative Options.” University of 

Stellenbosch, NTSSA Congress, 2007, pp. 1–18.

Sax, Leonard. “How Common Is Intersex? a Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling.” Journal of Sex 

Research, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Aug. 2002, 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12476264.

Walker, Andrew T. “Gender and Sexuality.” The Gospel Coalition, 

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/gender-and-sexuality/.

Wilson, Todd A. Mere Sexuality: Rediscovering the Christian Vision of Human Sexuality. 

Zondervan, 2017.

Recommended Reading

Rosaria Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

James White, The Same Sex Controversy

Todd Wilson, Mere Sexuality

Doug Wilson, Father Hunger

Thou Shalt Not Kill: Convenience At What Cost?

The following is a research paper written by my wife, Anne Clark. I encourage a thorough and thoughtful read. Soli Deo Gloria, Asher.

Christians have long held the belief that life is sacred and should be protected, and that marriage and children are blessings from God. And yet, this is not reflected in the widespread support by Protestant Christians of hormonal contraception. Christians must regain a Biblical theology of marriage and sex, which does not line up with the use of hormonal contraceptives due to their ending of human life and their degradation of the biblical purpose of sex. This can be seen by examining how contraceptives work and by understanding God’s design for sex.

To understand the mechanisms of hormonal contraceptives and their effects on a developing fetus, one must have at least a basic knowledge of conception and the first few stages of the developing embryo. Conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte (also known as an ovum, or more simply, egg). When the sperm and egg cells fuse together, they create a zygote, which according to Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care, “…is genetically unique in that it contains half of its chromosomes from the mother and half from the father.” This is an indication of a unique, human life that occurs immediately, not after it has successfully implanted in the uterus and begun growing, which is the point at which many Christians falsely refer to as the true beginning of life. 

The Christian birth control user’s definition of life beginning after implantation is ambiguous, for it is unclear what constitutes the difference between the embryo before and after successful implantation. Some, especially those in the pro-choice movement, contend that it is only at a certain number of gestational weeks, such as the second or even third trimester, that the fetus should be considered a life to be protected. But why is one point of growth considered “life” over another? If one follows that line of thinking, why does it not continue after the baby is born? As Paul Stark puts it in his article, “When does life begin? It’s pretty simple,”

“If personhood is acquired through a gradual process… then why doesn’t the process continue after birth? Physiological change doesn’t stop at birth—it is continuous throughout the entirety of someone’s life. But teenagers don’t deserve greater respect than toddlers.”

Regardless of the point of gestation, unborn life should be protected, even a zygote before implantation. Any fatal effects on this zygote are therefore killing the life of a person that God has already “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14, ESV)

By the time the zygote travels through the fallopian tubes to the uterus and implants in the lining of the uterus, known as the endometrium, the zygote’s cells have divided several times (further evidence of life), and it is now called a blastocyst. It is at this stage that hormonal contraceptives can prevent further development of a pregnancy. While hormonal contraceptives do use several mechanisms of action, one such mechanism is a thinning of the lining of the uterus to prevent the implantation of a blastocyst. If all other methods of contraception fail, and a sperm and egg unite, the resulting blastocyst (human life), will die because it will not be able to implant in the malnourished uterine lining.

The two hormones in contraceptives that work to prevent pregnancy are estrogen and progestin. While the views vary on precisely how these hormones work, critics on several sides of the issue, from neutral medical professionals, to pro-choice defenders, to pro-life Christians, admit that these hormones in hormonal birth control affects the endometrium in a way that can hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg. Susan Ward and Shelton Hisley attest to the post-fertilization effects of contraceptives that use progestin in their textbook, Maternal-Child Nursing Care. They state, “Progestin-only contraceptives are thought to function primarily by creating a thickened cervical mucus…and by causing endometrial atrophy. These alterations inhibit egg implantation…” Further, Sarah Horvath, MD, says in her book, Contraception, “Estrogenic effects include…Alteration of secretions and cellular structures of the endometrium within the uterus.” 

Later in her book, Horvath states that this does not only apply to the pill form and all other types of hormonal contraceptives (arm implants, Depo-Provera injections, vaginal rings, etc.), but also particularly to intrauterine devices. She states, “Both medicated and non-medicated IUDs can alter the uterine lining so that it becomes unfavorable for implantation.” Not only do IUDs use this mechanism of action, most, such as the progestin-only IUD, actually rely on it. According to Horvath, “Ovulation may be inhibited in about twenty percent of women, but this is not the main mechanism of action.” This means that the IUD relies on the other mechanisms of action to prevent pregnancy. She says this also applies to progestin-only pills, which suppress ovulation about fifty percent of the time.

In addition, copper IUDs, while not containing any hormones, can, nevertheless, also impede implantation. John Guillebaud states in his book, Contraception Today: Pocketbook,

 “In studies, fertilized ova are almost never retrievable from the genital tract of copper IUD users, hence they must operate mainly by preventing fertilization. Their effectiveness when put in postcoitally indicates that they can also act to block implantation. However, this seems to be primarily a back-up mechanism when devices are in situ (in the normal position) long term.”

Note that Guillebaud says that “fertilized ova are almost never retrievable,” and that copper IUDs “must operate mainly by preventing fertilization.” These vague terms reveal that while preventing implantation is not a main mechanism of action for copper IUDs, it is still a by-product of them that successfully ends a pregnancy at an unknown percentage of the time. This accounts for why copper IUDs are known mainly as an emergency contraceptive, for they can be effective after fertilization. This overwhelming amount of medical evidence reveals that not just some, but all forms of hormonal contraceptives have the potential to kill life.

