Bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt (Isaiah 30)

So we come to Isaiah chapter 30, which compared to many of the recent chapters is rather long and has a lot going on. It's not real clear who this prophecy is about, but I'm guessing Judah, and whoever it is, they're going to get into trouble for forming an alliance with Egypt. Isaiah declares that bad things are coming because the people won't rely on God, but on someone not godly, who I'm guessing is the person or persons who suggest the alliance with Egypt. Isaiah says that "the strength of Pharaoh be your shame", which possibly implies a lot of things, but probably the most important thing is later in the chapter way down in verse 22 we see that for a time they turn to idols.

Now let's talk about the "fiery flying serpent," shall we? Once again, the Hebrew word for "fiery serpent" is "seraph" and this time we get the adjective "uph" which generally is translated "flying" but does have other shades of meaning, but none that make any more sense when applied to serpents. In fact, even though the concept of flying serpents is rather preposterous, pretty much every translation I looked at uses the same exact phrase as the KJV except for the NIV, which gives us "darting snakes" which sounds more reasonable, and may be correct; while there are no known snakes that fly, I do believe there exist ones that launch themselves into the air when striking. One commentary I looked at suggested there is a species of snake that launches itself from a tree when striking; I don't know about what sort of snakes live in the Middle East. However, taking the plain words of the KJV, we'll have to chalk this one up to yet another mythological creature in Isaiah.

In verse eight, Isaiah is instructed to write this prophecy on a board or something, apparently to post it publicly in addition to writing it on a scroll, but as usual, most people will ignore it. Isaiah says that they ask prophets to not prophesy the truth, but rather pleasant things, and tell God "to cease from before us." God says that just being patient and waiting on him was the right solution to their problems, but instead they ran away. Starting in verse 18, the prophecy talks about how eventually people will start to turn back to God and be restored to sound teaching, and in verse 22, they throw away their idols, "as a menstruous cloth" which the SAB notes as both an issue of language and women. Now certainly it's pretty strong language, but I doubt even women are keen on holding on to used menstrual products, so it's subjective at least.

Now the SAB takes issue with verse 26 for scientific reasons, as it reads, "the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold;" the charge is, as usual, that the moon doesn't give off its own light (which as usual, I'm going to point out that that is not what is claimed here anyway), and the sun couldn't possibly be seven times as bright as it is. I think this is clearly end times prophecy, and there's something supernatural going on here; I'm sure astrophysics tells us that the sun couldn't--under normal circumstances--shine seven times as bright (unless it went supernova, in which case it would be temporary and the earth would be destroyed), but this almost certainly isn't normal circumstances. Also, if the sun happened to be seven times as bright, then it follows that moonlight, being reflected light from the sun, would also be brighter. The prophecy doesn't say how this brightness is accomplished, and as it may have been a vision, Isaiah may be only estimating the brightness as he saw it. (I expect a seven times brighter sun would be blinding!)

The rest of the prophecy talks in a lot of symbolic language about what God is like--which the SAB marks as absurd--talking about God's "lips...full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: And his breath, as an overflowing stream..." Of course God, being a spirit, doesn't have lips, tongue, or even breath or an arm (as mentioned in verse 30), so this is all symbolic of something else, apparently according to verse 27, God's anger against evil. There is also symbolic language talking about "a bridle in the jaws of the people" which causes them to make bad decisions; it's unfortunately not very clear what people we're talking about, what the real nature of this metaphorical bridle is, nor what or who caused it, although with the SAB marking it unjust, there must be an assumption there that it's God's bridle, although I don't know if it's a warranted assumption. In the midst of all this talk of God's anger, verse 29 is oddly pleasant, with people happily following a flutist playing a song up to Mount Zion. And in verse 31, it talks about the Assyrians being defeated, which perhaps was the reason for the alliance with Egypt.

And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied (Isaiah 20)

It's time for Isaiah chapter 20 and the crazy antics of God's appointed prophets! This time, God has Isaiah walk around barefoot and naked for three years as a sign and a wonder (as in people "wonder" why he's naked, I assume?) to show how Assyria will lead away Egypt and Ethiopia (probably Cush) naked and barefoot in the future. The SAB marks most of this chapter with "Absurd" and "Sex" (mere nudity seems like a stretch to me, but I guess it's fair), which, yeah, it's pretty wacky, but I bet it delivers a message effectively.

What does the Bible say about nudism? There's actually a lot more nudity in the Bible than this, but I realized the title was "nudism", which implies being naked on purpose which I suppose all these examples are with the exception of Adam and Eve, although it feels like it belongs here because they're not getting dressed any time soon. I think it needs to be said that not necessarily all of these are talking about someone being completely naked; I think it's likely that Jonathan, David, "a certain young man" (probably John Mark), Jesus, and Peter, were probably in their underwear, and there's really nothing in Exodus 33:23 that suggests God is naked, if that's even meaningful for what's going on there. Adam and Eve really are a special case nonetheless, because the idea is that clothing doesn't even exist yet in Genesis chapter two, and they don't care because they don't know the difference. I have actually heard at least one sermon in which it was suggested that this is saying something about the intimacy of marriage, actually, which may be a stretch, but I know for myself when there's nobody around except my wife, I have no problem with nudity. I think Saul, although naked, was not voluntarily naked, but it's a strange passage indeed. Micah indeed talks about being naked, but I don't see anything in context that really explains why; verse 11 talks about "having thy shame naked" but what this phrase is supposed to mean is beyond me. So in the end, it's really just a couple of prophets that are practicing nudism, one (Isaiah) giving a reason why that's clear, and one (Micah) giving a more opaque explanation.

The land of Egypt is before thee (Isaiah 19)

Isaiah chapter 19 turns to Egypt, first with some terrible judgments, but at the end with some hope. There's a lot of talk in the footnotes about failed prophecy (although I don't see the prophecy icon here) a lot of which I think I can address, but we'll see.

In the opening verse, God rides into Egypt on a "swift cloud", which is strange imagery, but perhaps the intended idea is that the beginning of this judgment is going to be a powerful storm? In any case, somehow the Egyptians are set against each other, and once again, I don't think that "they shall fight every one against his brother" means that people will be actually fighting their own family, but rather Egyptians fighting their fellow countrymen, perhaps some sort of civil war? In the end, Egypt will have a cruel leader, and the Nile will dry up. I don't know if all of this is something that happened in the past or if we're talking about a future judgment (although the mention of "Pharaoh" in verse 11 is suggestive of the past since they don't have rulers with such a title anymore); it can be hard to tell with prophecy, which usually doesn't come with a time frame. Verse 14 does sound rather nasty, but the fact that God sends a "perverse spirit" may be another case of God reinforcing something that already exists to hasten the natural consequences. Yes, I suppose the imagery of a drunk falling over in his vomit is gross, but does being gross imply nasty language? I may not fully understand the meaning of the "Language" label in the SAB. Yes, I'll readily admit that the language of verse 16 is rather misogynistic, but once again, this is probably an outdated cultural view of women; not that it makes it right, but rather the intended audience would understand the imagery.

Now we get to a bunch of parts of the prophecy that the SAB takes issue with the validity thereof.

[v. 17] Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt.

One thing I want to say about this is that I don't see anything in verse 17 that points to it being a military threat specifically; it could have been something else. It's also possible that this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, but the fact that it says "Judah" rather than "Israel" suggests fulfillment in a time when there was such a nation, although it's within the realm of possibility that it refers to the southern part of Israel.

[v. 18] There shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now.

I take issue with this, because in reality, there is actually no single "Canaanite language" (which could be something to take issue with Isaiah itself) but rather several Semitic languages spoken in that region. It's worth noting that Egyptian was not a Semitic language, but most Egyptians today speak Arabic, which is a Semitic language, and it seems to me that this may be the fulfillment of this particular aspect of the prophecy.

[v. 19-21] These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt.

True enough, but there are a couple things to say about this. First of all, and perhaps a less likely candidate for fulfillment of this prophecy, when I was trying to look up what "Canaanite language" meant, I found mention of the fact that during the time of the Maccabees, some Jews including the high priest fled to Egypt where they built a Temple. What I find more interesting and suggestive personally is the fact that the old Egyptian religion has been completely supplanted by Islam, which is an Abrahamic religion, meaning that Egyptians believe they are worshipping the God of Israel, and many Jews do not dispute that notion. (Historically, Jews and Muslims have gotten along fairly well, actually. I personally believe that all the Abrahamic religions are at least intending to worship the God of Israel; whether or not that means there is validity thereof is a separate question that I don't think is fit for this discussion.)

[v. 24] There has never been an alliance between these three countries, and it's unlikely that it ever will since Assyria no longer exists.

