Thoughts on Old Testament Ethics

　　Ethics is a cross disciplinary subject by nature. Someone discussing the issue of abortion, for example, must be knowledgeable in the biology of conception and birth in addition to philosophy, sociology and Biblical teachings. Similarly, someone discussing genetic therapy must know the sciences involved in addition to the discipline from which he approaches the subject. Old Testament ethics is a sub-field of ethics that explores the values, assumptions, and practices of the Old Testament and examines their relevance to issues that people face today. The title “Old Testament ethics” does not mean that other disciplines are ignored; it simply means that issues are discussed from the perspective of the Old Testament. Academically this way of doing ethics is anachronistic; the legitimacy of its existence and practice is theological: God’s Word transcends time, culture and physical location.

　　As I thought about the theological legitimacy of Old Testament ethics, I questioned why we divide the field into Old Testament and New Testament ethics. Since the whole Bible is God’s Word, why should we not have one field called Biblical ethics instead? Furthermore, how many issues believers face today could be satisfactorily dealt with by looking at one of the Testaments alone? Let’s take the issue of divorce and remarriage. Would believers facing these crises be satisfied if presented with all the teachings and background information on these topics up to the Book of Malachi? Conversely, could Jesus and Paul’s teachings on these issues be adequately understood without any reference to the Scripture that they were using? I think one reason for this division among Christian scholars is that it followed the fields of Old and New Testament studies: Old Testament scholars, Old Testament ethics; New Testament scholars, New Testament ethics. I have no objection to this reality because these fields have grown to such an extent that it is almost impossible to find a scholar who has a good command of both fields. Despite acknowledging human limitation, I think more integration rather than segregation is the way forward.

　　Apart from its inter-disciplinary nature, Old Testament ethics is one area where we can bring the Bible to believers and meet them where it matters to them. This past summer I read a book called Freakonomics that I chanced upon while waiting for my flight back to Malaysia for a holiday. It was written by an economics professor at the University of Chicago called Steven Levitt and a journalist called Stephen Dubner. The subtitle of the book reads, “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything” and it has chapters like, “What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers have in Common?,” How Is the Klu Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?,” and “Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?” With such chapter headings I figured the book would at least be entertaining if not terribly informative. Actually it was both.

　　Since I love humor, I was not surprised that I liked the book; however, I found that I am not alone. The “The Review” section of Sunday Morning Post (August 13, 2006) recently ran an article on the book and its authors. Apparently it has been a best seller for the past year and has inspired a website, a New York Times column and a TV show called Freaky Friday. Levitt, in the meantime, has earned a place in Time Magazine’s list of 100 People Who Shape Our World. When asked about the reason for the success of the book, the authors attributed it to the marriage of “the narrative storytelling of journalism” and “rigorous academic research.” According to them, storytelling is a great communication tool except that these stories are often untrue. What they did was to subject the stories and their points to the rigor of academic research and then present them in an interesting manner. I agree with their own analysis of their success but wish to add another factor: they presented economics to the masses using issues that the average person on the street could relate to. The book is a showcase of how tools used in economic research could be used to solve everyday, mundane problems like spotting which teachers in the Chicago areas are cheating to inflate their students’ results or which sumo wrestlers are giving matches away for mutual benefits.

　　According to my observation, people are issue and people oriented rather than text oriented. Just look at how political parties try to gain support: if it is not to stir up an issue for debate that they think they can win, it is to put forward a popular personality for people to rally around. Christians are no different in this respect. Even when they are studying a Biblical text, they are looking for teachings on issues that interest them. This characteristic is diametrically opposite of how most academically sound commentaries are written: vast amount of spaces are devoted to fine analyses of the sources behind the present text, lengthy discussions on the meanings of hapax legomena, copious comparisons with other ancient culture or texts, and endless arguments over whether something actually happened or, if they did, whether they happened exactly as stated in the Bible or not. Before going any further, I have to say that these studies are important. Besides, more academically sound commentaries that deliberately set out to be theologically and practically oriented have been produced in the past ten to fifteen years. Nevertheless, a lot of work is needed to make a text oriented commentary meaningful and accessible to the average issue and people oriented believer in the church.