Even Rachel Frank, an advocate for the use of contraception, writes in her article entitled, “Miss-Conceptions: Abortifacients, Regulatory Failure, and Political Opportunity,” 

“All hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, potentially acts to altar the endometrium…In fact, it is more probable that daily contraceptives affect implantation than emergency contraceptives do, because a daily dose of hormones over a long period of time is more likely to have an effect in the body than a single dose.”

Protestant Christians, while generally supportive of contraception, are beginning to question the use of birth control. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says in his article, “Can Christians Use Birth Control?,” 

“Not all birth control is contraception, for some technologies and methods do not prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, but instead prevent the fertilized egg from  successfully implanting itself in the lining of the womb. Such methods involve nothing less than an early abortion. This is true of all IUDs and some hormonal technologies.”

Mohler continues on to argue that Christians must carefully consider what forms of birth control they choose to use, making sure that they are truly contraceptive and not abortifacient. In sum, critics from all sides of the issue are admitting the post-fertilization effects of hormonal birth control. 

For antiabortion and pro-life advocates, one would think this reality would at least resonate with them. However, they seem to ignore the issue of contraceptives when it would hurt them politically, as Joerg Dreweke rightly points out in his article, “Contraception Is Not Abortion: The Strategic Campaign of Antiabortion Groups to Persuade the Public Otherwise.” Dreweke asserts, 

“Rather than applying the claim that some contraceptive methods in effect cause abortion consistently to all aspects of their advocacy, antiabortion groups ignore and often contradict their positions when it might hurt them politically. “

Instead, Dreweke says, antiabortion groups “have focused on less commonly used methods, like IUDs and emergency contraceptives.”

But as medical evidence has shown, IUDs and emergency contraceptives are not the only contraceptives that have an abortive effect. Antiabortion groups willingly speak out against emergency contraceptives, all the while missing the glaring inconsistency in their arguments. Maybe it is because of the sure failure it would receive politically, even from other pro-lifers, or perhaps it is for the same reason that most Christians ignore the issue: inconvenience. Admitting the abortifacient effects of contraceptives would mean giving up the convenient use of birth control. So Christians loudly protest the horrors of abortion, all the while quietly ignoring the inconvenient truth about the birth control they use that is, in reality, doing the very same thing as an abortion. But we have not been called to a life of ease and convenience. Jesus calls us to “take up our cross.” So why are Christians so quick to lay it down and instead pick up the mantle for birth control? It is because they have lost sight of what God created sex and marriage for and have bought into the world’s lie that sex is purely for pleasure. While God certainly made sex to be pleasurable and enjoyed within the boundary of marriage, the Bible tells us that it is meant for much more than that.

The Bible describes the sanctioning of marriage in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (ESV) This one-flesh union, as Todd Wilson, in his book Mere Sexuality, says, “…has a dual purpose: to unite and to procreate.” After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28, ESV) God clearly had a special purpose in mind for sex, in addition to uniting two people in an intimate way: children! Therefore, a result of Christians approving of contraceptive use is a separation of sex from its purpose of procreation, resulting in a devalued view of what sex is really for. Evan Lenow, in his article, “Protestants and Contraception,” agrees, saying, 

“Part of the one-flesh union is the sexual relationship that was designed to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. Birth control interrupts the procreative potential of male-female union and thus runs counter to the one-flesh formula…The deliberate intention to render marital union infertile, through artificial means of birth control, leads to a diminished understanding of the purposes of sex.”

Hormonal birth control kills a fertilized egg (human life) and devalues God’s design for sex and marriage. The implications of these issues are clear: Christians cannot, in good conscience, use hormonal contraceptives, without killing life and defying God’s design for sex. To be clear, this does not mean that taking responsible steps to avoid pregnancy is unbiblical, but neither is it the same as using hormonal methods that can kill an already-begun pregnancy. However, this does not leave Christian couples with the solitary option of unprotected sex and the inevitable result of pregnancy. There are numerous resources available for non-hormonal contraceptives that do not affect a fertilized egg, including condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, fertility tracking, and natural family planning, or a combination of these. All of these methods should be used wisely and with an openness and respect to the possibility of procreation.

Christians need to be aware of these issues and be well-informed enough to teach the younger generation about it, just as they are called to do in Titus 2:3-4: “Older women…are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children.” (ESV) Churches should offer more support for couples as they are preparing for marriage so that they can ensure that they are beginning their marriage with a Biblical understanding of sex and marriage. Both churches and parents need to teach their youth not simply to avoid sex before marriage, but to go one step further and explain why it must be avoided. Sex is a powerful thing that results in uniting two people and creating life that must be valued and protected. It is a gift. But so is a child. And a proper understanding of God’s purposes for sex will cause young people to respect God’s desire and command for us to procreate.

 These changes will hopefully lead to a proper Biblical theology of marriage and sex, and a more consistent conviction of the God-given sanctity of human life. A theology and conviction that does not sacrifice one’s unborn children on the altar of convenience.