To address the latter part first, the fact that Assyria no longer exists is of no consequence; if the prophecy refers to a future time, the nation of Syria plays the part of Assyria. Anyway, this is not necessarily a political alliance, but could possibly be another case of a sort of spiritual alliance, as all three of these nations in more modern times have been Abrahamic in their religions; the only problem with this idea would be why these three specifically, when the entire Middle East practices Abrahamic religion. Certainly at current there is no love between Egypt, Israel, and Syria, quite the opposite, actually! However, if you're a follower of end times prophecy, you know there are some strange changes that are coming to the world, supposedly.

Was not Rahab the harlot justified? (Joshua 2)

I was considering giving a bit of the standard talk about how the Hebrew word used here is questioned by some who believe that there is possibility that Rahab was not a prostitute, but an innkeeper. Sure, translation can be difficult at times, and it may be that the ambiguity is real, but then, one still has to wonder about the concept of a woman being an innkeeper in that day and that culture, when women generally did not hold down jobs but were required by their culture to take a husband. Even if she is an innkeeper, it might be by definition a tad shady to have strange men coming to stay overnight at the house of an unmarried woman.

Let's face it, though; Rahab was almost certainly an outright prostitute of some sort, but let's consider a few things in relation to that. First of all, the Bible does not say that the two spies went to her for her services as a prostitute. If the reader would like to imagine they did, I suppose I can't say that the Bible says they did not, either, so speculate away. Secondly, note that whatever it is she does for a living, it's not a secret; even the king seems to know about her.

It's this second point that leads to the third and perhaps most important point. What sort of city was Jericho? They had a prostitute who lived in a nice house attached to the city wall, everyone knew she was there and didn't care. In the end of our story, she comes to be rescued from the city because of her righteousness. Think about it for a minute. Yes, she was a prostitute. Yes, she was a liar. Yet still, she was apparently the most righteous person in that whole city. What does that say about Jericho?

What drives a woman to become a prostitute? Sure, there may be a number of reasons, but don't most of them boil down to the fact that when a society does not take care of its people, then those people will be forced to resort to immoral means of making a living? In my opinion, the real victim of the crime of prostitution is surely the prostitute. It may be that Rahab was sick of the society that had brought her to the state she was in, and that is why she was so very willing to cast her lot in with the Israelites. That's speculation on my part, but it doesn't seem too far out there to me.

What is not speculation is that at least in part, Rahab gives her reasons for protecting the spies. Verifying what I said earlier, back around, oh... here. Rahab informs the spies that everyone in the land of Canaan knows what happened in Egypt (and various other places) and that the God of Israel doesn't mess around. She knows that if Israel is headed this way, Jericho is about to be wiped off the map, and she needs to pick sides now.

This actually makes the moral value of her lies more ambiguous than some other ones so-called "righteous" people got away with, and it makes me want to make a slight backpedal on what I said about the issue in Exodus 2. Sure, Rahab is lying because she knows that it's the easiest way to save the lives of the Israeli spies, but she's also doing it to save her own skin. Furthermore, it is most likely in no small part due to her lies that her family becomes the only one saved from Jericho. I wonder whether turning in the spies might have resulted in more people being saved from the destruction of Jericho? (I've heard at least one pastor suggest that "spies" is not the best term for these men, but perhaps they were sent in to give a last warning to repentance.) I think this edges a bit further into the gray in the matter of lying to protect life.

Rahab helps the spies sneak out of the city, and they return to Joshua with the good news that all the people of Canaan are terrified of them.

Her witchcrafts are so many? (Exod. 22:18 et al., witches)

A girl I briefly dated in college with whom I was friends for quite some time used to always say of the Salem witch trials, "Why is it that people always say that it's a shame that these women were falsely accused of being witches? Does that imply that if any of them were actual witches (which a few of them may have been) that would make it morally acceptable to kill them?" It was a rhetorical question in her view; of course it would not be morally acceptable. I think when it comes to the Bible, these questions need to be given some more comprehensive treatment.

Exodus 22:18 simply reads "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." However, the issues brought up are far from simple. There are two terms here that need to be explored: "witch" and "live". The latter turns out to be the most simple. It may be that the command here is not to kill a witch so much as to cast her out of the community in some manner. The Hebrew verb here may actually have to do with prosperity rather than physical life, implying that if there is a woman offering some sort of service termed as "witchcraft", then you should not solicit her. (While the term is not used there specifically, King Saul solicits a woman who "hath a familiar spirit" to help him in 1Sam. 28. It seems pretty clear that this was a bad idea.) While the possibility exists, (and note that the way in which she should be killed is not specified) it is likely that the intention here is that witchcraft be a capital crime. Either way, be it "kill witches" or "ensure witches do not prosper", there's clearly a command here to be prejudiced sharply against them.

Having already discussed capital punishment, I therefore turn to a discussion of the term "witch". Even in modern English, the term is rather vague. Judging by the pop culture phenomena of "Harry Potter", "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" and "The Wizard of Oz", witches are human-like (but somehow not quite human) individuals that have the ability to change reality around them by waving sticks at things. While this particular idea of what witches are like is probably not, nor has ever been, realized in the non-fictitious world, the truth is that witches do exist.

While the term "witch" is used informally by many as an epithet for a woman who is ugly and/or spiteful, in a more technical sense, the term still refers more specifically to a person (more commonly female, but not always) who either practices magic in some unspecified manner, or more likely a practitioner of the religion known as Wicca. For those not familiar, Wicca is:

A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft. (American Heritage Dictionary)

So which of these witches is the sort that is supposedly to be killed? While I think we can rule out the sort that is simply fitting of the epithet, it's worthwhile to note that the supposition that many have is that many of those who were killed in the Salem witch trials were of this type. (I don't like the way she looks/acts, so I'll call her a witch and let the authorities handle it.) I am going to assume the Bible however is not referring to this sort of person.

So this leaves two possibilities which are not necessarily distinct. Although Wicca as we know it today did not exist in those days, there no doubt were similar pagan religions, and magic, be it of the showy, supernatural sort or simply some sort of "herbal magic" could easily have existed at pretty much any time in history. What would make either of these wrong?

Well, the pagan one is easy. If I have talked about religious intolerance in the Bible before now, I don't recall, but this is as good a place as any to address it. As I've said in my other blog, here in America, we have a nation that promises by its Constitution certain freedoms, including freedom of speech and religion. I'm all for it. Despite being a "fundie" who will be among the first to tell you that I believe Jesus offers the one and only path to the salvation of your soul, I am glad to share this nation with atheists, pagans, Muslims and even Scientologists. But that's not what ancient Israel was all about. While we here are trying to build a society from a variety of cultures that will strengthen each other through diversity, God's aims in creating Israel was to have a nation that would be uniformly existing for the sole purpose of glorifying Him. Now that brings up other philosophical issues that libraries of books no doubt have been written about, this is the Bible, and this is God speaking to His people, and within that context, God is free to say essentially "My way or the highway!"

As I said in the post on capital punishment, there are essentially three things you could be killed for in Israel: murder, sexual impurity, and improper religious practice. The third category exists because especially in this case, God is trying to create a new religion more or less from scratch. His people have lived in the midst of pagan nations, well, since forever. Abraham lived among pagans in Ur, and he moved to Canaan where he lived among other pagans. His great-grandchildren, the sons of Jacob, moved to Egypt and spent 400-odd years there among yet another pagan society. Now that they are finally big enough to be their own nation and they are (supposedly) about to have their own land, God is demanding a cleansing. Many Biblical scholars have noted that there is a parallel in these stories to the concept of Baptism, a Jewish ritual that of course was taken up in a big way by Christians. This is a fresh start for the nation, and God has them pass through the waters of the Red Sea, drowning the Egyptians. God is washing the pagan-ness out of these people, and He wants them to stay clean.

As for magic, God simply doesn't want people to depend on any power other than Him. This may also be related in a more direct way to paganism, of course, but there is certainly a sense in which God is warning them away from anything supernatural that is not God Himself, because it is very likely something evil.

I hope this is coming across clearly enough. I've been stalling on this one not because it's a difficult one per se (in the way that the abortion and capital punishment posts were), but in such a small verse, there are some big issues to deal with, and I've spent far too much time mulling it over in my mind, and probably overcomplicated it in the end. I hope that's not entirely the case.

And they sang praises with gladness (Exod 15)

Exodus 15 is a tough one to reply to for numerous reasons. First of all, this is a song that the people are singing, so one could simply dismiss the entire thing as unimportant from a theological standpoint. Second of all, the chapter is largely a review of what we have just seen in the previous chapters, so it's going to be hard sorting out what's a repetitious issue and what is truly new. Thirdly, as this is by form a poem, there may be some use of poetic language here that clouds the meaning. Why does all this make it hard to give responses to? After all, all of those are excellent excuses to not have to respond at all, case closed. Well, I think that choosing any of those approaches that would be an easy out that I don't think would be fully satisfactory to most skeptics. Those issues will come up, and I think they are valid excuses, but I don't want to gloss over a difficult passage too simply.

