The Bible In 90 Days

Day 90

2009-08-09T23:27:00.001-07:00

I finally finished the Bible yesterday with the end of Revelation. The experience was (as vague as this will undoubtedly sound) interesting. I had various issues to overcome from when I started and continued to move through my reading. I mentioned some at my halfway point, but I did not want to discuss all of them in full until I had finished the entire book. Rather than stumble over these roadblocks, however, I made an effort to use them as jumping off points for pushing myself into a better understanding of the message and purpose of whatever story I was struggling with. There is much to say about the Bible, and it would be impossible to discuss them fully without decades of study and learning. However, I will present my own feelings and interpretations as clearly as possible.
I went into these ninety days as a skeptic pretending to be an objective reader. I think this is quite clear from my early posts, as they are simply dripping with sarcasm and cynicism. Around my third post, I noticed how little I seemed to be attempting to at the very least even enjoy the Bible as a story, or perhaps a series of them. With that in mind, I made an attempt to open myself to the possibility of getting something more out of the Bible than bragging rights that I had entered the minority (and it seems to be one) of people who had actually read the entire thing. Thus, my journey truly commenced with that idea. At first, I took what I was reading with a large block of salt; I was able to keep any malice out of my writings (at least I think so), but I did not think the Bible had much more merit than any other pieces of writing I had beheld (fiction and nonfiction alike). This began to change, though, as I moved out of the books of law, beginning with Deuteronomy.
I admit I had not enjoyed reading about Moses. I honestly found him cold, cruel, and almost sociopathic in his control of the Israelites and orders of mass execution. Looking back, I should have considered the fact that it was a history book and not a book on the psychology of Moses (a curse of my generation: we question why people do things, but tend to have trouble accepting that some things just happen). This was actually pointed out to me by one of my most loyal readers, and that made Moses’ character (and I do not mean character in the fictional sense) more acceptable to me. In context, his actions made sense, although they were still often disturbing. Deuteronomy, though, was almost a lamentation; Moses recollects his leadership, bids farewell, and dies happily overlooking the Promised Land. It was a beautiful sentiment, I felt, and it helped me move forward in my ability to consider the Bible as an objective observer. I made more progress with Joshua’s stopping of the sun; I saw this as a hyperbole, and this realization shaped much of my later reading of the Old Testament. Where some things seemed ridiculously over the top or horrendous and atrocious, I was able to consider that, indeed, these recollections might just be hyperbolic in nature. This made sense to me, considering much of the Old Testament was oral history for a long while, and at the very least, it was a tale meant to enthrall as well as inform. This could not be done without some more fantastic elements being included. For example, I equated it to the story of John Hancock signing the Declaration of Independence so visibly to ensure King George could see it, with the reality being he was simply the President of the Continental Congress and signed it in a typical manner: visibly, centered, and clear. Neither are particularly harmful embellishments, but they do aid in understanding of the circumstances of the event in question. Joshua did not stop the sun, but rather the Israelites fought with unmatched intensity and speed; and while John Hancock might not have been thumbing his nose at Great Britain, he was signing a document that represented revolution and an attempt at self-government. And so it went for the next few books.
This attitude served me well as I continued through the stories of the Israelite judges, kings, and eventual downfall of the nation. There was not much to consider theologically; I was reading a history book, more or less. I enjoyed some parts more than others, but where something seemed virtually impossible or absolutely ridiculous, I considered the fact that it might be an exaggeration, and I was placated. When I arrived at Job, however, I had to reexamine my methods of reading the Bible. My first, pure Job entry is blatantly negative (the first actual entry is tied in with Esther). I could not fathom why God would attack such an innocent man over what seemed to be nothing more than a wager with the devil. My third entry, however, is probably one of my favorite entries I wrote the entire time. I will not go into great detail here because the entry itself is fairly lengthy, but I felt that was the most important turning point in my reading. I extracted as much meaning as I could from the story and really tried to understand what it meant. I think I did a fairly good job with it (yes, I will allow myself this vanity), and this is where I truly felt I had reached the level of objectivity I owed to such an important book. I suppose it was here that I was finally able to do things like read the prophets without wondering whether these men were actually divinely inspired or just insane, or similar valid complaints. The Bible is obviously written on the assumption that God does indeed exist, and that is quite an understatement in itself. The authors of the Bible did not assume God’s existence, but believed it unfailingly. By realizing this, however, I could extract meaning from the Bible without distraction. The read was an aid to my own personal religious journey, but at the same time, each individual issue was less important than the big picture. This is precisely why I believe I did not have too much trouble reconciling the fact that the gospels of the New Testament were not always in agreement on various events, or that some omitted seemingly important events. The big picture was Jesus the moral teacher as well as Jesus’ resurrection. I will admit I still had trouble with the miracles. I could not abandon my logic to the Bible so easily, because as much as I tried to be objective, I am still not a Christian, Jew, or any other god-fearing individual. So my skepticism came into play, but I tried to argue with myself to the point of almost stalemate to make sure I understood both the atheist and theist views, which are quickly becoming the cornerstones of my own agnosticism.
The Old Testament is, in my opinion, an almost bipolar book. This is not a perfectly apt description, of course, because it is better explained as long stretches of boredom punctuated by horrendously disturbing acts by various beings and euphorically uplifting acts by these same groups. Again though, the brevity of my statement cannot fully capture the book’s spirit or feel. I mentioned in my posts that I felt connected to something much larger than myself when I was getting into the rhythm of some of the stories. This feeling pervaded in the sections of the book before King Saul; that is, during the Pentateuch, and continuing until around the end of Judges. The amount of history associated with the Old Testament is vast and probably unmatched, and because of this I was able to connect with countless generations who had experienced the Old Testament in different ways; whether as Israelite, Jew, Christian, or any other group, this book is one of the most important writings in history, having touched so many lives. My favorite parts were the stories of King David, Samson, Job (because I enjoyed interpreting it), and Ezekiel, which had really incredible imagery. King David was one of the most human people in the Bible, as his faults are explored almost as much as his virtues. This is unusual in the Bible but I thought it gave some incredible depth to the stories. Samson was, as I mentioned, the first action hero. His story is a little over the top, but I thought it was one of the more entertaining ones in the entire book. Some of the Old Testament was very slow, though; recaps in Chronicles and continued warnings of imminent destruction were among the less exciting parts. But as I finished up the Old Testament, a serious feeling of accomplishment overwhelmed me.
And I finally moved into the New Testament, which is probably the most important writing in all of human history. Just saying that makes me feel humbled; here is the book that has caused some of the most horrible acts committed by humans, while at the same time being the basis behind some of the most benevolent and loving actions. It is stunning to think that this simple section of the Bible that is not even close to half of the book could be so important and so influential. I dove in enthusiastically and enjoyed a lot of it while disliking some of it, just as in the Old Testament. I felt the gospels were a little repetitive because it was the same story over and over, but honestly each one had a little different perspective so there was something new to each one. Mark was my favorite because it was the most bare bones and historical, and I generally like that. The history was also the reason I found Acts so enjoyable. Of Paul’s epistles, I thought Romans was the most interesting; it was a lot more liberal than the others, and the religion struck me as much more free and open. And that leads me to my most significant discovery of the New Testament. I finally understand why Christianity is the largest religion in the world. It focuses on love, charity, and reserving judgment (amongst other things), and the central tenants of the religion were, in my opinion, very acceptable. I think that is the major thought I have come away from the Bible with; I understand these religions and the thought processes behind them much more fully.
So in conclusion, I would say that I took much more from the Bible than I suspected I would. I honestly thought I wouldn’t see much merit in the Bible; I think writing this blog has helped me organize my thoughts and see things in different perspectives, which has allowed me to take much more from the book on the whole than I otherwise would have. I understand the Bible more than I did at first, and I enjoyed it quite a bit more. I even believe that this book encourages some fairly positive beliefs, which is something I did not necessarily believe before I read it. I am proud of this accomplishment and very glad I embarked on this journey. As I close my final entry, I would like to thank all the people who have read this blog, kept up with it, and given me their thoughts. With that, I move on to my next projects, and I will continue with my religious exploration with readings of various other scriptures.

Revelation 12-22

2009-08-08T14:31:00.001-07:00

This section began with a continuation of Revelation. John continues describing his visions, first of a pregnant woman giving birth and then of a dragon with seven heads, seven crowns, and ten horns, poised to devour the newborn child. The child is saved by God to rule the nations, and the dragon with his angels fights Michael (the archangel) and his angels in a long war, culminating in the defeat of the dragon. This dragon is revealed to be the devil, and he pursues the woman after his defeat and subsequent exile on the earth. Various other similar visions are recorded, and John claims that God’s holy people must endure persecution but remain faithful. Another monster appears who exercises more authority than the first one, and his number is said to be 666. John does not explain the significance of the number or even the fact that the monster has a number, but leaves it to the wisdom of the readers who understand to determine the significance. Of course, this is too vague to make much sense out of, especially without decades of study. John then sees the 144,000 Israelites standing with the lamb from the first part of Revelation on Mount Zion, and three angels fly by preaching various things. Seven angels each holding a different plague are unleashed upon the world, and they spread these plagues. The largest earthquake in the history of mankind erupts, followed by massive storms of hail. John is then shown a prostitute that has caused the kings of the world to sin and is told about her. She rides a beast with seven heads, which are said to represent the seven hills where she lives. This is possibly an allusion to Rome, and I think a lot of the symbols in Revelation related to the Roman Empire. We continue with long declarations of the end of Babylon and the world in general, which is very similar to the warnings of the prophets given to Israel and Judah. This section seemed a little more specific because most of Revelation has been devoted to the destruction of humanity at large, but this was mostly focused on the end of Babylon. We continue with a vision of the white horse from earlier in Revelation defeating the armies of earth, followed by a prediction of all those who followed Jesus being resurrected and ruling with him for one thousand years, during which the devil will be bound in a bottomless pit. After this time the devil will be released and fight a massive war with God’s forces, ending with the inevitable defeat of the devil and his final imprisonment. God gives His final judgment of all those who have lived, and the people who fail this judgment are thrown into a lake of fire. John is then shown a New Jerusalem descending from Heaven that is built from solid gold and various precious stones. It has no Temple because God now lives there among His people, so He is the Temple. It is never night so the twelve gates are never closed. These gates are inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and its streets are made of solid gold. John is shown the river of life, which flows under God’s throne. Finally, John promises Jesus’ second coming is soon and that the words in his book are trustworthy. He is told to allow people to continue to live as they please because the end is so near (which it apparently wasn’t, at least by our standards). He closes with a promise that anyone who changes the words in the book (that is, Revelation) will lose their place in God’s city, and praises Jesus.
Revelation, as I said yesterday, is very strange. There are so many symbols that it would take a lifetime to really begin to understand everything John is talking about, but one thing can be certain: the apocalypse as written in Revelation is incredibly chaotic. Angels are flying everywhere, fire is raining from the sky, monsters are loose, war is unending, God’s wrath is continuous, and plagues are constant. Revelation started out fairly calm, but grew in intensity and reached a peak about halfway through today’s read. After that, it slowed down as the final judgment was approached. It was almost as if at the end, the people were basically resigned to their fates. In other words, the wars, battles, and plagues were punishment, and the judgment was the final word so there was no escaping fate after that event. I also found the language to be incredibly vivid. I will once again point to its similarities with Ezekiel. Both had strong, colorful language and involved the prophet in question being taken to Heaven to receive a message. I think, though, that Revelation is one of the more exciting books in the Bible; it is not necessarily my favorite, but one cannot argue it is dull. It is excitingly strange, no doubt, but the fact that it was so odd was one of its most interesting qualities. Indeed, it is hard not to imagine the original audience of Revelation being affected by it, though I question its inclusion in the New Testament. It reads so much like an Old Testament book that I am almost surprised to find it in its current position. After the epistles, Revelation was a bit of a shock, though it was not unwelcome; I did enjoy reading it, just as I enjoyed Ezekiel and other exciting books. I have one final post tomorrow, but today is the last of my reading. I am proud to say that I have officially read the entire Bible.

Jude-Revelation 11

2009-08-07T15:29:00.000-07:00

This section started with a reading of Jude, another half-brother of Jesus. This is not the same as either apostle known as Judas (which is a different form of the name Jude). He greets his audience as a brother of James and is only twenty-five verses long. It begins with a long warning against false teachers, as they do not get their authority from anywhere and sin constantly. He asks his audience to remain faithful, and closes with a prayer of praise. I then moved on to Revelation, the final book in the Bible. Revelation opened with a brief prologue describing the circumstances in which it was written. John greets the seven audience churches with a fairly powerful description of God and follows with a description of the beginning of John’s vision. He turns around to see seven gold lamp stands, with Jesus standing in the middle with a long robe and gold sash across his chest. His head and hair are as white as snow, his eyes were like flames, and he held seven stars in one hand and a sharp two-edged sword in the other. John is told the seven stars represent the seven angels of the Asian churches (Asia being the Roman province that is now western Turkey, that is) and the seven lamp stands represent the churches themselves. This is followed by a message to the church in Ephesus, calling them to return to Jesus. Next the church in Smyrna receives a message, telling them to remain faithful through their coming trials. The church in Pergamum is told to repent of their sins, because they tolerate sinful teachings. The church in Thyatira is told to repent of their sin of listening to a false prophetess named Jezebel, though they have otherwise been fairly righteous, as have the other churches. The next message is sent to the church in Sardis, and they seem to be one of the more wicked churches; they are told to repent entirely and turn back to the basic teachings. The church in Philadelphia (not the modern city in Pennsylvania) is called weak, though righteous, and is told it will be protected. The church in Laodicea is called lukewarm, though they still have a chance to repent and become more fervent, just as the other churches do. John then moves on from his messages to the churches (which are from Jesus, but relayed through John) and describes his experience of being taken up to Heaven, where he sees a throne with someone sitting on it who is as brilliant as gemstones. The scene in Heaven is further described, with God being worshipped regularly by the heavenly beings. A lamb with seven horns and eyes is deemed worthy to open a holy scroll, and this lamb is used as a representative of the tribe of Judah. As the lamb breaks each of the seven seals, various visions are shown to John, which are the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the altar of the souls of martyrs, and when the sixth seal is broken, the sun becomes black and the moon turns red. The stars fall to the earth, and all the people hide in caves and mountains. John then sees four angels holding back the winds so they do not blow on the earth or sea, and another angel comes to mark some beings with the seal of God. 144,000 were sealed from the tribes of Israel; 12,000 from each tribe except Dan, who is replaced with Joseph’s son Manasseh. The lamb breaks the final seal and silence holds in Heaven for a little while. Fire is thrown on the earth, followed by thunder, lightning, and a terrible earthquake. Four angels blow trumpets and vast amounts of things die on the earth. The fifth trumpet blown brings locusts who are told to torture those who do not have the seal of God for five months, and the sixth trumpet brings the next terror, which has four angels killing one third of the human population. Seven “thunders” speak, but John is told to keep their message secret, so what they say is not recorded in Revelation. John eats the scroll that has been opened (parallel to Ezekiel eating the scroll in the Old Testament) and is told God’s mysterious plan will be fulfilled when the seventh and final trumpet is blown. Two prophets are promised, who will be killed and left on display in Jerusalem. They rise after three and a half days, ascend to Heaven, and this is followed by an earthquake. The second terror is said to have passed, and the third terror is described as coming quickly. The final trumpet is blown, which appears to usher in a final judgment by God. This is where today’s section ended, leaving a few chapters tomorrow to close out Revelation.
Jude is fairly straight-forward, which I like. There was not much to say about it because its message was quite clear: avoid false teachers but remain faithful. It seems that most of these epistles are fairly apocalyptic, as if the end of the world was coming very, very soon. This can be interpreted to mean that the end of the world was coming soon in God’s eyes, but I felt that they meant in our own world. Fortunately for us though, the world is still around. Revelation is very strange; to me, it feels more like an Old Testament book. It is prophetic, apocalyptic, and very fantastic, much like Ezekiel’s book. There is an abundance of imagery, and the number seven is repeated extensively. The end of the world is recorded by John, who is given this vision, but Jesus is not present in a significant manner. He is there at the beginning to send messages to various churches (which honestly seems like something he wouldn’t waste time doing personally), but the rest of the book simply has John in Heaven watching various things occur in the future. One thing I noticed was the exclusion of the Tribe of Dan in the final sealing of the Israelites. I read a theory about this; it is notable that, while Dan is excluded, Levi is included. Levi was one of the original tribes of Israel, but it was generally not counted as one after the Israelites moved into the Promised Land because of its priestly status. Thus, Ephraim and Mannaseh were counted instead of Levi and Joseph (because those are half-tribes of Joseph). Ephraim and Dan are not counted, and it is theorized that this is because both tribes were hotbeds of idolatry, which would make theological sense, I think. Continuing though, I cannot interpret this book as a whole very well for various reasons; my knowledge of history is not nearly strong enough, it is written in such symbolic language that many scholars study it for decades, and it might refer to things that have already occurred. Still, my first impressions were that it is a little over the top but still very powerful, yet I found that it was mostly just very strange. The fact that seven is so prevalent is significant, I believe, considering it is so commonly a significant number. However, it appears to me that the prevalence of seven in the New Testament is simply because it was in the Old Testament so often. Like I said before, this reads much more like an Old Testament book, and that is the major feeling I got from it. I have the same reaction to this as I did to Ezekiel, though Ezekiel was a little bit less brutal; it did not discuss the end of the world, but of the coming exile of the Israelites. Still, Revelation’s parallel and connection to the Old Testament is much more defined than any other New Testament book so far. It also does not seem to fit with the epistles or gospels nearly very well. In any case, Revelation has started out in a very intriguing manner, and tomorrow, I will finish it.

James 3-3John

2009-08-07T14:28:00.001-07:00

This section opened with a few warnings pertaining to the power of speech, with James calling it a tool to sin as well as do good. He then warns against judging other people as well as over-confidence and stinginess. James closes with a discussion of the power of prayer and instructions to try and bring wandering believers back, or in other words to help those who question their faith. I then moved on to 1 Peter, written by the apostle Peter, which opened with greetings and a call to trust in Jesus. He then tells the audience to live as holy as possible in everything they do and promises God will judge according to actions, as He has no favorites. Peter then gives instructions to respect human leaders, as they are appointed by God to lead. This explains where the medieval kings got the idea that their position was divinely inspired, I suppose, and Peter then moves on to a discussion of slaves. He tells them to obey their masters, and it seems that Christianity in general accepted slavery as a fact of life; they didn’t necessarily endorse it, but they certainly didn’t condemn it. He instructs wives to obey their husbands, and husbands to obey their wives, which isn’t really equal; the wife is definitely given a lower position. Peter then moves on to tell his audience to be happy about being persecuted for their faith, because this will only bring them closer to God. He also tells them to love each other and be proud of their faith. Peter finally closes with some advice for elders and young men, followed by some final greetings. I then moved into 2 Peter, which was written shortly before Peter’s execution. As a side note, the authorship of Peter is disputed by some scholars, but like the Pauline epistles, for my purposes I accept the traditional author for each epistle. In any case Peter opens with a few greetings and describes the process one must go through to really grow in faith. He then discusses God’s view of wickedness and the coming judgment on those who sin freely without repenting, while also warning the righteous of the temptations offered by those who sin. Peter closes his second letter with a warning of the coming Day of Judgment and commends Paul’s ministry. It is interesting when apostles mention each other, because it demonstrates that they not only knew each other but seemed to discuss doctrine together. Of course, this was done in great amounts at the Council of Jerusalem, where all of the major early Christian fathers met. Peter sends his final greetings, and I moved on to 1 John, which was written by John of Zebedee, the same author of the Gospel of John. John opens with a declaration that God is the light, and following Him removes the spiritual darkness within which people exist. He commands his audience to love one another, claiming it is the most important commandment (just as Jesus himself did in the Gospels). John then warns about antichrists and asks everyone to live as children of God, or in other words, lead righteous lives and love one another. John then moves on to say that people who do not believe in Jesus but claim to have the spirit are false prophets, possessed of the spirit of the antichrist. John elaborates more on the importance of loving one another and 1 John closes with a final assurance that those who believe in Jesus avoid sin. From there, I moved into 2 John, which is considerably shorter than 1 John. 2 John is thirteen verses and addressed to a certain unnamed church, and simply tells the audience to love one another. From there, I moved into 3 John, which opens with greetings to John’s friend Gaius, a believer who welcomed Christian travelers into his home. Paul commends this action, as well as the actions of a man named Demetrius, but condemns a man named Diotrephes, who has been telling the church in Gaius’ city to ignore the Church fathers, such as Peter and John. 3 John closes with a few minor greetings, and that ended my read for the day.
For the most part, I think these last few epistles have been a little dry. They have some interesting things to say, but sometimes they seem to ramble and repeat things I have already heard from the Pauline epistles. I liked Peter’s letters because it was interesting to read the opinions of someone that was an actual witness to the life of Jesus. While Paul was convincing and eloquent, Peter actually experienced the various events in Jesus’ life. In addition, he seemed particularly wise and not necessarily as rigid as James did, though that might be because of audience; James wrote to Jews, and Peter wrote to Gentiles. John was a little more theological in his discussions, and relied on more spiritual basis. James and Peter seemed to refer to the Scriptures a little more. Interestingly, John didn’t seem to trust letters; he would regularly mention he wished to discuss matters in person instead of through pen and ink. There is not much more for me to say on this read, and I move into Jude and begin Revelations tomorrow.

Hebrews 1-James 2

2009-08-05T07:40:00.001-07:00

Hebrews is of uncertain authorship, being attributed to Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, and others. It begins with no greeting, as Paul’s epistles did, but rather an immediate declaration of Jesus’ divinity. He is then shown to be greater than the angels because they are servants of God, whereas Jesus is His son, followed by an assertion that Jesus’ humanity demonstrated his connection to the descendents of Abraham. Jesus is also said to be better than Moses because of his divinity, compared to Moses’ servitude. Jesus is a divine representative, but Moses, though righteous, was simply a servant of God. The author continues preaching about Jesus’ positive attributes and shifts gears when he starts rebuking the Jewish Christians (this epistle’s audience) for requiring another teaching of the basic tenants of Christianity; they should be teaching other people because they have been believers for so long, but instead need to be taught once again. The author calls for the audience to move forward in their spiritual progress, and mentions that those who have turned away from Jesus can never be recovered. The author briefly mentions a man named Melchizedek, who he considers to be a greater man than even Abraham, and elaborates on this assertion. This man has apparently not died, because no record exists detailing his birth or death (this does not strike me as irrefutable evidence for Melchizedek’s continuing life). Melchizedek is said to be a priest that Abraham gave tithe to, but is of a different tribe than the Levites (the Old Testament priests) and even the Israelites. This is used as evidence of Jesus’ priesthood despite being from the tribe of Judah, as no priests were supposed to come from a tribe that was not the Levites. Jesus’ inclusion as High Priest is also used to free the Jewish Christians from the old law and give them salvation with Jesus instead. The use of blood to purify various holy objects is then used to parallel the use of Jesus’ blood to purify humanity and give them the ability to join God in Heaven when the time comes. The author then gives a long list of acts that were inspired by faith and led to beneficial results, followed by a claim that God’s discipline proves his love (much like a parent) and a call to trust and listen to God. He closes with a brief summary and a few greetings, which reveals he is in Italy. I then moved into James’ epistle, which was written by Jesus’ half-brother. He opens with a greeting, addressing the epistle to the twelve tribes, and issues a call to view hardship as a test of the endurance of their faith. He also instructs the audience to be fully religious in action, not just name. James then asks the people not to be prejudiced, as following Jesus means they should treat everyone equally well. This section closed with an assertion that it is impossible to be faithful without also demonstrating it through actions.
I felt Hebrews fell a little flat; its message was a little unclear at times, and otherwise it was a poor attempt to convince the reader of the merits of Christianity compared to Judaism. The reasons for such a point of view were somewhat weak, I thought, and I did not see any new information nor did I believe the information reiterated in Hebrews was of much note. In this regard, I found Hebrews to be one of the less interesting books in the New Testament and certainly the Bible on the whole. It was written by someone who was in Italy, but that might not necessary indicate the author was Paul; there was very obviously a growing church there pretty early on. I liked the end of today’s section in James because it emphasized the importance of actions coupled with faith, which is something that seems to send a good message. Without righteous actions, the faith means very little to anyone else. Tomorrow I continue James and move through a few other epistles as well.

1 Thessalonians 1-Philemon

2009-08-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

This section opens with more greetings followed by a commendation of the faith in Thessalonica. Paul reminisces about his initial trip to Thessalonica, discussing the excitement of the converts and their subsequent persecution which he compares to persecution of the believers in Judea. He then mentions Timothy’s report on the Thessalonian church, which was very favorable. Paul is pleased to hear this, and again commends the Thessalonians. He instructs them to continue to live righteous lives and mentions the coming resurrection of the dead when Jesus returns. I am actually a little unsure of what Paul actually thinks happens after death. In his early letters, he seems to push the idea that people die but will be resurrected when Jesus returns, and thus do not have eternal life right away. Later on though, Paul seems to think that you stay with Jesus beginning when you die and until the end of days, when everyone returns to earth for the final judgment. In any case, Paul closes 1 Thessalonians with some final greetings and I moved onto 2 Thessalonians. This epistle was written only a few months after 1 Thessalonians, and it opens with encouragement despite the heavy persecution the church was experiencing. I get the impression this persecution was a pretty major crisis because of how little time elapsed between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. It appears to be bad enough that Paul has to assure the Thessalonians that the end of days has not come yet, and will not until the “man of sin” comes to power. I believe this is interpreted to be the anti-Christ, and Paul has to make sure the Thessalonians know that the end of times will follow an incredible catastrophe. Paul closes this letter with a call to prayer and righteous living. From there, I moved into 1 Timothy, which was written just prior to Paul’s final imprisonment. He greets Timothy and immediately begins telling him to be wary of false teachers. Paul then commends God’s graciousness, using himself as a good example of it. He continues with instructions and tells Timothy that he never lets a woman have authority, because they are the ones who caused original sin in addition to being made from a rib of a man. This is unfortunate, I think; it is contrary to a few other things Paul says but remains faithful to the general feelings of sexism that are rampant in the Bible. I imagine it helped keep women down for centuries afterwards (unfortunately, I do acknowledge that this is not unique to Christianity). Paul gives Timothy advice on how to choose elders and deacons, and here is something I found very interesting. They are all actually expected to have wives and families, which runs contrary to the clergy of Catholicism. I would very much like to know where this apparent discrepancy between the scriptures and practice came from, as it seems celibacy is considered by Paul to be ideal, but not likely or expected of people. Paul continues instructing Timothy in various areas of the church, such as how to handle elders, men, women, and widows, and even tells him to drink a little wine for the sake of his stomach, because apparently Timothy is sick fairly often. A strange inclusion, I thought, but it makes sense considering this is a personal letter to a follower of Paul’s. He finally closes with a few minor instructions, including asking Timothy to remain faithful, and I moved into 2 Timothy. This epistle starts with another call for Timothy to be faithful, which Paul seems certain will occur. Timothy’s faith has always been strong, Paul says, and he continues by giving Timothy various pieces of advice, such as avoiding quarrels and gently preaching about God and Jesus. He explains that, while there are unfaithful and wicked people in the world, Timothy is one of the few who truly understands Paul’s teachings. He closes with a few greetings, and it appears most of the people he traveled with have abandoned him, save for Luke. He mentions that Linus sends his greetings to Timothy, and I recognize this name as the name of the second pope; I also know that until the sixteenth century, popes kept their baptismal name, so I wonder if these are the same people. Paul closes 2 Timothy with a request of his follower to bring his coat and papers, and I moved into Titus. Titus read basically like 1 Timothy, except it was addressed to Titus, who was in Crete, and the people Titus was preaching to were a little more difficult to control. Philemon was the last epistle of today’s read, and it was simply a letter to a man named Philemon who owned a runaway slave named Onesimus. Paul appealed to Philemon to grant Onesimus forgiveness and treat him well, and closed by asking Philemon to prepare a guest bedroom because Paul planned on visiting.
I was not very fond of 1 Thessalonians; it seemed like almost a waste because it basically said that the Thessalonians were living righteous and holy lives, and instructed them to continue this. It also did not contain any really new information on how a Christian should believe or what the doctrine is, so it was not as interesting to me as the earlier epistles. I also am unsure as to what Paul’s stance on what happens after death is. Also, it seems that the point of view presented in the Bible is that the life we lead is meaningless; if Jesus is accepted, we will be raised from the dead to rule with him at the end of days. If this is the case, there really seems to be little point in living on the whole. Aside from believing in Jesus, life is almost a waste of time. It is not even a particularly apt test because there is only one question anybody needs to get right, and that is whether or not Jesus is to be accepted as a savior and the son of God. 2 Thessalonians had a very unique feel. It seemed as though the Thessalonians were being persecuted more than most people at the time, so Paul had to rush the letter out to make sure they received the necessary encouragement. There is little new information in it as it just contains a call to remain faithful and continue to pray, while also leading righteous lives. Timothy was a little disconcerting with its message to keep women from being church leaders, but I cannot say much more on that subject that I have not already said. It is interesting, though, to note that this practice is continued in Catholicism, whereas the practice of church leaders having wives is not. 2 Timothy had a totally different feel than 1 Timothy. It seemed almost desperate, as Paul was nearing his death. In the first letter to Timothy, Paul appeared to be unaware he was going to meet his death very soon. Later, though, he seemed very aware that his execution was just around the corner, and I wonder if Timothy was able to reach Paul before this event. The text was somber and morose, and it was actually a little depressing to read the words Paul wrote so close to his death, especially considering I am in the very city this happened. I also got the impression he had been virtually abandoned, and that adds to the feeling. Other than reading like an epitaph, not much theological information was presented in 2 Timothy. I did not have anything new to say about Titus, and Philemon was so short that there wasn’t much of note in it; it did emphasize forgiveness, as Paul wanted Philemon to forgive his slave. It doesn’t seem to address the moral issues with slavery, which I wonder about with regards to early Christianity. I will have to consider that as I move through the last four days of my reading. Incidentally, I would like to mention the reason I use Catholicism as an example so often is twofold; for one thing, it is the sect that is most familiar to me, and for another, it seems to me to be the direct continuation of the specific church set up by Paul and Peter, though I know too little of the Eastern Orthodox Church to say that absolutely. And finally, I am now finished with the epistles that are ascribed to Paul; Hebrews, the next one, is of uncertain authorship.

