We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2019
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Titus part four
Verses 15-16 of chapter one seem to imply that those who oppose Paul's message are impure and corrupted. "They claim to know god, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." That's Paul's Christian love speaking.
In chapter two, Paul tells Titus to teach according to sound doctrine, which of course, is Paul's doctrine. First Titus is told to teach the older men to be "temperate, worthy of respect (whose?), self-controlled, and sound in faith and endurance." I wonder how older guys liked being told how to live and behave by someone younger?
Verse 3 says, "Likewise teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers, or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." I wonder how the older women felt about some young male foreigner trying to tell them how to behave and live. I wonder how their husbands felt about it.
Verse four goes on to tell the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of god." This scripture is often drilled into the minds of devout christian women, even today. It's what makes many become stay at home mothers and housewives, even if they are not naturally inclined toward that occupation. Because it is in the bible, it is considered the words of god, but it is actually just the words of Paul or some other writer. The author is clearly concerned about the reputation of the church and seems to feel that young women should behave in a manner that coincides with his ideas of what is appropriate. It is probably consistent with the ideals of that time and culture. No gods needed.
Verse six tells Titus to encourage the young men be self-controlled. Just encourage? Young men are notoriously hard to command and often resistant to those who set themselves up as authorities. Paul tells Titus to lead them by example, not a bad tactic. He is to do what is good, show integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech. This is again to protect the reputation of Paul 's followers in the eyes of his opposition.
Verse nine tells Titus to "teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in everything they will make the teaching about our god and savior attractive." Oh, the harm these verses have done! It is inexcusable. Why did Paul not tell christian masters to set an example and free their slaves? Why did he not suggest that free christians help christian slaves buy their freedom if they had nonchristian masters? I'll tell you why. He was not receiving any revelation from an almighty benevolent god. He was speaking from his own experience in culture and time. Plus his goal in these passages is clearly the preservation and boosting of the reputation of his followers, so the opposition would not be able to accuse them of anything unseemly.
The slave was told to obey his master in everything! What if the slave was ordered to have nothing more to do with the Paulites? What if the slave was ordered to slander or sabotage them? The slave was told his obedience would make christianity attractive. Your darn tootin' it would, to slave owners. It sure would give the slave owner leverage to be able to read that passage to his slaves. It might be worth the trouble to become a christian, at least in name, if you could take advantage of Paul's teachings on slavery.
In chapter two, Paul tells Titus to teach according to sound doctrine, which of course, is Paul's doctrine. First Titus is told to teach the older men to be "temperate, worthy of respect (whose?), self-controlled, and sound in faith and endurance." I wonder how older guys liked being told how to live and behave by someone younger?
Verse 3 says, "Likewise teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers, or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." I wonder how the older women felt about some young male foreigner trying to tell them how to behave and live. I wonder how their husbands felt about it.
Verse four goes on to tell the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of god." This scripture is often drilled into the minds of devout christian women, even today. It's what makes many become stay at home mothers and housewives, even if they are not naturally inclined toward that occupation. Because it is in the bible, it is considered the words of god, but it is actually just the words of Paul or some other writer. The author is clearly concerned about the reputation of the church and seems to feel that young women should behave in a manner that coincides with his ideas of what is appropriate. It is probably consistent with the ideals of that time and culture. No gods needed.
Verse six tells Titus to encourage the young men be self-controlled. Just encourage? Young men are notoriously hard to command and often resistant to those who set themselves up as authorities. Paul tells Titus to lead them by example, not a bad tactic. He is to do what is good, show integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech. This is again to protect the reputation of Paul 's followers in the eyes of his opposition.
Verse nine tells Titus to "teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in everything they will make the teaching about our god and savior attractive." Oh, the harm these verses have done! It is inexcusable. Why did Paul not tell christian masters to set an example and free their slaves? Why did he not suggest that free christians help christian slaves buy their freedom if they had nonchristian masters? I'll tell you why. He was not receiving any revelation from an almighty benevolent god. He was speaking from his own experience in culture and time. Plus his goal in these passages is clearly the preservation and boosting of the reputation of his followers, so the opposition would not be able to accuse them of anything unseemly.
The slave was told to obey his master in everything! What if the slave was ordered to have nothing more to do with the Paulites? What if the slave was ordered to slander or sabotage them? The slave was told his obedience would make christianity attractive. Your darn tootin' it would, to slave owners. It sure would give the slave owner leverage to be able to read that passage to his slaves. It might be worth the trouble to become a christian, at least in name, if you could take advantage of Paul's teachings on slavery.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Philemon part 2 And wrap up.
We continue in verse 12, where Paul gets down to the point. He is sending Onesimus back to his master Philemon. He says that he would have liked to keep Onesimus with him. Onesimus could have taken Philemon's place, helping Paul while he was imprisoned. Here Paul is guilt tripping Philemon again. He is reminding Philemon of the fact that he is not there helping Paul, but Onesimus is. Then Paul says he wouldn't want to do anything (like keep Onesimus with him) without Philemon's consent, because he wants any favors that Philemon does for him to be "spontaneous and not forced." Hint, hint.
In verse 15, Paul suggests there was a higher purpose for Onesims's defection from Philemon. That purpose might be so that Philemon could have Onesimus back "as no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It is unclear if Paul is actually suggesting that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom. He could just be asking him to treat Onesimus well.
From verse 17-21, Paul lays on the guilt and obligation with a trowel. He tells Philemon, "If you consider me a partner (guilt trip #1), welcome him as you would welcome me (gt #2). If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me (gt#3). I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand (ooooh). I will pay it back to you----not to mention that you owe me your very self (Major Guilt Trip). I do wish brother that I may have some benefit from you in the lord (gt#5). Confident of your obedience (gt#6), I write to you, knowing that you will do Even More than I ask. (Ouch).
As if Paul has not got Philemon's attention yet, he adds, "One more thing, prepare a guest room for me, I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers." In other words, Paul is letting Philemon know he intends to check up on him, eventually. I wonder if Philemon actually was praying for Paul's release from prison.
The letter ends with greetings from many of the same people mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.
To wrap up: Paul never claims this letter is scripture or the words of God or Jesus. He only mentions god and Jesus in the greeting and closing of the letter. This letter does not contain any actual theological teachings, content from the old testament, or content from Jesus's life and teachings. It does not mention heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. It is purely personal, using their relationship as "brothers in christ" for leverage in Philemon's relationship to, and treatment of, Onesimus.
I'm okay with Paul trying to guarantee Onesimus is not abused. However, I think it would have been much more impressive if Paul had said slavery is wrong and god abhors it. But he couldn't do that, because Paul considers himself a slave to god. Paul preaches obedience of slaves to masters. Instead, Paul kind of pulls rank on Onesimus, making him feel obligated to him.
What shall we look at next?
In verse 15, Paul suggests there was a higher purpose for Onesims's defection from Philemon. That purpose might be so that Philemon could have Onesimus back "as no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother." It is unclear if Paul is actually suggesting that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom. He could just be asking him to treat Onesimus well.
From verse 17-21, Paul lays on the guilt and obligation with a trowel. He tells Philemon, "If you consider me a partner (guilt trip #1), welcome him as you would welcome me (gt #2). If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me (gt#3). I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand (ooooh). I will pay it back to you----not to mention that you owe me your very self (Major Guilt Trip). I do wish brother that I may have some benefit from you in the lord (gt#5). Confident of your obedience (gt#6), I write to you, knowing that you will do Even More than I ask. (Ouch).
As if Paul has not got Philemon's attention yet, he adds, "One more thing, prepare a guest room for me, I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers." In other words, Paul is letting Philemon know he intends to check up on him, eventually. I wonder if Philemon actually was praying for Paul's release from prison.
The letter ends with greetings from many of the same people mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.
To wrap up: Paul never claims this letter is scripture or the words of God or Jesus. He only mentions god and Jesus in the greeting and closing of the letter. This letter does not contain any actual theological teachings, content from the old testament, or content from Jesus's life and teachings. It does not mention heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. It is purely personal, using their relationship as "brothers in christ" for leverage in Philemon's relationship to, and treatment of, Onesimus.
