Israel came over this Jordan on dry land. (Joshua 3)

There is very little to be said about this chapter, so I'll just write it up quick here. In fact there are only two issues the SAB brings up, and one of them has already been addressed. Whether or not one accepts my explanation, I don't think I have more to add to what I've already said regarding the failed conquest of Canaan.

Actually, the second point isn't exactly a new one to address. So the priests (and the rest of the nation) managed to cross the Jordan River without getting their feet wet. This is apparently absurd, while the concept of water piling up "upon an heap" upstream of them is not absurd? I don't get it. Look, it's clearly a miracle; what should one expect?

Actually, this event has perhaps some interesting significance due to the fact that supposedly very few people who had seen the parting of the Red Sea in person were still alive at this point. This event is a very similar miracle.

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.

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there (Joshua 1)

I realized over the weekend that there was good piece of advice I've given many people over the years that I'm not taking for myself. If you try to work your way through the Bible from beginning to end, you're probably going to come to one or more parts that are boring and/or difficult, and you'll find it hard to proceed. I've always told people that if you're trying to read the Bible, it's good that you eventually read the whole thing, but you shouldn't let yourself get caught up in something excruciating to read, such as the first few chapters of Leviticus, which are description after description of procedures for dealing with sacrificial animals. Likewise in the New Testament, if you read Matthew first, and then proceed to Mark, you might get the feeling that you're reading the same book twice, as the two are very, very similar. (I think I've decided that when I eventually move to the New Testament, I'll start with Luke and include comments on parallel matters in the other two synoptic Gospels. We'll see.)

Anyway, the Mosaic Law is a tough slog, and not as easy to write on as I'd hoped, but in the spirit of moving on with my blog a bit, I'm skipping forward to Joshua. I haven't thought for a long time that I'd go straight through, but it was tough to drop a book midway through it. I will go back to Exodus and finish the books of Moses, but for now, I need something fresher.

Not that Joshua is easier. As a matter of fact, Joshua and Judges are two of the most difficult books to deal with apologetically, in my opinion. Joshua is the story of a massive genocide of the people living in Canaan, and there's no denying it, only examining it to understand whether there might be justification. Judges, on the other hand, is a book filled with more violence and sex than any other book of the Bible, and in fact probably more than most modern mainstream books. If any part of the Bible needs critical examination and questioning, it's these two books.

Before we get into the issue of genocide, however, the first issue that comes up is a bit of confusing prophecy that the SAB points out. Immediately after Joshua takes command of the nation of Israel (as a military commander more than a prophet like Moses), God tells Joshua,

"Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you."

The implication is clear; God is promising unfettered victory. Move in and crush every nation between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and it's all going to be a piece of cake, right?

Well, it turns out not to be, eventually. The SAB points out many passages where the military campaigns of Joshua failed, and for a long time afterwards, the Israelites simply were not victorious. Eventually, by the time of Solomon, they pretty much had it all, but the words here suggest an easy and pretty quick victory with virtually no setbacks, and that did not come to pass. Why? What does this say about the prophecy in these verses?

Well, there are a couple things that one could say about this, and one of them is a look into the immediate context, actually. Within the same speech, in verse seven, God says

"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest."

I suggest that if one looks at this verse, one may see that God is actually giving Joshua and the Israelites a conditional promise. Let me deal with the second part first: God is only going to make them prosper when the people of Israel are doing their best to follow the laws of Moses. Do what God says, and you prosper. Don't do what God says, and all bets are off. We actually see this more explicitly in the second battle of the conquest of Canaan, in which they initially lose because somebody stole something that they weren't supposed to touch.

But note that God is first of all ordering Joshua and the Israelites to be "very courageous". This is actually incredibly important! It relates to the issue that is often raised of God's omnipotence or lack thereof. God is sending the Israelites into Canaan to conquer it, but while God has the ability to simply wipe these people off the face of the earth like He did with Sodom and Gomorrah, He wants the people to do the legwork on this. Once again, the promise says,

"Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you."

See my added emphasis? God is willing to give them conquest over any part of the land that they're brave enough to go to. The answer to the question of "Can God do anything?" is pretty much, "Yes, God can do anything, but there are some things God will not do for one reason or another." In the case of Joshua's military campaign, and the years of fighting after Joshua was gone, God was only willing and "able" to help those that stepped up and showed their faith in God's promises and took what God had promised to them. As far as I am aware, most Biblical scholars are of the opinion that Joshua's campaign was ultimately a failure not because God couldn't follow through, but because the people just ran out of steam and stopped trying. Jesus didn't heal people in His hometown not because He lacked the power to heal, but because unbelieving people simply didn't turn to Jesus for healing. It's a tough issue that far wiser people than I have pondered, but personal faith is an essential part of a relationship with God on many levels and in many ways.

