Which go a whoring after their idols (Isaiah 57)

Isaiah chapter 57 has a lot of notes on it, one of which I know I addressed before, but I'm having a hard time finding. No matter, I can address the question of Has there ever been a righteous person? by referring to my post on 2Samuel 22 where I explained that the word "righteous" is used a bit loosely in the Bible overall and can mean different things. However, the question of Will the righteous flourish? is really not a contradiction, as even those who do flourish will eventually die; that's just life. I think the verse here is just saying there's something sad about the perishing of the righteous in particular.

Verse three addresses the "sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore." Yeah, it's harsh, although I'm not really clear on why this is a verse to be marked with the "women" icon; I suppose sorceresses and whores are women (checking the Hebrew, "adulterer" is also feminine, so I don't know why it isn't "adulteress"), but the issue with them is not their femininity. I mean, since we're apparently addressing the "sons" of these women, it's not like you get to choose your parentage, but perhaps these are metaphorical "sons" who are engaged in similar behaviors? It does go on to talk about idolatry in verses five through eight, where the sexual imagery may be metaphorical or literal, as some idols were of sex goddesses, but sexuality and spirituality are often closely linked in scripture. Verse nine is probably closely related to these verses, with the idea of seducing the king into idolatry as well. I addressed the subject of Is it OK to use perfume? in John chapter 12, where I suggested it's a stretch to call it a contradiction.

The rest of the chapter is perhaps a bit opaque, as it's not fully clear who it's being addressed to, but I'm guessing Israel, with respect to the idol worship. God calls them to remember how he is faithful, and how idols are not. Verse 15 is interesting because it talks about how God lives "in the high and holy place" with those who are humble; could this be an Old Testament reference to Heaven as an afterlife? I don't know; it could be talking about the Temple, possibly. The chapter ends with a warning that there is no peace for the wicked.

David did that which was right (2Samuel 22)

One important thing to say about 2Samuel chapter 22 is that it's out of chronological order. It's been a while since I read 2Samuel, but I seem to recall the last few chapters are a bit of a muddle, and while I don't know about the scholarly consensus on this, I've always suspected that they were added on later. This may make sense of a few issues in the text.

So this is pretty much a psalm. There's going to be some poetic license. There's a lot of flowery speech about God's nostrils and riding on cherubs. Has there ever been a righteous person? Yes, but there is some subjectivity in the term "righteous" that muddies the water here. Sometimes we're talking about being completely righteous and innocent before God, that is, a person has not personally sinned. Sometimes the word "righteous" is used to describe something that a person seeking righteousness will do. Also, the Jewish concept of being "righteous" was largely different than the Christian concept, although there is overlap. The Christian doctrine of "original Sin" suggested that being fully righteous could only be attained through a positional righteousness with respect to Christ, nonetheless Jewish understanding of righteousness was also in part about attempting to grow closer to God. That being said, there's something about being "righteous" that is largely about trying to do right in both religious traditions, although sometimes the term is used to refer to someone who is completely blameless. See? Clear as mud! So, as for the "No" verses: As I've said before, Job is not a theologian, and he's talking from a place of great despair throughout his book. Isaiah is probably talking about the current state of the people of Israel, although many people do interpret this verse to be a universal decree, which is not necessarily a problem; compared to God, humans' acts of righteousness are comparatively "filthy rags." The verse in Isaiah chapter 41 may be similar, but it's worth noting overall that Isaiah has verses on both sides here, so it's unlikely his intentions are contradictory, especially since it appears that even just earlier in chapter 41 Isaiah is talking about "the righteous man". Romans 3:10 is Paul quoting from Psalm 14, which is translated differently in the KJV, and I believe is hyperbole, but Paul is trying to make a point about the law, and the impossibility of man fulfilling it, therefore full righteousness is only truly possible through the grace of God.

Did David sin? Of course he did, but yes, this deserves some examining. Probably the number one thing to say about David is that generally, people don't consider killing people in the course of warfare to be a sin; it's pretty clear David didn't. That's not the source of the contradiction, however. Yes, David sinned in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, and he at least felt that he had sinned in performing a census, although the latter is less clear. I believe that this chapter was written before Bathsheba, so while realistically, it's unlikely David was perfect, he had no significant sins at the time this was written. On the other hand, 1Kings was definitely written after David sinned, so what can be said? Something that is very important with respect to sin in God's eyes is repentance, which David was genuinely very good at in all the instances where he was called out. In the Jewish Law, when one sins, if one then repents and gives the proper sacrifice, then one is following the Law. It's really for this reason that David is often brought up as an example of righteousness; not because he was perfect, but because he sought the will of God.

