Sex Slavery and the Bible

    Did the Old Testament Law allow for men to buy and sell young women for use as sex slaves?

    According to some skeptics, the Bible says just that in Exodus 21:7-9 which reads as follows:

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter." ~Exodus 21:7-9 New Living Translation (NLT)

    If one were to take this passage at face value without understanding the cultural context, it would be easy to mistakenly assume that this passage is speaking about sex slavery. However, this is simply not the case. The first and foremost reason being that both prostitution and the act of selling one's daughter into prostitution were specifically condemned by the Hebrew Law. (Leviticus 19:29, 21:9, Deuteronomy 23:17)
    
    Since prostitution was forbidden under Jewish Law we must therefore ask several questions of this passage. 

    First of all, the English translation of verse eight speaks of a broken contract. Yet no contract is mentioned in the preceding verses. This, of course, raises the question of what contract has been broken? Furthermore, why does the breaking of this unspecified contract allow for the woman to be returned to her father's house? If this woman is a sex slave, as the skeptic claims, then why can't her owner sell her to a foreigner when he is finished with her?
    The answer, while obscure in English translations of the Bible, is quite obvious in the Hebrew text. In the original langue this passage says that by purchasing the woman as a slave, the man has "betrothed her to himself."  (יְעָדָ֖הּ) This means that the woman was sold as a slave with the expressed intent of marriage. Being betrothed to a man is not the same as sex slavery. Neither is marriage to a slave woman.
    According to the very next passage (Exodus 21:10) a slave-wife (concubine) was entitled to the same rights and privileges of a free-born woman. The one exception being that the children of a slave-wife did not have an automatic share of their father's inheritance, while those children born to a free woman did.

    The case of Abraham and his many sons is a great example of this cultural practice. Issac was born of Abraham's free-born wife, Sarah, while Ishmael was the child of Abraham and Hagar—Sarah's maidservant. Abraham also had six more sons by a slave-wife named Keturah in Genesis 25:1-6. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac was his heir because he was born of a free woman. That said, if a man wanted to pass on his inheritance to the son of a slave-wife then he would have to publicly name that child as his heir. Which was not uncommon. 

    In the case of Exodus 21:7-9, if a man bought a young woman as a slave-wife but did not marry her himself,  he was then required to give her in marriage to his son or to another servant within his household within seven years. Otherwise the woman's father could buy her back at that time. (According to the the Jewish Laws recorded in Exodus 21:2-3, every seventh year all Hebrew slaves would be freed, and all of their debts would be canceled). This is why a slave woman would not be freed at the end of the six year period as the men were; because she was expected to be married to a member of the household by that time.

    In the culture of ancient Israel, it was considered a public disgrace for a woman of marrying age to remain unmarried. This is why the man was required to allow the woman to return to her father if he broke his contract to marry her. If he failed to do so and kept her as a servant in his household, he would be condemning her to a life of shame. Furthermore, he himself would be disgraced for failing to find her a suitable husband, thus breaking his pledge to her father. The original Hebrew actually accuses the man of treachery and deceit (בְּבִגְדוֹ־) if he did not marry the woman he purchased. In this way, the purchase of a young woman from her father was not unlike the practice of paying a dowry for her betrothal, and showed the serious intentions of the husband-to-be. 

    That being said, the man in this scenario also had the ability to choose to marry the woman himself or to give her in marriage to another man within his household (ie. his son) if she did not satisfy him.

    It is important to note here that the Hebrew word translated as "satisfy" or "please" in some English translations does not imply anything sexual. It simply means that the man likes the woman. Or, to phrase it another way, she is pleasing in his eyes. This does not mean that the man got to sample her sexually before deciding whether or not to marry her. Such practices were not only condemned by the Old Testament Law but would also have prevented the man from giving her to his son (or anyone else) as a wife. (Leviticus 18:8, Deuteronomy 22:28-30)
    Furthermore, the language used in this particular case implies the negative; that the woman is displeasing (רָעָ֞ה) in the eyes of her master rather than pleasing. That is to say, the woman is so disagreeable that marriage to her would result in nothing but misery on the part of the man who married her.

    To summarize: what this passage is really saying is that if a man found himself in a position of financial desperation and could no longer provide for the members of his family, he could sell his daughter as a servant with the understanding that the man who bought her would marry her himself. If the man found that he did not really get along with the woman, then he had seven years to find her a husband within his household. If the man failed to do so, then the girl's father reserved the right to buy her back again once his debts had been canceled. The man who paid for the woman's hand in marriage could not keep her as a servant, nor could he sell her to someone else if he failed to uphold his end of the bargain. In this way, the act of selling ones daughter as a servant was a desperate father's final attempt to insure that she would be provided for when he could no longer insure her well-being. 

