Bible Wonderings

Another Perspective

2011-07-13T10:17:00.000-04:00

1 Chronicles

I was kind of amazed to learn that 1 and 2 Chronicles tell a large part of the history all over again! But of course this narrative offers a different perspective.

The first 9 chapters (plus various other chapters throughout) go through the genealogy in great detail. The story picks up in Chapter 10 with the death of Saul and the rest of the narrative recounts David's reign. Some of the stories bear resemblances to those in Kings, but others are missing or have differences. Many of the stories are stories of battles, but the main emphasis initially seems to be on bringing the ark of the covenant first to Obed-edom (Ch. 13), and then to Jerusalem (Ch. 15). (I like it that the music and the musicians are given special mention!) And the remainder of the emphasis seems to be on David's plans to have a special house (the temple) built to house the ark.

In Chapter 17, the Lord, speaking through Nathan, tells David that building the temple is not his to do; instead, one of his sons will do so. The dialogue in Chapter 17 is very moving.

Then there are more stories of battles, and the odd story of how the Lord became angry with David for taking a census (Ch. 21). A pestilence resulted. Then David was moved to built an altar on some man's threshing floor, and now peace with the Lord was restored. David was afraid to go to the tabernacle, and I think the point of this part of the story was that the Lord was moved by David's repentance and humility. Not regarding himself as worthy enough to offer a sacrifice in the normal way, he makes an altar in a humble place (even paying full price to the farmer for taking over his threshing floor), and offers a sacrifice there.

I'm still puzzled about why taking a census evoked the Lord's wrath, though.

1 Chronicles ends with David assembling materials for the building of the temple, and charging his son Solomon with the task of actually building the temple. When he was old "and full of days" (23:1) he made Solomon the next king. He also gave Solomon the plan of the temple (Ch. 28). Most important of all, though, is the message to continue to follow the ways of the Lord.

The passages where the Lord speaks and where David speaks are very moving, showing the closeness of the relationship between the people and God. David is portrayed as loving God, as trying to do what is right, and as wanting to show his immense appreciation by planning to build a great temple, and wanting above all for the people always to live in this awareness of, closeness to, and appreciation for God.

What's Right vs. What's Wrong

2011-03-05T16:44:00.002-05:00

2 Kings 3-25

After Elijah, Elisha becomes the next prophet. There are some stories about what Elisha did as prophet, some of which are very similar to the stories of Elijah, which makes me wonder if these really were two separate prophets, or if the stories somehow got confused over time. (For examples, compare 2 Kings 4:1-7 with 1 Kings 17:8-16, and 2 Kings 4:8-37 with 1 Kings 17:17-24.)

Much of 2 Kings is about the kings of both Israel and Judah. It tells the story of the fall of each. Israel falls first. All of its kings are described as having done "what was evil in the sight of the Lord," which was to worship (or to tolerate the worship) of the wrong gods. Judah fell later. Most of its kings were just as bad, but there are a few who are described differently, as having done "what was right in the sight of the Lord," and walking in the way of David, which meant honoring the proper Lord, and even destroying the worship sites for other religions.

One of the last of these kings, Josiah, ordered the cleaning and refurbishing of the house of the Lord, and the workers then found the book of the law, which apparently had been lost for some time (2 Kings 22:3-10). The king was upset because he realized, upon hearing it, that for generations they had not been following this law -- no wonder the Lord was upset with them! (See 2 Kings 22:13-20.) He vowed to try to do better. But, despite all that he did, it was too little to late. After he died, later kings returned to doing "what was evil in the sight of the Lord," and finally Judah was conquered too.

I think this is a story of a people turning their attention too much to earthly powers and earthly ways, forgetting their holy heritage and their holy call, which weakened them and caused them then to be conquered and to lose what they had. Perhaps Josiah's response was not enough because he went on a rampage in an attempt to destroy what was bad, but in that maybe forgot to recover and highlight what was good about the ways that they should be following.

I find this interesting, because today we see many people railing against what they think is wrong -- but, strangely enough, that does not seem to help. Rather than eradicating all badness, such an approach just stirs up more fear and hatred. Maybe we would do better to focus our vision on what is right and good, and live that into reality. That is what gives us true spiritual strength.

Prophetic Vision

2009-08-16T11:05:00.003-04:00

2 Kings 1-2

The first part of 2 Kings tells the rest of the story of Elijah. First, the next king of Israel, Ahaziah, falls through a lattice and is injured. He sends prophets to Baal, to find out whether he will recover or die. Elijah hears of this, and is horrified that the king is looking to Baal rather than the true God of Israel, and sends word to the king that because of this, he will die. And so the king dies (2 Kings, Chapter 1).

The final story about Elijah is his dramatic death, as witnessed by Elisha. A chariot of fire and horses of fire come, and Elijah ascends in a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha inherits his powers and becomes his successor (2 Kings, Chapter 2).

But you have to read the stories to get the full effect. Both of these stories are dramatic and filled with supernatural demonstrations of God's power expressed through the prophetic voices of Elijah and Elisha. Sometimes the power harms or destroys the people who are opposed to the true God (Ahaziah, the first two companies of men sent by Ahaziah to talk with Elijah, and the boys who taunt Elisha). Other times the power just dazzles (the parting of the waters). Other times, the power brings forth something clearly good (the purification of water).

When I was a child, I would watch movies about Bible stories. These movies portrayed such supernatural events literally and dramatically. I remember feeling sad and confused about why such events used to happen but now no longer happen. I remember thinking that it is so much harder now to figure out what is right and what is wrong, because God does not give messages so clearly any more.

Children often do see the world as infused with magic, and so the supernaturalism in Biblical stories is very believable. (Watching movie portrayals probably helps make the stories believable!)

In today's modern world, we expect children to reckon with reality and lose this sense of "magic" as part of normal maturation. So my memory can be seen as a transition to that more "realistic" understanding of the world. A lot of people lose their faith at this point. They feel disillusioned at the realization that these stories could not really have been "true," and then question all of what they are taught about religious faith. "It's all mere supersition," they conclude.

But somehow the path I took turned out to be different (though not unique). Somehow it did not occur to me that my noticing that life was different now than how it was portrayed in the Bible suggested that there is no God. Instead, I seized upon the idea that God was simply speaking to us differently now. And so I began a quest to understand how God speaks to us now.

When, later, I came upon Quakers, and found a whole community who still believes that God has come to speak to his people himself (to quote George Fox), I was amazed. This community affirmed my quest, and also provided access to more perspectives on the subject, and to an experiential process that hones our powers of discernment.

Now I do see the world as infused with supernatural drama. The supernaturalism in the Bible does not seem fantastical and hard to believe. Instead, I find myself nodding, and thinking, "yes, that is how it is." Maybe these things don't always happen literally and exactly as portrayed, but the sense of drama, power, and meaning that they portray does reflect a spiritual backdrop to everyday events that many people may miss, but nevertheless is really there and quite apparent to the discerning eye.

I think that this is what prophetic vision really is: the ability to perceive the spiritual significance of everyday life.

King vs. Prophets

2009-08-03T22:26:00.002-04:00

1 Kings 17-22

The rest of 1 Kings seems to feature the relationship between one king of Israel, Ahab, and prophets, especially a prophet named Elijah. Ahab and his wife Jezebel are portrayed as especially bad.

Elijah

Elijah tries to tell Ahab that the droughts they are suffering are because of not following the proper way. Then Elijah goes away as if to hide. I am guessing that the news was not received well. (In fact, we later find out that Ahab's wife Jezebel tried to put the prophets of the Lord to death. She still had prophets she liked, but they were prophets who served Baal and Asherah.) At first, Elijah hides in the wilderness. Then a poor widow takes him in, and miraculously her jar of meal and her jug of oil never run out while he stays with her during the drought (17:16). He also heals her ailing son (17:17-24).

In the third year of the drought, Elijah receives word from the Lord that he should visit Ahab again and let him know the drought is about to end (Chapter 18). So he does return to Ahab. Ahab calls him "troubler of Israel" (18:17), but Elijah answers: "I have not troubled Israel; but you have, and your father's house, because you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals" (18:18). Now he offers a challenge. He challenges the 450 prophets of Baal to prepare a burnt offering and get Baal to provide fire for the offering. He alone will also prepare another burnt offering, and will get the Lord to provide fire for his burnt offering.

The prophets of Baal fail. Elijah succeeds. Furthermore, the droughts end (18:19-46).

The people are awed, but this display of God's power still doesn't bring Ahab, Jezebel, or all of the people back to the proper way. Elijah has all of the prophets of Baal killed; Jezebel then sends him a threatening message, so he goes back into hiding. He is in a bit of despair now. Indeed, the the reader cannot help but wonder why, after all that, Ahab, Jezebel, and the people were not all converted! What does it take? What more can one do?

But the Lord does not let Elijah just give up and die. An angel rouses him and gives him food and drink to prepare him for the 40-day journey to the mount of God, where he is to wait for the Lord to pass by.

Now there was a great wind, so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave (19:11-13).

The Lord speaks to him, letting him know of future kings of Aram and Israel, and letting him know too that Elisha will become prophet in Elijah's place. He also lets him know that there will still be seven thousand in Israel who remain faithful.

Elijah departs, finds Elisha along the way, and throws his mantle over him, thereby designating him his successor.

Israel vs. Aram

Now there are stories of conflict brewing and igniting between Israel and Aram. Other prophets appear and help guide Israel to victory in the first couple of battles (20:1-30). The king of Aram, Ben-hadad, flees, but, hearing that "the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings" (20:31), becomes contrite and asks that his life be spared, and it is: a treaty is forged between Aram and Israel (20:34). But another prophet chastises the king of Israel for this (20:35-43).

In the next chapter, Ahab wants a man's vineyard because it is near his house and would make a nice vegetable garden. But the man, Naboth, cannot allow this because it is forbidden to give away or sell ancestral inheritance. So Jezebel arranges to have Naboth killed so that Ahab can have the vineyard. Elijah hears of this and chastises Ahab. Ahab is remorseful and so does not have to suffer disaster in his own lifetime -- instead the foretold disasters will happen in his son's days (Chapter 21).

In the final chapter of 1 Kings, after three years of peace with Aram, the king of Israel decides it is time to fight Aram in order to claim Ramoth-gilead, which he believes is supposed to belong to Israel. King Jehoshaphat of Judah is visiting, and so Ahab asks him to join them in this venture. Jehoshaphat says, "let's check with the Lord, first." So, the court prophets are consulted, all of whom agree that this should go well. Suspicious, Jehoshaphat says, "are there any more prophets we should be checking with?" Ahab says, "There is still one other by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah son of Imlah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies anything favorable about me, but only disaster" (22:8). "That's who we want then!" Jehoshaphat, in effect, replies. So they call him in, and Micaiah in fact says, "it's not going to work" (22:17).

Of course they go ahead and fight anyway. Ahab is a bit worried that Micaiah might be right, and so disguises himself (22:30), but he still does end up getting killed (22:37). Jehoshaphat survives, and in fact is a pretty good king of Judah, following the ways of the Lord, but, like many of the kings of Judah, still not quite eradicating the bad ways of the people fully. Furthermore, in his reign he makes peace with Israel (22:44).

Ahaziah, son of Ahab, reigns in Israel after his father's death, but continues to follow Baal, so things still do not look promising for Israel. And Jehoram succeeds Jehoshaphat as king of Judah.

Thus ends 1 Kings.

I find myself kind of sad for Ahab. The accounts of him seem to portray him not as a particularly horrible man himself (the bad things that happen are really Jezebel's doing). In fact, he seems to understand that the prophets that most alarm him are the ones who are right. He seems tragically caught between two opposing forces, unable to fully stand up for what he seems secretly to believe is true.

The Kingdom Splits

2009-07-26T11:48:00.004-04:00

1 Kings 12-16

After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam became the new king, but didn't handle things very well. When the people came to him complaining how hard his father had made them work, he sought advice. The elders who had advised his father said, "lighten up." But his own younger buddies said, "Tell them your little finger is thicker than your father's loins" (seriously! Look it up yourself! 12:10) and encouraged him to be even harder on them: "Tell them that, though your father used whips, you will use scorpions to make them work even harder!" (12:11). (The notes to the version of the Bible I am reading say that "scorpions" might have been an especially horrific kind of whip. Either way, it sounds pretty bad.)

He sided with his buddies.

Revolt ensued, and the kingdom was split. Rehoboam was king over Judah (and maybe the tribe of Benjamin, or part of it), and Jeroboam came back and became king over the other tribes of Israel. They did not do a great job of keeping to the ways of the Lord.

Rehoboam was about to fight to reclaim the other tribes, but was stopped by the Lord: "You shall not go up to fight against your kindred the people of Israel. Let everyone go home, for this thing is from me" (12:24). Nevertheless, Jeroboam was afraid that if his people kept going to the temple in Jerusalem to make their sacrifices, they might re-unite with Judah. So he made two calves of gold for people to go to for worship instead (12:28), and did other things that changed the usual religious practices. A man of God came to warn him that these changes were not right and good (chapter 13). (The full story here is very strange. Why did the older prophet trick that man of God?) One of Jeroboam's sons fell ill and died (14:1-18) -- that was another warning that Jeroboam did not heed. He still continued in his problematic ways.

Meanwhile, things were not going much better in Judah, although there, the people in general (rather than Rehoboam himself) are blamed (14:21-24). Even worse, King Shishak of Egypt attacked and took away the treasures of the temple and the king's house (14:25-26). After Rehoboam died, his son Abijam reigned for three years, not doing so well, really (15:1-8). (It seems that war broke out now between Judah and Israel). His son Asa succeeded him.

Asa did better (15:9-24), although wars continued. His son Jehoshaphat succeeded him, but we have not heard his story yet. So, the rulers of Judah so far are all descendants of David.

Things were much more troubled in Israel. While Jeroboam's son Nadab did succeed him (15:25), he only reigned two years before being killed by Baasha, who then became the new king (and killed all the house of Jeroboam). Each later king becomes worse and worse. Israel even divides further, but only for a short period of time (16:21-22).

Many of these kings are mentioned briefly. Apparently, details about them used to exist in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel, and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah, but those books no longer exist.

