For there are some eunuchs (Isaiah 56)

Isaiah chapter 56 is apparently the beginning of "Trito-Isaiah", which I still don't completely understand. Having just finished Deutero-Isaiah, I certainly saw that the tone of many of the chapters was different, but it doesn't quite seem disconnected from the first part. We'll see how the last part plays out.

Is it necessary to keep the sabbath? I certainly touched on this back in Exodus 16, although I don't know if I had a better answer elsewhere; I think it's a good enough one. May a eunuch enter the congregation of the Lord? I think I addressed this best in Acts chapter eight, where I pointed out that the New Testament verses are definitely talking about a separate issue. It's really only this verse here in Isaiah that really presents the possibility of contradiction, but is it one? Well, the Leviticus passage is really saying that a eunuch (among others) cannot serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage is really the definitive verse about the "congregation", but is Isaiah really contradicting that? I think it's saying God accepts them, just not into the formal "congregation", whatever that may be.

The rest of the chapter is pretty much talking about the blessings of God, although there's a little sidetrack in verses ten and eleven, talking about someone's watchmen and guard dogs, but it's not clear at all whose. It's pretty clear it's not Israel's, but beyond that, who knows?

He was restored, and saw every man clearly (John 9)

John chapter nine is actually a rather humorous story about Jesus healing a blind man, and the fallout from this act. You really need to understand cultural context here, and remember that the Pharisees hate Jesus and are looking for excuses to attack him and anyone who follows him.

So Jesus and his disciples see this blind man, and since they find out he's been blind since birth, the disciples want to know who's sin caused the blindness, the man's, or his parents? While Jesus doesn't disabuse them of the general notion that sickness is caused by sin, he clarifies that it's not the case here, but rather the man was blind for the purpose of allowing Jesus to do a miracle. Jesus heals the man by putting clay on his eyes made from spit and dust, and has him wash in the pool of Siloam.

Now that the man can see, everyone seems to be freaking out. People who know the previously blind man think it can't be him. They all are amazed, of course. The man tells the story, and while he knows that Jesus healed him, he doesn't know anything about Jesus, including of course what he looks like. Anyway, they take him to the Sanhedrin, and it turns out that this is once again a miracle performed on the sabbath. So a lot of the Pharisees, rather than being amazed by the miracle, are saying Jesus is a bad person for not keeping the sabbath! Some of them are saying, but how could a bad person heal blindness? So the Pharisees decide this must be a hoax, and they call the man's parents. Now you have to understand that the Sanhedrin had the power to kick people out of society, essentially, and everyone knows by now how they feel about Jesus, so when the parents arrive, they want no part of this. They stick to the bare facts and verify that he was born blind, but beyond that, they're saying, he's an adult, ask him! So the Pharisees turn back to the man and demand he denounce Jesus as a sinner. The man says he doesn't know anything about Jesus but that he performed a miracle. The Pharisees ask for more details, and the man says, why are you asking so many questions? Do you want to be Jesus's disciples? They get angry and go, non you're his disciple, we're disciples of Moses! We know God spoke to Moses, but we don't know about this Jesus guy! The man says, that's amazing; you don't know anything about him, but he cured my blindness! Nobody in the history of the world has ever done that! How could someone do that if they weren't from God? They have nothing left to say, so they kick him out (not just temporarily out of the Temple, but essentially out of Jewish society!).

So Jesus finds this guy, and tells him that he's the son of God, and the man believes and worships him. This is another important thing about Jesus for those who believe he's just a good person and not God: he accepts people worshipping him. There are a few instances in the Bible in which a person meets an angel, and starts to worship him; in every instance, the angel stops them and tells them they should only worship God. Jesus receiving worship is either appropriate because he's God, or it's actually a form of blasphemy. Anyway, Jesus says this cryptic thing about making people blind, although that's a miracle that we never see in the Bible; I believe it's because Jesus is talking about a sort of spiritual blindness. He's really saying that the spiritual leaders of the day are just going to be blind to the truth about Jesus.

Who makes people blind? There is no contradiction here because none of these verses are blanket statements. Some people are made blind by God, some are made blind by "fouls spirits", some are made blind by angels, and some are made blind by just natural processes. How did Jesus cure the blind man? There's no contradiction here. While there are similarities between these two passages, these are clearly two different blind men. The question of whether Jesus came to judge was answered in John chapter five.

A righteous man hateth lying (John 7)

There's an important thing to say about the opening verse of John chapter seven that's related to antisemitism which I may have already noted elsewhere. When the Bible says Jesus is avoiding "the Jews" it's important to understand that generally with that definite article, the Bible is referring to the Sanhedrin, the council of Jewish leaders who were located in Jerusalem. It's definitely not talking about Jews in general, because Galilee was an area primarily populated by Jews as well. It's actually rather unfortunate that many of the writers of the New Testament used this shorthand because I imagine it has been used historically as an excuse for antisemitism among Christians.

The SAB says it's absurd that Jesus's brothers didn't believe in him, but I'm not sure why. I imagine having grown up with Jesus as a brother made him seem too mundane to possibly be the Messiah.