    Another passage commonly referred to by skeptics seeking to support their position on sex slavery in the Bible is Numbers 31:25-50, which details the division of plunder after a battle between Israel and Midian. 
    In verse 35 we find 32,000 virgin girls listed among the spoils taken by the Israelite men. Were these women taken as sex slaves by the victorious Israelites? What about those women given to God as His share (Numbers 31:36-40)? Were these virgins brutally sacrificed to the Hebrew God as some skeptics claim?

    As with the previous case, the truth becomes apparent when we examine the context of this passage. The first question we should ask ourselves is: why did the Israelites go to war against the people of Midian in the first place? Both Israel and Midian were descendants of Abraham. (Genesis 25:1-6) Moses himself was married to a Midianite (Exodus 2:11-22) and  clearly had no quarrel with his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. (Exodus 18) Why then did Moses suddenly decide to go to war against his family's kinsmen?
    The answer can be found a few chapters earlier in Numbers 22-25, which recounts Israel's journey through Midian and the land of Moab. Numbers 22:1-7 introduces us to Balak, the king of Moab, and describes how both he and his people were filled with terror at the arrival of the Israelites in their land. In an attempt to destroy Israel, Balak and the elders of Midian sent messengers to enlist the help of the sorcerer Balaam, hoping that he would be able to place a curse on the people of Israel. However, we read in Numbers 23-24 that God prevented Balaam from cursing Israel. Instead, God caused the pagan sorcerer to pronounce blessing after blessing upon His people.
     Having failed to curse Israel,  Balaam instead persuaded the women of Midian and Moab to seduce the Israelite men in Numbers 25 so that God Himself would strike Israel for their sin. As Balaam predicted, the sexual debauchery of Israel caused the Lord's anger to "blaze against His people," resulting in a plague that killed some 24,000 Israelites. This is why Israel went to war against Midian in Numbers 31.

     Realizing this, we must ask the obvious question: would the Israelite men be willing to indulge themselves in sexual sin with Midianite captives when it was sex with the women of Midian and Moab that had caused the plague in the first place? 24,000 of their kinsman had just died as a result of God's wrath, so the possibility of this seems remote. Furthermore, we must also consider Moses's statements concerning ritual purification after the battle as recorded in Numbers 31:18-19.
    According to Leviticus 15:16-18 sexual intercourse would cause both men and women to become ceremonially unclean. This means that the men would not have been able to have sex with the captive women, since they were required to purify themselves and their captives for seven days.

    We must also realize that in most ancient near-eastern cultures women were married off as soon as they reached puberty. This meant that if a girl was prepubescent, she was in all likelihood still a virgin. Additionally, married women in the near-east also wore veils or other special headwear while unmarried women did not. The same can be said of temple prostitutes who wore distinctive clothing, jewelry and hairstyles to represent their status as holy vessels of the gods. This meant that it would have been easy for the Israelites to recognize who was a virgin and who wasn't. If a captive girl was under the age of twelve or was not wearing a veil or the attire of a temple prostitute, then it was safe to assume that she was a virgin.
    Thus it can be concluded with a high degree of certainty that most, if not all, of the virgins given to the Israelite men were children under the age of twelve, as these would have been the obvious virgins among the captives and would not have been involved in the plot to lead the men of Israel into sexual sin. (Which was the entire reason why Israel went to war against Midian in the first place.) This fact combined with the Hebrews' stringent laws on sexuality (Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 18, 20:10-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14,  22:13-30) and the fair treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:1-11, 16, 20-21, 26-27, Leviticus 26:35-55, Deuteronomy 15:12-18) makes it highly unlikely that these children were ever used as sex slaves. If anything, they would be wards in the care of their master until they were old enough to work as servants in his household.

    One final point worth mentioning here is the issue of whether or not some of the captives taken from Midian were sacrificed to the Hebrew God. As mentioned earlier, some would claim that Numbers 31:36-41 says just that. However, human sacrifice—especially child sacrifice—was  condemned by the Law of Moses. (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:9-12) This means that these young girls were not sacrificed to God. Rather they were given to God as servants to the priests in the tribe of Levi. Again, this is apparent in the original Hebrew which states that the virgins set aside as the Lord's share, or "tribute" (הַמֶּ֥כֶס), were part of the "heave offering" (תְּרוּמַ֣ת); the portion of the sacrifice reserved for the priests or otherwise set apart for holy use. (see Leviticus 7:14, 31-34, Numbers 18:19)

    In closing, it is clear from the cultural, historic, and textual context of the passages in question that sex slavery, rape, and prostitution were never permissible under Old Testament Law. However, it is fair to point out that sinful man is not above misusing God's Word to justify actions that are contrary to the Scriptures' intent. The people of Israel themselves would violate God's Law time and time again throughout history, as would countless others. 
    That said, in order to violate God's Law, one must first divorce Scripture from its context. Once this is done, it is easy to twist God's Word to justify every whim of man's sinful heart. That is why it is so important to understand Scripture in its entirety; to view the Bible through the lens of the culture and history of those to whom it was originally written, and to understand the languages in which the Scriptures were originally penned. To do otherwise is to resign oneself to an interpretation of Scripture limited only to a superficial understanding, rife with misinterpretation and misunderstanding. In this way, the skeptic is no better than the man who distorts the Scripture to justify immorality. Both choose to ignore those portions of Scripture that conflict with their presuppositions and as a result, both are misinformed. One uses Scripture to justify the very evil the Scriptures condemn. The other uses Scripture to accuse the Scriptures of supporting what the Scriptures actually condemn. In both cases truth is lost.
    Therefore it is the responsibility of the individual to take the time to study the Scriptures for themselves so that the lies of those who misuse God's Word can be exposed and refuted.