The SAB marks other matters in this psalm with a number of things that are subjective, except for violence, but once again, we're talking about warfare, and scientific issues, but as I've said many times before, in poetry, there's a lot of flowery speech that isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren (John 5:19-47)

The rest of John chapter five is a big flowery speech by Jesus about himself, which is what a lot of the book of John is comprised of.

Does Jesus judge people? This is going to be a very complicated answer to what is honestly a very straightforward question. Jesus, in his time on earth living as a human prophet and Messiah, didn't come to judge; nonetheless, after Jesus's death on the cross and ascension, he was put into a place of authority to judge the dead. So, when it says that the Father gave Jesus authority to judge, this is what it is referring to: that Jesus, having been judged on behalf of humanity for their sin, is in a special position to judge. When Jesus says, "For judgment I am come into this world," he is talking about how his ultimate purpose in life was to be sacrificed to attain that position. So, Jesus doesn't judge people in his life, but in his death.

Is death final? Well, in the sense of whether one comes back to life after dying, yes, there are very few exceptions. But in the sense of whether bodily death means the end of an individual's experience, the answer is no, there is an afterlife. So, to address the verses that say yes... Joshua 23:14 isn't making a claim about the finality of death, only that everyone dies. All of the verses from Job are just Job's personal reflection from a limited point of view; Job is neither a prophet nor a theologian. Psalm 6:5 needs context, as in reading it alone, I misunderstood what it was talking about, which is the suggestion that after one dies, one has no relationship with God. While David was considered a prophet, that doesn't mean he understood everything, and the Old Testament doesn't talk much on the afterlife, so David had no solid basis to believe in one (although 2Samuel 12:23 "I shall go to him [my dead son]" is somewhat suggestive). Psalm 31:17, while also written by David, and thus could be dismissed likewise, doesn't say anything about the afterlife, but simply states that dead people don't talk to the living. Psalm 39:13 is also David talking about death, and not knowing what may come after. Psalm 88 as a whole is about death generally, but once again, Heman the Ezrahite simply doesn't know what may be after death. Psalm 115:17 is a strange statement; I could say what I've already said about David saying pretty much the same thing as the first part, but the second part is quizzical. What could be meant by "neither any that go down into silence"? I mean, it sounds like they are talking about the dead, but then, why "neither," like this is a second category of people? Strange. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, when he was very old, and apparently more than a little depressed; like his father David, he had little evidence to believe in an afterlife. Isaiah is tricky, because not only is he a prophet, but his book of prophecy has verses that the SAB puts on either side of this apparent dilemma; so what does Isaiah really believe about the afterlife? It's worth noting that two of these verses that seem to contradict each other come right after one another in chapter 26, which would suggest it's not an accident, but a purposeful juxtaposition; Isaiah is making a bold statement about coming back from the dead. I believe in verse 14, "They are dead," refers to the wicked, while in verse 19, "Thy dead men shall live," refers to the righteous men of Israel; Isaiah is talking in the middle of this very long passage (chapters 24-27) about a coming prophetic event where the righteous will be raised from the dead. Isaiah 38:18 however is a bit of a stumper, as Isaiah has already said there is a day coming when the dead shall rise; it's possible that he's referring to the state that the dead are in temporarily between the day of death and the day of resurrection, which is a bit of a sticky point theologically. There is definitely some discussion among theologians as to whether a person goes immediately to the afterlife upon dying or whether there is a waiting period much like sleeping; there's scripture that seems to support either side, and the book of Revelation does seem to have different moments where different classes of people are given a bodily resurrection (see Revelation 20:13 for instance).

"How are people judged by God?" was answered in John chapter three (where it specifically asked about being "born again"), as was "Is salvation by faith alone?", but in the second part of that chapter; they're closely related questions.

