What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
Showing posts with label Moses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moses. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Hebrews part seventeen
We are at Hebrews 12:14. My bible has an added heading for the coming passage, "Warning against refusing god." Uh oh. It starts by telling the reader to "Make every effort to live in peace with all men." Nothing wrong with that. The author adds, "and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the lord." A command and a threat. But what exactly is holiness? How do I know if I don't have it? The reader is also to take care not to "miss the grace of god." What exactly is the grace of god? How do I miss it? The reader is also not permitted to allow a "bitter root" to grow up and cause trouble. Um, you guessed it, what in the world is he talking about? My guess is the author expects the reader to understand because they have a similar knowledge and experience that I don't have. It's 2000 year old insider language.
In verse 16, we are given more specifics. No one is allowed to be sexually immoral, probably as defined in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus actually said a word about sex in the gospels. Also, no one is permitted to be "godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son." That is an example of godlessness? What about his brother, who took advantage of a hungry man for personal gain? Victim blaming at its finest. Even worse, according to the author, Esau tearfully begged for his blessing back. Shame on him. Heathen.
The author goes on to tell the reader that they are so fortunate that they don't have to approach a physical burning mountain, covered with stormy dark clouds, with a loud and threatening voice issuing from it, like Moses did. That was terrifying. No, instead, they get to come to the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god." (Isn't it the same terrifying god that was on Moses's mountain?) The reader also gets to come to "thousands upon thousands of heavenly angels in joyful assembly." And that's not terrifying?
The reader also comes to the "church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven." I don't think the author means literal first born children here, but metaphorical first born "children of god." They also have come to "god, the judge of all men and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." Not women. They are not made perfect. (Sarcasm) They also come to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood (eww) that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." What is the reality behind all this metaphor, anyway?
You know Jesus's speaking blood? The author says it better not be disobeyed. Those of the past, who were warned on earth, did not escape when they were disobedient. (See the story of Moses and the people at the mountain.) Does the reader think he will escape a warning from heaven? Gasp! There were only earthquakes at that mountain of old. God has promised that, "once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This is sort of a piece of a quote from Haggai 2:6. It's context is the building of the second temple, greater than the first, a purely physical building, not some heavenly temple. The author goes on to say that the words "once more" in the Haggai quote "indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain." How in the world did he come to that conclusion?
Chapter twelve ends by telling the readers they need to be thankful because they are getting a kingdom that can't be shaken. "So, worship god acceptably with reverence and awe, for our god is a consuming fire." Is that a physical fire or a metaphorical fire?
Till next time.
In verse 16, we are given more specifics. No one is allowed to be sexually immoral, probably as defined in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus actually said a word about sex in the gospels. Also, no one is permitted to be "godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son." That is an example of godlessness? What about his brother, who took advantage of a hungry man for personal gain? Victim blaming at its finest. Even worse, according to the author, Esau tearfully begged for his blessing back. Shame on him. Heathen.
The author goes on to tell the reader that they are so fortunate that they don't have to approach a physical burning mountain, covered with stormy dark clouds, with a loud and threatening voice issuing from it, like Moses did. That was terrifying. No, instead, they get to come to the "heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god." (Isn't it the same terrifying god that was on Moses's mountain?) The reader also gets to come to "thousands upon thousands of heavenly angels in joyful assembly." And that's not terrifying?
The reader also comes to the "church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven." I don't think the author means literal first born children here, but metaphorical first born "children of god." They also have come to "god, the judge of all men and the spirits of righteous men made perfect." Not women. They are not made perfect. (Sarcasm) They also come to "Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood (eww) that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." What is the reality behind all this metaphor, anyway?
You know Jesus's speaking blood? The author says it better not be disobeyed. Those of the past, who were warned on earth, did not escape when they were disobedient. (See the story of Moses and the people at the mountain.) Does the reader think he will escape a warning from heaven? Gasp! There were only earthquakes at that mountain of old. God has promised that, "once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens." This is sort of a piece of a quote from Haggai 2:6. It's context is the building of the second temple, greater than the first, a purely physical building, not some heavenly temple. The author goes on to say that the words "once more" in the Haggai quote "indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain." How in the world did he come to that conclusion?
Chapter twelve ends by telling the readers they need to be thankful because they are getting a kingdom that can't be shaken. "So, worship god acceptably with reverence and awe, for our god is a consuming fire." Is that a physical fire or a metaphorical fire?
Till next time.
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Hebrews part fifteen
We are now at Hebrews 11:17. It's time to read more about Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith was so great that he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice when god tested him. God was being a sadistic bastard. He had previously told Abraham that the promise of numerous offspring would be fulfilled through Isaac. The Hebrews author claims Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he "reasoned" that god could raise the dead. Baloney. The author of Hebrews is trying to use the old testament story to prove that belief in resurrection has always been part of Hebrew beliefs. There is actually no indication in most of the old testament that anyone of the ancient Abrahamic tradition believed in a resurrection of the dead. Sheol was the fate of every dead person. The author of Hebrews goes on to say that "figuratively speaking, he (Abraham) did receive Isaac back from the dead." Just so you know, figurative speech doesn't have any more substance than faith.
Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50, but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.
The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.
We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.
In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.
Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.
Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?
Till next time.
Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50, but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.
The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.
We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.
In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.
Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.
Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?
Till next time.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Hebrews part five
We are at Hebrews 2:14. The author has been putting old testament words into Jesus's mouth, having him declare god has given him children , which one can only assume are supposed to be Jesus's followers. Next follows more of the author's peculiar logic: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." So, it is the devil who holds the power of death and not god? Who gave him that power? How in the world does one man's death destroy the devil (who doesn't even exist) by dying? How is anyone freed from the fear of death? We all still die. The prospect of death is a horror which we spend our lives pretending will never happen to us. Even those who are religious would rather live than die, in spite of what they preach.
Verse 16 goes on to say that Jesus's death does not help the angels but Abraham's descendants, (the Jews). So, he had to be made like his brothers (the Jews) in every way. News flash: it does not sound like this letter was written by Paul who insisted that the Gospel was about the gentiles also having salvation, maybe even being favored as god's children above the Jews! Jesus is said to have been human so that he could become a high priest who could make atonement for the sins of the people (the Jews).