   

See Also:

Slavery and the Bible: Is the Bible Racist?

   

Women and the Bible: Is the Bible Sexist?

Science and the Bible: Darwin vs. Galileo

   



    Is empirical science in direct opposition to Christianity and the Bible?

    There are many today who would argue that the obvious answer is yes, the Bible and Christianity are completely incompatible with modern science. The Bible's claim that almighty God created the universe in six days flies in the face of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which in many ways has become the very foundation of modern science. Likewise, it was the Roman Catholic Church who banned the writings of Nicolaus Copernicus and condemned Galileo Galilei to house arrest for daring to challenge the Holy Word of God. How then can the Bible be justified? 

    In the hopes of shedding some light on the topic, I have compiled the following comparison between the scientific theories, personal histories, and spiritual beliefs of two of the great fathers of Modern Science mentioned above: Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei. While the following is in no way an exhaustive examination of the two men, I feel that it may help to better understand the nature of both individuals, their contributions to science, the controversies surrounding their theories, and the relationship between science and God's Word.

Charles Darwin
1809-1882

    Charles Darwin was raised in the Unitarian tradition of the Church of England, though even as a young man he held views that were widely regarded as non-conformist. He attended the University of Cambridge with the intention of joining the clergy in the Anglican Church, at which time he became fascinated with natural history and geology. It was this passion for nature that lead Darwin to embark on his famous voyage of discovery aboard the HMS Beagle from 1831-1836.

    Initially, Darwin remained orthodox in his Anglican beliefs. However, in the face of growing criticisms from his peers aboard ship, he soon became skeptical of the Bible's validity as a historical account and by 1836 he wondered why all religions should not be equally true.

    A chief cause of Darwin's growing skepticism was the question of how a benevolent God could create creatures specially designed to cause pain and suffering in others. As Darwin himself said in a letter to his American collaborator, Asa Gray in 1860: 

    "There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

    In spite his doubts Darwin did not challenge Christianity outright, and still believed that God existed and was both the "ultimate lawgiver" and "original cause" of the natural world.
However, Darwin's personal belief in the existence of God began to waver over the years, and by 1849 he had ceased attending church, choosing instead to go for long walks while his wife and children worshiped. 

    In 1850 Darwin's daughter, Annie, died. This proved to be the critical tipping point at which time Darwin abandoned his belief in the Christian God, salvation, and the afterlife. However he never claimed to be an atheist, saying in 1879, "an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." 

    Nine years later, in 1859, Darwin published his theories on natural selection. In his book On The Origin of Species, Darwin presented the evidence he had gathered through careful study of biological adaptation within species. Having proved that such adaptation (micro-evolution) was possible through natural selection, Darwin theorized that larger adaptations leading to the transmutation of species (macro-evolution) was possible. Given enough time, he theorized, a fish would become an amphibian, an amphibian a reptile, a reptile a bird etc. Thus all life originated from a common primordial ancestor and adapted to survive in a specialized capacity through random chance and natural selection, completely independent of intelligent design.

    Despite the atheistic ramifications of his claim, Darwin insisted that it was not his intent to write aesthetically. (As stated in the 1860 letter to Asa Gray sited above)  Furthermore, many Christians believed—and continue to believe to this day—that there is no conflict between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the Biblical account of creation. In the words of noted author and Christian Socialist, Charles Kingsley: 

    "(The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is) just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self development... as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made."

    Astonishingly, the Biblical account of creation does show some support of Darwin's initial observations. According to Genesis 1 God created all life on earth, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, plants and land animals "each according to its kind." In this sense Darwin was absolutely correct in saying that each species originated from a single progenitor of that species. (ie. Darwin's finches were all descended from a common finch ancestor. The variation he observed in the individual populations of the Galapagos Islands came through breeding and natural selection.)  
    However, contrary to the opinion of Darwin and his contemporaries, who held to the common belief that the Bible explicitly taught that each species had been independently created in its ideal environment and had existed in its present form since creation, the Bible makes no such claim. The Bible simply states that God created each kind of animal. The Bible does not say that the highly specialized forms we see today were created as such. 

    That said, Darwin's theory of adaptation through natural selection is completely consistent with scripture. It is Darwin's theory on the transmutation of species through natural selection that is debatable.

    The Bible's claim of special creation was not the only challenge to Darwin's theory. Geology and the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record presented an equally convincing argument.