Slavery and the Torah

‌Introduction‌ ‌The‌ ‌Civil‌ ‌War‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌United‌ ‌States‌ ‌and‌ ‌William‌ ‌Wilberforce‌ ‌in‌ ‌Britain‌ ‌effectually‌ ‌ended‌ ‌legal‌ ‌and‌ ‌widespread‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌West.‌ ‌This‌ ‌practice‌ ‌is‌ ‌remembered‌ ‌in‌ ‌shame‌ ‌by‌ ‌Americans‌ ‌and‌ ‌recalled‌ ‌with‌ ‌repugnance‌ ‌by‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌and‌ ‌secularists‌ ‌alike.‌ ‌However,‌ ‌“skeptics”‌ ‌and‌ ‌“anti-racists”‌ ‌alike‌ ‌often‌ ‌point‌ ‌out‌ ‌that‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌allows‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌and‌ ‌many‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌owned‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌“Texts‌ ‌like‌ ‌this‌ ‌[Ephesians‌ ‌6:5]‌ ‌have‌ ‌been‌ ‌used‌ ‌throughout‌ ‌Christian‌ ‌history‌ ‌to‌ ‌justify‌ ‌horrible‌ ‌acts‌ ‌of‌ ‌dehumanization‌ ‌by‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌who‌ ‌believed‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌was‌ ‌‘on‌ ‌their‌ ‌side,’”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌66).‌ ‌How‌ ‌should‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌think‌ ‌about‌ ‌this?‌ ‌Does‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌stand‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌foundation‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌mass‌ ‌slaughter,‌ ‌theft,‌ ‌kidnapping,‌ ‌and‌ ‌race-based‌ ‌chattel‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌American‌ ‌memory?‌ ‌A‌ ‌careful‌ ‌examination‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌shows‌ ‌it‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌as‌ ‌beautiful‌ ‌and‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌as‌ ‌the‌ ‌Psalmist‌ ‌proclaims.‌ ‌“Thy‌ ‌testimonies‌ ‌have‌ ‌I‌ ‌taken‌ ‌as‌ ‌an‌ ‌heritage‌ ‌for‌ ‌ever:‌ ‌for‌ ‌they‌ ‌are‌ ‌the‌ ‌rejoicing‌ ‌of‌ ‌my‌ ‌heart,”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:111,‌ ‌King‌ ‌James‌ ‌Version).‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌prohibited‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌but‌ ‌was‌ ‌regulated‌ ‌and‌ ‌used‌ ‌to‌ ‌reflect‌ ‌the‌ ‌relationship‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌and‌ ‌his‌ ‌people,‌ ‌in‌ ‌its‌ ‌best‌ ‌forms.‌ ‌Like‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌relationships‌ ‌found‌ ‌in‌ ‌human‌ ‌societies,‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌corrupted‌ ‌and‌ ‌abused‌ ‌and‌ ‌changed‌ ‌by‌ ‌sin.‌ ‌Meanwhile,‌ ‌all‌ ‌creation‌ ‌cries‌ ‌out‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌redemption‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌(Romans‌ ‌8:19).‌ ‌And‌ ‌as‌ ‌in‌ ‌all‌ ‌things,‌ ‌the‌ ‌hope‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌gospel‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌transformative‌ ‌power‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌Jesus.‌ ‌He‌ ‌has‌ ‌defeated‌ ‌death‌ ‌and‌ ‌defeats‌ ‌now‌ ‌all‌ ‌his‌ ‌enemies‌ ‌including‌ ‌unjust‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌(1‌ ‌Corithnians‌ ‌5:25).‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Slavery:‌ ‌Bondservants‌ ‌and‌ ‌Citizens‌ ‌One‌ ‌thing‌ ‌that‌ ‌must‌ ‌be‌ ‌understood‌ ‌is‌ ‌that‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌is‌ ‌radically‌ ‌different‌ ‌than‌ ‌the‌ ‌western‌ ‌conception‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌race‌ ‌based‌ ‌chattel‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌As‌ ‌put‌ ‌by‌ ‌Treier,‌ ‌“In‌ ‌the‌ ‌OT‌ ‌[Old‌ ‌Testament],‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌a‌ ‌legally‌ ‌prescribed‌ ‌institution‌ ‌and‌ ‌generally‌ ‌more‌ ‌humanitarian‌ ‌than‌ ‌elsewhere‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Near‌ ‌East.”‌ ‌(2018,‌ ‌p.‌ ‌814).‌ ‌The‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌ ‌”The‌ ‌term‌ ‌slave‌ ‌in‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌translations‌ ‌is‌ ‌given‌ ‌to‌ ‌misunderstanding,‌ ‌because‌ ‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌all‌ ‌too‌ ‌ ‌easy‌ ‌to‌ ‌mistakenly‌ ‌read‌ ‌the‌ ‌cruel‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Greeks,‌ ‌Romans,‌ ‌Muslims,‌ ‌Europeans‌ ‌‌ ‌and‌ ‌Americans‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌and‌ ‌New‌ ‌Testaments.‌ ‌For‌ ‌this‌ ‌reason,‌ ‌to‌ ‌describe‌ ‌what‌ ‌was‌ ‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible,‌ ‌one‌ ‌should‌ ‌rather‌ ‌speak‌ ‌of‌ ‌‘bonded‌ ‌labour.’”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌225)‌ ‌And‌ ‌further,‌ ‌ ‌The‌ ‌legal‌ ‌position‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave/servant‌ ‌in‌ ‌Israel,‌ ‌over‌ ‌against‌ ‌the‌ ‌position‌ ‌of‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌among‌ ‌other‌ ‌peoples,‌ ‌was‌ ‌extraordinarily‌ ‌good…‌ ‌This‌ ‌is‌ ‌demonstrated‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fact‌ ‌that‌ ‌there‌ ‌is‌ ‌no‌ ‌word‌ ‌for‌ ‌‘slave’,‌ ‌but‌ ‌rather‌ ‌the‌ ‌same‌ ‌word‌ ‌that‌ ‌was‌ ‌used‌ ‌for‌ ‌‘worker’.‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌225)‌ ‌The‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌Law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌is‌ ‌celebrated‌ ‌by‌ ‌David‌ ‌in‌ ‌Psalm‌ ‌119,‌ ‌“‌O‌ ‌how‌ ‌love‌ ‌I‌ ‌thy‌ ‌law!‌ ‌it‌ ‌‌is‌ ‌my‌ ‌meditation‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌day,‌”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:97).‌ ‌This‌ ‌law‌ ‌regulated‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌but‌ ‌as‌ ‌an‌ ‌institution‌ ‌that‌ ‌preserved‌ ‌life,‌ ‌human‌ ‌dignity,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌good‌ ‌of‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌society.‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌“Israelites‌ ‌are‌ ‌never‌ ‌‘owned’‌ ‌by‌ ‌one‌ ‌another,‌ ‌all‌ ‌their‌ ‌service‌ ‌is‌ ‌temporary‌ ‌and‌ ‌compensated‌ ‌in‌ ‌some‌ ‌way,‌ ‌and‌ ‌there‌ ‌are‌ ‌strict‌ ‌regulations‌ ‌to‌ ‌ensure‌ ‌that‌ ‌foreign‌ ‌servants‌ ‌(who‌ ‌were‌ ‌owned)‌ ‌are‌ ‌treated‌ ‌with‌ ‌respect‌ ‌and‌ ‌compassion,”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌66).‌ ‌And‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌elaborates,‌ ‌ ‌”A‌ ‌slave/servant‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌a‌ ‌possession‌ ‌of‌ ‌his‌ ‌or‌ ‌her‌ ‌master‌ ‌without‌ ‌ ‌rights,‌ ‌as‌ ‌in‌ ‌Greek,‌ ‌Roman,‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌or‌ ‌modem‌ ‌colonial‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Rather,‌ ‌the‌ ‌servant‌ ‌had‌ ‌ ‌full‌ ‌rights‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌presence‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌judge.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Job‌ ‌made‌ ‌clear,‌ ‌this‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌case‌ ‌because‌ ‌the‌ ‌‌servant‌ ‌is‌ ‌just‌ ‌as‌ ‌much‌ ‌created‌ ‌by‌ ‌God‌ ‌as‌ ‌every‌ ‌other‌ ‌person.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌226)‌ ‌The‌ ‌text‌ ‌in‌ ‌Job‌ ‌being‌ ‌referenced‌ ‌is‌ ‌Job‌ ‌31:13-15:‌ ‌“If‌ ‌I‌ ‌did‌ ‌despise‌ ‌the‌ ‌cause‌ ‌of‌ ‌my‌ ‌manservant‌ ‌or‌ ‌my‌ ‌maidservant,‌ ‌when‌ ‌they‌ ‌contended‌ ‌with‌ ‌me;‌ ‌What‌ ‌then‌ ‌shall‌ ‌I‌ ‌do‌ ‌when‌ ‌God‌ ‌riseth‌ ‌up?‌ ‌And‌ ‌when‌ ‌he‌ ‌visiteth,‌ ‌what‌ ‌shall‌ ‌I‌ ‌answer‌ ‌him?‌ ‌Did‌ ‌not‌ ‌he‌ ‌that‌ ‌made‌ ‌me‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌womb‌ ‌make‌ ‌him?‌ ‌and‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌one‌ ‌fashion‌ ‌us‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌womb?”‌ ‌As‌ ‌Job‌ ‌predates‌ ‌even‌ ‌the‌ ‌Torah‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌society,‌ ‌written‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Patriarchal‌ ‌period,‌ ‌this‌ ‌sets‌ ‌precedence‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌equality‌ ‌of‌ ‌all‌ ‌before‌ ‌the‌ ‌Lord‌ ‌God‌ ‌as‌ ‌made‌ ‌in‌ ‌his‌ ‌image‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌1:27)‌ ‌and‌ ‌worthy‌ ‌of‌ ‌dignity‌ ‌and‌ ‌respect‌ ‌as‌ ‌image‌ ‌bearers‌ ‌of‌ ‌God.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