Because Jesus suffered when he was tempted (Tell us again when that was?) he is able to help those who are being tempted. How? Seriously, what exactly does Jesus do to help someone who is being tempted? And what are these temptations? Do they have anything to do with breaking the hundreds of arbitrary rules and regulations of Judaism that their god gave them through Moses?
We move into chapter three. The brothers (probably Jews) who share in the heavenly calling (what's that?) are to fix their thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest. Jesus is a guy who wears many hats. So far he is the son of god; he speaks through the Old Testament; he is the son of man- a human; he is a brother to the children of god; he is a devil/ death destroyer; he is an apostle (?); and a high priest. (The apostle one stumps me. Maybe we will hear more about it later. Perhaps it means he was an apostle to the Jews as Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles.)
Next, we are told Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. I bet that was shocking to Jewish sensibilities. God is the builder of everything, Moses was his faithful servant. The christ is the faithful son over god's house. "We" (the Hebrews/Jews) are god's house....if we hold on to courage and hope. Now I am even more thinking this must have been written to Jewish believers after the fall of Jerusalem, definitely not gentiles.
The next passage, verses 7-11 is another quote from the old testament, Psalm 95:7-11. The author of Hebrews tells us that this time it is the "holy spirit" talking. How can he tell the difference between the words of the holy spirit, god, and Jesus? If we read through the Psalm it appears to be speaking words that mention the lord/god in the third person. So, if the words are divine, who else could be saying them? The holy spirit! Duh.
The passage speaks of Jews hearing Jesus's voice and not hardening their hearts like they did in the rebellious Mosaic desert wanderings that lasted forty years. The brothers (jews) are not to have sinful unbelieving hearts. They must hold firmly onto confidence to the end. All those who Moses led out into the desert from Egypt were the ones who rebelled against what they heard. Moses was angry with them and they ended up dying in the desert because god swore they would never enter his rest as a result of their unbelief. "His rest" is a metaphor for the land of Canaan/ the promised land, which the author of Hebrews uses as a metaphor for an afterlife in some kind of paradise. We will see that in chapter four.
Till next time.
Verse 16 goes on to say that Jesus's death does not help the angels but Abraham's descendants, (the Jews). So, he had to be made like his brothers (the Jews) in every way. News flash: it does not sound like this letter was written by Paul who insisted that the Gospel was about the gentiles also having salvation, maybe even being favored as god's children above the Jews! Jesus is said to have been human so that he could become a high priest who could make atonement for the sins of the people (the Jews).
Because Jesus suffered when he was tempted (Tell us again when that was?) he is able to help those who are being tempted. How? Seriously, what exactly does Jesus do to help someone who is being tempted? And what are these temptations? Do they have anything to do with breaking the hundreds of arbitrary rules and regulations of Judaism that their god gave them through Moses?
We move into chapter three. The brothers (probably Jews) who share in the heavenly calling (what's that?) are to fix their thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest. Jesus is a guy who wears many hats. So far he is the son of god; he speaks through the Old Testament; he is the son of man- a human; he is a brother to the children of god; he is a devil/ death destroyer; he is an apostle (?); and a high priest. (The apostle one stumps me. Maybe we will hear more about it later. Perhaps it means he was an apostle to the Jews as Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles.)
Next, we are told Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. I bet that was shocking to Jewish sensibilities. God is the builder of everything, Moses was his faithful servant. The christ is the faithful son over god's house. "We" (the Hebrews/Jews) are god's house....if we hold on to courage and hope. Now I am even more thinking this must have been written to Jewish believers after the fall of Jerusalem, definitely not gentiles.
The next passage, verses 7-11 is another quote from the old testament, Psalm 95:7-11. The author of Hebrews tells us that this time it is the "holy spirit" talking. How can he tell the difference between the words of the holy spirit, god, and Jesus? If we read through the Psalm it appears to be speaking words that mention the lord/god in the third person. So, if the words are divine, who else could be saying them? The holy spirit! Duh.
The passage speaks of Jews hearing Jesus's voice and not hardening their hearts like they did in the rebellious Mosaic desert wanderings that lasted forty years. The brothers (jews) are not to have sinful unbelieving hearts. They must hold firmly onto confidence to the end. All those who Moses led out into the desert from Egypt were the ones who rebelled against what they heard. Moses was angry with them and they ended up dying in the desert because god swore they would never enter his rest as a result of their unbelief. "His rest" is a metaphor for the land of Canaan/ the promised land, which the author of Hebrews uses as a metaphor for an afterlife in some kind of paradise. We will see that in chapter four.
Till next time.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Mark part seventeen
We are at Mark 9:38. John tells Jesus that the disciples saw someone casting out demon's in Jesus's name and they told that person to stop. Remember Jesus's name was the same as Joshua of the old Testament. He surely wasn't the only person in first century Israel with that name either. Could people have been trying to cast out demons in the name of Joshua without realizing there was a specific living person with that name who might claim a monopoly on exorcisms? Jesus told John not to stop the people who were doing that, because if they could do a miracle in Jesus's name, they had to be on his side. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Tell that to all the "true christians" who think that just being for Jesus is not enough.
The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.
We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.
Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one. Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian women have just as much right as a man to divorce.
This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?
We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.
The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.
We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.
Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one. Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian women have just as much right as a man to divorce.
This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?
We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Mark part twelve
I've been think about the feeding of the five thousand, and all the leftovers. Why didn't Jesus let the people keep the left over food? Wouldn't it have been kinder and more practical? What use did he have for twelve basketfuls of scraps? What did the disciples do with those twelve baskets of food, take them on the boat? Throw them away? The only reason I can think of for the twelve baskets is so that the story could be magnified to make it seem a spectacular miracle, and to include the magic number twelve. It may symbolically represent god's care for the needs of the twelve tribes. In reality, it could be that all the people present (not likely to have been 5,000) just shared the food they had brought with them. Jesus needn't have performed any miracle at all. In fact the text doesn't actually say that he did.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part six
We continue on with Jesus outlining how to be more righteous than the pharisees, in the sermon on the mount.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Shepherds part 3
Last time I posted a link to a piece of writing by the first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. It is titled "On Husbandry." I think it is pertinent because Philo actually lived during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and this writing discusses shepherds.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Jonah wrap up
After reading the book of Jonah, we see that there is no way to know who was the author of the book, where the information came from, exactly when it was originally written, and exactly when the events were supposed to have taken place. The king of Nineveh is not named. The book does not claim to be the words of a god. There are no angels or demons. There is no mention of a messiah.* There is no mention of a resurrection, or eternal life. There is no hell, but there is a mention of Sheol in 2:2, translated as "grave."