    Recognizing this inherent weakness, Darwin wrote: 

    "The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
    "In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."

 In short, Darwin believed that subtle changes between different species and their ancient, common ancestors would not be preserved in the fossil record because such changes happened quickly within members of the same species. Since these slight modifications happened in a relatively short span of time, it would be unlikely that direct intermediate links would be preserved in the fossil record. Instead, the fossil evidence would appear to preserve two distinct forms rather than a gradual line of succession between ancestors and descendants. This is further evidenced by Darwin's pigeon analogy. Both the fantail and pouter pigeon are pigeons. They are different breeds of the same species with wildly different physical characteristics brought about through intelligent design. (ie. Selective breeding by humans with a specific purpose in mind.) However, the physical remains of each breed could be easily misidentified as belonging to two distinct species if their lineage were unknown.

With this in mind, Darwin theorized that, given the great span of time between the unaltered progenitors of each major class of organism and their highly adapted descended, fossil evidence of direct intermediate forms between species (ie. a ground-dwelling dinosaur with the traits and characteristics of a feathered, perching bird.) as well as unchanged forms existing through multiple geological eras, even to the present day, would be virtually non-existent. "...such a case" He argued, "would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism and organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; for in all cases the new and improved forms of life will tend to supplant the old and unimproved."

    Despite Darwin's skepticism towards the Bible and religion, much of what is written in The Origin of Species caries with it a strong undertone of theism and the need for an original cause. Though originally open to the possibility of spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, (as evident in his now famous letter to Joseph Hooker, in which Darwin speaks of life originating in a "warm little pond.") Darwin later felt that such a likelihood was "beyond the confines of science."

    Thus, Darwin chose to avoid addressing the question of how life on earth came to be, stating on numerous occasions that studying the origin of life was, at that time, "mere rubbish thinking." 
    He would maintain this view until the end of his life, as evidenced in a letter mailed to George Wallich in 1882: 

    "You expressed quite correctly my views where you say that I had intentionally left the question of the Origin of Life uncanvassed as being altogether ultra vires in the present state of our knowledge, and that I dealt only with the manner of succession. I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of the so-called Spontaneous generation. I believe that I have somewhere said (but cannot find the passage) that the principle of continuity renders it probable that the principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence of some general law; but this is only conjecture and not science."

    Nonetheless, the paradox of the origin of life confounded Darwin. In 1873, nine years before his death, he wrote in a letter to a colleague at the University of Utrecht: 

    "I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

    In the end Darwin's grand conclusion was that there may very well be a "god", but that such things were so far beyond the scope of human intellect as to be beyond hope of understanding.

Galileo Galilei
1564-1642

    Like Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei was born and raised in the Christian faith. However, unlike his 19th Century counterpart, Galileo believed that the Bible was the authoritative Word of God, given to man for the redemption of human souls. A belief he shared with many of the earliest fathers of modern science such as Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Sir Isaac Newton. 
    Galileo likewise believed that God had given humanity logic and reason with the intent that we use both to understand the natural world, as show in his letter to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany in 1615:

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible."

    That said, Galileo also thought that, while the Bible could not speak untruth so long as its true meaning was understood, human interpretation of passages could be in error when the empirical study of creation produced evidence contrary to the commonly held interpretation of the Holy Word of God. 

    For this reason, he boldly claimed that the scriptures should apply only to spiritual matters, and should be interpreted through the eye of science. The Bible's true purpose, after all, is the salvation and redemption of mankind, with the ultimate goal of restoring man's relationship with God through the death and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ. The Bible therefore was never intended to be an authoritative book of science, and actually says very little in that regard. As Galileo himself was keen to point out:

    "Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus [The Morning Star] are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them."

    While true in most respects, Galileo's views and brash, sometimes abrasive personality gained him little favor in the eyes of his peers or the dogmatic religious hierarchy of medieval Europe. Even so, Galileo's heliocentric theories were not a veiled attack on the Bible's validity, but rather a direct assault on the ancient geocentric doctrines of the Greeks and Romans. 

    The Ptolemaic geocentric theory and Aristotelian doctrines on physics gained popularity among scientists and church leaders in the Second Century AD when Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria accurately predicted the movement of the celestial bodies with a greater degree of accuracy than that presented by existing heliocentric models. By the 1600s the church had intertwined scientific dogmatism with religion. As a result passages of scripture were found, wrenched from their context, and used to support the commonly held belief that the earth, not the sun, was the center of the solar-system. However, many of the passages used to in defense of the geocentric model were nothing more than poetic verse describing God's majesty and power (as seen in Psalm 93:1, 96:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:30) or, in the case of  Ecclesiastes 1:5, figures of speech not unlike those we continue to use today. For example: No one living today would marvel at a sunset and declare: "The earth is rotating on its access." They would say, "What a beautiful sunset." We say that the sun is going down (setting) or coming up (rising) on a daily basis. Does this mean that the sun is moving? Of course not! The sun merely appears to move based on our relative position here on earth. 