Does Hell exist? This is a big question, and there are important related questions that the SAB seems to have rolled up into one page. That's to say that whether Hell exists is really a separate question from (assuming it exists) who goes there. First of all, I think it's worth reflecting on whether "Hell" even exists as a word in the Bible; the King James Version certainly has the word "hell" 23 times in the New Testament, but I don't believe it's a Greek word. "Hell" is translated 13 times from "Gehenna", 10 times from "Hades", and once from "Tartarus"; "Gehenna" (from Hebrew "ge Hinnom") is a valley in Israel where pagan sacrifices used to be made and in Jesus's time was a burning trash dump, "Hades" is a Greek word signifying the place where the dead go, "Tartarus" is the lowest level of the underworld where the enemies of the Greek gods were imprisoned. So...there are three separate concepts that sort of come together to form the Christian doctrine of "a fiery place where dead people are imprisoned," and you could ask whether they really belong together like that, but for now, since the KJV treats them all the same, we'll say they are. (sigh This is really going to be a long post...)

So does a place exist where all three of these concepts are true? Yes. I take Luke 16:22-24 as the prime example:

And it came to pass, that the beggar [Lazarus] died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Here we have a description of a place where the dead go, they seem to be imprisoned there, and there is a fire tormenting them (Jesus uses "Hades" in this discussion). However, there are also people separate from the fire being comforted. So what does that mean? Ephesians 4:8-10 suggests a doctrine that everyone who died before the crucifixion would go to Hell and wait for sin to be paid for:

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

So, assuming that is saying that Jesus went to Hell and staged a massive spiritual prison break, there are at least some people who went to Hell temporarily.

It is possible that this jailbreak involved every human soul and Hell essentially closed up shop (excepting the fallen angels mentioned in 2Peter 2:4 imprisoned in Hell (Tartarus) who are waiting for a final judgment), and there are many Christians who believe this based on (among others) 1Corinthians 15:22. I personally believe that the other two verses in the "everyone goes to Heaven" section don't necessarily mean that, however. Note that 1Timothy 4:10 says, "...specially of those that believe," suggesting the criteria for going to Heaven still includes belief. As for 1John 2:2, yes, Jesus died for the sin of the world, but it's like a blank check given to you, and even if a billionaire gave you a blank check, you don't get anything unless you believe that the check is real, so you sign the back and bring it to the bank!

So, seeing as all of the verses in the "no Heaven or Hell" category were addressed in the "Is death final?" question above, that leaves the "No, those that don't go to heaven, just die." category. Actually, once again, there are Christians who believe this doctrine. Supposedly, while the fires of Hell are never extinguished, the souls that they burn do eventually get destroyed. Those who don't believe in this doctrine explain away these verses in various ways. First of all, most of these verses that talk about death, are actually referring to death, no metaphor. Everyone is a sinner, so everyone dies. Revelation 20:14-15--which I'm surprised the SAB didn't put in this category--is the metaphorical death: "the second death." This, and the New Testament verses in this category discussing destruction, corruption, and perishing, are describing an ongoing eternal process of these things. Yes, morbid, but that's the doctrine. And Jesus seems to be supporting that view in Matthew 7:13-14:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I don't think I have anything to add to the What the Bible says about Hell page.

Does anyone ever do anything good? I've answered a lot of similar questions in the past, and I think they're all listed at the bottom of the linked page. Once again, this is slightly different, and deserves its own answer. Without even looking, the answer is "yes", but what about the verses that the SAB groups under "no"? In Psalm 14:3, I think David is using a bit of hyperbole, because obviously he thinks he himself does good, more often than bad, at least. When Paul quotes David in the book of Romans, he is trying to make the point that all people are sinners. I think that's what most of these verses are saying, particularly clear in the Ecclesiastes verse, that there is nobody who does good all the time. The verse from Isaiah doesn't really belong here at all, but is saying in a hyperbolic way that human righteousness is like "filthy rags" (I've been told the Hebrew here actually says "used menstrual cloths"! Yes, the word translated "filthy" is "עִדִּים" which pertains to menstrual issue) when compared to the righteousness of God.

Did Jesus bear witness of himself? and Is Jesus's witness of himself true? are both closely related questions, and the SAB seems to be using the same verses for both. The verse for "no" on the first page simply doesn't say that, so there's no contradiction there. The answer to the second question is "yes" as well, as John 5:31 is not Jesus admitting that he's lying or anything like that; he's just pointing out that when he speaks for himself, the Pharisees aren't going to simply take him at his word. The question Can God be seen? was answered in John chapter one, among other places.