So we have a history described, trying to make sense of why the kingdom split, and why the treasures of the temple were lost. We see things tending to get worse. We see prophets trying to warn the kings to follow the Lord's ways. We see David's line preserved, but the succession of kings in Israel more troubled. We realize more clearly that the wealth Solomon had built came from forced labor, and so one possible explanation of the cause of the split is that Solomon's son Rehoboam did not listen to wise elders and lighten up, but followed on in this practice even more strictly than his father did -- yet then lost much of the kingdom and much of the treasure.

Yet there is also a theological interpretation: that God somehow wanted the kingdom split. Was Jeroboams's sin actually that he did not accept this? Rehoboam did not himself attack, trying to reunite. Instead, Jeroboam started setting up new religious practices in order to keep his own kingdom separate from Judah. How would things have been different if he himself had accepted that the Lord was really okay with him ruling Israel separately from Rehoboam's ruling of Judah, as long as he had kept to the usual practices and traditions? Would the two have eventually come back together in a peaceable way?

As it was, they eventually did start fighting. And Israel almost fragmented further.

I will be interested to see what happens next.

Solomon's Reign

2009-07-19T07:00:00.002-04:00

1 Kings 3-11

Solomon becomes king, and for a while, things are looking good. He marries the Pharaoh's daughter -- interesting that there is now this positive connection with Egypt. He wishes for wisdom, and is granted that wisdom. Israel enters into a time of peace and prosperity, and so Solomon fulfills his father David's dream of building a permanent temple to the Lord. (It is nice that master craftsman Hiram is given a lot of credit for the beautiful work he does on the temple.) This seems to be a real moment of arrival at long last -- the return of the people to their land, finally attaining enough peace and stability to build the temple that at last signifies the fulfillment of the promise. There is even international recognition as the Queen of Sheba comes to visit.

Then Solomon blows it.

You think he would know better, especially after his father's advice to him, repeated to him by the Lord Himself.

But, among his wives, he takes on women "from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the Israelites, 'You shall not inter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods'" (11:2). Apparently, Solomon in fact had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (11:3). He supported their worshiping their different gods.

The Lord warned Solomon, but Solomon did not change his ways. So then the Lord warned him further that the kingdom would be fractured after his death, and He raised adversaries against Solomon. Solomon's son would be able to continue to rule Judah, but the other tribes would be given to Jeroboam. Solomon tried to kill Jeroboam, but Jeroboam fled to Egypt and remained there until Solomon died.

Is this a story of the corrupting power of privilege? At first, the peace and prosperity are used well: used for the building of a beautiful temple. But then Solomon claims more and more for himself: an extravagant house, hundreds of wives and concubines. If this is a story of power corrupting, it is distressing, especially since Solomon did not originally ask for wealth and power, but wisdom. One would hope that true wisdom would protect against corruption.

Taking a closer look at the story, I find myself asking why it was bad that Solomon reached out to other nations and religions in a positive way, with love and interest rather than through war and conquest? Perhaps it is that he did so in a way that diluted his faithfulness to his own people, history, and traditions. Thus, friction and strife began to build again. The time of peace ended. Are such cycles inevitable?

What is the right balance between, on the one hand, faithfulness to your people and your heritage, and preservation of your own culture, and, on the other hand, positive interest in and openness towards other people and other cultures?

Of course, another way to read this story is to consider what the difference is between "true religion" and "false religion." What does it really mean to worship "false gods"? At the time that this part of the Bible was written, the line was drawn between one's own religious heritage and others. I think now we see that even within every religious tradition, there are ways of worshiping true to the best spirit of that tradition, and false ways of worshiping. The false forms of worship are when one keeps up the appearances of adhering to the tenets of a given faith, but yet one does not really keep to the proper spirit. It is not really God that one is worshiping, but something lesser that one may still call "God" but has fashioned into one's own image. So, what one worships instead is really not God, but something else: an image of success, wealth, power, happiness, etc.

What is the aim of all of your strivings? Who or what is it, above all else, that you serve?

Even if you answer, "God," is that really God? How do you know?

Solomon Becomes King

2009-07-12T09:57:00.003-04:00

1 Kings 1-2

At the beginning of 1 Kings, David is old and not doing so well. He has trouble staying warm, and so his servants find for him a young virgin to attend to him and sleep with him. Her name is Abishag. She is very beautiful, but the king does not "know her sexually" (1:4). The next sentence states that the next son, Adonijah, now declares that he will be king (1:5).

Taken as they are written, these are just statements of a sequence of events, not necessarily linked. But in the notes to the edition of the Bible I am reading (see sidebar for complete reference), the commentators say that this indicates that the king is impotent "and therefore no longer fit to be king. The knowledge of David's impotence spurs Adonijah to declare himself king" (OT 415).

I find that an interesting interpretation. Was that really the primary reason? Or was it just that David was getting old and was no longer in good health?

At any rate, Adonijah is the next son. One listing of David's first sons appears at 2 Samuel 3:2-5. The listing include Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, and Adonijah first. We heard what happened to Amnon and Absalom. Chileab is not mentioned further: the commentators suggest that he may have died young. But after Adonijah there are other sons too: Shephatiah and Ithream. Then later offspring (both sons and daughters) are mentioned at 2 Samuel 5:13-16. These include Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, and others.

I mention this because what happens next in 1 Kings is that it turns out that Solomon becomes king. No mention is made of the other brothers between him and Adonijah. And recall that Solomon is Bathsheba's son, and the union between David and Bathsheba began as adultery.

But, back to the story: While Adonijah makes preparations to succeed his father as king, the prophet Nathan (not the same Nathan as David's son, I don't think), goes to Bathsheba to warn her and encourage her to talk to David about this. Adonijah seems to be worried that his father favors Solomon, because he did not invite him (or Nathan) to his big party. So Bathsheba and Nathan tell David about all of this to encourage David to quickly appoint his own desired successor before Adonijah declares himself king.

David does spring into action, ordering a procession and ceremony anointing Solomon as king (1:28-40). Adonijah and his guests at his party hear the trumpets, inquire, and learn that Solomon has just been made king. The guests all depart uneasily, and Adonijah goes to the altar and grasps the horns, seeking sanctuary (1:50). Solomon summons him and lets him go.

David does die soon thereafter, but first gives Solomon advice: keep the ways of the Lord, and get rid of a few people... (2:1-9). He then dies (2:10). Now Adonijah asks Bathsheba to ask Solomon if he can have Abishag (the beautiful virgin whom David never knew sexually) for his wife (2:13-18). According to the commentators, this is really a power move. Elsewhere too, sleeping with a king's wives and concubines is a symbolic way to try to grasp the king's power. So, Solomon has Adonijah killed (2:25).

The rest of chapter 2 has Solomon banishing or putting to death others who threaten his power (because they had sided with Adonijah), including Joab, even though Joab asked for sanctuary. In fact, this was one of the people David advised Solomon to put to death, because of the killings Joab had intiated on his own (not commanded by David), especially of Abner and Amasa (2:5-6). The commentators seem doubtful that David had really suggested this, because those killings had happened so long ago. They think that this was merely a rationalization for killing Joab, but that the real reason was that Solomon felt threatened by him since he sided with Adonijah. But I think it is plausible that David may have advised Solomon to do this, since David and Joab did seem to have an uneasy relationship. I think David found Joab dangerous but valuable, and may well have held a lasting grudge towards him for those two deaths. And David may also have felt that while he could handle Joab, Solomon might have difficulty. It certainly was not a good sign that Joab sided with Adonijah. That did not bode well for his future relationship with Solomon.

Anyway, now that all of the enemies are cleared away, Solomon is ready to rule. Yes, I am appalled at this grisly side of power in those days (the killing off of one's enemies), but, well, this is not the first time I have seen such things in the Bible.

What's interesting from here is that there now seems to follow a substantial period of peace, for a change! We'll see that in what follows.

2 Samuel Draws to a Close

2009-07-05T15:43:00.000-04:00

2 Samuel 21-24

2 Samuel 21:1-14 tells the back story behind why all of Saul's heirs were killed except for Mephibosheth. Apparently, it is a more complicated story than the brief version we earlier saw, involving three years of famine, and the realization that it was due to a past fault of Saul (his trying to wipe out the Gibeonites). Wanting now to make amends to the Gibeonites, David asked them what he should do, and they responded that he should round up seven sons of Saul and have them executed. So he did, but he did also honor their bones, along with those of Saul and Jonathan. And the famine lifted.

2 Samuel 21:15-22 tells of a battle with the Philistines in which David was finally showing his age and was almost killed, so his men told him he had better not go out and fight himself any more. In this and mention of other battles, giants (or descendents of giants) appear again, one with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.

2 Samuel 22 is a poetic passage, a song. It is portrayed as David thanking the Lord for helping him and protecting him. The image is of a person regarding himself as righteous in the midst of lots of drama and violence, grateful for the Lord's strength in carrying him through, helping him to conquer his own enemies, and delivering him from violence.

Clearly, David himself was quite violent, having no qualms about killing those he felt he should kill. We know enough about his life story to realize that he wasn't as perfectly righteous as this passage makes him out to be (see 22:21-25). And so I find myself reading this as the inner view of a person who tries to be righteous (even if not always succeeding) and tries to be a good ruler, honoring God as he rules, and accounting for his success by giving credit to God.

2 Samuel 23:1-7 gives the last words of David: more words of thanks to the Lord.

Then 2 Samuel 23:8-39 honors the best of the brave soldiers who fought for David. The numbers do not add up correctly, if you count the actual names. And Joab is not listed among them, even though he is mentioned back at the end of chapter 20 as being in command of the whole army of Israel. It makes me wonder whether chapters 21-23 up to this point were added in later, breaking up this discussion of Important People in King David's Administration. I'll have a closer look to see whether that makes the numbers add up any better.

Finally, 2 Samuel 24 tells a story of a census, at first portrayed as commanded by the Lord (though Joab is doubtful that this could be so) and then becomes the cause of the Lord's anger. It is mysterious why this would be a problem. The building of an altar saves the day.

So, the end of 2 Samuel has these bits and pieces collected together, signalling that we are getting close to the end of David's reign. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Why the First Two Sons Do Not Become King

2009-06-28T11:00:00.000-04:00

2 Samuel 13-20

David's first son, Amnon, does not become king, because he falls in love with his half-sister, Tamar, rapes her, and thereby becomes hated by Tamar's full brother, Absalom, who ends up killing Amnon.

Absalom is the second son. He flees after killing Amnon, but David forgives him and calls him back, and yet initially will not see him. Resentment brews, and Absalom plots to overthrow David and gain power. David hears of this and flees. Absalom pursues. A battle ensues. Although David does not want Absalom killed, Joab does kill him. David's mourning the death of his second son now creates confusion and more resentment. Judah is happy to call David king again, but the rest of Israel is not so sure.

David returns to Jerusalem, but someone else, Sheba, tries to take control of Israel. In the end, he is defeated. David is fully back in power.

Throughout this story (much longer and more interesting than my summary here!) are other stories of complex relationships and tales of loyalty and betrayal.

First of all, it is interesting that for all of David's displeasure with Joab's harshly violent and vengeful ways, they stay together in alliance. At times, David places others in higher command, but Joab continues to play a major role, taking it upon himself to kill those he finds problematic, even when he knows David will be displeased. It seems that Joab is just fierce and scary, and manages to hold on to a prominent place because of a mixture of his being too dangerous to ignore but also because these characteristics make him a valuable fighter and commander. Joab and David often argue, yet David never actually fires him, as such.

David's wise adviser, Ahithophel, does betray him and sides with Absalom in Absalom's revolt. The notes suggest that it may be that Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandfather (see 11:3 and 23:34), and maybe he was displeased at how David took Bathsheba and had her husband killed. Ahithophel's good advice to Absalom gets bypassed in favor of Hushai's advice. Dismayed, Ahithophel leaves and kills himself.

Hushai is a "good friend" of David who pretends to defect to Absalom, but really plots to turn things around to give David the advantage. He counters Ahithophel's advice with advice of his own while meanwhile sending a warning to David, giving David and his army a chance to regroup and plan for the attack. So, Hushai does stay loyal to David.

Most interesting of all is a little side-story: As David flees from Jerusalem, a man named Shimei comes out of his house cursing at David and throwing stones (16:5-6). Joab's brother, Abishai, offers to kill him, but David stops him. "If he is cursing because the Lord has said to him, 'Curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?'" (16:10). "Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. It may be that the Lord will look on my distress, and the Lord will repay me with good for this cursing of me today" (16:11-12). So the man trails along for a while, continuing to curse and throw stones.

Later, after David is victorious, and is returning to Jerusalem, the same man meets them again. Now he is contrite and begs for David's forgiveness (19:16-23). Abishai again wants to kill him, but David says no, and allows him to live.

Often David's position of refraining from killing is set against Joab's and Abishai's tendencies to kill whoever displeases them or gets in their way. So there emerges a picture of a new kind of leadership, grounded in a new ethic: one that involves some restraint. David wields a kind of power that comes from not killing when he could, and this power is shown to be superior than that of Joab and Abishai. After all, it is David who is king. For all of Joab's fierceness and mercilessness, still, even his position as chief commander of David's army is not stable. His kind of power only gets him so far.

David has the capacity to show mercy and even affection. He is not naive. He keeps a strategic eye on all of his relationships. But he appears to be able to transcend just a strategic stance and is alert to real loyalty and affection wherever it may appear. While not naive, he is also not cynical. He seems to hold the relational complexity in an effective balance.

The Complexity of a King's Relationships

2009-06-21T12:08:00.000-04:00

2 Samuel 8-12

In Chapters 5, 8, and 10 there are more battles, as King David consolidates his power. The victories are seen as signs of the Lord's favor.

Chapter 9 tells the story of David's bringing Jonathan's son Mephibosheth into his household, out of loyalty to Jonathan. Mephibosheth is the last surviving male heir of Saul. He is described as being lame in both feet. It's unclear whether David is motivated by loyalty to Jonathan, or wants to keep Saul's last heir under close watch.

There is a lot of ambiguity throughout the story of David's life whether his relationships are grounded in personal affection or whether they are strategic alliances. Perhaps those in power themselves have difficulty differentiating between these two.

