And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood (Isaiah 41)

Isaiah chapter 41 is mostly nice stuff, but there are a few notes here. First of all, there are a couple verses marked as absurd, both having to do with "islands"; I think it's intended to be understood that these are referring to the inhabitants of said islands, which hopefully makes them less absurd. Whether or not there was ever a righteous person was addressed in Genesis chapter 15 where I explained that there are different types of righteousness. Verse four has God referring to himself as "the first and the last", which the SAB compares with Jesus calling himself that in Revelation; Jesus is God, so really, there's no problem with this.

In verse eight, God refers to Israel as his "servant", which the SAB notes as significant because there are prophecies about a servant in Isaiah that Christians view as being about Jesus. Now, I'll readily admit that the SAB is right about Israel being God's servant in Isaiah, however it's also true that there are passages in the Bible that have more than one layer of meaning to them. Probably the most well-known is Daniel 8:13, often referred to as "the abomination of desolation"; it was understood to have happened in the 2nd century BCE when King Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the second Temple by offering a sacrifice of a pig to Zeus during the time of the Maccabees. However, Jesus talked about "the abomination of desolation" as though it was yet to be fulfilled in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 (and possibly Luke 21:20), and Christians believe he was talking about the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE by the Romans. All that being said, Israel could still be the servant of God in Isaiah, and at the same time, one or more of those prophecies could be also referring to Jesus.

So God says that he will protect Israel, and that all who try to attack Israel will be destroyed. The SAB marks this as unjust, but I think there are a couple things to consider; this is about protection from attack, and I think it's clear from the larger context of the book (and history) that this is conditional based on Israel being good. God also promises to help the poor and needy, making streams and planting trees. I just wanted to take a side note here about the "shittah tree"; this word appears nowhere else in the Bible, although the plural "shittim" shows up several times. This is not a translation, but the KJV editors having no idea what this tree is and just transliterating the Hebrew word; modern translations have decided that this is the acacia. (See also "gopher wood" in Genesis six.) God challenges the gods of other nations to predict the future the way he does to prove they are gods, and scoffs at their lack of power. He talks about bringing someone powerful from the north, but I don't know what this prophecy is about; it may be Cyrus.

But Rab-shakeh said unto them (Isaiah 36)

Isaiah chapter 36 doesn't sound like a prophecy, but rather a straightforward telling of an event in Judah's history. King Sennacherib of Assyria sends an army with a message, which boils down to, "Don't ally with Egypt; ally with us, because your own God has told us that we can destroy you." King Hezekiah's representatives ask Rabshakeh, the messenger, to speak in Assyrian so the inhabitants of Jerusalem won't overhear him, but he repeats his message louder and in Hebrew so everyone can hear it.

Rabshakeh prefaces his repetition with what is perhaps some coarse language about eating dung and drinking piss, hinting at the likelihood of a siege against Jerusalem. This prompts the SAB to ask Is every word of God pure? First of all, I suspect the word "piss" was not considered so crass in the 15th century as it is today; the word "piss" or "pisseth" appears eight times in the KJV, but never "urine" or "urinate" which we in modern times would consider more neutral language. Thus, in addition to this verse being something a foreigner said, I don't think "piss" or "dung" are particularly vulgar. However, there are other verses to deal with here. More generally, I have to ask what is meant by "pure"; I mean, this claim is being made particularly by Proverbs 30:5, but does it really mean there's nothing ugly in the Bible? I mean, really, if you wanted to, the list in the second section could be made much longer, and I assume the author of Proverbs 30 (Agur the son of Jakeh, apparently) was familiar with the scriptures. The Hebrew word behind "pure" in Proverbs 30 and Psalm 119 has the essential meaning of being refined by fire, like a metal such as gold. The Hebrew word for "pure" in Psalm 12, however, has the connotation of being ceremonially clean. While I think the latter comes closer to the kind of purity I think the SAB is trying to imply, I believe in general the idea is that the Bible is unadulterated by falsehoods, and that still not to say that there's no instance of lying in the Bible, but that there's no lying by God. I don't know if this is right or even if it totally makes sense, but I don't think there's any clear contradiction here nonetheless.

I don't know if there is any real need to comment on the existence of a nearly identical passage in 2Kings 18; I don't think there is anyone who would claim the Bible is free from repetition.

Lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (Isaiah 24)

Isaiah chapter 24 is apparently a prophecy for the whole world, as no specific nation is named. The SAB comments on the first verse that, "The earth is like a flat plate. When God turns it over, the people fall off." Once again, I don't think you can say that this is what this verse means, and this phrase is metaphorical. Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated "upside down" in the KJV appears nearly two thousand times in the Bible and is translated into all sorts of different English words and phrases depending on context (most often "before" or "face"); apparently its meaning is quite nuanced. Actually, the word translated "turn" is also nuanced and translated into a variety of English words, but seems to particularly mean something like turning in a wrong way, as it's often related to sin. Anyway, I doubt even the KJV translators thought this verse was meant literally.

Will God curse the earth? I actually touched on this in Genesis chapter eight but I either missed the Isaiah verses or they have been added since I was there. Once again, I think there's a need to point out that in all three of these contexts, there are three different Hebrew words translated "curse", and so there is probably some nuanced meaning in the original language that the KJV translators didn't convey. I suppose however that taking the KJV on its face yields a contradiction here, although I should also point out that in this passage, it doesn't say God was responsible for the curse. It may be that the sinfulness of the people of the world caused them to be cursed of their own choices; the Bible teaches in various places that sin leads to death. Also, if you look closely at Malachi 4:6, God is saying that he's not going to curse the earth, as Elijah is going to make things right.