Now, the SAB brings up the meaty question Is it OK to lie? Now I thought I would have covered this in Exodus chapter one, but apparently I didn't; I've no idea why. The reason it's particularly meaty here is that it appears in verse eight of our chapter that Jesus lies! While I can certainly point out that Jesus says, "I go not up yet unto this feast," making it technically not a lie, one can't deny that Jesus is making a statement with the intent to deceive. So what is the Bible's stance on lying, and is there a contradiction here? My position on this matter has always been that while lying in general is bad, there is such a thing as situational ethics; you should tell the truth unless telling the truth will cause something terrible to happen. In most of the examples given of people lying in the Bible and being right to do so, there's a matter of life or death. The Egyptian midwives are lying to save the lives of Jewish babies; Rahab is lying to save the lives of the Israelite spies; David is lying to save his own life; and that may be the reason Jesus says what he does here, because letting his disciples know that he's going to the feast might in some way endanger him. (Perhaps the reason Elisha lies to the king of Syria is so that events unfold as they do in the next few verses, and that serves to save lives in some way? I don't know.)

So Jesus goes to the feast eventually, and we see there's a lot of controversy about him. Some people like him, while others--perhaps the Sanhedrin in particular, or various others who are listening to the Sanhedrin--think he's a charlatan. Eventually, Jesus appears at the Temple to preach, and a lot of people are impressed with what he has to say. When Jesus says that there are people trying to kill him, some people accuse him of being possessed which, as the SAB rightly notes, is apparently a common thing (either in actuality, or simply the culture assumed anyone with mental problems must be possessed). Jesus brings up the issue that is between him and the Sanhedrin: the sabbath. Whether you should keep the sabbath was addressed in John chapter five, but Jesus brings up something that I meant to bring up there, but no matter, because the discussion is here in the text: circumcision. As Jesus points out here, a male child is circumcised on his eighth day, and if that day happens to be the sabbath, they don't postpone the procedure to the ninth day. It's arguably a breaking of the sabbath, but Jews do it all the time! As I said about situational ethics in the last post about lying, so it applies to the sabbath; it's a rule...unless something more important comes up. If circumcision is important enough, surely healing a paraplegic should be acceptable.

To judge or not to judge? The SAB brings up this question, which is actually one of the more common questions non-Christians have, or at least they know Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." While there does appear to be a contradiction here, the real distinction is that there are different kinds of judgment. It's just a natural fact that humans judge each other, and there's nothing wrong with most kinds of judgment. The places where the Bible warns us not to judge are referring to the kind of judgment where you condemn another person, whether you fully think, "That person is going to Hell," or maybe even just, "That person is really evil." In a few of these verses, it's said that when you judge, you make yourself answerable to the same standards of judgment, and you probably wouldn't want that.

Jesus makes another reference to "scripture" in this speech that, as the SAB notes, is not really at all clear as to what scripture he's referring to. There are a few references to "living water" in the Old Testament, but none of them are anything like what Jesus is saying here, so it's a mystery.

When was the Holy Ghost given? I'm sure I covered this one before, but I'll answer it again rather than hunt it down. In addition to the New Testament verses given here, there are a few Old Testament references to "the Spirit of God" that probably fit here. The thing of it is, there was a specific event at Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was given en masse to all of the believers, and thereafter, upon conversion to Christianity, to all other Christians. The Holy Ghost was always there (from Genesis 1:2!), but the "giving of the Holy Ghost" is referring to the time from Pentecost onwards.

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath (John 5:1-18)

John chapter five is another story about a miracle, and the fallout from it. It's worth noting that modern scholarship has decided that verse four and the last six words of verse three were likely not in the original manuscript, but were likely added some time later to give clarity to the story, not that the rest of the story doesn't largely imply what verse four is saying.

So there's a feast going on, and Jesus is in Jerusalem. Apparently there's this pool called Bethesda ("house of mercy" in Hebrew) where supposedly people who were sick could get cured. The catch was every once in a while the pool's water would stir up--supposedly due to the action of an angel--and only the first person in the pool got cured. So there's this guy who is probably a paraplegic who's been waiting by the pool for his turn for 38 years. It sounds weird, and a little pathetic, but the pool must have been the real deal, or why keep waiting? Jesus comes up to this guy and asks him if he wants to be healed. The guy doesn't understand what Jesus is really asking him and compains about how difficult it is to get in the pool in his condition without help. Jesus tells him to pick up his bed and leave. He does, as he's healed!

Now there is a problem here, because it's the sabbath. You can't be carrying even little things around, much less a bed. Some Jews, probably some Pharisees, see him with the bed, and tell him he's breaking sabbath law. He explains what just happened, seemingly implying that if a guy heals you and tells you to carry your bed, that's what you do. They question him and it comes out that he doesn't know who Jesus was. Later, he finds Jesus again, finds out his name, and gets an admonition from Jesus to stay away from sin.

The SAB notes that Jesus's admonition implies that, "Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin." There's a problem with this claim. First of all, and most simply, a lot of sins have the potential for bringing you trouble; Jesus may not be saying anything about the cause of the man's illness, but simply is warning him. Secondly, the Bible doesn't specify what exactly was wrong with the man or how he came to be that way, so it's possible that in his specific case, sin led him to be unable to walk. (You could speculate all day. Maybe he was committing adultery with another man's wife and nearly got caught, so he jumped out a window and broke his back. Maybe he stole something, and the person he stole from beat him so severely he couldn't walk. We of course don't know, but there are all sorts of possibilities.)