    A further example used to defend the geocentric theory was Joshua 10:12-14 which records how God miraculously lengthened one day to allow the Israelis to win a major victory over the Amorites. This is an exception to the previous passages in that while the language used in Joshua's prayer is poetic, the events recorded are presented as historical fact, not poetry. 
   Since the event recorded in Joshua 10 is a miracle, it cannot be proven scientifically. A miracle by its very definition defies the laws of science. This of course in no way implies that it is beyond God's ability to lengthen a day. God created the laws of nature, space, and time and is therefore not bound by such laws. Thus it is completely within the realm of God's power to stop time for a time, even if science cannot explain how such a miracle is possible.

    In light of this, Galileo's heliocentric theory was not an attack on the Bible so much as it was a challenge to Greco-Roman science and dogmatism. Nothing in his theory conflicted with the scriptures. The foremost authority on Catholic theology of the day, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine—who was himself an admirer of Galileo's work—even went so far as to say that, "If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me."  

   If the leading theologian of the day was willing to reconsider his interpretation of scripture in light of scientific evidence, where then did the accusations of heresy against Galileo originate?

    Surprisingly, the first challenge brought against Galileo came from his colleagues in the University, specifically those belonging to the Aristotelian school of thought. As Arthur Koestler pointed out in his book, The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe:

    "But there existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the Universities. ... Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole laboriously constructed edifice might collapse. The academic backwoods-men have been the curse of genius ... it was this threat—not Bishop Dantiscus or Pope Paule III—which had cowed Canon Koppernigk [ie. Copernicus] into silence. ... The first serious attack on religious grounds came not from clerical quarters, but from a layman—none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the league. ... The earthly nature of the moon, the existence of sunspots meant the abandonment of the Aristotelian doctrines on perfect and unchanging nature of the celestial spheres."

    The first people to accuse Galileo of challenging God were not the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, but scientists! The geocentric theory challenged by Galileo's observations originated not in the Bible, but in the minds of ancient pagan philosophers. Jealous scientists espousing the ideas and theories of Plato, Aristotle and other pagan philosophers accused Galileo of challenging God and the Bible with science! The irony cannot be over-exaggerated.

    It was not Galileo's intent to deny the existence of God or the validity of the Bible. On the contrary, he was himself a devout Christian who believed that both "...the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands."

    Regardless of Galileo's faith, he was called before the inquisition in 1616 to defend the heliocentric views he published six years earlier in his short treatise Sidernus Nuncius. 
    Contrary to the popular narrative, Galileo was not interrogated at this first summons. Instead, after a short deliberation, the inquisition concluded that Galileo's heliocentric model was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." They then warned Galileo not to teach heliocentric theory as physical truth, demanding that he "... abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

    This warning, however, did not forbid Galileo from exploring heliocentricity as a philosophical theory. Sixteen years later, in 1632, Galileo once again published his theories in his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, this time with official permission from the Inquisition and the support of Pope Urban VIII, who was a great admirer of Galileo's work. However, Galileo was soon called before the Inquisition on grounds of heresy when it was discovered that he had placed the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of the fictional character Simplicio—a name which means simple or simpleton. Furthermore, Galileo used Simplicio to make the arguments for an earth-centered solar system look foolish while promoting his own heliocentric theories. It was this literary blunder and not his scientific theories that placed Galileo under suspicion of heresy and alienated him from his closest allies within the church. 

Unlike his previous trial, this time Galileo was questioned—though only for the span of half a day. In his defense Galileo said quite falsely: "I have neither maintained or defended in that book (Dialogue) the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary but have rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion and shown the arguments of Copernicus are week and not conclusive." 

     Having been caught in this lie, Galileo was threatened with torture, and ultimately recanted.

     It is important to note here that, according to the standard practices of the Inquisition, Galileo's lie should have resulted in an intimidate examination under torture to determine the validity of his faith. However Pope Urban VIII had issued an official order in advance of the trial stating that Galileo was not to be harmed in any way. This allowed for intimidation, but ultimately limited the Inquisition to empty threats.

    Without enough evidence to condemn Galileo as a heretic, the Inquisition's final ruling instead found him "vehemently suspect of heresy." Galileo was then released into the custody of Archbishop Siena who allowed Galileo to live in his palace for five months before he was permitted to return to his own villa in Florence. Galileo would remain under house arrest for the majority of his remaining years, though he was permitted to travel to visit his daughters in the convent of Saint Matteo. 
Galileo was also allowed to continued his scientific pursuits and made many more contributions to science and astronomy during this time. However, he never fully abandoned his heliocentric theories. Nor did he forsake his faith in God.