Galatians 4-Colossians 4

2009-08-03T09:11:00.000-07:00

This section spans over four different epistles: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. It started with a continuation of my reading of Galatians, where Paul continues his discussion of the purpose of the law before Jesus. It was like a father dying and leaving his estate to his minor children, and they were required to obey their guardians until they came of age. In this metaphor, the children are the people and the guardians are the law. They are now free from it, and have been adopted as God’s children. Paul promises freedom in Jesus and advises the Galatian church to let the Holy Spirit guide them. He closes Galatians with a call to help other people and assures his audience that living with faith in Jesus is all that is necessary to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I then moved into Ephesians, which opens with spiritual blessings. He continues assurances that they are now God’s people and saved because of their faith in Jesus and discusses God’s mysterious plan, which related to the spread of the word of Jesus through the church, along with the sharing of God’s world by the Jews and Gentiles, who are both being saved as the church grows. Paul then calls the Gentiles to turn from their sinful ways and follow Jesus in an effort to live righteously. He tells the audience (the Ephesians, presumably) to avoid coarse jokes and immoral talk or behavior while also avoiding being drunk. Paul seems to be once again encouraging an almost monkish lifestyle here; he asks the Ephesians to refrain from all vices, regardless of their severity. Paul moves on to ask that all people treat their superiors with respect, and encourages love between husbands and wives (while simultaneously asking the wives to submit to their husbands; of course, he instructs the husbands to love their wives and treat them well, so it is not a totally negative message). Paul closes this epistle with a call to use prayer as an armor, as I interpreted it, and updates the Ephesians on his condition: he is still imprisoned in Rome, but has sent a helper to update them on his condition. I then moved on to Philippians, which opened with a prayer of thanksgiving and an assertion that because he was suffering for his faith, Paul was demonstrating the power of Christianity. This is actually true, at least to an extent; this refusal to relent in its belief was one of the reasons the Christian church spread. Paul is not sure whether he wants to live or die, as if he is alive he can spread the word of Jesus more effectively, but death means he is with Jesus in Heaven. He then tells his audience to strive to be like Jesus, who gave up divine privileges to die a criminal’s death. By saying this, he is impressing upon the Philippians to focus on being servants of the church. In this way, they can become leaders of the faith. Paul repeats his declaration that Christians are free from the law, and I notice now that he seems to have steadily accepted less and less Jewish law. At first, he was saying that following the Mosaic Law was acceptable as long as Jesus was also accepted. Now, however, he goes so far as to call circumcision mutilation. He almost seems militantly against Judaism, and I think it has to do with the role of the Jewish authorities in his imprisonment. If they had not bothered him, he would not be forced into confinement by the Romans. Regardless of his attempts to live like Jesus, he is still human and therefore must be at least slightly irked at his lot in life, though he does as well as possible in making the best of it. He actually mentions that he still strives for perfection though has not achieved it, which to me indicates that he is a little bitter; he looks to the future, but does not dwell on the past. Paul concludes Philippians with some specific instructions and advice to various individuals, and I moved on to Colossians. This epistle opens in an expected fashion, with greetings and a prayer of thanksgiving. He again mentions the Christian freedom from the Jewish law, citing self-denial as an example of something that might require discipline, but does not bring one closer to God. He then encourages forgiveness, kindness, and equality, claiming that Jews and Gentiles are no different in the church. He gives instructions for a Christian household, which is parallel to the instructions from Ephesians, and Paul closes Colossians with some farewells and specific mentions of greetings, such as from Luke, the author of Luke and Acts.
Galatians was interesting, and it seemed to return to the leniency of Romans. It was not quite as liberal-minded, but I thought it was fairly open in terms of worship. This makes sense, I think; the Galatians were Gentiles originally, as were the Ephesians. I also enjoyed the comparisons of the Jewish law verses following Jesus to various earthly situations. They made the role of both much clearer, I felt. Ephesians was also a fairly good book as it had some good instruction but did not ramble or rant as I felt 1 Corinthians did a little. It was not very long, but still managed to have some interesting insights and instructions. These were fairly fresh, as they were not specifically mentioned in other epistles. I suppose this makes sense, however; they were chosen for that reason. The epistles need to have information encompassing pretty much all aspects of Christian life, or else a different one would be included. It also seemed that the Ephesian church was thriving, but Paul felt a reminder of their mission could be beneficial. Philippians, as I mentioned, gave me the impression that Paul was a little bitter towards the Jewish religion after they had persecuted him. I think this is actually pretty justified, as he had not advocated the abandonment of Jewish law, just faith in Jesus. Despite this, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem indirectly caused his imprisonment in Rome (though this is by no means biblical justification for anti-Semitism). Colossians had a very similar feel to Ephesians and Philippians, so I didn’t have many thoughts on that. I will mention, however, that I am curious as to where the idea of the trinity comes from. It does not appear so far in the Bible and I am uncertain as to whether it does later on. I wonder if this was simply doctrine that came to be accepted as a way of reconciling the various holy individuals or beings that seemed to be prevalent in the New Testament. I would include the Old Testament as well, but I didn’t get the impression that the Holy Spirit was a distinct being in it; therefore, there was only God. In fact, I don’t get the impression that the Holy Spirit is intended to be a sentient, distinct being from God or Jesus in either testament. It is simply the term used to describe someone who does God’s work, having been divinely inspired. I would also like to mention that I have been in Rome these last two days and will continue to be here for two more days, so I have seen the incredible veneration of Jesus (obviously), Paul, and Peter firsthand. Seeing the tombs of Paul and Peter is an incredible experience; I am reading writings by them, so it is amazing to think that the people who wrote these influential works that have been read worlds away rest mere feet from where you stand. It is a humbling experience, and I find it to be heightened by the experience of reading the Bible. The other frescoes and paintings are additionally enhanced because I am able to recognize various scenes from the Old and New Testament, so the various landmarks of the city have an even greater impact on me than they otherwise would. With that, I close my post for the day, and look forward to tomorrow: 1 Thessalonians to Philemon, the first of the last five days of this journey.

1 Corinthians 15-Galatians 3

2009-08-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

This section opens with an assertion that Jesus died but was resurrected and appeared to the Twelve followed by five hundred or so of his followers, which refutes the idea I had earlier that he only appeared to his personal circle. Paul emphasizes this point to demonstrate that everyone will someday be raised from the dead, or else there would be no point in his ministry. This is a little bit of circular logic, because it states that Jesus must have risen from the dead or else their preaching would be false, which can’t be true because they state that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul then states that our mortal bodies will be discarded when we are all raised from the dead because they will need to be transformed into immortal ones. Paul sends his greetings to close, and I then moved on to 2 Corinthians. Paul opens with more greetings (this was written roughly a year after 1 Corinthians) and offers words explaining the comfort of God. There has apparently been some sort of crisis in Corinth, and Paul urges the believers to comfort and forgive the man in charge of the opposition so as to not discourage his faith. It is a good example of the Christian forgiveness that is so often encouraged in the Bible. Paul then compares the old covenant (Judaism) to the new one (Christianity), emphasizing the superiority of the new covenant. Paul continues discussing the immortal bodies that are promised to the believers, followed by another call to spread the word of Jesus. He talks about the hardships of being an apostle and commends the Christian ministry for its fervor. Paul then asks the Corinthian church to share their love with the church leaders, as the church leaders have shared their love with the Corinthians. He seems to also imply that the Corinthian church has grown in faith, as he appears to be less unhappy with them than he was in 1 Corinthians. Paul mentions the thrill Titus (his assistant) felt when he arrived in Corinth because of the religious fervor that was so rampant after Paul’s first letter. The Corinthian church seems to be like the rebel child, but one that eventually figures itself out and becomes quite admirable. Paul also requests donations for the poor believers in Jerusalem (which absolutely seems like the current center of the church), but not enough to make the donators’ lives difficult; just enough to make things somewhat equal. He emphatically instructs them to give only what they are comfortable with, which fits in with the idea presented in Romans of worshipping in a way that is comfortable to you. This idea of a fairly free method of worshipping God and Jesus is agreeable, I believe, because it opens the door for so many different people to find their own way. Paul then defends his authority as an apostle, assuring the Corinthians that the use of apostolic authority only builds the church up, and does not make the apostles seem better than they actually are. He then summarizes the trials he has been through in Christ’s name to emphasize his devotion to the church. I got a little more of an arrogant impression from Paul, but it was much more justified this time and not nearly so pronounced. He closes with a few blessings and prepares the Corinthians for his arrival. I then moved from 2 Corinthians and into Galatians. Paul opens Galatians by expressing his surprise that the church has fallen from his teachings so quickly, admitting his shock that they are following false teachers. He discusses his calling to the church and initial meeting with Peter, James (Jesus’ brother, though I assume Paul means half-brother), and John, who were called “pillars of the church.” They approve of his teachings, which I think is used to demonstrate the veracity of his teachings to the Galatians. Since they have fallen away, they might need a refresher. Paul also mentions his confrontation of Peter for hypocrisy, and I think this is to emphasize the equality of the Jews and Gentiles because the hypocrisy was related to Peter eating with Gentiles when other Jews were not around, but not when the Jews were around. He discusses possible contradictions between God’s law and promises, but reconciles them with Jesus, declaring that everyone is free of sin because of Jesus. He then uses a comparison I thought to be very apt; the law of Judaism was used as a safeguard or even an insurance policy until Jesus came, but now that he has come and faith is all that is necessary to truly be with God, the law is not necessary. This, of course, frees Christians from Jewish law and explains why they do not celebrate the same holidays or hold the same customs (though many of the Catholic traditions, at the very least, resemble the Jewish ones quite closely). This section closed with an assurance that all people who believe in Christ are Abraham’s children through faith rather than blood.
I think it is important to take 1 Corinthians with 2 Corinthians, because I did not like 1 Corinthians very much and I felt differently about 2 Corinthians by means of contrasting them. 1 Corinthians gives a severe impression, but it now seems like a rebuke for falling away from the teaching Paul gave them. Therefore, Paul needs to bring them back into line, and as I have said before, he is an intelligent man. He knows his audience and is able to convince them to repent from their slide back into sin, which is evident from the more positive message and continual praise of 2 Corinthians. Paul is obviously proud of the Corinthian church because of their repentance, which, as I mentioned, is like a rebellious child that eventually finds his way. I would even go as far as to say that Paul is thrilled with their return to proper teachings (at least, according to him) and this feeling is shared by Titus, Paul’s assistant. Both books of the Corinthians were a little less interesting to me than Romans and I felt that overall they were a little less acceptable in my mind because they seemed stricter, but I was happier with 2 Corinthians on the whole. Galatians had a different feel altogether. Paul discussed some of his past and addressed completely different concerns, once again emphasizing the fact that he definitely understands his audience. I like Galatians so far because it had some really clear explanations of the freedom given through Jesus but avoided repeating the same things discussed in Romans and Corinthians. Galatians seems to have a totally different intention, but one that assures the reader that the scriptures and Jesus are absolutely compatible and tries to eliminate some of the contradictions one might pick up on in the scriptures. Paul is fairly good at this, as the explanations he gives involving Jesus seem to make sense with regards to the scriptures and religions involved. Tomorrow I continue Galatians and move through more of the New Testament.

Romans 15-1 Corinthians 14

2009-08-02T09:24:00.000-07:00

This section opens with Paul calling the Romans to live well and to please others, as this is the most righteous thing to do. Even Jesus lived to please others, he says, and he continues by stating he wants to preach about Jesus where no one has yet, not where there is already an established church. Paul then sends his greetings to various people he knows in Rome and closes with these. Paul’s scribe inserts a message of greeting as well, which surprised me; I was under the impression that Paul was writing the letter himself, but it makes sense that Paul would have a recorder. I then moved on to 1 Corinthians, another Pauline epistle. This was written to the people of Corinth, a city Paul preaches in during Acts. He opens in a similar way as Romans with a greeting and gives thanks to God. Paul notes that preaching about Jesus seems ridiculous to those who are headed for destruction, but makes perfect sense for people who are believers. He says the leaders of the world did not understand Jesus, or they wouldn’t have crucified him. This might be true, but if Jesus had not been crucified, he wouldn’t have fulfilled his purpose by coming back to life, and his importance would be lessened considerably. Paul criticizes the Corinthian church for forming factions and pledging allegiance to different Christian leaders, whether it be Paul, Apollos, Peter, or someone else, declaring that the believers should simply be united under Christ. Paul criticizes some people in Corinth, but these come off as judgments. Someone who follows Jesus so closely probably shouldn’t be judging other individuals because it is against what Jesus preached, it would seem, so this struck me as a bit of a contradiction. Paul then forbids lawsuits between fellow believers and criticizes the sexual immorality that appears to be rampant in Corinth, condemning people who do not follow the commandments and teachings of Jesus closely (another pretty big judgment). Paul mentions that a celibate life is preferable, but that in marriage, sexual activity should be partaken in unless a limited time of celibacy is agreed to by both the man and woman. This concession is only made because it is so difficult to control oneself as an unmarried individual. Those with non-believing spouses should stay with them because the believers bring holiness to the marriage, but Paul does not see marriage as a sin; just not preferable when compared to being single. He then mentions that eating food offered to idols might hurt the faith of a weaker believer, and this should be avoided at all costs. Paul discusses his calling to preach as well as the effects of idols on the Israelite population, calling these idols demons and advising the Corinthians to avoid them. However, Paul again tells his audience not to worry about what they eat because everything comes from God’s earth and therefore gives Him glory. He then forbids men from worshipping with head coverings, but forbids the converse for women. I suppose this explains why men are expected to remove their hats, whereas women are not (such as during the National Anthem). Paul explains that women and men are not independent of each other because, though the first woman came from a man, all subsequent men come from women. This is a pretty progressive teaching, I think. It actually puts men and women on an equal level, which is an uncommon belief in the Bible. Next, Paul discussed the Lord’s Supper, emphasizing that people should share with the poor, and spiritual gifts, explaining that many people receive different gifts for different purposes. He then says that none of these gifts mean anything without being paired with love, which is the most important commandment. He mentions that love rejoices when truth wins out, which is interesting because so many people who are Christian can be so blind. This is, of course, a universally human trait, but I am reading the Christian Bible so I take note of it as related to Christians and Christianity. I do agree that love is a powerful force and positivity does tend to extend from it, but it can also lead to a fairly closed point of view. Paul says that those who speak in tongues should actively desire and pursue the ability to interpret these prayers and that this ability is for the benefit of unbelievers, whereas prophecy is for the benefit of believers. The earlier rise of the status of women is nullified by a comment that instructs women to be submissive and quiet, once again putting them below men. This section finally closes with an encouragement to use God’s gifts, but not to abuse them.
Though there were parts of the Book of Romans I did not like, for the most part I found its message to be very good. It basically elaborated some of the central tenants of Christianity, such as forgiveness, love, and avoiding judgment. These are some things I do like about the religion, and it was refreshing to see them encouraged so much when sometimes it seems people do not consider them necessary at all. Corinthians, on the other hand, is so far not as open-minded as I would like. It seems more rigid and structured, and Paul even comes off sounding almost arrogant. It successfully negated any comments about women by presenting both a progressive and regressive opinion on them and advocated an almost monkish life. I found it to be a little more conservative than Romans, but that might make sense; the Romans were perhaps a little more cosmopolitan than the Corinthians, so the letters might have been specifically tailored to each audience. That is, of course, a conjecture; Corinthians does seem more rigid, but I might be completely off base as to why. There also seemed to be a lot of extraneous judgment so far in 1 Corinthians, which was a bit off-putting because it is so against what Jesus taught. One thing I am enjoying about these epistles is their look into ancient society; because Paul needs to be aware of his audience to make sure they are as receptive as possible, we are given a glimpse into how people thought in early Christianity. I find this to be very interesting. Tomorrow I continue Corinthians (both 1 and 2) and actually move into Galatians.

Romans 1-14

2009-07-31T08:17:00.000-07:00

Romans opened a whole new type of book in the Bible: epistles. These are letters to various groups or people, and in this case, Paul was writing to the Gentiles in Rome who had converted to Christianity. Paul greets the Romans and states that he wishes to visit them to help guide their spiritual journey. Paul notes God’s anger at sin and the wickedness of trying to stop the preaching of Jesus. He claims that people have traded the truth about God for lies, worshipping idols and giving into immoral sexual desires. Paul then states that the Roman Christians cannot condemn these people, because they are just as bad. Insulting your audience is not a way to make friends, but Paul moves from this into telling the Romans to seek righteousness. No one will be exempt from God’s judgment, but He will be fair. One thing I did not like so far is that Paul mentions a sinning Gentile will be destroyed despite not having God’s law. This doesn’t seem particularly fair, considering they really had no chance to be righteous. He seems to think people know the law instinctively, but I am not so sure about this. Paul then declares that to truly be right with God one must have his heart in this goal unabashedly. Paul continues to say that everyone is sinful without question, so no one is really right with God in the end. However, he offers a solution to this problem: faith in Jesus. Only through this faith can one truly be right with God, despite the fact that we alone are not nearly able to reach this level. It seems Paul is advocating following the law along with believing in Jesus, because one cannot completely exist without the other. Paul uses the faith of Abraham to explain why circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles, saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God before his circumcision because of faith. He emphasizes salvation by faith, using a pretty convincing argument: if obeying the law was the only necessary component to being counted as righteous, there would be no point to faith at all. Therefore, one seems to be required to do both because just believing in God but doing things He has deemed wicked would seem counterproductive. Because of Jesus, Paul states, we can now look forward to sharing God’s glory. Jesus has removed the taint of sin from us if we accept him, and thus we can go to Heaven instead of remaining separate from God. Paul compares Adam and Jesus, claiming Adam’s disobedience brought sin into the world, but Jesus’ righteousness allowed us to reconnect with God. I believe Paul’s statement that the power of sin has been broken implies that, although faith is necessary, acting in a righteous manner is also important in the quest to be right with God. Paul continues by discussing the future end of days, followed by assurances of God’s love. He then says that God is not unfair because He chooses who to show mercy to, using the acceptance of Jacob and rejection of Esau as an example. I don’t think this makes sense; if anything, this demonstrates God’s unfairness as opposed to his fairness because people are randomly chosen to be favored in God’s eyes. Paul continues preaching about accepting God and Jesus, using scriptural evidence to support his claims. He then elaborates on various aspects of faith and God, wishing the Israelites would accept Jesus as he has. As Paul believes, when the last of the Gentiles accepts Jesus, the Israelites will as well. He moves on to instruct his audience to work hard, love others truly, and hate what is wrong. Respect for authority is advised, and the section closes with a warning against criticizing other people.
Paul tells everyone that if one person worships God on one day but someone else worships Him on a different day, both decisions should be respected because both honor God. All food is considered clean, but no one should eat something they feel would dishonor God. If they do, only then are they sinning. This leads to one of my favorite aspects of this book so far: the instruction to avoid judgment of other people. Indeed, this is one of my favorite aspects of Christianity on the whole. No one has the right to hold others to their own expectations, as if someone is truly trying to honor God, then this person is doing what is required. The idea that universal love can only lead to treating other people well is an interesting concept, as well as something else I appreciate about the religion. This fundamental concept leads to every other commandment, such as not stealing or committing adultery. I found this section of Romans to be a little bit dry, but also noted that it had a good amount of beneficial lessons. The epistles have less history, so I imagine I will like them less, but some of the teachings are things I find to be excellent advice, so I might enjoy reading about the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Acts 17-28

2009-07-30T15:12:00.001-07:00

This section opens with a continuation of Paul’s ministry, this time taking him to Thessalonica (which relates to a later book, Thessalonians) and Athens. The Athenians are said to be constantly discussing new ideas, and the leaders of the city have Paul address them directly. They seem genuinely interested in hearing what Paul has to say, which is exciting to see; open-mindedness is always beneficial. Some of the leaders are even converted by Paul, and he continues his ministry in Corinth (as in the Book of Corinthians), where the Jews attempt to have him tried in front of the governor. The governor throws the case out of court because it pertains to religion and Jewish law but not Roman law. Paul finally returns to Antioch after a few side journeys, but embarks again, this time to Ephesus, where he continues preaching. As Paul continues travelling around the region preaching, he decides to go to Jerusalem and eventually Rome. He meets with the Ephesian elders before arriving in Jerusalem, bidding them farewell and imploring them to accept Jesus one last time. It is prophesized that Paul will be arrested upon his arrival in Jerusalem, which he accepts; he even declares he would readily accept death in the name of Jesus. Such devotion is impressive, I have to say. I also find it interesting that people are prophesying. I was not aware that this talent continued past Malachi in Judaism or Christianity, aside from John the Baptist and Jesus (and even they were very special cases, obviously). Regardless, it is of note because prophecies are being made through the Holy Spirit. I wonder if this is the same “spirit” that God gives Moses, who then passes it on to Joshua (and that is eventually inherited by the prophets). I imagine it is; it gives people the same talents and skills in both cases, though now it is readily passed when one accepts Jesus as opposed to how it seemed in the Old Testament: guarded carefully. Moving on though, Paul is arrested and a riot begins to break out, but that is quickly quelled by the Roman commander in Jerusalem. Paul is taken to the fortress for what seems to be the safety of everyone, as Paul’s mere presence is enough to cause uproar. Paul is being taken inside the fortress when he asks to speak to the Roman commander, who is surprised he speaks Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Little bits of information that are included like this make the Bible seem much more reputable because they are not well-known details, and the fact that they are present in the narrative gives me the impression that the story has a strong historical basis. Of course, I imagine the travels and preaching of Paul are pretty well-grounded in history. It would be absolutely pointless to invent a situation where Paul preaches in any given city, unless the entire New Testament is a complete fabrication, which I doubt. The Roman commander thinks Paul is an Egyptian insurrectionist, and Paul replies in a confused, stunned manner (in my mind, at least; there is no evidence to suggest this at all, but I like to think I’m right). Paul pleads his case to the Jews in Jerusalem, who demand his death. I have to say, Jerusalem is not a great place in the Bible (but is it really now?). Every single wicked act seems to happen there in the Old and New Testament. The Roman commander is about to have Paul whipped, but Paul reveals his Roman citizenship and the commander is legally bound to relent. This extra protection must have come in handy during Paul’s ministry because he was allowed to get away with a few things some of the other Christian forefathers might not have been. Paul is taken to stand trial in front of the Jewish High Council, and while there, he yells that he is a Pharisee and believes in the resurrection of the dead. This cleverly divides the High Council, and Paul is sent to Caesarea for protection. Paul is tried before the governor, Felix, and is kept in moderate captivity for about two years. Felix is succeeded by another governor, Festus, but Festus does nothing new. Paul appeals to Caesar, which is his right as a Roman citizen, instead of being tried once again by the Jewish authorities. Paul is sent to Rome, but on the way the ship he is on crashes. They end up in Malta where Paul heals many people and eventually Paul gets to Rome, where he lives for two years, preaching about Jesus. This ends Acts, and we do not know the eventual fate of any of the original Christian leaders.
Paul is a really smart man, from what I can tell. He brings up the fact that he is a Roman citizen whenever he needs it to ensure his own safety, which is incredibly useful. He can avoid trial by the obviously biased Jewish High Council and be taken to Rome, where an impartial judge will review the case. This is definitely in Paul’s favor; he has not done anything wrong, especially since his arrival in Jerusalem. When he is arrested, it is fairly certain that he will get out of trouble as a Roman (perhaps not as a Jew, but like I said, Paul is smart and will use whatever advantage he has). He also divides the Jewish High Council to bring about a stalemate; to do so, he mentions he is a Pharisee who believes in resurrection, but the High Council is a mixture of Pharisees and Sadducees (who do not believe in resurrection). By doing so, he forces the council to argue amongst itself, and is able to avoid a verdict being reached. I also find the role of the Romans interesting in this book. In the gospels I got the impression they were being shown in a better light than the Jews intentionally, but here, they seem completely indifferent to the plight of the Christians or Jews. It would appear that the Romans viewed them all as basically quarrelling religious sects, and these issues were not of Roman concern. This separation of church and state is pretty interesting; I got the impression the Greeks could worship whoever they wanted when Paul was in Athens as well. As long as these religions followed Roman law, there was no reason for the Romans to bother worrying about them. A worthwhile note on that, however, is that the Jews were not required to worship the emperor as a god, which would occasionally be a requirement in Rome. When the Christians finally fully split from Judaism, they lost this protection. When Roman law enforcement would tell Christians to bow down and worship the emperor, they couldn’t; it was obviously against their religion as well. The Christians would say they were Jews, but the Jewish authorities would be consulted and refute that claim. Thus, the Christians would be killed, and this is actually part of the basis for the historical animosity between Christians and Jews. The religious fervor amongst Christians in the Bible is amazing. They are fully willing to die for their belief, and I believe that is actually one of the reasons the religion grew; the populace saw such devotion and must have thought there was something to the belief system. I have mentioned this, but I am enjoying reading the beginnings of the church: baptism, speaking in tongues (though I do not think this is generally done in Catholicism), clergy (in a form, at least), and scriptures (they all follow the Old Testament, which explains why it is included in Christian scriptures). Finally, I mentioned that the fates of Peter, Paul, and the rest of the original Christians are not detailed in the actual texts. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was martyred (crucified upside down so as to not be equal to Jesus), Paul was beheaded (which fits, apparently; as a Roman citizen, he would have been afforded a more merciful execution), and various other founders were martyred. Peter and Paul were killed in Rome after helping establish the Roman church, which fits with the tradition of Peter being the first Pope as well as the end of Acts with Paul in Rome. I really enjoyed Acts because of the history and I next move into the Pauline epistles, followed by the general epistles.