So, the Israelites are singing a song of praise to God because he just killed a bunch of Egyptians. Sounds twisted, no doubt, but I think an important factor to remember is that said Egyptians were in the process of trying to hunt them down and kill them. I think we can forgive them a little rejoicing in such a case. Maybe all readers won't agree, but when you've been enslaved as a nation for 400 years, and your slave masters try to kill you as you make your escape, which you made with permission, you might be a little more than relieved to see them die.

Is God a "man of war"? My answer (and did you expect a better one?) is: it depends. God definitely has a preference for peace over war. Throughout the Bible, I see God as trying to get people to get along with each other, but it's part of His nature that He views it as far more important that they get along with Him specifically. War is an odd thing, though. In many ways, the rules change in the midst of war. For instance, it's generally accepted that if you shoot a man just because you don't like him, you're a murderer, but if you shoot a man because you're a soldier and he's an enemy combatant, you're a hero. And rules change on levels that are beyond the personal; borders get redrawn, international trade breaks down, and history is written by the winning side in the end. I think it may be the case that war makes the rules change all the way up to God's level, but it may also be that God's rules are different to begin with, and if so, I still think that's acceptable. (See first paragraph here, and entire post here on the parent-like relationship God has towards us.)

Most of the talk of violence in this chapter boils down to a single subject, that being that God is known for perpetrating acts of violence upon people. I think the answer to this is pretty much what I've already given here; the reasons that the Israelites have to rejoice are the same reasons God has to do what He does. As a side note, while the Bible doesn't point out the absurdities of many of the described actions of God other than the "nostrils" reference, it should be noted that this chapter is poetic through verse 21, and much of the language is taking poetic license as a result. God doesn't have arms, hands, or nostrils, but apparently it was thought better to visualize Him with them for purposes of retelling the story.

Also, note that a careful reading of verse 15:9 should indicate that this is Pharaoh's "lust", not God's. While God at times does violent things, I don't believe he "lusts" for violence. The issue of the number of Gods was addressed by me in full in a previous post.

Perhaps because this is the first mention of dancing in the Bible, the SAB takes a moment to ask the question, "Is dancing a sin?" While there are certainly some Christian denominations that express the sentiment that it is, I don't think you'll find any clear condemnations of it in the Bible itself. The three verses quoted by the SAB to indicate that dancing is a sin are actually pretty easy to explain. Exodus 32:19 is a verse in which Moses sees dancing and gets angry, yes, but in context, dancing is not the only thing happening. Chiefly, Moses is angry about the calf, but the dancing in this case may be akin to the issue of the Matthew verse. In Matthew 14:6-8, we see someone dancing, and while the Bible does not specifically point out the evil of this young woman, the SAB is right that there is something inherently wrong with the dancing here. Essentially, most scholars are of the opinion that this girl is doing a striptease for her stepfather. As for Galatians 5:19-21, dancing is not mentioned specifically, so I'm not sure why it's there at all.

Other than a parting thought which might be covered under the violence umbrella above as biological violence, the SAB finishes the chapter only noting the apparent absurdity of a tree being put in some water to make it palatable. I'm not sure why this is absurd. It may have been a miracle, but it might also have been a perfectly natural effect. Whatever tree this is, we do not know, nor what the effect was. Perhaps the water was okay, but just tasted bad, and this tree had a sweet taste to it, or even some sort of fruit that they made a punch out of, who knows? Anyway, I'm not sure what the real issue is here.

The LORD is a man of war (Exod 14)

Finally back from a long hiatus, most of my work situation has been properly arranged, and I am going to try to spend some time posting on my blog. While my other blog is going to be focusing on the separation of church and state here in the USA, here I will be conversely be focusing on the establishment of a theocracy in the Middle East, of course, as once the Israelites leave Egypt, the nation of Israel really begins, despite having no land to settle on for quite some time.

Most of the issues pointed out in this chapter have to do with Pharaoh's heart being hardened, which I addressed in a previous post. In the midst of all of this heart-hardening, I think the SAB missed something that they might want to mention. Namely, that God instructs the Israelites to camp in such a manner that they feign being vulnerable. The plagues are not quite enough for some reason; God wants to destroy the Egyptian army and embarrass the nation of Egypt.

If the SAB is looking for absurdities, and likes to mark miraculous occurrences as such, then they've missed one of the biggies. God causes the sea to become dry, and the Israelites cross over it that night. Note that there is no talk of "parting" the Red Sea (although there may be a hint of it in verse 29), but rather the wind blows all the water off to one side. This act is not considered an absurd concept as a miracle, but having chariot wheels fall off is. Also, in the midst of this, the SAB notes as an absurdity (I think it's supposed to be a contradiction, which seems to make more sense) that there are horses still available for the Egyptian army, since they were all killed in Exodus 9. I stand by essentially what I said before, which is that the verse in question says beasts that were in the fields were struck down. Most likely, the army's horses were kept in stables, and thus many of them if not all may have survived the plagues.

As a side note, it would be an interesting discussion to examine why these miracles, done by God, had to be preceded by a small action on Moses' part. If God wanted to allow the Israelites to walk across the bottom of the sea on dry ground, does He really need a waving staff to make it happen? I can think of a few reasons for God having Moses do this, but I'm not going to give appreciable time to it in this blog unless I come to text that seems more clearly to beg the question.

So God drowns the Egyptian army. The SAB marks this as cruel and/or violent, which I suppose is deserving enough, but it should be noted that there is something that's just naturally cruel and violent about war. Remember, these are not just a few Egyptians out for a leisurely Sunday drive, but an army, and no doubt their aim was not exactly a kindly one. In a way, this was an act of war upon Israel and upon God. God destroyed the army to put a final end to it, and Israel was finally a free nation.

And he said, Take now thy son (Exod 13)

I think this may be covered in more detail elsewhere in the Mosaic Law, but God wants the people to "sanctify" their firstborn sons to God. Here, it's not entirely clear what that entails, and I'm not going to bother to look it up elsewhere, just because I'm feeling lazy. The only thing I care to respond to at this point in time is the issue of sexism in verse 2. There may be a number of reasons for this, including a number of ones that indeed would be considered sexist no matter how I put them. I'd like to suggest a couple that I don't think are quite so sexist.

First of all, it seems to be hinted heavily that much of what is set upon the ancient Israelites as law was given to be in contrast to the pagan nations they intermingled with. In this particular case, I believe that this may be at least in part a response to the killing of baby boys by Pharaoh. The Egyptians kill the baby boys of the Israelites, God kills the baby boys of the Egyptians, and in order to remember that God avenged their blood and saved future generations from genocide, they have to remember to "sanctify" their sons that would have been killed if they had not been saved from their Egyptian captivity.

Another possibility, which is not so far removed from the above, nor entirely free of sexism, is that God is simply following a societal standard. I think many of us find it distasteful at times, but it seems that God was sometimes in the practice of doing things in a manner that was according to the times. If something was outright sinful, He'd demand it stopped. If something was less than ideal, but not *evil*, then he'd allow it to continue at times. A case could be made for polygamy being within that sort of domain. It's not bad enough to outright ban, but not really God's ideal, either, so it's neither banned nor sanctioned. One thing that ought to be noticed, however, is that when the time was right for it, God would sometimes throw in exceptions.

Now this sanctification of firstborn males also seems to apply to livestock, although in this case, there's a very straightforward application given right here: they have to be killed by breaking their neck. The SAB notes this as violent, and I would agree and disagree. The issue of sacrifice aside (which I have addressed many times previously) it occurs to me that if you are going to kill an animal, breaking its neck is probably relatively fast and painless. So while one might find sacrifice in general barbaric perhaps, I'm not sure what would be a better method, other than perhaps beheading the animal, I don't know.

In response to all of this, and as an observation on verse 15, the SAB says, "The Lord killed so you should too". Well, yeah. We're talking about animal sacrifices here, and God saving an entire nation... Maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but I don't see a great problem here.

In verse 17, there is mention made of "the land of the Philistines", which causes some concern. Once again, not being fully aware of the historical backdrop of all of this in full, I can only take the SAB's claims about the Philistines on faith at this point, not knowing where to research this info. Something I can say, though, is that aside from the possibility of an anachronistic label used intentionally as I felt might be the case elsewhere, there is something going on in the language here that is worth noting. The Bible does not say, "that God led them not to the land of the Philistines" says "that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines". Wherever the Philistines may have been at this time, it may be that going through that area might have been nominally convenient as a route to their final destination. God felt that it would be best to go a different route, however. The "land of the Philistines" at this time may not have been Canaan, but an area near Canaan.