If the book was written before the destruction of Nineveh in 612BCE, what was the intended message? Perhaps the author was a proponent of tolerance and/or trying to show Yahweh to be equally concerned for all people. Perhaps he was trying to convince the Israelites it wasn't too late to to repent, in a round about way.
If the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, one can't help but wonder if it was satire. Perhaps it was showing the opposite, that Yahweh didn't actually care if a nation repented, he would destroy them if he wanted to. Or perhaps the author was showing that salvation from God's wrath is not necessarily permanent. Of course this is speculation.
Also, we need to remember that a revelation to one person is not a revelation to all. We didn't hear the voice Jonah heard. No one else in the story did either. There is an argument to be made that people who hear disembodied voices are not likely to be mentally stable. People who believe people who hear disembodied voices are probably gullible.
*In many Christian circles, Jonah is assumed to be a "type" of christ. There is nothing in the book of Jonah itself, when read as a stand alone story, to indicate that Jonah is supposed to prefigure or predict Jesus, or a messiah. To christian minds focussed on the relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament, Moses, Joshua, and David, have all been types "prefiguring" Jesus. What they don't seem to realize is the more likely occurrance that the story of Jesus was written in such a way as to deliberately refer to these Heroes of the Old Testament.
Another way Jonah is a type of christ.
More typology of Jonah.
If the book was written before the destruction of Nineveh in 612BCE, what was the intended message? Perhaps the author was a proponent of tolerance and/or trying to show Yahweh to be equally concerned for all people. Perhaps he was trying to convince the Israelites it wasn't too late to to repent, in a round about way.
If the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, one can't help but wonder if it was satire. Perhaps it was showing the opposite, that Yahweh didn't actually care if a nation repented, he would destroy them if he wanted to. Or perhaps the author was showing that salvation from God's wrath is not necessarily permanent. Of course this is speculation.
Also, we need to remember that a revelation to one person is not a revelation to all. We didn't hear the voice Jonah heard. No one else in the story did either. There is an argument to be made that people who hear disembodied voices are not likely to be mentally stable. People who believe people who hear disembodied voices are probably gullible.
*In many Christian circles, Jonah is assumed to be a "type" of christ. There is nothing in the book of Jonah itself, when read as a stand alone story, to indicate that Jonah is supposed to prefigure or predict Jesus, or a messiah. To christian minds focussed on the relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament, Moses, Joshua, and David, have all been types "prefiguring" Jesus. What they don't seem to realize is the more likely occurrance that the story of Jesus was written in such a way as to deliberately refer to these Heroes of the Old Testament.
Another way Jonah is a type of christ.
More typology of Jonah.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Joshua chapter 24 part 2, plus wrap up.
*We have come to the end of the book of Joshua. Joshua sent the people away, each to his own inheritance. Then he dies. He was 110 years old. That would make this somewhere around the year 1267 B.C.E. (I've been counting back from Bishop Ussher's date of 4,004 B.C.E. as the supposed date of the beginning.) Joshua was buried at his inherited land. The Israelites served Yahweh during the lifetime of Joshua. Joseph's bones, which had been brought from Egypt and presumably carried around this whole time, were buried at Shechem on a piece of land that Jacob had supposedly once bought. Though how they could know that after over 400 years in captivity is a mystery. Think of all the ways of record keeping we have today, and it is still very difficult to know much about our ancestors of 100 years ago, let alone over 400. The high priest Eleazor, son of Aaron, died and was replaced by his son Phinehas.
Wrap Up
*In this book, we are not told it is the word of God, or that it was written by Joshua. We find no mention of heaven, hell, satan, Angels, demons, etc., except for the hornet and we are not told what that is. The only obviously supernatural event is the crossing of the Jordan in chapter 3. It clearly mirrors the crossing of the Red Sea. There is no mention of a messiah. There are only earthly blessings and cursings that pertain to the lives and conduct of the Israelites, not their thoughts.
*Joshua has become the new conduit for Yahweh's commands and instructions after Moses's death. . He alone hears the words of Yahweh. The people are expected to believe and obey. Obedience is stressed over and over. Consequences of disobedience are usually death.
* Yahweh is a jealous God, vengeance is his, he will repay. He pelts hailstones at his enemies while they run away. He changed his mind about the no plunder rule. He orders the deaths of multitudes of men, women and children, so that the Israelites can have the land that he supposedly promised one of their ancestors over 400 years ago. He orders the torture of horses. His power to help eliminate the remaing tribes living in the promised land seems limited after the initial slaughter. He is currently living in Shiloh.
*The Israelites have conquered the land and taken posession, just like Yahweh promised. Sort of. The land was allotted to each of the Israelite tribe by casting lots. However, there is still plenty of clean up to do. Some pesky tribes refuse to be conquered so they are made to do menial tasks for the Israelites. Make sense of that.
*Finally, there is little to no historical evidence of any of the events in this book. It is probably historical fiction, used by the Israelites to explain and justify their presence in the land. It also was probably used to retroactively "foresee" the eventual conquering and exile of their people. This is attributed to disobedience, of course.
*This wraps up the story of the origins of "the people" of the land of Israel. It establishes their group identity. It is interesting to note that most ancient tribes had origin stories and a large percentage of them called them selves "the people" of some sort. Just take a look at some names of Native American tribes and their meanings. Look at the Preamble of the constitution of the United States, "we the people." It is natural for people to group themselves with those who are like them in culture and background and think of everyone else as "other." It makes us feel more comfortable, but it artificially separates and divides people from each other. This is one of the causes of war and genocide throughout history.