Acts 6-16

2009-07-29T12:45:00.001-07:00

This section opens with a dispute between the Greek-speaking Christians and Hebrew-speaking ones. The Greek-speaking Christians believe they are being discriminated against, so the apostles call everyone together and say they should be concerned with spiritual matters and advise the election of a group of people to deal with the food. They elect Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolas of Antioch, and Stephen, my personal favorite. Stephen performs amazing miracles and signs, but one day gets in a debate with some men from the Synagogue of Freed Slaves. None of these men, apparently, can stand against Stephen’s wisdom, so they lie about him and get him arrested. At this point, oddly, everyone starts staring at Stephen, because his face becomes as bright as an angel’s. This is a little strange as I am not sure what they mean entirely, but Stephen addresses the council with a lengthy speech involving the history of the Jews, concluding by calling the religious authorities heathens to their faces and gazing up to Heaven and seeing Jesus sitting at God’s right hand (people named Stephen seem to be troublemakers). Stephen is dragged out of the meeting room and stoned to death, all the while begging God to forgive the sins of his executioners and becoming the first Christian martyr. A young man named Saul bears witness to this event, and he agrees completely with the decision. This man begins to persecute the Christians heavily, and many of the believers are scattered as a result. Philip moves to Samaria and preaches there. John and Peter follow him, preaching and saving people. Peter and John return to Jerusalem while Philip moves to Ethiopia, where he meets the Ethiopian treasurer, who already believes in God and is first seen reading from the Book of Isaiah. The treasurer, a eunuch, does not understand the book, so Philip begins to instruct him, explaining that the passage he is reading refers to Jesus. Philip baptizes the eunuch and leaves him, preaching about Jesus all around the Mediterranean region. Meanwhile, on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians (he is on authority from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem), Saul is visited by a vision of Jesus. Saul’s companions are terrified, but Saul is struck blind so they must lead him to Damascus. Saul has been told by Jesus to go to the city to receive further instructions, which are to meet with a person named Ananias. Ananias is given instructions to heal Saul’s blindness, and when he places his hands on Saul something like scales fall from Saul’s eyes and he is healed. Saul begins preaching in Damascus and the Jews apparently cannot refute his claims, so they plot to kill him. Saul is protected by the believers in Jerusalem and eventually returns to his hometown of Tarsus. We then shift back to Peter, who heals a paralyzed man and resurrects a dead woman, which is interesting because the apostles apparently have the same powers of healing that Jesus did. A man named Cornelius in Caesarea calls for Peter. Peter is busy praying just before the messengers arrive and is visited by a vision declaring all foods to be ceremonially clean. Peter is then told to leave with the messengers of Cornelius without question, which he does. He informs Cornelius that he has received a message stating that nothing should be considered unclean anymore and therefore can entire a Gentile home to preach about Jesus. Peter mentions that only the apostles witnessed the resurrected Jesus, which strikes me as a little suspicious. The only real evidence we have for Jesus’ resurrection appears to be the testimony of eleven apostles and the women he appeared to as well. The new religion begins spreading to Gentiles as well as Jews, which is effective in ensuring Christianity will be more widespread than simply a Jewish sect. An interesting note made is that in Antioch, where Saul and Barnabas preach, the believers are first called Christians (though I went ahead and made that designation almost immediately). Herod Agrippa, the king of Judea, executes James, son of Zebedee, the apostle who was called immediately after Peter and Andrew, and imprisons Peter. Peter makes a miraculous escape from prison, saving himself from certain death. Herod executes the guards for allowing Peter to go free, although they had nothing to do with it; only God’s angel was involved in the release. Herod is called a god, and is struck with an illness as punishment; he eventually dies from this. Barnabas and Saul, who at this point is said to be also known as Paul, travel to Cyprus and convert the governor of the region. One thing I noticed as Paul began his ministry was that Gentile converts regularly worship with Israelites, which is something I have heard from a historical standpoint; Judaism was, in fact, growing around this time. Paul and Barnabas move around preaching, converting Jews and Gentiles to the new religion of Christianity (although I do not know how much of a distinction was made between Judaism and Christianity as a sect of Judaism at this time). Paul and Barnabas continue to travel around the region, demanding mixed opinions wherever they preach. They go to Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and finally return to Antioch. The Council at Jerusalem is spurred by the issue of circumcision, which is eventually decided to be an unnecessary request to submit to Gentile converts. I am enjoying this look at the history of the church; Antioch is already an important city along with Jerusalem, and the laws and foundations of the religion are being laid down. Antioch and Jerusalem were two of the major centers of Christianity in the early days, and it is interesting to see these rules and customs develop. Barnabas and Paul argue about the inclusion of John Mark in their ministry, and this forces them to separate. Paul travels throughout Syria and Cilicia after this unfortunate event. At some point, Luke (the author of Luke and Acts) joins Paul’s ministry, and the narrative shifts to first-person. The inclusion of an eye-witness makes the story seem a little more reputable to me, and after this, Paul and Silas are arrested for healing a demon-possessed slave girl who had been acting as a fortune teller (the healing made the promise of money for her master evaporate). They are freed from prison and manage to convert the jailer as they leave, and Paul demands to meet his accusers. He is able to do so because he is a Roman citizen, which means that he gets a few more rights than the other apostles. With this, the accusers apologize, Paul and Silas leave the town, and the section closed.
I liked this section for its history; it is interesting to see the apostles preach and the early church coming into existence. The Council of Jerusalem, a significant early meeting among Christian leaders, sets down a few rules and the preaching continues. It is also interesting to see the apostles shift from followers of Jesus to the leaders and authorities of the new religion. They are the privileged group for their actual exposure and discussion with Jesus. All other followers had less conversation with Jesus himself (usually equating to none) than the apostles. It is also interesting to see some of the martyrs and persecution beginning, as well as the eleven remaining apostles picking up the pieces from the departure of Jesus. They have to begin to decide where to go with the faith next, and they seem to do well in spreading the religion. I thought it a bit questionable that the only witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection are those that were already seriously devoted to him. This implies that there is a much greater possibility of error or duplicity as an objective observer cannot give evidence with regards to Jesus’ resurrection. Paul is an interesting character, however; he is not one of the apostles and is ardently anti Christian at first but is converted by a vision. After this, he becomes one of the most important followers of the early movement. Overall, I have liked Acts so far and look forward to continuing it.

John 15-Acts 5

2009-07-28T14:27:00.001-07:00

This section opens up with another call to love each other, and Jesus says his disciples are not slaves but friends, which is a completely different perspective on the role of the disciples than has been mentioned so far. Jesus states that he was hated before they were, because he expects the disciples to be persecuted. Jesus continues to cryptically refer to his own death and departure from the disciples, who finally start to understand. Jesus prays to God for his disciples and ultimately all Christians, asking that they be protected from evil. Judas appears, but does not greet Jesus with a kiss; Jesus simply tells them who he is so they may arrest him peacefully. The High Priest questions Jesus and Peter denies Jesus three times, after which Jesus is brought to Pilate, who seems much more impatient with the Jewish accusations as well as Jesus than in the other three gospels. If it is true Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus I doubt he would have had him flogged, but Jesus was certainly flogged according to the gospels before he was crucified. It seems that the authors of the gospels were too eager to demonstrate that Rome was not to blame for Jesus’ death, but I maintain that they were just as enthusiastic about executing Jesus as were the Jews. Jesus carries the cross by himself in John, but in the other three, another man carries the cross for him. His last words are also different than Mark, Matthew, and Luke, giving him three versions of alleged last words. After the death of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea anoints and entombs the body. Early on Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus’ body is missing, so she runs to tell Peter. Peter and an unnamed disciple run to the tomb and find that Mary is telling the truth. Two angels appear to Mary after the two disciples leave, which is consistent with Luke but not Matthew or Mark. Jesus appears to the disciples, but Thomas must put his fingers in Jesus’ wounds before he believes the resurrection actually occurred. A few days later, Jesus appears to his disciples and cooks breakfast for them (emphasizing Jesus’ teaching that those who lead should first serve) and Jesus tells Peter to “feed his sheep,” which I believe means that Peter would be the leader of the disciples (again, lead by serving). The Gospel of John ends with a revelation that the unnamed, beloved disciple is the author of the book (therefore being John, son of Zebedee) and assurances that the book is accurate (which isn’t really helpful, of course; the author of the book would definitely want people to think his book was accurate, regardless of whether it was). I then moved into Acts, which begins about where Luke left off (they have the same author; some versions of the Bible actually have them as two parts of the same book). Jesus and the disciples seem to spend time together as they did before Jesus’ death, but of course, Jesus is on an entirely different plane of being than the disciples. Before, they were all human (at least partially, but that discussion is a little lengthy for this blog). Now, however, Jesus has resurrected himself and has definitely transcended ordinary existence. Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ ascension is recorded again, and the disciples are promised Jesus’ eventual return. The apostles then meet in Jerusalem to pray with each other and the women who followed Jesus. They nominate two possible successors to Judas (regardless of whether or not there was more to his betrayal, he definitely could not have rejoined the apostles) and select Matthias. Next, the apostles are given the ability to speak in all languages and Peter takes what appears to be the role of the spokesman for the apostles. He baptizes people in the name of Jesus, setting the foundations for what would become the church. The new converts form a community, selling everything they own and living together. Peter heals a crippled beggar, and when crowds rush to see him, he is holding tightly to Peter and John which strikes me as a little suspicious; if he was truly healed, he wouldn’t have to use the two apostles as support. Peter preaches at the Temple, managing to convert a few more people, and he and John are put in jail for the night. The apostles are warned not to preach in Jesus’ name, but they refuse to obey and are released from custody anyway. A couple sells a field but end up giving only part of the money to the apostles, and when the deceit is revealed, they die instantly. The apostles are then taken to the Jewish high council once again, but instead of being killed, a wise Pharisee tells the council to forget about them because the movement’s leader is gone, so the movement will surely die out unless it is truly sent by God. This closes the first section of Acts.
The first thing I would like to mention is the inconsistency between gospels. Events are recorded differently, including the death of Jesus and the trials, as well as the actual circumstances of the resurrection. Also, the ascension is not recorded in John, which I think is strange; it certainly is an important event, so I cannot see why the author of a gospel would decide not to include it unless he did not know about it. On the other hand, though, these inconsistencies are not relevant to the major point of the story: Jesus died and was resurrected. This is constant throughout the gospels, regardless of whether the other miracles occurred. However, if some things are not true, does that have ramifications on the veracity of others? I believe so; but when the stories are boiled down to their most important parts, they are consistent. In this way, some of the specific miracles might be fabricated or exaggerated, but the major events are identical (those being his ministry’s major ideas, his death, and his resurrection). Thus, the inconsistencies become unimportant. Jesus says some very good things, I believe. He advocates love and forgiveness, which is generally based around positivity. He also seems to advocate respect of other people, as lust is forbidden as is judgment of other people. These are ideas that can have powerful implications in the interaction between different groups, and it is unfortunate that not even all Christians seem to adhere to these teachings; many are cruelly rigid, and this often conflicts with Jesus’ message, in my opinion. Acts is interesting in that it moves more into a history of the Christian church, giving Peter primacy. The apostles are not prophets, so the perspective is strange; it is a new way to look at religion because the Old Testament and synoptic gospels are centered on prophets (or greater, but I use the term “prophets” here fairly loosely). I like this aspect of Acts, and tomorrow I will continue with the book.

John 6-John 14

2009-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

This section opened with Jesus’ travelling around the region of Galilee, followed by “a huge crowd” (John 6:1). Jesus feeds five thousand households, and his disciples decide they want to make him their king. He realizes this and slips away to the mountains, emphasizing the historical view of the messianic secret, which stated that Jesus did not want to lead a military revolution and become the political leader. He then walks on water to protect the disciples who are in a boat on a stormy sea, and the next day Jesus emphasizes his importance in the quest to understand God. They doubt his authority but he rebukes them, claiming to be the only one who has ever seen God (which isn’t true, strictly speaking; Moses was allowed to look upon God, if you remember). It is stated that Jesus knows who will betray him and who will not which, to me, helps assert that Judas’ role is much more complicated than it would appear. Many disciples leave him as they find his teachings too radical to accept, but the twelve apostles stay. One thing I like about Jesus that I notice more so far in John is his ability to catch the religious authorities in major hypocrisies. For instance, they criticize him for healing on the Sabbath, but they have no qualms about circumcision on the Sabbath to follow the laws of Moses. Jesus notes this and confronts them, which is another aspect of Jesus I appreciate: the ability to stand up for a belief is a rare quality. The crowds of people listening to Jesus have fairly mixed opinions of him, but no one seems to find him completely repulsive. The most negative opinion that seems to be held is one of general indifference. The scene where Jesus protects the woman caught in adultery is discussed next and Jesus declares that anyone who is without sin should be the person to execute this woman (“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”). No one is left after awhile, and Jesus does not condemn the woman. This story is not in the most ancient Greek manuscripts of John, but I think it’s a really good lesson, so I am glad to see it for myself. Jesus continues teaching that he is the only way to God, and I think the majority of Jesus’ teachings in John are much heavier than those in the earlier three gospels. His meanings are a little vaguer and his thoughts are related to humanity as a whole as opposed to just how to live your life in a smaller sense. Jesus then heals a blind man using mud which seems to infuriate the Pharisees. They cannot seem to figure out how such a wonderful thing could be done by such a horrible sinner, despite the fact that they have no reason to call Jesus a sinner without making themselves look like hypocrites. The man gets a little exasperated and basically calls the Pharisees idiots. Jesus compares himself to a good shepherd in that he will sacrifice himself for his sheep (the people), followed by the raising of Lazarus from the dead. It is a pretty significant event, so it is surprising that the other gospels do not include it. The Pharisees meet and discuss Jesus, fearing that if the people start to believe in him, the Romans will come and destroy both their Temple and nation. Judas is described as a thief who often stole some of the disciples’ money for himself (which seemed like an insertion to illustrate how despicable Judas was, but does not seem to fit the flow and therefore seems like a later addition), and Jesus predicts his own death. He then washes his disciples’ feet and tells Judas to go do what he must do. Jesus knows who is going to betray him and has known since he chose his apostles, so I think it is fairly evident that there is much more to Judas’ betrayal than Jesus has let on, as well as more than the authors of the gospels understood. Jesus predicts Peter’s denial and gives them a final farewell, which is something that he does not do in the other gospels. This draws some emotion from the disciples and the reader as Jesus has acknowledged the end of his ministry with a sense of finality. The section closes with Jesus promising the Holy Spirit to his disciples and telling them not much time remains.
I thought this section was pretty interesting; the Gospel of John has a much different flavor than the other three. It is a much more radical message, and Jesus is much more critical of the religious institutions and the populace. His teachings are a little harder to understand because they refer to things in such a metaphorical way, and he does not use parables to the extent that he does in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. I like Jesus’ authoritative stance on some things and his absolute interest in preaching. I also thought there was a little more secrecy to Jesus in this book. He is not so open about what Judas plans on doing, referring to that mission in cryptic hints. Jesus is more focused on love as an important aspect of humanity, telling his disciples he loves them and encouraging them to love their neighbors. The Gospel of John is not just the same story from a different perspective, but a view of Jesus from an almost apocalyptic viewpoint. I am not sure why I get that impression; perhaps it is the cryptic manner in which Jesus discusses his teachings. I finish John in the next post and begin Acts, which will lead me into the writings of Paul.

Luke 20-John 5

2009-07-27T13:30:00.002-07:00

This section started with a challenge to Jesus’ authority, similar to the events in Matthew and Mark. This was followed by the parable of the evil farmers and a call to “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God,” which means to fulfill your earthly requirements while devoting your soul to God. Jesus is then approached by the Sadducees about resurrection, and he makes a claim that God is the god of the living, as evidenced by His description as the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” after those three patriarchs had died. This seemed more like proof that He is the god of the dead because God maintains this distinction even after the three patriarchs had been long dead, so I thought Jesus’ statement was a bit strange. Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and continues foretelling the future by telling his disciples that they will be persecuted for following him. This is true of the first Christians, of course; they were mercilessly persecuted. But from the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity on, it is safe to say the Christians have done the persecuting. He indicates that the current generation (that is, in the first century) will not perish before the Kingdom of God is near, which is not true; the world obviously did not end. Judas’ betrayal of Jesus is portrayed in a different way than the previous gospels; Satan is said to enter Judas, who then makes the infamous deal for thirty pieces of silver. This almost seems to absolve Judas, but I read it more as symbolic more than anything else. Satan enters Judas in that he agrees to betray Jesus, but the phrase merely emphasizes the lowliness of Judas’ act. Of course I think there is much more to Judas and his betrayal than meets the eye and even more than is included in the Bible, but I have discussed that already. We move onto the Last Supper where Jesus oddly advises his disciples to arm themselves. The disciples say they already have two swords for the group and Jesus assures them that is enough to protect themselves as they will now be counted as rebels. This is strangely contrary to the advice he has been giving the disciples; he has told them not to worry about death, as their trials and subsequent executions will only help spread the message Jesus has left. Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives where he is eventually arrested. He also, as in the first two gospels, pleads for God to remove him from the suffering he is about to experience, which is interesting. It puts Jesus in a much more human perspective. After Jesus is arrested, Peter denies him three times, just as predicted. The guards in charge of Jesus begin beating him, which again strikes me as excessive. I wonder if Roman guards were actually this cruel, although if they were I honestly wouldn’t be surprised. The hearing in front of the religious council is different in that they present no witnesses, but simply jump to the conclusion of Jesus being guilty of heresy. I took this as another attempt to vilify the Jews, which was furthered by Pilate asking Jesus if he was king of the Jews, Jesus affirming it, and Pilate claiming there was nothing wrong with him. I doubt this would have happened. If Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, he would have been viewed as an insurrectionist and Pilate would have been obligated to execute Jesus. I imagine this continues with the idea of the Romans trying to put themselves in a better light when the Empire converted to Christianity. After Pilate states he sees nothing wrong with Jesus, he learns Jesus is Galilean and sends him to Herod Antipas because Herod is (conveniently) in Jerusalem. This does not happen in the other two gospels. Jesus refuses to perform a miracle for the king and he begins to mock Jesus. Because of this, Herod and Pilate become friends (as it is stated in my Bible) which struck me as a little ridiculous; they bond over something so petty when it wouldn’t have been at all relevant to their lives. Pilate finds Jesus innocent and emphatically asserts his opinion, but the Jewish mob demands his execution and the release of Barabbas, a man who had been imprisoned for insurrection. Jesus is finally crucified, and the experience is detailed a little bit more in Luke than in the earlier two gospels. This doesn’t really make sense in terms of the Romans though. Jesus might have been crucified if the mob demanded it as much as they appear to have to avoid a riot. However, they would not have released the criminal already convicted of insurrection. This was an obvious threat to their power. At the same time, we know from Mark and Matthew that it was a tradition at Passover to release a prisoner. But I don’t see why the Romans would even do this; it was potentially a serious threat to their power. Jesus appears to be well-liked throughout the narrative until his execution is detailed, which provides an inconsistency. Crowds follow him around begging him to teach and heal, and because of this, the Romans would have wanted to end his movement for fear of insurrection. So there seems to be a glaring inconsistency with the trial story. In any case, Jesus finally died, declaring something completely different in this gospel than the others. When the women of Galilee go to anoint his body, the stone covering the tomb door has been moved, and two men (instead of one, as in the earlier gospels) appear to them. After this, the women inform the apostles of their discovery, but they find the story to be nonsense. As some of Jesus’ followers are walking to Emmaus, Jesus comes and begins walking with them. They do not recognize him (which is odd in itself) but when they sit down to eat, they realize who has been walking with them. However, upon this realization, Jesus vanishes (which is not really the behavior of a living person, but more of a vision). Jesus is finally taken up to Heaven as he blesses the apostles, but according to the footnotes in my Bible, some manuscripts do not include the phrase “and was taken up to Heaven,” which would mean two gospels do not mention that event, and in some cases, all three (depending on the version of the ancient manuscript). I then moved onto John, which opens with a brief summary of Jesus’ role as the savior. It then moves into the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist followed by the calling of the first disciples, Peter and Andrew, which happens in a completely different way than in the other three gospels. More disciples are collected, Nathanael and Philip, whose conversions are not mentioned in Mark or Matthew. Jesus’ first miracle is performed (somewhat inconsistent with the first three gospels) where he turns water into wine. Jesus reveals that the only way to be saved is to be born again and John the Baptist’s ministry starts to dwindle as Jesus’ grows. Jesus reveals he is the messiah to a Samaritan woman who tries to spread the word, which is generally successful. Jesus heals an official’s son from afar, converting the man, followed by the healing of a lame man. This section closes with Jesus’ actual claim to be the son of God, which angers the Pharisees as they see it as blasphemy (which isn’t really an unreasonable position).
The contradiction I mention early is Jesus’ execution and the circumstances surrounding it. Throughout most of the narrative in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus has a significant crowd following him around. Not only is a crowd of followers mentioned explicitly multiple times, but he also feeds four thousand families followed by five thousand. These equate to at least sixteen thousand people the first time and twenty thousand the second time if the families had an average of two children. The people who follow him around come to see him teach, so they support him for the most part. But when Jesus is on trial, the masses despise him and call for his execution. This really makes no sense because the public opinion has shifted in days, despite Jesus being so popular. In addition, crucifixion is a Roman punishment. This lends credence to the thought that Jesus was executed for being an insurrectionist and a threat to the Roman authority. If Jesus has an actual following (which he apparently does, if one reads the first three quarters of the gospels) then a Roman punishment would not be surprising in the least. Barabbas being freed also makes no sense. They wouldn’t even offer him as a potential prisoner to be freed as the Passover gift (which is not only ridiculous but has no historical backing) because he was a dangerous insurrectionist and murderer. I mention this because the Bible is generally interpreted to mean the Jews wanted Jesus dead, which I assume they did; he was a threat to their authority. But it was equally in the best interests of the Romans to execute him, and they were the ones who actually carried out the sentence. I cannot imagine Pilate would be fine with hearing Jesus claim to be the king of the Jews when there was already a Roman appointed king of the Jews in power. I was overall unhappy with the end of Luke because there were what I found to be major inconsistencies with the story in Mark and Matthew as well as the most likely story when compared to the regular actions of the Romans. This section is probably one of my least favorite so far, in fact. I was also bothered by the difference in Jesus’ last words, but that makes little difference if any historically. The circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death are also of lower importance than his actual death and resurrection, as he was probably rejected equally by the authorities of his own people as well as their authorities. Jesus’ teachings are fairly interesting as well as reasonable. He preaches acceptance and forgiveness, for the most part, which is something I find to be a very good message. Finally, John seems to be more focused on the idea that Jesus is the son of God, whereas the other gospels focused on the actual actions of Jesus. I am very interested to see how this plays out. Tomorrow I continue with John, and this gospel bleeds into the next day as well to some extent.

Luke 10-19

2009-07-27T13:30:00.001-07:00

This section started with a new event where Jesus sent seventy-two disciples out in pairs to cities he planned on visiting. Until now I did not notice that Jesus seems to be a fairly capable administrator, considering he shepherds huge groups of people around and even keeps them fed (miraculously, of course), though this is not at all relevant to his message. The disciples have authority because they preach in Jesus’ name, who says a prayer of thanksgiving upon their return. He reemphasizes what he considers the most important commandment, followed by the famous parable of a despised Samaritan helping a Jew who has been beaten up. Jesus visits two women (another mention of women in Luke), where he teaches them various things as they prepare him dinner. He teaches about prayer and heals a demon-possessed man, after which he criticizes the religious leaders when they question why he does not wash his hands before dinner. Jesus warns that accepting him on earth will lead to eternal salvation but rejecting him will lead to eternal damnation, and that humans can only destroy the body, whereas God can destroy the soul. This is to emphasize that the disciples should not fear those who wish to persecute them as there is not much damage they can do. This statement is furthered by a parable about a rich fool who only cares about wealth but not God. I didn’t think this was a bad thought; it makes problems seem less severe because there is always the promise of something better. Jesus warns of the coming end of days, telling his followers to be ready for it by staying close to God. He mentions that those who have not heard his teachings will be punished only a little for not following them, implying that punishments doled out by God are not as black and white as Heaven and Hell. Jesus continues to heal and teach in parables, some being similar to those in Matthew and some being new. He teaches about humility in a way that I thought was really interesting. He says that if you go to a wedding and sit in the most honored seat, someone who is more distinguished will come along and the host will make you move, disgracing you. However, if you sit in the least honorable place, the host will insist that you take a better position; in this way, you will be honored. This is one of my favorite teachings of Jesus so far because it was fairly clear and at the same time very clever. This is a lesson in humility, and I think it is a pretty good one. Jesus then tells the parable of the lost son, which seems to imply that someone who strays from righteous ways but eventually repents and returns should be celebrated, whereas someone who is consistently righteous should not be. I did not appreciate this sentiment; I think that there is something to be said for loyalty and consistency, at least in some areas. Jesus then preaches about honesty and the importance of faith. He continues to teach and heal, focusing on skin diseases and demon possessions, but involving himself in other types of illnesses as well. Jesus spends a few nights with a corrupt tax collector and finally moves into Jerusalem, entering the city in a great celebration. The section closes with Jesus teaching in the Temple and the religious leaders plotting his demise.
Tax collectors are viewed in an incredibly negative light. They are said to be sinners, but on first glance, one would think they are simply doing a necessary job. Though people might dislike them for moving about the population and taking money, they are doing something important but not sinning. I looked into this and found that tax collectors at this time had very little oversight. As long as they gave the government the amount required, no further interest was taken in the matter. But they could easily raise taxes themselves, keeping a profit. This is why tax collectors are viewed as so despicable. Jesus spends time with people who would appear to be somewhat bad people, but this is an important aspect of him. He is preaching to those who need the lessons. I think this is pretty interesting because it implies that people can always repent and learn to live righteously. Luke is a lot of the same material as Matthew and Mark, so I have nothing really new to say. Tomorrow I complete Luke and move into John.

Luke 1-9

2009-07-24T22:30:00.001-07:00

Luke starts out with an introduction where the author states that he is writing the gospel for a man named Theophilus. Both Luke and Theophilus were most likely Gentiles, so the account should be a little different in style than the first two. John the Baptist’s father Zechariah is told his wife will conceive, but he doesn’t believe the angel who delivers the message at first. As punishment, the angel glues Zechariah’s mouth shut so he cannot speak until the baby is born. The baby is said to be clearing the way for God to come, and Jesus’ birth is foretold. My question here is if Luke wrote this gospel late in the first century, where did he get evidence that both individuals’ births were foretold? Surely the first-hand witnesses were either dead or impossible to track down. Mary is told she will bear a son as a virgin, but not to be afraid. She visits Elizabeth (Zechariah’s wife) and the unborn John the Baptist jumps for joy when Mary enters the house. This is to demonstrate that Mary’s child is blessed, and Mary sings a song of praise. She stays with Elizabeth for around three months before returning home and presumably to Joseph, and I wonder why she extends her stay for such a length. It might be that since Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, Joseph wanted to keep her in seclusion for a time until he sorted everything out. At this point, the event of Joseph being visited by an angel as described in Matthew probably occurs to assure Joseph that nothing sinister is taking place, which spurs him to take Mary back home. Elizabeth gives birth and names her son John, much to the chagrin of her relatives because no one else in her family bears that name. After this, Augustus (the Roman Emperor) declares that a census needs to be taken. Joseph returns to Bethlehem, the ancient home of King David, because he is a descendent of the king. Mary gives birth here, laying the baby in a manger because no lodging is available (this is another partial account of the nativity story; Jesus is born and laid in a manger in Luke, but no wise men visit him. In Matthew, the wise men visit him, but the manger is not mentioned). Jesus is visited by some shepherds who were informed of his birth by angels and Jesus is presented in the Temple. His parents offer a sacrifice as is required if the first child in a family is a male and a man named Simeon praises him. A prophet named Anna (of the tribe of Asher, oddly enough; I thought they were all lost) also blesses the child. We skip ahead to when Jesus is twelve (the first account of his childhood), where he is impressing the religious leaders with his understanding of scriptures. John’s teaching is discussed in brief, and he denies being the messiah. John also criticizes the king for marrying his brother’s widow so is put in prison, which will eventually lead to his death, as we know. Jesus is baptized, and the heavens open up as in Mark and Matthew. Jesus’ relation to David is traced through a different route and the temptation of Jesus is once again described. Jesus, of course, resists these temptations and travels to Nazareth, where he reads the Scriptures on the Sabbath. From what I can tell he has already been established as a healer, because he claims that they will expect him to prove his power with miracles like the ones he performed in Capernaum. Jesus tells everyone he is here to fulfill the messianic prophecies and that he expects to be rejected in his hometown, which infuriates the crowd of people in the synagogue. They force him to the edge of a cliff intending to push him off (biblical justice at its best), but he passes right through the crowd and leaves. Jesus heals various people and goes to Simon’s house, where he heals Simon’s mother. This was strange as it was out of order when compared to the other gospels. It would appear that Jesus knew Simon before he became an apostle as they are apparently visiting each other before the ministry really moves into full swing. Or, perhaps, the Simon with the sick mother is a different Simon than the one renamed Peter, but was simply associated with the same person by Mark and Matthew. Jesus continues to preach throughout Judea and finally calls Simon, James, and John (although Andrew is not mentioned) to follow him. It seems that Simon does not know Jesus personally, which is curious when taken with the passage about the healing of a Simon’s mother. Jesus continues to heal people and calls Matthew to join his disciples. Various stories identical to Matthew and Mark are told, including Jesus healing on the Sabbath. His twelve apostles are identified. The Sermon on the Mount is given in an abbreviated version, although it is on a large, level area instead of specifically a mount. Jesus rewards the faith of a Roman officer with the healing of a servant and raises a young boy from the dead. He then preaches about the virtues of John the Baptist, who is a very favored character in the Bible as a whole apparently. Jesus forgives the sins of a very immoral woman, followed by a short summary of the women who were travelling with Jesus as disciples. He teaches a few parables that are already described in Matthew and Mark and he heals the demon-possessed man. Jesus then raises a young girl from the dead and sends his disciples out to do his work. The story of Jesus feeding five thousand families is again mentioned and he predicts his death. The transfiguration is described, followed by more healing, predictions, and Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. The cost of following Jesus (total devotion, it seems) is discussed at the close of this section.
The most interesting aspect of Luke is the mention of so many women. This is something even biblical scholars discuss, so I think it is of note. Mary, Elizabeth, and various female followers are mentioned in detail, and the pregnancies of both mothers are described. I did not feel this was significant beyond being interesting, and I can see the traditional nativity scene shaping up (although the Gospel of John might have a full account). I also wonder who the subject of the introduction, Theophilus, really is; his identity (if it even was a single person) is still uncertain, however. I don’t have much else to say; the stories are about the same as in Matthew and Mark, so my thoughts have already been laid out. Andrew is not mentioned when Simon is called to be an apostle, but he is listed amongst the twelve apostles, so this is probably not noteworthy; he was definitely an apostle, but Simon (Peter) was simply more important. Tomorrow I continue Luke, which will soon be followed by John.