　　Since ethics is issue oriented by nature, it is one avenue of presenting Biblical teachings to believers in a way that is meaningful to them. If done well, believers not only see how Biblical teachings are relevant in their lives, they also learn how to apply the Bible correctly. The price the teacher must pay is that it is a lot of work, much more than a text oriented Bible study. Just like any other areas of Old Testament studies, and perhaps more so since it impacts the life of people more immediately and directly, a strong exegetical foundation is needed to build biblically sound reasoning and principles. In all stages of this process, from study of the past to building bridges to the present, the discipline required of Biblical studies is of invaluable help to ensure that the results are qualitatively sound. This is related to Levitt and Dubner’s point about weeding out false stories and facts. Attractively packaged teachings cannot and should not replace biblically sound teachings. I will cite two examples that I have encountered.

　　In quite a number of churches I have visited, well meaning Christians have asked me which sons of Noah Chinese people descended from. The usual assumption is that we are descendants of Shem. There are all kinds of reasons for asking this question, not all of which are related to ethics. Some people are just curious while others would like to think of themselves as “Jews of the East” in a more literal way. Since Noah blessed Shem above his brothers (Ge 9:25-27), some ask in order to know whether they partake of Shem’s blessing. Others link this question to the curse on Ham’s son, Canaan. Still others want to legitimize their support of the Jewish state, on the assumption that they are fellow Shemites. Regardless of the reason, any direct linkage of Chinese to the sons of Noah is exegetically, rationally and historically unsound.

　　When the Bible says that all the nations of the world descended from these three sons (Ge 10:32), it does not mean that every race in the world today could trace their lineage to one of the sons. It only means that their collective descendants gave rise to all the races that we see today. Since they had the same parents, we have to assume that they looked like a family; Noah did not have an African, a European, and a Middle-Eastern looking sons. Any physical and cultural changes in their descendants must have been gradual, a result of many factors like environment, diet, lifestyle, and interbreeding. To think of them as if they were different races is wrong. There was only one race to begin with. Chinese people are linked to the sons of Noah historically, i.e., some of their descendants went to China and became the Chinese people.

　　So which of their descendants became our ancestors? The answer is that we are not the pure descendants of any of Noah’s sons. If we believe that all the families of the earth descended from them and observe that there are more than three types of people on this earth, we must conclude that their descendants intermarried. A look at the variety of people in the world today would bear out this point; there must have been a lot of intermarriages to give rise to the diversity of races we see today. What combination of intermarriages gave rise to Chinese people that look like us is forever lost in the mist of time. Furthermore, since all the races on this earth descended from just three men, it is reasonable to conclude that many races today could lay claim to having Shemite blood; the question is what percentage of Shemite blood a person must have to qualify as a descendant of Shem in a meaningful sense of the word.

　　Another question that I get asked quite often is whether or not Christians should support the Jewish state. Usually I get the feeling that I am being asked to write a blank check: if the answer is yes, then it is unwavering support for Israel regardless of what they do; if the answer is no, it is no support for, or even opposition to, Israel regardless of what they do. This is emphatically wrong. The Old Testament is filled with words of consolation and blessings for Israel when they did what was right in God’s eyes; similarly, words of woes and rebuke when they did what was wrong. There is no unqualified support for Israel in the Old Testament. If we follow the Bible we should support or reject Israel’s actions based on the merit of their actions, not on the basis of their status as God’s chosen people. To do otherwise is not to honor God but to go against what we learn from the Old Testament.

　　I will end my essay with an experience I had teaching Old Testament ethics to a group of ministers. I consider myself quite practically minded, in my teaching as well as preaching. Nevertheless, I do have a healthy interest in ethical theories and issues like ethics of biotechnology. What I found was that my students were more interested in topics like divorce and remarriage, abortion, marriage to non-Christians, and premarital sex. Somewhere along the way, the issue of disproportionate ratio of male to female members was also raised. I still think that a strong exegetical and theoretical framework is required for any introduction to Old Testament ethics. On the other hand, some issues are more urgent than others for ministers. Therefore, such topics are indispensable for any book or course that sets out to help ministers ministering on the field.