‌Rights‌ ‌of‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌Torah,‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌granted‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ ‌by‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law:‌ ‌a‌ ‌day‌ ‌of‌ ‌rest‌ ‌on‌ ‌the‌ ‌sabbath‌ ‌as‌ ‌all‌ ‌other‌ ‌citizens‌ ‌and‌ ‌aliens‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌20:10),‌ ‌a‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌of‌ ‌six‌ ‌years‌ ‌service‌ ‌for‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:2),‌ ‌the‌ ‌option‌ ‌to‌ ‌stay‌ ‌with‌ ‌their‌ ‌master‌ ‌for‌ ‌life‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:5-6),‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌ability‌ ‌to‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife‌ ‌and‌ ‌children‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:3-4).‌ ‌If‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌was‌ ‌beaten‌ ‌and‌ ‌died‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌direct‌ ‌result,‌ ‌the‌ ‌master‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌executed‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌murderer‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:20).‌ ‌If‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌was‌ ‌mutilated‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌correction‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌master,‌ ‌they‌ ‌would‌ ‌receive‌ ‌their‌ ‌freedom‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:26-27).‌ ‌Fellow‌ ‌Jews‌ ‌that‌ ‌had‌ ‌become‌ ‌overcome‌ ‌by‌ ‌poverty‌ ‌had‌ ‌the‌ ‌option‌ ‌of‌ ‌selling‌ ‌themselves‌ ‌to‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌countrymen.‌ ‌They‌ ‌had‌ ‌a‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌service‌ ‌of‌ ‌six‌ ‌years,‌ ‌with‌ ‌every‌ ‌seven‌ ‌years‌ ‌all‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌going‌ ‌free,‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌25:39-43).‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌circumcised‌ ‌and‌ ‌given‌ ‌to‌ ‌join‌ ‌the‌ ‌covenant‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌enjoying‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌such,‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌17:13).‌ ‌Runaway‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌granted‌ ‌asylum‌ ‌and‌ ‌harbored‌ ‌from‌ ‌abusive‌ ‌masters,‌ ‌not‌ ‌returned‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌master‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌23:15-16).‌ ‌Man-stealing,‌ ‌or‌ ‌kidnapping‌ ‌of‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌his‌ ‌country‌ ‌men‌ ‌to‌ ‌sell‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave,‌ ‌was‌ ‌expressly‌ ‌forbidden‌ ‌and‌ ‌punishable‌ ‌by‌ ‌death.‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌24:7)‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌comments‌ ‌on‌ ‌this‌ ‌law‌ ‌in‌ ‌relevance‌ ‌to‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery,‌ ‌ “‌This‌ ‌instruction‌ ‌by‌ ‌itself‌ ‌firmly‌ ‌and‌ ‌clearly‌ ‌condemns‌ ‌Greek,‌ ‌Roman,‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌ ‌varieties‌ ‌of‌ ‌modem‌ ‌colonial‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Practically‌ ‌all‌ ‌the‌ ‌blacks‌ ‌in‌ ‌North‌ ‌and‌ ‌South‌ ‌America‌ ‌ ‌became‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌by‌ ‌abduction.‌ ‌The‌ ‌slave‌ ‌traders‌ ‌and‌ ‌their‌ ‌financiers‌ ‌in‌ ‌genteel‌ ‌banking‌ ‌ ‌houses‌ ‌and‌ ‌aristocratic‌ ‌families‌ ‌assaulted‌ ‌the‌ ‌lives‌ ‌of‌ ‌others‌ ‌and‌ ‌thus,‌ ‌according‌ ‌to‌ ‌Old‌ ‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌law,‌ ‌forfeited‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌lives.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌229)‌ 