Then Chapters 11-12 bring a new story of relational complexity. David becomes attracted to a woman who is not his wife: Bathsheba. He sleeps with her, and when he learns that she is pregnant, he arranges to have her husband killed in battle. Then he marries Bathsheba. The Lord is not pleased, and so the son that is born dies. But another son is conceived and born: Solomon. We know that Solomon is destined to become the next king, but how? David already has other wives, and other sons. How could it be that this son, born later on, from a marriage that began in such a problematic way, is the one who becomes the next king? We'll have to wait and see how this comes to be.

The story of David's relationship with Bathsheba is interesting. On the one hand, it breaks all the rules of morality. On the other hand, that union in particular holds special status in David's lineage. While the Lord is displeased with the obvious immorality of the situation, David does not fall out of the Lord's favor. (Meanwhile, recall that Saul did fall out of the Lord's favor, apparently for inappropriately performing a sacrifice and/or for not annihilating conquered groups completely.) David continues to show real affection for Bathsheba. Yet even their relationship turns into a strategic alliance of sorts, since we know that it is their son who becomes the next king.

But what I find especially interesting about this story is that it does not start out as a strategic alliance -- it is far too risky for that. This suggests that David is not just motivated by pragmatic and strategic considerations in his relationships. And, in the long run, he is in fact rewarded for this. Even though the start of the relationship is not ethical, and the Lord is portrayed as unhappy with him and as punishing him for this, David does not fall out of the Lord's favor, and ultimately the relationship turns into one that is good and important.

And so there is the suggestion here of the beginning of a change in attitude about relationships. There is now a kind of love in some relationships that transcends both ethical rules and pragmatic or strategic considerations. Suddenly, the divine punishment for an ethical transcendence is reduced and specific (the child born from the initial adultery dies); but the relationship is allowed to turn into marriage and continue; the next child born then in fact becomes the next king. This unexpected turn of events suggests not just a weary tolerance for human fallibility: it looks more like an actual reward for not letting the rules of society or the pragmatics of kingship undermine something emerging as more important: love.

So, I am starting to see a pattern emerge in David's life: an ability throughout to assess and care about relationships in new ways. His loyalty to Saul despite Saul's jealousy towards him; his affection for Saul's son Jonathan, carried through to his care for Jonathan's son (even though all of the rest of Saul's heirs are killed), and now his love for Bathsheba -- all of these relationships show David balancing the demands of his power and responsibility with compassionate concern for certain key people in his life: regarded as unique individuals, deserving of special consideration. David is able to take on personal risk for some of his relationships: risking his power, his reputation, and even his life. Something about these special relationships stops him from a kind of ruthlessness that might seem justified for one in his position. And so we see a place being made for affection, caring, and love. These are not contrasted with power or regarded as weak. On the contrary, David's appeal and perhaps even effectiveness as king are enhanced by these qualities.

We see David as complex and as human, but what is human about him is not portrayed as weak and problematic, but as worthy of a new form of admiration. He loves, and stands up for his love, and the Lord Himself seems to take notice and respect this.

The Promise Reaffirmed

2009-06-14T08:07:00.001-04:00

2 Samuel 6-7

In Chapter 6, the relationship between David and the Lord comes more clearly into focus again. David wishes to bring the ark of God to the city of David. So they begin to bring it, with dancing and music along the way. But then a man named Uzzah accidentally touches the ark and is stricken dead. This show of angry power angers David, and he pauses, letting the ark stay in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. It stays there for three months, "and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household" (6:11). When David hears of this, he decides to bring it to the city of David after all. Again, he dances before the Lord "with all his might" (6:14) as they bring the ark. His wife Michal sees him and "despised him in her heart" (6:16), later chastising him for demeaning himself in that way. But he insists he did this for the Lord, and says, "I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes" for the Lord (6:22). Meanwhile, Michal ends up not ever having any children (6:23).

David now decides that he would like to build a house for the ark. But the prophet Nathan receives word from the Lord that this is not necessary at this time. Chapter 7 is an important and moving dialogue first between Nathan and the Lord, and then between David and the Lord. It is a reaffirmation of the promise from the Lord:

I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel, and I have been with you wherever you went. ... And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more (7: 8-9, 10).

Instead of needing a house Himself, the Lord promises David a house. It is David's offspring who will build the Lord a house (7:13). The Lord promises to remain with his people: "I will not take my steadfast love from him" (7:15).

This is the true moment of arrival. After power is consolidated, the kingdom reunited, and the ark brought into the center, there is this moving time of prayerful appreciation for all that has happened, and what this moment means.

A Complex Transition of Power

2009-06-13T18:12:00.003-04:00

2 Samuel 1-6

The story now seems more focused on human struggles for power. As we watch David transition into power, we see him still concerned about living righteously, but guided more from his own ethical stance (perhaps supplemented by political strategizing?) and less directly by God; yet consideration for the will of the Lord is not entirely lacking. But there seems to be a subtle change in how it is determined. David is not consulting with spiritual leaders. Occasionally he consults with the Lord directly himself.

David is sad at the news of Saul's and Jonathan's deaths (2 Samuel 1). He even has the messenger killed, since the messenger (an Amalekite living in Israel -- the son of a resident alien) said that he had killed Saul (supposedly at Saul's request, seeing defeat at hand). David is upset that someone living in Israel would kill the anointed king.

After Saul's death, David does not immediately become king of all Israel. He first becomes king of Judah. He rules from Hebron. Meanwhile, Saul's son Ishbaal rules over Israel. But it is really Abner, the commander of Saul's army, who seems to be in control. David's people and Isbaal's people fight. In the process, Abner kills one of the brothers of Joab, who seems to have a leadership role over David's army. The struggle between the groups continues (2 Samuel 2).

A fateful moment arises when Abner sleeps with one of Saul's concubines. Ishbaal catches him, and is angry. So, it looks like Abner decides to switch sides. He arranges to meet with David, to help him gain power over Israel and combine the kingdoms. David asks him to bring his (David's) former wife Michal (Saul's daughter) along with him. (Her new husband follows, weeping.) When Joab hears of Abner's meeting with David, he is angry (remember that Abner killed one of his brothers), and tells David that Abner was probably spying. He goes off in search of Abner, finds him, and kills him. David is not happy about this, and makes clear that he had nothing to do with this. He makes sure the people realize that this was Joab's doing because Abner killed his brother (2 Samuel 3).

Meanwhile, Ishbaal became alarmed at hearing of Abner's death -- for good reason. Without that protection, in fact other commanders of his own army now kill Ishbaal in his sleep. They bring his head to David, hoping for praise. David is horrified that they would kill a righteous man in his own bed while he was sleeping, and has them killed (2 Samuel 4).

Now David becomes king of Israel as well as of Judah. He moves to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5). And so now at last we see the kingdom united under one king based in Jerusalem.

Saul's Reign Ends

2008-11-28T10:51:00.004-05:00

1 Samuel 18-31

The rest of the story of 1 Samuel is troubling. After David's heroic deed, Saul starts to become jealous of him, and fearful of him. His fear and jealously turn out to be his own undoing, because the additional deeds of David are really in Saul's best interest, and David never himself appears to plot against Saul for the throne. Yet everyone seems just to know that David will eventually somehow become the next king.

What's puzzling is why Saul is so jealous and worried, given that David is not in a rush to become king. He respects Saul as king. He regards Saul as the one anointed by the Lord to be king, and in fact David does not become king himself until after Saul's death. The person who should be jealous and worried is Saul's son, Jonathan. But instead, Jonathan loves David, and seems happy at the thought of David's becoming king and looks forward to serving him in this role (something that never happens, because Jonathan gets killed in the same battle in which Saul dies).

In fact, while Saul pursues David (who is in hiding, having been helped in his escape by Jonathan), David gets two chances to kill Saul (Ch. 24 and 26), and declines. Both times, Saul is grateful and admits that David is the better man. Yet he continues to pursue David until David finally flees to the land of the Philistines. His being there and gaining the trust of their king (King Achish) seems to play into that king's desire to attack Israel -- that is the battle in which Saul and Jonathan die.

Meanwhile, Samuel too has now died (25:1).

And marriage conventions continue to be, er, interesting. After David conquered Goliath, Saul promised David his elder daughter Merab in marriage (18:17). But he ends up actually giving her in marriage to someone else (18:19). David is not reported as being dismayed or upset about this -- instead, it is next reported that another daughter of Saul loves David: Michal (18:20). Saul is pleased, because he thinks that offering her to David in marriage might work as a snare (18:21). David does marry her, after performing the requisite heroic deeds to earn this honor. Since Michal really loves him, and he succeeded in his heroic deeds, Saul is now more afraid of him than ever: "So Saul was David's enemy from that time forward" (18:29). Michal ends up helping David to escape from one of Saul's plots to kill him (Ch. 19). David never quite comes back, and, later, Michal is given in marriage to someone else (25:44). By then, David has two other wives: Abigail and (25:42) and Ahinoam (25:43).

The story of Abigail (Ch. 25) is an interesting one, framed between the two stories of David's declining to kill Saul. Abigail prevents David from killing her own people. David was angry at her then-husband Nabal for not appreciating the fact that David and his soldiers had been protecting them. In his anger, David was now going to attack them, but Abigail met them with gifts and talked them out of killing everyone. When Nabal heard this story, "his heart died within him; he became like a stone" and he died ten days later (25:37-38). When David heard this, he asked Abigail to be his wife.

These stories of mercy are moving, framed as they are within so many stories of wars and jealous pursuits. It's nice to finally see some stories of mercy celebrated as good: it was good that David did not kill Saul; it was good that Abigail talked David out of killing her people; it was good that David admired her for this, and even married her. The fact that these stories are portrayed as good gives some hope that the glorification of war after war is finally starting to falter a bit.

But we shall see. The story is not over yet...

David and Goliath

2008-09-16T20:50:00.000-04:00

1 Samuel 17

Tensions between the Isaraelites and the Philistines continue. Now the Philistines have presented a giant of a soldier, Goliath, to threaten the Israelites. He challenges someone to fight with him one-on-one. For forty days, the Israelites do not respond -- they are very afraid of the giant.

David, a youth, is sent by his father Jesse to take food to his brothers, who are in Saul's service. Arriving at the battleground, he sees the giant and hears the challenge, and, despite his brothers' protests, decides he will fight the giant. Saul tries to deck him out in armor, but he is so young that it is too heavy and awkward for him, so he takes it all off again and challenges Goliath just with his slingshot. Goliath laughs at him until a stone shot by David from his slingshot brings Goliath down. David finishes him off with Goliath's own sword, and cuts off his head.

Everyone is amazed and impressed.

So, I had heard the story of David and Goliath, and knew that it was biblical, but it is interesting now to see it in context of the ongoing story.

Despite the violence in this story, the image of someone young and unlikely taking down a giant is a remarkable story, reminding us that sheer physical power alone is not always enough to force events to play out as the powerful would wish.

The Divine Power of Music

2008-09-14T10:35:00.002-04:00

1 Samuel 16

Interestingly enough, just after we find David selected as the next king (but before he actually becomes so) David enters the ongoing story line as a musician.

The spirit of the Lord comes "mightily" upon David (16:13), departs from Saul (16:14), and Saul is now tormented by an "evil spirit from the Lord (also 16:14). Saul's servants want to find him relief from these spells, and so they look for a musician, a lyre player. It turns out that David plays the lyre! He also is "a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence" (16:18). Saul "loved him greatly" (16:21), and "whenever the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand, and Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the evil spirit would depart from him" (16:23).

It's nice to see this acknowledgment of the magic healing powers of music!

But, unfortunately, it turns out that the good relationship between Saul and David does not last long...

First King Rejected

2008-09-13T21:24:00.004-04:00

1 Samuel 9-16

I find the life and reign of Saul, the first king, to be sad and puzzling. He keeps fighting these battles splendidly and winning, but the Lord becomes regretful for making him king, because he is not following His commands properly.

Well, Saul is fighting and winning the appropriate battles, but when Samuel doesn't show up in time to perform a certain crucial sacrifice, Saul does it himself. Saul also seems reluctant to totally destroy the cities he conquers, taking an enemy king captive instead of killing him, and thinking it better to save the best of the enemy's livestock to use for sacrifice instead of just slaughtering all the animals. (His army still did destroy all of the people, except for said king.)

So, the Lord rejected Saul as king. "The spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him" (16:14).

As I read these chapters, I had the sense that Saul was trying to do his best. He didn't seem to be trying to be willfully disobedient. If anything, he just seemed a bit clueless about what was really sacrosanct, and which matters he could take into his own hands when other things didn't work out quite as he expected. After all, he was not raised with priestly training, as Samuel was.

But I'll keep reading and see what happens next. Maybe this will become clearer as we watch the next king come on the scene: David.

Wanting a King

2008-08-17T20:51:00.003-04:00

1 Samuel 1-8

1 Samuel begins with the birth of Samuel, one of the last of the Judges. The previous Judge, Eli, had sons who were "scoundrels" (1 Samuel 2:12), and who ended up dying in battle; upon hearing this, Eli died too, and Samuel, who had been ministering to the Lord under Eli, now succeeded Eli as Judge.

But when Samuel got old and his own sons became judges, they "did not follow in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they took bribes and perverted justice" (8:3). So the elders went to Samuel and pointed out that his sons were not doing a very good job, and asked him instead to appoint them a king. Samuel was unhappy with this, seeing it as a rejection of regarding the Lord as king. The Lord told Samuel to warn the people by describing to them the ways of an earthly king (8:9).

So Samuel describes what would happen if they had a king. The king would force people to serve in armies and to grow and cook his food. He would, in effect, enslave his people to his own service (8:10-18).

"But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, 'No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles'"(8:19-20).

Here then was the transition from being ruled by God and the principles of goodness and justice, to being ruled by the earthly quest for power.