Mark 8-16

2009-07-23T20:22:00.001-07:00

This section opens with Jesus feeling sorry for a group of people who have no food and lamenting the fact that if he sends them home, some might faint from hunger. This is another example of the actual emotions mentioned in Mark; in Matthew, Jesus simply did things without explanation, but in Mark so far, Jesus is given a little more depth. He feeds four thousand people (the same story as in Matthew) and the Pharisees demand a miraculous sign, but Jesus refuses to give one this generation. An interesting event occurs when Jesus tries to heal a blind man. First, Jesus spits in the man’s eyes (strange in itself, but an irrelevant issue) and the man can see people, but not very clearly. Jesus places his hands on the man’s eyes and the man is able to see fully. This is notable because it appears Jesus’ first effort at healing is not completely successful. I am curious as to the implications of this; I read one account that claimed Jesus did this intentionally as if to prove a point. I do not agree with this assessment, so I will have to look into it further. Peter declares Jesus is the messiah but Jesus orders him and the other disciples not to tell anyone and Jesus predicts his death again, just as in Matthew. Jesus claims that some that are alive at that moment will not die before the Kingdom of God arrives, which would seem to mean that the end of the world was coming soon. It didn’t, thankfully for us, and the transfiguration is once again discussed (when Jesus met with Elijah and Moses). Peter seems completely at a loss of words so he fumbles for words and suggests building shelters as memorials, which the Greek version has as “three tabernacles.” Obviously Moses would be thrilled to hear they might be building tabernacles, but before the exciting work can begin God’s voice comes down from Heaven and blesses Jesus. At the same moment, Moses and Elijah vanish. Jesus moves on to heal a demon-possessed boy, who has an ailment that sounds like epilepsy or another such disease, but Jesus heals him nonetheless. It is interesting to note that the disciples could not cast this demon out, and Jesus acknowledges this. The power of the disciples clearly cannot compare to that of Jesus. He once again forbids divorce (or rather, he forbids divorce for the first time; it is the same scene as from Matthew) and another scene from Matthew is reiterated. A rich man asks how he can inherit eternal life, and Jesus tells him to follow all the commandments. The man says he already does so, and the text tells us Jesus feels genuine love for the man. I mention this as another example of the human emotion demonstrated in Mark, but not Matthew. Jesus predicts his death again and heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, followed by his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. He continues to preach the same things heard in Matthew and, as in that gospel, curses the fig tree for having no fruit (though it is before the fruit is seasonal). I don’t understand the purpose of this as it just makes Jesus seem impatient to me. Jesus again indicates the two commandments he considers the most important, followed by an event not recorded in Matthew. Rich people put some money in a collection box and a widow follows them with only two coins. Jesus says this widow’s donation is more effective because it is everything she had to live on, whereas the rich people give only a small amount of their surplus. I liked the implication of sacrifice being proportional to wealth as opposed to simply who gives the most, as it shows that anyone can give an equal donation regardless of their wealth. Jesus foretells the future, claiming many atrocities will be committed before the end comes. He warns of false prophets and messiahs, and claims he does not even know when this will happen. It was interesting to see even Jesus in the dark about a prophecy and it almost seems to emphasize God’s power over all else (I am aware of the Trinity, incidentally, but the fact that Jesus does not know this particular bit of the future really just seems to indicate God the Father’s power). Judas agrees to betray Jesus and the Last Supper is once again described, followed by a prediction of Peter’s denial. Jesus is arrested and his disciples desert him, even going so far as to slip out of their clothes and run away naked (which was actually mentioned, for some reason; presumably to illustrate how eager the disciples were to leave, but it was still a little strange). Jesus is convicted of blasphemy, and Peter denies him three times as predicted. Jesus is then tried before Pilate and sentenced to be crucified (the mob so demands it, but I won’t summarize that situation again). I maintain that the Romans were eager to execute him because he was gaining a reputation as the alleged King of the Jews, which was a threat to their authority. It was probably in the Jewish and Roman authorities’ best interests to execute Jesus in their minds, because they wanted to hold onto power. Jesus is crucified (again, I should mention that this is an amazingly brutal way to die as well as a strange idea for an execution method-as in, how did anyone come up with it?) where he finally dies. He is then buried in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea (whose name is very fun to say, but that is really beside the point). The first person to see Jesus upon his resurrection is Mary Magdalene, but he appears to the remaining eleven disciples who are eating together before ascending to Heaven and taking his seat at God’s right hand.
I was referred to something called the “messianic secret” by one of my most loyal readers after my last post because I was curious as to why Jesus kept his power a secret, and I found a few explanations. My favorite, and the one I find to be the most likely, explains it by noting that the messiah was thought to be a military leader. Jesus wanted to avoid that label because he did not want to start a violent insurrection. In addition, relative anonymity throughout the land gave him the freedom to travel, whereas being a well-known celebrity would have been a hindrance. There is no solid consensus on this, however, so I do not have a definite answer. I would also like to address the fig tree. Fig trees grow leaves first, followed by something known in Palestinian Arabic as a “taqsh.” These taqsh are basically precursors to true figs; they mature and drop off the tree when the fig is fully formed. They are eaten by peasants and the passing hungry, despite not being fully mature. When Jesus was looking at the tree, the taqsh should have been there if the tree was going to bear fruit. Unfortunately, there were none, and Jesus realized the tree would never bear fruit. He cursed it because of this, not because it was unsatisfactory for his tastes at the moment. Finally, Mark mentions the ascension but not the virgin birth. I thought this was a strange combination as both are quite miraculous events. Matthew is the other way around, so when combined, a plethora of information on Jesus’ birth, death, and subsequent resurrection is available. However, it is strange that Matthew would not include the information of his ascension if that gospel was indeed written later with Mark as a source, as the scholarly consensus states. Perhaps the ascension was added later, but there is a much simpler theory: the version of Mark used as a source did not contain the ascension. My Bible mentions two places Mark ends, and one is before the ascension. That must mean there are multiple versions of the Greek manuscript, so it is possible the author of Matthew simply did not have access to the information. I leave with that, and start Luke tomorrow.

Matthew 25-Mark 7

2009-07-22T22:53:00.001-07:00

This section opened with two parables, those of the ten bridesmaids and three servants. I won’t summarize them here, but you can easily look them up (people seem more than thrilled to post vast amounts of information on Christianity online). Jesus then discusses his coming execution with the apostles (uplifting dinner time conversation if you ask me) and Judas is shown to agree to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. Jesus and the apostles then eat their Passover meal, which is the Last Supper, where Jesus blesses bread and wine, calling it his body and blood respectively. Jesus then predicts Peter’s denial, which Peter claims will not happen. Jesus prays while the apostles sleep and seems to wish he did not have to suffer as he knows he will; however, he never runs from this fate. Judas arrives with a crowd of men and, as a signal to these men, kisses Jesus, and the men move to arrest him. A follower of Jesus draws his sword and slashes off the ear of the high priest’s slave, but Jesus tells him to stop. The disciples then flee, and Jesus is taken to trial. Peter waits with the guards in what appears to be an antechamber to hear the result right away and the entire religious council accuses him of blasphemy. They move in on him and beat him in what seems to be a brilliant example of overkill; they have already sentenced Jesus to death, but they feel they must solidify the verdict with more violence. Peter denies Jesus three times as predicted and Judas goes and hangs himself, throwing the silver in the Temple. The money is used to buy a field for a cemetery for foreigners, which fulfills yet another prophecy. Jesus is then brought before the Roman governor Pilate (why, then, was there also a king?) where he is tried. A custom of the Roman governor is discussed where he will allow one prisoner to be freed every Passover, and the text mentions that Pilate knew the religious authorities had arrested Jesus out of envy. This, I thought, was noteworthy, and I will discuss it at the end. The Jewish crowd calls for blood, responding to Pilate by releasing a notorious criminal named Barabbas and demanding that Pilate crucify Jesus. Pilate literally washes his hands in front of the crowd to signify his lack of responsibility in the death, and the Jewish crowd yells that they, with all their children, accept responsibility for the death. This is strange for two reasons. First, on a superficial level, the crowd chants with incredible coordination. They all say the same complex statements, and I just thought it sounded a little odd. Second, Jesus is amassing a huge following. I have trouble believing that everyone would have turned against him so quickly. This relates to Pilate believing Jesus was arrested out of envy, so I will not discuss it yet. Jesus is flogged with a lead-tipped whip and turned over for crucifixion. The soldiers mock Jesus, giving him a crown of thorns, a reed stick as a scepter, and a scarlet robe. They bow down and call him the King of the Jews before sending him out to be crucified. Jesus is nailed to the cross (really think about that. He is physically nailed to a wooden post. Not tied, not glued, but nailed) with a sign bearing the phrase “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” nailed above his head and mocked by the passerby. Just before dying, Jesus calls out to God twice. There was some poetic beauty to this moment; Jesus is making the ultimate sacrifice, and calls out to God asking why He has abandoned him. In reality, of course (according to the Bible that is) God has done nothing of the sort. But just as he yells it the second time, Jesus dies, releasing his spirit. The curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple is torn in two and tombs are opened. Godly men and women are raised from the dead, which is not an event that is commonly mentioned when discussing the crucifixion; it was a little weird, too, because it seems that Jesus is not the only one who is resurrected (he is the only one who resurrects himself, of course). Jesus’ body is taken to a tomb where it is sealed in, and guards are posted next to the tomb to protect it and prevent the disciples from taking the body and claiming Jesus had risen. On Sunday morning (the first Easter, incidentally) Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (who I cannot identify, she is said to be the mother of James and Joseph) go to visit his tomb, but an angel is sitting near it and tells them Jesus has risen. The two women run to tell the disciples, and they see Jesus on the way. He tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. The Book of Matthew ends with the eleven remaining apostles praising Jesus, but no ascension is mentioned. I moved then into the Book of Mark, which is generally accepted to be the oldest synoptic gospel (and therefore the oldest New Testament book, I suppose). Mark skips the virgin birth and starts right when John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus, followed by Jesus’ baptism and temptation. Jesus’ first disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John) begin following him and Jesus begins healing many people. For some reason though, he refuses to let the demons he casts out of people tell everyone who he is. I do not understand why Jesus was so reluctant to let everyone know that he was the messiah. Jesus then calls Levi, otherwise known as Matthew, to be his disciple. Jesus continues preaching and healing with many of the same events from Matthew recorded in Mark verbatim. Jesus’ apostles are chosen from his followers, and they are the same as from Matthew (when one name differs from another in multiple gospels, the two different names are ascribed to the same person). John and James are nicknamed the “Sons of Thunder” for some reason, and I only mention this because I thought it was strange; it is not particularly relevant. Jesus begins teaching in the form of parables, which are more or less the same ones as in Matthew, but for a few: the parables of the growing seed and lamp are in Mark but not Matthew, and similarly, some of the parables from Matthew are not in Mark. Jesus calms a storm and heals a demon-possessed man, followed by various other acts of healing. Jesus is rejected at Nazareth and gives his disciples healing powers, instructing them to travel the region and heal people. The death of John the Baptist is again summarized and Jesus feeds five thousand people with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus walks on water as in Matthew, but Peter is not called out to join him. I thought this was noteworthy because it seems to lend credence to my point that such primacy of Peter might have been a later addition to give the church more authority. A slightly scathing explanation of the tradition of hand washing is given to explain why it was such a problem that Jesus and his followers were not doing so before they ate, but I have to say that I still think the Pharisees had a point about the necessity of hand washing. Of course, hygiene isn’t really the issue here, so my opinion on the matter is fairly irrelevant. The issue of the Gentile girl being healed is once again addressed, and Jesus heals the girl (as in Matthew) after her mother impresses him with a retort. I like this particular scene because Jesus seems, for the most part, to exhibit a fairly human emotion of simply being happily impressed. This section ended with Jesus healing a deaf man.
It is very strange to be reading books with names such as “Matthew” and “Mark” as opposed to “Haggai,” “Habakkuk,” “Nehemiah,” and others; however, I personally like saying the Old Testament names a little more. In any case, my first thought is how the Bible seems to focus on the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus. I am fairly certain this was done mainly to alleviate the guilt of the Romans in his death when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Great pains are taken to demonstrate Jesus was killed not on Roman authority but on Jewish authority, and I take some issue with that. This is mainly because, first and foremost, crucifixion is a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. Jewish execution seems to be mainly stoning as outlined in the books of law. Also, Jesus was leading a fairly powerful movement, it seems. This would probably upset the Roman leaders in Judea so they would want to end this movement as swiftly as possible to avoid a threat to their control. Killing Jesus would appear to be the quickest way to do so. Therefore I think the gospels were edited a little to put the Romans in a good light but the Jews in a bad one. The next thought I had was of Judas. He is considered to be a vile character throughout history, but I think this assessment of him is a little unfair. After all, without Judas, Jesus would never have been able to die for the peoples’ sins, come back to life, or open Heaven for the world. Judas is extremely important to the success of Jesus’ mission, and if he is being eternally punished for betraying Jesus, then it seems Judas almost got a worse punishment than Jesus. That is to say that Jesus died after a day or so on the cross, but Judas is punished for all eternity. And in addition, the Gnostic Gospel of Judas asserts that Judas knew more of the truth about Heaven and God than the other disciples and was simply acting on Jesus’ orders to betray him. Along with this, Jesus must have known Judas was going to betray him (considering he is the Son of God). Therefore, Jesus would have been aware when he chose Judas that such a fate was in store for the both of them, and so Jesus knew and needed Judas. I posit that the role of Judas is much more complex than a simple betrayal, and that Jesus needed Judas possibly more than the other disciples because without him, Jesus could not complete his mission. Moving on, I noticed that the virgin birth was removed. This seems odd, as the virgin birth is a fairly important event to prove Jesus’ divinity. Considering Mark is the oldest gospel, one would assume such a pivotal point in the narrative would be included and I feel the lack of it is notable, because it certainly is not an irrelevant point, although I am not sure what to make of it. Finally, I notice that Mark has Jesus’ emotions more defined. He is said to feel compassion, anger, sadness, and exhaustion; very human traits. I think it is important to demonstrate this side of Jesus, and I am enjoying this facet of Mark. Jesus is shown to be human as well as something else which is a critical aspect of him. Tomorrow I finish Mark, and I then move into Luke for a few days.

Matthew 13-24

2009-07-21T21:57:00.001-07:00

Today started with parables, where Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to some scenario (for those of you who might not know) in order to describe it more fully. I particularly liked the parable of wheat and weeds, where a farmer plants good seeds in his field but, at night, his enemy plants some weeds among the wheat. The farmer’s workers notice this and ask him if they should pull up the weeds, but the farmer says no. He claims doing so would hurt the good plants, so they will simply separate the plants after harvest. Here the harvest represents the end of the world, the wheat the righteous that follow Jesus, and the weeds the people who do not. They will be separated at the end of the world because destroying them now would cause undue harm to those who believe. I don’t know why this one struck me more than the others (which included, if you are interested, the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and fishing net) but I suspect it was just a little clearer to me. As a whole I like the parables because they are like riddles, which gives me a chance to really contemplate the meaning of the lessons as I try to solve them. Jesus is rejected at Nazareth, his hometown, where the names of his brothers are given. I do not know the typical Christian consensus on the physical relationship of Jesus to these men; half-brothers would make the most historical and theological sense, in my opinion, because I imagine Mary and Joseph ended up having children after Jesus was born, as any Jewish family would. However, Catholicism believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so I do not know the stances of the other sects. Jesus still performs miracles in Nazareth (though not many) despite their lack of faith, which I thought was interesting and shed some light onto Jesus’ character. John the Baptist is briefly mentioned as having been beheaded as a gift to the king’s daughter (which isn’t horribly brutal in any way). Jesus hears the news and tries to go be alone, but crowds follow him. Jesus still heals them and instructs his disciples to feed them. They claim there isn’t enough food, but Jesus miraculously feeds five thousand families that day with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Later on, the disciples get into trouble again while in a boat (this would be the second time-it strikes me as somewhat comical, honestly) and see Jesus walking on water which naturally freaks them out. Jesus identifies himself and calls Peter, who also walks on water. He begins to sink as he loses faith, but the fact that Peter is the only apostle who walks on water is significant, I think. I believe it is used as evidence of Peter’s primacy amongst the disciples, and I can’t help but agree. It is a pretty miraculous event, and the fact that Peter is involved in it really says something about his status. Jesus calms the wind and they cross the lake. Jesus then claims, later on, that what you eat does not matter; your moral purity comes from what you say and believe. He says that eating with unwashed hands will not defile you (maybe not spiritually, but it isn’t particularly hygienic, so the Pharisees did have a point in wanting people to do this) but evil words will. A gentile woman pleads to Jesus for him to heal her daughter, but Jesus ignores her; his disciples ask him to send her away. Jesus claims he was only sent to help the Israelites, and compares the gentiles to dogs with the Israelites as children. She subsequently proves her faith in him and he heals her daughter. I was confused a little by this action, though; namely his ignoring of the woman and refusing to help her on the grounds of her being a gentile. It seemed a little cold, especially for such a presumably holy figure. Jesus heals and feeds more people, refuses to give the Pharisees and Sadducees a miraculous sign, and questions the apostles on who they think he is. Peter answers that he is the messiah and Son of God, and Jesus blesses Peter for this response (this section also emphasizes Peter’s primacy again, with Jesus giving him the symbolic keys to Heaven). Jesus predicts his death and brings Peter, John, and James up to a mountain, where he physically meets with Elijah and Moses. Jesus says Elijah has already come to clear the way for the messiah in the form of John the Baptist, and Jesus then tells Peter to pay the Temple tax with a large silver stater, a Greek coin, which isn’t nearly as good a word as shekel is. In any case, Jesus then claims that tempting someone into sin is worse than the temptation itself, because temptation is unavoidable. Jesus also says that if your hand or eye sins, you should remove it, because it is better to get into Heaven without a limb than to be intact in Hell. Of course I took this as a hyperbole (as I do with similar claims in the Old Testament), just to emphasize that sacrificing for righteousness is better than being rich and wicked. An answer to my divorce issue is given as Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce only as a concession to the hard hearts of the Israelites, but this was not what God originally intended. He also says that in marriage, man and woman are united, so they cannot be split. While I don’t necessarily accept this point of view, I can see why Jesus would preach it. Jesus says it is very difficult for a rich person to enter Heaven, but I don’t think he rules it out. I saw this more as Jesus not wanting people to be attached to their possessions more than God, where a person could be solely devoted to wealth. In this case, I think the person would have difficulty getting into Heaven. At this point Jesus continues his teaching and healing, followed by a triumphant entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey (fulfilling a prophecy). He enters the Temple and angrily drives out the money changers and merchants selling animals for sacrifice, after which he returns to Bethany for the night. In the morning, Jesus is hungry and goes to a fig tree only to find it has no fruit. Jesus is angry and, for some reason, kills the tree. He slyly insults the Pharisees in the form of a parable (which I thought was pretty funny) and continually silences the religious teachers with his answers to their questions (generally attempts to trap him and get him arrested-really a lovely group of people). He then goes on what appears to be a rant against the Pharisees, which probably just infuriates them, and today’s section closes with a description of the end of days.
I don’t know exactly what it was, but I enjoyed this section quite a bit. Yesterday’s section doesn’t compare to it, and I think the reason behind this is because there was more emphasis on Jesus’ teachings rather than his miracles. I have trouble with the miracles in terms of their historicity, but some of the teachings are ideas that I can get behind. Jesus preaches that the two most important laws are loving God and forgiving your neighbor, and I think there is a lot to be said about this doctrine. It is, as I have said, unfortunate that the religions are twisted into something negative by some people. The parables were fun to read, and continue to be; I have some more tomorrow, and I look forward to them. Though an explanation is generally given to the apostles later on, I like being given the chance to personally evaluate the meaning and take my own interpretation from them before anything is specifically spelled out. Like I said, they are similar to riddles in my mind. They are also pretty visual and serve as excellent examples, which I have consistently liked in the Bible. I also notice how friendly Jesus and Peter are. When Jesus unnerves the disciples with his three predictions of death (I thought the number was important to note, incidentally), Peter pulls him aside and rebukes him for the grave predictions. That seems pretty audacious for someone to do to a figure they consider the Son of God, so I found it significant. Peter is without a doubt the most important disciple so far (I feel Judas could take this title later on, but I’ll discuss that when I get there). He walks on water and is seen in more specific situations with Jesus; he is around for every significant apostolic moment in Matthew up to this point, and is the first one mentioned. This could be some edit from later on, I suppose; doing so would serve to solidify the Pope’s supreme position, and I don’t doubt the church was corrupt enough to only use text that was favorable to Peter’s position. Either way, I thought it was noteworthy. Tomorrow I finish Matthew and move into Mark, which I have heard is less miraculous than Matthew.

Matthew 1-12

2009-07-20T22:06:00.001-07:00

This section is the first of the first book of the New Testament, as you probably already know. It opens with a genealogy, presumably to make the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament easier (ha, ha). All kidding aside though, it records the line of males from Abraham to Joseph, Jesus’ mother’s husband (they make that clear). My issue with this is if Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus, doesn’t that mean he is not directly descended from David after all? In terms of blood, David does not seem to be a direct ancestor of Jesus. However, Mary was probably not terribly distantly related to Joseph, so she is therefore most likely a descendent of David, which allows Jesus to be part of that line. Still, in terms of adoptive parentage, Jesus is a direct descendent of David through Joseph, so that might count. But by blood and directly through the father, which is what seems to matter in the Bible, it doesn’t seem like Jesus is descended directly from David. The virgin conception is detailed and when Joseph considers breaking off the engagement to a pregnant Mary (as per Jewish custom of the time), an angel appears to Joseph telling him that the child in Mary’s womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit. So of course Joseph adheres to the wishes of God and stays with Mary. Jesus is said to be born in Bethlehem, and some wise men (the Greek apparently reads “magi,” which would roughly mean royal astronomers, I am told) go to Jerusalem to seek out this newborn king of the Jews. King Herod learns that the Messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem, so he orders them to find the baby, ostensibly so he can worship Jesus as well. The wise men travel to Bethlehem with their gifts, but they do not return to Herod because God warns them against doing so in a dream. Jesus and his family flee to Egypt, fulfilling another prophecy, and Herod orders the execution of all boys under the age of two in Bethlehem. After Herod’s death the family travels to Nazareth, which fulfills yet another prophecy of the Messiah being called a Nazarene. A brief interlude introduces John the Baptist, who prepares the way for Jesus by calling for people to repent and baptizing them (hence the name). We have evidently jumped ahead about thirty years because Jesus is beginning his ministry (information about his early years can actually be found in the Gnostic gospels). First, however, he is baptized by John, which is followed by the heavens opening and a voice calling Jesus “my dearly loved son.” The Bible says that Jesus saw this but not necessarily that anyone else did, so I interpret this as a vision similar to the prophets of the Old Testament. Jesus is then led to the desert by the Holy Spirit where he is tempted by the devil. He obviously resists these temptations and when he hears John is arrested (an event left out of Matthew, apparently) he returns to Galilee. This is where Jesus’ ministry begins, and he finds his first disciples, Simon (also called Peter) and Simon’s brother Andrew. These two are followed by the brothers James and John, who immediately abandon their father to follow Jesus. This was probably written to emphasize the power Jesus has and how enthusiastic his disciples were to follow him. Jesus also begins healing people, drawing large crowds to follow him around. We then move to the Sermon on the Mount, and it is a little too long to discuss in full here, but I will mention some that stuck out at me. One was in the Beatitudes, where Jesus says God blesses those who work for peace. This is an interesting point, and it only adds to the evidence that killing in the name of God is unjustifiable (although for inspiration on creative ways to do so, look no further than the Bible, but I’ve discussed my feelings on the matter in past posts). Jesus preaches obedience to the Mosaic law, letting go of your anger and feuds, reconciliation, against lust and divorce (the prohibition on divorce is one I don’t particularly agree with; it seems to have no purpose), against vows (which I suppose he links to taking God’s name in vain and disrespecting His creations), against revenge (the turn the other cheek proverb), and love for enemies. He also teaches humility and instructs people not to judge others. Jesus preaches the golden rule and tells people not to worry about money or possessions because God will take care of them. This isn’t entirely true based on evidence though, because if God really did take care of everyone who did not have enough food, starvation wouldn’t be such a problem in the world. At one point, Jesus tells people that simply claiming to follow him will not get them into heaven. Instead, they must follow the laws and do God’s work, which would seem to emphasize good actions over faith by salvation alone. We move from the Sermon on the Mount to the healing of a man with leprosy (or some generic skin disease) followed by a young Roman servant. Jesus goes to Peter’s house, where he heals Peter’s mother. She immediately gets up and begins cooking. This line struck me as a little humorous because it really epitomizes the biblical role of women. Jesus continues performing miracle after miracle and calls Matthew, a tax collector, to be his disciple. Matthew immediately obeys, and Jesus explains to the Pharisees (who are already giving Jesus a hard time) that he calls “scum” to be disciples because they are spiritually ill and need a doctor, so to speak. The twelve disciples (notice the number) are given the authority to heal and cast out demons and they are sent out on a journey to preach only to the Israelites, but not to accept any type of reward. Jesus also tells people to love him more than their own family, because only this will lead to salvation. Jesus and his disciples break off heads of grain and eat them on the Sabbath, angering the Pharisees, but Jesus tells them that he is the lord over even the Sabbath and uses David eating the sacred bread as an example of Jesus putting faith and acts before tradition. Jesus heals on the Sabbath as well, so the Pharisees begin to plot his demise. The section closes with Jesus claiming all people are his brothers and mothers, not only his actual blood relatives.
First, I would like to mention that reading these stories has a similar effect as reading the story of the flood, creation, fall of man, or other similarly famous stories. I enjoy reading these because they are so famous and I have heard them so many times, but rarely have I actually read them for myself. I notice Jesus was not overtly claiming to be the Messiah (even when asked he did not give a clear answer, only pointed to his acts), but was claiming higher authority than anyone else. He does seem to teach with quite a bit of authority, and a lot of the things he said in the Sermon on the Mount were things I agree with. I thought a few, such as the prohibition of divorce, were a little bit needless. I don’t see the issue with divorce if it is necessary, but the society in first century Judea might have warranted some sort of provision. Jesus also preaches forgiveness, and John the Baptist teaches repentance. Both of these are ideas that are supposedly crucial to Christianity, and though a lot of times it seems people do not adhere to either tenant, the backbone of the religion seems fairly decent. Jesus performed a huge amount of miracles, and I do not know how I feel about those yet. My initial impression is that they are exaggerations or unlikely to be true, but I will reserve any elaboration on this interpretation until after I read more of the synoptic gospels. Finally, I want to list the names of the disciples, just as a record: Simon (Peter, because they made no indication of which one he was called more frequently), Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Thaddeus, Simon (the zealot), and Judas Iscariot. That is it for today and I continue with Matthew tomorrow. I apologize for the length of this post; it is the longest one I have written in quite some time.

Zechariah 4-Malachi 4

2009-07-19T20:19:00.001-07:00

This section continued with the vivid imagery used to describe the visions had by Zechariah. They describe various blessings and curses, and promise that the current governor of Judah will be successful. While they are a Persian province, the governor is indeed Jewish. The Persian government was set up in such a way that each group of people was ruled by one of their own in their own land, hence the return of the Jews from exile. The Israelites then ask Zechariah (thereby indirectly asking God) if they should continue to mourn the loss of the first Temple as they had been for years, to which God basically answers no, but directs them to be righteous and fair as their ancestors were not. Zechariah issues another blessing for Jerusalem and claims that it will only prosper from that day forward, and this fate will be shared by the people of Judah. The enemies of Israel are condemned, followed the alleged messianic prophecy of the messiah riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Again, I did not see this as a messianic prophecy necessarily because it did not seem to refer specifically to an individual who will bring any time of deliverance. Instead, it seemed to simply refer to the leaders of the Israelites being humble. I viewed it as more metaphorical than prophetic, for the most part. On the other hand, however, it does refer to a leader that will come in the future. If taken this way, these particular verses could seem to indicate someone who will eventually lead the Jews to prosperity, which is certainly a duty of the messiah. This is followed by another messianic prophecy, this time about the messiah being sold for thirty pieces of silver. I felt this too was metaphorical because the discussion was comparing nations to sheep, and again not indicating any sort of deliverance or even leader in this case. God promises that in the future anyone worshipping idols will even be killed by their own parents, which I take to be a hyperbole. I think it stresses how unacceptable and unlikely idol worship will be in due time, perhaps in the messianic age. Zechariah closes with a promise of God’s eventual destruction of the enemies of Israel and a promise of an age of deliverance, where everyone who is left alive will worship Him in Jerusalem at least once a year. Malachi opens with God elaborating on His love for Israel, using His rejection of Esau as a comparison. He then rejects unworthy sacrifices and criticizes the Israelites for getting lazy in their worship again. God calls everyone to be faithful and announces He hates divorce. This is the first major position on divorce in the Bible. It has never been explicitly forbidden or accepted until this point, though it has apparently occurred because provisions for it are included in some of the law books. Another messianic prophecy is given, which I do believe was intended as such; God says He will be sending a messenger, and it appears this messenger will enter the Temple with authority. I saw this as a messianic prophecy, contrary to the others, because it seemed to be explicitly promising some sort of deliverance. A call to repent and promise of mercy is given, and Malachi (and the Old Testament as a whole) closes with a small mention of the coming Day of Judgment.
Zechariah was fairly interesting in that I usually like reading about visions. They are always very strange so there is generally some level of surprise to what I am reading. Some are incredibly bizarre, describing very odd animals and figures, whereas some are simply discussions with what appear to be heavenly bodies. It contained some warnings and blessings as well, but those are generally forgettable later on because they have been mentioned so many times. Malachi was much more recent than most other prophets because it was issuing warnings to Israelites much later than the restoration for being lazy. The Book of Malachi also served to reassert God’s love for Israel, and I always enjoy reading about something positive in the Bible, since so much of it is devoted to destruction and massacre. So overall I enjoyed today’s read because not only was it interesting but it was somewhat uplifting as well. We are far beyond the restoration so no more promises of a coming destruction are issued and the books seemed more focused on hope alone.
And with my reading of Malachi, I finish the Old Testament. This book was, to say the least, interesting. It was alternatively massively disturbing, excruciatingly boring, beautifully uplifting, excitingly devoted, and a lot of the time completely baffling. At times it was a combination of all of these. Reading the entire book and seeing various quotes in context completely realigned my view of the book and the religions adhering to it as a whole. Sections that are preached as evidence that the religions promote hate and intolerance have the tendency to be inaccurate portrayals of the point of the passage. So much of the book is metaphorical or hyperbolic that taking some of the stories as literal is just ludicrous. In addition, it seems that those who kill in the name of the Bible are taking the judgments of God into their own hands. That is to say, many of the massacres or battles were ordered by God. Therefore, unless someone has an actual prophetic vision (which would probably be known as something else today), killing in the name of this particular God cannot possibly be justified. And the passages that seem to require one to kill non-believers read to me as hyperbolic. I believe ostracize or probably even just ignore would be a better term to use when describing the proscribed views on non-believers. Fair judgment is one of the central tenants of the book, so much injustice in the world is completely anti-biblical.
On the other hand, there are some actions that really make the reader squirm with discomfort. Where I usually see a hyperbole might not have been intended as such. Sometimes there does seem to be required violence, and the Israelites (as the main characters) seem to revel in many atrocities being committed to their neighbors. It is still hard, at times, to accept that this God is one of love when He seems to hate so much. He is also quite moody and petty at times; waving this away as an aspect of a being we cannot understand does not read to me as an adequate explanation all the time. A lot of the Bible also destroys any level of curiosity about the world the reader might have. Since all the answers are there, no further investigation is required. Regardless my main conclusion of the Bible is that, while there are things that I find horrific, much of the text is promoting a righteous life of equality and wisdom that I certainly can see the merit of. These are the points in the Bible that should be focused on as opposed to the rules and prejudices of an ancient civilization that has, at the most conservative estimate, morphed beyond recognition. I say this because, while I absolutely still classify myself as agnostic, so many people adhere to the words in this simple book (not to mention its influence on our society) that the good of it needs to be investigated
Tomorrow I begin Matthew, and I am very interested to start on what could potentially be considered the four most important sections in the most important book in the world.