I'm okay with Paul trying to guarantee Onesimus is not abused. However, I think it would have been much more impressive if Paul had said slavery is wrong and god abhors it. But he couldn't do that, because Paul considers himself a slave to god. Paul preaches obedience of slaves to masters. Instead, Paul kind of pulls rank on Onesimus, making him feel obligated to him.
What shall we look at next?
Saturday, August 18, 2018
Introduction to Philemon
Read about Paul's private letter to Philemon here. Philemon was a Colossian. If the letter is authentic, it must have been sent at the same time as the public letter to the Colossians. This suggests that the letter carried a message intended to give the Colossian audience Paul's views on the slave/master relationship in order to put a little social pressure on Philemon regarding his slave Onesimus. I don't understand why it does not immediately follow Colossians in the text of the New Testament. That would make much more sense than its current place, after the letter to Titus.
The letter begins with a greeting from Paul and Timothy, to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. It is speculated that Apphia was Philemon's wife and Archippus his son. Verses 4-7 are the common "thanks, praise, and prayers" that Paul includes in his letters. After praising Philemon's love, Paul gets to the purpose of the letter.
He says he is not going to be bold and order Philemon to do what he ought. He appeals to him on the basis of love, Paul's advanced age, and his prisoner status. In other words, he is giving Philemon cause to feel guilty for not doing what Paul is asking him to do. Paul is making an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, who is like a son to him, another reason to give Philemon pause to think. Paul admits Onesimus was useless to Philemon, but he has made himself useful to Paul. I'm not surprised. Psychologically, there is a big difference between doing something obligatory, as a slave for a master, and something voluntary, as a friend for a friend.
I don't think Paul fully understood the nuances of the slave/master relationship. Apparently, he was never a slave or a master. Historically, a slave was property. They were owned like possessions. The slave was under compulsion to be obedient to the master in anything and everything. In the Old Testament, the master was only obligated not to kill the slave quickly. Yes, there was a whole range of good and bad masters throughout history. There was a large variation in duties and living conditions among slaves. That did not erase the fact that a slave was not his own master. He was under obligation to his master in every single aspect of his life, if the master so chose it. The slave had no freedom that the master did not grant him.
I am sure that kind and generous masters were often loved by their slaves. However, I personally think that if they actually loved their slaves as equals or friends, they would have given them their freedom and allowed them to choose whether or not to remain employed under them. Why have slaves to begin with? Why not hire someone at fair wages to do the jobs you need done? 1. The master has a position of power over the slave and he may not be the kind of person any one is willing to work for. 2. The slave cannot quit and go work for someone else. 3. The master only has to pay and provide for the slave as much as he is willing or able. I imagine that was less than the going rate for a free person with the same skills.
Also, in an authoritarian society, under a monarchy, everyone was a kind of slave to the king who was supposed to be god's representative power, if not actually a god himself, as in many cultures. Freedom was a privilege, not a right. Philemon and Paul were privileged by circumstance of birth. Paul and the people he writes to have lived in this kind of world their whole lives, they have known no other. That is one reason Paul's claims to heavenly knowledge cannot be taken seriously. He is not radical enough. If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong then. Paul was already a prisoner and willing to die for his faith. He also asked others to sacrifice themselves for christ's sake. What difference would the truth about the evil of slavery have made to his earthly position? The truth is Paul did not consider slavery wrong at all. To him, it was another metaphor for the heavenly reality. Everyone is a slave to the master in heaven.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Colossians part 8
We are in verse 20 of chapter three. There, children are told to obey their parents in everything, for this pleases the lord. I'm sure it pleases the parents too. It's a very convenient verse to use when a child is being obstinate, providing the child believes that the bible is an authority. But what if the child is an adult? Do they still have to obey? What if a parent asks them to do something harmful or immoral? It does say "in everything."
Next, fathers are told not to embitter their children. What that specifically means is anybody's guess. there are no specifics. A child could use that to his advantage, if he had the nerve.
Next, slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, and not only when they are being watched. They must do it sincerely, with all their heart, as if they were working for Jesus. Paul says it is actually Jesus they are serving and they will be rewarded with an inheritance. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong. There is no favoritism. Masters must also provide for their slaves, what is just and fair, because they have a master in heaven.
Let's unpack that. Paul obviously does not find slavery objectionable. He does not condemn it. Instead he uses it to compare the relationship of slaves and masters to that of Jesus/god and his believers. Christians are to be like slaves/servants of Jesus/god. So, why would slavery be wrong to Paul? If slavery was fundamentally wrong, then being a slave/servant to a god would be wrong also. It would even be wrong for that god to expect his followers to be his slaves/servants. Paul would be out of a job. His main occupation was trying to find willing slaves for Jesus.
No, slavery in bible times was not different from slavery in the early American colonies. Both slaves had no personal autonomy or rights. Their purpose in life was to do the master's bidding. Carry that as a metaphor into christianity. In fact, the greek word for master in this passage is practically the same word that is also translated as lord. If it it was to be translated literally "the lord" would be "the master."
Chapter 4, verses 2-6, are general admonitions for the Colossians to pray for Paul and his cohorts as they proclaim the "mystery of christ," which we have previously been told just means that christ is in everyone. The Colossians are also told to behave themselves in word and deed. Verse 7 says Tychicus, who probably delivered the letter, will give them news about Paul and company. Tychicus is called a fellow servant in the lord. Translated literally, this would say something like Tychicus is a a fellow slave of the master.
Verse 9 tells about Onesimus, who was apparently a Colossian travelling with Tychicus. We will hear more about Onesimus when we read the book of Philemon next. He was apparently a slave, returning to his master. The parts about slavery in this letter may have been indirectly intended for Philemon.
Again, it seems important to remember that everything Paul writes here is his own thoughts and words. He does not claim they are the commands of Jesus or God. In fact, Jesus says no such things in the so called gospel books.
Next, fathers are told not to embitter their children. What that specifically means is anybody's guess. there are no specifics. A child could use that to his advantage, if he had the nerve.
Next, slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, and not only when they are being watched. They must do it sincerely, with all their heart, as if they were working for Jesus. Paul says it is actually Jesus they are serving and they will be rewarded with an inheritance. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong. There is no favoritism. Masters must also provide for their slaves, what is just and fair, because they have a master in heaven.
Let's unpack that. Paul obviously does not find slavery objectionable. He does not condemn it. Instead he uses it to compare the relationship of slaves and masters to that of Jesus/god and his believers. Christians are to be like slaves/servants of Jesus/god. So, why would slavery be wrong to Paul? If slavery was fundamentally wrong, then being a slave/servant to a god would be wrong also. It would even be wrong for that god to expect his followers to be his slaves/servants. Paul would be out of a job. His main occupation was trying to find willing slaves for Jesus.
No, slavery in bible times was not different from slavery in the early American colonies. Both slaves had no personal autonomy or rights. Their purpose in life was to do the master's bidding. Carry that as a metaphor into christianity. In fact, the greek word for master in this passage is practically the same word that is also translated as lord. If it it was to be translated literally "the lord" would be "the master."
Chapter 4, verses 2-6, are general admonitions for the Colossians to pray for Paul and his cohorts as they proclaim the "mystery of christ," which we have previously been told just means that christ is in everyone. The Colossians are also told to behave themselves in word and deed. Verse 7 says Tychicus, who probably delivered the letter, will give them news about Paul and company. Tychicus is called a fellow servant in the lord. Translated literally, this would say something like Tychicus is a a fellow slave of the master.
Verse 9 tells about Onesimus, who was apparently a Colossian travelling with Tychicus. We will hear more about Onesimus when we read the book of Philemon next. He was apparently a slave, returning to his master. The parts about slavery in this letter may have been indirectly intended for Philemon.