The man goes back to the people who were angry at him and tells them that it was Jesus who healed him. These Jews get angry at Jesus not just for telling the man to carry his bed, but apparently they even consider healing on the sabbath to be unlawful! Jesus says that God the Father works on the sabbath, and he will, too. Is it necessary to keep the sabbath? Sort of. The Ten Commandments, which include the law of the sabbath, were given to the Jews, so it's primarily a Jewish thing. That being said, there's nuance. First, to point out something about items in the "yes" column: the author of Hebrews is addressing Jews, and so was Jesus in Matthew 24:20, so the covenant of the sabbath is still definitely for Jews. Nonetheless, Jesus never denied that the sabbath was important; he simply pointed out on several occasions that the Pharisees were failing to remember that there are always exceptions, and a lot of what the Jews decided on their own to classify as "work" was a bit of an overkill. (It's actually a very interesting subject, and here's a good article on it from a Jewish source.) Isaiah 1:13 is one I think I addressed a long time ago for a different reason, but context is important. God isn't angry about the sabbath per se, but rather he's pointing out that the nation of Israel is so evil in general at this point in history that their religious observances are a mockery. I was thinking as a metaphor you could think of a man who keeps cheating on his wife but never takes off his wedding ring; he might as well take it off and throw it away if he's going to continue with that behavior, not because the ring is wrong, though. Paul is really the only writer who addresses the sabbath for Gentile Christians, and as the SAB notes, he's not really particular about it. It's good to keep the sabbath, but if you're not Jewish, the specific day doesn't really matter.

Does God work on the sabbath? This is easy. Yes, he does. The fact that God "rested" on the seventh day of creation doesn't mean he always rests on the seventh day. And I put "rested" in quotes, because I don't believe he actually rested then, either. I don't know how widely theologians would agree with me here, but what God rested from on the seventh day was active creation of the universe. In plenty of other ways, God is continually active. Many theologians believe Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." implies that the universe as a whole is held together by God in some continual active manner. The word "consist" sounds very passive, but in other translations, it reflects a more active concept. (I think it's far more of a fringe belief, but I've heard it suggested that the strong nuclear force is actually the will of God, which is an interesting idea, truth or fantasy.)

I answered the question of whether Jesus is God in John chapter one.

Judge not, that ye be not judged (Luke 6)

Luke 6 does open with a bit of odd wording, as the SAB notes, but it quickly develops into a story that's a common one for the Gospels: arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees over the technicalities of the Sabbath. It's good to note first of all that what Jesus and his disciples were doing was not considered stealing in that culture. When a person passed through a field of grain or an orchard, they were allowed to pick whatever they could eat as they walked. The Pharisees however still considered the picking of grain to be an act of harvesting, which would be work, and therefore unlawful on the Sabbath. Jesus brings up the story of David taking some bread from the Tabernacle in a time when he was desperate, the point being that when you're hungry and desperate, you shouldn't let tradition stop you from eating. (The idea that picking a few heads of grain to eat was harvesting was not part of the Mosaic law, but rather Jewish tradition.)

The SAB asks regarding this story, Was David alone when he asked for the holy bread at Nob? I think this is a misunderstanding of the passage in 1Samuel, as you can see in verse 21:4 that the priest says "...if the young men have kept themselves at least from women." If David is alone, then who are "the young men" being referred to? David was not alone, although he may have come into the presence of the priest alone.

The SAB marks Jesus' act of healing a man's hand with the "science" icon. I'm never sure if I really need to comment on such things. Jesus did a lot of supernatural things, which are of course going to go against science. What is there to say about it?

The SAB asks Who were the apostles? and shows that in each of the four Gospels, there's a list, and none of the lists are completely identical. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that many of the apostles had more than one name, and so Jesus may have given a secondary name to Judas the brother of James, and that name was apparently Lebbaeus Thaddeus.

Did Jesus preach his first sermon on a mountain or a plain? This appears to be the so-called "sermon on the mount", but Luke clearly states that this is happening on a plain. There are a couple possibilities. First, this may have been one of several similar sermons that Jesus gave in a few different places. Second, the way the sermon is described in Matthew's Gospel seems to set up the acoustics all wrong; if you stand on a mountain with people below you, it's going to be hard for them to hear, so it would make more sense that Jesus found a place with a mountainside near a plain to set up a sort of natural amphitheater. In that case, the answer would be "both".

In verses 24-26, the SAB has a series of questions that I'm going to answer as one. I don't think that this section of the sermon is suggesting that these people are going to Hell. What I do think is going on is that like the things before Jesus said one would be "blessed" for, Jesus is suggesting that there is going to be a reversal of the status quo. Why he's suggesting this, I'm not really sure, but I've heard it said time and again that the "sermon on the mount" isn't about salvation issues, but rather about earthly issues.