The next section of the prophecy talks a lot about there not being wine or "strong drink". The SAB asks if this is a prophecy about prohibition, which is a strange question, I think; I'm pretty sure it's just saying there won't be an abundance of grapes. I'm not sure what all the talk of the pit and the snare is about in the next section; I suppose it's possibly literal, but it doesn't say who is responsible for these problems. Anyway, there's a lot of fire and earthquakes, which sounds a lot like the present. The end of the prophecy talks about the Lord reigning on Mount Zion, which makes me think that all of this is an end times prophecy.

Refresh my bowels in the Lord (Isaiah 16)

I probably should have combined Isaiah chapter 16 with the last chapter, because this is all stuff about Moab with not a lot to say about it. At first, it seems like Isaiah is talking about the end of the destruction from the last chapter, but it's not all sunshine and rainbows, because as the chapter goes on, it sounds like famine still remains, and people continue in mourning. In the end, there will be survivors, but very few.

I should say a word about the noted absurdity in verse eleven, because yes, it definitely does sound absurd. This is a cultural thing among ancient Jews (I think Paul somewhere says something similar in a couple of his letters) that they thought of the emotional center of the body was in the guts, perhaps even literally the bowels. It's perhaps a little less absurd sounding if you replace "bowels" with "heart", as some translations do in order to get across the cultural meaning instead of a literal translation of "bowels" or sometimes "inmost parts". This Hebrew word is actually sometimes used for "uterus" in women, actually (well, at least in Ruth 1:11 in the Bible) so it's meaning may not be fully clear.

But by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them (Isaiah 12)

So, Isaiah chapter twelve, huh? There's not much in this short chapter, so I'm going to talk about the name "Jehovah". There's a word in the Hebrew that is considered to be the name of God, but that name is considered so holy by observant Jews that they never actually say the name. Instead, they usually say "Lord" (Hebrew "Adonay") or, when being informal, simply "the Name" (Hebrew "Hashem"). Accordingly, most Bibles translate this name as "Lord", or sometimes "LORD" to clarify that it's this specific name. The KJV translates it "LORD" 6,510 times, but "JEHOVAH" four times, including here.

Okay, this is vague memories from Hebrew school 40 years ago, so it may not be 100% accurate; I wish I had an observant Jew who was a reader who could chime in. Hebrew in the Torah in particular is written entirely in consonants, the vowels being left out. The Hebrew alphabet is actually entirely consonants, with vowels being indicated (when used) by small marks generally above or below the letters. The name of God, as written in the Torah, is the four letters "יהוה", equivalent more or less to the Latin "YHVH". Usually vowels aren't used, because the name is not meant to be pronounced. However, in some Hebrew texts, it's written as "יְהֹוָה"; those vowels aren't meant to be taken as part of the name, but rather--if I'm recalling correctly--it's the vowels for "Adonay" to remind you that you're supposed to say "Adonay". So here's the thing: if you do decide to pronounce "יְהֹוָה" as if it's an actual name, it's "Y'HOVAH", which has been sometimes rendered in Latin as "IEHOVAH", which eventually led to the English "JEHOVAH". So "Jehovah" is not the name of God; it's an Anglicized version of a Latinized version of a mispronounced Hebrew word! So that's my Hebrew soapbox for this chapter, anyway. I hope it was more enlightening than confusing.

Out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice (Isaiah 11)

Isaiah chapter eleven for a turn is positive prophecy, seemingly about the Messiah and the end times. It opens talking about "a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" which, as the SAB admits dubiously, is why Christians believe this is a prophecy about Jesus, who is a descendant of David son of Jesse. Will the Messiah be a descendant of David? I don't know why I didn't answer this in Mark chapter twelve, as that's where the key verse is that triggers this supposed contradiction. I mean, the answer is yes, but why does it seem like Jesus is arguing against it? I would suggest that the point Jesus is making is that the Messiah is not merely the son of David, but one who is greater than David, being also the son of God. Jesus is quoting Psalm 110, which I don't know whether Jews saw it as a Psalm about the Messiah, but it describes someone who David calls "my Lord" and "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (remember Melchizedek from Genesis chapter 14 was unique in the Bible for being both a king and a priest) so it's definitely someone important, and Jesus is implying it's the Messiah. Note also that Jesus implies David had the Holy Ghost, so perhaps that's another entry for the "When was the Holy Ghost given?" page?

Anyway, Isaiah talks about the righteousness of the coming Messiah, and how he will judge not just by looking and hearing. He will "smite the earth...and...slay the wicked" which prompts the SAB to ask, "Is this passage describing Jesus, the Prince of Peace?" Yes, sometimes in order to have peace, you need to get rid of wickedness; does that really not make sense? It seems almost obvious to me. The SAB also comments on the absurdity of him doing this "with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips", but this is just poetic, symbolic language that I believe is meant to imply the absolute authority of his words. In verse five, the SAB claims as an aside that the word translated "reins" actually means "kidneys", although I can't find any evidence of that myself; rather this word "חֲלָצָיו" seems to literally be another word for "loins". Isaiah then talks for a bit about predator and prey animals living in peace; apparently they will all become herbivores as "the lion shall eat straw like the ox." The SAB asks, "I wonder what will become of the spiders. Will they be friendlier toward flies? And will the parasitic wasps find another way to feed their larvae? Or will they continue to feed off the living bodies of caterpillars?" It's an interesting set of questions, and I assume the answer is yes, even insects and the like will also stop being predatory, and in some fashion parasites will also change or perhaps cease to exist; I think that's the general idea here.