Edited
Wrap Up
*In this book, we are not told it is the word of God, or that it was written by Joshua. We find no mention of heaven, hell, satan, Angels, demons, etc., except for the hornet and we are not told what that is. The only obviously supernatural event is the crossing of the Jordan in chapter 3. It clearly mirrors the crossing of the Red Sea. There is no mention of a messiah. There are only earthly blessings and cursings that pertain to the lives and conduct of the Israelites, not their thoughts.
*Joshua has become the new conduit for Yahweh's commands and instructions after Moses's death. . He alone hears the words of Yahweh. The people are expected to believe and obey. Obedience is stressed over and over. Consequences of disobedience are usually death.
* Yahweh is a jealous God, vengeance is his, he will repay. He pelts hailstones at his enemies while they run away. He changed his mind about the no plunder rule. He orders the deaths of multitudes of men, women and children, so that the Israelites can have the land that he supposedly promised one of their ancestors over 400 years ago. He orders the torture of horses. His power to help eliminate the remaing tribes living in the promised land seems limited after the initial slaughter. He is currently living in Shiloh.
*The Israelites have conquered the land and taken posession, just like Yahweh promised. Sort of. The land was allotted to each of the Israelite tribe by casting lots. However, there is still plenty of clean up to do. Some pesky tribes refuse to be conquered so they are made to do menial tasks for the Israelites. Make sense of that.
*Finally, there is little to no historical evidence of any of the events in this book. It is probably historical fiction, used by the Israelites to explain and justify their presence in the land. It also was probably used to retroactively "foresee" the eventual conquering and exile of their people. This is attributed to disobedience, of course.
*This wraps up the story of the origins of "the people" of the land of Israel. It establishes their group identity. It is interesting to note that most ancient tribes had origin stories and a large percentage of them called them selves "the people" of some sort. Just take a look at some names of Native American tribes and their meanings. Look at the Preamble of the constitution of the United States, "we the people." It is natural for people to group themselves with those who are like them in culture and background and think of everyone else as "other." It makes us feel more comfortable, but it artificially separates and divides people from each other. This is one of the causes of war and genocide throughout history.
Edited
Friday, April 1, 2016
Joshua chapters 11 and 12
After reading chapter 11:
*The fighting is not done. Other Kings and armies came to fight the Israelites and joined forces. They had a massive number of troops, plus chariots and horses. Yahweh told Joshua not to worry. The Israelites would slay the armies, hamstring the horses, and burn the chariots. (Aside: what purpose is served by torturing horses? Why don't they just kill them outright?) So, the Israelites went to battle and supposedly did what Yahweh said they would do.
*Joshua turned back and also decimated the city of Hazor and its King, which had been the head of the coalition of armies. In fact he totally destroyed the inhabitants of all the royal cities, but the only one burnt was Hazor. They also carried off plunder, because now it seems to be okay to do that, in spite of the previous command to never plunder, which is why Achan was killed in chapter 7.
*Joshua took the entire land and did battle for a long time. Everyone in "Israelite territory" was destroyed except for the people of Gibeon. According to verse 20, Yahweh was responsible for hardening the hearts of the various tribes so they would go to war and the Israelites could "exterminate them without mercy." It had nothing to do with them protecting or defending their personal property from a hostile takeover. And all this happened because Yahweh had promised the land would be an inheritance to Israel. After these things were accomplished, the land had rest from war.
After reading chapter 12:
*This chapter is a list of the Kings that were conquered by Moses, Joshua, and the Israelites. There were 31 in all.
*The fighting is not done. Other Kings and armies came to fight the Israelites and joined forces. They had a massive number of troops, plus chariots and horses. Yahweh told Joshua not to worry. The Israelites would slay the armies, hamstring the horses, and burn the chariots. (Aside: what purpose is served by torturing horses? Why don't they just kill them outright?) So, the Israelites went to battle and supposedly did what Yahweh said they would do.
*Joshua turned back and also decimated the city of Hazor and its King, which had been the head of the coalition of armies. In fact he totally destroyed the inhabitants of all the royal cities, but the only one burnt was Hazor. They also carried off plunder, because now it seems to be okay to do that, in spite of the previous command to never plunder, which is why Achan was killed in chapter 7.
*Joshua took the entire land and did battle for a long time. Everyone in "Israelite territory" was destroyed except for the people of Gibeon. According to verse 20, Yahweh was responsible for hardening the hearts of the various tribes so they would go to war and the Israelites could "exterminate them without mercy." It had nothing to do with them protecting or defending their personal property from a hostile takeover. And all this happened because Yahweh had promised the land would be an inheritance to Israel. After these things were accomplished, the land had rest from war.
After reading chapter 12:
*This chapter is a list of the Kings that were conquered by Moses, Joshua, and the Israelites. There were 31 in all.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Deuteronomy wrap up
*Now that we are finished with Deuteronomy, we can see that it is very unlikely that the book was written by Moses, unless he wrote about himself in the third person, telling how wonderful he was. It seems to have been written by a person or persons, far in the future of Moses, who knew that the Israelites had prophets and that they were conquered and taken into captivity. This makes its authorship either during the captivity or after their return to the promised land. We are also not told that the book is the word of God.
*Deuteronomy is extremely redundant with very little new material. There is a repetion of many laws, traditions, and admonitions. There is a constant harping on the need for complete obedience, or else dire consequences would ensue. Most of the new material is an expansion on old themes and an addition of details to material found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
*We find no references to Angels, demons, and Satan. There is no mention of a personal savior or messiah. Heaven is mentioned as the place Yahweh lives in the clouds. We find a hint of hell in one passage about sheol, but it is not said to be a place of eternal torture or a spiritual punishment. It is underground. All rewards and punishments appear to be earthly and physical.
*In this book, Yahweh is a jealous, angry, and strict God, expecting absolute obedience. He continues to communicate solely with Moses, often from the pillar of smoke over the tabernacle tent. He seems to forget that he killed off most of the original adult Israelites who left Egypt forty years ago during the exodus. His commandments and covenants with Israel are said to be eternal and everlasting, which could present a dilemma to christians.
*The book ends with the death of Moses and the institution of Joshua as the new leader. If we assume Bishop Ussher's date of creation at 4004 BCE, and do the math using the numbers gleaned from the Old Testament so far, and without adjustments based on New Testament input, it should now be around the year 1297 BCE. Just for the record, I realize this probably isn't going to work out later, but let's just go with it.