‌Rights‌ ‌of‌ ‌Female‌ ‌Slaves‌ ‌Female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌that‌ ‌were‌ ‌married‌ ‌or‌ ‌given‌ ‌in‌ ‌marriage‌ ‌were‌ ‌promised‌ ‌the‌ ‌protection‌ ‌of‌ ‌stable‌ ‌housing‌ ‌and‌ ‌marital‌ ‌rights,‌ ‌and‌ ‌prohibited‌ ‌from‌ ‌being‌ ‌sold‌ ‌after‌ ‌being‌ ‌taken‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife‌ ‌(Exodus‌ ‌21:7-11).‌ ‌If‌ ‌taken‌ ‌advantage‌ ‌of‌ ‌by‌ ‌another‌ ‌man‌ ‌that‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌her‌ ‌master/husband,‌ ‌the‌ ‌slave‌ ‌would‌ ‌not‌ ‌be‌ ‌executed,‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌typical‌ ‌adulteress‌ ‌was,‌ ‌due‌ ‌to‌ ‌her‌ ‌being‌ ‌a‌ ‌slave‌ ‌and‌ ‌not‌ ‌being‌ ‌free‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌19:20-22).‌ ‌Women‌ ‌taken‌ ‌from‌ ‌conquered‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌tribes‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌wives,‌ ‌were‌‌ ‌granted‌ ‌a‌ ‌month‌ ‌reprieve‌ ‌to‌ ‌mourn‌ ‌their‌ ‌loss‌ ‌and‌ ‌adjust‌ ‌to‌ ‌their‌ ‌new‌ ‌home‌ ‌prior‌ ‌to‌ ‌being‌ ‌married.‌ ‌If‌ ‌the‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌husband‌ ‌decided‌ ‌he‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌want‌ ‌her‌ ‌after‌ ‌taking‌ ‌her‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌wife,‌ ‌he‌ ‌could‌ ‌not‌ ‌sell‌ ‌her,‌ ‌but‌ ‌was‌ ‌to‌ ‌let‌ ‌her‌ ‌go‌ ‌free‌ ‌(Deuteronomy‌ ‌21:10-14).‌ 