The final note that is given for this chapter is the "absurdity" of God appearing as/in a pillar of smoke and/or flame to lead them through the wilderness. Once again, there is no explanation as to why this is absurd, so I'm not sure how to respond. Unlike many of the previous times something was called absurd, I really have no idea what the problem is here.

Blessed are the barren (Exod 12)

There are a lot of issues brought up in chapter 12, but since I think I've covered a great number of them in previous posts, I may be able to get through a great deal of this if not all. Also, for those of you keeping score at home, read carefully because I'm going to admit that I think there is something legitimately wrong with this chapter; how important the problem is up to the individual reader to decide.

The first few issues of this chapter are ones that I either covered in the last post or in the comments attached thereto. What is the point of all this blood being smeared on doorposts? Well, I think the central place to find this answer is in verse 13, where God claims He will spare the houses that have the blood on them. This is part of the ongoing theme of God overlooking the sins of those who cover their sin with a sacrifice. In this case, it's a national sin of Egypt, both that they held the Israelites as slaves, but more importantly that they killed all the Israelite baby boys several years back. I'm guessing the fact that this is a national sin is the reason why this plague, unlike many of the previous ones, is a potential threat to everyone in Egypt, even the Israelites. It may be that all the Israelites put the blood on their doors, and none of the Egyptians did, but I tend to think that there may have been exceptions on both sides, the results being dead Israelites and living Egyptians, since God says His criteria will be the blood mark.

Now sticking to this issue and jumping down further in the chapter, to verses 29 and 30, this is where I have an issue. I will admit that Christians actually are surely the most guilty of overassuming this sort of thing, but I think that sometimes when the Bible says "all", it's not being as precise as it ought to be, and this is illustrated twice in these two verses. Firstly, the cattle are killed. The SAB points out that the cattle were already "all" killed twice in chapter 9. I addressed it a bit there, but it's evident that only cattle left outside were harmed in the first two plagues that killed cattle. I would think that it's safe to assume (if one accepts the assumptions that I have already made about firstborn humans) that any cattle inside a house with blood on its doorposts would survive the night.

And so the verse that I have issue with here is verse 30, which claims "...there was not a house where there was not one dead." This is clearly not true in the broadest sense, as of course there were numerous Israelite houses with nobody dying. On top of that, there are some important issues demographically. Skeptics often read this verse and say, "There goes God killing a bunch of defenseless babies..." In fact, while surely many babies were killed on this night, I believe among those killed, a minority were infants. Ah, I'm mingling two issues here, but they are interrelated. Let's give some hypotheticals. Imagine an Egyptian house in which there is a man and a woman with no children, and the husband is not the firstborn of his family; result: no deaths. Imagine a house in which there are many children, but what with infant mortality being a reality, the firstborn son has already died years ago; result: no deaths. What if they have only daughters? No deaths. What if the firstborn has grown up and already moved out? No deaths. That adult child may die in his own house, or it may be that only children were affected, I don't think we know for sure, but if only children are effected, it may be that any children over a certain age (perhaps 13?) were spared. Lastly, in response to the claim of killing babies, I would venture that a very small portion of the houses with a dying child lost an infant. After all, if you have more than one child, the firstborn is probably at least a year old. Not that killing toddlers is so much better, but I figure you might as well be clear. In summary, blood or no blood, I think many houses were spared, and among those not spared, most lost an older child.

So, back up to verse 13, the SAB asks "How many gods are there?" While I addressed some of the issues raised on that page previously, I didn't address them all, as that page is actually quoting numerous passages that have multiple ways to understand them. The majority of them fall under the same classification as this verse, that is, verses that explicitly refer to other gods. The answer is, of course, that there is only one God. So why all the stuff in the other column? There are at least three approaches, and any or all of them can be suitable.

First, the literary approach, for lack of a better name. What do Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes, Jessica Fletcher, and Batman have in common? They're all detectives. Does the fact that they are also all fictional characters make them any less so? Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu and Buluku? They're all gods, whether or not there is an actual existing entity behind each name.

Secondly, the sociological approach. Some say that a "god" is anything you give reverence to, whether it is a supposedly intelligent supernatural entity or an abstract concept. If the most important thing in your life is being rich, then money is your "god". If the most important thing is getting laid, then sex is your "god". If you want to serve Ganesh, then Ganesh is your god, whether or not Ganesh actually exists.

Thirdly, there is the spiritual approach. Suppose you decide that the world was not created by the God of the Bible, but by a superpowerful being named "Asdfgh". Maybe you made up Asdfgh, or maybe someone told you about Asdfgh and you believed. You're going to devote your life to worshipping Asdfgh out of great reverence for him/her and his/her creative and sustaining power. Who's to say that Asdfgh is not a real being, despite the fact that what you believe about Asdfgh is completely false? Generally, this goes somewhat hand-in-hand with the second approach, but with the added fact that the thing worshipped is real, albeit deceptively so. Perhaps Asdfgh was a fallen angel who told some humans he/she deserved worship. Maybe somebody dreamed Asdfgh up, and a being, wanting to lay claim to the worship Asdfgh was receiving, stepped in to claim it. Spiritually, anything could conceivably be possible. The implications of this are huge, though, and somebody may bring up some of them in comments, who knows?

In verse 14, an important question is raised, which I am going to give as short an answer as I can, since my last one was probably way too long. "Must Christians obey Old Testament laws?" Once again, the answer is "Yes and no." In all of those passages quoted, I would say that the "you" referred to is the nation of Israel. Despite the fact that Jesus came and fulfilled the law (as they say, that's an odd claim for numerous reasons), there is much of it that remains in effect for Jews. Gentiles are not required to become Jews to follow Jesus. However, there are some rules that God wants everyone to follow, and admittedly, it's not always 100% clear to me where the dividing line is.

How many days is unleavened bread to be eaten during Passover? That's an easy one. Seven days. The passage in Dt.16:8 says "Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein." I see no reason to assume this passage is saying that the seventh day is a day to eat leavened bread, especially since it follows so close on the heels of verse 3. I may have mentioned it before, but if two passages seem to contradict each other and are right next to each other in the Bible, you're probably misreading them. (Here's one of the best examples.)

I have already addressed the issues of stealing, population explosions, length of the captivity, and slavery, so all that remains is the objection on verse 43 and following. I don't understand it, though. Okay, so a foreigner (et al) cannot eat of the Passover, so what? It's a Jewish religious observance, and I would assume that if a person really wanted to partake of it, then they would convert to Judaism, get circumcised, and then there would be no problem, would there?

The plague shall not be upon you to destroy you (Exod 11)

Before the final and most brutal of the plagues, we take a side trip into some instruction God gives to prepare for it. In many ways, the nine plagues that came before were just preparation for this one, which has great significance in the Bible as a whole, some of which is revealed in the next few chapters, and some of which is revealed in the New Testament (if you believe in the N.T., of course; most Jews would certainly not.)

Brief mention is made here of the plundering of the Egyptians, but I won't address it here since the SAB does not. Suffice it to say I will revisit it in the next chapter, and I already touched on the subject back in chapter 3.

So, to the main objection that the SAB brings up for this chapter: "These verses [11:4-6] clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God (see 12:29-30) was premeditated." This is an odd statement for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it's largely right on the mark. Pulling it apart from back to front, I first want to note that it would be theologically sound to say that everything God does is "premeditated". Since God is supposedly all-knowing, everything that He has done or ever will do was already planned before time itself even existed (as much as that's a meaningful thing to say, but you get the idea I'm sure). As far as "innocent children", that's a difficult issue to address, although I tried to in part in an earlier post. Aside from the issues talked about there, it might be noted that it may not necessarily be only children, whether that be a plus or minus. Then there is the most important issue, the key question of whether this truly qualifies as either "mass" or "murder".

A pastor friend of mine wrote a very good essay on this subject that I read years ago, and it's a shame it's not online, at least as far as I know, since he goes much more in to detail on this matter than I ever could. Although we do indeed see a lot of large groups of people being killed in various moments throughout the Bible, there are a few things we can note about these occurrences. First of all, God gives a warning. In this case, we have a series of nine incredible plagues that occur over the course of several months. The plagues are always predicted by Moses, explained to be the work of God, and do not have an effect on the Israelites. As a result of this, many of the people of Egypt are sitting up and taking notice of what's going on. While Pharaoh continues in a state of denial about God's will and God's power, many others aren't so stupid. As I said in my last post, it seems quite likely that people started doing what they could to avoid the plagues and save their crops and livestock, if possible.