While verse eight goes along with the general narrative of the previous verses, I feel I should give it special attention just because of the mention of the "cockatrice". Yes, the SAB gives the correct definition of this animal, and it's something peculiar to the KJV (although not entirely unique) that there are various mentions of mythical beasts throughout the text, this being (I think) the first time it's come up in a passage I'm blogging. The KJV mentions cockatrices four times, satyrs twice, unicorns nine times, and dragons 35 times; there may be other mythical beasts that I'm not aware of (not to mention beasts particular to Hebrew culture such as the Leviathan and Behemoth). I think particularly in the case of the Hebrew, it's a bad guess at what the original word meant; I don't know if the translation team believed these creatures to be real. (And really, translation of an ancient language can be tough; a lot of modern translations chose "viper" here, but Isaiah later (59:5) talks about "cockatrice's eggs", but vipers are viviparous animals apparently, so...?) In any case, I think the thing that needs to be said is that it's not always clear what animal the Hebrew is talking about, and even if it might be referring to a mythical beast, there is such a thing as poetic license and symbolism (I think most of the mentions of dragons in the book of Revelation are properly translated, and the picture of a dragon is symbolic) that allows for it. Here in Isaiah, however, I think we're just looking at a poor translation choice; cockatrices certainly do not exist, nor have they ever, and I doubt that Isaiah had ever heard of such a creature. (Although who knows? The Wikipedia article on the cockatrice mentions that there was a folk belief in Egypt that Ibis eggs could possibly produce a venomous snake-bird hybrid. If it's old enough, the Israelites might have heard of it?) Anyway, the Hebrew word here is also found in Proverbs 23:32, where the KJV chooses the word "adder" instead, so make of that what you will.

Speaking of mythology, verse twelve talks about returning the people of Judah "from the four corners of the earth." This seems to be a pretty literal translation from the Hebrew and not an English phrase, so does Isaiah think the earth is flat? It's possible, but I find it really unlikely, given the fact that evidence of the earth's curvature is pretty readily available to people of any tume and culture, such as seeing ships disappear over the horizon, or seeing the shadow of the round earth pass over the moon during an eclipse. Of course people even in the present day believe in a flat earth, so anything is possible. I just don't think this particular phrase proves anything.

Verse 14 talks about Judah subduing the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. The SAB assumes this is talking about war, but Isaiah never says that there's any violence in so many words, so I'm not 100% sure that's right. It's certainly not an unreasonable assumption under normal circumstances, but this verse seems to be talking about the end times, and there's a lot of supernatural stuff going on in those days. Nonetheless, I think the book of Revelation does say that there are battles at certain times in the last days, so it's certainly possible that's what's going on here, and yes, the Messiah would lead the army. Yes, verse 15 is talking about the Red Sea and the Euphrates River, and some translations of this verse go ahead and spell it out for the reader. It seems from verse 16 that God's attack on these bodies of water serve the purpose of the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus: to facilitate bringing the Israelites home from exile.

They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Isaiah 7)

Isaiah chapter seven should be interesting, as it has a prophecy supposedly about Jesus, although there is some controversy, which the SAB brings up, and we'll discuss when we get there.

So, in the time of king Ahaz of Judah, Israel (the northern kingdom, separate from Judah, often called "Ephraim") tries to attack Judah with the help of Assyria. Ahaz finds out that Israel is getting help from Assyria, and is troubled. God tells Isaiah to go and talk to Ahaz and reassure him that they won't prevail. The SAB notes that in 2Chronicles 28, Ahaz is actually taken captive by Israel and Assyria, so is this failed prophecy? Well, I'd want to look into whether these nations defeated Judah as a whole, which they did not in the end, although that surely was no consolation for Ahaz; the whole of 2Chronicles 28 goes into detail about the sins of Ahaz, and how he turned to the gods of Assyria for help instead of the God of Israel. But back to our current story... Isaiah tells Ahaz that in 65 years, Israel/Ephraim will be destroyed.

God challenges Ahaz to suggest a sign, pretty much saying "The sky's the limit!" but Ahaz declines to choose. So God tells Ahaz that the sign will be that a "virgin" will conceive and give birth to a son named Immanuel. This prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in Matthew 1:23 as a prophecy of Jesus's birth. Now the SAB has some notes about this prophecy that are worth reviewing. First of all, there is some dispute about the word translated "virgin" here; despite what the SAB says, "עַלְמָה" is an ambiguous Hebrew word that can mean either "virgin" or "young woman". So how do we know which was meant? Well, long before Jesus's time (nearly 300 years), Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and translated this ambiguous Hebrew word "עַלְמָה" into "παρθένος", which definitely means "virgin", so it's actually not the fault of the KJV translation team (it's also "virgo" in the Latin Vulgate, which was likely one of the sources used). There are very few Bible translations that render this word "young woman" although many have a footnote saying it's a possible meaning. As the SAB itself points out, a prophecy of a "young woman" conceiving isn't much of a prophecy, as that happens every single day. But let's talk about the second point, which is that Jesus was born hundreds of years after Ahaz, so it's not much of a sign anyway. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned that sometimes prophecy has multiple times it's fulfilled, and this prophecy is apparently one with that quality. There must have been a woman who was a virgin who conceived and had a child named Immanuel in Ahaz's time. This may have not been miraculous; perhaps she was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but conceived in the normal fashion, thus giving a time frame for the sign: about nine months. Yes, as the SAB points out, there's no mention in the book of Isaiah of this birth actually happening, but that doesn't personally bother me; it was a private sign for Ahaz, so perhaps Isaiah himself never saw it. Third point on this prophecy is one that many people point out; Jesus was never called Immanuel other than in Matthew 1:23 where the prophecy is quoted. However, it is quoted there with a note in the Greek; it says, "...they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." No, Jesus is never called by the name Immanuel/Emmanuel, but being God in human form, he definitely was known as "God with us." The rest of the prophecy talks about the boy eating "butter and honey" which prompts the SAB to ask about dietary restrictions, which I addressed in Genesis chapter nine, but I don't think this verse really is an issue with the topic, nor do I think Jesus was a vegetarian, because it probably would have been mentioned somewhere in the gospels.