Verse 27 is marked as "Good Stuff", but is also marked as contradicting other passages. In the issue of How should enemies be treated? I think one needs to see that the verses in the second column are, for the most part, not commands about how to treat enemies, but rather individual instances of people having less than charitable reactions to enemies. The exception to this is the very last verse given, but I think that verse fits in better with the second question, How should nonbelievers be treated? In this case, and on that page, there are a few different issues being dealt with. In the first verse, this is a specific law given to Jews with respect to their fellow Jews. Yeah, it seems pretty harsh, but its purpose is to keep religious purity within the nation of Israel. In the second case, I think "shun them" is an overstatement of what's being admonished here. Most people that I know of interpret this verse to mean that it's best to not enter into business partnerships with unbelievers if possible.

Verses 29-30 have Jesus suggesting some rather extreme acts of kindness, taking "Love thy enemy" to its full extent. The SAB marks the passage as absurd, and really, it is. I think it's a difficult passage that the Christian has to decide whether it was meant to be taken literally or whether it may have been hyperbole, but Jesus appears to be sincere.

Is God merciful? It's hard to sugar-coat this one; the SAB comes up with a lot of verses that seem to show God being unmerciful, some of them even saying outright that God is not showing mercy. The fact is that while God called merciful several times, this is not an attribute of God that He displays all the time. It's a common theme of Christian sermons that we can see that God is merciful because every single one of us is a sinner, and yet God doesn't simply send us all to Hell right this moment. That's certainly a matter of perspective that I don't expect too many skeptics to buy into unless they really understand the issue of sin and how it effects our standing before God. It's probably not something I can really explain, but would be willing to try in the comments so as not to make this post twice as long as it already is.

To judge or not to judge? I think most unbelievers are familiar with the Bible verse, "Judge not," but miss that there is more to the phrase. Here in Luke, the full verse goes, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." In any case, the verses in the Bible that warn against judging are not saying that a person cannot judge, but rather are warnings that when you become a judge, you are going to warrant others, including God, to judge you in return. While this may not rule out judging completely, it should give one pause. As Jesus goes on to say here, you may be judging someone for a little speck of sin when you have an entire log in your own eye. That's not a good place to be.

Because he had done these things on the Sabbath day (Matthew 12)

I think Matthew 12 is the first time we see Jesus and the Pharisees go head to head on the matter of the Sabbath, something that happened a lot in the Gospels. It's always been my understanding that the substance of these arguments has a lot to do with the complicated oral traditions that had risen over the centuries (and are still observed by most Jews today) that explained what the Mosaic Law meant in fine detail. In this case, picking grain is considered by the oral law to be the equivalent of harvesting, and thus work, which was forbidden. No, this matter of priests who "profane the Sabbath" is not a specific verse, but I think it's a general principle: that while normal people don't work on the Sabbath, priests at the temple actually have quite a bit of work to do.

Is it necessary to keep the Sabbath? I addressed that back in Exodus 16, but there's probably a bit more that could be said. I think the Sabbath is a good thing, and I think it's something that God intended for everyone. I think the problem that Jesus is addressing in these exchanges is one that struck me as a child being raised Jewish: sometimes religious people can take what are good ideas and make them so complicated and confusing that they stop being so good and become a stumbling block. In the Jewish community, the Sabbath rarely felt like rest to me as a child, and when things get that way, they may be counter-productive. (I addressed the question about David when I covered 1Samuel 21 and the question about animal sacrifices in Genesis 4.)

Following this in the narrative are a series of miracles, to which the Pharisees make the claim that Jesus is doing the things he does because he has demonic power. The SAB points out that strategically this might make sense, and clearly it makes some sense or the Pharisees wouldn't have said it, but Jesus addresses the idea in verse 25, whether you buy his logic or not.

Who is for or against Jesus? the SAB asks. This is an interesting question, as it shows me that there is at least some recognition of poetic language, since on the face of it, there's no contradiction; the contradiction is in understanding the deeper meaning of the phrases on the linked page. I think that however you take those phrases, the conclusion is the same: Jesus doesn't believe in neutral ground when it comes to his allegiances.

Is there an unforgivable sin? This would obviously be a vital question theologically; unfortunately the answer is not obvious. I'm not sure what the consensus is, I'll give my view. Jesus speaks here about "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost", and seems to be saying it's an unforgivable sin, but what exactly is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"? Since Jesus brings it up at this moment, it seems likely that it's related to the current situation, and has something to do with denying the godliness of the work that Jesus is doing. Perhaps denying the godliness of the work of the Holy Ghost is key? I like to lean on an explanation that happens to explain away the contradiction, though. The (supposedly) contradicting verse is Acts 13:39, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things." What is it that the Holy Ghost does in a believer? He convicts of of our sins and turns us to Jesus; thus the unforgivable sin is refusing to allow the Holy Ghost to affect that change in your life, and thus refusing belief in Jesus. If refusing to believe in Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost is the unforgivable sin, then there is no contradiction.

The SAB points out that Jesus sometimes used some harsh words for his adversaries, and yeah, that's true. I don't follow the next note that says that men being made accountable for their words is supposedly unjust. I'm pretty sure even earthly justice systems make people accountable for things that they say.