On to Joshua, which promises to be more interesting, and more bloody.
Edited.
*Deuteronomy is extremely redundant with very little new material. There is a repetion of many laws, traditions, and admonitions. There is a constant harping on the need for complete obedience, or else dire consequences would ensue. Most of the new material is an expansion on old themes and an addition of details to material found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
*We find no references to Angels, demons, and Satan. There is no mention of a personal savior or messiah. Heaven is mentioned as the place Yahweh lives in the clouds. We find a hint of hell in one passage about sheol, but it is not said to be a place of eternal torture or a spiritual punishment. It is underground. All rewards and punishments appear to be earthly and physical.
*In this book, Yahweh is a jealous, angry, and strict God, expecting absolute obedience. He continues to communicate solely with Moses, often from the pillar of smoke over the tabernacle tent. He seems to forget that he killed off most of the original adult Israelites who left Egypt forty years ago during the exodus. His commandments and covenants with Israel are said to be eternal and everlasting, which could present a dilemma to christians.
*The book ends with the death of Moses and the institution of Joshua as the new leader. If we assume Bishop Ussher's date of creation at 4004 BCE, and do the math using the numbers gleaned from the Old Testament so far, and without adjustments based on New Testament input, it should now be around the year 1297 BCE. Just for the record, I realize this probably isn't going to work out later, but let's just go with it.
On to Joshua, which promises to be more interesting, and more bloody.
Edited.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Deuteronomy 34
After reading chapter 34:
*So, Moses climbs Mount Nebo and there Yahweh shows him all the promised land across the Jordan that he will never set foot on, all the way to the western sea (the Mediterranean). That's quite a distance. At 120 years old, Moses has bionic eyes.
*Moses then died and was buried in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but "to this day no one knows where his grave is." "To this day" means that at the time this was written Moses had been dead long enough for the Israelites to have forgotten where the grave was. This would also happen if there never was a Moses and consequently no grave to find. This passage does not say Moses's death actually took place on the mountain. It just says he died in Moab. However, his death occurring on the mountain itself is very strongly rooted in tradition. Tra-di-tionnnnn!
*We are told that Moses was strong and clear sighted when he died. Then why did he die? Clearly it was not of natural causes. So, was it suicide, foul play, or did God just snuff out his life? After his death, the Israelites mourned Moses for a month then Joshua became the new leader, because Moses had laid his hands on him and had given him the spirit of wisdom. Whoa, shades of the apostles: passing the gift of the spirit by the laying on of hands.
*Deuteronomy ends by saying that since Moses there never has been a prophet as great and powerful as he was. This means that the book of Deuteronomy was written long after Moses lived and died, even after there had been other prophets in Israel.
We are finally done with Deuteronomy!!!
*So, Moses climbs Mount Nebo and there Yahweh shows him all the promised land across the Jordan that he will never set foot on, all the way to the western sea (the Mediterranean). That's quite a distance. At 120 years old, Moses has bionic eyes.
*Moses then died and was buried in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but "to this day no one knows where his grave is." "To this day" means that at the time this was written Moses had been dead long enough for the Israelites to have forgotten where the grave was. This would also happen if there never was a Moses and consequently no grave to find. This passage does not say Moses's death actually took place on the mountain. It just says he died in Moab. However, his death occurring on the mountain itself is very strongly rooted in tradition. Tra-di-tionnnnn!
*We are told that Moses was strong and clear sighted when he died. Then why did he die? Clearly it was not of natural causes. So, was it suicide, foul play, or did God just snuff out his life? After his death, the Israelites mourned Moses for a month then Joshua became the new leader, because Moses had laid his hands on him and had given him the spirit of wisdom. Whoa, shades of the apostles: passing the gift of the spirit by the laying on of hands.
*Deuteronomy ends by saying that since Moses there never has been a prophet as great and powerful as he was. This means that the book of Deuteronomy was written long after Moses lived and died, even after there had been other prophets in Israel.
We are finally done with Deuteronomy!!!
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Deuteronomy 33
After reading chapter 33:
*This chapter is also written in poetic style. It is Moses's blessing on the Israelites, in contrast with the last chapter which could be classified as a cursing. He touches on the history of the Israelites and the exodus, and each of the Israelite tribes is blessed.
* There is a special commendation for the Levites, who care more for serving Yahweh and being safeguards of the covenant than they care for their own blood relatives. This seems to be an oblique reference to the events of Exodus 32:25-29 when the Levites coldbloodedly slaughtered 3,000 people indiscriminately, without regard to relationship. Verse 11 of today's chapter has a curse for those who rise up against the Levites. This is significant because the Levites already have tremendous power as the purveyors of knowledge about the laws and the covenant, the authorized users of the Urim and Thummim (tools for divining the will of Yahweh), the performers of ritual and sacrifice, the caretakers of the religious paraphernalia, and the final authority when it comes to religious "cleanness." Israel is a theocracy, and as in all theocracies, the priests are in control. Which means they are also the ones saying which texts are official scripture, probably that which was originally written by them.
*In marked contrast to the last chapter, the Israelites are told that God is their refuge and help. He will drive out their enemies and cause them to live in peace, comfort, and security. They will trample on the gods of their enemies and show them Yahweh is boss.
Edited.
*This chapter is also written in poetic style. It is Moses's blessing on the Israelites, in contrast with the last chapter which could be classified as a cursing. He touches on the history of the Israelites and the exodus, and each of the Israelite tribes is blessed.
* There is a special commendation for the Levites, who care more for serving Yahweh and being safeguards of the covenant than they care for their own blood relatives. This seems to be an oblique reference to the events of Exodus 32:25-29 when the Levites coldbloodedly slaughtered 3,000 people indiscriminately, without regard to relationship. Verse 11 of today's chapter has a curse for those who rise up against the Levites. This is significant because the Levites already have tremendous power as the purveyors of knowledge about the laws and the covenant, the authorized users of the Urim and Thummim (tools for divining the will of Yahweh), the performers of ritual and sacrifice, the caretakers of the religious paraphernalia, and the final authority when it comes to religious "cleanness." Israel is a theocracy, and as in all theocracies, the priests are in control. Which means they are also the ones saying which texts are official scripture, probably that which was originally written by them.
