CONTENTS

ISAIAH DISAGREES WITH MOSES



        A friend says that the New Testament really begins with Isaiah. In Isaiah, and several of the prophetic books following him, we can see the foundation laid for what became the gospel. That foundation is a rejection of the ceremonial laws, the laws that dealt with things such as proper food, proper attire and so on, to a theme of justice for all. Certainly Isaiah had a greater justice in mind when he told the eunuch and the foreigner that they are welcome into fellowship with God, that in fact, God had reserved a special place for them.

        This directly contradicted Moses.

        Moses, or those who wrote for Moses, ruled that the eunuch, the bastard, and foreigners should not be allowed into the "Assembly of the Lord." They were cut off from all religious observance. They were allowed to live in the community, to participate in secular life, as long as they kept the rules. But, they were prohibited from entering into the temple, from seeking atonement, from worshipping God in the style that was common for the Hebrews.
        Moses explained his reason for cutting off the Ammonite and the Moabite. These people refused hospitality to the Hebrews as they left Egypt. They also sought to curse the Hebrews. They actually hired a prophet to pronounce a curse over the Hebrews as they entered Palestine. For this reason, a Moabite or Ammomite were not allowed to participate in the religious life of the Hebrews until after nine generations had passed. However, the Edomite and the Egyptian could participate after only two generations.
        There was another reason for not allowing the foreigner to participate in the religious life of the Hebrews. That reason was not racial purity, as some would assume. That reason was religious purity. Moses feared that he might bring some of his pagan customs, beliefs, and even gods with him. For the sake of religious purity, the foreigner had to be at least a third-generation immigrant, one that was fully enculturated into the community, before he could share in the religious life of the Hebrews.
        Why did Moses exclude the eunuch? Isaiah suggests it is because they could not have children. In ancient Israel, children were a man's claim to eternity. A man lived on through his children. Also, more pragmatically, children were a man's means of support in his old age, his retirement account, so to speak.
        When a man became too old to work the fields, he could make himself useful by instructing the boys, who were too young to work the fields, in the traditions of his people. If nothing else, this kept these young boys out of their father's way. This feebleness of age came much younger age in ancient Hebrew culture where there were no labor saving devices, such as tractors, trucks, and seed drills. His children, the adults, would be willing to share food because of the service he provided. However, with the childless, such as the eunuch, food had to come from others who may not have had enough to share. Perhaps Moses excluded the eunuch so that when he became too old to work it would be easier for the people to let him go. Since he hadn't really been a part of the community, just someone who lived there, letting him go would not be too painful.
        What about the bastard? Here we get into the issue of inheritance rights. Should the child who's father was unknown, stand to inherit land on the same basis as his half-brothers? For the ancient Hebrew, no he shouldn't. Let his father recognize him and given him an inheritance. Since that did not usually happen, it was easier to treat him as a second class citizen if he really hadn't been a part of the community, just someone who lived there.

        If that seems unjust to you, you and Isaiah have similar minds. The foreigner is not responsible for the circumstances of his birth. Neither is the child of the foreigner. The bastard is not responsible for the circumstances of his birth and neither is the child of the bastard. And...what man in his right mind would choose to have his genitals removed? No, that had to be something forced on him, not something done by choice. Why should these people be made outcasts in their own communities when they are not responsible for their conditions?
        If Moses were allowed to defend himself, he might argue that the conditions were different. Isaiah, after all, was a city dweller. In the city even the old could be productive, almost to their dying day. In the city, even the strapping young man from the local countryside would seem like a foreigner. Isaiah could afford to be a little more accepting, a little more tolerant, because he didn't have the same harsh conditions to work under as Moses did.
        Does that make a difference? Do harsh conditions actually justify harsh treatment of those who are only victims of circumstances?
        In ancient times women were treated as if they were property because it was easier to treat them in that manner. Does that make it right? Did woman all of a sudden merit equal status when modern day conveniences freed her from the drudgery of household work, or did women always deserve equal status? If women always deserved equal status, if women always merited the right to fully participate in the community, so did the eunuch and the foreigner, regardless of what Moses had to say or how harsh the conditions were back then.

        The only way to resolve this obvious and deliberate contradiction and still maintain that the Bible is the express Word of God, perfect and without error, is to conclude that God changed his mind. Perhaps Isaiah took God aside and told Him, "I know that you didn't like the foreigner and eunuch in Moses' time, but this really doesn't look good today. Perhaps you should change these laws." Without that, we are forced to admit that one of these Biblical writers, either Moses or Isaiah, was wrong, that he did not speak for God. Which one do we pick?

        What can we learn from this?
        We should learn that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God...maybe, who gave their best understanding of God. However, as we gain more revelation, the Bible is subject to updating, or even correction. Isaiah felt the need to supersede Moses, to declare Moses wrong.
        In the same manner, we have superseded Isaiah, declared him wrong. Isaiah did not apply his enlightened form of justice to the bastard. For what ever reason, perhaps the same issues of inheritance, Isaiah was willing to let the person born out of wedlock remain in a second-class status, just as Moses had commanded. None of us would agree, today. We have gone beyond Isaiah concerning the rights of the bastard in the same manner as Isaiah went beyond Moses concerning the rights of the eunuch and the foreigner.
        Some would say that we have the right to go beyond the dictates of the Bible when the Holy Spirit demonstrates to us that the Bible is wrong. This is not our right...it is our moral and spiritual obligation!

PREVIOUS ESSAY    NEXT ESSAY