    In closing, I believe that the greatest difference between the two men and their contributions to science lies upon the matter of faith. 
    Charles Darwin viewed Christianity—and religion in general—as little more than a social characteristic of highly evolved culture, and dismissed the Bible as a "manifestly false history of the world." For this reason he was forced to seek out some other explanation for the origin of life as an alternative to the will of an omnipotent creator. Because of the manifest suffering he witnessed in this fallen world, Darwin rejected the notion of a benevolent God and abandoned all hope in the afterlife. In so doing he lost sight of God's ultimate plan of salvation for mankind and the restoration of all creation. Thus Darwin was forced to expand his theory in an attempt to explain the absence of God, sin, and redemption; pushing the laws of adaptation through natural selection far beyond the point of empirical evidence and into the realm of philosophical speculation and conjecture. Even though his initial observations were not in conflict with the Bible, Darwin's skepticism lead him down an unstable path where he could neither accept nor deny the existence of God, and ultimately left him with more questions than answers.
    Galileo, on the other hand, retained his belief in the sovereignty of God and the infallibility of scripture in spite of his unjust treatment at the hands of his peers. He was not forced to reconsider his understanding of the natural world, nor did he lose sight of God's redemptive plan: The salvation of mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Galileo did not attempt to use science to disprove the Bible or the existence of God because that was not his intent. Instead he used science to challenge the majority consensus of his day and exposed both a scientific and theological falsehood without contradicting the scriptures.
   Thus, while the theories and observations of both men did not conflict with the Bible, personal bias towards the scriptures determined their motivation for study and ultimately influenced their conclusions. Both men saw what they wanted to see. One recognized God's hand in nature and was falsely accused by his academic peers, while the other saw no such evidence and was praised as a genius in his time.

    It is my conclusion therefore that science correctly practiced cannot be in conflict with properly interpreted scripture and serves to strengthen one's understanding, while the misinterpretation or misuse of either the scientific method or the Word of God leads only to chaos, confusion, and the concealment of truth.  

The Nature of Truth

    Is it possible for one to be completely objective in their search for truth? The simple answer is: No. True objectivity involves the ability to think for oneself, completely independent of others. Since we are relational creatures by design, it is impossible for an individual to progress through life without being influenced by another. From the moment we are born we are in contact with others, we crave contact with others and require contact with others in order to thrive. It is this contact that shapes us through infancy and childhood and continues to mold us as individuals throughout our lives.
    We continue to be influenced by others beyond our formative years, whether consciously or subconsciously, by the things we read, hear, and see. Every word, written or heard, influences us in our interpretation and perception of reality. To be truly independent of the influence of others we must avoid all human contact from birth. Something that is not only impossible, but also detrimental to normal psychological and physical development.
    Even those who seek originality cannot escape this fact. In the quest for original thought, the one who seeks originality must do so by avoiding those thoughts, ideas and theories which have already been explored so as not to repeat them.One cannot create a new thought or present a new theory or idea without first understanding the thoughts and ideas of others in order to avoid presenting an idea that has already been presented. Therefore the quest for originality is also directly influenced by the ideas and thoughts of others, if only for the sake of omission!

    Since our interpretation of reality has been unavoidably influenced by the thoughts and opinions of others, we are as a result biased in both our opinions and our quest for truth. Realizing this, one must also realize that the quest for truth itself is in reality a quest to prove which bias is true.
    This is of course assuming that their is absolute truth. If truth is subjective, then it is fluid and can be changed depending on the bias of the observer. The result of subjective truth is a perception of reality in which something that is true to the bias of one individual is not necessarily true to the bias of another.
    In this scenario, if a particular aspect of truth is uncomfortable, or challenges the bias of the observer, then the observer simply has to ignore that particular aspect of truth. This is the only instance when it is possible for one to be objective in their search for truth because one can simply change the truth in order to fit one's bias! Logic however dictates that nothing can be both equally true and equally false at the same time. Thus two opposing biases cannot both be true.
    Furthermore, the belief in subjective truth is itself a statement of absolute truth. It cannot be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth if there is no absolute truth! To believe that nothing is absolutely true is to adhere to the belief in the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. Therefore, the belief in subjective truth proves that truth is, by it's very nature, absolute. It is not fluid. It is not subjective. It is absolute and unyielding. To believe otherwise is to live within a world of self delusion governed by logical fallacy and denial.

    If truth is absolute and each observer is biased, how then can anyone be objective? The only way to be completely unbiased in one's evaluation of truth is if one is omniscient. In order to know truth, one must know the difference between false bias and the truth without being influenced by the bias of others. The only way to accurately discern between bias and truth free of the influence of others is if one is intimately antiquated with absolute truth and knows the answer and ultimate outcome of every idea conceived by man, past present and future.
    In order to know every idea conceived by man past, present and future, one must also exist outside of time, thus one would have to be omnipotent, being master of both time and space. And if one were the master of time and space, then one would of course be unhindered by the laws of the natural universe and would therefore be omnipresent: existing everywhere in the universe and beyond simultaneously.

    If one were omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then one would be able to know truth, for such a being would be the very author of truth itself.