Habakkuk 1-Zechariah 3

2009-07-18T18:58:00.001-07:00

Habakkuk is a very short book consisting of Habakkuk’s questions posed to God about why bad things are going to happen to good people, and good things will happen to the cruel Babylonians. God responds by describing the power of the Babylonians but concluding with a curse, claiming they are deeply guilty because “their own strength is their god.” Habakkuk complains once again (the audacity of it is surprising, one would not expect direct questioning of God to be so successfully answered), wondering if the Israelites will be completely destroyed for their sins. He also wonders whether the Babylonians will be able to continue on with their current success forever. God responds once again, this time claiming that despite the initial successes of wicked people, the oppressed will eventually overthrow their oppressors and the good people will be rewarded in the end. He claims that though this may seem to take a long time, it will eventually happen and to have faith. This response placates Habakkuk, who proceeds to praise God, ending his book. I then moved onto Zephaniah, the second book in today’s reading. The Book of Zephaniah opens with a description of the coming judgment of Judah, promising destruction all around. Zephaniah then calls the people to repent, telling them that if they do so, their destruction might be abandoned. Various other nations are then condemned and Jerusalem’s rebellion is discussed in great detail, followed by a promise of redemption. This closes the Book of Zephaniah and I move on to the Book of Haggai, another very short book. This one was written after the restoration, which is a nice change of pace from the pre-exilic prophets. They discuss the doom of the Israelites, which is fairly depressing (though quite justifiably so, as they were preaching about a pretty unhappy situation). Haggai opens with a call to rebuild the Temple, apparently something the Israelites had not bothered to do yet. Their crops and clothes are inadequate as a result, so Haggai tells them God is with them and that they should rebuild the Temple. Upon hearing this, the enthusiasm of the entire Israelite remnant is sparked and they begin work. The Temple is a little less impressive this time around, but God promises that one day it will house many treasures, just as before. Haggai informs the priests that everything the populace does is defiled by sin, but that because they have been obedient, they will be blessed from that day forward. Finally, Haggai closes with a promise of honor for Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. I then moved onto Zechariah, the second to last book of the Old Testament. Zechariah was a contemporary of Haggai, and begins with a call to return to God. He then discusses a vision he had where some angels patrolled the earth, declaring it to be in peace. God promises to help Israel prosper while destroying the nations that caused them harm. He says that the conquering nations did more harm to the Israelites than He had intended, and thus they will be duly punished. Another two visions are shown with this same message, followed by the exiles being called back to Judah by God. The final vision in this section had Satan accusing Jeshua, the high priest, with what were presumably sinful actions. God rejects Satan and orders Jeshua to take off his filthy clothes, replacing them with clean, new clothes, representing his spiritual cleansing. This section closes the reading for the day.
I am surprised that Habakkuk is not quoted more often. It relates to the question of why good things happen to bad people and vice versa, and it is therefore something that I believe many people have considered in their lives. It seems to be a major issue in understanding religion, and the book is devoted to it entirely. Part of me thought the answer presented in Habakkuk was acceptable; it stated that good things will happen in time and that believers must be patient and have faith. On the other hand, it is a bit of a copout answer. It does not really answer the question presented, but dodges it by telling the reader to simply carry on with the knowledge that someday things might potentially turn around. It is almost a typical aspect of religion. There aren’t real, concrete answers; instead, there are only vague calls to have faith. But I think the hope and faith that is encouraged is crucial to religion. The idea that there is a reason behind every minute detail of life is, at its core, a comforting thought. It gives a purpose to inexplicably horrible things happening to people all over the world, one that is assumed to be part of a plan stemming from a loving deity, thus making the plan itself loving. I suppose the decision rests with the individual on whether or not they find this fundamental tenant of religion adequate, and it is absolutely something I personally have not come to a definite decision on yet (hence the title of this blog referring to me as “agnostic”). I believe my mind has, however, been more opened to the benefits of religion since I have been reading the Bible. I do not know if it is the book itself or my approach to it; the writing has allowed me to grow in my thinking of the Bible, giving me the opportunity to analyze some aspects of the religion more objectively (my reading of Job was a big step for me. Instead of immediately writing it off as something horrible, I made an actual effort to seek deeper meaning from the story). I imagine it is a mixture of both the Bible itself and my approach to it. Moving on though, Zephaniah was another book promising the coming destruction of Judah, about which I have no more comments. Haggai and Zechariah (the tiny part I read of it, that is) were more interesting because they referred to a different time. Haggai seemed much more like a historical read in that he simply tells the Israelites to begin work and they do, demonstrating the building of the Temple, giving dates for it, and discussing roadblocks along the way. Zechariah seems like it will be a very visual book, and I usually enjoy those quite a bit, so I am looking forward to finishing it. Tomorrow is the last day of the Old Testament, as I finish Zechariah and move through Malachi.

Jonah 1-Nahum 3

2009-07-17T23:02:00.001-07:00

This section started with Jonah’s call to ministry by God and his subsequent reaction: fleeing. He does this because he is required to go preach in the capital of Assyria, and he is an Israelite (as in someone from the northern kingdom). I doubt anyone in that position would be thrilled (to refresh your memory, Assyria is the nation that conquers Israel), so Jonah bought a ticket to a boat and set sail, hoping to run from his calling. The sea became rough and a massive storm started, scaring the crew into praying to their gods. The captain tells Jonah to pray for intercession from his own god, presumably because the sailors want to try anything they can. They cast lots to decide who is causing the storm by displeasing his particular god, and Jonah is shown to be the culprit. Jonah tells them to throw him overboard, which they initially refuse but eventually have to agree to; the storm is simply too rough. The storm stops at once when Jonah is hurled overboard and the sailors all vow to worship God from then on out. Jonah is then swallowed by the famous big fish. Now whether or not this was meant to be taken literally I do not know; I personally doubt Jonah was actually swallowed and survived in a real fish. He allegedly stays in the fish for three days and nights but I prefer to see this more as a metaphor of God’s deliverance of Jonah. At the same time though, I have trouble accepting the metaphorical explanation, so I will discuss it more at the end. Jonah prays to God, thanking him for His intercession in Jonah’s likely death. God orders the fish to spit Jonah out onto the beach, and Jonah goes to the city of Nineveh to preach of its imminent destruction. The entire population repents, so God changes His mind and does not destroy the city. This angers Jonah because he does not like the Assyrians; indeed, they are enemies of the Israelites. He arranges a shelter on one side of town and God grows a tree next to him to shelter him from the sun. The next day, however, God kills the tree and Jonah becomes upset again. God uses the death of the tree, for which Jonah feels sorry, as a metaphor for the city; God feels sorry for the city just as Jonah felt sorry for the tree. That closes Jonah, which I thought was a little strange; it seemed like very little happened, but I moved onto Micah nonetheless. Micah begins by condemning Samaria (Israel’s capital) and Jerusalem (Judah’s capital) followed by wealthy people who oppress the poor. He follows (predictably) by discussing the eventual restoration that is promised to Israel. Israel’s leaders are compared to cannibals in their oppression of the Israelite people, which I am sure is a metaphor because of its graphic and extreme nature. There are many disturbing aspects of the Bible, but encouraging cannibalism has never been one of them. The Israelites are promised a ruler from Bethlehem, which is taken to be a messianic prophecy; I do not really see that interpretation because there seems to be no indication that this ruler will offer any type of deliverance. God’s case against Israel is summarized again, their destruction is ensured, and their restoration is promised, following the trend of many of the other prophets (particularly the Major Prophets). This ends Micah and I move onto the third book of the day, Nahum. Nahum must have been written after Jonah because it condemns Nineveh and there is no repentance, whereas in Jonah the city immediately began to mourn and pray. Nineveh’s riches and plunder are discussed in great detail, followed by a long assurance of coming destruction for the city. This, of course, ended up being true to some extent, as the Assyrians were eventually conquered. Nahum does not say much else, and that ended my reading for the day.
I have to talk more about the big fish in Jonah. I would like to read it as a metaphor as I have done for many of the more fantastic stories in the Bible, as they are generally fairly effective symbols and lessons of morality and history. But unfortunately, I cannot accept the story as a metaphor. I came to the conclusion that it could potentially represent God’s deliverance of Jonah at a time where he was likely to die. He managed to come to the shore, and decided that this was a second lease on life. The problem I have with this interpretation is the fact that the fish is so clearly described. There was no language indicative of a simile or a symbol so I have to assume it was meant to be literal. And such is my problem with the story. It is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. I am willing to accept that Jonah had a near death experience that he was able to overcome, and that subsequently strengthened his religious belief, but I doubt it had anything to do with a fish. The possibilities for explanations of the story are endless, but I will not go into them; I will simply maintain that I was not a fan of the story, despite Jonah’s obvious talents as a prophet (he manages to convince an entire city to repent, which is no small feat considering prophets were routinely persecuted and he was even in the heart of enemy territory). The big fish aspect soured my experience of Jonah, and I did not have much to say about Micah or Nahum. Micah reiterated some of the issues discussed by various other prophets, and Nahum described the coming destruction of Nineveh. Tomorrow is my second to last day of the Old Testament, and I read the Minor Prophet with by far the best biblical name, Habakkuk.

Joel 1-Obadiah

2009-07-16T15:44:00.001-07:00

This section is really a good example of what the Minor Prophets are like: very short. Joel is only three chapters, followed by Amos which is nine, and finally Obadiah which is only one chapter (it is not even numbered). Joel is a long description of the coming Day of Judgment, where God will lead heaven’s armies across the earth to destroy the wicked. These armies are compared to a swarm of locusts destroying crops as they move across the land. Such a comparison seems somewhat apt, but at the same time a little exaggerated. I say this only because the locusts will eat and destroy the crops without hesitation and excluding nothing, whereas God will allow the righteous to live as, through Joel, God calls people to turn towards Him now while there is time. He will spare His people, which refer to the Jews as the Old Testament was initially written. As a side note, however, subsequent religions have reinterpreted God’s people to mean different things; for instance, Christians believe the designation refers to people who have accepted Jesus. My initial qualm with the locust analogy is silenced when God announces He will restore what is lost as opposed to sparing the righteous, which was my previous interpretation. Joel ends with a promise from God to protect and restore Judah while destroying her enemies, and I move into Amos. Before I begin, I found an interesting fact stating that Amos’s words were the first of a biblical prophet to be recorded on paper. This book begins with a summary of the judgment on various nations that are enemies of Israel. These nations have committed various sins, including the most disturbing one of “ripping open pregnant women with their swords,” which is thankfully punished with complete destruction. Whether or not the actions are hyperboles I do not know, but I am inclined to think that they aren’t because, from the small amount of history I have learned, it seems such brutality was quite common between feuding groups of people. Judah and Israel are cursed next with particular focus on Israel. Israel is abused by the prophets quite a bit more than Judah, which gives me two ideas. First, it could be that Israel was simply a worse place to live and was treated as such. Second, it could be that, since the Bible is written from the perspective of Judah (since it is the only one that was restored), I am simply reading a biased version of events. Of course, it could be a combination of the two as well. Next the Israelites are called to repent for their sins as usual and the coming day of judgment is described. Amos describes a few visions he has where the destruction of Israel is shown in a metaphorical form, but Amos intercedes each time (similar to Moses all the way back in Exodus). The priest of Bethel (in Israel) tells the king that Amos is speaking intolerably, which seems to happen to prophets a lot (thus proving God right when He says they persecute prophets). Amos claims to not be a professional prophet or the son of a prophet but a simple man following God’s calling, which I thought was an odd declaration. I was under the impression that to be a prophet one required a calling from God as opposed to simply a birthright. Another interesting point made is the declaration that the Israelites might not be more important than some other nations. God gives the example of bringing the Philistines out of Crete and the Arameans out of Kir as equivalent to the Israelites being brought out of Egypt. This was very interesting; it actually made God seem less like the personal god of Israel and more like a universal god. It is also worthwhile to note that this is the only time so far that other nations are mentioned as being on the same level as the Israelites. God could simply be using these examples to convince the Israelites that they are not safe simply because they are God’s people, which is something I would imagine to be a likely scenario. Amos ends with a promise of restoration. The next and final book I read today is the Book of Obadiah. This book focuses on the coming destruction of Edom because they did not aid Israel; rather, the Edomites attacked Israel which is seen as incredibly dishonorable. Edom, descended from Esau, and Israel, descended from Jacob, are brother nations, so it would be expected of Edom to help Israel. Edom is promised the same destruction Israel faced without the restoration, and Israel’s restoration is assured once again.
I thought today’s reading was actually pretty interesting. Joel’s prophetic visions of Judgment Day were a little depressing but interesting nonetheless. Since I began reading Genesis, studying the actual biblical accounts of religious events I have merely been told of has been one of the greatest pleasures of reading the Bible. The Book of Joel was interesting mostly for that reason because on the whole, it was a little unpleasant to read about the sure destruction of pretty much everyone. Amos was somewhat interesting, though he did not say anything that was particularly new. I thought the prophetic visions he had where he interceded on the behalf of the people were a nice parallel to Moses. Finally, Obadiah spoke of the coming destruction of Edom. This is not a new idea, but it was the first book to give a substantial reason: the betrayal of the Israelites. The brotherly conflicts in the Bible have roots all the way back to Cain and Abel. The question Cain asks (“Am I my brother’s keeper?”) is an issue that plagues nations in biblical times and even today. The thought can even be applied to humanity as a whole if we generalize the meaning of “brother.” In any case, today’s reading was relatively painless, and tomorrow I start with Jonah and the famous story of the big fish.

Hosea 1-14

2009-07-15T23:02:00.001-07:00

This section started in a pretty startling way: Hosea is ordered to marry a prostitute so some of the children she bears will be conceived in prostitution as an example of how Israel is prostituting itself by worshipping other gods. I really hope people listen to this message because otherwise, Hosea has wasted quite a bit of energy and time. Hosea obeys and marries a woman with the delightful name of Gomer. God instructs Hosea to name his daughter by Gomer “Lo-ruhamah” which means “not loved.” While I can accept that God needs to use Hosea for a purpose, I think there will probably be some sort of psychological issue if a child is literally named “not loved.” In fact, all of the children Hosea has by Gomer have names with pretty negative connotations so I expect they will all be somewhat maladjusted. We return to the metaphor of Israel as an unfaithful wife, but this time God claims He will “win her back again,” referring to the eventual restoration of the nation. Hosea’s wife is restored (he buys her back for some silver, barley, and wine; I won’t go into sexism again), which is used as an example for what will eventually happen to Israel (like I said, restoration). I thought there was a very moving point in this book where God says He wants the people of Israel to “know him more than [He] wants burnt offerings” which I think has some tragic beauty to it. I mentioned something like this in my last Ezekiel post, I believe; it illustrates God’s actual love for His people and His emotional pain at being abandoned by them. It is a higher connection than sacrifices that God wants and it is lines like this that help me understand why religions have lasted so long. Hosea preaches the coming destruction of Israel, as his prophecies were written around the time that the nations were exiled. Hosea continues to elaborate on God’s plans for the nation and finally, after a few chapters, brings Judah into the fold of prophecy. They share a similar fate as we know from past books. Hosea mentions Ephraim’s importance within the people of Israel, something of which I took note. The Book of Hosea ends with a call to repent and return to God, which eventually happens and leads to the restoration of Israel. Unfortunately, the two nations end up as exiles and, even upon restoration, vassals to another kingdom.
The first thing I would like to mention is the negative image prostitution has. I personally do not see a problem with regulated prostitution, but my own politics aside, prostitution is used by some of the earlier men in the Bible. For instance, the man Judah (as in not the tribe) meets a prostitute at one point and Samson (by far the most interesting judge from the Book of Judges) spends the night with a prostitute. In fact, this woman helps him avoid capture by his enemies. Of course, the negative image prostitution has is probably the reason it is so looked down upon in our society. Where and when the shift occurred I do not know, but it is interesting that some cultures found it so repugnant while others did not. The next thing I would like to mention is the fact that God wants His people to know Him more than He wants sacrifices. Like I said, this was a pretty moving sentiment; it really does a lot to put the entire issue of destroying and exiling the Israelites in perspective. I think it makes the entire event seem less cold and brutal and more like discipline. And of course, God’s love shows through when He leads them to restoration. On the other hand, the Jews are arguably the most oppressed people of all time (if not the most then in the top five) so the fact that such bad things happen do not reflect well on God and His judgments. I don’t think I will get into that debate though; I believe the question of evil and bad things happening is one that has plagued even the brightest theologians throughout the ages, and I am quite certain a large portion of these thinkers were a fair bit smarter than myself. Plus, I think the long arguments would get boring for my readers (or maybe just reader, it depends on the day). In any case, I don’t have anything else to say about this book, and I continue with the Minor Prophets tomorrow.

Daniel 1-12

2009-07-15T22:25:00.001-07:00

The final major prophet opens with a scene in which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon chooses young men from noble Judean birth to be educated in Babylonian language and literature. They will be advisors to him, and he decides to give them a ration of food and wine from his own stores. Daniel refuses this food because he believes it will defile him, so he tells the chief of staff’s attendant to feed him and his fellow Judeans vegetables and water. This actually makes them healthier, so the king does not notice and the four Judeans are not required to eat the tainted food. Daniel and his three comrades (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah-don’t worry, I won’t use the names so you don’t need to remember them) are the best advisors in the court because God gives them extra aptitude for learning and wisdom. One night, the king has a dream and demands his astrologers and magicians to tell him what it was and what it means. Predictably, they cannot interpret the dream without him telling them what it is first, which he refuses to do, and reacts with model biblical restraint by ordering every wise man in Babylon executed. Daniel intervenes and receives a vision from God telling him what the dream was and what it meant. The king is thrilled and does not execute anyone. The dream was of a giant statue with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay. It is crushed into small pieces, and the rock that does this becomes a large mountain that covers the entire earth. Daniel explains that this dream means each subsequent kingdom after Babylon will be weaker than the one before it, but one final kingdom will be the most powerful of all and rule for all eternity. The king is thrilled and does not execute anyone. Rather, he gives Daniel gifts and a high position in the royal court for being the only capable magician. This is probably good for the Israelites because he has some potential influence that can be used to restore the Israelites to their home. The king constructs a huge golden statue and orders that, upon the sound of various musical instruments, everyone in its presence should bow down and worship it. However, the Jews (in particular Daniel’s three friends) refuse to do so. Nebuchadnezzar, who has flown into a rage, orders them killed by way of being thrown into a furnace but when this order is implemented, they are saved by God. Nebuchadnezzar is in awe and proclaims that speaking against the god of these three men (which is to say, of course, God) is a capital offense. Nebuchadnezzar seems pretty unbalanced; one minute he is screaming and ordering executions and the next he is promoting the same people he ordered executed and giving them gifts. The king has another dream of an angelic form telling him to destroy a tree that feeds the entire world. Daniel explains that the dream is a warning to stop sinning because the tree represents the king. In a strange little insert, which seemed to me to not fit the flow of the story, Nebuchadnezzar is indeed removed from his throne and forced to live amongst the animals for “seven periods of time,” which is exactly what Daniel predicted. For one small section the narrative shifts to the perspective of the king where he praises God and is restored to his throne. I thought this was a strange little digression because it would imply a complete upheaval of the government that really had no lasting effects. I think it was added later to demonstrate God’s authority rather than to explain or even discuss an actual historical event. We skip ahead to the reign of another king, Belshazzar, who sees writing appear on the wall of his dining room while he drinks from the plundered goblets of the Temple. No one but Daniel can read the writing, and he explains he words as a warning of a coming invasion and subsequent conquering. Indeed, that very night, the king is killed and a man named Darius takes over the kingdom, fulfilling the warning. A law is written specifically to condemn Daniel, and when Daniel goes to pray, he is accused of breaking the law. The punishment for this is being thrown into a lion’s den, and the king is very remorseful about such a punishment being inflicted on such a good administrator. Unfortunately, there is no way around the law, so Daniel must be executed (actually, there does seem to be a way around it: a new law could be written with the intent of saving Daniel instead). Daniel survives the lion pit when God glues the mouths of the lions shut (what about their claws?) so they cannot eat him, and prospers throughout the reigns of Darius and Cyrus. As a side note, the malicious law-writers are punished in the same way, except their wives and children are also thrown in the lion’s den, demonstrating some more of the unimaginable cruelty so prevalent in the Bible. Daniel then describes a fairly creepy vision he has of four beasts, one of them speaking from a horn with human eyes. The vision seems to describe something of an antichrist, and at the very least it describes the end of the world. Daniel continues discussing yet another vision, which is explained to him by Gabriel (the archangel: this would be his first appearance in the Bible so far) as being an apocalyptic vision. It describes a master of deception devastating the holy people, which would certainly be a symbol of the antichrist. Daniel prays for the restoration of Israel and makes a messianic prophecy, detailing the time the messiah is to come. In another vision (the amount of visions this man has is getting ridiculous) the archangel Michael is introduced, where he discusses the future with Daniel. Daniel is given yet another apocalyptic vision, which closes the section.
I have to say, for my longest post in a long time, not much happens. I thought a lot of Daniel was really strange, somewhat creepy, and very foreboding. The apocalyptic prophecies that occurred throughout the book were strange to read and I have to say I was not a huge fan of them. I thought they were generally confusing and sometimes wildly outlandish. I did like the mention of Michael and Gabriel; I had honestly forgotten about the existence of archangels until now, and it is interesting to see where they first appear in the Bible. There is a large Judeo-Christian hierarchy of heavenly beings that is somewhat interesting to read about (though much too complicated for me to discuss). It changes somewhat based on the religion and sect, but it exists nonetheless. Overall, I did not like Daniel very much. In fact, I would say he is my least favorite Major Prophet because the reading was slow despite a large amount of information; I thought it was a bit confusing, particularly at the end with the apocalyptic prophecies. The next post will begin Hosea, which is the first of the Minor Prophets, the last section of the Old Testament.

Ezekiel 36-48

2009-07-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

This section started in an interesting way. It promised Israel’s restoration, but the reason given was different than usual. Whereas God generally promises restoration to Israel because their punishment will be over when they are exiled for a generation, this section opened with God claiming He was only going to restore the nation to protect His name. That is to say, the only reason Israel would be returning to their land was to ensure that God’s reputation remained intact. I found this position fairly strange because it seems a little petty. I suppose though this falls into the category of God being a jealous god, which I will reassert is a very human emotion for a being that is supposedly so much higher than us. Ezekiel is then taken to a valley that contains a copious amount of graves, where he is instructed by God to speak certain prophetic words and raise the dead. Their flesh returns and the winds give them the breath of life again, and God says the bones represent the people of Israel. The resurrection, then, represents how the people of Israel will soon be redeemed. The message it was sending was nothing new to the prophetical books, as we know the Israelites will eventually be restored (at least according to the prophets). What was strange, in my opinion, was the fact that a mortal raised a huge amount of people from the dead. This is the first time such an event has taken place in the Bible and I wonder why Ezekiel is the one who was instructed to do it. I can’t help but think maybe Ezekiel has a somewhat more important position amongst the other prophets; indeed, his experiences are much more extravagant than those of the other prophets. On the other hand, there is no indication in the texts that explicitly imply Ezekiel might be privileged to more information than the other prophets. Ezekiel then predicts the reunification of Israel and Judah, claiming a descendent of David will rule over them for all time. This is not true, however; after the restoration, only two (Benjamin and Judah) tribes returned, and they were a vassal state from then on out. Next, Gog, a prince from the land of Magog, is condemned in great detail, as he will attempt to fight against God’s people and will inevitably be destroyed. We then moved into a vision Ezekiel had of the new Temple, an aspect of the Bible that I can honestly say I had not missed as I delved further and further into the text. The dimensions of various structures are not, to say the least, my favorite part of the Bible, and this is exactly what the new three chapters discussed in excruciating detail. One major issue this brought up in my mind was the destruction of the second Temple. It is not a particularly poignant idea, but I have trouble imagining the logistics of actually destroying such a huge building. Its walls, which were presumably made of stone, were roughly ten and a half feet thick. It would have taken an incredible amount of effort and manpower to knock over the structure. Only one Levitical family is allowed to continue to practice as ministers because most of the Levites encouraged idol worship, but this one family (that of Zadok) stayed true to God. Ezekiel continues laying down rules for land apportionment and princely conduct. What I thought was interesting about the land apportionment is that some was reserved for God, some as living space for the Levites, and some as the possession of the prince. The rest of it was divided amongst the tribes. But the tribes, by this point, had pretty much convalesced into a single, unified people: the Jews. So there really was no reason for land apportionment between tribes because those distinctions had actually become somewhat archaic. These apportionments brought the end of the Book of Ezekiel.
For the most part, this section was fairly forgettable to me. I only say that because of how much of it was devoted to rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing the tribal boundaries; this information is, of course, not relevant to me. Still, reading sections like these really give one a feel of the specificity and deliberateness of the traditions in Judaism. I refer mostly to the Judaism as recorded in the Bible, which is the one that includes sacrifices (yes, I am aware they are the same religion, but the sacrifices can only take place in the Temple, so I am making a slight distinction). They have no room for error in each type of sacrifice and ritual, and there is a level of beauty to such established tradition that goes unnoticed at times. If these traditions were firmly ascribed to, then the reader actually sees how some of the ancient traditions of Israel worked, and I think there is something special in that. You really feel like you understand their way of life and that connects you to the past generations quite firmly. I have mentioned this feeling before, but I did want to reiterate the sense of connectivity one gains from reading a book that was written thousands of years ago and followed to the letter throughout that time. My final thought today refers again to the sacrifices. I have to say, they ordered the sacrifice of an incredible amount of animals. A one year old lamb was to be killed every morning, as were seven goats and seven sheep every day of Passover. This is only a fraction of the total sacrifices ordered, and to put that in perspective, it means that well over four hundred sacrifices were performed a year. I just wonder how they maintained flocks if they were killing the animals so regularly. In any case, this finishes my reading of Ezekiel, and tomorrow I begin the final Major Prophet, Daniel.

Ezekiel 24-35

2009-07-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

At the start of this section, God killed Ezekiel’s wife and instructed him not to mourn to set an example for the Israelites; they too were forbidden to mourn upon their exile. This was fairly disturbing, I must say. God killed this woman for no other reason than to set an example for Israel, and He even refused to allow His faithful servant to mourn the death. I don’t know if its worse that Ezekiel did not even seem to care, but I think this falls into a negative category. Ezekiel then continues condemning various states, devoting a large amount of text to Tyre. Tyre’s doom is predicted, discussed, and finally depicted in Ezekiel’s writings. A similar situation occurs with Egypt in the following chapters and verses. Egypt is promised restoration, as opposed to most other countries excluding Israel. However, Egypt is said to be a minor, weak kingdom in the future. I am not sure Egypt ever was actually completely destroyed, but it certainly still exists in some form or another. Ezekiel is appointed as a metaphorical watchman of the Israelites, which means that he has to warn them of the coming destruction so the people might repent their sins. If they do repent, they will not die, but if they do not, the responsibility of their death is their own. The next chapter sees God comparing Israel to a flock of sheep with God as the shepherd. He promises to protect them in their exile and keep them safe from harm. The section finally closes with a message to Edom concerning their coming destruction.
I do not have much to say about this section that I have not already said either in the summary or in the last two days’ posts. The vivid language continues, and it is still supplemented by brilliant metaphors (Israel as the flock of sheep was my favorite today). I think Ezekiel is a much more personal prophet in that you can almost get a feel for what the man is actually like as opposed to Isaiah and Jeremiah (who is said to be an introspective prophet, though I did not see that). He occasionally seems unsure while consistently working for God and warning the Israelites of destruction. I personally did not get a similar feeling from Jeremiah. Ezekiel’s life is also a little more well-defined because his locations are mentioned from time to time and we know he had a wife at one point. For this reason, Ezekiel is my favorite Major Prophet so far. Tomorrow I will continue Ezekiel and soon will move onto the Minor Prophets, which should only take a week or so. After that, I am on to the New Testament.

