Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Exod 4:1-12)

Okay, here's the post I've been working on for quite some time (although not constantly by any means) I didn't really finish all I was going to say, but I made a couple decisions regarding it for the sake of moving forward when I've nearly taken a month and a half after my last post. First of all, I reminded myself that I don't have to do a whole chapter at once; most of these posts are a bit too long anyway. So I'm not going to answer all the issues from chapter 4 in this post, but break it into two. Secondly, the theological issue that I'm really having a hard time responding to is really in my opinion not so much a problem with the Bible text, which I've been trying to focus on in this blog, but rather a subject within a theological discussion. As such, the response to the issue the text itself raises directly can be answered much more simply than the way I answer it below and be "good enough" for my purposes here, but it can also be delved into much more deeply in a different context. I may make a post in my other blog for it, and if I do, I'll come back and add a link to the specific post.

The SAB has two pages on the subject of "magic", and I'm not sure why. That is to say, I'm not sure why two pages when both pages have the same information and verses (perhaps it has something to do with the structure of the website overall that I've missed up until now), and actually I'm not even sure why one page. To take the three passages quoted on those pages as pro-"magic" is, in my personal view, a bit of a stretch. While I can see where the idea comes from in a general sense, I'd say that in particular the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "magic" as a noun in no way fits any of these three verses. (Oddly enough, I'd say either of the two definitions given for the adjective form might apply, but that's neither here nor there.)

Quibbling over definitions aside, the word "magic" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the KJV. Claiming these verses are about "magic" is imposing a categorization on these things that the Bible doesn't adhere to. Aside from the 2 Kings 18:3-4 verse, which is clearly not about magic in any sense if you read the whole of it (it's about idolatry), these verses break down into two very clear categories. The things in the left column are all "miracles", a term that's never very easy to define precisely in philosophy. The things in the right column are not. It might be worthwhile to study the Hebrew words behind the terms in the right column if I find the time to add it on to this post later, but the simple answer that a Christian gave me in high school (over a different issue, and before I was a Christian) is that supernatural power either comes from God, or it comes from somewhere evil. In real life, it may be difficult to be sure whether something is a "miracle" or "magic", but I think probably 95% of the time something supernatural happens in the Bible, it only takes a little common sense to see which the author intended it to be.

I've just responded to "Can God be seen?" in yesterday's post, so I get to skip down to verse 11, where the SAB brings up some excellent theological issues that books and books could be written on, and I'm sure have been. First of all, I'd like to note that in this particular verse, God is speaking with a bit of poetical/rhetorical device. He's not "bragging" or even setting up a theological point, only saying to Moses in a fancy manner, "Look buddy, don't talk to me about your tongue; I invented tongues, alright?" That point made, the greater question remains.

Is God responsible for deafness, blindness, and other handicaps? Well, there's not a simple yes or no answer to that for various reasons. On the grandest scale, there's a sense in which, since God created everything that exists, then He's responsible for everything. I think that perspective is a little too "big picture", though, as it means you can answer every question about pretty much anything with, "God did it," and while it may be technically true, it's not a useful explanation of much at all. In the Mark 9 passage quoted by the SAB, it should probably be noted that simply because a person says that someone has a handicap or illness due to "spirits" of some sort does not make it so; yet in this case it's true that Jesus not only does not correct the man, but essentially verifies his assumptions by His words in vv. 25 and 29. So, according to the Bible, there is at least one person who was made deaf and dumb due to an evil spirit's influence, that's granted; it does not mean that this one case proves that all deafness is caused by evil spirits, however. So if there is a contradiction to be found in these verses, it must be in the Exodus verse. If the Exodus verse said that all deafness, etc. is made by God and nobody else, then this would be a contradiction, but it does not. In fact, I'm not sure it says He makes it at all. It says that He makes "the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind". These are not states of being, but people who happen to exist in a state of being. The child in Mark 9 was not among "the deaf" when he was originally made by God, but a spirit changed him to be so, apparently.

So the point in the end is, when a person has a handicap, there are a number of possible reasons it may have occurred, and it really has little to do with what this passage is really saying.

And called their name Adam (Gen 5)

This is going to be fun, since despite the large number of notes in chapter 5 of the SAB, most of them are of the same nature, and so I think we can dispense of this whole chapter in one post. Let's see...

The first point that the SAB brings up is the verse I've used for the title here. "So the woman's name was Adam, too!" The SAB notes as an absurdity. Well, the answer is, "Yes." Sure, it's not something you get from a surface reading of the KJV, but most people know that "Adam" is the Hebrew word for "man", so in a symbolic sense and in a very real sense, we are all "Adam."

As I noted before, the Bible can admittedly be a bit sexist when it comes to details, and daughters are indeed very rarely mentioned. So while verse 4 contains the first mention of daughters, there may actually have been various children of both genders before Seth was born. I myself had often assumed that this genealogy was mentioning firstborns only, and that they were coincidentally only sons, but what's really very likely going on here is we're tracing the male lineage of Noah from Adam. Sons not in the lineage and all daughters are not worth mentioning by name apparently. Even Noah's wife and three daughters-in-law aren't named despite their apparent importance to the story that unfolds after this.

So the big repeated note throughout this chapter is essentially, "Man, these guys sure lived to be pretty old!" I've heard a lot of theories about why these guys had such extended lifespans, and suffice it to say that most of them boil down to simply being so soon after the fall. They were living in a world that was new and fresh, and there probably weren't all the modern problems of disease that we have in modern times. Most theologians do believe that Adam was created to be immortal, so it took some time before the system really broke down and people started dying of natural causes. Whatever it is going on here, we'll see a contrast in the next genealogy. While having no particular value, I nonetheless present a little diagram I threw together last week when I was looking ahead at this chapter:

Enoch is an odd one, isn't he? The SAB has a lot to say about him, and indeed, he's strange. Let me address the three questions raised by the SAB in response to Enoch's story.