How are people judged by God? This is a complicated question. One reason that it's complicated is that I think there is more than one level of judgment. In the end, you go to Heaven based on faith, but I don't think that everyone gets the same rewards in Heaven. I think the other issue is that when a verse like John 5:29 says, "they that have done good," it may not be clear what "good" means. Perhaps these people have done "good" by believing in "good" things, and thus "they that have done good," are those who believe the right things. I'll admit it's a bit sketchy. The question "Is anyone justified?" is similar. I don't think that any person is justified in himself, but their words will belie what they believe, and it is their belief that will allow them to be justified by the grace of God.

Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders? Well, the obvious answer is "Yes." So what's with the "No" column verses? I think the point that Jesus is making in those declarations is not that he won't perform miracles at all, but that he won't do them for the mere sake of showmanship. Every miracle that Jesus performed was done with a practical purpose in mind, not just to show off.

Was Jonah swallowed by a fish or a whale? I've seen this one come up in a group of Christians, actually. I don't know why people argue over matters like this, though; it's a linguistic matter. In ancient Israelite culture, the way animals were classified was much simpler than they are today, and had little to do with modern biology. It's like this: if it lives in the water, it's a fish. So by the simpler Biblical classification system, even if it was a whale, it was still a fish.

I answered the question about Jesus vs. Solomon in the previous chapter, and I'm not sure what to say concerning unclean spirits, so I'm moving on.

I don't think that Jesus is trying to say in the little vignette at the end of this chapter that one should not respect one's family, rather I think Jesus is trying to say that for him, his family was bigger than just his blood relatives.

The wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger (Ruth 3)

So here's Naomi's plan: Ruth is to go down to the threshing floor that night and meet up with Boaz. She will appeal to his better nature (and his probable sexual desire for a beautiful young woman) in order to ask him to perform his sacred duty as a "kinsman".

The nature of the duty of a "kinsman" is outlined in various spots in the Mosaic Law. There are different words for a relative, but the Hebrew word goel means something deeper. One aspect that is not applied in this story, but is highly important, is that of an avenger of a slain relative. When someone was killed, it fell to the goel to track down the killer and bring him to justice. In this case, the dead relative died of natural causes, so this service is not needed, but the goel served two other purposes, both of which are needed under the Law.

Leviticus 25 talks about how real estate works among the Israelites, and in particular, verses 23-28 outline the fact that when land is sold, it must always be made available to the original family that sold it to buy it back. This was one of the duties of a goel: to buy back land for his family if he was able. But what good would it do Ruth and Naomi to have land in a culture where women didn't generally do business? This is where the third and most foreign-sounding custom of the goel comes into play: the so-called "Levirate marriage". In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, it is explained how a family is to deal with a widow who has no children. In Israelite culture, it was considered very important to have a son to carry on the family line, and if a man died with no son, his wife was to marry the deceased husband's nearest relative and bear a son that would be the heir. There are some especially odd elements to this law that we will revisit in the next chapter.

So, back to our story; Ruth and Naomi are thinking that Boaz can be not just a generous giver of charity, but potentially he could be the solution to all their problems, buying back Elimelech's land and giving Ruth a son. Boaz wakes up in the middle of the night and is startled to find Ruth at his feet. Ruth implies (although once again, I'd like to point out nothing explicitly happens) that Boaz should do his duty and "spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." This is a bit of a double-entendre, implying both "give me protection" and "let's get it on, Boaz."

Boaz is flattered, but initially says no, because it turns out he's not Elimelech's nearest living male relative, and he has to give the other guy first chance to carry out the duty of goel. He lets her sleep there until morning, and sends her away with more food, assuring her that he'll resolve the matter.

Where does all of this business of a goel's duties come into our allegory? It's actually central. The nation of Israel awaits their Messiah, knowing that he will come and redeem them, returning them to their land and restoring their inheritance. It's interesting that the rules about the redemption of the land in Leviticus 25 should be side-by-side with rules about the sabbatical year. The Israelites were told that they should only plant in their fields for six years, and let them lie untended and unharvested in the seventh. God actually told them that if they failed to do this, He would take those years back from them (Leviticus 26:33-35). God gave Israel the land of Canaan, but they lost it and went into exile; twice, actually.

Both the nation of Israel and some members of the gentile nations recognize their need for a redeemer, but can we be sure that this redeemer is Christ? What if there is another way? Does Christ have to yield to "a kinsman nearer"? Can a goel redeem even a foreign woman?

On the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. (Joshua 6)

Joshua 6 is the first chapter of Joshua to have a lot of notes in the SAB, but the interesting thing about the chapter to me is something that doesn't appear in the notes, at least as of the time I write this. Perhaps this will be another response that will result in additional notes added to the SAB rather that existing notes taken away. We'll see.

First thing, and most obvious to anyone at all familiar with the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho is the manner in which the battle is to be conducted. I won't go into full detail, as one can easily read it and see, as the SAB points out, that it's an absurd matter of the Israelites repeatedly walking in a circle around the city. Yes, it's absurd, but once again, this is intended to be a miraculous battle, so that the victory can be clearly God's, and not the Israelites.