*In marked contrast to the last chapter, the Israelites are told that God is their refuge and help. He will drive out their enemies and cause them to live in peace, comfort, and security. They will trample on the gods of their enemies and show them Yahweh is boss.
Edited.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Deuteronomy 32
After reading chapter 32:
*This chapter is the song that Moses supposedly taught the Israelites. It is written in poetic form and speaks as though said in the future. The main themes: Yahweh is great. Yahweh is good. He gave each Israelite tribe its inheritance and divided up the promised land for them. He took very good care of them but they abandoned him and made him jealous because of their worship of foreign gods. As a consequence, Yahweh rejected them. He was so angry that he sent calamities on them.
*In verse 22 we have a first hint of the doctrine of hell. "A fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below." (NIV) The King James says "unto the lowest hell." Other versions say the depths of Sheol, which is the original Hebrew word in this passage. Still others translate it as the lowest pit or the netherworld.
*Verse 27 seems odd because Yahweh is speaking yet he says, "I would scatter them and blot out their memory, but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say, 'Our hand has triumphed; Yahweh has not done all this.'" In other words God would have completely annihilated the Israelites, but he didn't want others to get the credit for what was actually his punishment of the Israelites and say that he had no power. He goes on to say the enemies are obviously without discernment. They should have known it wouldn't have been so easy to conquer so many people if their God hadn't given them up. Yahweh is worried about his reputation.
*Verses 35 and 41 declare Yahweh's right to bloodthirsty vengeance against his enemies. Who are his enemies? Those nations that conquered his servants, the Israelites. (Wait a minute, I thought he was through with them because of their unfaithfulness and disobedience. Apparently not.) They are still his land and his people after all. Verse 39 declares,"See now that I myself am He! There is no God besides me. I put to death and I bring life, I have wounded and I will heal." This reminds me of what others have said about the human relationship to God: You are sinful, wicked, and horrible. You make God so angry that you deserve to die. But God loves you.
*On that very same day that Moses taught the Israelites his song, Yahweh told him to go up on Mount Nebo, across the Jordan from the promised land. There he was to die looking at the the land and knowing he would never enter it because he did not uphold Yahweh's holiness among the Israelites back in Numbers 20. God held a grudge for forty years.
Edited.
*This chapter is the song that Moses supposedly taught the Israelites. It is written in poetic form and speaks as though said in the future. The main themes: Yahweh is great. Yahweh is good. He gave each Israelite tribe its inheritance and divided up the promised land for them. He took very good care of them but they abandoned him and made him jealous because of their worship of foreign gods. As a consequence, Yahweh rejected them. He was so angry that he sent calamities on them.
*In verse 22 we have a first hint of the doctrine of hell. "A fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below." (NIV) The King James says "unto the lowest hell." Other versions say the depths of Sheol, which is the original Hebrew word in this passage. Still others translate it as the lowest pit or the netherworld.
*Verse 27 seems odd because Yahweh is speaking yet he says, "I would scatter them and blot out their memory, but I dreaded the taunt of the enemy, lest the adversary misunderstand and say, 'Our hand has triumphed; Yahweh has not done all this.'" In other words God would have completely annihilated the Israelites, but he didn't want others to get the credit for what was actually his punishment of the Israelites and say that he had no power. He goes on to say the enemies are obviously without discernment. They should have known it wouldn't have been so easy to conquer so many people if their God hadn't given them up. Yahweh is worried about his reputation.
*Verses 35 and 41 declare Yahweh's right to bloodthirsty vengeance against his enemies. Who are his enemies? Those nations that conquered his servants, the Israelites. (Wait a minute, I thought he was through with them because of their unfaithfulness and disobedience. Apparently not.) They are still his land and his people after all. Verse 39 declares,"See now that I myself am He! There is no God besides me. I put to death and I bring life, I have wounded and I will heal." This reminds me of what others have said about the human relationship to God: You are sinful, wicked, and horrible. You make God so angry that you deserve to die. But God loves you.
*On that very same day that Moses taught the Israelites his song, Yahweh told him to go up on Mount Nebo, across the Jordan from the promised land. There he was to die looking at the the land and knowing he would never enter it because he did not uphold Yahweh's holiness among the Israelites back in Numbers 20. God held a grudge for forty years.
Edited.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Deuteronomy 31
After reading chapter 31:
*Moses says that he is now 120 years old and Yahweh told him he would not cross the Jordan. Yahweh will cross over the Jordon along with Joshua. Wait a minute, why does Yahweh need to cross the Jordan? Isn't Yahweh an omnipresent god, ruling over the entire earth? Apparently Moses and the authors of Deuteronomy didn't know that. So, the Israelite's God would deliver the people and the land into the hands of the Israelites and it would be their inheritance. They are not to be afraid, yet.
*Moses wrote down the laws and gave them to the Levite priests,to be read at the end of every seven years, during the feast of tabernacles. Everyone, men, women, and children, must hear and learn the law and learn to fear Yahweh as long as they live in the promised land.
*Then Yahweh told Moses his death was imminent. So, Joshua was commissioned at the tabernacle to be the replacement leader. Yahweh appeared over the tent as the pillar of cloud and told Moses it wouldn't be long before the people broke the covenant. Then Yahweh would be angry and the consequences would be bad. (Why was he angry if he already knew this would happen? Of what benefit are emotions in an eternal deity? How does he feel anger without a brain, body, cortisol, and adrenaline?) Moses wrote a song about the coming events of their destruction and taught it to the Israelites. The song appears in the next chapter.
*Again, we are told Moses wrote down the law and gave it to the Levites. They were to put the book of the law beside the Ark of the covenant where it would be a witness against the Israelites because they are so rebellious and provoking. The elders and officials were to be assembled so Moses could tell them how they would deserve what they had coming to them when they broke the covenant. Heaven and earth would also be witnesses. After all two or more witnesses are required in a legal proceeding. Before the Israelites even got to the promised land they were heaped with the guilt of their descendants.