Ezekiel 12-23

2009-07-12T01:02:00.000-07:00

This section starts with God telling Ezekiel to act as an exile and leave the city with everyone watching as an example for what is to come. It continues with a message to false prophets, promising retribution for their lies. God explains the problem of the false prophets with a metaphor, stating that the false prophets preaching a time of peace is like building a flimsy wall and reinforcing it with whitewash. I liked this example quite a bit because I thought it really got the point across. In fact, I would go as far as to say it’s one of the better metaphors I’ve heard so far. Ezekiel continues to preach against the idolatry of Israel’s leaders and then compares Jerusalem to an unfaithful wife of God (because He entered into a covenant with the city). God claims to have built Jerusalem up from nothing only to be rewarded with a sinful population, which angers and actually hurts God. Whenever the Bible claims God was actually emotionally hurt by the transgressions of the Israelites (and this certainly isn’t the first time such language is used), I think a new level of understanding of God is granted to the reader. Indeed, it seems to me to emphasize God’s love as opposed to His wrath (which is, of course, constantly demonstrated). Ezekiel says God will one day restore Jerusalem just as He will restore Sodom and Samaria. I thought it was strange to mention Sodom being restored at this point, and I have to note that it clearly was not. Sodom does not, to my knowledge, exist in the modern world. Ezekiel continues by claiming God will only judge people for their actions, and not their parents’ or children’s actions. God also wants people to repent, which will save their lives because sinning spells certain death. A few of Israel’s leaders (I am not sure if it is the country Israel or the nation as a whole) come to Ezekiel for advice, and God gets upset at the audacity of their actions. They have been sinning constantly, yet seek His guidance when they are in trouble. God rejects them, promises their destruction, but assures them of eventual restoration which is, of course, what Jeremiah and Isaiah preached as well. This message continues for a few more verses, elaborating on the Babylonians marching to Jerusalem to attack despite a treaty that had been signed by the Babylonians and Israelites. This treaty gave the two nations peace but seemed to make Judah something of a vassal state. Judah enlisted the help of the Egyptians to rid themselves of the Babylonians, but when the Babylonians caught wind of this treachery, they attacked and conquered Judah and specifically Jerusalem. The sins of Jerusalem are elaborated, as are the sins of Israel’s leaders, and the last chapter of this section sees God comparing Samaria and Jerusalem once again to wives. Samaria is destroyed and Jerusalem still follows in that city’s footsteps, sinning just as much. There is a surprising graphic description of exactly how Jerusalem, as a personification, prostitutes herself out and is not faithful to God. God once again promises destruction of the city, and this was the end of today’s section.
I have to say, the language in Ezekiel is incredibly vivid. Every chapter contains a new description of the sins of Jerusalem in an interesting and powerful manner. The personifications of the city and the comparison of it to a wall fortified with whitewash are perfect for getting the message across; in my opinion, much more interesting and enjoyable to read than both Isaiah and Jeremiah. While Ezekiel doesn’t have the same amount of hope Isaiah has, its language is considerably more interesting. This is all to say I enjoy reading Ezekiel very much. Like I said yesterday, it is a fantastic break from the slow, depressing, mournful books that have been most of the past few weeks. I think the darker books do bring out a powerful emotion in the reader, but the language of Ezekiel brings out that emotion while at the same time letting the reader truly contemplate the predicament Jerusalem is in. One thing I would like to mention is God continuing to address Ezekiel as the “son of man.” I looked into this, and I have found that the title is not one of utmost respect, but rather humbleness. It is basically the same as “human” in English, as if God was merely calling Ezekiel by the generic “human.” As such, the fact that Jesus used this title makes him seem humble instead of proud, since it is actually a humbling title. In any case, I finish Ezekiel in the next few days and I look forward to continuing with it.

Lamentations 1-Ezekiel 11

2009-07-10T23:48:00.000-07:00

Lamentations started with a personification of Jerusalem as a young woman who is forced into destitution. It continues with a description of God’s anger and a discussion of how to submit to God. The third chapter, which was the one about submission, read to me like a call to blindly follow God, which in turn made me think it was a particular way to keep people under control. This, to me, is something religion may not necessarily intend but certainly accomplishes. I understand, of course, that Lamentations is basically a song of mourning, but I still get the impression that “submitting to the yoke” of discipline without question is restricting a person’s right to thought and questioning. I believe it is meant to say that trusting in God will allow a person to accept their fortunes and believe in a higher purpose but for some reason I hold a much more negative interpretation. The author, traditionally thought to be Jeremiah, mourns the loss of Jerusalem and the plight of the Israelites, even going so far as to say that people are reduced to eating their own children. I sincerely hope this is a hyperbole. Lamentations ended with a prayer for restoration where the author describes the situation of the Israelites once again, claiming a multitude of horrible punishments being inflicted. From there I moved on to Ezekiel, the third of the Major Prophets (which I recently learned refers to their length, not their importance). This book opened up in, for lack of a more eloquent term, a really cool way. Ezekiel describes four heavenly beings that descend from the clouds. They have four heads and wings and move without turning. They are pulling a chariot containing something that looked like a man but much more radiant; he had a halo of fire, for instance. The imagery is quite fascinating and I would actually recommend reading Ezekiel 1 if one is given the chance. This figure, predictably, turns out to be what Ezekiel sees as God, who then speaks to him to give him his commission as a prophet. Interestingly, God calls Ezekiel “son of man,” which is the same title Jesus uses for himself later on. I do not know the significance of this, if there is any at all. God gives Ezekiel a scroll which the prophet eats, claiming it tasted as sweet as honey. This is, presumably, what Ezekiel then preaches. God physically lifts Ezekiel and carries him to Judah, where he basically reflects on the intensity of his experience for seven days (which seems absolutely necessary; you would be left in shock too if you had just seen God, eaten a scroll from Him, and been carried across the Earth by Him). Ezekiel’s tongue is stuck to the roof of his mouth until he has a message to preach and he is told to draw Jerusalem on a clay brick. He then lies on his left side for 390 days to bear Israel’s sins and 40 days on his right side to bear Judah’s sins. God instructs Ezekiel to cook bread over dried human dung to represent the defiled bread the Israelites will have to eat in Gentile land. This is quite disgusting, if you ask me, but it does get the point across (at the very least. And it’s really not the worst thing that has happened in the Bible so far, so I guess Ezekiel should count himself lucky). Ezekiel protests (for some reason) and God relents, allowing him to cook it over cow dung (which I would call just a marginal improvement). God’s final requirement of Ezekiel is to shave all his hair, place it into three equal piles, and burn one pile in Jerusalem, scatter one third across his map and chop it with a sword, and scatter the final pile in the wind. He is to keep a small amount of the hair and tie it into his robes. Ezekiel finally gets down to business and begins to describe the coming destruction of Israel and Judah just like Isaiah and Jeremiah. God appears to Ezekiel again and takes him to the Temple where he is shown a large idol. He is shown a few more idol worshippers and finally their slaughter by God. This slaughter includes men, women, children, and the elderly (all of the people not upset by idol worship) so it is actually one of the more atrocious massacres in the Bible. God’s presence leaves the Temple (which to me seems like a metaphor for its certain destruction) and the section ends with more prophecy about Israel’s coming judgment, God’s presence leaving Jerusalem (a similar metaphor), and finally, God carrying Ezekiel back to Babylon with promises of eventual restoration.
I will freely admit I was not particularly impressed with Lamentations. I thought it was almost oppressive in its writing and message because it was advocating such blind loyalty. It was also such a negative message, being a song of mourning, that I found it tiresome. This had the same effect on me as Jeremiah; I felt his book was similarly depressing and sorrowful. There was less talk of redemption than in Isaiah, which I thought was a key component to the brilliance of Isaiah. Another issue I took from this section was the various mentions to parents eating their children. I can’t help but wonder if this actually happened. I would write it off as an exaggeration if it was mentioned once, twice, or even three times, but alas, it is not; parents eating their children is actually mentioned multiple times in the Bible so far as a method of fighting famine. It is possible that it is simply a common phrase used when famine was common in ancient Israel, and I am going to take an optimistic view on the matter and accept that explanation. Ezekiel is, so far, the most interesting prophet. He is physically carried by God while having actual conversations and doing some of the most bizarre things (such as the hair instructions). Why God chose these methods is beyond me. This is, of course, the point of God, however. I saw Ezekiel as a significant shift from the misery and monotony of Jeremiah (which I really was not a huge fan of) and the repetitiveness of Isaiah. I suppose such a feeling can fade if the same types of events continue in Ezekiel, but I hope the level of interest keeps up. So overall, I did enjoy today’s reading. Lamentations was, at the very least, mildly interesting and beautiful in that it was a sorrowful song of loss, and Ezekiel opened with easily the most interesting chapters in the last few books. Incidentally, I would like to mention a fact I stumbled upon (the veracity of which is probably debatable as I really do not have an irrefutable source). Earlier in my posting I mentioned my quest to determine the significance behind each religious number (seven, twelve, etc). I read that the Aramaic bible might not have had a good term for “many things,” so instead, the number forty was used. Therefore, where forty is used, a generic term of “many things” was intended. It is not relevant to my current reading but I thought the historical note was worthy of mention because I thought it was interesting. Tomorrow I look forward to another day of Ezekiel, which will drive me closer to the end of the Old Testament and beginning of the New Testament.

By the way, this is post number sixty. Milestone!

Jeremiah 48-52

2009-07-09T22:14:00.001-07:00

I know what you’re thinking. Four chapters? That doesn’t sound like much. And I know this because that is exactly what I thought. But this is the Bible, and the Bible is deceptive. These four chapters are just as long (if not even longer) than the fourteen from yesterday. This section continues with warnings against other nations. Jeremiah claims that Edom, Ammon, Moab, Damascus, Kedar, Hazor, and Elam will be destroyed, though Elam is promised restoration in years to come. I thought it was interesting that Damascus is mentioned as being doomed because it actually still exists as the oldest continually inhabited city in the world. The history of Damascus is quite long and storied so I can’t really go into here, but it was indeed conquered by the Babylonians (the people who are doing the destroying of all these nations). However, just like Judah, it was restored to semi-autonomy by Cyrus of Persia as the capital of Syria. The other cities and nations do not exist anymore. Babylon is condemned next as Jeremiah foretells that it will be conquered by a nation from the north (who are, presumably, the Persians). Jeremiah claims Babylon’s walls will be destroyed, but this didn’t actually happen. Cyrus captured the city in a brilliant military maneuver (which I won’t be going into because it’s irrelevant to the Bible) but the city remained. Jeremiah continues to elaborate on Babylon’s doom for awhile, alternating the threats with promises of the Israelites eventual return. He continues to refer to both Israel and Judah, but only Judah is restored in the end; hence the term “lost tribes of Israel.” Jeremiah continues condemning Babylon and you can definitely get a sense of how much the Israelites hate the Babylonians. This is fairly justified of course, as the Babylonians destroyed their land and forced them away from it while destroying their holiest city and the Temple. God says He will make the god of Babylon, Bel, vomit up all he has eaten, referring to offerings. This struck me as a little strange. It was almost as if the Bible is affirming that other gods do exist, but I am certain that by this point Judaism was strictly monotheistic. Therefore, I assume the phrase was simply hyperbolic. That is to say, it merely represented the coming destruction of Babylon. Jeremiah’s messages end with an instruction to one of his servants to read the warnings of Babylon’s destructions in Babylon, tie them to a rock, and throw it in the Euphrates River. This seems like a dangerous mission; going deep into enemy territory and insulting them sounds to me like something of a death sentence. The section ends with a summary of the sacking of Jerusalem and a description of the fate of David’s line, for which there is said to be hope.
Jeremiah’s book ended and tomorrow I move into Lamentations, which is also traditionally ascribed to Jeremiah. Overall, I liked Isaiah’s book a little more. It seemed more hopeful and more organized whereas Jeremiah focused more on the destruction than the restoration of Judah. I have read that Jeremiah is a more introspective prophet than Isaiah, which I suppose is true. Jeremiah questions his ability at the beginning of the book, whereas Isaiah seems to have fully accepted his status. But overall I don’t think that is enough evidence to say Jeremiah is more introspective. I would expect a constant amount of self-inspection for such a claim to be made. I think Isaiah and Jeremiah say the same things, so the theological differences were not stark. I find every mention of Damascus interesting because I think it is extraordinary that the city still exists (and the same can be said for Jerusalem, thought it does get destroyed). Tomorrow Is Lamentations, followed by Ezekiel and then Daniel.

Jeremiah 33-47

2009-07-08T22:20:00.001-07:00

This section continued with promises of destruction followed by assurances of future restoration. God promises Zedekiah, the current king of Judah, that he will die peacefully and honorably as opposed to in battle. Zedekiah orders all Hebrew slaves released, and the people follow this command. However, they relent and force the former slaves back into bondage. This angers God and He continues to promise destruction. At this point, I suppose one could argue that the Israelites might as well sin because they will be exiled anyway. However, I suspect that if the sinning continues, they will not be restored after all. Jeremiah records his messages on a scroll and has them read in the Temple, but the authorities of the Temple get worried and tell him and his helper to hide. The king burns the scroll without repentance, but Jeremiah rewrites it in hiding. Jeremiah writes even more on this new scroll but is arrested as he tries to return to the land of Benjamin, being accused of defecting to the Babylonians. He is put in the palace prison and continues to preach of the upcoming destruction. Jerusalem is finally captured and Zedekiah’s eyes are gouged out, which is the same story as at the end of 2 Kings. Jeremiah is allowed to remain in Judah with the few remaining people (the very poor who were allowed to stay and tend to the vineyards) while the Babylonians control the region. The Babylonian appointed governor is killed and a group of guerilla fighters fear retribution and ask Jeremiah for advice. Jeremiah tells them God wants them to remain in Judah, but they, along with the rest of the remnant of the Judean population, leave for Egypt anyway. These people are, predictably, doomed; God assures them He will kill them all and not allow them to return to Judah as their relatives in Babylonia will in the future. I don’t know what it will take for the Judeans to finally listen to God and His prophets. Every time they are given a divine decree, they ignore it and do the exact opposite. It reminds me almost of a middle school rebellion, and while such an action is fairly ridiculous, it does further the comparison that God is the father who must discipline his children, the Israelites. They have been through infancy, childhood, and now adolescence. Their return to Judah as recorded in some previous books seemed to humble them and make them more somber, so that is more like adulthood. The comparison is interesting to me, but the Israelites are incredibly devoted to ignoring God in my opinion. The section closes with messages of destruction to Egypt and Philistia.
I have to say this book is a lot more confusing than Isaiah. Something will be happening in Jeremiah’s ministry and suddenly, in the next chapter, he is talking in another king’s reign. I can follow fairly well and the message is the same for the most part, but I think its organization (which I commented on yesterday) is a little bit wilder than Isaiah’s. My main observation is the comparison of God as the father having to discipline his misbehaving adolescents, the Israelites. I have heard such a comparison before, but only now do I really understand the depth of the similarities. I should note that I do not mean God the father with Jesus the son; that is a much more theological concept. God as a father in this case, to me, is simply a metaphorical concept. Beyond that I would just like to mention how weak King Zedekiah is portrayed. He cannot even keep his officials in control as they keep trying to execute Jeremiah. Tomorrow is the last day of Jeremiah, which is followed by Lamentations and then Ezekiel.

Jeremiah 23-32

2009-07-07T20:29:00.001-07:00

Whenever I see my reading for the day is a measly nine chapters, I get excited. Perhaps today will be a short read, and even better, it might be a short read packed with tons of interesting events. But alas, nine chapters in the Book of Jeremiah is a significant biblical undertaking, especially when I predict (though I do not know because I myself am not a prophet, despite what many people claim) it will be a lot of similar premonitions of Judah’s destruction. With that though, I begin my read. This section did indeed continue with the predictions of destruction but, continuing with the close of last section, contained a promise of restoration. It continues with a denunciation of false prophets and compares the righteous people in exile to good figs, while the last king of Judah and his followers are compared to bad ones. God promises seventy years of exile, after which He will allow the Israelites to return home and will punish the Babylonians. When Jeremiah is preaching the upcoming destruction, the inhabitants of Jerusalem attack him and demand his execution. Luckily, the town leaders decide he will not be killed because he has spoken in the name of God. If they accept this though, I do not understand why they don’t turn from their sins. He is speaking from God, which they accept as a reason not to kill him. However, they still apparently continue to sin despite the fact that they believe Jeremiah’s predictions. Jeremiah then condemns a false prophet, claiming he will die within a year because he has been spreading the lie that the exile will only last two years. The prophet does indeed die, proving Jeremiah right once again. Jeremiah sends a letter to the Israelites, who are now in exile, promising that their descendents will be restored in time. He urges them to settle in their new towns and raise a family. He is criticized again, but this time, the authorities are on his side. The section closes with another promise of restoration, this time more concrete and solid than in the previous section. Jeremiah buys land, indicating that God is guaranteeing their return to Judah and Jerusalem one day.
This section was, for the most part, more hopeful than the last two. The organization of Jeremiah and Isaiah are very different, I have found. Isaiah will say that Judah will be destroyed but eventually restored, whereas Jeremiah discusses the destruction for awhile before talking about the restoration. In other words, Isaiah tells the reader everything at once but Jeremiah tells the reader the future separately and in a more chronological order. Other than that, there is not much to say. I liked this section a little better than the last one, and I have two more days of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 10-22

2009-07-06T20:23:00.001-07:00

Jeremiah continues in a similar vein as the last section and Isaiah by predicting the destruction of Judah and Israel. A plot against Jeremiah arises, but God punishes the conspirators with death, ensuring that no one remains that would want to kill Jeremiah. God then promises that any nation who swears loyalty to Him will be counted among His own people, which was interesting to me because it illustrated that God was willing to accept anyone who believed. God uses a metaphor of a rotting loincloth to describe the state of Judah and promises destruction again. Jeremiah pleads for aid when people continue to despise him, and I get the impression Jeremiah was persecuted quite a bit more than Isaiah because he asks God to intervene multiple times whereas Isaiah did not seem to need such help. Jeremiah is forbidden to marry and have children because God knows they will succumb to a terrible disease, as the land they would live in is so sinful. This applies to any family, but Jeremiah is a virtuous prophet so he is privy to information others are not. God then promises that He will restore Israel, finally adding some of the hope that was reinforced constantly in Isaiah. God continues to use metaphors to describe the coming destruction of Judah, including the smashing of a clay pot. A man named Pashhur, the head priest in the Temple, arrests Jeremiah and whips him. For this, God curses Pashhur and his friends, claiming that they will live in terror for the rest of their days. King Zedekiah, who has incredible audacity because of this, appeals to Jeremiah for help after he has been persecuted for so long. Jeremiah assures Zedekiah that Babylon will destroy Judah, and those who do not fight will survive but move into exile. However, those who do fight will die because God is fighting against them. The section ends with various messages to kings of Judah, warning them of the imminent destruction.
I don’t have much to add here except the character of Isaiah seems vastly different from that of Jeremiah. While Isaiah preached exile but eventual restoration, Jeremiah seems to focus more on the destruction and exile part. Also, Jeremiah is obviously persecuted quite a bit more than Isaiah. He appeals to God for help and is even punished by the authorities for what they perceive as trouble-making. Of course, Jeremiah ends up being right and his persecutors die. There was a little bit of hope this time, though not nearly as much as Isaiah. Because of this, I understand why Isaiah is generally accepted to be the most popular prophet of antiquity. Tomorrow I will continue Jeremiah and soon will move onto Lamentations.

Jeremiah 1-9

2009-07-05T22:35:00.001-07:00

This section started with Jeremiah’s anointment as God’s prophet. God proved to Jeremiah that he was not too young to preach and showed him numerous visions as evidence. God then states His case against the Israelites, claiming they have worshipped false idols and otherwise ignored His laws. God compares Israel to an unfaithful wife, denying their claims that they have not been sinning. He tells them to face their sins and accept the punishment. God claims Israel and Judah are both wicked, despite the fact that Judah saw Israel’s punishment. Most of the first chapters discuss the wickedness of both Israel and Judah while elaborating on their sins. God, through Jeremiah, uses examples of opportunities the Israelites have been given and their squandering of them. He is upset that they have turned away from Him after He gave them the Promised Land, and claims that, after the exile, if the Israelites return to Him, they will be allowed home. Jeremiah himself then mourns the destruction of the Promised Land. God continues elaborating on how and why the Israelites will be attacked and forced out of their land until Jeremiah steps in with another message (still from God, so I think mentioning that Jeremiah was the one delivering it was just to break the monotony. It is not hard to guess who will be delivering the message since it is the Book of Jeremiah). God moves on to speak to Jeremiah personally, instructing him to cease praying for the people of Judah because they are a lost cause. God says He has seen the Israelites sacrificing their sons and daughters, but that He has never commanded such a horrible deed. This is, however, untrue; He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Of course, Abraham did not go through with it because God stopped him at the last second, but that does not change the fact that He did indeed command it (in my opinion, and if you aren’t interested in that then you’re reading the wrong blog). Jeremiah closes this section by relaying God’s message that He will punish all those who are circumcised in body but not spirit, which includes various other nations along with the Israelites. Circumcision is still a major theme in a lot of the biblical writing and I still have not figured out the exact reason behind this (though I don’t think I’m flawed because of this. I don’t know if even the most brilliant biblical and historical scholars have decided on the most likely explanation for circumcision, and they are certainly in a better position to figure this out than I am).
Jeremiah was significantly more dark and depressing than Isaiah. In Isaiah, a prediction of destruction was made, but it was always followed by a promise of restoration. Jeremiah simply predicts destruction and explains why. I wonder if Jeremiah and Isaiah simply got lucky with their predictions. Maybe someone had preached destruction around the time of David, but was wrong, so was not included in the Bible. The Book of Jeff will never see the light of day because of this, and I’m sure he had a lot of interesting things to say. There really isn’t a way to prove whether or not they simply got lucky, of course, but it seems that if Jeremiah and Isaiah actually predicted the restoration along with the destruction, they were pretty spot on. This type of discussion opens up a debate that would take pages to discuss though, so I will not go into it too much. I will say that I like Isaiah and Jeremiah actually talking to God. This is not something that has happened since the time of Solomon, and even then it was a dwindling presence. We will never see a section like early Genesis where God actually walks with Adam again, but I am happy to see direct interaction again. A final comment I would like to make is the on the restoration. Before this event, the Israelites were very separated by tribes. Such distinctions were lost to a small extent after the united monarchy and subsequently the two kingdoms, but for the most part, there were twelve tribes (although the actual separation of the tribes is complicated because of the splitting of Joseph, lack of land with Levi, and the fact that Simeon was likely swallowed up by Judah). When Israel was conquered, the ten northern tribes went into exile and no one is entirely sure what happened to them. Some modern groups claim descent, but nothing has been proved beyond any doubt (though some of these groups do have common ancestry with modern Jews as evidenced by various DNA tests). Some evidence suggests the majority of these exiles simply moved to Judah and integrated themselves with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that occupied the south. In any case, after Judah was destroyed and the people exiled, they basically merged into one group, eschewing separate tribal distinctions for one common identity. This is why modern Jews do not maintain a tribal identity (most are descended from the tribe of Judah anyway, so it would be a negligible idea) and also where the words “Jew,” “Jewish,” and “Judaism” come from. They are related to the word Judah through the Latin terms Judea and Judean. It is not directly relevant to Jeremiah, but I think the prophets are getting a little slow so I thought some historical information pertaining to the time would be interesting. The next few days are Jeremiah, followed by Lamentations and Ezekiel.

Isaiah 52-66

2009-07-04T23:00:00.001-07:00

This section starts with Isaiah relaying God’s promise on deliverance for Jerusalem and, by extension, Israel, and continues by describing a servant that will suffer. This passage is considered a messianic prophecy because of the suffering Jesus endured. Chapter 53 is entirely interpreted to be a messianic prophecy in Christianity, claiming God’s servant will suffer and die early, but this action will ultimately allow more people to be righteous and even encourage them to be so by the magnitude of his sacrifice. Isaiah also discusses this servant being rejected and despised by the general populace. There are a few other specific lines that are interpreted in Christianity as referring to Jesus, but Isaiah then moves on to speak God’s message that He will never be angry with the Israelites again, just as He promised to never flood the earth again as He did in Noah’s time. He also claims that Israel will live in peace and prosperity while simultaneously fending off their enemies, because God did not send them. It should be noted here that the Israelites are only in danger of defeat when God sends their enemies, as He did when the Babylonians and Assyrians conquered the Israelite kingdoms. God then blesses every nation, claiming that anyone who follows Him is righteous and can be counted among His people. I liked this particular chapter because it seemed to embrace every person on earth instead of only blessing those fortunate enough to be born into the Israelite population. It is also further indication of Judaism being open to converts. This made the Bible feel a lot more open and accepting of all creeds than it has so far. Most of the time, we only hear about the Israelites, which makes sense of course; it is, after all, a book about the history of the Israelites. But allowing non-Israelites to be welcomed definitely furthers the assertion that God loves His creations. Isaiah then claims that good people die early because God is protecting people from evil that is to come, which I thought was a very interesting take on the idea of good people prematurely reaching death. Isaiah mentions God forgives the repentant, again giving the reader a stronger impression of a loving, merciful God, as opposed to a previous feeling of unease about God (considering he did order countless slaughters and caused seemingly senseless deaths right and left). He continues by claiming following God’s laws for personal benefit is worthless and that, to truly be righteous, one must selflessly follow God’s laws with aims only to please Him. The discussions of punishing sin and sinners while exalting the righteous continue for awhile, as does the general theme of the restoration of Jerusalem. Isaiah prays for Jerusalem and predicts that judgment will be doled out to those who disobey God, followed by a lecture to the general population condemning them for not following God, despite the fact that He was good to them. The people are portrayed as repentant, so God is willing to forgive. The section finally ends with a promise of retribution for sins from God, but at the same time, a promise that those who serve Him will be rewarded.
The first aspects of Isaiah I would like to mention are the alleged messianic prophecies. These are very interesting to read. First, I am able to review and interpret them, giving me the opportunity to compare the life of Jesus to these prophecies. I find this very interesting because I am told Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy. Of course, the Jewish population does not agree with this assessment. There are arguments on both sides that can be supported equally as well, so whether or not these prophecies are indeed referring to Jesus is entirely a matter of faith, not only in the religion but in the accuracy of the New Testament. I only mention the accuracy of the New Testament because the messiah must fulfill the predictions of the Old Testament, regardless of what it says. Thus, the rules are established by the Old Testament. There are some issues with Jesus being considered the messiah, however. For instance, he did not reign as king, nor was he a paternal descendent of King David. Indeed, his paternal relationship to David could not exist if he truly is the son of God. The Israelites, rather than being restored by him, were exiled again after their insurrection against the Roman Empire. On the other hand, it is possible that Jesus did fulfill the requirements. For example, the death of Jesus was described accurately in Isaiah, as he is killed in the way a criminal would be. Jesus was also rejected by the general populace, leading to his inevitable death. Therefore, it is clearly a matter of faith on whether or not Jesus was the messiah. Another topic in Isaiah I would like to mention is God’s assertion that He will never be angry with the Israelites again. His anger led to their exile and, for many, their death. I have trouble understanding how God could allow His chosen people to be treated so poorly throughout the centuries (as they certainly have been) if this is truly the case. I suppose it comes down to the issue of evil, which is something many people struggle with throughout their lives. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how can some horrific crimes still be inflicted on not only the Jews, but the rest of humanity? I have trouble reconciling these two ideas in terms of the religion. I suppose it must come down to the idea that God’s ways are higher than ours, but it is difficult to imagine why any being would inflict such pain and despair on anyone. Finally, Jerusalem is described consistently as a magnificent place when God is there. I have very little to say about this other than I cannot see the glory of Jerusalem. It is such a hot-button issue in this day and age that one has trouble imagining it as a pleasant place to live. I imagine this would be different without all the political strife, of course. This turned out to be my last day of Isaiah, which I actually liked; there was a heavy underlying theme of hope, so I thought the book was not nearly as depressing as many others. The Israelites will be forced out of their land, but will eventually be restored. The Israelites merely had to have faith and God would protect and reward them in the end. I move onto Jeremiah next as my quest through the Bible continues.