    How then can we, who are unashamedly biased in our presuppositions know truth? By drawing close to the One who is the author of truth: Jesus Christ. 

    Jesus is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent author of truth. As such, He is the only one who can fully know truth and be completely objective in his interpretation of truth. Likewise, since Jesus is the author of truth, knowing the ultimate outcome of every human thought past, present and future, He is completely just and fair in His understanding, evaluation and judgment over all creation. He is Himself the truth.  It is impossible for truth to exist without God. And it is impossible for us to know truth apart from Christ.

    "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."  ~John 14:6 New Living Translation (NLT)

Pagan Parallels: Jesus' Triumphal Entry

 

    Much has been said in recent years regarding the authenticity and historical reliability of the Bible. Indeed, many renowned writers, philosophers and intellectuals have popularized the idea that the New Testament authors borrowed much of their inspiration for Jesus Christ from the mystery cults of the Roman empire, and that Jesus himself is a myth.

    The basis for this, they claim, are the overwhelming number of parallels between the Gospel accounts and those found in pagan religions all over the world.

    One such parallel is that of Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem found in John 12:12-16 and the other four Gospels, and the Triumphal Procession of Bacchus.
    It is easy to see why one might come to such a conclusion. Both religions depict their god riding in a procession surrounded by followers. Bacchus rides a mule. Jesus rides a donkey's colt. Bacchus is accompanied by mythical creatures and dancing women waving laurels, while Jesus' followers sing and wave palm branches.
    At a glance, the similarities are obvious. However, a cursory overview of pagan iconography and the Bible is hardly enough evidence to prove that Jesus is a myth. To come to such a conclusion based on circumstantial similarities, devoid of both cultural and textual context, is premature at best.

    In order to fully understand the significance of Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and the crowd's reaction to him, we must travel back through the scriptures to the last time that Jesus was in Jerusalem: The Festival of Tabernacles.

    The Festival of Tabernacles (Sometimes referred to as the "Festival of Shelters" or the "Festival of Booths") is one of three Pilgrimage Festivals in the Old Testament that required all the people of Israel to gather together to worship at the Temple of God. The other two Pilgrimage Festivals are of course Passover and the Feast of Pentecost which took place 50 days after Passover. (Deuteronomy 16:16)
    During the Festival of Tabernacles, the people of Israel would make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem wherein they would build temporary shelters, or "booths", out of palm branches and live in them for one week's time in remembrance of their ancestor's 40 year sojourn through the wilderness. (Leviticus 23:33-44)

    The climax of the Festival of Tabernacles came with the Water Libation Ceremony. During the ceremony, the High Priest would come down from the Temple and draw water from the Pool of Siloam. He would then lead a day-long procession back to the temple and pour out the water in the presence of the Lord to invoke God's blessing on the land. Likewise, the people would join in the procession. Gathering up the palm branches from their shelters they would lay them on the street in front of the High Priest while signing songs of praise and calling out to God, imploring Him to send rain, life, and salvation to Israel.

    On a side note, The Hebrew word for water, Mayim (מָ֫יִם), forms the root of the Hebrew word for life, Chayim (חַיִּים). Since Israel is a desert nation, the significance of this should not be overlooked. Especially in the context of this passage. 

    Because he was a Jew, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem in John 7 to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. However, John records that Jesus arrived quietly and in secret and did not make his presence known until halfway through the festival when he began to teach openly at the Temple. (John 7:14-36)
    At the climax of the festival, during the Water Libation Ceremony, Jesus stood up in the Temple and said to the crowd gathered there: “Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Anyone who believes in me may come and drink! For the Scriptures declare, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.’” (John 7:37-43)

    This was the last time Jesus was in Jerusalem before his Triumphal Entry.

    With the events of the previous festival in mind we can clearly see why the people responded the way that they did when Jesus arrived for the Passover. The people remembered that Jesus had publicly declared himself to be the savior of Israel the last time he was in Jerusalem, and they were expecting him to deliver them from Rome and establish a new Kingdom of Israel. Therefore they cut down palm branches and laid them on the road in front of Jesus and began to signing songs of praise, just as they had done for the High Priest during the climax of the Feast of Tabernacles.

    Jesus did of course come to bring deliverance, but not from Rome. Instead, Jesus returned to Jerusalem to fulfill the Passover. In just a few days Jesus, the Lamb of God, would be slaughtered for our sins so that we could be saved from sin and death and be made right with God. (Exodus 12, John 1:19-30, Romans 5:1-11)

    In conclusion: It is clear from the historic and cultural context of the Bible that Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem was a uniquely Jewish event, influenced by centuries of Jewish tradition catalyzed by life and teachings of Jesus himself; not a re-imagining of the Greco-Roman Mysteries. 

See Also:

Debunked: Jesus vs. Dionysus

The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?

Mythology and the Messiah

.