At the end of the chapter, it says essentially that God will send insects from Assyria and Egypt (bees and flies respectively) which somehow seems to add to the desolation. It also says the people will shaved by the king of Assyria on their beards and feet; feet don't have a lot of hair, but the SAB suggests "feet" is a euphemism for genitals, which is entirely likely. It sounds like finally, there is some restoration of the keeping of livestock, but not agriculture, and people will largely live on butter and honey.

There was a landowner who planted a vineyard (Isaiah 5)

Isaiah chapter five is very poetic, and it opens with a parable of a vineyard. There is a vineyard that is explained to be Israel, but despite the owner of the vineyard doing everything to help it thrive, it only brought forth "wild grapes", which I don't know anything about grapes, but I assume are highly inferior. The idea here is definitely that in establishing the nation of Israel (and later Judah), God expected it to create a spiritually healthy people, but in the end, they kept turning to sin. So the owner of the vineyard tears down the wall, i.e. God removes his protection from Israel and Judah. Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the land of Judah is going to be agriculturally poor. (This may once again be natural consequences, as God told the Jews to plant for six years and let the land lie fallow for one, which is actually good agricultural practice, as land gets sort of used up, and needs to rest. The Israelites never did this.)

The question of whether it's okay to drink alcohol I answered most fully in Luke chapter one, but I think it's clear here that verse 11 is talking about someone who clearly drinks to excess. In verse 14, I question the KJV's translation of "hell" here; I don't think there's much indication that Jews before Jesus's time had a real concept of Hell, and the Hebrew word here is "sheol", which is more commonly translated as "the grave". I think once again Isaiah is reiterating that there is going to be a lot of people dying. As for sheol being a woman, Hebrew is a gendered language and sheol is a feminine noun, so the use of "she" follows. Verse 20 is a fairly well-known verse, reading, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil," which the SAB notes as "Good stuff" quite rightly; I suppose one of the biggest beefs the SAB has with the Bible is that it feels the Bible does this in many places. Isaiah follows this with a couple other woes, leading him to imply that evil people will be like chaff that is burned up, and their carcasses will lie in the street, which the SAB marks as cruel and intolerant. However, this is God being "intolerant" of evil, so it's hard to say they didn't deserve punishment. God lifts up foreign nations against Judah, making them mighty. Isaiah says that in doing this, God "will hiss unto them from the end of the earth." The SAB marks this phrase as absurd, and I'll agree that it's weird imagery.

And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him (Isaiah 1)

So, after some consideration and brief discussion with Steve Wells, I've decided to try the book of Isaiah. It should be an interesting change for a few reasons. As a prophetic book, most if not all of it won't be in the straightforward narrative style that most of what I've already done has been. Also as prophecy, there's probably going to be a lot more abstract symbolism rather than straightforward telling of information. Furthermore, in case I haven't said so before, I haven't read the entire Bible, and Isaiah is one of the few books I haven't read, so it should be interesting to read it for the first time (mostly, I've read parts of it) while blogging through the SAB's notes. We'll see how this goes.

So the first note the SAB has is the idea that Isaiah is actually a compilation of two or three different writings; I've heard this before, and while there are certainly scholars who prefer this view, most Christians do not (I don't know the Jewish view on the subject). It's largely a matter of the fact that Isaiah contains prophecies of the future that actually came true, and since some people don't like to see that, they postdated the parts with those prophecies (at least, that is my understanding, I'm probably way off on this, but I've seen such things elsewhere in the Bible). I'm going to treat Isaiah as one singular work by a single author, Isaiah the son of Amoz.

There are a lot of tags here, so we'll see if we can sort it all out. The chapter here opens with Isaiah giving a time frame for his writing, and talking about how Israel has largely turned from good to evil. Verse four is marked for "injustice" apparently for the phrase "seed of evildoers" as that's what's highlighted. I'm not sure what is unjust about this; it's just an observation that people in Israel have become more evil over time, and people who do evil tend to raise up evil children, at least that's how I read it. "Injustice" is also marked for verse nine, which says God knows there are still good people in Israel, for which reason he hasn't destroyed Israel yet. It mentions Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a good parallel, because in the chapter before their destruction in Genesis, Abraham discusses with God how many good people would be worth sparing the city for. This is certainly not justice, it's mercy, which is God not giving the punishment that is justly deserved. "Injustice" is also marked for verses 19-20, where it contrasts what happens to people who obey or disobey God; but why should God protect people who don't obey him? I guess it's a matter of opinion. "Intolerance" is also marked on some of those, as well as later verses such as 24 and 28. While I can certainly see verse 24, I think like I commented on 19-20, verse 28 is simply a case of God ceasing protection of those who aren't faithful to him. "Cruelty & Violence" is also marked for these verses, to which I offer the same responses.

What was Sodom's sin? is the first contradiction given here, briefly touching on the topic of homosexuality. I addressed it a bit in Genesis chapter 19, although surprisingly not in depth, as that would have been an appropriate place for a full explanation. I always prefer Ezekiel 16:49-50 as the definitive answer to this question, as I feel it covers it all:

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Was the "abomination" mentioned there homosexuality? It doesn't specify, but in my opinion, it's gang rape, which has nothing to do with gender of the victim(s). While there are things mentioned on the contradiction page that are outside of the scope of what Ezekiel lists, I think it's just the case that Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently lifted up in conversation in the Bible as examples of sinfulness. I answered whether one should keep the sabbath in Exodus chapter 16. I answered whether God helps in times of need in 1Samuel chapter eight, but really didn't do a thorough job responding to the "No" section there. While generally God does help in times of need, God does have a tendency to refuse to help those who have turned their backs to him for long enough. It's sort of a, "If you're going to insist you don't need me, then don't come crying when things go wrong!" So it's conditional.