Again, it seems important to remember that everything Paul writes here is his own thoughts and words. He does not claim they are the commands of Jesus or God. In fact, Jesus says no such things in the so called gospel books.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Jesus burning part 4
Now let's look at Jesus's words of damnation in Luke, that we haven't visited before.
As I go through the book, at first I see very little outright condemnation and descriptive punishments, eternal or otherwise. I do see some warnings to "be on your guard", "woe unto" various groups of people, and suggestions that things won't be so good for some people. Then we get to 12:5, which says, " But I will show you whom you should fear: fear him who after killing the body, has power to throw you into hell (gehenna). Yes, I tell you fear him." I find it interesting that this one verse could be left out of the passage and it would make more sense. The surrounding context of the passage is an encouragement to Not fear. It's not even clear who we are expected to fear in verse 5. If it is god, then this passage also contradicts those who say god does not throw people in hell.
In Luke 12, We find a repeat of the Matthew 24 parable in which a servant abuses other servants while the master is away. Here, when the master returns and cuts the bad servant into pieces, he assigns him a place with the unbelievers, not with the hypocrites as in Matthew. This passage continues on to say that the servant who knows his master's will and doesn't do it "will be beaten with many blows." However, the servant that doesn't know the master's wishes and does some things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows."
Wow. First of all, it is wrong for the servant to beat other servants, but not wrong for the master to beat a servant? Who is the hypocrite? Actually, I'm being too hard on the master here. It's all about property rights and who is allowed to beat who. The law of Moses allows masters to beat their slaves, but a slave clearly has no right to beat other slaves whom he doesn't own. What a minute, you say, this passage calls the person a "servant" not a slave. The word in Greek translated as the English word servant in this passage is doulos. It appears to have one meaning in greek, slave, or a person who is owned by another person and who has no personal property rights himself. That it was translated as servant, giving modern audiences the impression that this person was employed for pay, is thoroughly dishonest and misleading on the part of the translators.
Second, after this parable, the author clearly implies that there are gradients of punishments that will be meted out when Jesus returns. It also implies that doing wrong when you are ignorant of what is wrong is not as bad as wrongs committed with full knowledge. I would mostly agree. It also seems like the author of Luke is trying to soften the blow of this parable. The punishment gets downgraded from getting cut in pieces, to merely being beaten, which is objectively better for one's health.
In chapter 13, Jesus is asked, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" Good question. Jesus answers by telling them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house (god) gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading. 'Sir, open the door for us.'.....He will reply, 'I don't know you.....Away from me you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of god, but you yourselves thrown out. This is the only case of simultaneous weeping and gnashing of teeth outside of Matthew.
More to come.
As I go through the book, at first I see very little outright condemnation and descriptive punishments, eternal or otherwise. I do see some warnings to "be on your guard", "woe unto" various groups of people, and suggestions that things won't be so good for some people. Then we get to 12:5, which says, " But I will show you whom you should fear: fear him who after killing the body, has power to throw you into hell (gehenna). Yes, I tell you fear him." I find it interesting that this one verse could be left out of the passage and it would make more sense. The surrounding context of the passage is an encouragement to Not fear. It's not even clear who we are expected to fear in verse 5. If it is god, then this passage also contradicts those who say god does not throw people in hell.
In Luke 12, We find a repeat of the Matthew 24 parable in which a servant abuses other servants while the master is away. Here, when the master returns and cuts the bad servant into pieces, he assigns him a place with the unbelievers, not with the hypocrites as in Matthew. This passage continues on to say that the servant who knows his master's will and doesn't do it "will be beaten with many blows." However, the servant that doesn't know the master's wishes and does some things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows."
Wow. First of all, it is wrong for the servant to beat other servants, but not wrong for the master to beat a servant? Who is the hypocrite? Actually, I'm being too hard on the master here. It's all about property rights and who is allowed to beat who. The law of Moses allows masters to beat their slaves, but a slave clearly has no right to beat other slaves whom he doesn't own. What a minute, you say, this passage calls the person a "servant" not a slave. The word in Greek translated as the English word servant in this passage is doulos. It appears to have one meaning in greek, slave, or a person who is owned by another person and who has no personal property rights himself. That it was translated as servant, giving modern audiences the impression that this person was employed for pay, is thoroughly dishonest and misleading on the part of the translators.
Second, after this parable, the author clearly implies that there are gradients of punishments that will be meted out when Jesus returns. It also implies that doing wrong when you are ignorant of what is wrong is not as bad as wrongs committed with full knowledge. I would mostly agree. It also seems like the author of Luke is trying to soften the blow of this parable. The punishment gets downgraded from getting cut in pieces, to merely being beaten, which is objectively better for one's health.
In chapter 13, Jesus is asked, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" Good question. Jesus answers by telling them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house (god) gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading. 'Sir, open the door for us.'.....He will reply, 'I don't know you.....Away from me you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of god, but you yourselves thrown out. This is the only case of simultaneous weeping and gnashing of teeth outside of Matthew.
More to come.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Ephesians chapter 6, part 2
We are at verse 5. In my bible, this next section has a subtitle of "Slaves and Masters." Verse five says, "Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey christ." We are going to go through this word by word, so it is clear what the author intends to convey.
The word translated slave here is also translated as servant or bond-servant in other translations. If you think servant in this context could mean someone who chose to serve someone else as a paying job, like a servant in Downton Abbey, you would be wrong. The greek word clearly refers to someone who is legally bound to another person and has no personal freedom or rights. (Link) The word obey in this passage clearly means to do what the master says. (Link) The phrase "respect and fear" in this passage is literally "fear (link) and trembling (link)" in the greek. It seems the authors of the NIV tried to soften the meaning. Not only must the slaves obey with fear, they must obey sincerely. What good is sincerity, if you are afraid? Isn't sincerity of more value if it is under no compulsion? What are they to be afraid of? The consequences of disobedience?
The next verse says,"Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of christ, doing the will of god from your heart." Here is a common refrain in christianity, "hearts" will be judged. It is not enough to obey, you must do it from the heart. An insincere heart nullifies obedience. How does one person tell if another is sincere or not? How do you measure sincerity?
Verse 7, "Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the lord, not men,(But they are serving men.) because you know that the lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." No, we don't know that. When do slaves get this nebulous reward and what exactly is it? Paul has not told us in this letter. He has mentioned slavation, inheritance, redemption, and power for those who believe. But what does that actually mean? And why must our hearts be sincere as long as we are doing "good"?
Verse 8, "And masters treat your slaves in the same way." Yeah, right. Masters are to serve their slaves wholeheartedly as though they were obeying christ? Since when? Why aren't they just told to give the slaves their freedom and hire them for reasonable wages? Why aren't they told it is wrong to own another person? Why does god not promote personal autonomy? Could it be because the god of the bible is a product of that era and had the same values that the people of that time held?
Last, masters are told not to threaten their slaves, because he who is in heaven is the master of them both and he shows no favoritism. So, all christians are Jesus's slaves. They are to sincerely obey him with fear and trembling. But what has he commanded that must be obeyed? Back in Ephesians 2:15, the author says Jesus abolished in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. So far, all the commands in this letter have come from the author. None have been claimed to come from Jesus or god. Does one obey Jesus by doing what Paul says? Why should anyone do what Paul says? Again, what is the consequence of disobedience? Why must they fear and tremble? Also, how can god have no favoritism and still allow the inequity of the master/slave relationship to exist?
The word translated slave here is also translated as servant or bond-servant in other translations. If you think servant in this context could mean someone who chose to serve someone else as a paying job, like a servant in Downton Abbey, you would be wrong. The greek word clearly refers to someone who is legally bound to another person and has no personal freedom or rights. (Link) The word obey in this passage clearly means to do what the master says. (Link) The phrase "respect and fear" in this passage is literally "fear (link) and trembling (link)" in the greek. It seems the authors of the NIV tried to soften the meaning. Not only must the slaves obey with fear, they must obey sincerely. What good is sincerity, if you are afraid? Isn't sincerity of more value if it is under no compulsion? What are they to be afraid of? The consequences of disobedience?