Debunked: Jesus vs. Krishna

,

Jesus:

1) Born of a virgin. Was not conceived through sexual intercourse. (Matthew 1:18-25)

2) Born in a cave/stable. Was placed in a manger. His birth was heralded by angels and a star in the east. He was visited by magi and a group of shepherds and was taken to Egypt when his parents fled from Herod the Great, fulfilling Old Testament Prophecy. (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:13-15)

3) Jesus was God made flesh. He therefore had all of the qualities and devine attributes of God. (John 1:1-5, 14)

4) Was a child teacher in the Temple at age twelve. (Luke 2:41-52)

5) Jesus had twelve male disciples and multiple other followers including women. However, the scriptures say that there was not anything specifically attractive about him. (Isaiah 53:2)

6) Jesus was never married, and died without heirs. (Isaiah 53:8)

7)  Jesus had a three year ministry as a traveling teacher. He lived a sinless life and taught others to follow his example of moral excellence. (Ephesians 5:1-14)

8) Jesus performed many miracles during his earthly ministry. He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, and calmed storms. Jesus also fed thousands of people with a handful of fish and loaves on two separate occasions and cast out demons by his word alone. (Luke 4:31-36, Mark 5:1-17)

9) Was crucified between two criminals. (Matthew 27:32-56, Luke 23:26-49)

10) Defeated death and the grave by rising from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:55-57)

11) Died sacrificially in order to fulfill Old Testament Prophecy and the requirements of the Law of Moses for the redemption of mankind. He was the "Lamb of God," an atoning sacrifice to take away the sins of the world by taking that sin upon himself. (John 1:29-30, 3:16-21, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 8-10)

Krishna:

1)  Was conceived through sexual intercourse between king Vasudeva of the Yadava clan and his wife, Devaki. Krishna was also their eighth child. Ergo: Krishna was not born of a virgin.

2) There are no nativity elements in the Krishna narrative. However, Krishna's evil uncle Kamsa did conspire to kill the newborn after he learned from a fortune teller that his sitter's eighth child would kill him. Krishna was rescued from death by Vasudeva who secretly exchanged the baby for the child of a cowherd and his wife. The cowherd and his wife then raised the infant Krishna as their own. Later, the child who had been substituted for Krishna appeared to king Kamsa as the Hindu goddess Durga and warned him that his death was imminent and his kingdom would be overthrown.
    
3) Krishna was the eighth avatar (incarnation) of the supreme god, Vishnu. In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna states that he existed before any of the other gods; that he created all of the universe, and that all of the universe exists in him. 

4) Krishna was never a child teacher. He was, however, a very mischievous child who loved to play pranks on others. He was also a thief in most accounts, who loved to steal butter and milk. As a youth, Krishna became a cow herder and was a protector of his people.

5) Krishna did not have twelve disciples. That said, he was very attractive to those around him and had many admirers. (His name literally means "the all-attractive-one")

6) Krishna had at least eight wives, each of whom embodied a different divine aspect of himself. That said, some legends state that he had as many as 16,108 wives and 180,000 sons. He was also the enchanter and playful lover of the gopis (Milkmaids) in his village. 

7) Krishna did not have a specific ministry. Likewise, he did not live a sinless life or teach anything about salvation, redemption, or repentance from sin. Instead, Krishna taught that the spirit is eternal, having neither a beginning or end, and that those devoted to him should abandon material attachment without forsaking their eternal love for one another or their responsibility in dharma. (The principle of cosmic order) He also taught that true peace, eternal bliss, and inner liberation could be attained through different types of yoga and inward meditation leading to enlightenment.

8) Krishna performed many miracles and other great feats in his lifetime. Two of the most noteworthy miracles associated with Krishna are when he parted a raging river as an infant to allow his father to cross to the other side, and when he lifted the mountain Govardhana to save a village from a flood. He also slew many monsters and demons in battle. 

9) Krishna was slain by an arrow when a hunter mistook him for a deer and accidentally shot him through the heel. Mortally wounded, Krishna forgave the man who killed him and died with a smile on his face as his spirit ascended to Goloka. (Paradise)   

10) Krishna did not rise from the dead, nor did he defeat death and the grave. Instead, Krishna restored order to the world by killing his uncle, king Kamsa. He also aided in the defeat of the evil Karurava family by advising Arjuna, one of the leaders of the rival Pandava family, during the climactic battle of the Kurukshetra War. 

11) Krishna did not die sacrificially for anyone. Instead, he died because of a curse placed on him by a woman named Gandhari, who blamed Krishna for the death of her family in the Kurukshetra War.  

Conclusion:

Jesus Christ is not based on Krishna.



*     *     *     *     *     *     *

Sources:

Krishna

Myth Encyclopedia

Ancient History: Krishna


See Also:

Mythology and the Messiah

Debunked: Jesus vs. Dionysus

Debunked: Jesus vs. Horus

Debunked: Jesus vs. Mithras

Debunked: Jesus vs. Asclepius

Debunked: Jesus vs. Orpheus

The Dying and Rising God: Jesus or Osiris?