The SAB call verses 16-17 (and the opening of 18) "Good stuff", and it really is; this stuff is a major theme throughout the Bible, just sort of "love thy neighbor" type of things. It's interesting that when Jesus is asked what the greatest commandment is in the Bible, he says to love God, and the second is to love people; but elsewhere he clarifies that you show your love for God by loving people. The SAB also has a couple of "Absurdity" points: in verse 20, it mentions the "mouth of God" which I'm guessing is absurd because God doesn't have a physical body? I think it can be said that the mouths of God's prophets are the "mouth of God" since he speaks through them. As for verse 29, I think this is symbolic language as well, not literally implying that gardens are bad, but rather it's another way of saying, "You reap what you sow." The last thing the SAB has issues with is the use of the word "harlot" in verse 21, which it labels with "Women" and "Language". I'm not sure why the former, but I suppose the latter is warranted. A lot of the prophets compare unfaithful Israel to an unfaithful wife, or even a prostitute (check out the book of Hosea, where God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute who cheats on him to essentially live out prophecy; he reconciles with his wife in the end, showing that there is always hope), and yeah, the language is usually harsh, but it's conveying a seriously strong point.

There is no new thing under the sun (language, negatives and absolute statements)

In my last post, I had to deal with a supposed contradiction that I really didn't think was a contradiction at all. When David said in the Psalms, "There is none that doeth good, no not one," I didn't think we're meant to take it as absolutely as it was implied. Most likely, he was saying that he didn't know of anyone who does good, or at least couldn't bring one to mind.

I had a song lyric from Jamiroquai's "Virtual Insanity" stuck in my head all morning:

And nothin's going to change the way we live
'Cause we can always take, but never give

There's a lot of negatives and absolutes in those two short lines! "Nothing", "always", and "never"; the language is pretty strong, but how absolute is it actually meant to mean? Taken fully literally, the first line could be thought to be satlying there is no possible thing at all that can change our lives. However, there are physical things that would; like if someone have me a million dollars in cash, it would almost certainly change the way I live. There are also things that are abstract concept, like changing our economy from a capitalist one to a socialist one, that would greatly change the way most of us live. So is the lyricist wrong? Not if you understand idiomatically what staements like "nothing is ever going to change" really mean. Generally, when someone makes such a statement, they are saying they have little to no expectation that any substantial changes will arise.

What about the second line? Well, there's possible additional vagueness there because it's a compound clause, so does the verb "can" just refer to the part before "but", or also the part after it? I'll explain what I mean later. So are we meant to take "we can always take" literally? Probably not, since everyone sleeps, and while we sleep, we can't really take anything except oxygen. So do we take constantly in the time that we're awake? No, that also doesn't quite make sense. I believe once again, we need to see that "always take" is also an idiomatic phrase that means, every time we have the opportunity to take, we will, which even phrased that way is usually hyperbolic. What about "never give"? Is the word "can" at the beginning of the clause implying "can never give"? This is actually a possibility; that the lyric is saying that giving is a physical impossibility. It does seem unlikely, however. One could argue that we're always giving something, of course; in an abstract sense we're always giving people a chance to see what sort of people we are, we are giving off some amount of odor, and a lot of us are giving an attitude. Whatever this might be saying, it's actually pretty obvious that generalizing that nobody ever gives anything is simply not true. What I believe is implied here is that people tend to take without giving back, perhaps. It seems to me to be the most likely interpretation.

So, that's my take on the meaning, and it may be potentially vague, but, "I have little to no expectation that any substantial changes will arise/because people tend to take from the world without giving back to it" doesn't make a good song lyric.

So bringing this back to the subject of Biblical interpretation, the thing I'm trying to say here is that people on both sides--those who are looking to the Bible as a guide for life and those who are looking to it to find problems--should consider that strict literal interpretation can often be misleading. When Solomon says, "there is no new thing under the sun," he's obviously talking in a more non-specific way, as obviously every day there are new people being born, new works of art being created, and new buildings and machines being constructed. It's just that perhaps there is little that is substantially different. This is always the case with language.

He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation (Matthew 24)

Wow, chapter 24 looks pretty intense, at least there are a ton of notes on it, so I get the feeling this is going to be a heck of a lot more work than the last chapter.

So Jesus points out the Temple, and tells his disciples that the whole of it is going to be torn down (which I know the SAB doesn't keep track of prophecies that came true, but before the end of the 1st century, the temple was destroyed, and has yet to be rebuilt), this leads to the disciples asking Jesus to tell them more about the future, and Jesus unloads a whole lot of stuff on them. Note that while the SAB says this is all talking about the end of the world, Jesus actually says in verse 6 that "the end is not yet." Still, the general thrust of Jesus' speech here is the events leading up to the second coming and thereafter the end of the world, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure what to make of the hodge-podge of icons the SAB tosses up over this chapter, including prophecy, absurdity, science/history, injustice, cruelty/violence, contradiction, and interpretation. Women and family values get tossed in about half way through as well. Perhaps I should address this chapter by icon?

Prophecy: Yes, this is all Jesus talking about the future, and I assume that the SAB brings out the "prophecy" icon when it feels that there was a prediction made that didn't come true. I think it's not hard to see that a lot of the things that Jesus talks about here have indeed come to pass, and since the world isn't ended yet, anything that hasn't happened (there are a few, admittedly) still could. I think that the issue that the SAB has with this is the idea that "all of these things will happen within the lifespan of Jesus' contemporaries" as they seem to take verse 34 as saying. Verse 34 actually says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I think the interpretation hinges on what you think "This generation" means. It's not unreasonable to take the position that the SAB takes, but I've always taken the position that he was talking about the generation that sees certain things come to pass will see the end. What certain things? Some have suggested that the generation that sees the recreation of the nation of Israel is the generation talked about here, and that's a possibility. (The SAB even mentions this possibility with respect to the failed modern-day prophecy of Hal Lindsey on verse 32.) Another is the generation that sees the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, as that sets the stage for the "abomination of desolation" which is something horrible that's supposed to happen in the temple. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, and I think it's a bad idea for even (maybe especially) Christians to try to read too much specific in here. (The supposed failed prophecy of verse 14 I discussed back in Matthew 10.)