(1) Must everyone die? I suppose the SAB ought to have included the references to the prophet Elijah that it did in the second question here. (And it might have considered even discussing some odd interpretations of John 21:22 that are out there.) Yes, there are in fact two people in the Bible that didn't die: Enoch and Elijah. This coming despite the two verses quoted in the right-hand column. While the verses on the left are in some cases misunderstood, I'm going to focus on those two right-hand verses. When the Bible says "...death passed upon all men," we have to realize that there is room for exceptions. If there are a bunch of people going to sea in a leaky boat, and you say to them, "Everyone in that boat is going to drown," that doesn't mean that they can't get out of the boat and be safe. For whatever reason, Enoch and Elijah were allowed to "get out of the boat" if you will. The second verse is another matter that, if indeed a skeptic were to reject my reasoning here, the SAB needs to add some more notes to passages like John 11. Not only do we have a couple folks (at least) who don't die at all, but contrary to being "appointed unto men once to die," we have about half a dozen people in the Bible that die more than once, Lazarus being simply the best-known of the bunch. The real sense of this verse, as taken by theologians and run-of-the-mill Christians, is that under normal circumstances, people have one physical death to look forward to. The Bible gives us less than ten people that have non-normal circumstances in regards to the matter of death, so that's well over 99.99% of the world conforming to a literal interpretation of Hebrews 9:27.

(2) Has anyone ever ascended into heaven? This is a simpler one. My take on this is that nobody has ascended into Heaven and thereafter given testimony of it on earth. We do know that two people ascended to Heaven, and in fact, a lot of others ascended after their death, but what Jesus is saying in John 3:13 is that if you're looking for someone to tell you what Heaven is like, you've got nobody other than Jesus with that firsthand knowledge. (Of course, the SAB could consider this verse next to 2Cor. 12, although it describes an event after Jesus left.)

(3) Was Enoch the seventh from Adam? Yes, if you count Adam as #1, which is not at all unreasonable to do.

As a last note for this chapter, I'd like to take a side trip into Hebrew and talk about the meaning of these names. Maybe you've heard this before, I find it all fascinating. We know from the text that "Seth" means "appointed", and "Noah" means "comfort". The other names all mean something as well. The most interesting name on the list is probably Methuselah, whose name some have said means "his death will bring it." Methuselah died the same year as the flood.

Then Israel sang this song (Biblical language)

Okay, one last post about context before I really start with specifics. Or at least I hope I'm done; I'll give myself the weekend to ponder the matter.

There are two things to keep in mind about the Bible as you're reading it.

First of all, you have to take each piece of the Bible as it was intended to be read. The Bible is full of different styles of writing, and each style has different purposes. The majority of the Bible is in four styles: historic, epistle, prophecy, and poem. There are others, I think, but this is what I remember off the top of my head. Type one is most of the Old Testament through the book of Esther, and the New Testament Gospels and Acts. Type two is the rest of the NT excluding most of the book of Revelation, and bit of the OT here and there. Type three is most of the OT after Song of Solomon, and the bulk of the Book of Revelation. The last type is scattered about here and there, but most of the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.

Why are these so important to understand? Well, in particular, the last two types largely use symbolic language, and are far less likely to be intended for taking literally. Poems will use a lot of flowery imagery that one is not intended to take literally at all, while prophecy is often filled with bizarre images and personifications of nations and social concepts. When Daniel is seeing multiple-headed beasts rise out of the sea to spew filth from their mouths and cast nations into the bottomless pit or whatever, you're not meant to assume there is a literal interpretation of this probably 99% of the time. It's pictures of concepts with its own coded language that unfortunately isn't always easy to understand. In a poem, if the LORD holds the world in the palm of His hand, we need to know that God doesn't have a real hand, nor is anyone really holding the world; it's also a symbol, but usually one easier to understand, and not so deep in symbolism. I may get back to this subject in a later post, most likely when I get to passages of these types.

Secondly, despite what a few odd people seem to believe, the Bible is not a science textbook. One of the most well-known examples of this is Leviticus 11:13-19. Aha! the skeptic thinks, a bat is not a bird! Actually, it is, and this is why. I'll make mention of it when I go through Genesis 1, but in the system of classifying animals in the Bible, there are just a handful of catgories. If it swims, it's a "fish", regardless of whether it has gills, scales, flippers, etc. If it walks on land, it's either a "beast" or a "creature that creepeth," whatever that's supposed to mean. And of course, if it flies, it's a "bird".

While many of us are likely to scoff at this system of classification, one only need look at our own culture to see that we do the same thing. The most prominent place we do it is in nutrition. When we talk about foods, we classify them in a completely different way than zoologists and botanists do. Tomatoes, cucumbers, pumpkins, peppers, and a number of other food items are fruit, but we don't call them fruit, because we think of fruit as a nutritional classification. I've actually seen diets that classify Coca-cola as a fruit, believe it or not! More specific to the sort of classification listed above, though, is the fact that we have things like "jellyfish" that are called by the name "-fish", but aren't truly fish in the technical sense. Generally, these and other things of a scientific nature are rather arbitrary and determined by culture, so we have to look at the information through the cultural lens of an ancient Hebrew.

Now, to leave a parting thought to contradict these two items in an odd way, I think it's interesting that the closest the Bible comes to being scientific is in the writings of Solomon, which happen to be among the most poetic of the whole book. Go figure. I'm sure I'll end up talking about that if I get to it eventually.