‌Slaves‌ ‌of‌ ‌Conquest‌ ‌and‌ ‌Prisoners‌ ‌of‌ ‌War‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌context‌ ‌of‌ ‌conquest‌ ‌and‌ ‌war‌ ‌between‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌Canaanites,‌ ‌God‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌to‌ ‌capture‌ ‌as‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌inhabitants‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌land.‌ ‌These‌ ‌foreign‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌are‌ ‌not‌ ‌granted‌ ‌the‌ ‌same‌ ‌protections‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌domestic‌ ‌servant/slave‌ ‌such‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌limit‌ ‌to‌ ‌six‌ ‌years‌ ‌of‌ ‌service,‌ ‌but‌ ‌they‌ ‌are‌ ‌still‌ ‌protected‌ ‌and‌ ‌given‌ ‌rights‌ ‌as‌ ‌humans‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌unheard‌ ‌of‌ ‌from‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌Rome,‌ ‌or‌ ‌the‌ ‌Americas.‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌ ‌”(Num‌ ‌31:7-12;‌ ‌Deut‌ ‌20:10-14;‌ ‌21:10-14;‌ ‌Gen‌ ‌14:21).‌ ‌According‌ ‌to‌ ‌Deuteronomy‌ ‌20:11,‌ ‌ ‌Israel‌ ‌always‌ ‌had‌ ‌to‌ ‌first‌ ‌offer‌ ‌peace‌ ‌to‌ ‌a‌ ‌besieged‌ ‌city,‌ ‌which‌ ‌then‌ ‌meant‌ ‌‘forced‌ ‌labour’,‌ ‌ ‌that‌ ‌is,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌with‌ ‌all‌ ‌its‌ ‌associated‌ ‌rights.‌ ‌If‌ ‌peace‌ ‌were‌ ‌refused,‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌sought‌ ‌ ‌to‌ ‌destroy‌ ‌the‌ ‌city.‌ ‌Given‌ ‌this‌ ‌situation,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌an‌ ‌act‌ ‌of‌ ‌grace.‌” ‌(p.‌ ‌229)‌ ‌White‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌agrees,‌ ‌arguing‌ ‌that‌ ‌in‌ ‌many‌ ‌cases‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌taken‌ ‌by‌ ‌Israelities‌ ‌their‌ ‌only‌ ‌other‌ ‌option‌ ‌was‌ ‌death‌ ‌or‌ ‌homelessness/exile.‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌promised‌ ‌them‌ ‌protection,‌ ‌food‌ ‌and‌ ‌housing,‌ ‌as‌ ‌well‌ ‌as‌ ‌granting‌ ‌them‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌joining‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌people‌ ‌and‌ ‌his‌ ‌covenant,‌ ‌(Genesis‌ ‌17:13).‌ ‌ ‌

Those‌ ‌Pesky‌ ‌Problem‌ ‌Texts‌ ‌Ultimately,‌ ‌some‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌laws‌ ‌can‌ ‌still‌ ‌raise‌ ‌our‌ ‌enlightened‌ ‌eyebrows.‌ ‌Atheists,‌ ‌and‌ ‌“progressive‌ ‌Christians”‌ ‌love‌ ‌to‌ ‌clobber‌ ‌the‌ ‌saints‌ ‌with‌ ‌texts‌ ‌like‌ ‌this:‌ 

‌”As‌ ‌for‌ ‌your‌ ‌male‌ ‌and‌ ‌female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌whom‌ ‌you‌ ‌may‌ ‌have—you‌ ‌may‌ ‌acquire‌ ‌male‌ ‌ ‌and‌ ‌female‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌nations‌ ‌that‌ ‌are‌ ‌around‌ ‌you.‌‌ ‌‌Then,‌ ‌too,‌ ‌‌it‌ ‌is‌ ‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌sojourners‌ ‌who‌ ‌live‌ ‌as‌ ‌aliens‌ ‌among‌ ‌you‌ ‌that‌ ‌you‌ ‌may‌ ‌gain‌ ‌ ‌acquisition,‌ ‌and‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌their‌ ‌families‌ ‌who‌ ‌are‌ ‌with‌ ‌you,‌ ‌whom‌ ‌they‌ ‌will‌ ‌have‌ ‌ ‌produced‌ ‌in‌ ‌your‌ ‌land;‌ ‌they‌ ‌also‌ ‌may‌ ‌become‌ ‌your‌ ‌possession.‌‌ ‌‌You‌ ‌may‌ ‌ ‌even‌ ‌bequeath‌ ‌them‌ ‌to‌ ‌your‌ ‌sons‌ ‌after‌ ‌you,‌ ‌to‌ ‌receive‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌possession;‌ ‌you‌ ‌can‌ ‌‌use‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌permanent‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌But‌ ‌in‌ ‌respect‌ ‌to‌ ‌your‌ ‌countrymen,‌ ‌the‌ ‌sons‌ ‌of‌ ‌ ‌Israel,‌ ‌you‌ ‌shall‌ ‌not‌ ‌rule‌ ‌with‌ ‌severity‌ ‌over‌ ‌one‌ ‌another.”