The thing that makes this odd even from a miraculous standpoint, however, is a handful of particular details. First of all, the Levites were to lead the march. What makes this odd is that most of the time, the Levites didn't even go to battle. When Moses takes a census to find out how many soldiers they have as they begin their journey, the Levites get skipped. I'm pretty sure that it's widely accepted that it was part and parcel of the whole concept that the Levites received no land in Canaan because they also were not required to fight for it. Here, not only do they participate, which is odd enough, but they lead the way. As a second point, which may be almost like a sub-point of the former, they lead the way while carrying the Ark of the Covenant, which is also very unusual. The Israelites got in trouble for trying to use the Ark in battle in 1Samuel 4, and lost it for a time. The command to carry the Ark into battle like this was peculiar to this specific battle, was was pretty much peculiar all around.

The third and last point I want to make about this battle is one that I'm surprised so few people seem to notice. From the first time I ever read the book of Joshua, it leaped right out at me. They march around the city once for six days, right? Verse three ends with, "Thus shalt thou do six days." Pretty much everywhere else in the Bible, a phrase like this would be immediately followed by a reminder of the sabbath, but here? "...the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets." Not only is God having them break the sabbath, but He's having them do the most work they've done all week! Now, of course, I don't know for sure that this last day was the sabbath, but the point still stands that certainly at least one of these days was a sabbath day spent marching and carrying the Ark, not your standard sabbath activity.

Oddly enough, I don't have anything to say about these points other than the fact that this battle plan, which was given to Joshua by God, seems very inconsistent with a lot of other scripture, even to the point of violating Mosaic Law, and I don't know why. I'm sure someone out there has an answer to this, but I don't personally. (I suspect the thing about the Levites and the Ark has to do with my point farther up in that it emphasizes God's role in the conquest of Jericho, but sabbath-breaking?)

(A side note of no particular value: When I was reading through this story on the SAB, it apparently was the first time I'd read it in the King James. I thought "rereward" must be a typo. Turns out it's an archaic term that means something like "rear guard", which is the term most modern translations use.)

I am at this point going to skip over the issues of violence, injustice and intolerance in this chapter, and I vow to make my next post the one where I finally address the issue of Holy war as a general topic for the whole book, and pretty much the Bible as a whole, as the topic comes up from time to time throughout the Old Testament. I'm not going to ignore the tough stuff, I just want to make sure I give it its due. There needs to be a whole post dedicated to the issue.

I will address the issue of what is "the accursed thing" mentioned here, although it's a discussion that might belong best in the next chapter. A lot of other translations make it clearer, and in the Hebrew, I think they use a word that is very clear despite being translated differently by the King James elsewhere. This thing that they are not supposed to touch is actually something that had been dedicated to the pagan gods of Jericho. It probably wasn't a specific thing, but just whatever might be found in the temple in that city. Food, livestock, incense, wooden idols, who knows? The only thing they could take would be items made of metal that would have to be melted down and remade into something else. Why was this important? Interestingly enough, it was related to the issue of Holy war. If the Israelites were to utterly destroy the people of Jericho and their culture and customs, then certainly any religious artifacts could not be spared.

After the city is destroyed, Joshua pronounces a curse on it. Now, as this curse comes from Joshua, and I am not sure whether or not he's considered a prophet in the usual sense, I don't know that this curse has any force behind it other than to scare off the people of his own day. There's no record here that God told anybody that the city should not be rebuilt, although He may have and it simply was not recorded. It appears to be simply Joshua saying something on his own. Nonetheless, I did notice that one of the other responders to the chapter has something to say about the matter that might be interesting. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work anymore, so I'm not sure what he's talking about. Maybe I'll follow it up.

Wish me luck for my next post. Or don't. As you wish.

And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there. (Exod. 21:28ff; animal rights and responsibilities)

The SAB finds the idea of capital punishment for animals absurd, apparently, and I suppose it sounds that way when you put it like that. Really, though, it makes a lot of sense to me that if an animal is dangerous, then it would be best to put it down. (If you're an animal rights activist, you'd more likely consider this cruel than ridiculous.) Furthermore, as verse 29 says, if a person who owns a dangerous animal knew it was dangerous and didn't do anything to control it, then they bear the responsibility of that animal's actions. While I doubt that people are given the death penalty for that today, I do believe it is the case that people are held responsible for the actions of their pets/livestock.

Now, this is probably not exhaustive, but my thought in coming across this verse was that in addition to answering commenting on the issue of punishments for animals, I might point out a number of things that the Mosaic Law says about animals. It's fascinating to me that while the Bible clearly considers humanity as being of a higher order than the other animals, the other animals are nonetheless not left out of the picture on numerous issues.

Sabbath? Animals get it as well. On Saturdays, there's no riding horses, plowing fields, and so on. I'm not sure whether this also covers milking goats and whatnot, as it is my understanding that dairy-producing livestock tends to need milking on a daily basis.

Deuteronomy 22 has a lot to say about animals (among other things). If you see a stray animal, you should take it back to its home if you know whose it is, and if you don't, then you take it home and take care of it until someone comes looking for it. If you see an animal in trouble, you're required to help it out. The SAB says these are good things, and I agree, however later in that chapter, verse 10 is labeled as absurd. While I think there are certainly more than a few things that are truly odd about the Mosaic Law, I think this likely has a practical purpose behind it. I'm only guessing, since I've never plowed a field myself, but if you were to yoke together two different kinds of animals to do the same job, I imagine you'd run the risk of injuring one of them.