This leads to the second point, which is that God always gives a way out. In this case, the way out is announced in the next chapter: put blood on your doorposts and God will spare your house. If you read these chapters carefully, you will see that God is not saying He's going to kill all of the Egyptians and spare all of the Israelites; He says He's going to kill those who refuse to follow His simple instructions and spare those who do follow them. To a Christian, this is a clear foreshadowing of the message of the Gospel: a person here was saved from the wrath on Egypt by the blood of a lamb's sacrifice, while in life, a person is saved from the wrath on sin by the blood of the "Lamb of God". To a Bible believer of any religious bent, however, this instruction has significance because it shows God is merciful enough to make an escape clause for His wrath. In every case throughout the Old Testament where large groups of people were destroyed either by plagues or an army due to the will of God, there was always a warning, and always a way far an individual to escape the fate of the group as a whole.

That being said, all the people of Egypt had to do to save themselves and their children was sprinkle some blood on their doors. I have little doubt that there were many people who did so. Imagine this allegory: You meet up with a man who claims to have a message from God to you. He says, "Get out of your house, or you will die." You'd be right to be skeptical. But suppose he said, "Tomorrow it will rain on your house, but not the house of your neighbors," and the next day a little cloud blew in and rained only on your house. The next day, the same thing happened with snow, then hail, then it was struck by lightning, then it was overrun with ants, then your power went out for no discernable reason, etc. Each time, the man said it would happen the next day, and it did, nine times. Then the man said, "Tomorrow, your house will be hit by a meteorite, and nothing will be left but a smoking crater. I suggest you get out." Would you get out? Would you get your family out? Your possessions? I sure would.

One might complain though that I am wrong, and it's illustrated by the phrase that the SAB points out for different reasons: "...the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Surely this is saying that God wants to arbitrarily hurt the Egyptians and spare the Israelites, right? I don't think so. As I read the Bible, there is often a distinction made, and an important one, between a country and its people. God deals with them in different ways, and is much more forgiving towards individuals than a country in general. The "difference between the Egyptians and Israel" is not about individual people, but about differences in cultures, societies, and religious beliefs. Call it intolerant if you want, and I won't deny it, but God is saying that He will show favor on those that believe in Him, and not on those who do not. In the original Hebrew, there is no difference between the word used for "Egypt" and "the Egyptians" in this passage, and verse seven probably would have been translated differently if I'd been in charge of the KJV. But I'm not of course.

So last point the SAB makes is a very good one to take note of, as it's central to this idea. God actually wanted Pharaoh to say no to Moses?! What the heck? you might ask. The book of Exodus is about the beginning of the nation of Israel, and it's this nation that God has chosen to be his representatives on earth in a special way. Egypt and Israel lie at the joining point between three continents, perhaps the only continents that were settled by (relatively) modern civilizations. God is getting ready to set up Israel in its appointed place, and to start them off, He is using Egypt as an example for the other nations. Everyone in the Middle East will come to know of these plagues and what happened when a kingdom dared to try and stand in the way of God and His chosen people. The first nine plagues were Egypt's warning, but the tenth plague is a warning to the nations that would come into contact with the Israelites over the next forty-plus years as they moved out of Egypt and into Canaan.

God gave Egypt a warning, and a way out. The only thing Pharaoh had to give up was his pride.

The LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues (Exod 7:14-10:29)

Okay, let me give an overview of the plagues before I hit on specific points. There are a number of different ways to look at the plagues, and it may be that all of them are right, actually. On face value, they are miracles that God enacted on the land of Egypt through Moses to show his power and punish Pharaoh and his people. Symbolically, it's been said that each of the plagues corresponds in some way to one of the pagan gods of Egypt, and is used by the God of Israel to mock the ancient Egyptian religion. Scientifically, it is possible to see the plagues as all being a series of events that logically follow from one another as unusual, but fully natural events. It's important to note that not all miracles need be something supernatural, simply highly unusual.

The other thing that is interesting about the first nine plagues is the thematic way in which they are presented. In many ways, they occur in three groups of three. The first, fourth and seventh plagues are announced to Pharaoh by Moses "in the morning" while the third, sixth, and ninth have no warning at all given to Pharaoh, and in the absence of that warning, also omit the phrase "Let my people go, that they may serve me..." which appears with all the others.

As far as being natural phenomena, what may be occurring is some extreme weather that is causing some strange occurrences. The fact that Moses knows ahead of time that these odd things are going to happen is what is key about it. The Nile floods, bringing an abundance of red silt, which makes the water appear to be blood-like. Seven days later, these polluted waters lead to the frogs of the Nile being driven out onto the land. After the frogs die, their piled up dead bodies bring lice (or perhaps "gnats"?). By this time, the flood waters would have receded, and pools of stagnant water near the river would breed flies. All of these flies may have carried the anthrax bacteria, which caused sickness of livestock, and later, boils on the skin of the Egyptians. By this time, several months would have passed, and it would be the season in which hail would fall, destroying some of the crops. The remaining crops would be eaten by locusts blown in from the east, and later the winds would shift, driving away the locusts, but bringing in sand storms which would plunge large areas of the country into darkness. Now some people would rather see these plagues as entirely supernatural, and indeed, they may have been, but this is one possible understanding of them.

So, let's look at specifics. The SAB essentially asks how the magicians are able to turn the Nile into blood when it's already turned. Well, I would assume, as most people seem to, that the magicians found some water elsewhere and turned that water into blood. Later, we see that the magicians can likewise create frogs. I have no idea as to how they were able to differentiate their frogs from Moses' frogs. Perhaps they pulled them out of hats like rabbits? That might explain why they were unable to replicate the gnats (lice?), as I imagine it's a hard trick to pull gnats out of a hat. At this point, as the SAB notes, the magicians give up trying.

In the midst of the plague of flies, we have one of a handful of exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh. Moses explains that the Israelites are commanded to go out into the wilderness to make some sacrifices, and at this point, Pharaoh says okay, but we find out that he's lying. (Later, during a similar exchange, Moses tells Pharaoh that he knows Pharaoh is lying, but will make the plague go away anyway.) The SAB poses the question, "Did God command the Israelites to make burnt offerings?" I think this is an odd question for two reasons. One, it seems to be hardly different from "Does God desire animal sacrifices?" which is posed elsewhere. Two, in the verse where it is first asked in the SAB, there is no mention of "burnt" offerings. The possibility of contradiction is probably well worth mentioning, as it's an important point for believers to note, in my opinion, but I think these are not two separate points. Anyway, I stand on my response to the other question here.

Now this is not the first time I've seen it pointed out that in the fifth plague, all the cattle die, then they die again later twice. Well, you've got to read carefully. Here, and more explicitly in verse 19, there is a warning given that any cattle left outside will die. Although it's certainly not made clear, one might safely assume that some people brought their cattle indoors to spare them. The phrase use here that "all the cattle of Egypt died" is intended not so much to be a statement of totality, but a contrast to "but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one." Oh, and if the SAB will keep this note, it might be considered to add the "Contradiction" icon, as I'm assuming that's the point.

The last note that seems to be worth responding to (I think I've addressed all the other major ones already) is the Absurdity icon labeling verse 10:5. I'd just like to point out that I recall as a kid reading "On the Banks of Plum Creek" (I think it was) by Laura Ingalls Wilder (you know, "Little House on the Prairie"?), in which Laura describes an event much like this that happened in her childhood right here in the Midwest. Severe plagues of locusts really do cover the ground almost completely. Here's a picture I found on Google from 2004.

At the end of the ninth plague, Pharaoh tells Moses to go away, never come before him again on pain of death. Moses points out truthfully that indeed, Pharaoh will never see him again.

Technorati tags: anthrax Bible Biblical interpretation blood boils darkness Egypt Egyptians Exodus flies frogs Genesis gnats God hail Israelites Judaism justice Laura Ingalls Wilder lice Little House on the Prairie livestock locusts miracles Moses murrain Nile River Pharaoh plagues religion sacrifices Skeptics Annotated Bible slavery Torah will of God

That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel (Exodus interlude)

So what is the reason that God gives for deciding to go through such a complicated and difficult process to save the Israelites? Part of it is given here in chapter six, and we see a bit more of it explained in chapter seven. There's a twofold point to all of this, and both parts of it are similar:

Exod. 6:7 "...ye [Israelites] shall know that I am the LORD your God..."
Exod. 7:4 "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD..."

I suppose someone might call it "showing off", and in a sense, they'd not be far from the truth. God doesn't just want to rescue the Israelites, He wants to rescue them while taking the time to drive home a point to everyone involved. Sure, God could have just forced Pharaoh to change his mind about the Israelites, and they could have just walked away, but what would be the result? Aside from the fact that God is forcing someone to change their mind (something that I think is against His basic nature), there is no justice in it, and no lesson for anyone to learn. What lesson should they learn?