Last note: For those of you reading this who are not fairly familiar with the story that has come before, I am a bit sad for having skipped ahead if only for the missing of the great irony in verse 17. The Israelites promising Joshua that they'd follow him just the same as they followed Moses is not really a heartening promise.

Lest ye corrupt yourselves (Exod. 22:20 et al, idolatry, apostasy, blasphemy)

There is a lot to be said actually for this one verse, which encapsulates a number of issues. Some of them I have addressed at length previously, such as the matter of polytheism. Most of the issues were at least touched on in this post, but as I mentioned there that there ought to be a future post that would delve more deeply into it, I think this is finally the time for it. While Exodus 22:20 is really referring to a specific aspect of improper worship, I'm going to try and cover all major aspects here.

First and foremost, serving as a foundation for all the other issues here, is the issue of why one should worship God at all. Many people have given suggestions over the years, and it's hard to say which might be convincing to any individual. A common theory is that as creations of God, we should worship the creator. I haven't read any philosophical works of Christian existentialism, but since this line of reasoning is reminding me in many ways of Sartre, I wonder if this is what is meant? When an individual creates a thing, the thing has as its very reason for being service to its creator. There is an assumption that since God created us, He has a right to dictate our purpose in life. The idea that that purpose is worship of God is a secondary assumption that is built on a more complicated religious framework; a deist might agree that the Creator has a purpose in mind for us, but not necessarily agree that the purpose is known. As a person who believes in the Bible, though, one can read the Bible to get glimpses of what the purpose might be.

While many theists believe the fact that God is our creator is enough reason for Him to deserve worship, they will be quick to point out that that is not the only reason, nor even the primary one. While God will from time to time point out the fact that He is the creator of everything that exists, He is far more interested in reminding people of things he has done since creation. In the Ten Commandments, He doesn't mention creation, but instead points out that He is "...the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." God's primary reason that He gives for worshiping Him is His acts of salvation. He saved the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, He brought them out of their exile in Babylon/Persia, and in the end, He sends a Messiah to save them and the whole world from their sins. Why give allegiance and worship to God? Because He's constantly looking out for the well-being of the people He created. As Jesus said in John 10:10,

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

The "thief" is, in this context, anyone who claims to have a person's best interests in mind, but really means to take away every good thing that God has given them or promised them in the future. (And no, this does not mean the O.T. prophets, as is implied in the note on verse 8.) It's a very common theme throughout the Bible that following anyone other than the one true God will lead to a loss of prosperity, happiness, life and salvation.

So, once one accepts the idea that following the God of Israel is a good thing, then come the guidelines.

Avoiding idolatry? This is not actually a specific matter of worshiping a false God; there is an idea involved here that as pagan nations surrounding Israel filled their temples with statues that represented their gods, the Israelites might be tempted to do the same thing. Actually, they did. In Exodus 32, there is the famous story of the golden calf. In the story, note that Aaron does not give the calf a funny name and make up a god, they're all taking this statue as being a representation of the deity that brought them out of Egypt! The problem with idolatry is that once God is represented by a hunk of metal, He gets mentally reduced to a hunk of metal, and who has respect for a hunk of metal? This is actually a common theme in many religions, including Hinduism* in some ways, surprisingly: the idea that the deity is so vast and powerful that He/She/It cannot be reduced to a mere representation, but must be left abstract. The Israelites quickly lose their moral focus once God is brought down to a finite representation before them. It should be noted that despite the SAB note in the beginning of that chapter, the only thing Aaron told them to do was give up their earrings. (Not that Aaron is at all faultless here; Moses and God put a lot of the responsibility on him. I'm sure I'll need to address that chapter in specific later on.)

What of apostasy? God puts out a lot of warnings against the Israelites ever turning to other Gods, setting penalties on people who do so or encourage others to do so. Later on, when they take the Promised Land, they drive out all the occupants for numerous reasons, the main one probably being that they are pagans. Well, that's more of a straightforward matter of what I was talking about above; while the true God gives "life, and...more abundantly," other so-called "gods" have either nothing to offer or they have destruction. I'm not completely certain, but it may certainly be the case that God is more likely to punish apostates than infidels. It's one thing to simply not know that the God of Israel is the one true God, and another to know this and willingly turn away. I think that this may be what Paul is talking about in Romans 2, and Jesus hints at a few times. If you know the right thing to do with regards to God, and refuse to do it, how can you stand in comparison to those who were essentially ignorant of the truth, but did the right thing anyway?