It reminds me of the difference between the first city and the second city in Plato's Republic. Early on in the Republic, Socrates constructs one vision of the perfect city that his interlocutors reject because, while everyone's basic needs are met, it is a city without luxuries and extravagances. So, they have to begin again, and the first step in constructing this new "fevered" city (a city always wanting more) is to create a warrior class both to protect this city and to enable it to move ever outward in its quest for more. They need a warrior class because other city-states are not going to let them take more willingly, and because, to the extent that they succeed in obtaining more, they now become vulnerable to jealousy and attack by others.

Back to 1 Samuel: we here see the people subjecting themselves to de facto enslavement in order to support a kind of power now based on avarice. They consent to support this military power so that their country can become mighty.

Which kind of power do you prefer to serve in your life: the power that promotes goodness and justice, or the power that seeks more for the sake of seeking more?

Women Treated (Reasonably) Well At Last!

2007-06-28T11:10:00.000-04:00

Ruth

Reading Ruth is a refreshing change! After grief and hardship, two women eventually find peace and security.

Naomi and her husband Elimelech, both Israelites, leave their land during a time of famine and move to Moab. Elimelech dies, but Naomi raises their two sons, who marry Moabite wives, Orpah and Ruth. After about ten years, Naomi's sons die too. Without any men immediately in their lives, the three women are now left with uncertainty about how to survive.

Orpah goes back to her mother's house, but Naomi heads back to Bethlehem (the famine has now ended), and Ruth insists on going with her, even though that is not her own land.

Because of the custom that poor are allowed to glean in the fields (gather harvest remains after the landowner harvests the fields), they eke out a living. But it turns out that the field that Ruth gleans is owned by a relative of Naomi's husband, a rich relative named Boaz. He generously allows Ruth to glean, and even offers her protection.

At Naomi's urging, Ruth finally hints rather strongly that Boaz owes her and Naomi rather more than embellished gleaning rights, since he is related to Naomi's husband. Boaz, caught a little by surprise, says, in effect, "er, yes, right!" and notes that there is one other male relative more closely related whom he really should notify first.

This other male relative is intrigued by the prospect of gaining Naomi's land; but then hearing that accepting this also requires him to marry Ruth, the Moabite, he declines. So Boaz now feels free (and seems happy) to accept the land himself, as well as the marriage of Ruth. He marries Ruth; they have a son. Having a son now fully ensures the security of both Ruth and Naomi.

It is a story not only about women of misfortune finding their way to a good life again, but is also a story that establishes a more positive vision of intermarriage. It turns out that the son of Ruth and Boaz becomes the grandfather of King David.

I am relieved that there is finally a happier story. I am also relieved to see rigid rules becoming a little more relaxed.

And yet I do have to point out that the story still raises some concerns.

The major question raised for me is why the relatives of Naomi's husband's family did not step in earlier themselves to take care of the two women.

I am guessing that the reason is that Naomi was now too old for remarriage herself, and that Ruth was not regarded as desirable in marriage because of being Moabite. What Boaz initially did -- being generous in allowing Ruth to glean the fields, and offering her protection and hospitality -- was probably at the time already regarded as above and beyond the call of duty. The fact that he did go further even than that is what makes this still a happy story.

The Struggle of Holding Together as a People under God

2007-06-27T10:25:00.000-04:00

Judges 13-21

The rest of Judges is worse. More horrifying violence.

I don't have a TV, in large part because I simply cannot stand how much violence there is on TV. So instead I sit and read the Bible and feel subjected to violence every bit as bad, if not even worse!

But I am reminded of George Fox's admonition to read the Bible in the spirit in which it was written. Clearly these recent days I have not been reading it in a good spirit.

The Study Bible I am reading has interpretive notes sprinkled throughout, and I have been intrigued by the tone of the notes in Judges: the authors of those notes interject their own horror and try to extract the intended message: in the end, they finally write, "Rape, civil war, genocide--all resulted because Israel had no king" (emphasis in original; The Access Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Gail R. O'Day and David Peterson, general editors, Oxford, 1999, p. 327).

And so Judges must be in the Bible to show with vivid honesty an important part of the story: how hard it is for a people to hold together well, remaining focused on keeping God at the center.

I think about this general issue in relation to my own perception of Quakerism. Within Quakerism, there is a strong sense of community. Those of us who are active in our Meetings tend to regard our own Meeting as an important community to which we belong. And these communities are defined by and held together by a religious/spiritual orientation. But regarding Quakerism more generally, we are all aware that the range of beliefs and practices is wide. It is all too easy to regard the Quakers we feel farthest from as being "not real Quakers."

This is similar to the tensions that emerged as Israel spread. The different tribes grew apart over time. Judges ends with an extreme example of the tension: many of the tribes gang up against one of them and fight, almost destroying that tribe. But then they realize that it would be wrong to let this tribe die out completely, and so Judges ends with a reconciliation of sorts, as the other tribes now help this one get back on its feet so to speak. (I will refrain from commenting on how exactly they provided the specific help they offered.)

While, in practice, the Israelites did blend and merge with other peoples, their doing this is the repeated refrain of blame for all of their problems, although there is an undercurrent idea that seems slowly to be emerging: it is not the blending that is so bad in itself -- what is bad is that doing this makes it hard for them to maintain their focus on (their) God.

Something I appreciate about Quakerism is the ethic of "being in the world but not of it." This phrase captures a sense of the importance of connecting to the wider world while at the same time maintaining core aspects of one's identity. And I think that Quakerism has succeeded remarkably well in this (although some may argue otherwise in this day of declining memberships in North American and the U.K.). I think this idea is crucially important, and I hope to write more about it here or in my other blog, Embracing Complexity.

Too Much Violence

2007-06-26T10:25:00.000-04:00

Judges 1-12

This Book has been too violent for me: Wars; fighting; battles. Cutting off thumbs, toes, hands. The ultimate humiliation is that of being killed by women or children. Human sacrifice (Jephthah sacrifices his daughter – his only child – because he had made a vow that if he won a certain battle, he would sacrifice whoever first walked through the doors of his house when he returned victorious from his battle – and it was his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)).

The overarching story of Judges is that the tribes of Israel never quite succeed in total domination: they keep letting conquered people live instead of killing them all or driving them all away. They usually enslave the conquered people instead, and fail to destroy all of their altars. Gradually, Israelites begin to worship some of the other gods. Their own Lord becomes angry and then permits others to conquer them. They live in oppression for a while. But every now and then someone arises to bring the Israelites back to their true God. These special leaders are the “Judges.” God’s favor is shown through their victories against their oppressors. But when each of these Judges dies, the people relapse to the bad behavior of intermingling with the conquered people and worshipping their false gods again. And so the cycle keeps repeating.

What especially strikes me throughout Judges so far are the following themes:

(a) Only total domination could ensure that the people would forever be free of the temptations of worshipping the “wrong” gods. (But why does this remain elusive? Why can the people not quite accomplish this? Why doesn’t God help them to do so?)

(b) There are glimmers that the Israelites in a way accept the other gods. It’s just that they think that their god is the best. (So this isn’t really the monotheism that I expected. The ethic here is that it is best for a people to be loyal to their god, the best god – not that there is in fact only one “true” god.)

(c) Men still have multiple wives, plus concubines. Sometimes it is the sons of concubines and prostitutes who are the heroes. (But do their heroic actions redeem such women in any way? The prejudice against sons of concubines and prostitutes seems to continue unabated throughout long sweeps of time. Yet the reputations of the men who sleep with concubines and prostitutes never seems diminished. Those women are devalued, as are their sons, unless a son should redeem himself by some extraordinary deed—then he can transcend his “unfortunate” background, but only for himself.)

(d) Victory or loss during a time of war is a sign of your god’s favor (or lack thereof). In other words, this is “might makes right” cast in theological clothing. To lose and become oppressed is to be punished for not being loyal enough to one’s god. To win is reward. (These attitudes are still widespread, I am afraid.)

The Rest of Joshua

2007-01-10T11:43:00.000-05:00

Joshua 2 and 13-24

I saw that Rich of Brooklyn Quaker has started a blog on Pondering the Gospels, and I was struck by his quoting a passage suggesting that Rahab is mentioned in the geneology at the beginning of Matthew. Notes in the edition of the Bible I am reading confirm that the Rahab mentioned in Matthew is taken to be the same Rahab described in Joshua 2!

While we cannot quite say that Jesus is descended from Rahab (since Joseph is not supposed to be Jesus' actual father), I still find this extraordinary! One source of my astonishment is the clear note back in Deuteronomy: "Do not intermarry with them" (Deut 7:3). Of course we do not know whether Salmon and Rahab were married as such, but still...

So now we know why the story of Rahab was included!

The rest of Joshua tells of distributing the land that has been conquered so far amongst the tribes of Israel. There was some land east of the Jordan that had already been distributed. Now the remaining tribes get land as well, except the Levites, who get some towns to settle in and some grazing land for their livestock. The eastern tribes have helped with the conquest of this land west of the Jordan, and now they return home.

Joshua himself recounts all that has happened, and urges the people to stay faithful, and then he dies at 110 years old. The people settle in their new land. A new era in their lives begins.

"Holy War"

2007-01-09T10:14:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 20 and Joshua 1-12

Ok, this part does horrify me. Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy lays out the principles of holy war.

At first it does not look so terrible, because the early passages either look reasonable or can be read metaphorically: Don't be afraid because God is with you. If you are in the middle of an important life transition (have just built a house but not yet dedicated it; have planted a vineyard but not yet harvested it; are engaged to be married but not yet married), or if you are just too afraid or disheartened, then you should not fight (Deut 20:5-9).

Furthermore, there is a passage that says that before attacking a town, offer terms of peace first (Deut 20:10). But there is an edge to this offer: if the inhabitants accept, then they are not to be killed, but to be forced into labor (Deut 20:11). If they don't accept, they are to be attacked, all the men killed, and the women taken "as booty" (Deut 20:12-14). Later, it turns out that this is not even an option for the towns within the promised land, but only the towns that "are very far away from you" (Deut 20:15).

"But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them" (Deut 20:16-17).

Joshua 1-12 then tells the story of this holy war to the west of the Jordan River.

While much happens just as stipulated in Deuteronomy 20, there are exceptions to the "total annihilation" stipulation.

The first town to be conquered is Jericho. Joshua sends spies ahead to check things out. The two men go to the house of a prostitute named Rahab. She ends up hiding and protecting them (Josh 2:14), and so she and her family are protected when the rest of Jericho is annihilated (Josh 6:22-25).

The second exception was that after the conquests of Jericho and Ai, the inhabitants of Gibeon tricked Joshua into letting them live by pretending to be from far away and therefore exempt from the necessity of annihilation. Joshua made a treaty with them before discovering that in fact they were among the peoples he was supposed to annihilate, but now, having made the treaty, he had to keep his promise (Josh 9).

And, finally, in some of the battles, mention is made of survivors who escape to fortified towns (e.g., Josh 10:20); and by the time the Israelites stop fighting and divide the land, there is still land that was intended but has not yet been conquered (Josh 13:1-7).

So it seems that total annihilation was intended, to help protect the Iraelites from being tempted into worshipping the wrong gods, but this total annihilation was not quite accomplished. There are lots of hints that down the road, the Israelites do end up succumbing to such temptation, and so we'll have to read on to see if this in fact does end up happening.

But for now, the holy war has gained the Israelites (much of) their promised land.

So, how are we to read this story of war and annihilation?

One way is to read it literally: when you are obedient to God, and you fight a war and win, it proves that God is on your side. If you lose, it is because God is angry at you because of some flaw in your obedience to God (see Josh 7). So, might makes right because having superior might is a sign of God's favor. Unfortunately, I think that this is an all-too-common interpretation of war in general.

But are there metaphorical ways to read it that are less problematic?

On the Verge of a New Life

2007-01-05T12:22:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy reviews the whole story so far, and provides an updated formulation of the law.

The story of the forty-year journey in the wilderness is recounted in chapters 1-3 and 31-34. It ends with Moses' death. While it is difficult to track the exact timing of the events, it seems that they first arrived at the land they were to conquer after just two years, but because of their hesitancy and fear, and God's anger at them, they ended up wandering for another 38 years until that first generation had died off (see Deut 2:14)!

Moses' death just before they finally entered the promised land is portrayed as God's punishment, holding Moses responsible for his people's rebellion during that crucial moment 38 years ago. This seems a bit unfair. But the tone of the writing at the very end, describing Moses' climbing the mountain and seeing the promised land just before he died, is quite affectionate: "Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, and for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel" (Deut 34:10-12).

I cannot help but think that the portrayal of his death as divine punishment was the writer's attempt to explain how he could have died before witnessing the final fulfillment of his mission. This unfortunate occurrence would seem to make no sense unless there was some way to explain that the Lord could have been unhappy with Moses. While I continue to be troubled by the "death as punishment" motif, at least it is consistent in this part of the Bible. But it is good that the story generally gets told in a more positive way now: that Moses gets a triumphant vision of the future from the mountain just before he dies. Now I better understand the Biblical context behind Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "mountaintop" speech.

I will refrain from commenting on the gruesome conquests thus far. (I have a feeling more such tales are to come.)

Despite being troubled by the tale of conquest, I must confess to being moved by much about the narrative. There is something deeply stirring about this kind of a story: a long journey in which God is trying to unite and guide a group of people to a life that can nourish them and a life in which they can build systems to keep them all reminded of what life is really all about, a life that keeps them connected to God. So much of how they structure this life is intended to account for the inevitable presence of human error, and yet correct for it. Structures and rituals are put into place to allow for healing and rectifying what may go wrong, and to keep people reminded of what is important.

It is really impressive to read this narrative that describes how all of this is formulated and put into place.

A huge portion of Deuteronomy recounts the law, but there are some changes from previous passages that describe this. The footnotes in the edition I read suggest that many of the changes soften some of the harsh edges of previous formulations.

This version of the law is preceded by this passage: "You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it" (Deut 4:2). It is no wonder that after the laws have been tested and refined for 40 years in the wilderness, Moses would have anxiety that further changes might destroy the original integrity of his own divine inspiration. It is a tension with any system of law: how much change is tolerable before some of the original ideals become undermined?

And, because I have been tracking formulations of the 10 commandments, here is the Deuteronomy version: Deut 5:7-21.

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol...
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God...
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy...
Honor your father and mother...
You shall not murder.
Neither shall you commit adultery.
Neither shall you steal.
Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife...or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

This list looks familiar! It must be the version that is commonly quoted.