Isaiah 41-51

2009-07-04T13:02:00.001-07:00

This section started with a promise of God’s love for Israel. It is mostly a direct quotation of God, who affirms His protection and interest in the success of Israel. He mocks idols and reassures the Israelites that He is with them. Isaiah then sings a song of praise to God and criticizes Israel’s failure to follow God’s laws, calling them blind and deaf. This, along with more ridicule of idols and promises of restoration, continues for a few chapters, and we move into a chapter dedicated to Cyrus, who is God’s chosen one, and the man that will eventually lead Israel to its promised restoration. God then predicts the future conversion of the Gentiles (non-Jews) to worshipping the Israelite god because they see the amazing things He does. God criticizes the Babylonian gods (through Isaiah, of course), claiming that only He has watched over the Israelites since birth. God then commissions his servant and promises restoration again (I must say, Isaiah is very consistent with predictions). Isaiah continues by describing himself as a servant of God who has not strayed from his calling, and closes the section by calling the Israelites to trust God. Such trust would be absolutely necessary because very little could keep the Israelites going while they were in captivity, since at that point things must have seemed quite hopeless.
I don’t really have anything new to say. The things Isaiah has been saying have been pretty consistent to the brink of repetitive. Israel will be exiled but eventually led back, and Cyrus will aid in this process. Just as a reminder, Cyrus is the Persian emperor that allowed the Israelites to return to Judah. He is very significant, obviously, and actually does seem to hold a special place in Judaism for his Edict of Restoration. He is one of the few, if not the only, non-Israelite that is mentioned in a positive light as opposed to a negative one. Most of the time other nations are mentioned as being wicked, heathen, cruel, or anything undesirable and individuals tend to personify these traits, so the authors of the Bible are evidently fond of Cyrus. Of course, he did aid the Israelites in a significant way, so such reverence is understandable. That is all I have to say about this section, and I continue Isaiah for the next two days before moving into Jeremiah, the second Major Prophet.

Isaiah 29-40

2009-07-02T13:06:00.001-07:00

This section began by continuing the prophecies of destruction, this time focusing on Jerusalem. Again, however, redemption was mentioned with Isaiah claiming God would eventually restore Jerusalem. Isaiah then criticizes Judah’s treaty with Egypt, claiming that despite the gifts sent to Egypt by Judah, Egypt will do nothing in return. The rebellious people of Judah are condemned, but the righteous ones are blessed. These warnings continue for a chapter or so, and the focus shifts back to Israel and its ultimate deliverance. Isaiah condemns Assyria again, this time for being disloyal. Isaiah then curses Edom for not helping Israel despite being related by blood, and says God will utterly annihilate the nation. Of course, we know there is no grudge for Isaac’s birthright here because Esau (the patriarch of Edom) and Jacob (the patriarch of Israel) held no grudges against each other when they met again (this is, incidentally, one of my favorite stories: the two brothers, who went through so much, come out the other end both successful and at peace with the other. The reuniting of the two is the part I like). Thus, God finds Edom’s refusal to aid their blood relatives inexcusable and reserves a particularly thorough destruction for that nation. Again, Isaiah emphasizes the eventual restoration of the Israelite nation, and we move into the Assyrian invasion and threats toward Judah. This story was told as part of the narrative in the Book of Kings and again in Chronicles, and involves the deliverance of Judah from the attacks of Assyria. As the Bible tells it, God killed a huge portion of the Assyrian army, convincing their king to return to his own land. Historically though, I have heard there is evidence to show that Judah simply paid Assyria some sort of tithe to convince them to leave. The historical, rather than biblical, explanation strikes me as somewhat more likely, but either way Judah was not conquered by the Assyrians as was Israel. As the section came to a close, King Hezekiah’s illness was discussed again (as in the Book of Kings; you can clearly see when Isaiah was preaching, I think) along with his subsequent recovery. Babylonian envoys met with him to wish him well, and Hezekiah showed them everything in his palace. Isaiah prophesized Judah’s imminent destruction by Babylon, and the section closed with a poem to comfort God’s people, the Israelites.
There is not much more to add to my feelings on Isaiah. There is a lot of talk of forthcoming destruction, but this is usually followed by assurances of restoration. I think that is a major theme in the Book of Isaiah: redemption. Israel, despite being wicked and not following God’s laws, will be redeemed after their temporary exile as punishment. God does not seem to hold grudges for long, as He tends to forgive transgressions before long. Of course this only applies to the Israelites; the other nations will be destroyed and will stay destroyed, so God is not universally forgiving, it seems. The covenant made with Abraham still holds after all these generations, but it was only passed down to one son of each patriarch (Abraham to Isaac to Jacob). I still have a few days left of Isaiah, but I am enjoying it for the most part so this will not be difficult to read.

Isaiah 14-28

2009-07-01T18:33:00.001-07:00

This section started off a little differently than the first thirteen chapters of Isaiah. He begins by mocking the Babylonian king, which seemed like a bad idea since Babylon controlled half of the Promised Land. Isaiah then goes on to make other predictions about the fate of Babylon, Moab, Assyria, and Israel, promising that each will be destroyed in turn but also ensuring that Israel will be rebuilt because the people will finally look to God for guidance rather than worshipping their idols (they really never learn, do they?). Isaiah then predicts the destruction of Ethiopia, for some reason; it is not the very first mention of Ethiopia, but it is the first time the region has been focused on in depth. I suppose it is just in the nature of prophesying, in that everyone gets their prediction. I say this because, after Ethiopia, Egypt was discussed. These are both African countries, so they are not entirely in the same region, but we all know that Egypt and Israel have a very connected biblical history, so I was not surprised about their inclusion. Isaiah speaks of their destruction and eventual redemption, when they will be allies with Israel and worship God. The next chapter was very strange, as God ordered Isaiah to walk around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign of the problems He will bring to Egypt and Ethiopia. Apparently this is effective, though, because God’s message is that Assyria will shame the Egyptians and Ethiopians by making them walk around naked as prisoners. Still, I found it to be one of the stranger mentions so far. Isaiah then curses Babylon again, and mentions Arabia and Edom, but not in a significant manner; I just like how many nations are being mentioned, as it gives an interesting historical perspective. This talk goes on for a few chapters, significantly depressing the reader into thinking everyone is wicked (which is actually kind of the point, I think), and then we get to the very first apocalyptic prophecy. This is quite possibly one of the more depressing chapters so far; nearly everyone on earth will die because the people are so sinful. Of course, there is a remnant of survivors, so the readers of this can hope they are counted among those lucky few. And incidentally, I am still not sure what happens after death according to the Bible, because I haven’t seen any mention of it so far. Isaiah continues his description of the destruction and eventual restoration of Israel, and closes with a message about Samaria. Though it is beautiful, it will inevitably be destroyed because its leaders are drunks and sinners.
I would first like to mention my comment about the afterlife. An oft-repeated place after death is Sheol, which is replaced in my version with simply “the grave.” Everyone seems to go there, so I equate this with something more like the Greek afterlife than hell, because it is not for either the sinful or the sinless exclusively. Rather, it is the general afterlife. I wonder if this is the best explanation I can get from the Bible, in particular the Old Testament. Also, there is a continued mention of something translated to the “Leviathan,” which is a sea monster, I think, but the actual animal being referenced is debated. I don’t know the commonly accepted interpretation, but from what I can tell, it is simply a dangerous monster that is feared. Such monsters were actually commonly feared in the Bronze Age by any type of seafaring people, including those who just used the sea for fish. Beyond that, though, I do not know, but it is fairly irrelevant. In any case, I thought Isaiah 14-28 was fairly interesting, despite the fact that he just condemns various nations and cities the whole time. It is a bit of a depressing book so far, but I think there is an underlying feeling of redemption, so at least not all is lost. My final comment is my enjoyment of the inclusion of so many different nations. These all have familiar names, and while I doubt it is actually the same place (as continuity would be so difficult over six thousand years, especially if Isaiah is right and all these people get obliterated) as the modern namesake, it is nonetheless interesting to read about a familiar area which is probably, at the very least, something of a predecessor to the modern nation. I continue Isaiah for the next few days, and then move onto the rest of the Major Prophets.

Isaiah 1-13

2009-06-30T23:17:00.000-07:00

Isaiah started with a warning, and this was the major theme in the first few chapters. Isaiah warns that Israel will be destroyed, along with Jerusalem and Judah. He laments that Jerusalem used to be so faithful to God but is now such a sinful place, using many examples of fluid verbal style and vivid imagery. Within these warnings, however, is a promise of restoration, which will come after a certain amount of time in exile as prescribed by God. There are various forms of lamentations, such as a song comparing Israel (as in the united kingdom, not just the northern one) to a vineyard that has been tainted and destroyed. Judah is considered guilty and its future is described with wonderful images. I actually did like how a lot of things were said in this section, regardless of the content. For instance, flowers being burned in a fire are used as an example for what will happen to Israel. It is a bit of an ominous and depressing revelation, but the imagery is stunning. Isaiah also discusses a vision of God he had, where he actually sees God sitting on his throne surrounded by his six-winged seraphim. These seraphim have two wings to cover their feet, two to cover their faces, and two to fly with. The extra four wings seemed excessive, and the image that comes to mind is not what I would call “heavenly,” but rather “horrifying.” Anyway, God actually tells him to preach to the people of Israel about their sins, and to warn them about upcoming events. The kings of Israel and Syria start plotting against Jerusalem, and God condemns them, guaranteeing Jerusalem and Judah victory over this treachery and, in addition, promising to destroy both of those countries. God tells Isaiah that Assyria will defeat Israel and to trust in Him, because in the end, He will redeem the population of Israelites in the end, and this brings us to a few messianic prophecies. Isaiah 7:13-16 is one of the more famous messianic prophecies that I’ve heard. It mentions that “the virgin will conceive a child” and that he will be called Immanuel, which is one of the most repeated messianic prophecies. However, Immanuel and Jesus do not seem to be the same name. This is something I do wonder about, so I looked into it. The best explanation I found was that the prophecy did not imply that his name would be Immanuel, which means “God is with us,” simply that such a thing would be said about him. This is, of course, satisfied within the Christian interpretation of the Bible. There was another mention of the Messiah, and the fact that there is hope in him. He will come from Galilee, according to the prophecy, which is, again, satisfied in the Christian interpretation. The New Testament could have been written in a way that simply modified events or made up new ones entirely to fit the messianic prophecies, but I will not get into that now; whether or not this is the case is a discussion I will leave for the New Testament. The one thing I notice is that the Messiah seems to be a military leader. Under him, the world will see peace and he will defeat the enemies of Israel. Obviously this isn’t the case, but such an interpretation is not at all binding. Isaiah then closes by giving the Israelites hope for their exile, saying that there will be an end to it. He praises salvation and emphasizes the importance of David’s line, another reference to the supposed Messiah. The final chapter of the section discusses the fall of Babylon, which Isaiah claims will happen soon.
These prophecies are, for the most part, fulfilled. While I cannot comment on the veracity of the messianic prophecies until I read the New Testament, I have read the history of the Israelites as written in the Bible. I know that Isaiah was written before the exile, so his prophecies do come true. There is historical evidence, or at least some historical assertion, that Isaiah did indeed write his prophecies before the events that he predicted. Therefore, his prophecies did come true. This would indicate that either Isaiah had great foresight or was actually spoken to by God. However, it could also be argued that other writings were made that were ignored because they were wrong, and that Isaiah (along with his contemporary prophets) were simply lucky. Either way, I liked the vivid imagery of Isaiah; he was very clear about his subject and kept the chapters interesting. Usually topics like this get dry fairly quickly, as there is only so much you can say about Israel and Judah being destroyed. However, I thought this was very interesting. I don’t know how long this will keep up, but as Isaiah is one of the more popular prophets and has been for centuries, I have my hopes up.

Ecclesiastes 1-Song of Songs 8

2009-06-29T19:52:00.001-07:00

Ecclesiastes is written from the perspective of someone identifying himself as “the Teacher.” This is traditionally associated with Solomon because he also claims to be king over Israel from Jerusalem and the son of David. There are messianic interpretations related to this, as well as the rest of the book, but I will simply refer to the author as the Teacher. This book was interesting; I would even go as far as to say it caught me off guard. Most of the books so far have been instructions and examples of how to worship God effectively. Ecclesiastes, however, basically stated that everything is meaningless. The Teacher has searched high and low for the meaning of life while also looking for wisdom and reason. He has realized that, despite the benefits and pitfalls of aspects of life, everything is meaningless. I have to say, this is one of the more depressing conclusions made so far. He instructs the reader (or listener) to enjoy life; eat, drink, work hard, love what you are doing, and accept your lot in life with enthusiasm because this is the only way to make life worthwhile. Otherwise, it is a long struggle that can be unfair at times as well as unpredictable. The Teacher wishes the reader to work hard and live a long, happy life with the woman he loves, because a good wife is a gift from God (once again, sexism, but I feel any more discussion on it would be beating a dead horse). He also instructs the reader that whatever he does, he must do it well because there is no other reason to be alive. Enjoying life and working hard seem to be the main purposes of life, and the Teacher emphatically reasserts time and time again that God approves of this kind of lifestyle: one of enjoyment and happiness. I thought this was an interesting, but pleasant statement to read. Happiness is encouraged, and while I did not necessarily think the Bible was anti-happiness, the depressing and otherwise negative scenes in the Bible still far outnumber the happy ones. Thus, such an assertion is refreshing, in a way. I suppose the meaning I take from Ecclesiastes is that life might be meaningless, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t enjoy it. On the contrary, a meaningless life means you should enjoy it all the more because there is no point dwelling on the future. Living in the moment and being satisfied with your life is an important part of being truly happy. You must do what you want to do, while at the same time working hard and accepting your lot in life. However, a person should always remember to praise and worship God, because He is the one you will need to answer to in the end. Indeed, live life to its fullest and worship God. That will allow someone to be happy with life, even though it is meaningless. This closed Ecclesiastes, and I moved into Song of Songs, which is also attributed to Solomon. Whether or not these are the real authors I do not know. This might not be relevant of course, but if the history is written by someone that was not actually there, it might be a little more unreliable. In the case of the books that are more focused on spirituality than history, however, I do not believe the author makes much of a difference. In any case, Song of Songs is incredibly graphic. There is explicit discussion about arousal and the young man, in whose perspective part of the book is written, describes the young woman’s body in great detail. He describes her mouth, eyes, navel, thighs, hair, and teeth, but no part of the woman’s “vineyard” (and yes, it is actually called that-it refers to her body on the whole, incidentally) gets more attention than her breasts. The young man describes them as peaks, fawns, and grape clusters multiple times for each description, and these, in addition to the other parts of her anatomy, give a very clear impression of what the young woman probably looks like. She is described as dark because she had to work outside, and she does her own fair share of discussing her “lover.” She describes his cheeks, eyes, legs, arms, lips, head, and, for some reason, posture. Her details are not quite as graphic though; the young man, on no less two occasions, mentions a part of the young woman’s anatomy that is much more personal than her hair, navel, or even breasts. Of course, this kind of story is not unprecedented. Sex exists in the narrative from earlier books in copious amounts; don’t forget the story of Lot and his daughters or the fact that Leah bought the right to sleep with Jacob from her sister. However this story is not just mindless sex. It is made very clear that the young man and woman love each other very much, so this story encourages romantic sex and love strongly. The Bible is generally against prostitution and, as I mentioned early on, frivolity. It also prohibits adultery and warns against being seduced, but as such, Song of Songs is not a contradiction. Indeed, it merely requires love and marriage before any sexual acts are partaken. In fact, after marriage, romance and sexual love are encouraged (no doubt to facilitate the birth of little Israelites, but still, the fact remains that within a marriage, sex is important according to the Bible). There isn’t much else to say about Song of Songs as it was not terribly long. Indeed, it was no longer than Ecclesiastes.
I do not have anything more to add about Ecclesiastes that I have not already said. I think my summary of it articulates my interpretation of the book. Life might be meaningless, but one should enjoy it and praise God all the while because it is so short. The Teacher does a very good job of elucidating his point, so I thought the meaning was very clear. Song of Songs was also fairly straightforward. It is, from what I can tell, basically an example (almost in the same way that Job is) of how romantic love and sex are permissible and even encouraged. With that in mind, incidentally, it reminded me a little of Romeo and Juliet in that the two young lovers seemed mindlessly enamored with each other, almost to the point of juvenile infatuation. I was not personally a fan of that particular Shakespearian play, as I felt both main characters were just incredibly immature and naïve. Luckily for me, I am not reading the play but the Bible, which is infinitely uplifting (by which I mean terrifyingly depressing). I will mention, as I close, that Ecclesiastes is turning out to be one of my favorite books. I thought it contained a very good message. Tomorrow I start on the prophets: the Major Prophets first, followed by the Minor Prophets, and these will all begin with Isaiah.

Proverbs 16-31

2009-06-29T16:25:00.000-07:00

Proverbs continued with lists of different sayings and thoughts on leading a moral life. In essence, the Proverbs sought to discourage and prohibit arrogance, unfairness in legal systems by condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, disrespect, and a few other negative traits. It also made sure to encourage fairness, equality, and friendship, along with other various positive traits. A basic tenant I picked up was a general feeling of brotherhood and camaraderie. People must treat everyone else with respect and make an effort to be honest and hard-working. It is very obvious that Proverbs is a major source of the morals learned through the Bible, as so many stories before it have ambiguous, vague, and sometimes outright atrocious lessons. There were some things I did not like, however. For instance, the book compared a “quarrelsome wife” with a constantly dripping faucet, and I took this to mean that a wife should simply adhere to her husband’s will. This is, of course, back to the Bible tending to be sexist. It is demanding blind obedience, and it is obvious that the Bible still encourages a society that has women as second-class citizens to men. Also, there is a mention about physical punishment being good discipline, and while the meaning of the original Hebrew is uncertain, I can say for sure that self-flagellation as repentance for sins is not something I would want out of a religion. It is definitely a cruel being who instructs people to hurt themselves as a way to get back on said being’s good graces. However, I do not think that such acts are necessary or required because they are not mentioned at all in the Bible before this point, so I assume it is possible that this is simply a difficult translation that has no good comparison in the English language. Proverbs encourages tough love for children so they will grow up to be able members of society and consistently condemns laziness. Finally, it condemns gossip, which I see as a very good aspect of the book. Gossip can be very dangerous, and it is interesting to see the Bible explicitly prohibit it.
I don’t have much else to add to my Proverbs post from yesterday. I liked the same things about it, and while I disliked a few things as well, they were not enough to detract from my overall enjoyment. There was a little bit of sexism but it was not nearly as extreme as in some of the earlier books so I did not think it was as much of a detriment to the experience. I appreciate most of the rules and ideals proscribed in Proverbs, so this is one of my top five or six books so far. With that, I finish Proverbs and move into Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs with my next post.

Proverbs 1-15

2009-06-27T23:30:00.001-07:00

The Proverbs are, from what I can tell, basically advice for living in the form of a father talking to a son. I think the form must be largely metaphorical because the father/son relationship is used so often, including when talking about God and Israel, kings and citizens, and of course fathers and children. They begin by explaining what the purpose of the Proverbs are, which is to emphasize wisdom, and this theme is kept throughout the section. The child is warned to heed his parents’ advice, as they are much wiser than him. Various other transgressions are forbidden, including being seduced by promiscuous women, interacting with those who are wicked (which is a very vague term, come to think of it) and gossiping. Pride is frowned upon, which is something I never could quite understand, to be honest. I don’t know why being proud of your achievements is such a travesty. Perhaps they feel it is taking the glory away from God, but I personally think that fear is unfounded. God loves humble people and dislikes proud people. Maybe pride being such an undesirable trait stems from its close relationship with arrogance, which is a trait that can lead to blundering overconfidence. Still, for something that is mentioned so often, I definitely have trouble understanding the feelings against pride. A very graphic discussion of avoiding immoral women is given an entire chapter, but I interpreted this not as anti-sex, but more anti-frivolity. Indeed, the passage absolutely encourages sexual acts within a marriage, and asks that men simply resist extramarital temptation. Proverbs then moves on to encourage hard work and criticize laziness, and then devolves back into a prohibition on contact with immoral women. This was, evidently, a problem in the time Proverbs was written because otherwise I doubt there would be so many mentions against it. One thing I also notice as I move through the Bible is how focused people are on material rewards. God rewards his most loyal followers with children, land, food, and precious metals and stones. Obviously there have been statements that claim God is, in effect, more important than all these things combined. Indeed, these are almost as prevalent as the rewards being promised. But still, I thought this was interesting; I was under the impression that these religions eschewed earthly possessions. While they hold God to a higher esteem, they do also enjoy the material benefits of leading a good life. I am not criticizing this by any means; I simply think it is worth noting. I think, however, that another theme in the Bible is that these riches, while nice, do not help in the long run; indeed, only living by God’s ways will, in the end, benefit a person. The riches are enjoyable, but they are not the only important thing. Hard work is also a prevalent theme in Proverbs. The reader is told that hard work leads to lasting success whereas laziness can only end in poverty, which is probably true, except in obviously extenuating circumstances.
I like Proverbs so far; I think there is a lot of wisdom to be found in the chapters. There are a lot of phrases that apply well today. In fact, I would say a large majority do not refer to a specific time, but more to being a good person. This makes the reading somewhat more enjoyable and interesting because I am able to reflect on how it applies to society in general rather than just an ancient society that is long gone. There is no brutality or hatred in these moral lessons, which is in stark contrast to a few other stories intending to give a lesson. I feel these represent some of the better intentions and results of the Bible. I regret that I only have one more day of Proverbs, but I will then move into Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and finally, the Minor Prophets.

The Midway Point

2009-06-27T00:44:00.001-07:00

I am now halfway through my reading of the Bible, and I thought that since I have two built in days off, I thought would take this opportunity to analyze how my views have changed as well as discuss what I think so far. First, my general attitude towards the Bible has changed. I reread the first three or four entries I posted, and I believe I was much more critical at first. I attempted to take the position of an agnostic, objective observer, but I ended up coming off as a skeptic without any restraint or, from what I can tell, interest in keeping an open mind. As I’ve progressed, however, I have tried (sometimes in vain, I do admit) to see the reason behind things that seem strange, appalling, or any other significant adjective you please. I have definitely gotten better at it; I will allow myself this vanity. For example, my first post goes straight into criticism, claiming Genesis was a good explanation at the time it was written, but now is basically worthless. I barely gave any credit to it even as a metaphor, which I think is an extremely important aspect of the Bible. However, I was able to extract deeper meaning out of Job, which gives the reader (in my opinion, at least, and if you’re reading this I assume you must be interested in it) an almost shocked first impression. I doubt I would have been able to look at such a story in both lights, being the “shocked that God would do something so horrible” view as well as the “understand it on a deeper level.” So to me, the ability to healthily analyze the book is desirable and useful. It also makes the entire reading much more enjoyable because I don’t look at the Bible as a waste of time when I put thought into it. Being able to understand the Book of Job (my feelings of which are explained in great detail in my final post on the subject) felt crucial in my process of handling the Bible intellectually and, while still critically, objectively.
A major criticism I had to overcome was my personal opposition to the explanation that some stories must be taken in context of the times. I felt strongly that such an explanation for some of the stranger and more disturbing stories in the Bible meant that the entire book must be taken in context. That is, nothing could be applied to our time because we were simply not ancient Israelites. But this is not necessarily the case. For instance, the issue of spiritual cleanliness is dealt with quite a bit in most of the Pentateuch after the Israelites leave Egypt. Those with skin diseases are ostracized if they cannot be cured, which does, at first glance, seem like a particularly brutal punishment. They are effectively exiles for something they cannot necessarily control. Such actions initially seem irrelevant in our society. But this rule is not arbitrary; I feel it is fairly obvious rules like this were set up to protect the community at large, which still tends to be our base reaction. Being healed was the obvious preference, and that is quite clear in the text. Thus, modern medicine would be encouraged if the Bible is extrapolated somewhat (and by somewhat I mean over six thousand years or so). There are various stories and laws that also add to debates that blaze on today, including abortion (where an accidentally forced miscarriage is compensated monetarily instead of by a life, thus implying killing a fetus is not actually murder. This is, of course, my adopted view on the subject; it is up to the reader to draw his own conclusions) and property rights. Such specific laws have an obvious purpose and vague stories that are supposed to have meaning and moral implications to live by must be taken as parables or else they sometimes come off as atrocious. Job, for instance, is one of the tougher stories to understand. However, one must also remember this is a book of God, and unfaltering loyalty to Him is constantly encouraged in the book. Therefore, something like Job has a meaning to it; the reader is simply given the task of drawing it. This seemingly obvious conclusion was harder for me to reach. My personal biases got in the way, and it took a couple weeks before I could finally take the Bible for what it was worth. Once I figured this out though, my experience was enhanced because I was now seeing a much deeper world in the Bible, making the whole process all the more magnificent.
Of course, the Bible is not just a book of endless praise to God. Indeed, God is drawn into every event, but the Bible is also a history book. How accurate it is I do not know. It could be the complete truth of the history of the Jewish people, or it could be entirely a fabrication. But finding the historical truth of the Bible is not my task here, so I take it with the assumption it is the rough history, but is mostly accurate. Therefore, some of the more surprising stories (as in the ones that seem particularly brutal and cruel on a large scale) might not just be parables or stories to demonstrate God’s wrath. They could easily be historical events that were merely recorded and explained in divine terms. A wrathful God we do not understand has already been established, one who punishes sin but ultimately forgives, and His divine intervention is a decent enough explanation for events, whether good or bad. I am not in the business of disproving or proving God, especially by examining historical evidence. It is impossible to say with certainty whether God exists or not, in my opinion, and this was important for me to realize as I read along. It is absolutely neither my job nor my goal to discuss in length the existence of God. Thus, to be a good little agnostic, I have to accept that He could definitely have had a hand in world events. Of course, that means I have to accept that He definitely could not exist, which I do. It is, after all, the nature of my reading: agnostic open-mindedness. The history of the Bible is not entirely relevant to the read, but it actually ended up being my favorite part, whereas what I expected to be the best part wound up being my least favorite so far (Psalms, unfortunately).
I suppose the point to my ramblings is to examine for myself my project as it stands halfway through. I have started to see much more in the Bible, and it has definitely been easier to read as I have opened my mind more. I appreciate both of you consistently reading these posts, as it has been and continues to be fun to hear your reactions to my reactions. With that, I close this halfway post, and look forward to starting Proverbs and the second half of my journey through the annals of biblical text over the next forty-five days.

Psalm 129-150

2009-06-25T20:44:00.001-07:00

The first Psalm worth mentioning here is Psalm 136, which had a call and response format. The first speaker(s) would describe God in some way, and this would be followed by a chorus of “His faithful love endures forever.” This was a different structure, which reminded me of going to church as a young child and listening to the priest call out praise for God or Jesus and hearing the congregation respond in turn. In Psalm 137, there was a notable line that read “Happy is the one who takes your babies {as in the Babylonians} and smashes them against rocks!” Of course, this is not the first instance of a line in the Bible being notably violent and sickeningly atrocious, but it stuck out at me because it referred to infants rather than just the senseless slaughter of entire populations. I would hope that this is hyperbole, but unfortunately, I have seen many an action in the Bible that is incomprehensibly brutal, so it is quite possible the authors had every intention of doing this if given the chance. On the other hand, these are songs, and songs are generally not meant to be taken literally. The end of Psalms, to me, was a bit of a relief; I was actually a little disappointed with the book. I admit I did have high hopes, and I ended up feeling that the Book of Psalms was a little tedious; that is to say, there was not much diversity in what the Psalms actually said, especially (as I have mentioned at least twice before) in the Psalms of David. I understood that God was to be praised and that David’s enemies were hunting him though he had done nothing wrong, and hearing it time and time again was a little difficult to get through. This marks my 44th day of reading, and as there are 88 days of actual reading as opposed to 90 (which was actually a surprise to me when I finally got the schedule about a week after starting) I am officially halfway through in terms of reading days.

Psalms 109-128

2009-06-24T20:44:00.001-07:00

-“The Lord said to my Lord,” (Psalm 110, verse 1, which I only include because I thought it was strange and fairly confusing. Quite like most of the rest of the Bible.)
-Psalm 119 because the structure is so interesting
Incidentally, before I begin, both Psalms 111 and 112 are Hebrew acrostic poems, the distinguishing feature of which were not carried into my translation (as I’ve mentioned), although I doubt this would have been easy to do anyway. Psalm 119 has an interesting format as well. Each stanza’s heading is a Hebrew letter, and there are twenty-two stanzas. Each verse in the stanzas begins with the letter in the heading. I don’t think this is significant in terms of understanding the Bible, but it helps one appreciate the depth of thought that went into the initial writing of the book. Psalm 117 is the shortest Psalm and chapter in the Bible and Psalm 119 is the longest of both. There was a rumor at one point, and perhaps it is still floating around, that Psalm 118 verse 8 was the exact midpoint of the Bible. There were, allegedly, 594 chapters before it and 594 chapters after it, two numbers that add up to 1188. Thus, 118:8 being the center of the Bible was seen as evidence for divine authorship (or so the rumor said). I heard this from the Christian friend of mine that invited me to do this project in the first place, and I must admit I found it intriguing. Unfortunately, upon further investigation, I discovered that this miraculous structure was not completely verifiable (clever though it may be). Problems abound when one considers the evidence. First, there are so many different versions of the Christian Bible alone (namely the Protestant verses Catholic ones) that calling it the center of the Christian Bible is flawed by definition, as the Catholic Bible has a few extra passages in Esther and Daniel as well as the entire apocrypha. Second, it absolutely cannot be the center of the Hebrew Bible, which does not include the New Testament. Psalm 118 would be closer to the end, but the order of the books is completely different in the Hebrew Bible. In terms of chapters (and when evaluating only the King James Version, which is actually not the dominant version as Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination), the middle falls at Psalm 117, but interestingly, when considering verses, the middle would have to include two, as there are an even number of verses in the Bible. This center is indeed Psalm 118, verses 8-9 (however, instead of the numbers rounding out in a very convenient way as the rumor goes, this interpretation uses 31,174 verses in its research; clearly not a significant number). Unfortunately, I do not believe it says anything significant. The verses read: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in people. It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.” I feel that, when replaced with almost any phrase referring to God, the feeling is the exact same. This phrase is just vague enough that proponents of the center theory will claim it is strong and meaningful, but I take issue with that interpretation because of the vagueness I mentioned. I guarantee that, unless this issue had not been pointed out, readers of the Psalms would merely view those particular phrases as being on the same level as any other verse in the Bible. Thus, I cannot abide by the belief that Psalm 118:8-9 has any particular meaning containing greater weight than anything else in the Bible.