Absurdity: As usual, I have a hard time figuring out what the SAB specifically finds absurd here, so I don't think I can address this one.

Science and history: I don't see any obvious historic problems with this chapter, so I'm guessing the issue here is the scientific note on verse 29? This all goes back to some similar things I said when going through the early part of Genesis. Just because the verse says "the moon shall not give her light" doesn't mean that Jesus is making a scientific statement about the nature of moonlight. The very fact that English has the word "moonlight" means that we can talk about it while being aware that it is, by nature, reflected sunlight. Now, as for stars falling from Heaven, this could just be a description of a meteor shower, which people today who know the true nature thereof still refer to as "shooting stars". In short, I think the SAB is reading way too much into this short verse.

Injustice, cruelty and violence: I'd be willing to say that there's some unjust and violent stuff happening here, but usually when the SAB calls something unjust or cruel, it's trying to say that God in particular was being unjust or cruel, which I don't see any particular basis for here. Some awful stuff happens during this time described, but I don't see any of it explicitly said to be the doing of God.

Contradiction: The SAB marks a handful of passages with contradictions. The only one I haven't covered elsewhere is Will Jesus' second coming be visible to all? to which I would say that the single verse in the "no" column is not meant to be taken as for all time.

Interpretation: Not sure how to address this one since I'm not sure which verse(s) it refers to, and I tend to find these interpretive differences uninteresting to me, since I usually care very little what the Watchtower Society or Hal Lindsey might have had to say about it.

Women, family values: I guess verse 19 is the particular verse that this issue refers to, but I think it's easily addressed. Jesus isn't saying that pregnant and nursing women are especially cursed, but only points out that when things get really difficult, it may be especially difficult for this subsection of society.

Vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil (Matthew 21)

The first question of chapter 21 is the timing of Jesus' "temple tantrum", a term I've never heard before, and while I don't think it's likely to catch on, it does have a ring to it. The Gospel of John clearly puts it at the beginning of his ministry, while the others put it near the end. There are two common interpretations of this discrepancy, the most common one being that this event happened twice, and John's Gospel tells the first time, while the others tell the latter. Another possibility (although this may be my own interpretation alone, as I can't recall specifically hearing this anywhere) is that John's Gospel is simply not interested in chronology, and specifically outside of the last week of Jesus' life, John simply strings together stories he remembers in any old order, which also explains why his Gospel is so different from the other three.

The next question is the manner of transportation that Jesus used to enter Jerusalem. There is definitely some confusion here, but note that while the other Gospels are arguing between a colt and an ass, the passage here in Matthew talks of "a colt the foal of an ass" which would indicate that the colt was an ass nonetheless. So that really leaves only Matthew that seems to be indicating Jesus riding on two animals. Since, as the SAB itself seems to be well aware, this is pretty much a physical impossibility, I would say that Jesus rode on the colt (a young ass) and perhaps the mare (if that's the right term) was brought along.

Anyway, all of this was supposed to fulfill a prophecy in Zachariah 9:9, but the SAB objects that this cannot be correct due to technicalities in the following verses, namely that Jesus failed to have an army or (an earthly) kingdom. This is the sort of technicality that never bothers Christians, though, I'm afraid, as there is an understanding that a future day is coming at which all of that will be completely fulfilled. There are actually a lot of prophecies that Jesus sort of half-fulfilled with an understanding that the complete fulfillment would come in the future. I'm sure most skeptics will call that sort of thing a cop-out once again, but I've got nothing else on this one.

Later in the chapter, Jesus famously curses a fig tree, but how fast did the curse take? In this telling of the story, it says "presently the fig tree withered away" while in Mark's Gospel, we're told "in the morning" they saw the "tree dried up from the roots". This could certainly be an outright contradiction, or it could be that certain members of Jesus' party noticed it at different times, or it could be that there's something else going on here which is a pure guess on my part: perhaps "withered away" and "dried up from the roots" could be different terms for stages of drying out that the tree passed through. I don't know enough Greek (or enough about figs) to say whether that has any deeper merit, I only toss it out as a possibility, as I recall there was a similar issue involved in drying of the ground after Noah's flood. (I think I've mostly been skipping the "What the Bible says about X" pages when they come up, but I think there's a quick note I could make about the fig page: All this destroying of fig trees is, I think a testimony of how good figs are rather than bad. After all, if you want to punish someone, you take away something good, right? You don't see God smiting their poison ivy or some such plant, do you?)

Jesus tells a parable of a rented vineyard in verses 33-41, and the SAB marks it with injustice and violence. I've got to ask, towards whom? I would agree that the people running the vineyard were unjust and violent, but I'm not sure that's what the SAB means, perhaps implying that "the lord of the vineyard" was unjust and violent for taking revenge on these men for killing his servants and son. If so, I can't really agree.

Last issue in the chapter is verse 44, which is marked as violent, unjust, and intolerant. That's a lot to pile on a bit of poetic language, as the stone spoken of is indeed Jesus, but that being so, what does the verse really mean? (After all, Jesus is not literally a stone.) I have my own thoughts, but barring an interpretation of what the SAB thinks it means, I'm not sure what to say.