The SAB notes on verse 46 that although Jesus says Moses wrote about him, he doesn't specify where. His listeners would probably think of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Moses is directly talking about Jesus, but there are other things in the books of Moses that point to Jesus. Genesis 3:15 is consideredby many to be the first prophecy of Jesus:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

While a lot of people take this verse to mean that people generally won't like snakes, some have suggested it's talking about the crucifixion. Genesis 18 has three men appearing before Abraham, where the first verse says, "And the LORD appeared unto him..." A few Christian scholars have suggested that this is Jesus with two angels, while some have even suggested that this is an embodiment of the Trinity! Verse 18 in particular of that chapter says, "...all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in [Abraham]," which many have suggested is talking about his descendant, Jesus. (Several times in Genesis, God refers to Abraham and his descendants as being a blessing to all nations, the first being in chapter 12) Abraham's (attempted) sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 is considered by many to be a prefiguring of Jesus's death on the cross; in fact, some have suggested that "Moriah" was the place where Jesus's crucifixion would later take place. Genesis 49:8-12 is Jacob's special blessing on his son, Judah who, despite not being the firstborn, is described in words suggesting a role as the royal tribe of Israel; the Talmud actually suggests that "until Shiloh come" is a Messianic prophecy, and of course Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, in the line of King David. Leviticus 25:47ff talks about the kinsman redeemer, which is also discussed further in Deuteronomy 25, and as I explored in Ruth chapter four, Jesus is the kinsman redeemer of both Israel and the entire world. In general, there are a lot of parallels between Moses and Jesus that I won't go into details with, but I did find this article very interesting (and it was also a help for some of my verses here).

He taught them as one having authority (Matthew 5)

So, we move on to Matthew 5 and the "Sermon on the Mount" as it is called. Of course it's called that because Matthew 5:1 says that he went up on a mountain to preach it, but is this correct? The SAB points out that Luke 6 has Jesus giving this sermon on a plain. Yeah, this could be a contradiction, but I do have a couple thoughts on this. First of all, the sermon starting in Luke 6 is not exactly the same as the sermon here, and while it could be two different recollections of the same sermon (Luke's Gospel is, I believe, not purporting to be a first-hand account as the other three are) it's also possible that these are two different sermons, each of which was in a different place. Another thing to consider, although I'm not sure it quite covers the wording of Luke, is that I don't think Jesus was literally standing on top of a mountain anyway, as such a setting would afford very poor acoustics. Jesus was probably on a flat spot in a mountainous area where his audience would be standing on a slope overlooking him in a sort of natural amphitheater. At least, that's how I've always imagined it.

The SAB marks a few lines in the sermon as "good stuff", but as often is the case when it does so, I'm perplexed as to the choice. Why verses 5, 7, and 9, but not 6 and 8? I mean, coming from an atheistic point of view, I get why not 10 and 11, but what's wrong with "they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness" and "the pure in heart"? So long as we're not talking about self-righteousness (because who can stand that?) aren't righteousness and purity good things?

Should we let others see our good works? I think this is one of those things that people take too strongly in those verses in which seem to support an answer of "no". I don't think that the issue is whether our good works are seen so much as whether we were doing it to show off. For most people, our intentions are mixed, so it's subtle. Take this blog as an example: as much as I am making these posts to educate people and have a healthy dialogue with the SAB, I think I'm doing a good thing; as much as I'm doing it to show off my debating skills and seem holier-than-thou (which I'm sure I'm not 100% free of) I'm being sort of a jerk. Jesus is saying that doing the right thing matters, and why you do it matters as well.

Jesus takes a moment starting in verse 17 to say he supports the Old Testament law, and it raises some issues for the SAB. I don't think I need to say much for the charge of injustice and violence on verse 17, as that's really a question of how you view the whole of the OT, and I don't see me addressing such a big question here. What I can address, although it's pretty big too, is whether Christians have to obey the OT law. There's an important distinction to be made with most of the verses in the "yes" column on that page, and this passage as well: they're addressed to Jews living in Israel. It's always been my position that the OT laws were binding to the nation of Israel and not to gentile Christians, but I'll admit that such an assessment leaves some gray area. Jewish Christians? People living in modern Israel? I don't know, but I don't think so. The thing that I know is that whether the OT law must be followed, Jesus is saying it's important, and he's certainly not going to replace it with lawlessness.