The next verse says,"Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of christ, doing the will of god from your heart." Here is a common refrain in christianity, "hearts" will be judged. It is not enough to obey, you must do it from the heart. An insincere heart nullifies obedience. How does one person tell if another is sincere or not? How do you measure sincerity?
Verse 7, "Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the lord, not men,(But they are serving men.) because you know that the lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." No, we don't know that. When do slaves get this nebulous reward and what exactly is it? Paul has not told us in this letter. He has mentioned slavation, inheritance, redemption, and power for those who believe. But what does that actually mean? And why must our hearts be sincere as long as we are doing "good"?
Verse 8, "And masters treat your slaves in the same way." Yeah, right. Masters are to serve their slaves wholeheartedly as though they were obeying christ? Since when? Why aren't they just told to give the slaves their freedom and hire them for reasonable wages? Why aren't they told it is wrong to own another person? Why does god not promote personal autonomy? Could it be because the god of the bible is a product of that era and had the same values that the people of that time held?
Last, masters are told not to threaten their slaves, because he who is in heaven is the master of them both and he shows no favoritism. So, all christians are Jesus's slaves. They are to sincerely obey him with fear and trembling. But what has he commanded that must be obeyed? Back in Ephesians 2:15, the author says Jesus abolished in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. So far, all the commands in this letter have come from the author. None have been claimed to come from Jesus or god. Does one obey Jesus by doing what Paul says? Why should anyone do what Paul says? Again, what is the consequence of disobedience? Why must they fear and tremble? Also, how can god have no favoritism and still allow the inequity of the master/slave relationship to exist?
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
American slavery vs. Biblical slavery
Ugh. I am so sick of hearing and reading that Biblical slavery was a kinder, gentler version of slavery than American slavery. Folks, slavery is slavery. A person who is the permanent property of another, one who has no personal autonomy, by any other name, is still a slave.
Here is a reply I just posted to someone who wanted to recycle that old argument that Biblical slavery and early American slavery were in no way the same institution:
4.Even an indentured servant's wife and children remained the property of the master after the servant gained his freedom. If he wanted to keep his wife and children, he had to submit to permanent servitude (slavery). Exodus 21:4-6
Here is a reply I just posted to someone who wanted to recycle that old argument that Biblical slavery and early American slavery were in no way the same institution:
1. Indentured servitude and slavery are not the same thing, in the bible and in early American history. Do not equate them. Make sure each of your references are referring to actual slavery, not indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is usually voluntary and temporary, slavery is involuntary and permanent.
2. A Hebrew man was permitted to sell his daughter into slavery or servitude. Do you think the daughter had any say in the matter? For women, slavery and servitude this were basically the same thing. Female servants were not released to go free after a specified time, like male Hebrew servants, because they were considered "defiled." They were defiled because female slaves were also the sexual property of their masters. (As often was the case in American slavery) They were, however, "let go" to fend for themselves if the master was no longer willing to support them. Exodus 21
3.The Hebrews practiced indentured servitude on their own people and slavery on all other people. Leviticus 25:44-46. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of the clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life."
5. "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. " Exodus 21:20-21
6. Levitical priests were free to buy slaves. Leviticus 22:11
7. Slavery of women and children as spoils of war was permitted and encouraged by Yahweh. Deuteronomy 20:18. "As for all the women, the children, the livestock, and anything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
I think that is enough. Slavery is a vile institution. People should not be property under any circumstance. They should have personal autonomy. Their cultural background, ethnicity, and gender, should not matter. Biblical slavery was not any better than American slavery, no matter how anyone tries to whitewash it. If slavery is wrong to the god Yahweh now, it should have been wrong to him then.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Galatians chapter 4 part 2
*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Galatians chapter 4
After reading chapter 4:
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Joshua chapter 17
After reading chapter 17:
*Here we are told what part of the land was allotted to the rest of the tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Ephraim, the descendents of Joseph. In the Wikipedia articles, you can see a map of the distribution of tribal territory. Remember, half of the Manassehites recieved land east of the Jordan. This was called the land of Gilead What makes it a little confusing is that the land of Gilead is named after a descendant of Manasseh. We are also reminded of the story of the daughters who were promised an inheritance back in Numbers chapters 27 and 36. The land allotted to Ephraim lies partially within the boundaries of Manasseh.
*We are also told that the Manassehites were unable to drive all the Canaanites out of their allotted land, instead they subjected them to forced labor. This is becoming a familiar refrain. What happened to Yahweh's strength and might? What happened to the order to anihilate all the Cannanites? If you can enslave people, why can't you destroy them? Something fishy is going on here. Could it be that the authors of Joshua needed an explanation for why there were Canaanites living in the land when the book was written? Also, remember way back in Genesis chapter 9 when the descendents of Canaan were cursed and told they would become slaves of the descendents of Shem? Justification! All this happened because Ham saw his father Noah naked and drunk, imagine that.
*In the second half of the chapter, the Ephraimites and Manassehites complain that their share of land is too small because they are very numerous. Joshua allows them a bit more. Then they complain because the Canaanites in that land have iron chariots. Aha! Yahweh is no match for iron chariots. Joshua admits those Canaanites are strong, but says,"you can drive them out." Will the Canaanites with the iron chariots be driven out? Stay tuned for continuing episodes...
*Here we are told what part of the land was allotted to the rest of the tribe of Manasseh and the tribe of Ephraim, the descendents of Joseph. In the Wikipedia articles, you can see a map of the distribution of tribal territory. Remember, half of the Manassehites recieved land east of the Jordan. This was called the land of Gilead What makes it a little confusing is that the land of Gilead is named after a descendant of Manasseh. We are also reminded of the story of the daughters who were promised an inheritance back in Numbers chapters 27 and 36. The land allotted to Ephraim lies partially within the boundaries of Manasseh.
*We are also told that the Manassehites were unable to drive all the Canaanites out of their allotted land, instead they subjected them to forced labor. This is becoming a familiar refrain. What happened to Yahweh's strength and might? What happened to the order to anihilate all the Cannanites? If you can enslave people, why can't you destroy them? Something fishy is going on here. Could it be that the authors of Joshua needed an explanation for why there were Canaanites living in the land when the book was written? Also, remember way back in Genesis chapter 9 when the descendents of Canaan were cursed and told they would become slaves of the descendents of Shem? Justification! All this happened because Ham saw his father Noah naked and drunk, imagine that.
*In the second half of the chapter, the Ephraimites and Manassehites complain that their share of land is too small because they are very numerous. Joshua allows them a bit more. Then they complain because the Canaanites in that land have iron chariots. Aha! Yahweh is no match for iron chariots. Joshua admits those Canaanites are strong, but says,"you can drive them out." Will the Canaanites with the iron chariots be driven out? Stay tuned for continuing episodes...
Monday, April 4, 2016
Joshua chapter 15 and 16
After reading chapter 15:
*Here we are told which portion of the land was alloted to the tribe of Judah. Caleb got a portion of Judah's land in Hebron. Caleb's daughter was married to Caleb's nephew Othniel as a reward for Othniel's capture of Debir, whose destruction we've already read about in chapter 10 verses 38-39. Caleb's daughter asked for springs of water and was granted them. All together, the tribe of Judah supposedly acquired at least 113 towns and villages. We are also told that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites who continued to live among them up to the time of the writing of this passage. Those Jebusites must have been mighty strong to be able to resists Yahweh's plans of total annhiliation. In spite of that, there seems to be some doubt that they ever existed.
After reading chapter 16:
*Here we are told the boundaries of the land allotted to the tribe of Ephraim. Apparently, the Ephraimites could not dislodge the Canaanites living in Gezer, but they forced the people of Gezer to do manual labor. This seems like a silly statement. They can't get rid of them but they can enslave them? Even stranger, we were told back in chapter 10 verse 33, that the entire army and the King of Gezer had been wiped out by the Israelites.