Here's a pretty good analogy, I think. Suppose it was God's will for me to get a Master's Degree in Mathematics (something I've been considering pursuing lately). I could check out a college that offered a good program, get accepted, pass the courses, and earn my degree, with all of those actions proceeding smoothly and easily from one moment to the next because God paved the way for me. After it was said and done, I probably wouldn't think to thank God for the series of everyday miracles that brought me there. On the other hand, if I was reluctant to go back to school, and God firmed my resolve not to, I would say with surety, "I'm not going back to school." Then God could strike me with some sort of awful disease, make me lose my job, and have my car stolen. I might ask, "God, have I made a wrong decision? If you want me to go to school, I don't understand, because I need $22,700 dollars to pay for my expenses, and I just don't have it!" The day after praying this, a check arrives in the mail from the IRS for exactly $22,700 saying that they discovered a mistake on some of my previous tax returns. (Not likely, as I've never made enough to pay that much in taxes, I'm pretty sure.) Then I would enroll in school and my disease would clear up, I'd get a new, better job, and my stolen car would be found. "Wow," I'd say, "clearly God is trying to tell me something."

God is trying to tell somebody something here. He's sending a clear message to Pharaoh, Moses, the Israelites, the Egyptians, and a number of neighboring nations that will all see these bizarre miracles. Message? You'd better take the God of Israel seriously.

Now, people ask (as the SAB does in Exodus) whether it's worth killing children to make this statement. It's a question worth asking, no doubt. In my view, the answer to that is, you have to look at the big picture. We, as living beings, are afraid of death. Why? Well, if you don't believe there is an afterlife (or if you believe the afterlife is something generally unpleasant), then there is a sense of loss in having a loved one die. If, however, you believe that there is such a place as Heaven, and specifically that all children who die go there (I may have mentioned this common Christian belief in an earlier post, I'm not sure...), then while killing hundreds, nay thousands of Egyptian children is cruel to the parents of those children, we have no reason to believe that the children themselves suffered in any way. So we are only left with the question of whether the parents deserved to be punished.

I remember reading a bit of an essay by Jean-Paul Sartre several years ago in which he addressed from an entirely atheistic point of view the idea of responsibility of citizens of a nation for the actions that nation takes as a whole. (I probably don't remember it so very well, and I've not read Sartre extensively, so forgive me if I get his ideas not quite right; in the end, I'm making my own point, but isn't a bit of namedropping fun?) Essentially, it doesn't really matter what sort of government you live under--although perhaps in a democracy, you participate more than would those living under a monarchy--if your government commits some atrocity, you are, in part at least, responsible. Don't like the war in Iraq? Too bad, U.S. citizens, your government is waging it in your name. Lived in Germany during the Third Reich? If you stood passively by as millions were gassed in concentration camps, their blood is on your hands as much as the Nazis. The fact is that Pharaoh systematically tried to kill off the Jews, and he wasn't overthrown by an outraged citizenry. The Egyptians were responsible for the deaths of those Israelite children, and the time was about to come upon them when they would receive the comeuppance for it.

Was it cruelty, or was it justice? It's all speculation, and in a sense, it's only God's place to judge. As for myself, though, I see the strong possibility that this was a righteous act on God's part, despite the personal distaste I may have for the result.

Why stand ye here all the day idle? (Exod 5)

The SAB has no notes on chapter 5, but I think there are a few things here that deserve comment. First of all, I've always thought it interesting that Moses' initial demand is not that Pharaoh set the people free, but only to let them go for a few days to freely practice their religion outside of Egypt. At least, that's what it sounds like when I read it. If this is indeed true, then I wonder if Moses is lying to Pharaoh, or if perhaps the intention was just to ask for a little bit at first rather than come right out and ask for it all. If Pharaoh had said yes, would they have come back after three days?

Pharaoh has nothing of it, though, whatever it is that they're asking. Instead, he decides to enact some cruelty on the Israelites by saying essentially, "If you slaves have time enough to waste my day with ridiculous demands, you're clearly not working hard enough," and he gives them more work. This is actually another place where I wonder if we're only getting part of the story, as Pharaoh claims of Moses, "ye make them rest from their burdens." Is he talking about the three or six days off they'd get if he gives in to Moses' demands, or is he making something up, or is there something going on behind the scenes where the people stopped working that day, and they're standing around waiting to hear what response Moses gets? I suppose that the scene later in the chapter in which "the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh" points to them not really knowing what's going on, and therefore, it's not the latter. Still, it could be a matter of a few Israelites hanging around Moses; he had at least Aaron with him, and it seems reasonable speculation that they might have had a small entourage.

Anyway, the people get angry with Moses, and instead of accepting him as their savior, they accuse him of making their lives worse, which after all, he did. And Moses asks God essentially the same question that so many skeptics ask: Why does all of this have to be done the hard way? And in Chapter 6, God gives the only answer we ever really get, like it or not.

What profit is there of circumcision? (Exod 4:13-31)

After more than a bit of hemming and hawing, Moses finally agrees to his task, so long as God sends his brother Aaron to help him. After settling the matter, Moses returns to his father-in-law (whose naming inconsistencies I discussed a few posts back) and tells him he's going back to Egypt.

On his way to Egypt, God warns Moses that Pharaoh is going to be stubborn about the whole thing, and refuse to let the Israelites leave. This leads to one of the stranger issues of the Exodus story: Did God make Pharaoh's heart hard, and if so, why? The SAB points out both an apparent contradiction and an injustice here, but I think that it's the two put together that really explain what's going on. The thing is, it's actually a larger theme throughout the Bible that whatever a person wants to be, God will enable them to be that way. Pharaoh was the one who was stubborn, and since he was stubborn, God not only allowed him to stay stubborn, but gave further supernatural firmness to his resolve not to let the Israelites go. Was Pharaoh the one who hardened his heart, or did God do it? Both. Was this unfair? Maybe. It was what Pharaoh wanted anyway, so perhaps not unfair to him personally, but in the grander scheme of things, the question may still be up in the air.

Case in point, just a couple verses down we see that the end result is that Pharaoh's son will die. In fact later on, every firstborn male child of the Egyptians will die. Is this fair? Fair is a subjective thing in this world, and it makes it hard to answer the SAB's claims of injustice. (Somewhere back in the archives, I know there's a post where Steve Wells has many comments on the matter. Maybe I was thinking of this one?) A couple things come to mind in this case, however. First of all, Pharaoh is given plenty of warning that judgment is coming; probably more than any other individual in the Bible. "Hey Pharaoh, let us go or else your son will die. Just in case you think I'm kidding, here's nine plagues to help you mull it over." Second of all, remember that about eighty years back, the Egyptians had perpetrated acts of Genocide against the Israelites. Pharaoh killed all the sons of God's people, so God decides to kill a portion of their sons in retribution. Perhaps this is justice?

The last little story that needs to be addressed here is the story of verses 23-25. Frankly, it's a tough one to address. First and foremost, the SAB refers to it as absurd, and that's probably a good label for it. Moses has not circumcised his sons, for some reason this is a problem that gets him in trouble, and before you know it, foreskins are a-flyin'! What is going on here? Some scholars have suggested that Moses was unaware of the need for circumcising his kids until he met God on the mountain. After being made aware of the need for it, he didn't bother to take care of the matter, being worried that it would slow down his return to Egypt, perhaps making his sons unable to walk, or at least putting them at risk for infection. This would show a lack of faith on Moses' part, which would have to be dealt with. For some reason his wife takes care of it in the end, calling him a "bloody husband" because...?

Okay, for the most part I've been avoiding reading other people's commentaries on these matters before making my posts, but I'll admit that I read someone else's commentary on this very matter, and I liked what he said. Whatever the heck this passage means, it's pretty much incomprehensible to us today. There is something cultural going on here which was significant for Moses and Zipporah, but probably not so important to us. Maybe it meant something to the ancient Israelites as well. Probably. I'm letting this one go and moving on.

Jesus saith unto them, I am (Exod 3)

Having just addressed the issue of the proper name of Moses' father-in-law in my previous post, I can turn to the big issue here that the SAB overlooked in this chapter: How the heck can a bush be burning and yet not consumed? That goes against the known laws of physics and chemistry! Pardon me, this should be a short post, so I thought I might as well throw in some sarcasm to point out that I'm never quite clear how Bible skeptics pick and choose which miracles to accept and which to doubt. For instance, as a peek ahead, I see in chapter 14 that parting the Red Sea is left without comment, but having the wheels fall off the Egyptian chariots is considered absurd. Perhaps Steve Wells is commenting on the Lord's great love of slapstick comedy? Actually, the SAB does comment on the burning bush, but merely to remark that it's absurd that God would speak through it. I'm not sure why this would be, aside from the fact that sometimes I think it absurd that God would bother to speak with us at all.