‌ ‌(Leviticus‌ ‌25:44-46,‌ ‌New‌ ‌ ‌American‌ ‌Standard‌ ‌Bible)‌ ‌ ‌Rydelnik‌ ‌(2014)‌ ‌explains‌ ‌however,‌ ‌this‌ ‌text‌ ‌likely‌ ‌is‌ ‌speaking‌ ‌about‌ ‌1)‌ ‌a‌ ‌rare‌ ‌occurrence,‌ ‌2)‌ ‌the‌ ‌only‌ ‌right‌ ‌given‌ ‌Hebrew‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌that‌ ‌these‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌would‌ ‌not‌ ‌get‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌that‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌six‌ ‌year‌ ‌maximum‌ ‌service,‌ ‌3)‌ ‌however,‌ ‌if‌ ‌these‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌were‌ ‌to‌ ‌convert‌ ‌to‌ ‌worshippers‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌one‌ ‌true‌ ‌God‌ ‌they‌ ‌would‌ ‌be‌ ‌functionally‌ ‌Jews‌ ‌and‌ ‌therefore‌ ‌would‌ ‌benefit‌ ‌from‌ ‌these‌ ‌protections‌ ‌as‌ ‌well,‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌211).‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌should‌ ‌not‌ ‌dismiss‌ ‌or‌ ‌be‌ ‌ashamed‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌teaching‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law.‌ ‌Goldingay‌ ‌(2020)‌ ‌comments,‌ ‌‌“…we‌ ‌think‌ ‌we‌ ‌know‌ ‌what’s‌ ‌right‌ ‌and‌ ‌we’re‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌to‌ ‌let‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌off‌ ‌the‌ ‌hook‌ ‌when‌ ‌it‌ ‌doesn’t‌ ‌fit‌ ‌with‌ ‌our‌ ‌understanding,”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌67).‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌should‌ ‌be‌ ‌humble,‌ ‌and‌ ‌remember‌ ‌the‌ ‌difference‌ ‌of‌ ‌time‌ ‌between‌ ‌our‌ ‌context‌ ‌and‌ ‌theirs,‌ ‌without‌ ‌presuming‌ ‌a‌ ‌superiority‌ ‌in‌ ‌our‌ ‌perspective‌ ‌over‌ ‌the‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God.‌ ‌Our‌ ‌generation‌ ‌must‌ ‌not‌ ‌proclaim‌ ‌a‌ ‌self‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌superiority‌ ‌to‌ ‌these‌ ‌Israelite‌ ‌saints.‌ ‌‌This‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌of‌ ‌which‌ ‌the‌ ‌inspired‌ ‌psalmist‌ ‌writes,‌ ‌“‌Thy‌ ‌testimonies‌ ‌also‌ ‌‌are‌‌ ‌my‌ ‌delight‌ ‌‌and‌‌ ‌my‌ ‌counsellers…Make‌ ‌me‌ ‌to‌ ‌go‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌path‌ ‌of‌ ‌thy‌ ‌commandments;‌ ‌for‌ ‌therein‌ ‌do‌ ‌I‌ ‌delight…I‌ ‌know,‌ ‌O‌ ‌LORD,‌ ‌that‌ ‌thy‌ ‌judgments‌ ‌are‌ ‌right….Righteous‌ ‌art‌ ‌thou,‌ ‌O‌ ‌LORD,‌ ‌and‌ ‌upright‌ ‌are‌ ‌thy‌ ‌judgments.‌”‌ ‌(Psalm‌ ‌119:24,‌ ‌35,‌ ‌75,‌ ‌137,‌ ‌KJV).‌ ‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌can‌ ‌satisfactorily‌ ‌be‌ ‌proven‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌completely‌ ‌different‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌systems‌ ‌of‌ ‌later‌ ‌cultures,‌ ‌including‌ ‌the‌ ‌enslavement‌ ‌of‌ ‌blacks‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Americas‌ ‌and‌ ‌Europe.‌ ‌Schirrmacher‌ ‌(2018)‌ ‌concludes,‌ ‌ “‌In‌ ‌no‌ ‌case‌ ‌did‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌correspond‌ ‌to‌ ‌later‌ ‌European‌ ‌and‌ ‌Islamic‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌The‌ ‌way‌ ‌in‌ ‌which‌ ‌Christian‌ ‌slave-owners‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌American‌ ‌South‌ ‌used‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament‌ ‌up‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌nineteenth‌ ‌century‌ ‌was‌ ‌misguided‌ ‌and‌ ‌unjustified.”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌228)‌ ‌