Doth he not speak parables? (Matthew 13)

In Matthew 13, the SAB asks the question, "Did Jesus have secret teachings?" I think this is a question that ends up being simple and complicated at the same time, depending on how you look at it. On the simple side, I think that what Jesus is saying in John 18:20 is that he doesn't have a hidden agenda, not that he'd never said anything less than 100% public, which is clearly not true. On the complicated side, I've been fascinated for years with the question of what the purpose of Jesus' parables were, because it's far from completely clear. While I think most people think of them as little illustrations to help people understand spiritual truths, Jesus says outright to his disciples here and in similar passages in Mark 4 and Luke 8 that he's using parables to hide truth. And really, some of Jesus' parables are pretty twisted, and it's far from clear what the exact point is that he's trying to make. We'll get to at least one weird one in this chapter.

(The issue of whether there has ever been a righteous person was one that I addressed here, saying that there are different kinds of righteousness.)

In verses 31-32, Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed, which is definitely one of his odd ones. Now while there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed (as the SAB points out) and so this might be considered a scientific error, there's something odd to consider here. While the mustard seed may have been the smallest one known to or used by first-century Israelites, as the SAB also points out, the mustard seed doesn't grow into a tree, and this would have been fairly common knowledge to Jesus' audience. So I don't think Jesus is trying to make a scientifically accurate statement here, but rather is trying to paint a picture of a bizarre miraculous occurrence. What this means, I can't say for sure, but I think most people have suggested that it's an illustration of how the teachings of a single man managed to grow into to world's largest religion.

As the SAB says, verse 35 is a misquote of Psalm 78, but I think it's just 78:2, not verse 3 as well. While it's a misquote, it's fairly close. The psalm says "dark sayings", but it's a translation of a word more often translated "riddles" meaning secrets or mysteries. The psalm doesn't say anything about "the foundation of the world" but does say "of old" using a Hebrew word meaning "of ancient time". (The Greek word translated "foundation" almost never appears in the N.T. without "of the world", for whatever that's worth.)

The parable in verses 47-50 provokes a couple questions from the SAB. Is anyone good? I'm going to go with "Yes" on this one, although it should be noted that "good" is a comparative term. The Isaiah verse really is about righteousness, an issue with a response I linked to above, while the Mark verse is an oddity that has something to do with (if I recall correctly) a belief that the Pharisees had about God. Has there ever been a just person? I think again, the answer is yes. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Ecclesiastes verse in this case. First of all, it seems to be describing not someone who is "just" but someone who is "righteous", which suggests a questionable translation (although that may open up a bigger can of worms). Secondly, I think that the book of Ecclesiastes is prone to hyperbole more than most books, and Solomon may be implying that, just or righteous, the sort of person he's describing is incredibly rare. In case it's not clear, I think the distinction between "righteous" and "just" is that the latter would describe someone who does the right thing while the latter describes someone who believes in doing the right thing. Such people are, in my opinion, not so rare as Solomon suggests.

Lastly, the SAB notes the absurdity of Jesus being largely rejected in his hometown. I don't think this is necessarily so absurd, as it may be true that someone who knew a famous person as a child might have a hard time fathoming their rise to fame. Jesus may have had a largely unremarkable childhood, seeing as virtually nothing of it is recorded in the Gospels. And so long as we're here, I would say regarding Mary being a lifelong virgin that while I don't believe it personally, I don't think it's an unreasonable stretch that these "brethren" may be half-brothers or cousins, and thus the Catholic stance on Mary's virginity may hold.

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.

Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin (2Kings 2:23-24)

Not really a post here, but a link to a guest post in Dwindling in Unbelief.

Smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died (2Sam 4)

In chapter 4, we learn of the odd story of how Ishbosheth becomes worried and weakened when he hears that Abner is dead, and so two of his captains come into his house when he's resting in the middle of the day, and they kill him. They take his head and bring it to David, which really seems like an obviously stupid thing to do given the way David has reacted so far to people who take it in their heads to commit violence to help him. Indeed, David reminds these guys of the fate of the Amelekite who killed Saul, and then orders them killed and their bodies mutilated. As I said before, David is probably in part motivated by setting a precedent that regicide will not go unpunished in Israel.

So long as I didn't already comment on it, and this post is so small, the phrase "under the fifth rib" is, I imagine, a Bible-ism for "in the heart".

And said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan (1Sam 29)

Back to David in chapter 29, we find him in the uncomfortable situation of marching to war with the Philistines against his own country. Some of the leaders of the Philistines aren't happy and insist that David go away.

The SAB notes that the word in the Hebrew used of David is "Satan", but I'm not sure what's noteworthy about this. I think most people who know anything of Hebrew (well, I guess that's not too many) know that "Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary". Also, they make mention of the song about David being a great warrior. It is decided that David should leave, and so he does.

Asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit (1Sam 28)

There's an interesting point to bring up about the story in chapter 28 and the nature of figurative speech. In verse 3, it says, "And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land." The story than goes on to talk about a woman with a "familiar spirit" in the land. The SAB does not mark this as a contradiction, I assume because it is understood that nobody would take the first phrase to be literal, but rather to mean, "And Saul attempted to put away...", although he was clearly not 100% successful. This may bear somewhat on the first point the SAB does bring up in this chapter, although not as much as other places.

Did Saul inquire of the Lord? Well, yes and no. I think on the face of it this is a contradiction, but I would argue (and it's going to sound like a cop-out, but it's all I've got here) that when 1Chronicles 10:14 says Saul "enquired not of the LORD", what it means is that Saul failed to rely on God as his sole means of divination.

The woman calls up Samuel from beyond the grave, prompting the SAB to rightly ask, "Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?" This is a stickler of a question, and one of those ones that has a tricky theological answer. When Christians speak of Jesus "rising from the dead", they're talking about something special. Thanks to modern medical science, people rise from the dead every day in hospitals all over the world. It's not comepltely unreasonable to assume that for some of the folks rising from the dead in the Bible, we're talking about a person merely being revived. When we talk about Jesus rising from the dead, we're talking about a resurrection, a subtle but important difference. When people are revived from death, they eventually go on to die again, and this is eventually final. In the case of Samuel, he is not coming back to life, but only appearing as a spirit. In the case of Jesus and his followers, the idea is that one is rising from the dead to a new form of eternal life. Yes, the language here doesn't quite get that effect accross (and I don't know if the Greek is any clearer) but the distinction is important nonetheless.