The topic of blasphemy is a tough one, because it has many different layers to it, perhaps more so in Judaism than in most other religions. As demonstrated with a humorous effect in the movie Life of Brian, even saying God's name out loud was considered blasphemy, and to this day, observant Jews will not say "the Name" as they refer to it. Why? Because God is considered so great, so majestic and so holy that it simply is not possible to utter His Name with enough reverence to measure up. Now the more modern Christian notion of taking the Lord's name in vain meaning referring to God in a flippant matter, or worse, using "God" or "Jesus" as a curse word, seems downright tame in comparison to the Jewish approach. But indeed if God is so very Holy that even angels are hesitant to look at Him, His Name ought to be treated with a great deal of respect, far more than even those who consider themselves His followers give it. I talked a bit about how especially in the Bible, a person's "name" was synonymous with their reputation, and who could have a higher reputation than the Creator of the universe and Saviour of humanity?

Anyway, as I have suggested in other places on a handful of other issues, it may be in a large part the case that by God's very nature and His Holiness that what in our original verse sounds like a threat is merely a statement of fact. "Have respect for the law of God or face dire consequences!" may be in a theological sense equivalent to "Have respect for the law of gravity or face dire consequences!" It simply naturally follows.

(*Contrary to outside appearances, Hinduism is, at its root, a monotheistic religion. All of the different deities worshiped in South Asia are in some sense considered to be in actuality manifestations of a singular higher power known as "Brahman".)

Yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee (Lev. 15:24 & 20:18)

Well, I was going to let it sit until a future date, but then, in writing the last post, something came up that truly troubled me, and I decided to jump ahead to an issue that I originally meant to leave for much later: sex with a menstruating woman.

Those who have had dealings with me before elsewhere, and perhaps a few times in this blog, will know that I sometimes will say something like "Well, that's a contradiction, but not an important one." You know, like one verse says 700 horses, and another says 7,000? That doesn't bother me, and I know there are problems like that in the Bible in quite a few places. Well, in wrapping up the last post, I came accross a problem that I could not simply shrug off. It's found here.

Seriously, there's a big difference between "unclean seven days" and "cut off from among their people." While the latter phrase is perhaps a bit vague, it's clearly something harsh; probably a person who is "cut off" is exiled from Israel. This isn't like other sins where it says nothing about punishment in one place, and in another lists a big one; those cases are just a matter of omission in the former verse. Saying one punishment here and a different punishment there, where both punishments are very different? That would be a serious problem, and I have to admit, I was stumped and ready to admit defeat on this point.

I wasn't going to gloss it over. At first, I thought I'd admit that it disturbed me and open it up to suggestions from readers. I figured I'd toss in a lame half-hearted attempt at partial reconciliation that didn't even really convince myself. Perhaps both punishments were to be performed? You know, "Leave town...and don't touch anything on your way out!" It doesn't make much sense, though.

Then something occurred to me that doesn't answer the issue, but I still think is thought-provoking: If a man broke this commandment, how would anyone know? Seriously. "Morning, Abiathar, how's things with you?" "Not so good, last night I had sex with my wife while she was menstruating. That's not a problem is it?" Well, it's not likely that you'd tell anyone, and if you didn't tell, who would ask? Still, there must be a purpose for this law anyway, and as such, there needs to be a reconciliation between these verses.

So as I prepared to gather my thoughts and post an admission of defeat, I read the verses again. And it hit me: read carefully "...lie with her at all..." vs. "lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness..."? The second verse uses two phrases that are both euphemisms for sex; why does a sentence need two euphemisms for the same thing?

I realized in this case, it is not the same thing. This is key. The little phrase "at all" is making it clear that we are not talking about a euphemism here. This is a case of a guy literally lying with his wife, and some of her menstrual blood happens to get on him in his sleep! No sex is involved, but he is still unclean. The latter case is a man who intentionally gets menstrual blood on him in an act of sex. It's that intentionality that makes the difference; being unclean and being sinful are not the same thing. In the end, there is no contradiction, only confusion brought about by unfortunate use of euphemisms. I wonder if it's clearer in the Hebrew? I'll have to check next chance I get.

So, the remaining issue (no pun intended)? Why is menstrual blood unclean? I don't know. There's no particular reason I can think of. Perhaps it's just another Mosaic Law oddity?