The last thing I'll discuss here (although I know of at least one more specific law about animals that I'll address elsewhere) is how God provides welfare for animals, too. Deut 25:4 says not to "muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." As the SAB rightly notes, this means essentially that when an animal helps in the production of food, they ought to get a fair share as well, specifically that they may eat while they work.

The ten commandments, which the LORD spake (Exod 20:1-11)

So God speaks, and tells them the Ten Commandments. (I'll refrain from using quotes now, as I will mean Exodus 20:2-17 by the phrase from now on unless I need to return in the future to the discussion of my last post.)

The first phrase in verse two is debated most often as to whether or not it is one of the commandments, perhaps by itself or part of the first commandment.

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Well, grammatically, it's not a command, is it? As a child, it occurred to me that while it isn't grammatically in the form of a command, it does imply something of a command, that being that God is demanding recognition as God. For this reason, some people like to group it as part of the first commandment, which seems to be on this subject. (Actually the first three or four commandments are largely about God and who He is and what sort of respect He demands from His people.) My personal take is that this verse serves the same sort of purpose as the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. God starts out the list of commandments by stating who He is and what He has done for this nation of people. This is to make sure we remember why these commandments hold force. Some people don't find it a convincing argument, but in a sense it's true: God makes the rules because He is God. In the specific case of the Israelites, He has not only created them, but He has worked a series of miracles to redeem them from their state of slavery. So because of who God is and what God has done...here's a list of important rules, starting with

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not as straightforward as one might hope. Sure, it's a simple statement, but when you unpack it, the inevitable question arises: "Other" gods? How many gods are there? Well, in the most important sense, there is only one, but there are other ways to approach the question that I have already addressed. So what else?

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This is a big one, and once again, we are presented with many issues. Some people take this in a fully literal sense, that you can't make images of any kind whatsoever. The SAB points out that if this verse is meant in that way, God is contradicting Himself. I suspect that what's really going on here is a grammatical construct that doesn't translate well into English, like a double negative (completely acceptable in many other languages). The issue here is not the images themselves (although admittedly the Hebrew word here is never used in a positive manner in the Bible) but the way in which they are responded to. One has to always remember that God is our creator and our redeemer, and never mistake a hunk of metal for Him.

Idolatry is a topic that has many layers to it, and causes a number of people to get squeamish about certain things. A Jewish friend of mine once remarked that He didn't understand why Christians worshipped the cross, and to him, it looked like idolatry. I pointed out to him that as a child being raised in a synagogue, it often seemed to me that if someone from the outside were to watch us as we worshipped, they might get the mistaken impression that we worshipped the Torah, which is kept in a fancy box in the front of the congregation, taken out and paraded around, people don't touch it with their bare hands, but occasionally kiss its cover. This is the fine line between worshipping and revering. There is nothing wrong with having respect for things that we know are important to God. Among some sects of Christianity, this comes up in discussions of the distinction between idolatry and iconism.

What about that last bit concerning God punishing children for the sins of their fathers? Does God really do that? Well, I discussed it some back here, but there is more to be said, I think. It really is an issue that has to do with the whole of the first three commandments, and the statement that God is "jealous". Is it okay for God to be jealous? I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't come up yet, nor is it commented on here, but many people have a big problem with God's "attitude", if you will. Why does God care so much about whether or not people worship Him? Well, it's because, for whatever deeper theological reasons that I won't go into here, since it could be a post unto itself (and maybe will be some time), following God is the right thing to do. Not following God and listening to His commandments is a recipe for disaster. God is jealous not in the sense that he feels put down by people who don't worship Him, but that He knows what's best, and He is sad for us when we make poor decisions, including not following Him. So back to what I had said before about punishing children for their parents' mistakes and tying it in here, not only will people who do not follow God find troubles in their life (and afterlife) as a result, but they will lead their children in their ways. Children of abusive parents tend to grow up to be abusive parents themselves. Children of alcoholics tend to become alcoholics. And here, I think the implication is that children of idolaters will tend to be idolaters.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Hmm, no comment from the SAB, so perhaps it's taken as clear? This is a deeper one than most realize, though. It's not about swearing per se. It's about using God's name in any way that is short of the full respect God demands. As I said before, a "name" is often synonymous with a reputation. If you use God's name as a curse word, then you are equating God with something base, which is wrong. But you are also in trouble if you go around telling people that God has said things He has not, and you misrepresent God in any way. The full implications of this commandment are tough to fully fathom, I think.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The SAB has quite an interesting bit to say on this commandment. As for whether the Sabbath must be kept, I point back to a previous post, but as for the question of interpretation of "days" and the scientific implication thereof, I plead artistic license. While I argued throughout the early chapters of Genesis that I don't think it entirely logically inconsistent to assume six literal 24-hour days, I also don't think that this passage demands that interpretation.