Conclusion‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌must‌ ‌not‌ ‌come‌ ‌to‌ ‌a‌ ‌conclusion‌ ‌that‌ ‌disagrees‌ ‌with‌ ‌Scriptures‌ ‌proclamation‌ ‌that,‌ ‌“‌wherefore‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌‌is‌‌ ‌holy,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌commandment‌ ‌holy,‌ ‌and‌ ‌just,‌ ‌and‌ ‌good,‌”‌ ‌(Romans‌ ‌7:12).‌ ‌Similar‌ ‌to‌ ‌other‌ ‌things‌ ‌that‌ ‌are‌ ‌allowed‌ ‌in‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌that‌ ‌were‌ ‌less‌ ‌than‌ ‌optimal,‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌was‌ ‌allowed,‌ ‌regulated,‌ ‌and‌ ‌beneficiary‌ ‌to‌ ‌Jewish‌ ‌society‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌nations‌ ‌being‌ ‌driven‌ ‌out‌ ‌of‌ ‌Caanan.‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law‌ ‌established‌ ‌unparalleled‌ ‌protections‌ ‌for‌ ‌the‌ ‌image‌ ‌bearers‌ ‌of‌ ‌God‌ ‌who‌ ‌were‌ ‌disadvantaged,‌ ‌and‌ ‌needed‌ ‌an‌ ‌ancient‌ ‌“welfare‌ ‌system”‌ ‌to‌ ‌avoid‌ ‌starvation,‌ ‌while‌ ‌maintaining‌ ‌the‌ ‌dignity‌ ‌and‌ ‌value‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌poor.‌ ‌He‌ ‌also‌ ‌established‌ ‌a‌ ‌type‌ ‌of‌ ‌prisoner‌ ‌of‌ ‌war‌ ‌program‌ ‌that‌ ‌assimilated‌ ‌the‌ ‌pagans‌ ‌into‌ ‌the‌ ‌people‌ ‌of‌ ‌God,‌ ‌preserving‌ ‌their‌ ‌lives,‌ ‌giving‌ ‌them‌ ‌opportunities‌ ‌to‌ ‌have‌ ‌families,‌ ‌property‌ ‌and‌ ‌safety‌ ‌all‌ ‌while‌ ‌enjoying‌ ‌the‌ ‌benefits‌ ‌of‌ ‌being‌ ‌part‌ ‌of‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌covenant‌ ‌people.‌ ‌Even‌ ‌for‌ ‌pagan‌ ‌slaves,‌ ‌life‌ ‌was‌ ‌not‌ ‌horrible.‌ ‌Kaiser‌ ‌(2010)‌ ‌writes,‌ ‌ ‌”What‌ ‌about‌ ‌the‌ ‌status‌ ‌of‌ ‌non-Hebrew‌ ‌slaves?‌ ‌These‌ ‌captives‌ ‌were‌ ‌permanent‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌Israelites,‌ ‌but‌ ‌that‌ ‌did‌ ‌not‌ ‌mean‌ ‌that‌ ‌they‌ ‌could‌ ‌treat‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌if‌ ‌they‌ ‌were‌ ‌chattel.‌ ‌The‌ ‌same‌ ‌rules‌ ‌of‌ ‌Exodus‌ ‌21:20-21,‌ ‌26‌ ‌applied‌ ‌to‌ ‌them‌ ‌as‌ ‌well.‌ ‌One‌ ‌evidence‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌mistreatment‌ ‌and‌ ‌they‌ ‌too‌ ‌went‌ ‌free.”‌ ‌(p.‌ ‌149)‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌can‌ ‌have‌ ‌confidence‌ ‌in‌ ‌God,‌ ‌the‌ ‌righteous‌ ‌judge‌ ‌will‌ ‌surely‌ ‌do‌ ‌right,‌ ‌and‌ ‌that‌ ‌all‌ ‌his‌ ‌commands‌ ‌are‌ ‌just‌ ‌and‌ ‌good.‌ ‌In‌ ‌the‌ ‌fullness‌ ‌of‌ ‌redemptive‌ ‌history,‌ ‌we‌ ‌as‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌recognize‌ ‌that‌ ‌we‌ ‌are‌ ‌all‌ ‌born‌ ‌slaves.‌ ‌The‌ ‌Israelites‌ ‌had‌ ‌in‌ ‌their‌ ‌memory‌ ‌their‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌Egypt,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌have‌ ‌memories‌ ‌of‌ ‌being‌ ‌slaves‌ ‌to‌ ‌sin.‌ ‌As‌ ‌Wilson‌ ‌argues,‌ ‌Christians‌ ‌do‌ ‌not‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌worldview‌ ‌in‌ ‌which‌ ‌freedom‌ ‌or‌ ‌liberty‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌basic‌ ‌right‌ ‌and‌ ‌nature‌ ‌of‌ ‌man,‌ ‌but‌ ‌slavery.‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌to‌ ‌sin‌ ‌is‌ ‌mans‌ ‌base‌ ‌and‌ ‌birthright‌ ‌in‌ ‌Adam.‌ ‌But,‌ ‌in‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌is‌ ‌liberty‌ ‌true,‌ ‌and‌ ‌“whom‌ ‌the‌ ‌son‌ ‌sets‌ ‌free‌ ‌is‌ ‌free‌ ‌indeed,”‌ ‌(John‌ ‌8:36).‌ ‌

References‌ ‌

Goldingay,‌ ‌J.‌ ‌(2020).‌ ‌Do‌ ‌we‌ ‌really‌ ‌love‌ ‌God’s‌ ‌law?‌ ‌‌Christianity‌ ‌Today‌,‌ ‌‌64‌(4),‌ ‌64–69.‌ ‌

Kaiser,‌ ‌W.‌ ‌C.,‌ ‌Davids,‌ ‌P.‌ ‌H.,‌ ‌Bruce,‌ ‌F.‌ ‌F.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Brauch,‌ ‌M.‌ ‌T.‌ ‌(2010).‌ ‌‌Hard‌ ‌sayings‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Bible‌.‌ ‌ ‌Intervarsity‌ ‌Press.‌ 

‌Rydelnik,‌ ‌M.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Vanlaningham,‌ ‌M.‌ ‌G.‌ ‌(2014).‌ ‌‌The‌ ‌Moody‌ ‌Bible‌ ‌commentary‌.‌ ‌Moody‌ ‌Publishers.‌ ‌

Schirrmacher,‌ ‌T.‌ ‌(2018).‌ ‌Slavery‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌Old‌ ‌Testament,‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌New‌ ‌Testament,‌ ‌and‌ ‌History.‌ ‌ ‌Evangelical‌ ‌Review‌ ‌of‌ ‌Theology‌,‌ ‌‌42‌(3),‌ ‌225–238.‌ ‌

Treier,‌ ‌D.‌ ‌J.,‌ ‌&‌ ‌Elwell,‌ ‌W.‌ ‌A.‌ ‌(2017).‌ ‌‌Evangelical‌ ‌dictionary‌ ‌of‌ ‌theology‌.‌ ‌Baker‌ ‌Academic,‌ ‌a‌ ‌ ‌division‌ ‌of‌ ‌Baker‌ ‌Publishing‌ ‌Group.‌ ‌ ‌

White,‌ ‌J.‌ ‌(2020,‌ ‌January‌ ‌23).‌ ‌‌Jonathan‌ ‌Merritt‌ ‌uses‌ ‌slavery‌ ‌as‌ ‌a‌ ‌cover‌ ‌for‌ ‌slander,‌ ‌then‌ ‌Bart‌ ‌ ‌Ehrman’s‌ ‌ideal‌ ‌God‌.‌ ‌Alpha‌ ‌and‌ ‌Omega‌ ‌Ministries.‌ ‌ ‌https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/jonathan-merritt-uses-slavery-as-a-co‌ver-for-slander-then-bart-ehrmans-ideal-god/.‌ ‌ 

‌Wilson,‌ ‌D.‌ ‌(2018,‌ ‌April‌ ‌30).‌ ‌Salvation‌ ‌and‌ ‌Slavery.‌ ‌ ‌https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/salvation-and-slavery.ht‌ ‌ml.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