Will the earth last forever? There are a couple things to say about this. First and simply, I think verse 18 is poetic language, and rather than implying that earth will be destroyed, Jesus is saying that the OT is something that is more durable than even the earth itself. That being said, I do think that the Bible teaches that the earth is a temporary thing, albeit an incredibly long-lived thing. I think in most of the passages where the Bible says that the earth is given "for ever" it's really saying "as long as you live", which is long enough for anyone. I think there is a more complicated theological view that the earth will last as long as time, which will itself last for a finite amount.

There are many questions on verse 20, but I think I can respond to them all with another appeal to poetic language. when Jesus says "your righteousness shall exceed..." he's not giving a formula for salvation, he's saying "Think of the most righteous person you can think of; that's not righteous enough to be saved on account of righteousness." The point is not to set the bar high, but to say that the bar is higher than you can possibly imagine.

I don't think that Jesus is saying that saying the word "fool" gives someone an immediate one-way ticket to Hell. I think what he's saying is that anger leads to violence, so people should be careful about what they say.

I have to admit that I am probably just as confused by verse 28 as the SAB is. While I think I understand it as a symbolic principle, that is, that lusting is in many ways as bad as actually committing sexual sin, taking it fully literally is confusing. (And there are people who insist that we should take it that way!) The SAB asks if this means that someone who lusts should be given the punishment of an adulterer, i.e. death. In fact, it seems to be asking whether the woman being lusted after should be killed as well, which highlights to me the real absurdity of comparing lust to adultery in completely equivalent terms: in the former case, the woman hasn't done anything, has she? I think in this matter as in much of this sermon, Jesus is utilizing hyperbole.

Case in point, in the next two verses, Jesus says that people should pluck out their eyes and cut off their hands to avoid sin. The reason I think this is hyperbolic language (and I'm far from the only one to make such a judgment) is that a person who is struggling with lust doesn't have a problem with their hands or eyes, they have a problem with their brains, and you can't pluck those out. Sure, if you have an issue with masturbation, cutting off your hands will stop it, but it's not going to stop the lust that's driving it.

Is divorce ever permissible? While the SAB is astute in noticing that Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 don't mention any exceptions, it is of course generally understood that when there has been adultery, the wronged party has divorce as an option. (Yes, as the SAB points out, the case of an unfaithful wife is the only one mentioned and not the gender reverse, but most modern churches interpret these passages with gender neutrality.) Deuteronomy 24:1-2 refers to adultery, in my opinion, and 1Corinthians 7:15, although odd, makes some sense, as it would be unfair to make someone stay married to someone who had abandoned them.

The matter of whether one should ever make an oath is also hyperbole, and I covered it in the second-to-last paragraph of this entry. Basically Jesus is saying it's better to just be an honest person than someone who has to make a special oath in order to be believed.

It may be that the hyperbole in verses 39-41 may have some cultural significance. I've heard it said that in respect to verse 41, there was a custom in the Roman empire that a Roman soldier could compel a person to carry their pack for them for up to a mile. Jesus is saying here in many ways that even people you don't like (such as members of an occupying foreign army) are opportunities to show kindness, and you should love your enemy. Clearly the Bible is full of people not loving their enemies, but I don't think that renders the principle void. (The theological question of how God should treat His enemies is a bigger issue I'm not going to try to tackle here.)

So to finish up this chapter, which has already gone on far too long, I'm going to dismiss verse 45 as being poetic as well, and the point thereof being that people of all levels of righteousness have to live in the same world, and not to categorize what level of righteousness any particular person might have. As for the question raised by the SAB on verse 48...maybe there's something there, but I'm not sure what to say at this point. As it comes up in the next chapter, maybe I'll pick it up there.

There was a certain disciple at Damascus (Gen 15)

An interesting feature of chapter 15 is the fact that verse 2 is the only mention of the name of Abram's chief servant, Eliezer. This guy has a few important roles to play, but for the most part he does it rather anonymously. Some have suggested that his name, which means "God is help", has a certain suggestive symbolism to it. There are a few moments in the life of Abram that are considered by Christians to be prefiguring of events in the early Church, and in those stories, Abram represents God the Father and Isaac represents God the Son. So what about the Holy Spirit? Well, apparently the third person of the Trinity, who is never given a name in scripture, but is sometimes referred to as a "helper" (the word translated "comforter" in John 14:26 could also be translated "helper") is represented by Eliezer. I may get back to this in a later chapter.