*Moses says that he is now 120 years old and Yahweh told him he would not cross the Jordan. Yahweh will cross over the Jordon along with Joshua. Wait a minute, why does Yahweh need to cross the Jordan? Isn't Yahweh an omnipresent god, ruling over the entire earth? Apparently Moses and the authors of Deuteronomy didn't know that. So, the Israelite's God would deliver the people and the land into the hands of the Israelites and it would be their inheritance. They are not to be afraid, yet.
*Moses wrote down the laws and gave them to the Levite priests,to be read at the end of every seven years, during the feast of tabernacles. Everyone, men, women, and children, must hear and learn the law and learn to fear Yahweh as long as they live in the promised land.
*Then Yahweh told Moses his death was imminent. So, Joshua was commissioned at the tabernacle to be the replacement leader. Yahweh appeared over the tent as the pillar of cloud and told Moses it wouldn't be long before the people broke the covenant. Then Yahweh would be angry and the consequences would be bad. (Why was he angry if he already knew this would happen? Of what benefit are emotions in an eternal deity? How does he feel anger without a brain, body, cortisol, and adrenaline?) Moses wrote a song about the coming events of their destruction and taught it to the Israelites. The song appears in the next chapter.
*Again, we are told Moses wrote down the law and gave it to the Levites. They were to put the book of the law beside the Ark of the covenant where it would be a witness against the Israelites because they are so rebellious and provoking. The elders and officials were to be assembled so Moses could tell them how they would deserve what they had coming to them when they broke the covenant. Heaven and earth would also be witnesses. After all two or more witnesses are required in a legal proceeding. Before the Israelites even got to the promised land they were heaped with the guilt of their descendants.
Friday, March 4, 2016
Deuteronomy 29
After reading chapter 29:
* Moses calls all the Israelite people together on behalf of Yahweh to make a covenant with them in Moab. It is in addition to the one made in Horeb after they left Egypt. First he tells them that with their own eyes they saw the events of the exodus from Egypt, even though this was not true. All those who were adults when the Israelites left Egypt were now dead. (Numbers 14:26-35, 26:64-65)The Israelites had wandered in the desert for Forty years but their clothes and sandals miraculously did not wear out. Supposedly, they had also eaten no bread and had drunk no fermented drink during that whole time, even though the laws given in Exodus and Leviticus include bread and drink sacrifices. Next he tells how the Israelites conquered land on the east side of the Jordan and gave it to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Mannasseh, as their part in the Israelite "inheritance."
*Moses then tells the Israelites that all the people standing there that day, including the women, children, servants, and foreigners are entering into a covenant with Yahweh. (Apparently consent didn't matter.) This is an extension of the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There must not be a hint of the worship of other gods. Also, just because they recieve a blessing from being present at this covenant ceremony, they shouldn't assume that they can't be thoroughly cursed some day, if they insist on doing things their own way. And what a mighty cursing it will be. When people ask,"Why is Yahweh so angry?" The answer will be,"Because these people abandoned the covenant." Verse 28 is interesting: In furious anger and in great wrath Yahweh uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now. As it is now? The study bible says that is just what the people would say in the future, IF the curses actually happened. It just as easily could mean that the authors wrote the book of Deuteronomy while in exile, which would have been hundreds of years after the events recorded therein.
*Then comes a statement that secret things belong to Yahweh, but revealed things belong to the Israelites and their descendants forever. (Or until someone claims that a new covenant has come.)
* Moses calls all the Israelite people together on behalf of Yahweh to make a covenant with them in Moab. It is in addition to the one made in Horeb after they left Egypt. First he tells them that with their own eyes they saw the events of the exodus from Egypt, even though this was not true. All those who were adults when the Israelites left Egypt were now dead. (Numbers 14:26-35, 26:64-65)The Israelites had wandered in the desert for Forty years but their clothes and sandals miraculously did not wear out. Supposedly, they had also eaten no bread and had drunk no fermented drink during that whole time, even though the laws given in Exodus and Leviticus include bread and drink sacrifices. Next he tells how the Israelites conquered land on the east side of the Jordan and gave it to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Mannasseh, as their part in the Israelite "inheritance."
*Moses then tells the Israelites that all the people standing there that day, including the women, children, servants, and foreigners are entering into a covenant with Yahweh. (Apparently consent didn't matter.) This is an extension of the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There must not be a hint of the worship of other gods. Also, just because they recieve a blessing from being present at this covenant ceremony, they shouldn't assume that they can't be thoroughly cursed some day, if they insist on doing things their own way. And what a mighty cursing it will be. When people ask,"Why is Yahweh so angry?" The answer will be,"Because these people abandoned the covenant." Verse 28 is interesting: In furious anger and in great wrath Yahweh uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now. As it is now? The study bible says that is just what the people would say in the future, IF the curses actually happened. It just as easily could mean that the authors wrote the book of Deuteronomy while in exile, which would have been hundreds of years after the events recorded therein.
*Then comes a statement that secret things belong to Yahweh, but revealed things belong to the Israelites and their descendants forever. (Or until someone claims that a new covenant has come.)
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Deuteronomy chapter 11
After reading chapter 11:
*Again and again, the Israelites are told to love God and keep his commands. They are again reminded of the exodus and subsequent events and punishments for disobedience. They are reminded that their children didn't see any of those things. They are told again to follow the commands that Moses gave them so they will live long in the promised land, a land of mountains and valleys watered by God, not like Egypt where they must use irrigation.
*Again, if they love and obey God, they will have what they need. Again, if they worship other gods, Yahweh will get angry, there will be no rain, and they will perish. Again, they are told how to indoctrinate their children. Again, they are told if they do these things God will drive out the former inhabitants of the land and no one will be able to stand against them. Plus, everyone will fear them.
*The above are Moses's official blessing and cursing. When they cross the Jordon and get to the promised land, they are to recite the blessings on Mount Gerazim and the cursings on Mount Ebal. They are about to cross over, so they better remember all these commands.
*Again and again, the Israelites are told to love God and keep his commands. They are again reminded of the exodus and subsequent events and punishments for disobedience. They are reminded that their children didn't see any of those things. They are told again to follow the commands that Moses gave them so they will live long in the promised land, a land of mountains and valleys watered by God, not like Egypt where they must use irrigation.