While there aren't a lot of notes in the SAB to respond to for this chapter, there are a number of notable things in this dialogue between Moses and God. For one thing, Moses is clearly not happy to be sent back to Egypt, and keeps coming up with excuses not to do it, but God convinces him to do it. The other notable thing is the exchange in verses 13 and following, in which God identifies Himself as "I AM". It's of course fairly widely believed that God's name in the Old Testament, which is rendered in the Hebrew something like "YHVH", is derived from a form of the phrase "I am", which is similar in form.

On verse 16, the SAB poses the question, "Has anyone ever seen God?" I responded to this in a previous post, and while I admit that answer may not be highly satisfying for many, it's about all I've got. Maybe I'll expand on it sometime. (Or maybe I already did in another post, and forgot since then?)

The final verse has a very interesting foreshadowing--well, actually, it's more than foreshadowing, isn't it? The verse says that essentially, the Hebrews are going to steal a lot of stuff on their way out of Egypt. Is this a right thing to do?

First of all, I'd like to examine the words used here, both "borrow" and "spoil". "Borrow" is a word both in English and the original Hebrew that indicates that whatever they take is going to be asked for first. These women are not going to simply go over to their neighbors and take stuff, they're going to ask. However, the sense of "borrow" that implies it will eventually be given back certainly does not apply. Whatever they take when they go, they're certainly keeping.

As for the word "spoil", I think the true meaning of this word in Hebrew will illustrate the real point of God's will here. While there is definitely a sense intended of "spoil" in the more usual fashion of taking by force and leaving in ruin (and indeed, even the NIV translates this word as "plunder"), I think it interesting that this word in no other place in the Bible (besides the two passages quoted in Exodus) is translated "spoil". It is far more likely to be translated as "deliver" or "recover", the implication being, in just about every case, that someone is taking something away because in reality, they have it coming to them.

The Israelites served the nation of Egypt as slaves for about 400 years, and this is just their way of getting "back pay" if you will. It's like the concept of "reparations" that's been discussed from time to time here in America, which I think is a good idea in theory, but at this time in our history, difficult to put into practice. For all those people in our nation's history who used the Bible to justify their right to own slaves, it's a damned shame that none of them seemed to pay much attention to Deuteronomy 15:12-14, in which it is made clear that a slave was only to be owned for six years, at the end of which he was not only to be released, but paid liberally for the six years of service you received from him. Most people seem to miss this vital aspect of Biblical slavery, which makes it very different from our modern understanding of the practice.

(Note: On the SAB page on slavery, I notice that Deut. 15:9-10 is quoted, but that particular verse is not actually about slavery, but about loaning money. In that context, the "year of release" while yes, also being the year of release from slavery, is actually the year of release from debt, and God is saying, "Don't think you'll get out of having to take care of the poor just because you suspect they'll never pay you back.")

At that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. (Exod 2)

Ack! I can't seem to ever get back to this, I've been so busy lately, and yet I feel like I've gotten very little done in my personal life. (And then Blogger.com was experiencing some difficulties for a while.) I can relate being busy in this way to the story, though. I gotta admit I've often wondered at the amount of busy-work God gave Moses. Most of what's accomplished in this book and the ones following seem like they could have been done much simpler and faster than they were, but no dice. I guess God has his reasons for it, though, and perhaps we'll get into some of them.

So, the background for our story having been set up, we now introduce the baby who will grow up to be our main character in the next few books: Moses. The SAB points out that the story of Moses' childhood bears a strong resemblance to that of Sargon the great, an old Babylonian king. As the link provided points out, however, such stories are actually very common, and not just in a literary sense, but perhaps in a very real sense. Note that Pharaoh's daughter, upon discovering the child, immediately realizes that he's a Hebrew baby; it may have been not so uncommon for Hebrew women to do this sort of thing in the days of Moses' childhood.

Actually, in a more general sense, I've heard many pastors make the claim about stories in other religions that are similar to the stories of the Bible that, "Satan is good at making counterfeits." The idea behind this belief is that when you hear about a pagan god who was born of a virgin, or a Babylonian king who was set float in a basket, or the Buddha who, having been born into a royal family, forfeited his earthly kingdom to begin a new religion, the similarities are actually deceptions to distract people from the truths of the Biblical accounts. If you believe in the supernatural, this explanation makes a lot of sense, actually, although it's not necessarily true. If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it hardly matters, but perhaps you can see the logic in it, or at the very least why it's an appealing explanation. In any case, it's not unheard of for two different important historical personages to have similarities in their life stories, is it? (For instance, the second and third U.S. Presidents both died of natural causes on July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of American independence. Sounds mythical, but it's apparently true. Go figure.)

Anyway, Moses is raised among the Egyptian royalty, but it seems despite what the movie Prince of Egypt (I highly recommend it) would tell us, he did know where he came from. Thus, in his adulthood, he one day killed an Egyptian slavemaster, and hid the body. Yes, Moses was a murderer, and the fact that he was the chosen deliverer of Israel didn't make it less of a sin. Afraid once he realized that the murder wasn't a secret as he had hoped, Moses fled the country. Now the SAB calls this a contradiction with a later verse, but I think it's a matter of time scale. At this time in the story Moses feared Pharaoh, but later on, when he knew he was on a mission from God, that fear evaporated. Indeed later in his life, Moses is very bold in standing up to Pharaoh.

After fleeing into the wilderness, Moses meets up with the daughters of the priest of Midian, named here as being "Reuel". The SAB points out a contradiction here that is actually one I've heard a few times, that being that Moses' father in law keeps being called by many names. I have both the standard interpretation of what's going on here, and my own viewpoint that I came up with just the other day. The standard interpretation is that "Jethro" (which is certainly the correct name) also at times went by the name "Reuel", and that "Hobab" is actually Moses' brother-in-law. This latter point indicates that while Judges 4:11 is either an actual mistake or at the least, badly written, the problem with Numbers 10:29 is that the SAB only quotes the verse in part. The full clause that begins that verse reads, "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law,..." Now "Raguel" is actually "Reuel" in Hebrew, and I have no idea why the KJV spells it different in this verse, and unless there is someone out there reading this who knows Hebrew better than I do and knows why it must be otherwise, I think it's more than reasonable to assume "Moses' father in law" refers to "Raguel the Midianite," and not the preceding.

My own theories I put forth as possibilities are as follows. Note that "Reuel" means "friend of God". I believe that it is a possibility that Reuel is not just another name that Jethro occasionally used, but his priestly title. The other possibility goes back to the recurring theme in the Bible that the term "grandfather" is never used. It may be that at the time Moses comes to Midian at first, Reuel is the high priest, and these young women are actually Reuel's granddaughters. Years later, when Moses returns to Egypt, Reuel has died, and Jethro is now the high priest, having inherited the position from his father Reuel. I think any of these three explanations is sufficient to explain this issue, apart from Judges 4:11, which is a mystery to me.

The last issue brought up in this chapter is whether or not God "respects" anyone. Aside from my response to this issue in general in a previous post, I would like to say here that there may be another intended meaning of this word in the original Hebrew. If you look at what the word means, it seems that what's happening is that God is turning His full attention to their plight.

And afterward shall they come out with great substance (Exod 1)

I hope everyone had a lovely holiday season, whatever holiday you may have been celebrating, or if you at least hopefully got some time off of work or school. I was really quite busy myself, although obviously not with this blog. So, it's a new year, and time to start a new book. In the absence of any feedback at this time, I guess I'll just go on to Exodus for now, and see how this goes.

The first few verses of Exodus are a very short recap of the end of Genesis, and the SAB draws our attention to the inconsistency in verse five that I addressed in a previous post. Then, as a segue into the present time (of the story), we are told that in the intervening time, the nation of Israel grew quite large. The SAB marks this as ridiculous, apparently because we're talking about a span of about 400 years and a growth from about 100 people (70 men plus some wives) to "several million" (603,505 men plus their wives and children). I'm not sure why this is ridiculous, but there is also the "Science and History" icon given next to this comment, which I suppose is to give us a clue as to what's involved. If the issue is that it ought to be scientifically possible, then I don't quite get it. If the Israelites are fairly healthy and fertile, then increasing their population to a few million in 400 years doesn't seem impossible at all. Maybe someone who thinks so might be able to explain their math to me.

If the issue is the lack of historic evidence of millions of Israelites, then that's a whole other issue, and one that I ought to address at this time. I may have said it before, but it's certainly worth repeating that in matters of history, I'm far from an expert. I'm not going to be able to address most issues relating to inconsistency between Biblical and extrabiblical history, and it's at this point in the Bible where that will hinder me more than a bit in dealing with the SAB, I'm sure. All the stuff in Genesis largely happened before there was much in the way of written history, so we might as well take the Bible's word on those matters. Now, we've come to a time when things are happening that we'd expect to be recorded outside of the Bible. One thing I have heard is that the events of the Exodus ought to have been recorded in Egypt's history, but there is little or no evidence for any of it. It may be that the Egyptians chose not to record it out of embarrassment. It may be that the records of the events were simply lost. It may be that they were recorded in a manner that is simply unrecognizable since both the Egyptians and the Israelites put their own personal spins on the events. Or of course, it may have simply not happened. (You can probably guess that I am particularly opposed to this view.)