After the rest of the ordinances and statutes are listed, this section ends with a blessing and a curse. The emphasis here is on the people's freedom to choose. Moses tries to persuade the people to choose well, and receive the blessing of God instead of the curse (Deut 11:26-28). The curses and blessings themselves are listed in chapters 27-28. The biggest danger the people face is falling into worshipping the wrong gods.

While I am distressed that this concern is translated by many into intolerance for other religious faiths, it can be read differently. When we make God into our own image, we do run the risk of losing touch with the highest and noblest ideals for guiding our lives, and it is true that when we lose touch in this way, we become most vulnerable to behaving in ways that bring on harm to ourselves and others. The plea to make sure that you are worshipping the "right" God is the plea to be ever vigilant in discerning the difference between our "base" desires and impulses, on the one hand, and noble ideals, on the other hand. By "base" I mean those unexamined desires and impulses that we have not yet reflected on and processed in a way that transmutes them -- that is, that brings them into harmony with those higher ideals that can be said to come from God. It is not, in my humble view, that some religious faiths get this wrong and others get this right. Within any religious faith, different interpretations are possible. And so it is not particular religious faiths that can be wrong or right, but specific interpretations of them that can get this wrong or right.

And so the curses can be read not as punishments for getting it wrong, but as consequences of getting it wrong. The reason it is better to get it right than get it wrong is that "wrong" actions just are those that lead to more unfortunate things happening. That's why it is generally better to avoid them, if we can.

Being Chosen

2006-04-20T11:50:00.000-04:00

The Rest of Numbers

By the end of Numbers, the Israelites have now made their way to the land east of the Jordan River where they are now poised to come into their promised land, Canaan.

Their even being this far has necessitated conquering some kingdoms of people who happened to be dwelling here first. In one case (Midian), this actually meant killing all of the men, and all of the women who were not virgins (see chapter 31). The remaining Midianite women and girls could be “kept for themselves.” What did the Midianites do that was so awful as to justify this genocide? One of the Israelite men had brought home a Midianite woman as a wife. What is so awful about this (after all, Moses’ wife was also Midianite)? It is not clear, except that this particular incident gets connected with an entirely different one: other Israelite men had sexual relations with women from Moab (note: not Midianite women) and got enticed by them to worship their gods (Num 25:1-5).

Meanwhile, the rest of the first generation dies off, except Moses and Caleb and Joshua (Num 26:65). Moses is reminded that he is not going to live much longer and will never get to enter the promised land himself, and so he prepares to have Joshua become the new leader in his place. Two of the tribes, the Reubenites and the Gadites decide that they would like to stay in this land east of the Jordan, but they promise to help the others win and settle in Canaan before they fully settle there. Half of the tribe of Manasseh decides to join them in this (Num 32).

The boundaries of the promised land are clarified (Num 34:1-12). Leaders are designated for the remaining tribes, who will apportion the land to these tribes in proportion to the current population of each tribe (rest of chapter 34). Arrangements are also made for the Levites (Num 35:1-6). And further rules and practices for the people are clarified.

Among the clarifications are laws about what to do about people who have accidentally killed other people (cities of refuge are set up for them to live in until they can be tried). People who intentionally kill others are themselves to be killed. Because it is apparently okay to kill to avenge murder, and okay to kill non-Israelites whose land you’d like to take over, apparently at least one of the ten commandments (“thou shalt not kill”) is not absolute but has certain exceptions.

Clearly, I continue to struggle with all of this.

Now, I do know that all of this has to be read a certain way to be properly understood, but I continue to be troubled because the face-value acceptance of these stories is still at play in our world. If a country wants land or resources occupied and controlled by another country, they think it is okay to go into that other country and take over the land or resources by force, especially if they declare that God (or moral virtue) is on their side. Also, some of the very people who want the 10 commandments posted in schools and other public places (because they believe that the 10 commandments count as absolute moral rules) also support the death penalty.

But let me go ahead and try to read this text more positively.

One of the messages is that things are not always easy, and a person or a group can struggle for a long time, but through the struggles, God is still with them. The Israelites were in the wilderness for 40 years. The first generation died off before ever seeing the promised land. The message here is that even if you struggle your whole life and never see the results you hoped for, your struggles may yet be blessed, helping create a new and better world for later generations.

Another message is that even though the people in their struggles did not always uphold the highest standards of morality or faithfulness, and God was disappointed – even angry – during these times, God did not give up on his people. In this text then we see the emergence of a kind of committed love, a love that endures even through disappointment and anger: a love not linked to the actual actions of the people, but to who they are.

The notion of a “chosen people” is very powerful. On the one hand, I struggle with it because of the apparent exclusivity (one group of people is “chosen”; others can be expunged from the earth, not even from doing anything wrong themselves, but just because they happen not to be the “chosen”). But on the other hand, what is attractive about the concept of a chosen people is the notion that the people belong to God: that no matter what they do, they are loved and will not be abandoned. God still struggles with them, trying to make them better people. But as hard as they may resist, God will not give up on them. God believes that it is possible for them to be the best that they can be. The notion of chosenness is thus a notion of enduring relationship, and enduring hope in the inherent goodness of the people (even if their actions at any given moment may not be living up to this hope). A better life is possible; a better world is possible.

The way I resolve this in my own interpretation is to believe that all people are God’s chosen people.

So the long journey through the wilderness, out of bondage and towards the promised land and a new life in which God’s ideals can be realized on earth (if only the people would behave properly towards each other and towards God) is a powerful and important story: for all people and in all times.

On the Move Again

2006-04-07T13:05:00.000-04:00

Numbers 1-20

I’m finding it hard getting through Numbers.

The story continues: Having finished building the tabernacle and consolidating their spiritual life together, now the Israelites take stock of their numbers for military purposes (Num 1:3), finding that they had 603,550 men 20 years old or older (Num 1:46). This did not include the Levites, the women, or the children. So it is estimated that their total population was about two million.

As they journey through the wilderness, sometimes they have problems finding water or food. The people get upset at these moments. The Lord gets upset with them for getting upset. When they want meat, they are given lots of quails, but then also become afflicted with plagues (See Num 11:18-20 and Num 11:31-34). Spies are sent forth to scope out the land they want eventually to settle. When they come back with reports about how hard it will be to conquer the people already there, the Israelites begin to question whether this is really what they want to do: to fight for this land they thought they were promised. The Lord gets even more angry, and finally reveals that in fact the first generation will never make it to the Promised Land (Num 14:29-30). When a group organizes themselves to challenge Moses’ and Aaron’s authority, the earth opens up and swallows some of the people; fires come forth and consume others (Num 16:31-35). The rest are terrified back into submission.

But a bit later on, the Lord even inexplicably gets upset with Moses and Aaron, and tells them that they will not make it either (Num 20:12). Sure enough, Aaron does die (Num 20:28).

And now, as the people continue to advance, the battles against those they meet begin … (to be continued).

So, hmm, I’m finding all of this difficult: a struggling people; an angry Lord; a violent invasion…

Mysteries of the Tribes of Israel

2006-04-04T10:18:00.000-04:00

Numbers 1

I’ve heard of the “lost tribes” of Israel, and so I’m staying alert as to when those tribes go missing. But, meanwhile, we seem to have now gained a tribe. While the 12 male descendants of Jacob were listed in Genesis 35:22 as: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Daphtali, Gad, and Asher, at the beginning of Numbers (1:5-15), the 12 tribes are listed as: Reuben, Simeon, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Ephraim (a son of Joseph), Manasseh (another son of Joseph), Benjamin, Dan, Asher, Gad, and Naphtali. The changes include the omission here of Levi, and the breaking down of the descendants of Joseph into two separate lines tracing from Joseph’s sons Ephraim and Manasseh. If we add back the Levites (the priestly tribe), there are now 13!

So, I will stay alert as I continue to read about when the "lost tribes" go missing, and which ones they turn out to be!

The Rest of Leviticus

2006-02-16T10:27:00.000-05:00

Leviticus 18-27

The rest of Leviticus includes more rules to structure the Israelites' life together in community. Here are a few that especially caught me by surprise:

"You shall not put on a garment made of two different materials" (Lev 19:19).
"You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard" (Lev 19:27).
Every seventh year is a sabbath for the land! So, farm laborers, as well as the land itself, had sabbaticals (Lev 25:2-7)!

Sexual Ethics

I also found myself a little surprised about the detailed prohibitions about sexual behavior (Lev 18 and Lev 20). I wasn't surprised that there were prohibitions, but I was surprised that they needed such detailed specification. Why not just say, "don't have sex with anyone except your spouse"? I'm not sure if the detailed prohibitions suggest (a) having sex with those not explicitly prohibited was okay (in general, anyone not already married or close of kin), or (b) these were really details about who could be chosen as a wife (remembering that, during this time, men were allowed to have multiple wives). Also, the intended audience seems to be men. Were the rules a little different for women? (Or is this a translation issue -- was the gender meant to be neutral?)

Eye for an Eye

I had earlier noted that the context of the first "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" passage was much more specific than I had expected. I wondered then whether a more general statement would come up later. Yes. See Leviticus 24:19-20.

More on Slavery

Earlier, I had also puzzled over the issue of slavery. A passage in Leviticus clarifies the difference between hired labor and slavery. If Israelites themselves came upon hard times and had to sell themselves, they were not to be regarded as slaves but as hired laborers (who would be freed again in the jubilee year, every 50th year). So the only people who could become slaves, as such, would have been aliens (Lev 25:39-46).

Land

I am very struck with the claim that people did not really "own" land in a permanent sort of way, but the land belongs ultimately to God (Lev 25:23).

But at the same time, the land was to be laid out in a surprisingly permanent way (once they reached the promised land), with a portion for each of the Israelite tribes. People could sell off parts of their land, if they needed to do so for money, but there would be a "jubilee year" every 50th year in which the land would be restored to its original tribes. Additional rules structured how this would happen in a fair way. Since everyone knew this would eventually happen, the buying and selling of land would be regarded as temporary, and thus would affect the pricing (Lev 25).

These are very powerful ways to establish a community's relationship to the land: to regard the land as ultimately God's, and to establish a practice that ensures that that sometime during every generation the whole economic system would be "reset" to give everyone a fresh start!

What if we now also took seriously the notion that no one ever "owns" land or other material property or resources in any permanent way?

And what if we were to establish a practice of re-distributing resources every 50 years? Imagine, for example, everyone's assets being tallied and then redistributed, giving everyone an equal amount! What would such a practice do to our economy?

Cleanness and Uncleanness

2006-02-14T10:16:00.000-05:00

Leviticus 11-17

When I was in college, I remember a professor telling us one day in class that he had learned that not all cultures around the world have a distinction between good and evil, but all cultures do have a distinction between clean and unclean. This professor then speculated that maybe the clean/unclean distinction was more basic than a good/evil distinction. It is only sometimes that a culture will develop out of the pragmatic clean/unclean distinction the moral good/evil distinction.

When we read moral connotations onto the clean/unclean distinction, that is because we come from a culture that does have a strong good/evil distinction as well. Having this latter distinction, we sometimes use clean/unclean as a metaphor for the basic moral distinction.

But we wouldn’t have to regard cleanness/uncleanness as any more than a pragmatic issue impacting on health and aesthetics. In fact, in many contexts, we do not regard it as more than this. When a child comes into the house with dirty hands and feet from playing in the mud, we normally don’t regard him or her as having done moral wrong. Kids play in the mud. We still ask them to wipe their feet and wash their hands, but that’s just so they won’t muddy the carpets or contaminate their food.

So, as I read the chapters in Leviticus (11-15) on cleanness and rituals of purification, this part does not seem very different from our current views. Some of the details may vary, but, in spirit, we continue to follow rituals of purification in an attempt to prevent contagion and contamination.

It is interesting that the rules in Leviticus also address clothing and houses! While the passage about houses may seem strange (Lev 14:34-53), I cannot help but think of the “rituals” we follow for asbestos removal, or the “rituals” we are to follow if the carbon monoxide detector should go off, or if a gas leak is detected.

Leviticus 16 begins with a reference back to the death of Aaron’s two sons: “The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died” (Lev 16:1). I quote this passage because it offers a somewhat different interpretation of why they died: they drew too near the Lord.

The rest of this chapter is about the rituals for the Day of Atonement, and shows the origins of the notion of “scapegoat.” The “scapegoat” is not sacrificed, but is presented alive before the Lord. The priest confesses over it all of the sins of the people, and then the goat is sent out into the wilderness, carrying those sins away (Lev 16:7-10, 20-22).

Lessons in Meaning-Making

2006-02-09T09:46:00.000-05:00

Leviticus 8-10

This passage covers the ordination of Aaron and his sons. Here, something happens that totally caught me by surprise.

At first, as I read along, all goes as expected: Moses guides Aaron and his sons through their ordination. After the initial sacrifices are done, and Aaron and his sons are anointed, they remain in the tent of meeting for 7 days. On the eighth day, they come out and now perform their first sacrifices as priests.

Aaron himself does all right with these, but two of his sons do not perform their sacrifices correctly, and so they die: “they offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord” (Lev 10:1-2). This is the part that surprised me!

Since Aaron and his other two sons were now priests, and still had to finish with their initial sacrifices, they were not permitted to mourn in the usual way.

Part of what I'm finding strange about reading the Bible is how little there is about how people actually felt about the events they were participating in. This probably reflects a different style of storytelling. Events are described, and interpretations are layered over these events, and that's it. (Note the passive construction of the previous sentence: that was intentional!) The only moments that reveal glimmers into people's thoughts or emotions are when they are talking to God or to others -- then you can sometimes catch in their words their anxieties or uncertainties. Another way that emotions are described is somewhat symbolically, as in the struggles with God that I mentioned in a previous post. The struggles are not described in inner emotional terms, but externalized as, for example, a literal fight with an angel.