*Here we are told which portion of the land was alloted to the tribe of Judah. Caleb got a portion of Judah's land in Hebron. Caleb's daughter was married to Caleb's nephew Othniel as a reward for Othniel's capture of Debir, whose destruction we've already read about in chapter 10 verses 38-39. Caleb's daughter asked for springs of water and was granted them. All together, the tribe of Judah supposedly acquired at least 113 towns and villages. We are also told that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites who continued to live among them up to the time of the writing of this passage. Those Jebusites must have been mighty strong to be able to resists Yahweh's plans of total annhiliation. In spite of that, there seems to be some doubt that they ever existed.
After reading chapter 16:
*Here we are told the boundaries of the land allotted to the tribe of Ephraim. Apparently, the Ephraimites could not dislodge the Canaanites living in Gezer, but they forced the people of Gezer to do manual labor. This seems like a silly statement. They can't get rid of them but they can enslave them? Even stranger, we were told back in chapter 10 verse 33, that the entire army and the King of Gezer had been wiped out by the Israelites.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Deuteronomy 23
After reading chapter 23:
*This chapter contains more miscellaneous rules and laws. The first are concerning who can not enter the assembly of the lord: no one with damaged testicles, no one in a forbidden marriage, no descendant of a forbidden marriage- to the tenth generation (They'll have to keep mighty good records for that one), no Ammonites or Moabites- to the tenth generation. Edomites and Egyptians are okay after the third generation, because Edomites are distant relatives and the Israelites used to live in Egypt.
*The army camps are to be kept "clean." Anyone with a nocturnal emission has to stay outside the camp for a day then wash themselves before they return in the evening. So who volunteered this information every morning? Was there an inspector? Excrement was to be buried so the lord wouldn't have to look at anything so indecent and unholy. Wait. Wasn't God supposed to have created human bodies to get rid of waste in this way? Doesn't God see everything at all times any way? Why didn't Yahweh say it was to prevent the spread of disease?
*If a slave takes refuge among the Israelites, they are not to turn him over to his master. They are to let him live among them and not oppress them. Someone should have read this to the colonial Americans.
*No Israelite is to become a shrine prostitute. Money from that profession is not to be given to the lord.
*Israelites can't charge each other interest, but they can charge foreigners.
*All vows to Yahweh must be quickly paid up.
*The Israelites could go in each other's vinyards or field and eat their fill. They just couldn't take any home.
*This chapter contains more miscellaneous rules and laws. The first are concerning who can not enter the assembly of the lord: no one with damaged testicles, no one in a forbidden marriage, no descendant of a forbidden marriage- to the tenth generation (They'll have to keep mighty good records for that one), no Ammonites or Moabites- to the tenth generation. Edomites and Egyptians are okay after the third generation, because Edomites are distant relatives and the Israelites used to live in Egypt.
*The army camps are to be kept "clean." Anyone with a nocturnal emission has to stay outside the camp for a day then wash themselves before they return in the evening. So who volunteered this information every morning? Was there an inspector? Excrement was to be buried so the lord wouldn't have to look at anything so indecent and unholy. Wait. Wasn't God supposed to have created human bodies to get rid of waste in this way? Doesn't God see everything at all times any way? Why didn't Yahweh say it was to prevent the spread of disease?
*If a slave takes refuge among the Israelites, they are not to turn him over to his master. They are to let him live among them and not oppress them. Someone should have read this to the colonial Americans.
*No Israelite is to become a shrine prostitute. Money from that profession is not to be given to the lord.
*Israelites can't charge each other interest, but they can charge foreigners.
*All vows to Yahweh must be quickly paid up.
*The Israelites could go in each other's vinyards or field and eat their fill. They just couldn't take any home.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Deuteronomy 21
After reading chapter 21:
*The first 9 verses are the rules for atoning for an unsolved murder with no eye witnesses. The elders of the nearest town take a heifer that has never been yoked, to a valley that has not been plowed, by a flowing stream. Then they break its neck, wash their hands over it, and declare their innocence. This will supposedly absolve them from the guilt of the shedding of innocent blood that is floating around that area. What a waste of a good heifer. Wait, the priests are there too. I'm sure they will find some use for that young cow carcass. Veal scaloppine.
*Verses 10 -15 are about captive wives acquired through war and conquest. Let's be clear. These were women taken away from their homes by force, and without their consent. If an Israelite is attracted to a beautiful captive, he can just take her for his "wife." First, her head must be shaved, her nails trimmed and her old clothes replaced. She is to be allowed to mourn for her father and mother for a month. How generous, considering they were probably murdered by the Israelites. After that the Israelite man can go to her and be her husband. In other words, he can sexually use her. If he doesn't like her, he can let her go wherever she wishes. In other words, he can abandon her. He can not sell her or treat her as a slave (?!) because he has dishonored did her. So, he can't make any money from her, but he can save money by getting rid of her. How do you think the "dishonored" woman would feel about that? Is there any limit to the number of throw away wives?
*If an Israelite man has two wives and loves one more than the other, he must still give priority of inheritance to his first born son, no matter which wife bore the son. The first born gets a double share.
*If an Israelite man has a rebellious, stubborn, disobedient, drunken son, he will be brought to the elders at the gate by his parents. All the men of the town will stone him to death. This will put fear into the rest of the Israelites. No kidding. I guess stoning dispenses with the need for jails.
*Last, if a guilty person has been hung, his body must not be left up overnight. He is to be buried the same day, because anyone who is hung is under God's curse and the curse can spread. We wouldn't want that to happen.
*The first 9 verses are the rules for atoning for an unsolved murder with no eye witnesses. The elders of the nearest town take a heifer that has never been yoked, to a valley that has not been plowed, by a flowing stream. Then they break its neck, wash their hands over it, and declare their innocence. This will supposedly absolve them from the guilt of the shedding of innocent blood that is floating around that area. What a waste of a good heifer. Wait, the priests are there too. I'm sure they will find some use for that young cow carcass. Veal scaloppine.
*Verses 10 -15 are about captive wives acquired through war and conquest. Let's be clear. These were women taken away from their homes by force, and without their consent. If an Israelite is attracted to a beautiful captive, he can just take her for his "wife." First, her head must be shaved, her nails trimmed and her old clothes replaced. She is to be allowed to mourn for her father and mother for a month. How generous, considering they were probably murdered by the Israelites. After that the Israelite man can go to her and be her husband. In other words, he can sexually use her. If he doesn't like her, he can let her go wherever she wishes. In other words, he can abandon her. He can not sell her or treat her as a slave (?!) because he has dishonored did her. So, he can't make any money from her, but he can save money by getting rid of her. How do you think the "dishonored" woman would feel about that? Is there any limit to the number of throw away wives?
*If an Israelite man has two wives and loves one more than the other, he must still give priority of inheritance to his first born son, no matter which wife bore the son. The first born gets a double share.
*If an Israelite man has a rebellious, stubborn, disobedient, drunken son, he will be brought to the elders at the gate by his parents. All the men of the town will stone him to death. This will put fear into the rest of the Israelites. No kidding. I guess stoning dispenses with the need for jails.
*Last, if a guilty person has been hung, his body must not be left up overnight. He is to be buried the same day, because anyone who is hung is under God's curse and the curse can spread. We wouldn't want that to happen.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Deuteronomy 20
After reading chapter 20:
*This chapter is instructions for when the Israelites go to war, not if, when.
-They are not to be afraid of larger, stronger, or better equipped armies, because Yahweh will be with them.
-The priest will give the army a pep talk before battles.
-The officers will allow exemption from service for the dedication of a new house, a vinyard that hasn't begun to produce yet, plans to marry, and fear of war. Then they will appoint commanders.
-When the army goes to attack a city, they will first offer it peace on condition of the forced labor (slavery) of the inhabitants. If they refuse, the Israelites are to lay siege to the city. When they win, the men are to be slaughtered; the women, children, and valuables are to be taken as plunder. They are free to use the "plunder." God gives it to them. This only applies to cities further away.