There is a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus refers to the prophet Jonah being swallowed by a whale (fish?), and I have heard pastors point to this and say, "See? Jesus is saying that Jonah was a real person, and really was swallowed by a whale!" I don't buy it. If you're going to assume that every time Jesus (or somebody else of authority in the Bible) mentions a person or thing, that implies an endorsement of that thing as being real, then we're back to the problem of the first commandment, in which God mentioning "other gods" would therefore be confirming the truth of polytheism. Just as I could refer to myself cutting down a tree "with the might of Paul Bunyan", so could Jesus refer to a well-known myth of Jonah, and God could refer to the allegory of a six-day creation. It's all in the matter of making a point, not necessarily driving home a tangential factoid.

These four commandments are the ones dealing with our relationship with God. Tomorrow, I will hopefully get through the ones dealing with interpersonal relationships.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert (Exod 16)

Something that the SAB doesn't mark as absurd, but most people reading the Bible in modern times find quite absurd is that fact that immediately after dancing and singing about how great God is and what a wonderful thing it is to be freed from the Egyptians, the Israelites start complaining. "Hey Moses, where's the food?" they ask him. I think it's weird that these guys were about to embark on a journey to a foreign land and didn't think to pack some snacks. As the SAB says later down in the chapter (I'll get to it), the journey from Egypt to Canaan was about ten days. Did they really not have enough to last ten days? Did they really expect Moses to feed all 600,000 of them?

Moses points out to the people that in complaining, they really were complaining to God. The SAB calls this intolerance and injustice, and while I don't agree that these are the issues, I'm not sure which icon(s) would go better here. The point is taken, however, that this sort of claim is used from time to time by religious leaders to manipulate. I would like to stress, however that one might claim manipulation with truth for a good cause is acceptable. For instance, if I were to say to a young person thinking about dropping out of school that people who have had more schooling tend to make bigger incomes, that would be manipulative, but I wouldn't think it morally wrong, intolerant, or unjust at all. In this case, Moses is reminding the people that they've only gotten this far by the grace of God, and they shouldn't take it for granted. Whether you see God in a positive Judeo-Christian light or as an oppressive, capricious supernatural tyrant, this stands to be good advice.

Well, this is where God makes the manna for them. "Manna" is a funny word; the Israelites didn't know what the stuff was, so they called it "What is it?" Of course, modern scholars generally are in agreement with the SAB on the matter, claiming that this mysterious substance was an excretion of certain small insects that fed on tamarisk trees in the region. (An interesting note, but I'm not sure if there is supposed to be an issue with the matter.) The miraculous side of the manna was no so much in existence, then, but rather in its abundance, as there was enough for everyone, and how it kept, namely that it would not last overnight, excepting on Fridays, when it would last for two days. Many scholars believe that the fact that it spoiled was to teach the Israelites to depend on God for daily provision, and the reason it kept on Fridays was obviously so that they would learn about the sabbath.

Ah, the sabbath. That's a hot-button issue. Really, I think the wrong icon is used here, and I'll explain why. Really, there is a matter of interpretive differences that make the true divide between the pro-sabbath and anti-sabbath camps. (Well, there really isn't an "anti-sabbath" camp, just sort of sabbath-neutral.) If you'd like to read about Christians that say, yes, we still ought to keep the sabbath, I'd point you to my friend Newbirth, who has a blog focusing mainly on the topics of low-carb dieting and sabbath-keeping for Christians. For just a lay person in the church, she's done a lot of thought and research into the matter. But as for the Bible...

The SAB gives a page of supposed contradictions concerning the sabbath, and while the items in the "Yes" column are indeed on the mark, I think many of the items in the "No" column are misunderstood. The Isaiah passage is reminiscent of the issue of animal sacrifices I discussed way back in Genesis. Basically God is saying that the Sabbath is something that the Israelites should do to honor God, but they are doing it in a hypocritical display of false self-righteousness, and as such, He despises it. The two passages quoted out of the Gospels, like many others one could find, are not a matter of breaking the keeping of the commandment to observe sabbath, but the breaking of traditional interpretations of the implication of sabbath. It's rather akin to the exchange in Matthew 15, in which Jesus responds to the Pharisees' rebuke about omitting a traditional hand-washing ceremony by pointing out that they don't honor their parents because of man-made traditions. While Jesus did break a few sabbath traditions, I don't believe He ever broke the O.T. sabbath law.

The remaining two verses are admittedly a bit more vague. Paul does sound like he's saying the sabbath is not important. While various people interpret these passages to simply not be saying what you might think they are saying about the sabbath, another possibility that many non-sabbath-keeping Christians point out is that many of the O.T. laws (including the sabbath) were imposed on Jews alone, and not the gentiles. In Acts 15, the early church agrees that there is no need for a gentile convert to Christianity to keep the Mosaic Law, and the sabbath is not specifically mentioned one way or the other.

Coming back full circle to the original issue, the SAB points out that there is something absurd about taking forty years to complete a ten-day journey, and indeed there is. Of course the real reason this happened according to the Bible is that it was due indirectly to the murmuring. The Israelites chose not to go into the Promised Land at the appointed time, so God essentially said, "Okay, then we'll wait forty years and try again when you're really ready." The full explanation is to be found in the book of Numbers.