One of the implications of this kind of storytelling is that, not only does it have an almost dream-like sense of detachment, but also the layered-on interpretations read as definitive truth (instead of interpretation). Let me give an example:

After Aaron's sons die, here's what comes next (an interpretation of why that happened, and what it meant): "Then Moses said to Aaron, 'This is what the Lord meant when he said, "Through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified."' And Aaron was silent" (Lev 10:3). The textual notes in my edition of the Bible try to explain further: the sons must have done something wrong; Aaron's remaining silent means that he refrained from the normal cries of mourning because he was a priest now and priests weren't supposed to do this sort of thing, etc.

But the passage in the text is very sparse. We guess that Aaron and his two remaining sons must have been horrified, because we are horrified. Moses' words are hard to understand and seem almost stern and unfeeling. It is, though, an attempt to make sense of what had happened. But, written in a way that hides everyone's immediate emotional reactions, the interpretation reads as literal truth (instead of interpretation: a people's attempt to make sense of the unexpected).

But understanding it instead as interpretation, we can ourselves choose to read it differently. We can imagine ourselves back in the scene. What exactly happened? Was it that the sons were unprepared for how much the flames would burst out, and maybe their clothes caught on fire? What a tragedy, in the midst of such an important holy event! This, remember, is the first formal ordination of priests! This surely was not what anyone expected would happen! Of course it was urgent for Moses to try quickly to explain why this happened, in a way that wouldn't now discredit God (or Moses' own authority as spokesperson for God) and undo all of the religious practices he had been trying to establish among his people.

And we are all, always, doing this sort of thing: trying to make sense of what happens to us and around us. We try to weave it into our own accounts of an overarching orderliness of the world, even when things may take us by surprise and seem chaotic. We don't want the disasters and tragedies that befall us to gain any more power over us than they already have. We try retrospectively to regain a kind of control (or re-establish the control of a higher being whom we want to trust as ultimately benevolent) by re-writing it into our life histories in as meaningful a way as we can.

Even though Exodus and especially Leviticus are filled with passages that describe the proper ways to do things, it is striking that this passage is not described in those terms. We are not told exactly what Aaron's sons did wrong; nor is there then the pronouncement that performing the rituals incorrectly will always result in death, and so let this be a lesson to future priests! The lack of detailed explanation seems to suggest this really was a surprise that they found hard to understand.

And so it is a touching story. After all, you detect their shock and grief, and you perceive their humility in the face of the unknown and unexpected. Despite this tragic event, they proceed with their rituals and finish the ordination. They do not pause to demand a better explanation before they will continue to accept their God. They trust, even though they do not fully understand. They move into deeper relationship with God, letting this kind of story stand as part of the ultimate mystery of it all.

Sacrifices and Atonement

2006-02-07T08:08:00.000-05:00

Leviticus 1-7

In Leviticus thus far, there are detailed instructions about how to perform animal sacrifices.

On the one hand, it’s a little gruesome reading all of these details about exactly how animal sacrifices are performed. But many humans do eat animals, even today, and eating them requires killing them first. And so, in a society that eats animals, having animal sacrifices in religious rituals means that at least some of the killing of animals is done with real reverence.

It is important to remember that these are a people in transition, who have not yet settled the land they hope to inhabit, but are wandering in a wilderness. Their livestock may be their most reliable food source. In this context, sacrificing animals is sacrificing something centrally important: fundamental to the very sustaining of life. They must choose the best (animals without blemish). In some of the rituals, people do eat some of the meat; but in others, the entire animal is offered to God. So the meaning of sacrifice is clear: when they offer animal sacrifices, they offer that which gives them life.

Sacrifices are offered for the following purposes (at least so far):

For sins of omission or sinful thoughts.
Offerings of well-being.
Purification offerings: for having unintentionally sinned or for having become ritually unclean.
Sins against the Lord (those having to do with desecrating holy objects or failing to fulfill vows to the Lord).
Sins against others (deceit, robbery, fraud, lying).
Votive offerings (when a person has successfully fulfilled a vow made to God).
Freewill offering (spontaneous expression of happiness or gratitude).

These rituals then become a means of cultivating awareness and self-reflection. You must pay attention to how you live your life. You won’t do everything perfectly, but most of the common kinds of mistakes are forgivable. Having rituals gives you something specific to do when you realize the mistakes you have made. They mark your awareness (confession), and bring atonement.

I am moved by the reverence and humility in this way of life.

I reflect on the reasons for offering sacrifices above and ask myself whether there are things I should do to more clearly acknowledge my mistakes, and also to acknowledge my successes and times of well-being and happiness.

A People Consolidating their Spiritual Identity

2006-02-03T11:16:00.000-05:00

Exodus 25-40

This time my readers will be relieved to see that I’m finally finding something positive as I continue my way along this rugged journey of reading the Bible from beginning to end. But before I get to the positive, I must note first a few anomalies and puzzlements.

Anomalies and Puzzlements

In trying to trace the actual story of the 10 Commandments, I am very confused. Last time, I noted that after the listing of the 10 Commandments (Ex 20), the story seemed to begin over again (Ex 24), leading me to think that Moses hadn’t really come forth yet from the mountain with the 10 Commandments carved onto tablets of stone. In Exodus 20, the Lord tells Moses “the ten commandments” (along with all of the other ordinances), but it is never mentioned that Moses has a chance to tell the others, because then in Exodus 24 he actually goes up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, disappearing now for 40 days and 40 nights. It is unclear what exactly will be on these tablets of stone (see Ex 24:12).

Next there is a long account of how to make the tabernacle; how to make vestments for Aaron and his sons, who will become priests; and finally how they should be ordained (Ex 25-31). Presumably the Lord is telling Moses all of this while he is in the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. This section culminates with his now having tablets to take back down, but it’s really hard to tell what is carved on these tablets, because in the context of this entire part of the story, from the promise of tablets (Ex 24:12) to the presentation of them (Ex 31:18), the instructions that are given are about the tabernacle, clothes, and ordination procedures. There is no mention here of the ten commandments, as such. The word that is used is simply the Hebrew word eduth which gets translated “covenant” but could also be translated “treaty” or “testimony.”

At any rate, when Moses returns he is so upset at the chaos he finds (in his long absence, the people have made and have started worshipping a golden calf) that he dashes the tablets down and breaks them. (Given that he is only just returning with the tablets that we all now interpret as containing the 10 commandments, how can he be so upset that people have disobeyed rules that they did not even know about yet? Or was it that he did tell them the 10 commandments before he went up onto the mountain? If so, what was on the tablets then?)

So, Moses gets upset at Aaron for letting this all happen (and Aaron lies about his role in this). Then Moses calls forth those who are “on the Lord’s side,” and has them go forth and kill people (“Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor” (Ex 32:27)). 3000 people thus are killed. What’s clearly troubling about this is that it is a direct violation of one of the 10 commandments (Ex 20:13). Even more astonishing: their killing people is how they (the killers) are cleansed and ordained!!! (Ex 32:29). And in the long run, even though Aaron cooperated in their falling into this grievous sin of idolatry (Ex 32:4), and later lied about it (Ex 32:24), took no responsibility, and blamed the people instead, he is in fact later ordained as the first priest of the new covenant!

But back to the story at hand: next, Moses goes forth to atone for the sin of his people and beg for the Lord’s forgiveness. While the story seems to indicate a new covenant, the Lord asks Moses to make new tablets and take them up the mountain “and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke” (Ex 34:1).

But here’s what’s really strange. This time the Lord says this (shortened version of what can be found in full in Ex 34:17-26):

1. You shall not make cast idols.
2. You shall keep the festival of unleavened bread.
3. All firstborn livestock and children are mine.
4. No one shall appear before me empty-handed.
5. You shall rest on the Sabbath.
6. You shall observe the festival of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the festival of ingathering at the turn of the year.
7. Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.
8. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.
9. The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.
10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

Then: “The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments [or ten words]” (Ex 34:27-28).

So it is not at all clear to me from my reading so far that the tablets of stone really do contain the 10 commandments; nor is it clear what exactly constitutes the “covenant.” It may be that these are clarified later. It may be that this is unclear because of the difficulties of translation. But I am surprised not to find a clearer statement!

One more troubling note: Exodus 34:11-16 is chilling. The Lord promises to help Israel drive out the people who already live in the land they are to settle, and insists that the Israelites not make a covenant with those people, but instead destroy their altars, etc. Here then we have what appears to be the Lord’s approval that one people invade and violently drive out other groups of people, and the Lord’s command that trying to understand the Other sympathetically is a dangerous idea. Recall that the Israelites have been gone from their promised land for 400 years! So this is a really crucial passage for understanding the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and maybe many other land disputes as well!

Leaving this huge issue for the moment, I do want to turn my attention to what I have very much appreciated about the story in Exodus.

Appreciations, At Last!

After the new covenant is established, the Israelites now enthusiastically come forth to build the tabernacle and make the vestments, offering their best to these tasks. The end of Exodus thus gives a detailed account of the establishment of the practices of worship, and the reader gets a sense that this is a time of clarification and consolidation of their identity as a people. Most significantly, this identity is rooted in the fundamental importance of a good relationship with God. That is central.

Furthermore, this task takes something like nine months. So, Part I of the story was God’s leading them out of bondage and into freedom, and Part II is how the people must organize themselves into a community that must keep trying to stay in good relationship towards God. Before they embark on the rest of their journey, they must take this long time to organize themselves and establish the right kind of relationship with God.

I also appreciate the themes of: (1) offering your best to God—contributing your finery and best talents for the creation of something beautiful that is shared by the community and whose purpose is to honor God; (2) the structuring of both space and time to place relationship with God at the center; (3) God’s compassion receiving more prominence in how the story is told; and (4) a subtle but important shift in the human side of the relationship with God, as exemplified by Moses.

Even though God still gets upset and impatient with the people, Moses keeps intervening and convincing God to be more forgiving and compassionate. This is striking because it shows a kind of human autonomy that contributes not what God has already ordained, but something new that persuades God to change His mind (and even to become more compassionate)! Humans are not just either obeying God or messing things up – sometimes humans can add something new to the conversation and to the relationship with God, which God respects.

Wandering in the Wilderness; Receiving 10 Commandments Plus Many Other Ordinances

2006-02-01T09:20:00.000-05:00

Exodus 15-24

The journey of Moses and the Israelites through the wilderness lasts a long time. During their journey, there are times when they are without food or water, but the Lord always provides (see for example Ex 16).

They fight a battle agains Amalek at Rephidim (Ex 17:8-16). Israel prevails. The Lord says, “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Ex 17:14), but not right away: “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Ex 17:16).

Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, comes, bringing Moses' wife and sons to him, and meanwhile gives Moses advice on how to manage the life of the community better (Ex 18).

The Lord said to Moses: “if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6).

The Lord promises to show Himself to the people, by coming out of the mountain in a dense cloud. There is thunder, lightning, and loud noises; the people are told that they will be stoned if they approach too close to the mountain. The mountain is wrapped in smoke and shakes violently. Moses is summoned to go up the mountain (Ex 19).

The first listing of the 10 commandments is at Exodus 20. God speaks these words to Moses. But these words are followed by many other ordinances (see Ex 20:23-26 and Ex 21-23). There is no mention of tablets of stone: instead, Moses writes all of this down (Ex 24:4).

Later in Exodus 24, it is as if the story appears a second time: Moses is called up. This time the trusted elders “beheld God” too (Ex 24:11), but then Moses alone is summoned to the mountain. In this version, the Lord does promise tablets of stone, “with the law and the commandment” (note singular) (Ex 24:12). In this account, Moses disappears into the smoke on the mountain and is gone for 40 days and 40 nights.

But I'll pause here to backtrack slightly and comment on what most surprised me. Among the many ordinances offered in chapters 20-21 is the famous "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" passage. I had always thought that this passage was a general pronoucement. On a negative reading, it sanctions revenge. On a positive reading, it at least limits revenge.

But let's look at it in context:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex 21:22-25).

For the full effect, imagine the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Some men are fighting. A pregnant woman intervenes to try to break up the fight but is accidentally punched in the mouth and loses a tooth. Greatly distressed, she also miscarries. The men, ashamed, stop fighting and tend to her. The husband demands a fine and gets paid.

Scenario 2: Some men are fighting. A pregnant woman intervenes to try to break up the fight but is accidentally punched in the mouth and loses a tooth. Greatly distressed, she also miscarries. Her husband goes into a rage and ends up killing the man who had hit his wife. So the husband is put to death.

In scenario 1, the "tooth for a tooth" rule does not go into effect because there was no subsequent harm done after the miscarriage.

In scenario 2, it is unclear whether anyone would lose a tooth in response to the woman's having had her tooth knocked out prior to her miscarriage, but at any rate, she is now left with absolutely nothing. She's lost a tooth, lost her child, and lost her husband, and there is no mention whatsoever of what should become of her then.

So, it's a very strange passage. It's not a general statement (that anytime someone knocks out another's tooth, they lose their own) -- the other ordinances make this very clear. It seems to be a rule for just this special situation -- a rule intended to stop people from fighting further if a woman miscarries -- and yet it conspicuously leaves out how the woman is to be taken care of after such a tragic event.

Other observations about these ordinances: harm done to slaves is dealt with much less severely than harm done to those who are not slaves. The passages also give insight into how people become slaves: when a man sells his daughter (Ex 21:7) or when someone steals and cannot repay (Ex 22:3). Male slaves are released in the seventh year (Ex 21:2), but can take their wives and children into freedom with them only if they were married before becoming slaves -- if they got married while in service, the master can keep the wife and children when the man is released. If the man refuses to go, he is now held in slavery forever (Ex 21:3-6). Female slaves are never given the opportunity for release (Ex 21:7).

Putting all of this together: when a father sells his daughter into slavery, she becomes a slave for life. But a man who steals, is caught, and cannot repay, goes into slavery for 6 years and then is released.

We'll continue with the 10 Commandments story next time -- the text kind of leaves us hanging here, because other things happen while Moses is gone for 40 days...

God Helps the Oppressed Gain Freedom, But...

2006-01-28T15:37:00.000-05:00

Exodus 5-14

What I’m appreciating so far about the Exodus story is that it is about an oppressed people seeking freedom. God is helping a group of people who are looked down upon and treated badly in the society in which they live. God helps this group to find its dignity, and to claim its freedom.