-The above does not apply to the cities of the nations God gives the Israelites as an inheritance. Those cities will be completely decimated and "anything that breathes" must not be left alive, otherwise they might be taught to do some of the despicable things those people do. How do innocent children and infants pose a threat? Not to mention animals.
-When the Israelites lay siege to a city, they are not to destroy the fruit bearing trees because they are useful to them for food, besides what did the poor trees do to deserve that? However, it's okay to cut down other types of trees to build siege works.
*This chapter is instructions for when the Israelites go to war, not if, when.
-They are not to be afraid of larger, stronger, or better equipped armies, because Yahweh will be with them.
-The priest will give the army a pep talk before battles.
-The officers will allow exemption from service for the dedication of a new house, a vinyard that hasn't begun to produce yet, plans to marry, and fear of war. Then they will appoint commanders.
-When the army goes to attack a city, they will first offer it peace on condition of the forced labor (slavery) of the inhabitants. If they refuse, the Israelites are to lay siege to the city. When they win, the men are to be slaughtered; the women, children, and valuables are to be taken as plunder. They are free to use the "plunder." God gives it to them. This only applies to cities further away.
-The above does not apply to the cities of the nations God gives the Israelites as an inheritance. Those cities will be completely decimated and "anything that breathes" must not be left alive, otherwise they might be taught to do some of the despicable things those people do. How do innocent children and infants pose a threat? Not to mention animals.
-When the Israelites lay siege to a city, they are not to destroy the fruit bearing trees because they are useful to them for food, besides what did the poor trees do to deserve that? However, it's okay to cut down other types of trees to build siege works.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Deuteronomy 15
After reading chapter 15:
*Every seven years the debts of all Israelites to other Israelites are to be cancelled, but not the debts of foreigners. Besides, the promised land will be so good that there shouldn't be any poor Israelites. Then they will loan money to other nations, but never borrow from others. Consequently, they will rule over many nations and no one will rule over them. Well, history tells us things didn't work out quite this way.
*So, IF there happens to be a poor man (not woman) among them, they must be generous. Plus, they must not refuse to lend to someone because the year of cancellation is too near. Now, after saying there should be no poor among them in verse four, because of the rich blessings of the promised land, they are told there will always be poor people in the land in verse 11. Which is true?
*Next we find that a man or woman can sell themselves as servants for six years, but in the seventh year, they must be set free. When they are let go they are to be given grain and wine. But if a servant wishes to remain a servant, his or her ear is pierced. Then they are a servant for life. This is somewhat different from Exodus 21, where only male servants go free and female servants do not go free at the end of seven years. Unless no one wants them and no one will provide for them, then they get set free with nothing in payment. It seems that Deuteronomy does not assume the master's right to the sexual services of the maid servants like Exodus does. Also, unlike Deuteronomy, the male servants in Exodus get no payment when released.
*The last part of the chapter commands the setting aside of all the unblemished firstborn livestock for the lord. But they get to eat them with their families in the place Yahweh decides. The blemished animals can be eaten in their towns, just not the blood. We musn't forget about the blood.
*Every seven years the debts of all Israelites to other Israelites are to be cancelled, but not the debts of foreigners. Besides, the promised land will be so good that there shouldn't be any poor Israelites. Then they will loan money to other nations, but never borrow from others. Consequently, they will rule over many nations and no one will rule over them. Well, history tells us things didn't work out quite this way.
*So, IF there happens to be a poor man (not woman) among them, they must be generous. Plus, they must not refuse to lend to someone because the year of cancellation is too near. Now, after saying there should be no poor among them in verse four, because of the rich blessings of the promised land, they are told there will always be poor people in the land in verse 11. Which is true?
*Next we find that a man or woman can sell themselves as servants for six years, but in the seventh year, they must be set free. When they are let go they are to be given grain and wine. But if a servant wishes to remain a servant, his or her ear is pierced. Then they are a servant for life. This is somewhat different from Exodus 21, where only male servants go free and female servants do not go free at the end of seven years. Unless no one wants them and no one will provide for them, then they get set free with nothing in payment. It seems that Deuteronomy does not assume the master's right to the sexual services of the maid servants like Exodus does. Also, unlike Deuteronomy, the male servants in Exodus get no payment when released.
*The last part of the chapter commands the setting aside of all the unblemished firstborn livestock for the lord. But they get to eat them with their families in the place Yahweh decides. The blemished animals can be eaten in their towns, just not the blood. We musn't forget about the blood.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Leviticus 25
After reading Leviticus 25:
*Verses 1-5 are instructions for the establishment of a sabbath year, once the Israelites take over the promised land. For six years they are to plant, prune, and harvest. On the seventh year they are to let the land rest, no planting, no pruning, no harvesting. They can't even reap or harvest what grows naturally. (Verse 5) So, what will the Israelites eat that year? Why, whatever the land produces of course! (Verse 6) This makes no sense to me. Maybe some sense can be squeezed out if it means all wild produce that grows on previously non-cultivated land is ok, like wild greens, nuts, and berries. Can we say massive starvation rates every seventh year? The study bible attempts to say that this practice is good for cultivated land, which makes it obviously divine. What it ignores is that there are better people -designed practices for improving the fertility of the land that don't include people not eating what grows naturally.
*Verses 8-54. On the fiftieth year, after seven times seven years, there is to be a jubilee year. What follows is a list of rules for that year. We will just hit the highlights.
-This is also a year of Sabbath rest for the land. Here, the question of what the Israelites will eat on Sabbath years is answered. Supposedly, on the sixth year, Yahweh will give them a huge bumper crop that would last for three years. So, no worries. I wonder how that worked out for them in reality.
-Yahweh owns the land, they will just be tenants. So the sale of land is never permanent. In the year of Jubilee, the possession of the land reverts to its original Israelite possessor if it was sold. All buying and selling of land is to be done with this understanding. Houses in walled cities don't count. There are exceptions to these rules for the Levites. (Read priests) All property originally owned by Levites must be returned at the Jubilee, even a house in a town. In fact, the pastureland surrounding a town owned by Levites must not ever be sold. It is their permanent possession. This is just another reason to consider that maybe the priests came up with these rules themselves.
-If another Israelite becomes poor, his countrymen are to loan the person money without charging interest and sell them food, without making a profit. This is so they can keep living in the land with other Israelites. If an Israelite sells himself to another Israelite because he is poor, he should not be treated as a slave, but as a hired worker. On the year of Jubilee he goes free, back to his own clan and property. Fellow Israelites must not be sold as slaves. Does that mean God is opposed to slavery? Read on.
-Israelites may buy and sell male and female slaves, as long as they are not other Israelites. When they buy such a slave, the slave becomes their property. They can will the slaves to their children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but they must not rule ruthlessly over other Israelites. Verse 46. By inference, it is okay to rule ruthlessly over anyone who is not an Israelite.
-If an Israelite becomes poor and sells himself to a rich foreigner living in their land, he is not a slave for life. He is to be treated as a hired worker by law. He and his relatives have the right to pay for his freedom. If he is not free by the time of the Jubilee, he and his children go free at that time. Wives of the Israelite servants are not mentioned in these passages.
-In this chapter we see Yahweh's clear preferential treatment of the Israelites, and especially the Levites, when it comes to human and civil rights.
*Verses 1-5 are instructions for the establishment of a sabbath year, once the Israelites take over the promised land. For six years they are to plant, prune, and harvest. On the seventh year they are to let the land rest, no planting, no pruning, no harvesting. They can't even reap or harvest what grows naturally. (Verse 5) So, what will the Israelites eat that year? Why, whatever the land produces of course! (Verse 6) This makes no sense to me. Maybe some sense can be squeezed out if it means all wild produce that grows on previously non-cultivated land is ok, like wild greens, nuts, and berries. Can we say massive starvation rates every seventh year? The study bible attempts to say that this practice is good for cultivated land, which makes it obviously divine. What it ignores is that there are better people -designed practices for improving the fertility of the land that don't include people not eating what grows naturally.
*Verses 8-54. On the fiftieth year, after seven times seven years, there is to be a jubilee year. What follows is a list of rules for that year. We will just hit the highlights.
