When contacted by those who want to give you prominent space on their online magazine and give you a nifty title like "featured columnist," there's a strong temptation to talk about how much you "know."  

Why not justify their faith in you by articulating some well-constructed theories of yours that, even if they don't convince others, are really hard to disprove? Sure, maybe one day your views will shown to be demonstratively incorrect, but it's not like that's stopped Thomas Friedman or Bill Kristol.  

I just can't do it today, though; I must admit that I have questions about the Bible. In our current climate, it's becoming far more fashionable to state that there is no god, religion is a superstition, and the Bible a book full of bad morals. I will never believe that; as a reporter I've met former hardened drug addicts who tell of how their lives were changed by the gospel, and as a missionary I've witnessed how the Word of God changes people's lives for the better.  

So it's not for my sake that these questions are asked, but rather that we might share ideas should these texts become a stumbling block to others. One of the Bible's great strengths is that it can be read every day for a lifetime and something new learned each time, but for now I'll limit my queries to two; one for the Old Testament and one for the New.  

1) "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them ... as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:17-18, NIV) 

The five books that make up the Pentateuch have probably confounded many believers (and would-be believers). Written thousands of years ago in a culture and a climate far different than ours, it should be unsurprising that they contain some ideas that appear strange to modern eyes.  

As part of efforts to decipher their mysteries, earlier this year I read Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses; in it Alter, the well-known professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature, uses his expertise both in the Pentateuch's original tongue and in ours to paint a clearer picture of the culture and rhetoric of the times.  

On many occasions his insights refreshed the mind of this believer: Distressed by the fact that the Bible condones the Israelites ownership of slaves? Alter explains that this was nothing like the chattel slavery later practiced by Europeans and the pre-Civil War U.S.: "These slaves had certain limited rights, could be given great responsibility, and were not thought to lose their personhood," he writes.  

Bothered by the fact that the Lord "hardens" Pharaoh's heart, thus causing him to ignore Moses' warnings and ultimately doom his people? Alter writes that the Hebrew word translated into "harden" has a meaning similar to "enhance," in that Pharaoh's natural tendencies were drawn out of him. God did not cause him to do evil that was not already in his heart.

But for the above passage Alter could offer no explanation; at least none that can justify the harshness of a God who says that he is love. When thought about from the perspective of a general charged with defending a young, vulnerable nation, it makes sense: By wiping out an opposing people down to their women and children, the Israelites would leave no enemies to later seek revenge, while sending a stark message to other recalcitrant nations that might oppose Israel.

From the perspective of a missionary who has used the love of Jesus (and the love of the church members) to bring a new follower to Christ it is problematic. How do we explain why our loving God would command the deaths of not only the men, but the (one assumes) non-combatant women and children who were not yet old enough to know right from wrong?  

The ways of a shrewd general are not necessarily those of believer: Couldn't the Israelites have spared their most helpless of adversaries, and then showed faith that they would not return as enemies? 

2) "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:11-15, NIV) 

I met my Korean wife through the Seventh-day Adventist Language School in Korea, where I was a teacher and she was a student. There she took part in English classes taught by missionaries of both genders, and later began attending our church services. There, she saw the same teachers taking turns leading the Sabbath School lesson and sometimes preaching the sermons.  

Later, when we read the Bible together, I don't blame her for being perplexed by this passage. I'm going to assume that none of us are so PC as to believe that no physical or mental differences between men and women exist, but who among us hasn't known a woman we couldn't gain religious insights from?

Among Adventists with a more, shall we say, modern mentality the only explanation I've heard is that this is a cultural difference; though women's ordination may remain a wedge, it is almost certainly more palatable to see a woman in a teaching or speaking position today, and thus less likely to cause a schism.  

However, Paul's words leave little indication that he's concerned with smoothing over differences. Furthermore, how do we reconcile this verse with what Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek ... male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"? 

If you have an interpretation or insight regarding these two passages that you'd like to share, please comment below. We may have differing theories based on our backgrounds and experiences, but let's remember that there are different paths a Christian can take; what matters is whether that path leads to Christ.