*Again, if they love and obey God, they will have what they need. Again, if they worship other gods, Yahweh will get angry, there will be no rain, and they will perish. Again, they are told how to indoctrinate their children. Again, they are told if they do these things God will drive out the former inhabitants of the land and no one will be able to stand against them. Plus, everyone will fear them.
*The above are Moses's official blessing and cursing. When they cross the Jordon and get to the promised land, they are to recite the blessings on Mount Gerazim and the cursings on Mount Ebal. They are about to cross over, so they better remember all these commands.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Deuteronomy chapter 10
After reading chapter 10:
*Now Moses tells about his chiseling of the second set of stone tablets and his construction of the ark. Even my study bible's footnotes admit that this sequence of events is different than that in Exodus 34-37. There, the ark is not made til after Moses brings the second set of tablets down from the mountain, and then it was made by Bezalel, not Moses. Also, the commands Yahweh gave Moses to put on the second set of the stone tablets in Exodus 34 are very different than the famous "Ten Commandments" mentioned in Deuteronomy. The ones in Deuteronomy say nothing about feasts, sacrifices, or cooking young goats in their mother's milk.
*Then we are told in an aside that the Levite's inheritance is the lord not land and they have the responsibility of caring for the ark with the commandments inside. After the aside, Moses stays on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, again. Then God tells him to go lead the Israelites to the promised land. Again they are reminded to obey god's commands, for their own good. Again they are told everything belongs to God and God loves them in spite of their obvious flaws (why?).
*Verse 17 is in praise of Yahweh, the lord of lords and God of gods. This is an interesting verse. Does it mean the Israelites believed there were other gods besides Yahweh? If you look at an interlinear translation, you can see that the word "gods" is a form of Elohim, the same word translated as "God" (singular) a great many times in scriptures so far. The verse says God shows no partiality, but he obviously shows partiality to the Israelites. It says he accepts no bribes but we have seen that he expects many many sacrifices. We are told he loves the alien (foreigners) but he plans on destroying the Canaanites. Then the Israelites are told to *love* aliens because they were aliens in Egypt. ???
Well, guess what, they are still aliens in Deuteronomy. They just think they own land that belongs to someone else.
*Lastly, they are told again to fear God and serve him.
I use the Bible Hub website for interlinear translation.
*Now Moses tells about his chiseling of the second set of stone tablets and his construction of the ark. Even my study bible's footnotes admit that this sequence of events is different than that in Exodus 34-37. There, the ark is not made til after Moses brings the second set of tablets down from the mountain, and then it was made by Bezalel, not Moses. Also, the commands Yahweh gave Moses to put on the second set of the stone tablets in Exodus 34 are very different than the famous "Ten Commandments" mentioned in Deuteronomy. The ones in Deuteronomy say nothing about feasts, sacrifices, or cooking young goats in their mother's milk.
*Then we are told in an aside that the Levite's inheritance is the lord not land and they have the responsibility of caring for the ark with the commandments inside. After the aside, Moses stays on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, again. Then God tells him to go lead the Israelites to the promised land. Again they are reminded to obey god's commands, for their own good. Again they are told everything belongs to God and God loves them in spite of their obvious flaws (why?).
*Verse 17 is in praise of Yahweh, the lord of lords and God of gods. This is an interesting verse. Does it mean the Israelites believed there were other gods besides Yahweh? If you look at an interlinear translation, you can see that the word "gods" is a form of Elohim, the same word translated as "God" (singular) a great many times in scriptures so far. The verse says God shows no partiality, but he obviously shows partiality to the Israelites. It says he accepts no bribes but we have seen that he expects many many sacrifices. We are told he loves the alien (foreigners) but he plans on destroying the Canaanites. Then the Israelites are told to *love* aliens because they were aliens in Egypt. ???
Well, guess what, they are still aliens in Deuteronomy. They just think they own land that belongs to someone else.
*Lastly, they are told again to fear God and serve him.
I use the Bible Hub website for interlinear translation.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Deuteronomy chapter 8
After reading chapter 8:
*More exhortation to keep the commandments, then a treatise on the Israelite's time wandering in the desert for 40 years. Apparently, it was a test to see if they would keep Yahweh's commands. The Manna was an object lesson to teach that "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh." But... They couldn't live on Yahweh's words, that's why they needed the manna, duh. (We are ignoring that in Exodus and Leviticus they were said to have large flocks and herds of animals which could have provided food.)
* We are now told that the Israelite's clothes miraculously did not wear out and their feet did not swell during the 40 years of wandering. (I'm guessing that passage is intended to answer an ancient Hebrew skeptic's questions.) Again with "obey the commands of Yahweh", because he is bringing them into a rich land. Plus, they better remember him after they find satisfaction in their new land. After all, he protected them in the desert and gave them the ubiquitous manna.
*Just like preachers around the globe today tell their flocks every Sunday, Moses tells the Israelites that they may think that everything they accomplish is by their own hands, but really it is God. He gave them the ability to to produce wealth and that just confirms his covenant. Win-win for Yahweh. Again, they better not forget it or they will be destroyed, just like the nations they, um God, destroyed. Hey, that last part is in the past tense, but they haven't destroyed the nations yet.
*More exhortation to keep the commandments, then a treatise on the Israelite's time wandering in the desert for 40 years. Apparently, it was a test to see if they would keep Yahweh's commands. The Manna was an object lesson to teach that "man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh." But... They couldn't live on Yahweh's words, that's why they needed the manna, duh. (We are ignoring that in Exodus and Leviticus they were said to have large flocks and herds of animals which could have provided food.)
* We are now told that the Israelite's clothes miraculously did not wear out and their feet did not swell during the 40 years of wandering. (I'm guessing that passage is intended to answer an ancient Hebrew skeptic's questions.) Again with "obey the commands of Yahweh", because he is bringing them into a rich land. Plus, they better remember him after they find satisfaction in their new land. After all, he protected them in the desert and gave them the ubiquitous manna.
*Just like preachers around the globe today tell their flocks every Sunday, Moses tells the Israelites that they may think that everything they accomplish is by their own hands, but really it is God. He gave them the ability to to produce wealth and that just confirms his covenant. Win-win for Yahweh. Again, they better not forget it or they will be destroyed, just like the nations they, um God, destroyed. Hey, that last part is in the past tense, but they haven't destroyed the nations yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)