-This is also a year of Sabbath rest for the land. Here, the question of what the Israelites will eat on Sabbath years is answered. Supposedly, on the sixth year, Yahweh will give them a huge bumper crop that would last for three years. So, no worries. I wonder how that worked out for them in reality.
-Yahweh owns the land, they will just be tenants. So the sale of land is never permanent. In the year of Jubilee, the possession of the land reverts to its original Israelite possessor if it was sold. All buying and selling of land is to be done with this understanding. Houses in walled cities don't count. There are exceptions to these rules for the Levites. (Read priests) All property originally owned by Levites must be returned at the Jubilee, even a house in a town. In fact, the pastureland surrounding a town owned by Levites must not ever be sold. It is their permanent possession. This is just another reason to consider that maybe the priests came up with these rules themselves.
-If another Israelite becomes poor, his countrymen are to loan the person money without charging interest and sell them food, without making a profit. This is so they can keep living in the land with other Israelites. If an Israelite sells himself to another Israelite because he is poor, he should not be treated as a slave, but as a hired worker. On the year of Jubilee he goes free, back to his own clan and property. Fellow Israelites must not be sold as slaves. Does that mean God is opposed to slavery? Read on.
-Israelites may buy and sell male and female slaves, as long as they are not other Israelites. When they buy such a slave, the slave becomes their property. They can will the slaves to their children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but they must not rule ruthlessly over other Israelites. Verse 46. By inference, it is okay to rule ruthlessly over anyone who is not an Israelite.
-If an Israelite becomes poor and sells himself to a rich foreigner living in their land, he is not a slave for life. He is to be treated as a hired worker by law. He and his relatives have the right to pay for his freedom. If he is not free by the time of the Jubilee, he and his children go free at that time. Wives of the Israelite servants are not mentioned in these passages.
-In this chapter we see Yahweh's clear preferential treatment of the Israelites, and especially the Levites, when it comes to human and civil rights.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Leviticus 22
After reading chapter 22:
*More rules about the "sacred offering" for the priests:
-They must treat the offerings to God with respect, even though God doesn't need them, he won't use them, and they will get to use the leftovers from the offerings themselves.
-They must not come near the offerings if they are unclean or they will be cut off from Yahweh's presence. Does that mean they will no longer be able to serve as a priest or does it mean excommunication?
-A descendant of Aaron will not be allowed to eat any of the sacred offerings, if he is unclean by an infectious skin disease or bodily discharge, until he is cleansed. What will he eat, and where will he get it from?
-He also can't eat any of the sacred offering if he is unclean from touching something defiled by a corpse or a person with an emission of semen (How will he know? Did the priests have to ask all the men they came in contact with if they had an emission of semen in the last 24 hours? ), touching an unclean crawling animal, touching an unclean person, or eating found meat. These will make him unclean and he will have to wash and wait til evening to be magically clean again.
-They must keep these requirements or they will be guilty (Of what?) and may die because of it. Verse 9
*No one at at all outside of the priest's immediate family may eat any of the sacred offering, with one exception: his personal slaves. Yes, priests can buy and own slaves, Yahweh has no objections. If the priest's daughter marries outside the priesthood, she is no longer permitted to eat from this holy food. But if she is widowed or divorced and has to come back to live with her father, she can eat the food.
*If anyone eats the sacred food by mistake, he must pay the priest back and add a fifth of the value to it. Who is the extra fifth for, God or the priest?
*Verses 17-25 are rules for the physical condition of the animals to be sacrificed. They must have no defect or blemish of any kind when it is a burnt offering or fellowship offering that is used to fulfill a special vow or as a free will offering. An animal with damaged testicles will not be accepted, presumably this includes castrated animals. These are not acceptable as food for their God. (Or the priests.) Verse 25.
*An newborn sacrifice must remain with its mother for seven days. After that, it is free to be ritually killed, burnt, and eaten. A mother animal and her young may not be slaughtered for sacrifice on the same day. Why? Well, that's another mystery. It certainly can't be to recognize the sanctity of motherhood.
*We end with a reminder that Yahweh is holy, and he makes the Israelites holy, so they better do what he says.
Articles of interest:
Herodotus on animal sacrifice in ancient Egypt
Scholarly article on sacrifice in Britannica
*More rules about the "sacred offering" for the priests:
-They must treat the offerings to God with respect, even though God doesn't need them, he won't use them, and they will get to use the leftovers from the offerings themselves.
-They must not come near the offerings if they are unclean or they will be cut off from Yahweh's presence. Does that mean they will no longer be able to serve as a priest or does it mean excommunication?
-A descendant of Aaron will not be allowed to eat any of the sacred offerings, if he is unclean by an infectious skin disease or bodily discharge, until he is cleansed. What will he eat, and where will he get it from?
-He also can't eat any of the sacred offering if he is unclean from touching something defiled by a corpse or a person with an emission of semen (How will he know? Did the priests have to ask all the men they came in contact with if they had an emission of semen in the last 24 hours? ), touching an unclean crawling animal, touching an unclean person, or eating found meat. These will make him unclean and he will have to wash and wait til evening to be magically clean again.
-They must keep these requirements or they will be guilty (Of what?) and may die because of it. Verse 9
*No one at at all outside of the priest's immediate family may eat any of the sacred offering, with one exception: his personal slaves. Yes, priests can buy and own slaves, Yahweh has no objections. If the priest's daughter marries outside the priesthood, she is no longer permitted to eat from this holy food. But if she is widowed or divorced and has to come back to live with her father, she can eat the food.
*If anyone eats the sacred food by mistake, he must pay the priest back and add a fifth of the value to it. Who is the extra fifth for, God or the priest?
*Verses 17-25 are rules for the physical condition of the animals to be sacrificed. They must have no defect or blemish of any kind when it is a burnt offering or fellowship offering that is used to fulfill a special vow or as a free will offering. An animal with damaged testicles will not be accepted, presumably this includes castrated animals. These are not acceptable as food for their God. (Or the priests.) Verse 25.
*An newborn sacrifice must remain with its mother for seven days. After that, it is free to be ritually killed, burnt, and eaten. A mother animal and her young may not be slaughtered for sacrifice on the same day. Why? Well, that's another mystery. It certainly can't be to recognize the sanctity of motherhood.
*We end with a reminder that Yahweh is holy, and he makes the Israelites holy, so they better do what he says.
Articles of interest:
Herodotus on animal sacrifice in ancient Egypt
Scholarly article on sacrifice in Britannica
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Leviticus 19
After reading Leviticus 19:
*Here we see Yahweh telling Moses to speak to the Israelites and give them more rules. Some of these have been stated before, so I'll just go over the new ones.
-They are not to reap to the edges of their fields or thoroughly strip the vineyards of grapes, but to leave something for the poor and non-Israelites to gather.
-Do not hold back the wages of a hired man.
-Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind. It's a shame that anyone would have to be told this. Unfortunately, things like that probably happen today.
-Do not pervert justice, judge your neighbor fairly, not based on his social standing.
-Do not endanger your neighbor's life.
-Do not hate your brother in your heart. How would anyone know if you don't tell them?
-Tell your neighbor straight up when he's doing something wrong, so you won't share his guilt.(Verse17)
-Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge, but love your neighbor as yourself.
-Do not mate different kinds of animals. Generally speaking, this is not actually possible, unless we are talking about closely related animals.
-Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. This is monoculture which has advantages and disadvantages.
-Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. This is a mystifying rule, one broken without compunction throughout the world. I've seen various extra-biblical explanations, but the text does not provide us with one.
*Verses 20-22 are very disturbing. If a man sleeps with a slave girl who was promised to another man, they will not be put to death, because she is just a slave. (Notice that slavery is not said to be wrong, and the woman is treated as an object to be possessed.) The guy has to sacrifice a ram at the tabernacle for a sin offering, then he will be good to go. What will become of the girl? We are not told.
