The musings of so-called “progressive” Adventists continue to stray decidedly beyond the guardrails of the inspired Word. Frankly, one increasingly wonders whether these folks regard the inspired text with anything approaching deference or reverence of any kind. A recent article on a liberal Adventist website regarding Gaza, genocide, and the alleged culpability of Biblical authority in the ongoing atrocities of the aforesaid region [1], constrains the reader to ask whether those with the worldview there proclaimed even qualify as Christians, let alone as Seventh-day Adventists.

The article’s claim that “thanks largely to the Enlightenment—the inadequacies of scriptural infallibility/inerrancy were exposed” [2], effectively endorses the perception of the Bible as a predominantly if not purely human document, subject to adjustment, correction, and judgment by the human reader. Yet the apostle Paul writes in the New Testament that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (I Thess. 2:13). One can choose not to believe this, of course, but how one can do this while still adhering to the Christian paradigm is difficult if not impossible to grasp.

Ignoring Context and Consensus

The article in question describes the Bible as “a minefield of contradictory ethics,” failing to consider either the context of certain practices within the setting of the Old Testament theocracy (e.g. the destruction of unrepentant pagan tribes) or the textual context of other admonitions (e.g. the New Testament command that women be silent in church; see I Cor. 14:40; I Tim. 2:12) [3]. The limited conditions under which slavery was allowed in Old Testament times are equated with the slaveholding practices of antebellum America [4]—a completely illegitimate comparison, to be sure, as slaves in the American South were kept in bondage for life, and were not exempted from the cruel treatment of bond-servants forbidden in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Those Old Testament passages which speak favorably (or at least without condemnation) of slavery (Gen. 17:13; Lev. 22:11; 25:39-46; Num. 31:25-26) are describing a very different system from the one many Christians in the American South tried to defend. Bond-service in the Israelite system was in fact a type of social security for the poor or for those in debt, a means of survival for those unable to subsist on their own (see Lev. 25:39). Such servants, if they escaped from their masters, were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16), and were to be set free after six years (Ex. 21:2; Lev. 25:10,13,47-51; Deut. 15:1-3; Jer. 34:8-22).

No such provisions existed for slaves in the American South. Indeed, the infamous Fugitive Slave Act of the pre-Civil War era, requiring citizens to return escaped slaves to their masters, ran directly counter to the Mosaic law in this regard (Deut. 23:15-16).

When the author of the article in question writes that “the implementation of American slavery was rooted in these passages” (e.g. Ex. 21:2-11) [5], he has obviously failed to read either the passage from Exodus 21 or related passages as noted above. American slaveholders in no way adhered to the Biblical conditions cited in the present context under which slavery, if practiced, was to be governed.

The article’s author asks, “Who among us still thinks it is a Christian virtue to ‘sell’ our daughters as sex slaves?” [6]. Yet nothing in the passages quoted by this author say anything about women serving as sex slaves.

Despite the article’s assumption, the Biblical injunction about silence on the part of women in church does not, when read in context, forbid women to speak. This command is about a spirit of yielding and submission, not vocal quietude. This is especially clear in First Timothy 2, where Paul’s statement that women are to “be in silence” (verse 12) is preceded by his counsel that Christians “lead a quiet and peaceable life” with reference to civil authority (verse 2). This can hardly be read as a command for Christians to be vocally quiet in their relationship to civil government, as the example of the New Testament apostles hardly gives credence to the notion that Christians are to say nothing of any kind to those occupying civic responsibilities. The apostle Paul’s interaction with such Roman officials as Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7), Gallio (Acts 18:14), Felix (Acts 24), and Festus (Acts 25) offers clear evidence to the contrary.

What is more, the apostle Peter’s instruction for women to cultivate “a meek and quiet spirit” (I Peter 3:4) is stated in the very context where he says unbelieving husbands can be won to the Christian faith “by the conversation of the wives” (verse 1). This hardly sustains the theory that Peter is telling women to “shut up” when he speaks of quietude. Yielding and submission are the meaning of “quietude” and “silence” in these verses; they no more forbid women to talk than does the apostle Paul when he admonishes his readers elsewhere to “study to be quiet” (I Thess. 4:11)—a verse which, in context, means to respect one another and mind one’s own business.

The solution relative to the above issues, in other words, is not to subject Scripture to higher critical analysis and thus dispute its reliability or transcendence, but rather, to consider the totality of the Biblical message, both in its immediate context and within the scope of its larger consensus.

Gaza and Amalek

The article in question cites the alleged claims of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Palestinians should be treated like the ancient Amalekites [7], and blames a literal interpretation of the Bible for the failure of so many Western Christians to condemn the current Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinian people [8]. Unfortunately for his case, the author of the article cites no documentation for Netanyahu making such a statement—though frankly, the present writer wouldn’t be shocked at such a pronouncement from the current Israeli leader. More seriously, the article cites no Biblical support allegedly produced by contemporary Christians in defense of the Israeli government’s current practices. To thus blame either the despicable conduct of the current Israeli leadership, or the lack of Christian condemnation thereof, on Biblical literalism, is an allegation utterly lacking in substantive support. Hard evidence needs to be offered for a claim of this sort to have any credibility.

If in fact the current Israeli government has justified its mistreatment of those in Gaza based on the Biblical command to destroy the Amalekites, it has no Biblical authority to make this comparison. Unlike the Old Testament Israelite theocracy, the current Israeli government can claim no verifiable evidence that God is with them; no bodies of water have parted before the Israeli Defense Forces, no miraculous cloudy pillar gives shade by day or warmth by night to the armies of modern Israel, and certainly no Urim and Thummim guide the decisions of Benjamin Netanyahu or his cabinet!

Make no mistake about it. Far too many Christians—not to mention others—have been criminally silent in the face of the atrocities lately committed against the Palestinian people. Such silence stands completely at odds with the teachings of both the Old and the New Testaments. But if anyone is presenting a Biblical rationale for these vile practices, I haven’t heard it yet. Nor can anyone read the Sacred Scriptures and contrive even the remotest justification for the Netanyahu government’s treatment of those living in Gaza.

Conclusion

The author and publishers of this shameful article can make no rightful claim to believe the Bible or to profess the Christian faith, much less the Christian faith embodied by the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventism. The author makes the following contemptible statement, with reference to the laws concerning slavery found in Exodus 21:

I believe the laws of Exodus 21:2-11 are manmade; put in place by human leaders who appropriated God’s name to lend divine credibility to their scheme [9].

In light of this, we must ask, On what basis do this author or his theological fellow travelers determine what in the Bible is man-made, and what is not? This assumption places fallible human beings in judgment over the written counsel of God, rather than the opposite, which is what the Sacred Text enjoins (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11). Without such an objective standard of right and wrong, no misdeeds of any kind—whether in Gaza or elsewhere—can receive their rightful condemnation. A Bible subjected to the vagaries of scholarly speculation loses all power, so that none will tremble at its pronouncements again (Ezra 10:3; Isa. 66:2).

REFERENCES

1. Matthew Quartey, “Gaza Genocide: The Bible May Be Why We Tolerate It,” Spectrum, Aug. 26, 2025 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/gaza-genocide-the-bible-may-be-why-we-tolerate-it/

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.