There is a lot that is interesting in this story. First of all, after Moses and Aaron make their initial request to Pharaoh (a bit deceptive, because they ask only for a few days to go and have a religious festival, but really they do seek permanent escape), Pharaoh is so upset that he commands that the Israelites be compelled to work even harder than before, so that they will not have time to pay heed to deceptive words (Ex 5:7-9). This strategy was very clever, because he even got the Israelites mad at Moses and Aaron, blaming them for the increase in work that they now suffered (Ex 5:20-21).

I must pause here to observe that we in the U.S. have been driven (by the Pharaoh named “Economic Growth”) to work harder and harder – so hard that we don’t have time to pause and look around and question our predicament. When we do have a chance to pause from our work, we are easily seduced into the trance of watching TV. In this trance, we are convinced that we are happy with our lives and have freely chosen this life of working hard so that we can buy all the things that TV programs us to buy. We are (mostly) protected from having to face the full consequences of our all of our frenetic activity: the exploitation of the poor and the destruction of our natural environment.

But, back to the Bible story: Because the Pharaoh did not respond well to the request of the Israelites, the request is repeated, and each time it is denied, a new plague comes down upon Egypt. Here are the 10 plagues:

1. The Nile turns to blood.
2. Swarms of frogs appear.
3. Dust turns into gnats.
4. Swarms of flies appear.
5. Egyptian animals are killed by a disease.
6. The air fills with soot and causes festering boils on people and animals.
7. Thunder, hail, and fire rain down from the sky.
8. Swarms of locusts appear.
9. A dense darkness covers that land.
10. The firstborn children and livestock of the Egyptians all die.

Until the last one, the Pharaoh’s heart remains hardened, though interestingly sometimes it is not that “Pharaoh hardened his heart” (e.g., Ex 8:32) but “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (e.g., Ex 9:12).

The 10th plague finally really upsets the Pharaoh, and he now wants the Israelites (who have consistently been spared the ill effects of these plagues) to be gone. So at last they leave, but then the Lord hardens Pharaoh’s heart again (“I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord” (Ex 14:4).) Pharaoh and his army now pursue the Israelites, but the Red Sea parts to let the Israelites through, but then closes in upon Pharaoh and his army and they are all drowned (Ex 14:10-31).

I am greatly troubled by this part of the story because it portrays God as trying to show off His power, using fear to try to gain notice and respect. I am also troubled because this story reinforces the problematic attitude that God intervenes in really direct ways, such as by invoking natural disasters, suffering, and death, to punish the bad people. This in turn reinforces “blame the victim” kinds of attitudes: when bad things happen to someone, it must mean that the person somehow deserved it, and God is punishing him or her.

Admittedly, there are other more metaphorical ways to interpret this story, but, still, this well-known story, read literally, is an important source of really problematic attitudes that people do voice on a regular basis.

Spiritual Struggles in the Middle of the Night

2006-01-26T08:52:00.000-05:00

Exodus 1-4 (and Genesis 32:34-30)

The Israelites then continued to live in Egypt for a long time, and after several generations, a new king arose who was worried that the Israelites had become so numerous, and so he enslaved them. The king also tried to reduce the numbers of Israelites by asking the midwives to kill any boys who were born to the Israelites.

One mother who bore a son hid him for three months and then, when she could no longer hide him and was supposed to throw him in the Nile, made a little boat and put him in it on the Nile to give him a chance to be rescued and live. He was rescued by the daughter of Pharaoh, in fact, and was thus raised in the Pharaoh’s own house. This child was Moses (Ex 1-2:10).

When Moses grew up, he went among his people and was surprised and horrified to see them living hard lives of forced labor (Ex 2:11). He did not (yet) live among them, but settled in a nearby land called Midian, where he married, had a son, and tended the flock of his father-in-law. The Lord appeared to him one day in a burning bush (Ex 3:2) and told him that he must free his people. Moses was filled with doubts about whether he could accomplish something like this (Ex 4). The Lord told him that his brother Aaron would help him. So Moses headed back to Egypt with his wife and sons, but along the way, “at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him” (Ex 4:24)! This is a most surprising passage! His wife, Zipporah, saved the day.

There was an earlier passage, back in Genesis, about Jacob fighting with an angel of the Lord (Gen 32:34-30). Here, even though the angel put Jacob’s hip out of joint, Jacob didn’t give up, and finally the angel asked Jacob to let him go, but Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me” (Gen 32:26). The angel blessed Jacob, and re-named him “Israel,” (Gen 32:28) or “one who strives with God.”

I suspect that both of these passages are passages about spiritual struggles in the middle of the night. In both cases, these struggles happen the night before an important moment in these men’s lives. For Jacob, it happened the night before he was to meet and try to make peace with his brother Esau. Jacob was very worried, because his brother had good reason to be very upset with him. Jacob was not at all sure that he would emerge from this reunion alive! (He did.) In the case of Moses, his struggle was also the evening before meeting his brother Aaron, but in this case their reunion was symbolic of the beginning of their joint effort to free Israel from being enslaved by Egypt.

Many who work for peace and justice go through spiritual struggles in the middle of the night. These struggles become defining moments along the journey towards embracing one's calling.

Other observations about Exodus, so far:

1. It is interesting that the person who emerges to free his people from being held slaves was himself raised in Pharaoh’s house. It is often the case that the people who have the vision to see clearly that something is wrong have something unusual in their background or experience that enables them to see and question something that everyone else takes for granted (even if unhappily).

2. When Moses received the calling to free his people, at first he was filled with many doubts as to whether he was capable of doing this. God promises to help him at every step of the way.

Joseph Rescues His Jealous Brothers

2006-01-25T08:51:00.000-05:00

Genesis 23-50

Next in Genesis are additional stories about Abraham’s family – chapters 23-36. These include stories about Isaac and Rebekah, and their sons Esau and Jacob; and Jacob’s marriages and his twelve sons and one daughter. And then there is a remarkable story of one of his sons in particular: Joseph, the first son of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel.

I really like the story of Joseph (beginning chapter 37), because Joseph, at first highly favored by his father, falls into bad times due to the jealousy of his brothers. He is taken captive and lives as a slave in Egypt. At first he does well even in this situation, but another stroke of bad luck lands him now in prison. But his ability to interpret dreams brings notice of him to the Pharaoh, and so he is brought out of jail and ends up becoming second-in-command in Egypt, guiding the country well through a long famine. The famine ends up bringing even his brothers to him (they do not yet recognize him) asking for help. He graciously does help them, and forgives them, and brings everyone now to a fertile region of Egypt so that the family is able to survive the long famine.

I like it that Joseph is able to make well of bad times, and is able to forgive those who have wronged him. I especially like it that he was able to appreciate the way God redeemed the bad actions of his brothers by enabling him (Joseph) to be able then to rescue his family from the famine.

This story suggests that what happens to us in life may not be as important as what we make of it. This story also shows how those who gain favor, either by accident (as when Joseph was favored by his father because he was the firstborn son of his father’s favorite wife), or through their own efforts to do well (as when Joseph gained the favor of his master in Egypt), are vulnerable to jealousy – but even so, do not have to be destroyed by it. By living with integrity even through injustice, one’s dignity is restored even if one’s life does not turn around. In Joseph's case, his life did utlimately turn around.

Genesis ends with this story. The Israelites had to leave the promised land and now reside in Egypt.

Abraham and Isaac

2006-01-24T10:49:00.000-05:00

Genesis 12-22

Abraham’s story begins at Chapter 12. (At first, his name is Abram.) “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’” (Gen 12:1-3). Thus the story of a promised land, and a chosen people, begins with Abraham’s story.

Various stories about Abraham and his family are told in chapters 12-19 (I’ve mentioned a few in previous postings). One of the most famous of these stories is the Lord’s continuing promise to Abraham and Sarah that they will have a child – a promise they find harder and harder to believe as they get older. In the meantime, Abraham has a child with Sarah’s servant Hagar. This child is named Ishmael. Sarah is unhappy not to have a child of her own. In chapters 17-18, the promise to Sarah is reiterated. Now they laugh out loud, because Abraham is now 100 years old, and Sarah 90, and “it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women” (Gen 18:11). But then Sarah does in fact have a child: Isaac (Gen 21:1-3).

The most famous story about Abraham is the story of how his faith was tested (Gen 22). After all of this time of waiting for the fulfillment of God’s promise to him (fulfilled in the birth of Isaac), then God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. In the Bible’s account of the story, we cannot see into Abraham’s emotional state. Kierkegaard, in Fear and Trembling, meditates at length on this story, and tells the story in various ways, trying to see into Abraham’s internal reaction to what he has been asked to do. What is he thinking as he walks up the mountain? Is he quietly assured that, although he was asked to do this terrible thing, yet he will not have to? Is he quietly trusting – or inwardly distraught? It is impossible to tell from the Bible version of the story. We are given no clues.

I very much appreciate Kierkegaard's meditations on this story and what it implies about the meaning of faith. How can we be sure we have correctly discerned God's will? Could God sometimes ask us to do something that goes beyond the bounds of what we generally regard as "ethical"? Do faith and ethics always correspond -- or not? Is it better to live ethically, or to be what Kierkegaard calls a "knight of faith"? Or would God never actually ask us to do something that goes against the ethical? These are hugely important questions.

At the last minute, it turns out that Abraham does not have to sacrifice Isaac after all. (Faith and the ethical come back together.) The Lord is very pleased with Abraham. Since Isaac is allowed to live, the rest of the promise now has a chance to be fulfilled. Isaac grows up, marries Rebekah, and has children. One of his children, Jacob, has 12 sons who are then regarded as the ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel.

So the story of Abraham and Sarah is a story of a particular couple, guided to a new land to settle and begin a line of descendants who are regarded as a special people, chosen by God. Abraham is admired for his faith: for living close to God, for being attentive to how God guides him, and what God asks of him. But God’s blessings are not limited just to Abraham’s family: “in you all of the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

As I continue reading the Bible, I will continue to meditate on the recurring themes of a promised land, a chosen people, living in relationship to God, and the meaning of faith.

Women and Slaves in Genesis

2006-01-23T11:32:00.000-05:00

More scattered passages in Genesis

Next in the Bible (beginning at Genesis 12) is the story of Abraham – very important. But before I get directly into that story, there are a few more observations and puzzlements I would just like to note.

Multiple Wives

First of all, apparently during these times it was common for men to have several wives. The first mention of this practice is at Gen 4:19.

Not only did men sometimes have several wives, but sometimes took female servants as wives or concubines. Since Sarai (later named Sarah) did not have children (yet), she offered her female servant Hagar, to sleep with Abram (later named Abraham). Sarai says, “it may be that I shall obtain children by her” (Gen 16:2). Hagar had a son, Ishmael. Later Sarah did finally have a son of her own, Isaac.

Another notable example is Isaac’s son, Jacob. It is Jacob who fathers the 12 sons who are the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel, but with the help of four wives, or, to be more exact, two wives and two concubines. His two wives were Leah and Rachel. Jacob also had children with Leah’s servant, Zilpah, and with Rachel’s servant, Bilhah. The full story can be found in Genesis, chapters 28-30. Besides Jacob’s 12 sons, he also had a daughter.

Slaves

It is also clear that people had slaves during this time. Even though we may want to think of them as servants instead of slaves, multiple passages point out that their rights were very different, and that in fact they were bought and sold, so it is clear that they really were slaves, not hired servants who were free to quit whenever they wanted to quit.

Two other stories in Genesis have me worried, not only about the practice of having slaves, but about the status of all women (slaves or not).

Men Who Don’t Want to be Killed for Having Beautiful Wives Pretend Their Wives are Their Sisters

Abraham himself pretends that Sarah is his sister rather than his wife – not once, but twice! Later, his son follows his example in this respect. Here are the passages:

First version: Abraham and Sarah go to Egypt during a famine in their land. Because Sarah is so beautiful, Abraham is worried that he will get killed, so he tells Sarah to pretend she is his sister. Sarah then is “taken into Pharoah’s house” (Gen 12:15). In fact, he took her for his wife (Gen 12:19).

Second version (Gen 20): they are living in Gerar for a time. Same story. This time, King Abimelech takes Sarah, but apparently doesn’t actually sleep with her before he realizes (through a dream) that she is someone else’s wife already. What is even more bizarre about this story is that it is placed after the Lord’s promise to Abraham that he will father a child with Sarah. Why on earth does he not only endanger Sarah, but expose her to the possibility of conceiving someone else’s child instead of his?!? What’s also strange here is that it now seems as though Sarah is in fact his half-sister!!!

Later, Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac does the same thing: he and his wife Rebekah go to Gerar; Isaac pretends that Rebekah is his sister; King Abimelech looks out a window one day and notices Isaac “fondling his wife Rebekah” (Gen 26:8) and so he calls for Isaac and questions him about this. “Abimelech said, ‘What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us’” (Gen 26:10).

Another Shocking Story on the Status of Women

Genesis 18:16-18:33: A foreshadowing that the Lord is greatly displeased with the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah and will wipe them out. Abraham, knowing that his nephew Lot is there, questions the fairness of wiping the cities out if there are still some good people left. The Lord agrees that even if there are just 10 righteous people there, the cities should not be destroyed.

It is not at all clear what specifically is so wicked about Sodom and Gomorrah. The common interpretation comes from just one cryptic passage: when the angels come to Sodom, and Lot invites them in, all the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that Lot bring out the men he had invited in, “so that we may know them” (Gen 19:5).

The notes explain that this is a threat of homosexual rape. If it is, it is still not at all clear that that is the exact nature of the “sinfulness” of Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe it is an isolated event, and there are other significant ways that Sodom and Gomorrah are wicked.

At any rate, at first I thought what was so objectionable about the mob’s behavior was the threat of rape, not necessarily its homosexual character. But the passage that follows seems to suggest that a mob of men threatening rape is not really so horrible: “Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, ‘I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof’” Gen 19:6-8). This makes it clear that what is specifically wicked is to want to rape one’s guests instead of one’s family members. Or is it one’s guests instead of one’s children? Or is it one’s guests instead of one’s daughters? Or is it – men instead of women?