-The fruit of newly planted fruit trees is forbidden to be eaten for three years. On the fourth year, all its fruit is to be given to the priests, um, the lord. That will insure an increase in future harvests. Yeah, riiight. (There is nothing wrong or special about eating any fruit produced by a tree in the first four years. It doesn't do anything to the tree.)
-Do not practice divination or sorcery. You mean like their illustrious ancestor Joseph, who had a special cup for divination? Why doesn't God tell us it is nonsense?
-Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard. Another mystifying rule.
-No cutting or tattoos.
-Do not make your daughter a prostitute. Duh.
-Do not use mediums or spiritualists. (No seances. Notice we aren't told they are fakes, which they are, of course.)
-Show respect for the elderly.
-Foreigners living among them must not be mistreated, but must be treated as one of their own people.
-Do not use dishonest standards when measuring and weighing in business transactions.
The agriculture rules cannot be enforced until they actually own land. Many of the other rules are only applied to people within the community, as we shall see later.
Edited.
*Here we see Yahweh telling Moses to speak to the Israelites and give them more rules. Some of these have been stated before, so I'll just go over the new ones.
-They are not to reap to the edges of their fields or thoroughly strip the vineyards of grapes, but to leave something for the poor and non-Israelites to gather.
-Do not hold back the wages of a hired man.
-Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind. It's a shame that anyone would have to be told this. Unfortunately, things like that probably happen today.
-Do not pervert justice, judge your neighbor fairly, not based on his social standing.
-Do not endanger your neighbor's life.
-Do not hate your brother in your heart. How would anyone know if you don't tell them?
-Tell your neighbor straight up when he's doing something wrong, so you won't share his guilt.(Verse17)
-Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge, but love your neighbor as yourself.
-Do not mate different kinds of animals. Generally speaking, this is not actually possible, unless we are talking about closely related animals.
-Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. This is monoculture which has advantages and disadvantages.
-Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. This is a mystifying rule, one broken without compunction throughout the world. I've seen various extra-biblical explanations, but the text does not provide us with one.
*Verses 20-22 are very disturbing. If a man sleeps with a slave girl who was promised to another man, they will not be put to death, because she is just a slave. (Notice that slavery is not said to be wrong, and the woman is treated as an object to be possessed.) The guy has to sacrifice a ram at the tabernacle for a sin offering, then he will be good to go. What will become of the girl? We are not told.
-The fruit of newly planted fruit trees is forbidden to be eaten for three years. On the fourth year, all its fruit is to be given to the priests, um, the lord. That will insure an increase in future harvests. Yeah, riiight. (There is nothing wrong or special about eating any fruit produced by a tree in the first four years. It doesn't do anything to the tree.)
-Do not practice divination or sorcery. You mean like their illustrious ancestor Joseph, who had a special cup for divination? Why doesn't God tell us it is nonsense?
-Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard. Another mystifying rule.
-No cutting or tattoos.
-Do not make your daughter a prostitute. Duh.
-Do not use mediums or spiritualists. (No seances. Notice we aren't told they are fakes, which they are, of course.)
-Show respect for the elderly.
-Foreigners living among them must not be mistreated, but must be treated as one of their own people.
-Do not use dishonest standards when measuring and weighing in business transactions.
The agriculture rules cannot be enforced until they actually own land. Many of the other rules are only applied to people within the community, as we shall see later.
Edited.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Exodus 22
After reading chapter 22:
*We are given various penalties and restitutions for stealing animals.
*We are told that anyone who defends their home from a break in is not guilty of bloodshed if they kill the offender, unless the sun has risen. Being able to see the person makes all the difference. It doesn't tell you what you should do instead. A theif must make restitution. If he can't, he is to be sold as a slave.
*We are given various penalties and restitutions for destruction of crops.
*We are given instructions for instances of illegal possession of someone else's property, plus instructions for safekeeping or borrowing another person's property, and the responsibilities of the caretakers.
*If a man sleeps with a virgin who was not promised to someone else, he must marry her and pay her family the bride price. If her father won't let him marry her, he still has to pay the bride price. The girl has no say in the matter.
*Sorceresses are not allowed to live. What about sorcerers? Why is this just the female version? Not to mention, sorcery is the stuff of superstition and fantasy.
*Anyone who sacrifices to any God other than Yahweh is to be destroyed. Because burning a piece of meat and saying words to a non-existent being is worthy of death?
*The Israelites are not to mistreat or oppress the foreigners among them, because the Egyptians mistreated them. They are only allowed to mistreat and oppress their Hebrew slaves.
*If a man mistreats a widow or an orphan, God will kill him so that his wife becomes a widow and his children orphans. I don't think this punishment fits the crime. In this case, the wife and children are left without support because of the actions of a cruel man. The man doesn't have to live with any consequences. On the other hand, they may actually be better off without him.
*Money is to be lent without interest. Cloaks are not to be held as a pledge overnight because they are needed to sleep in. After all, God is compassionate. If you say so.
*Do not blaspheme God. Blasphemy is one of those concepts that is hard to pin down. It is usually taken to mean don't say anything bad about God, like "he doesn't exist."
*Do not curse the ruler of your people. It's a good thing most Christians consider the Old Testament laws to be passé, or they would be in trouble. Another thing, at this time the Israelites didn't even have a ruler.
*Do not hold back offerings from your graineries or vats. They didn't have graineries or vats at this time. They didn't grow grain or grapes for wine till many years later. They were supposedly still living in the desert, subsisting on quail and manna.
*Give Yahweh your first born sons, sheep, and cattle on the eighth day of their lives. (?)
* If you want to be god's holy people don't eat meat killed by wild animals, feed it to the dogs. There is no quicker way to lose holiness, and your lunch, than eating carrion.
Edited.
*We are given various penalties and restitutions for stealing animals.
*We are told that anyone who defends their home from a break in is not guilty of bloodshed if they kill the offender, unless the sun has risen. Being able to see the person makes all the difference. It doesn't tell you what you should do instead. A theif must make restitution. If he can't, he is to be sold as a slave.
*We are given various penalties and restitutions for destruction of crops.
*We are given instructions for instances of illegal possession of someone else's property, plus instructions for safekeeping or borrowing another person's property, and the responsibilities of the caretakers.
*If a man sleeps with a virgin who was not promised to someone else, he must marry her and pay her family the bride price. If her father won't let him marry her, he still has to pay the bride price. The girl has no say in the matter.
*Sorceresses are not allowed to live. What about sorcerers? Why is this just the female version? Not to mention, sorcery is the stuff of superstition and fantasy.
*Anyone who sacrifices to any God other than Yahweh is to be destroyed. Because burning a piece of meat and saying words to a non-existent being is worthy of death?
*The Israelites are not to mistreat or oppress the foreigners among them, because the Egyptians mistreated them. They are only allowed to mistreat and oppress their Hebrew slaves.
*If a man mistreats a widow or an orphan, God will kill him so that his wife becomes a widow and his children orphans. I don't think this punishment fits the crime. In this case, the wife and children are left without support because of the actions of a cruel man. The man doesn't have to live with any consequences. On the other hand, they may actually be better off without him.
*Money is to be lent without interest. Cloaks are not to be held as a pledge overnight because they are needed to sleep in. After all, God is compassionate. If you say so.
*Do not blaspheme God. Blasphemy is one of those concepts that is hard to pin down. It is usually taken to mean don't say anything bad about God, like "he doesn't exist."
*Do not curse the ruler of your people. It's a good thing most Christians consider the Old Testament laws to be passé, or they would be in trouble. Another thing, at this time the Israelites didn't even have a ruler.
*Do not hold back offerings from your graineries or vats. They didn't have graineries or vats at this time. They didn't grow grain or grapes for wine till many years later. They were supposedly still living in the desert, subsisting on quail and manna.
*Give Yahweh your first born sons, sheep, and cattle on the eighth day of their lives. (?)
* If you want to be god's holy people don't eat meat killed by wild animals, feed it to the dogs. There is no quicker way to lose holiness, and your lunch, than eating carrion.
Edited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)