One of the reasons that Eliezer is so important at this moment is that Abram has no child, and verses 2-4 are, translated into plainer, more modern words: Abram says, "Thanks for all the wealth you've given me, God, but I don't have any children. I guess when I die I'll leave it all to Eliezer." God says, "No, I'm going to give you a child that will actually be your blood descendant." Then in verse 5, God says that Abram's descendants are one day going to be so numerous, trying to count them would be like trying to count the stars. Some people interpret this as meaning that the Jews will be plentiful, some think it means all nations that trace descent from Abram (which would include the Ishmaelites, the Edomites, and a few others) and some interpret it to mean all followers of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. One thing it clearly doesn't mean is Abram's immediate descendants, as he had only about eight.

Last thing worth noting before I address the objections is verse 6, a verse that Christians consider a very significant one. Off and on, I've had to address the issue of whether Noah was a "righteous" man, and of course, the SAB points out others that are called as such. In Christianity, (and perhaps in Judaism to an extent, I'm not sure) there's a concept of self-righteousness vs. imputed righteousness. Everyone who tries to be righteous by their own merit has the former, and the Bible says "...our righteousnesses are as filthy rags..." (The SAB has many notes on this passage, but they ought to add the "Language" icon to it; the original Hebrew phrase is translated delicately, and literally means "used menstrual cloths". How's that for an image?) It's not that it's wrong to try to do good, but that deep down, we're trying to fool ourselves into believing that we're better than we really are. Now imputed righteousness, which is the kind I believe Noah had, is where a person, despite their failings, decides to trust in the Lord and accept that He is good. The epistle of James talks a lot about how real righteousness of this sort is intertwined with doing good things, but most of the Bible makes it clear that it comes first and foremost from a relationship with God. Abram had this relationship.

Okay, now to the rest of this chapter. Abram cuts up some animals and has a vision. What's it all about? This is an odd one, as this is not a sacrifice in the usual sense. Note that no altar is used and the animals are not burned up. My understanding of this chapter is that it's a cultural thing from Abram's time. When two people wanted to make a covenant with each other, they would take some animals, chop them in half like this, and the two parties of the agreement would walk down the middle. Probably like the sacrifices, the idea was that the goriness of the scene would be a reminder of the seriousness of the matter, and that if one should break the covenant, they might suffer a similar fate. Sure, it's a bit barbaric, but it's a symbolic gesture that Abram would understand. Also, note that there is no mention of Abram walking down the middle, only that God, in the form of "a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp" goes through the middle. This promise to Abram is a unilateral covenant with no conditions: Abram will be the father of a great nation, and that nation will inherit the land of Canaan. The fact that this was not fulfilled in Abram's own lifetime was mentioned a few chapters ago, and I addressed it there.

Then God tells Abram that the Egyptian captivity is going to happen before all this comes to pass, and that it partly has something to do with the Amorites. I thought I had mentioned that before, but I can't find it, so let me risk repeating and explain. Apparently, many of the nations in Canaan were immoral, and God was planning to wipe them out, but He was going to give them a few more years to clean up their act before He got rid of them and gave their land to the Israelites. He didn't just destroy these nations because he wanted to give something to Abram; He was using the Israelites as a tool to get things done.

So, how long was the captivity? 400 years or 430? Well, it depends on how you count it. Note that the wording in this chapter is different than in Exodus 12:40. I believe what's going on here is that the young nation of Israel went into Egypt during a famine, and stayed there 430 years. However, it wasn't until they had been there 30 years that they became slaves. Remember, the period of slavery didn't start immediately upon arrival; at first they were welcome guests treated with honor. How many generations was that? The SAB says seven, which contradicts the claim of "in the fourth generation" in verse 16, but what is that verse talking about? I believe it's not talking about the fourth generation from Abram, but the fourth generation from the beginning of their slavery. That would mean four generations after the death of the tribal patriarchs. So Kohath is the first generation, and Moses is the third, making the generation after Moses (and Moses was quite elderly when he led them out of Egypt) the generation God is talking about. Of course, generations aren't always well-defined. My oldest cousin is about 40 years old, but her father recently remarried and had a new child. Age-wise, my cousin is old enough to be her sibling's grandmother. So what is a generation? In this case, it's oddly enough about 100 years! There's something I think is more worth questioning than the number of generations.