On the one hand, lack of evidence for something does not imply evidence against it. On the other hand, with events of the sort of scale being described in this book, the lack of historical record is undoubtedly suspicious; I won't pretend that's not true. I suppose the only thing I can hope for is that readers of the Bible, whether believers or not, will keep an open and analytical mind on the matters presented therein.

(I remember some time ago there was some excitement that some chariot wheels were discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea. A number of people latched on to the story and cited it as proof positive that the events of the book of Exodus were true in their entirely. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to think up at least two ways chariot wheels could end up at the bottom of the sea without appealing to God's wrath, as well as figuring out why, even if those wheels are from the army that chased the Israelites, it proves nothing about this book whatsoever.)

Okay, rest of the chapter... I notice the SAB has no note on a matter that's always bothered me: verse 15. Although it doesn't explicitly say so, and as such we can't say for sure that it was the case, it sure sounds like the entire nation of at least one million people has only two midwives. If so, these two women must have been awfully busy! Among the things they were busy with was lying to Pharaoh. The SAB notes that God rewards the midwives for lying to Pharaoh, calling it a contradiction. I strongly disagree. I think most people would agree, and the Bible seems to support this as well, that while lying is indeed a sin, there are times when lying is a preferable sin to the alternative. Let's see, they could lie to Pharaoh, or they could kill babies; hmmm...? Really, I think it's a no-brainer. (The SAB has a whole page on lying, and mostly because of this reason, I think I only have a problem with one of the verses cited.)

All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law (Luke 2:21-52)

I'm a bit bummed because I started this post yesterday to get a head start, but my computer crashed, and I lost it. I always hate writing things twice; I don't even like making drafts and revisions. No matter...

So, after Mary's time of purification has passed--and yes, even in giving birth to the Son of God, she has to go through this as a law-abiding Jew--the family heads out to Jerusalem to present the boy at the Temple and have him dedicated. Luckily, Jerusalem is very close to Bethlehem. Now despite the claim in the SAB that "Males are holy to God, not females" I think there is a misunderstanding of this passage. It's a reference to Exodus 13, of course, and while I see that yes, it's a males-only thing, I don't think that means that females are not of use to God. Call it sexist if you will, but generally, the husband is the head of the household, and the firstborn son will be the chief heir. I don't believe that this means that all the females and other males are of no import, but rather in sanctifying the firstborn son, the parents are in a sense saying that they dedicate their whole family to God. It also has a lot to do with the last of the plagues of Egypt as one can see from reading the Exodus passage, but that's another issue I'll hopefully get to in a few weeks.

Note in verse 24 that Jesus' parents bring two birds as the offering of purification at the Temple. A small detail that tells us something when we look to the passage linked to in yesterday's post: Mary and Joseph were not wealthy.

At the Temple, they meet two interesting people. The first is Simeon, some sort of aged prophet, apparently. The SAB finds oddity in two points mentioned about this man. One, that he was "just", since the Bible says in Ecclesiastes that there is no "just" man. While this was discussed before back when I covered Genesis 6 and 9 in regards to the specific case of Noah, I'll restate it here so that extensive re-reading isn't necessary. There are some characteristics of individuals in the Bible that the Bible explains in ways that seem contradictory, but are summed up by Jesus' statement, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." No man is "just" or "righteous" by his own doing, but can be made so by the will of God.

Which leads to oddity number two: that "the Holy Ghost was upon" Simeon. If you ask me, the SAB page that notes the oddities of the appearance of the Holy Ghost is missing out on one of the more interesting happenings of this sort, namely 1Samuel 10:10, in which the Holy Ghost comes upon King Saul shortly after he is anointed King of Israel. Actually, this isn't even the first time, as this happens a few times in the book of Judges, to Moses and the elders of Israel and even to Balaam in the book of Numbers. Pharaoh also claims that the Spirit is upon Joseph, but this may not necessarily mean anything of the same sort. Of course, the Spirit of God goes all the way back to the very beginning of the Bible, but the operative question here is what does it mean for the Spirit of God/Holy Ghost to be "given to"/"upon"/"filling" a person. Admittedly, this is not 100% clearly explained in the Bible. However, it is something that is fairly well understood within basic Christian theology. While the Spirit did indeed come before Jesus' resurrection at certain times unto certain people, the idea here of the Spirit being "given" to Jesus' followers is that there will not be an occasional moment of the Spirit coming upon them and causing them to momentarily become more spiritual, but that the Spirit will "dwell in you [which are in Christ Jesus]." Once the Holy Ghost was "given" to the church, all believers supposedly have this Spirit living within them on a constant basis. That's the difference.

The other interesting character that they meet at the Temple is Anna, an aged prophetess. (See? Even women can be prophets. God does have use for women as well.) Anna is rather interesting as she is the only other woman besides Sarah whose age is mentioned. Both Simeon and Anna recognize the child Jesus as being the Messiah, and give praise to God for the chance to see Him.

And now we come to verse 39, a verse I didn't get to yesterday when I was writing my last post. Foolish, I should always remember context is important! Still, I don't think a revision is needed of yesterday's comments, only further commentary. The question is, what's the sequence of events and locations in the lives of Mary and Joseph shortly after Jesus' birth? Did they stay in Bethlehem for a while? Did they spend some time in Egypt, and when? Did they go right back to Nazareth as soon as possible? Were they actually in Nazareth before Jesus was born? There are actually numerous possible ways to answer these that fit in fine with the stories here and in Matthew. First, let me answer in a way that fits with my statements of my last post for continuity's sake. I claimed yesterday that this young couple remained in Bethlehem for a couple years, settling down in a house and living a normal life until the Magi came and God told them to flee to Egypt. The only reason that would contradict verse 39 is if you assume two things that are not explicitly stated there. One, that "all things according to the law of the Lord" refers only to the purification and Temple visit, and therefore represents a small number of actions that last a little over a month. Two, that the sentence overall implies an immediacy of action. On the first matter it may be pointed out that in Matthew's story he indicates several Old Testament passages that are taken to be prophetic of Jesus' childhood. That being the case, "all things according to the law of the Lord" may also refer to the brief sojourn on Egypt, both because it was supposedly prophesied and because it was directly commanded by God in a dream to Joseph. (Interesting parallels here to another Joseph who took his family into Egypt based on God's leading in dreams. That Joseph's family was brought back into the land of Canaan by a certain man named Joshua, who in Greek would be called "Jesus".) On the second matter, it's simply not there. Even if the first part is true and this verse is referring only to Mary's purification, two years later they still "had performed" those things. Luke has left out part of the story, but he's not outright contradicting Matthew. Another possibility that exists if you do make those two assumptions is that the Magi actually came to Nazareth! While one can and should assume that the Magi went to Bethlehem to find Jesus, if He wasn't there when they came, they surely wouldn't have quit after what was probably quite a long journey; they would ask where Jesus could be found, and perhaps someone could direct them to the Galilee region. That's iffy though, and I like my personal explanation better. Other possibilities probably exist.

The chapter ends with a story of Jesus at age 12. Being just short of coming of age, (at his 13th birthday according to Jewish tradition) He and His family are in Jerusalem for Passover. When the family leaves, they don't notice immediately that Jesus is not with them. They find Him at the Temple, talking with a number of scholars about the law. His parents scold Him for getting lost, but He replies "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" At coming of age, many Jewish boys at the time apparently go into the family business. While Jesus' earthly father was a "carpenter", He of course was interested in being about the business of his Heavenly Father.

The final verse is indeed an odd one, as is noted in the SAB. "How could an omniscient being 'increase in wisdom?' And how could God increase 'in favour with God?' " Good questions! There are a couple aspects to this. On one hand, theologians are not in 100% agreement on whether Jesus was omniscient. There were apparently at least a few things that He didn't know, so it seems that He was not. How much did He know? Did He actually have things to learn? Maybe. The other aspect of this though is that while Jesus was supposedly born perfect, there was also a matter of Him continuing in His perfection throughout his life. One would assume that he had the ability to sin and do wrong, or else why would Satan have bothered to tempt Him? Even if Jesus is omniscient in knowing all facts, He may have had things to learn through personal experience, and He may have simply increased the wisdom of those he came in contact with, thus vicariously increasing in "wisdom and stature" through others. And thus, He would serve to please God the Father by His actions in addition to the internal goodness that was intrinsic to Him.