The woman says "I saw gods ascending out of the earth." I think this is largely a non-issue insofar as the issue of polytheism is concerned. This woman is simply saying that she saw something, and we have no reason to assume she speaks with any authority. It is an interesting statement, however, and you have to wonder if it's a mistranslation. The word sometimes translated "gods" can also be translated "God" (with a capital G) or "judges". Whatever she saw, it was surely something quite impressive.

Samuel tells Saul that the following day he will go to battle and lose, and in the process he and his sons will die. Perhaps needless to say, Saul is not happy.

Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal's wife (1Sam 25)

Here in chapter 25, Samuel dies, but for some reason, we're only given a short note on the matter.

So then we come to the matter of Nabal and Abigail. Nabal is sort of an odd character, mostly because of his name, which means essentially "fool" in Hebrew. It's unlikely that anyone would actually name their son "fool", but the possibility exists (especially since Nabal is a Calebite, which makes him sort of foreign) that the name means something else in another language.

David comes to be in the area near Nabal's land when it happens to be sheep-shearing time, generally a rather festive occasion. David sends a message to Nabal, asking if he could spare any provisions for his men in the midst of the celebrations. The nature of this request could be seen in two different ways, and there's a bit of evidence for either. The more generous view would be that David and his men, when they had been here before, had acted as protectors for Nabal's flock from foreign invaders or whatever sorts of things might come and attack a flock of sheep. As Nabal's men say, "They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep."

The possibility also exists that this is a sort of mob-like protection racket. David's constant reminder that he has kept his men from bothering Nabal's men and from taking any sheep seems possibly suggestive of this, and can't be completely dismissed. The truth may be a mix of the two.

Well, Nabal responds to David's men with "Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants now a days that break away every man from his master." Nabal is not only denying that David has done him any good turn, but he is insulting David by suggesting that he is nothing, or less than nothing: a runaway rebellious slave to Saul. David is insulted enough that he orders his men to gear up for battle, and vows that he will kill "any that pisseth against the wall." This is indeed just about everything that SAB claims it to be, but I think there is a misinterpretation nonetheless. It's harsh, coarse language, and a promise of violence and intolerance, but it's not an indication that David has anything against a certain manner of relieving oneself, rather it's a crude way of saying, "I'm not going to leave a single man alive." After all, it's not women or young children who "pisseth against the wall" is it?

In the meantime, one of Nabal's men has gone to his wife Abigail, and told her what Nabal said, and how he fears violence will come to them because of Nabal's words. Abigail gathers up a generous amount of food, and takes it to David personally, keeping it a secret from her husband for the time being. She comes to David and bows down before him, making an eloquent plea for David to reconsider, suggesting that David should leave justice in the hand of God, using language reminiscent of David's famous fight with Goliath. Note that Abigail also ends her speech with "...but when the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid." I was reading that some have suggested that somehow Abigail may have been implying that she might do away with Nabal, and then everything that was Nabal's (including, especially, Abigail) would belong to David.

Indeed, the very next morning, when Nabal is probably well hung over, Abigail tells Nabal about all the food she gave away, and how David and his men nearly came to kill everyone. Nabal appears to have a stroke, and dies ten days later. Yes, the text does say "the LORD smote Nabal," but I think it's possible (but not necessarily so) that this is figurative speech beyond the fact that in some sense, God is responsible for the death of everyone.

David marries Abigail, and also some woman named Ahinoam about whom we are told just about nothing.

Saul, meanwhile, has given David's first wife Michal to a man named Phalti. Most this shuffling around of Michal is cruel to her and unlawful for Saul, but has political undertones. Michal, being the daughter of the current king, may confer some royal status on David, and Saul wishes to take that away.

The nakedness of thy mother (1Sam 20)

Chapter 20 is sort of weird because it largely involves David trying to convince Jonathan that Saul hates his guts. The fact that Jonathan is unaware of this is more than a little strange, seeing the events of the chapters leading up to this. Jonathan doesn't think he could possibly be unaware of anything going on with his father, and tells David that he'll prove it.

So David and Jonathan come up with a plan in which David will go away, and Jonathan will see how Saul reacts to David's absence. Jonathan and David both promise that whatever the outcome of this test, they will always be kind to each other, and to each others' families.

Saul ends up shouting at Jonathan: "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" I think this is a very suggestive verse, but not in the way that the SAB is suggesting. Take the Bible as a whole and ask yourself: What does the phrase "thy mother's nakedness" really mean? If you look to some other verses, you'll find that the Bible forbade, for instance, a man to have sexual relations with his father's wife:

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Now, I may be reading too much into it, but it seems that if "thy father's nakedness" is your father's wife, one could easily make the claim that "thy mother's nakedness" is your mother's husband. Saul seems to me to be saying that Jonathan has, in his allegiance to David, forgotten that his true allegiance should be to Saul, who after all is his father. I'm having a hard time putting this into words properly (and delicately), but I think Saul is being very poetically vulgar here and insulting Jonathan on many levels suggesting:

1) "I'm your father, and your allegiance should be to me."
2) "I'm the king, and if you hope to be king someday, you'd better not be supporting David."
3) "If you're going to be unable to get these facts straight, you might as well just have David #$%@ your mother, you little ingrate!"

In any case, this is a harsh rebuke indeed, and Jonathan finally realizes how incredibly hostile Saul's feelings towards David truly are. So he goes to David and tells him that he ought to leave, and they say farewell with a kiss, which once again, is totally acceptable between two straight men in many cultures.