This is the passage that, on my first attempt to read the Bible, stopped me in my tracks. Lot is supposed to be the righteous one who is being saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah! He is the nephew of the great Abraham! So, what is he doing, offering his daughters to the angry mob?!?!? The mob refuses Lot’s offer (I’m sure his daughters were grateful to the mob about that!), and in the morning, Lot and his wife and two daughters flee. They are warned not to look back. Lot’s wife does glance back, and turns into a pillar of salt.

Then, to top off this most remarkable story: Lot and his daughters live in a cave in the hills, and Lot’s daughters get him drunk and sleep with him in order to have children, who become the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites.

Ok, now that I've confessed to all of what horrifies me in Genesis, let me now shake the dust off my feet and try to turn my attention towards more positive observations in my next posting! Thanks for bearing with me through this very difficult part of the journey!

Nephilim and Other Puzzlements

2006-01-23T09:53:00.000-05:00

Genesis 1:26, 6:4, and 11:1-9

Today, I will just point out some smaller passages that puzzle me:

1. Just before the full story of Noah: Gen 6:4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." Very interesting! Who were the Nephilim?

2. Some passages where God says "we" or "us": "'Let us make humankind in our image'" (Gen 1:26); "'Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech'" (Gen 11:7). Why is God referring to Godself in the plural?

3. The second passage in #2 above is from the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). This famous story, as I read it, puzzles me. Why should God be threatened by humans understanding each other and working well together? Examine, for example, this passage: "And the Lord said, 'Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them'" (Gen 11:6). What strikes me about this passage is that we hear something like it echoed when people will say, "If we work together, imagine what we could accomplish!" Taken on its own, this seems like a wonderfully positive affirmation of human potential. If only we could stop miscommunicating! If only we understood each other better! Imagine the problems we could solve!

And here, in the Bible, for a moment it is nice to hear God affirming this potential: "nothing ... will now be impossible for them"! There is nothing in the passages up to here to suggest that the people are up to no good, or that God is displeased with them. The people are simply building a city, and a tall tower. So the unwary reader, unfamiliar with the story, can read happily along thinking that this is a story about human community at its best, and God's delight in this. But then the next sentences change the story completely: "'Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city" (Gen 11:7-8).

Does this mean that the next time we find ourselves in a heated meeting in which misunderstandings ricochet around the room, we should cite the story of Babel and say, "It is God's will that we should not understand each other, and that we should fail to accomplish our joint task here"?

Ok, I never said my Bible Wonderings would be pretty!

But, seriously, these are the earnest concerns of one trying to understand.

I know that the Babel story is supposed to be about the tempering of human pride. It foretells how groups of humans do sometimes get together and, with their combined power, create something terrible. That has happened repeatedly in human history in spite of the Babel story. After all, the confounding of human languages did not, once and for all, solve this problem of human pride.

But what troubles me the most about this story is, again, the image of a God who seems rather threatened by humans and who does punishing kinds of things to try to control and subdue people. My own image of God is very different; my own faith can no longer be challenged by passages like these. But when I hear the questions and doubts of other seekers who have developed an aversion to "organized religion," or Christianity, or the Abrahamic traditions, or the Bible, I can see why, and it is not always clear how to respond to their concerns.

Noah and the Ark

2006-01-21T10:41:00.000-05:00

Genesis 5:28-9:29

The story of Noah and the Ark is familar enough that I won't comment on the text itself, but instead will reflect on the implications of this story.

It is a story that reflects the human tendency to interpret great natural disasters as "acts of God." Are they? Modern science calls such interpretations into question (since they can be interpreted in relation to "natural" causes, we do not have to consider them "supernatural" in origin.) And yet a new version of the old myth begins to be reborn in today's world. Now, after disasters like Hurricane Katrina, we wonder if we are somehow responsible: but the way we ask it is in a "scientifically updated language": are we responsible for global warming, and was global warming responsible then for the unusual intensity of this hurricane?

In other words, have we been living so badly that terrible things then happen to us?

But there are other ways of thinking layered into the Noah story, and it can be helpful to pull out the different assumptions and consider them each in turn.

First of all, the image of God so far forming in the Bible greatly troubles me, because it is a God who is portrayed as punishing.
Secondly, one major form of punishment is death.
Thirdly, it is not at all clear why some are punished more severely than others. (This concern will actually become clearer as we continue forward in the readings, so I will not say much about this point yet.)

Now, it could be that the stories, as translated (not only into our language, but into our cultural assumptions) portrays a punishment theme more clearly than was originally intended. Or it could be that regarding events in terms of punishment reflects a stage of moral development that individual human beings sometimes move beyond.

What I'm getting at here is that we can think of cause-and-effect patterns in (at least) two very different ways: (1) as expressing predictable mechanisms in how processes unfold, or (2) as expressing patterns of moral relationship. It's probably a mistake to read all of reality as either just the first or just the second. The challenge then is in distinguishing: what kinds of thing just happen (maybe predictably and regularly, but not morally), and what kinds of things happen for moral reasons? It is very common to blur this distinction, as when we say, for example, "little Johnny must learn that there are consequences for his behavior!" Usually that's meant as a moral threat of punishment, rather than a pragmatic observation that, for example, if he doesn't go to bed on time he will be pretty tired tomorrow.

So, in my interpretation of the second creation story, I was actually trying to move beyond a moral reading of the unfolding of events (since Adam and Eve were amoral beings before eating the fruit, and therefore should not have been held morally accountable), and into a pragmatic reading (it is not punishment that life becomes hard after the dawning of moral awareness -- it's just built into the very nature of moral consciousness).

So, to what extent should we take God to be a guide through the predictable patterns built into life, teaching us about these patterns -- and to what extent should we take God to be a punisher?

Some of my students who claim that they want to reject religion have said that what troubles them about religion is the view that God has made this complicated world structured by moral rules, but doesn't give us a very clear instruction book, and yet punishes us for not being able to figure it out. I've heard others then argue that the Bible is that clear instruction book. But what strikes me so far is that the moral lessons in the Bible are not at all clear, and I will be pointing out some of the confusing passages I see as I go along.

Second point (this one troubles me even more): using death as punishment. Lately, I've been noticing how often people ask, "how can God allow this to happen!" when someone they love dies. "This person was so good!" people often say. They may then fall into a crisis of faith -- because a good person died. It makes no sense that God should have "punished" that good person while all these other "bad" people keep living. My careful response has been to nudge in the direction of pointing out that everyone eventually dies, and so it can't be right to interpret death as a sign of God's punishment. To Christians, I point out that even Jesus Christ died on the cross. God surely was not punishing him. And so I've gotten very puzzled. Where does this line of thinking come from: that death is the ultimate divine punishment?

Now that I am reading the Bible, the answer is very clear. In the Noah story, for example, the Lord very clearly decides to wipe out most of the human race because of people's wickedness and violence. But, again, is it punishment, as such -- or just a way of trying to wipe the slate clean?

And even if "the Lord" is portrayed as using death as punishment, what is also odd is how the Lord does not always use it immediately. For example, Cain is not killed for having killed Abel.

Now that I've shared some of my concerns about the image of God, let me come back to the point I started with: how should we interpret natural events, such as floods and mighty storms? Part of what is prized about the Bible is that it tells a story of God's involvement in the world and in human history. The God portrayed in the Bible is not a God who set the world in motion and then stands back and watches how things unfold from a distance. It is not a God who is indifferent to human matters. It is a God who is intimately involved.

I myself am attracted to the general idea of God's continuing involvement in our lives, and in the dramatic events that shape our lives. But exactly how, and why, and in what ways God is involved are not easy questions with simple answers.

I worry that these famous stories do present a really problematic image of what God is like, and of what morality is like. So, what do we do with this?

Cain and Abel

2006-01-20T10:07:00.000-05:00

Genesis 4:1-24

After the two creation stories, there is the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1-24). This story is much shorter than I expected it to be. Given Alice M.'s comment to yesterday's posting, it strikes me as significant that the brother who tends crops kills the brother who is a herder. It seems to foretell how those who settled land ended up (mostly) wiping out more nomadic kinds of societies.

But I find part of the story, as told in the Bible, troubling. Why was the Lord happier with one kind of offering than another? Upon reading this, you can kind of understand why Cain was disappointed and jealous. After working so hard on the land, Cain was upset that the Lord "had no regard" for his offering (Gen 4:5). Still, the wisdom the Lord offers is good advice for us all: work hard, do well, and if others don't fully appreciate what you’ve done, master your disappointment (a rather free paraphrase of Gen 4:7). Also, this passage is now the first mention of "sin" in the Bible: "Sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it" (Gen 4:7).

Instead, we all know, Cain gives into it and kills his brother. Sigh.

He is then banished from the land, and now the interpretive notes in my edition of the Bible (the Access Bible, New Revised Standard Version) point out that he goes on to become founder of cities and of culture (Gen 4:17-22). But also, violence continues (Gen 4:23-24).

So, even though the story, as told, is rather brief, it can be interpreted on many levels. Maybe it is better not to read it as a story about individuals, but a story about the complexities of human society as it shifts and changes: how settling the land, and then settling into cities, became the new norm for human society; how we may have lost something beautiful in the process (societies that wandered freely and more peacefully upon the earth without jealously claiming ownership of the land); how we then gained something new (arts, crafts, culture), but how this gain comes at a cost (this more settled life has a dark side: it breeds human violence).

It may also be read as a story of how hard it is for us to handle our difficult emotions well. We long so much for approval and acceptance, but, ironically, it is exactly when we most fear losing them that we are most inclined to behave in the ways that guarantee their loss.

Two Creation Stories

2006-01-19T08:29:00.000-05:00

Genesis 1:1-3:24

What I first noticed as I started reading the Bible is that there are two different creation stories. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25. Lots of people have noticed this -- the helpful textual notes in the edition of the Bible I am using point that out, and tell me that it is thought that the two versions come from two different sources.

It is the first that sets out the seven days of creation:

Day 1: heavens, earth, light, day and night.
Day 2: the "dome" (sky) that separates the waters below (on earth) from the waters above the sky.
Day 3: dry land and vegetation.
Day 4: stars, moon, sun.
Day 5: water creatures and birds.
Day 6: land animals; humankind (both male and female). The number of human beings created is not specified. Also, God here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no prohibitions.
Day 7: God rested, and blessed this day.

In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And the sequence is very different:

earth and heavens; no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground
from dust, man was created (not woman yet)
garden of Eden -- man is put here; garden includes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil
God tells man to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (note that Woman has not entered the scene yet! Man is alone).
God notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a helper and partner, so He first creates animals and birds and Man names them. But still there was no helper as partner.
God makes Man fall asleep, pulls out a rib, and makes Woman.
The story of original sin then ensues.

In the first story, all of creation is good. In the second story, even the garden of Eden is not a place of relaxed enjoyment, but a place of work (Gen 2:15), and a place where something is off-limits (Gen 2:16-17). God tells Man that if he does eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he will die that very day (Gen 2:17). But later, that's not what happens.

While it may seem unjust that Woman, who wasn't even there yet when this prohibition was originally stated, then gets punished for eating of that tree, it is clear that she knew of the prohibition (Gen 3:2-3). Once Woman and Man eat of the tree, God says, "'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'" (Gen 3:22) and this is why they get kicked out of the garden of Eden -- so they won't become immortal.

While I find many aspects of this second creation story troubling, I am fascinated by the relating the concept of "knowledge of good and evil" with "wisdom" and that being a divine characteristic. Also, it is true that perceiving the world through a moral lens makes existence more painful. But what troubles me is that, as the story is told, originally amoral beings are yet held morally accountable and are punished. Without knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have known it was bad or wrong to disobey God.

So, maybe the story shouldn't be read morally. Maybe it is not, after all, a story of punishment for disobedience. Maybe God really was trying to say, "if you eat of this tree, everything will change, and you might not like it." Eventually, they do eat of that tree. Sure enough: everything changes. God says, "ok, now this kind of existence will be much harder, so you won't want to live forever anymore..." and closes off access to the tree of life as an act of compassion.

If so, does this mean that the concept of "original sin" (the most common interpretation of this second creation story) is not so much due to a moral disobedience somehow present in us in the start (because this contradicts the original amoral casting of human beings), but is better taken to express the essential pain inherent in moral awareness? It's not that we've done anything wrong -- its that awareness of right and wrong simply does make life difficult and painful.

Anyway, the word "sin" has not at all come up yet in this passage of the Bible. So even interpreting this story as a tale of original sin must have been a later interpretation of it.

In the Beginning...

2006-01-18T15:22:00.000-05:00

In the beginning, God created a world, and saw that it was good.

Here I begin a journey that I feel led to take: a journey into a large and difficult but profoundly important text that almost everyone knows about but few have read completely.

While I have long had "read the whole Bible" on my list of "things I'd like to do someday," it wasn't until earlier this month that I suddenly wanted to get started now. I am not even sure what exactly prompted this decision. While it is true that I am a little embarrassed to confess that I have never read through the whole Bible, it wasn't embarrassment that prompted me. It was something else. An awareness crystallized before me that the Bible shapes a lot more of everyone's thinking than people realize. I had the strong sense that if I read the entire Bible through, my understanding of history, literature, and current events would deepen.

Other times when I've tried to start reading the Bible, I did so because it was supposed to be spiritually illuminating. But I'd come across a passage like Genesis 19:6-8 and would slam the book shut in shocked disbelief and wonder how anyone could take such a book seriously! What is this supposed to mean? Why and how is this supposed to be spiritually illuminating? Well-intentioned friends and teachers would try to point me to interpretive materials that would help me to understand how the Bible as a whole was constructed.

So I took courses and studied interpretations and learned so much that I ended up mostly bypassing the actual reading of the text itself, except for recommended passages and the passages that get quoted and read aloud over and over again. I began almost to think that sticking with this "broken Bible" -- the Bible one can re-construct in one's own mind from the Bible stories one has heard and from the quotations that others do find spiritually illuminating -- was enough.

And maybe that "broken Bible" is enough for most people's spiritual journeys.

But now I feel called to face the Bible in its entirety. I will share my thoughts and questions along the way. Anyone who is interested can feel free to chime in with interpretations or additional observations and questions.

This feels like a journey -- into a different time and place, and into very different ways of thinking. I look forward to seeing what I will discover.