Psalms 89-108

2009-06-24T17:55:00.001-07:00

-“He will shelter you with his wings.” (Psalm 91, verse 4)
-“Is he deaf-the one who made your ears? Is he blind-the one who formed your eyes?” (Psalm 94, verse 9)
I don’t have anything to say about this really because I’ve said everything I can about the Psalms (at least, everything that I’ve thought of, which is not nearly as much as there is to say in general) except that I am actually a little disappointed with them. The first section or so of the book was very interesting, but the general themes have been repeated in every single Psalm, which got particularly tiresome in the Psalms of David, but I already mentioned that. The reading, at the moment, is a little tedious; indeed, this might change as I move from Psalms and into Proverbs, or perhaps I will feel the reading is a chore until the Minor Prophets or even the New Testament. However, when I do finish Psalms, I will be exactly halfway through the project, which is quite an achievement I feel because so few people actually have read the Bible, and even fewer people with the same general feeling on religion as I had initially (I say initially only because I do not want to officially subscribe to any particular belief system. I am trying to maintain an agnostic view, but whether or not I am succeeding is a totally different story). This will be in three posts, and will then mark the beginning of Proverbs.

Psalms 70-88

2009-06-22T21:21:00.001-07:00

-“Why is your anger so intense against the sheep of your own pasture?” (Psalm 74, verse 1)
-“He pours out the wine in judgment, and all the wicked must drink it, draining it to the dregs.” (Psalm 75, verse 8)
-“God presides over heaven’s court; he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings…” (Psalm 82, verse 1)
There isn’t really a whole lot to say about the Psalms that I haven’t already said, (perhaps even stretched with the goal of making my posts just a few lines longer). I do have some comments, however. First, Psalms are songs. The Greek root of the word is basically songs with stringed accompaniment, and the Hebrew title of the section is “praise.” Therefore, the Psalms are basically just songs of praise. But I think the fact that these are actually songs changes the way I initially perceived how people went about worshipping God. There are, of course, the boring aspects. Reading the Book of Laws, as is required in some sections of the Bible, cannot be terribly exciting, especially if you’ve heard it before (I have read it once, and though there are some interesting things to note about it, it is not worth combing through again and again unless you intend to analyze it in a pretty deep way). The Psalms make celebrating God seem like just that: a celebration. This might be completely wrong, obviously. There are tunes that go with various Psalms, and as I have no idea what these tunes sound like, they could be horrendously somber and depressing. Still, the very inclusion of music in so many places of the Bible (considering this is not the only place music and musicians are mentioned, see King David and his harp playing for Saul) gives me a strong sense of actual festivity in worshipping God rather than just a script being read. My other comment is on the authors (or whoever is given notice in the title) of a lot of the Psalms in this section. They were Asaph and Korah, which was a nice break from David I have to say. I am thoroughly bored of reading about David’s enemies hating him for no reason for the umpteenth time. More to the point though, I looked into these two individuals. There are at least three possibilities for Asaph, but the most likely one appears to be the Levite priest. Asaph, therefore, would be in a perfect position to compose some Psalms. The other, Korah, I am still unsure of. The only Korah I could find was the son of Esau, but I do not think they are the same person. Psalms will continue tomorrow and until exactly the midway point of this project, which should be in less than five days.

Psalms 46-69

2009-06-21T22:07:00.000-07:00

Here is the usual list of lines that struck me. I don’t have much else to say today.
-“All day long you plot destruction. Your tongue cuts like a sharp razor;” (Psalm 52, verse 2)
-“I am surrounded by fierce lions who greedily devour human prey-whose teeth pierce like spears and arrows, and whose tongues cut like swords.” (Psalm 57, verse 4)
-“They come out at night, snarling like vicious dogs as they prowl the streets.” (Psalm 59, verse 6)
Occasionally there will be a run of a few Psalms that are written by David. I have to say, I am getting a little tired of the Psalms of David. They are all about the exact same situation: his enemies hate him for no reason and he must fight them. I understand this was an important part of the narrative, but I am not particularly interested in rereading roughly the same Psalm over and over. I don’t have anything else to say beyond that other than I see fewer and fewer verses that strike me as significant. Most of them say the same types of things, and the imagery is not quite as complex when I have seen it multiple times. Psalms will continue for the next few days.

Psalms 25-45

2009-06-21T00:35:00.001-07:00

The first thing I want to mention is that Psalms 25 and 34 are Hebrew acrostic poems. This means each verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This is completely irrelevant but I thought it was really interesting, despite the fact that the English translation (at least the one I have) is not in the same format at all. Unfortunately, the Bible I have does not take pains to make the language beautiful. Instead, it focuses on making the stories comprehensible, which is what I’m concerned with. In any case, I found the following lines striking.
-“The Lord is my light and salvation-so why should I be afraid?” (Psalm 27, Verse 1)
-“The Lord is my strength and shield.” (Psalm 27, verse 7)
-“The voice of the Lord splits the mighty cedars;” (Psalm 29, verse 5)
-“Praise the Lord with melodies on the lyre; make music for him on the ten-stringed harp.” (Psalm 33, Verse 3)
-“Lift up your spear and javelin against those who pursue me.” (Psalm 35, Verse 3)
-“All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings.” (Psalm 36, verse 7)
-“Stop being angry! Turn from your rage! Do not lose your temper-it only leads to harm.” (Psalm 36, verse 8)
-“My entire lifetime is just a moment to you; at best, each of us is but a breath.” (Psalm 39, verse 5)
Most of these Psalms so far are ascribed to David, and if you accept that for a moment, you get an interesting insight into his mind. Obviously the Psalms were not written in one sitting, so you get a fluid view of David’s moods. He is distressed, afraid, happy, exuberant, and other strong emotions at various points throughout the writings. It gives a distinctly human feel to David. If we accept all the biblical figures to be faithful representations of their historical counterparts, the Psalms become the only time the actual thoughts and feelings of a biblical figure are demonstrated. For this reason, I have been enjoying the Psalms. Not only is David my favorite biblical individual so far, but I also feel he has much more depth, especially now with the poems and songs he has allegedly written granting a deeper look into the mind of a tormented, God-fearing, but ultimately human king. I find quite a bit of poetry in seeing the mortal flaws David possessed and learning more about his struggle between obeying and following God, being a good king, and his own personality flaws. However, I personally do not believe David wrote the Psalms that are typically credited to him. It seems too unlikely that David was as incredible as the Bible makes him out to be, and I have a strong feeling that the traditional view of David’s authorship was manufactured soon after the Psalms were written anonymously. It is impossible to know for sure, of course, and I do hope David did indeed write them. I have one lingering problem with the Bible. Every time God is mentioned, the author of the section says that God-fearing people have great lives, whereas wicked people are turned away from. This does not seem to be consistent with actual evidence. I understand the notion that God works in mysterious ways, but the fact that the authors of the Bible are so certain and clear cut about what happens to different types of people seems problematic because they are so often wrong. Finally, I would like to mention that in the titles of numerous Psalms there are instructions for singing. Some are what instruments are to be played as accompaniment, and some are tunes to which the words of the Psalms are to be sung. I have no comment to make about that beyond that I think that is very interesting; it is fun to think that these Psalms are, in fact, songs to sing about the joys and pitfalls of life, in addition to songs in reverence of God and asking for his help. It explains the prevalence of hymns in churches as well, and connects the religion to other ones because so many do involve music. Psalms will continue for a few more days, so I will be reading more of it tomorrow.

Psalms 1-24

2009-06-19T22:16:00.000-07:00

I couldn’t decide on a way to present the Psalms in this post. I usually write a summary, but that seemed pointless in this case because I would just be summarizing twenty-four poems. Therefore, this is a list of lines in the various Psalms of the section that stuck out at me:
-“Don’t sin by letting anger control you; Think about it overnight and remain silent.” (Psalm 4, Verse 4)
-“if I have betrayed a friend, or plundered my enemy without cause, then let my enemies capture me...” (Psalm 7, Verse 4)
-“God is my shield, saving those whose hearts are true and right” (Psalm 7, Verse 10)
-“The wicket conceive evil; they are pregnant with trouble, and give birth to lies” (Psalm 7, Verse 14)
-“[God] hates those who love violence” (Psalm 11, Verse 5)
-“The Lord’s promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace;” (Psalm 12, Verse 6)
-“I will sing to the Lord for he is good to me.” (Psalm 13, Verse 6)
-“The Lord is my rock, my fortress, my savior; my God is my rock, in whom I find protection” (Psalm 18, Verse 2)
-All of Psalm 23
I liked these different lines for various reasons. Some I felt had very beautiful imagery; in particular Psalm 7, verse 10 and Psalm 12, verse 6, while others had very effective imagery, such as Psalm 7, verse 14. Others had a very powerful message. Psalm 11, verse 5 is a very interesting one to me. It seems that any violence in the name of God is, according to this single Psalm, a sin because God hates those who love violence. This actually is not a contradiction; the violence committed in the Bible was, in the eyes of the Israelites and God, necessary to move into the Promised Land. The Israelites did not revel in it nor enjoy it as far as I can see through textual analysis. I admit that when I began reading the Bible, I was under the impression that the religions associated with this book promoted violence if it was furthering the means of God. However, I am beginning to take the opposite approach. I feel that these religions absolutely do not promote violence unless it is in defense. Moving into the Promised Land was offensive, it is true, but it was also an isolated incident. This actual event can and will not ever take place again, so it existing as evidence that Judaism or, by extension, Christianity promote violence is a fallacy. One could argue that the people who commit violence in the name of God actually do not enjoy it either, but they are not in the position of the Israelites. That is to say they are not in a kill or be killed position, as an ancient tribe was (key word ancient: we are not living in the same world by any means that the Israelites were in). The fact that people have killed in the name of God is evidence that people do not understand or accept God fully as He is depicted in the Bible. If they did, I feel they would abhor violence as such a view is absolutely promoted in the actual text. A major point of the Bible is that God knows better than people, so taking violence into your own hands has no chance of being biblically acceptable. I like the Psalms so far. They seemed like almost the opposite of Job. While Job was dreary and depressing, the Psalms are basically continuous expression of devotion to God (by David, who is the alleged author, though I personally doubt he actually wrote them). Since the point of the Bible is to teach about God, I have to say, some positivity is very refreshing. Actually, Psalms is one of the first positive books in a long time. The Israelites left Egypt, and that was a long, slow process that was actually a little depressing because they were all prevented from entering the Promised Land. Their descendents lived in the Promised Land for awhile but were removed from it, so I really like seeing some positivity. I have quite a few days of Psalms to go, so I think the next few days should be interesting.

Job 25-42

2009-06-18T18:14:00.001-07:00

This section opens with a rather moving speech from Job. In it, he elaborates on the majesty and power of God, using careful imagery to invoke a grand picture in the reader’s head of the divine force that is God. Job maintains his innocence throughout his entire speech, which is his final one, and brings up various points and examples of his virtuousness and exemplary behavior in society. He helps the sick, poor, orphaned, and widowed, while also giving advice that is generally accepted to be very wise. Job also discusses the problem of wisdom and understanding; he claims that, while people have an exorbitant amount of knowledge, they do not know how to find wisdom. Only God Himself can find wisdom, so Job defers to God’s judgments. Although Job maintains his innocence entirely, he does not say a negative thing about God in this section. After Job’s final speech, a man named Elihu speaks up. Elihu has not made his opinions clear yet because he has waited for his elders, who are implied to be Job and his friends, to state their cases. Elihu claims that the friends have done nothing to answer Job’s arguments, which I agree with completely. They have said the same general thing every time they open their mouths: Job must have sinned, otherwise there is no explanation, and Job is trying to mock them. Neither of these is true, however, which Elihu points out. A line that really stuck out to me is the assertion that God does not care about wealthy and privileged people any more than poor people because He made them all. I thought it was refreshing to see such equality in His eyes, considering He is the most important judge to be impartial. Elihu criticizes Job for showing a lack of respect for God, which is something I noticed as well in yesterday’s section. Job might not explicitly curse God, but he does not accept the divine intervention in his life that has made him so miserable. In this way, Job has sinned by not trusting God and in God’s ways. Elihu mentions that the point of leading a righteous life is not to be rewarded, as Job seems to think, but to live more closely to God, which should be reward in itself. Elihu goes on to describe the wonders of God and imply that we cannot understand His might and reasons, which would be a valid point except for one thing. We were given a scene of God talking to Satan and the rest of the heavenly court where God’s true intentions were revealed. He was simply trying to prove Satan wrong. Now to me, this brings up two possibilities. First, Satan has the power to manipulate God, which means that God does have a weakness. Again, as I mentioned yesterday, such a situation cannot possibly exist because it would imply God is not all-powerful and therefore not God. Second, it could mean that God is simply cruel. This is, of course, a likely over-simplification of the issue; indeed, by definition God’s ways cannot be understood by our mortal minds. This would render the entire issue moot because there is something more to the situation than we can understand, which I think is the point Elihu is attempting to make. God then appears to Job in a whirlwind (simply as a disembodied voice, I presume) and, for the most part, sides with Elihu; He poses many questions to Job that cannot be answered by anyone but God, demonstrating the feebleness and ignorance of even a very wise human. Incidentally, God seems to almost be mocking Job’s ignorance. He asks Job countless questions that are impossible for him to answer, demonstrating what Elihu has preached; Job is not nearly on the same level as God, so should not be questioning and regretting what has happened to him. With that said, this entire situation was caused because God wanted to win a bet, so I don’t think Job is totally in the wrong wondering why he is suffering so much. When God has finished proving Job’s ignorance as well as the ignorance of his three friends, He restores Job’s wealth twofold and forgives everyone for speaking falsely about Him. Of course, this doesn’t really make up for the loss of Job’s first children. I doubt he will soon forget about them, so the story doesn’t really have a happy ending.
When I read a section I don’t particularly care for or understand I make an active attempt to sit down and find a way to reconcile the story. With Job, I found such a route to be mired in difficulty. However, I believe that this story might have a positive interpretation if thought about in the correct manner. First, I was recently sent part of an analysis that I did not agree with for the most part. However, there was one important facet that stood out to me: the perspective. A particular characteristic of my generation is a desire to question and demand a reason for almost everything. The Old Testament, however, relies on the idea that God is never to be questioned. This is fairly difficult for me to comprehend, as such blind and unquestioning loyalty is not a quality I consider important or even beneficial. My perspective has tainted my reading of Job, and I believe I have to reevaluate my position when I read it to fully understand the book’s purpose. I have come to the conclusion that the story must be taken as a purely allegorical example of how people should respond to hardship in their lives. You might not (and likely do not) understand or believe yourself to be deserving of hardships, but that is not a reason to become an immoral person. That is to say bad things do happen, but they are not an excuse to drop all pretense and begin treating everyone around you poorly. It is true, we were given the scene of God allowing Satan to do whatever he liked to Job, but I believe the purpose of this is not to demonstrate God’s cruelty or Satan’s power over God, but rather to explain to the reader the cause of Job’s hardship. The reason behind the cause, which is a distinct entity in my opinion, is not something we can possibly understand. Thus, Job’s struggle is not a pointless battle against a being that is merely bored, but a meaningful test of faith. This test is something all believers likely go through, and using Job as an example, a person can move through the test without succumbing to evil and come out the other end better for it, as Job did when his previous life was more or less returned to him in double the amount. I also felt Job’s arrogance was highlighted. Though Job said he hadn’t sinned or lived against God, he could not possibly know because, in biblical terms, only God can know for sure if a person has sinned. Therefore, the message quite clearly becomes one encouraging trust in God while also accepting that you are indeed a sinner. This was the end of Job, and I begin Psalms tomorrow, a book I have been greatly looking forward to.

Job 7-24

2009-06-17T21:38:00.001-07:00

This section opened with Job crying out to God about his miserable life and requesting that he be allowed peace or death. He cannot discern why God is punishing him in such a horrific way, and his second friend, Bildad, responds by basically telling him to stop being annoying with his lamentations and that his children must have done something that warrants punishment. This is a flawed argument for two reasons, however, because for one, all of his children are dead. Therefore, they must have already been punished. Second, God Himself tells the Israelites that children should not be punished for the sins of their parents and vice versa, so Job being punished for the sins of his children wouldn’t make sense. Of course, God has cursed the descendents of some people, but it has never been the other way around, and that was only in the instance where the offender himself was not punished. Bildad then tells Job to pray to God to be restored, and not to lose faith, as God will surely answer prayers and treat his loyal servants well. It is quite obvious that Bildad is incorrect in his assessment because Job was a loyal servant but is being treated very poorly, and he did not even sin in a way that warrants his punishment. Thus, Bildad’s claim that God would not do horrible things to people without justification is actually wrong and I get the distinct impression that God is not actually benevolent at all, because he is simply toying with Job to prove a point. Job reasserts his innocence and tells Bildad it is pointless to try to argue with God. This chapter makes life seem hopeless because, regardless of whether or not you deserve punishment, it seems you might get it and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. I am not naïve enough to believe that good things only happen to good people, but the general idea throughout the Bible that God has a plan is more or less abandoned here to demonstrate God’s willingness to destroy the life of one of His creations to prove Satan wrong. Job describes God as laughing at the innocent victims of a plague, which definitely does not give credit to the idea of God being a loving deity. Job acts as if God is singling him out, which seemed a little melodramatic to me; while it is pretty unfair that Job is being punished for nothing, it is highly unlikely that Job is the only one who has difficulties. Job’s third friend Zophar says basically the same things as the other two, telling Job to lift up his hands in prayer, which will free him from his misery. Job replies by describing God’s majesty and then criticizing his friends for presuming they know more about life than him. Job finally decides to argue his case in front of God and begins to prepare his testimony. Job’s long speeches really seem like they are blaming and accusing God. He never explicitly curses God, but I wonder if blame and accusations are much better. The reason Job is being tested like this is to prove he will never curse God, but he is saying some fairly negative things about God regardless of whether or not he actually curses Him. He does, however, still believe in God’s way as the only right way to live, so he is not turning his back on God at the very least. The discussions between Job and his three friends continue for awhile, but no new points are really made. There is just a basic back and forth between the two groups, with Job constantly asking why the wicked are not punished and the friends interpreting Job’s statements as derisive comments against them. This particular section closed in the middle of these discussions, so I still do not know quite how Job’s crisis ends.
In all honesty, it is hard to find a redeeming quality about this book so far. Job is right in that he is innocent and should not be punished, and as I mentioned before, it is quite stunning that God would toy with a loyal, God-fearing individual in order to win what is basically just a bet. Job’s friends say God would never punish someone without just cause, but as far as I can tell, they are completely wrong in this book. They do not seem to realize that Job is indeed blameless and has done nothing to warrant such atrocities that are occurring (or have already occurred) in his life. This book is not having a beneficial effect on the reader’s view of God. It actually makes God seem a little evil. There are various occasions throughout the narrative that make God seem less loving and more willing to simply kill and harm humans on a whim, but it is possible to explain these away. In this case though, I am having trouble with that. I hope there is a redeeming quality soon, but it would be very hard to make this book have a happy ending, short of going back in time and repairing the damage, which I am sure does not happen.

Esther 1-Job 6

2009-06-16T21:35:00.001-07:00

The Book of Esther opened with a description of a banquet held by King Xerxes of Persia. It is said to be very extravagant and opulent with the goal of demonstrating the generosity of Xerxes. He sends his eunuchs (a whole team of them) to fetch his wife, Queen Vashti, but she refuses to come. Already I was thinking this must be the end of her because she was refusing a man, and my suspicions seemed to be in the right direction when Xerxes was described as being incredibly angry with her for refusing. He believes that women everywhere will start disobeying their husbands and doing what they want, as opposed to what their husbands tell them to do. Apparently, Xerxes would not have been a fan of the feminist movement. This is, interestingly, the first blatant act of sexism for the last few books. Of course, it can be argued that the people with the prejudice are the Persians in this case, and not the Israelites. Xerxes issues a letter to the entire empire declaring that Queen Vashti is banished and every man should be the ruler of his own house. As much as I dislike the sexism in the Bible, I can’t help but feel Queen Vashti should have known better. After all, considering the time, disobeying a husband was bad news for the wife. And Vashti’s personal situation was even more significant; she was disobeying a king as well as her husband, so her fate was pretty much sealed. Xerxes’ ministers search the land for a new, beautiful virgin to become the new queen, and various women are sent into the king’s bedroom for him to decide on. It is not a mystery what the criteria for judgment was, but if the king was not overly pleased, she would be sent away. Finally, Esther, the cousin of Mordecai, is presented to the king, and he chooses her as his new queen. Mordecai then shows his loyalty to the king by preventing an assassination plot from going through. Afterwards, Xerxes promoted a man named Haman to a very high position. However, Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman, which obviously makes him angry. I do not know why exactly Mordecai decided not to show Haman respect, but it seems a little uncalled for. Haman may later be a despised figure, but at this point, he has done nothing to earn the spite of Mordecai. So, doing what any obviously unhinged biblical figure would do, Haman orders the Jews killed as revenge against Mordecai because, evidently, just killing Mordecai would not satiate Haman’s anger. A date roughly a year in advance is chosen as the day everyone will massacre the Jews, and Mordecai hears about it. He begs Esther to plead their case to the king, as the king does not yet know Esther is Jewish, and he loves her very much. Therefore, Esther plans to use the fact that she too will be killed on that day to force Xerxes to take the side of the Jews. Esther invites both Haman and Xerxes to a banquet, which Haman agrees to happily, and enjoys greatly. He sees Mordecai afterwards and plans to kill him. At this point, Xerxes has remembered Mordecai’s loyalty and also that he forgot to reward him, and begins asking people for ideas on how to reward Mordecai. Haman walks in, and Xerxes asks him as well. Haman naturally assumes he is to be honored and describes an elaborate plan to honor the still unknown person. Xerxes promptly accepts Haman’s idea and rewards Mordecai, which infuriates Haman. Esther reveals that she is Jewish and will have to die because of Haman, so Xerxes has Haman killed. He gives Mordecai permission to issue a writ to benefit the Jews, but because the original order to slaughter them cannot be revoked (it is written in the name of the king and sealed with his signet ring, an order that can never be revoked), Mordecai simply tells the Jews and the leaders of the country to fight back. They do so, and the Jewish population is saved by Esther and Mordecai. This victory comes to be celebrated as the Festival of Purim, and the book closes with a brief summary of the accomplishments of Xerxes and Mordecai. I then moved into the infamous Book of Job. This particular book opens with a brief characterization of Job; he is hard-working, successful, and most importantly, God-fearing. The heavenly court presents itself before God, and Satan, who is obviously very bored, goes with them. He has, apparently, been patrolling on the earth, and God mentions his servant Job. Satan claims the only reason Job is so God-fearing is because he has been given so much in his life, a statement God evidently decides he must prove wrong. From what I can see here, Satan’s opinion of God matters to Him greatly. He allows Satan to ruin Job’s life to win this gentleman’s bet. God tells Satan to do whatever he wants as long as Job’s health is not affected. Satan proceeds to kill his servants, animals, crops, and even children. Job and his wife are left alone and impoverished, but Job does not blame God. Satan tells God that, with his health intact, there is no proof of Job’s pure love of God. God allows Satan to make Job seriously ill, and Job still does not curse God. Job’s three friends arrive, and the main text of the book begins. Job claims he wishes he could die and curses the day he was born, but never God. The response of his first friend (Eliphaz), which is was near the end of this section, basically tells Job he must have been sinning in some way, or else he would not be punished in such a brutal way. Job claims he has not been sinning and there is no reason for the punishment, and the section closed with Job’s response.
I can honestly say the story of Job is shaping up to be one of the most, if not the single most, disturbing story so far. Job is a decent person; he does not sin and he lives his life as well as possible. It is implied that he is very charitable and he tries very hard to make sure his children are pure as well by burning offerings in their name every so often. He obviously loves his family and he cares about his community as well as his flocks. Satan, though, goads God into letting him ruin Job’s life and even his health. I can’t imagine why a God who is loving and all-powerful would do this. I also don’t understand why God would decide it is a good idea to try to prove Satan wrong. People are taught in kindergarten to ignore this type of person, and God is theoretically so far above this kind of behavior I don’t know how this book even made it into the Bible. It makes God seem like Satan has some sort of power over Him, if only the power to manipulate. It also seems that bad things happen to good people when the heavenly beings want to toy with humans. Again, I find it hard to reconcile a loving God with something I consider pretty atrocious. With that said, I thought the Book of Esther was actually fun to read. It didn’t involve God in any way, which is an interesting contrast from Job, where God’s actual conversations with other heavenly (or hellish, I suppose) beings are depicted. We went from absolutely no divine intervention to complete divine intervention. I usually like to see some of the people talking to God, but Esther wasn’t bad all the same. It wasn’t my favorite book, obviously, but it had an interesting story that did not detract to the overall feel of the narrative, which I think is more or less slowing to a stop. The Israelites are back in Judah, and other than the empires that control the land being conquered by other empires, I don’t think there are many more significant events. Of course, I could be entirely wrong; I am in completely uncharted territory in terms of the information I’ve heard about. I have a few more days of Job, and then I will move on to Psalms, which I look forward to greatly.

Nehemiah 1-13

2009-06-15T19:48:00.001-07:00

This book continues in the precedent of first-person narrative established by Ezra. The first half of the book focuses on Nehemiah, the former cup-bearer for the Persian king, and his journey back to Jerusalem once the Israelites were allowed to return from exile. He was instrumental in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem, which was opposed by foreign nations. Nehemiah puts armed guards on the wall’s lowest sections to protect their efforts, and this deters the attackers sufficiently. Next, he scolds the Israelite officials for charging interest on loans. Because the Book of Laws orders the Israelites never to charge interest on their brethren, Nehemiah (who at this point is the governor of Judah, a reign that lasts twelve years) orders the money lenders to repay the interest they had collected and absolve the people of their debts. More opposition to the rebuilding occurs when the enemies of the Israelites accuse Nehemiah of trying to incite a rebellion against Persia, which he denies. They try to lure him out of Jerusalem to catch him in a sinful act and remove him from power, but Nehemiah sees through their attempts and continues with his work. Finally, after fifty-two days of work, the wall around the entire city of Jerusalem is completely finished. Nehemiah then registers the people in a manner resembling the Book of Ezra, which actually contains some parallel text. The books were apparently written about concurrent times, and eventually do sync up entirely. Ezra reads the law at the request of the Israelites, and the narrative actually shifts to a third-person style again. I thought this was note-worthy; it struck me that Nehemiah might not be the original author of the second half of this book. It also began to align with the Book of Ezra in a significant way, as many of the events written occurred in both books. The people pray to God, trying to atone for their past sins, and mention they are now slaves in the fertile land that was promised to them. The people vow to follow all the laws issued by God, including a ban on intermarriage and a refusal to work on the Sabbath. The next chapter was a little strange. The occupants of Jerusalem were chosen by lot within the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and those who were not chosen remained in their ancestral towns around the territory. The wall of Jerusalem is then dedicated, and it appears that the narrative moves back to a first-person style. Nehemiah returns to the king of Persia, but is soon back in Jerusalem to solve a few problems. The people had been working on the Sabbath, not giving the priests their required portion of food, and had married foreigners. I was a little surprised at the willingness of the Israelites to, once again, revert to ways against the laws they swore to obey. They had only been back in Judah a short time before they begin breaking God’s laws, but Nehemiah puts a stop to this and ends their disrespect towards God. Nehemiah, as was typical in the chapter, closes by asking God to remember all his deeds and take favor with him. This was new for the books in the Bible, but I suppose that is simply because, until Ezra, nothing had been first-person. Moses is traditionally said to have written much of the early texts, and some prophets write later ones, so they write in third-person from a historical point of view. While Nehemiah was a chronicle of history, it was also an example of Nehemiah’s own fear of God.
Only the Bible could devote an entire book to the building of a wall. It wasn’t the most exciting or relevant book so far, but I actually did enjoy it; it was fun to read more about the reestablishment of Judah and specifically Jerusalem, and I was also somewhat entertained (albeit in an ironic manner) by the Israelites’ willingness to abandon all pretense and sin, as working on the Sabbath is a fairly obvious law to break. The narrative shifts were interesting. I looked into it, and most people point to Ezra as the author of this book, but concede that Nehemiah may have had a hand in writing it because of the first-person attributes of it. I can certainly believe that Ezra and Nehemiah might have had a hand in writing it, as Ezra was the scribe in Nehemiah’s time, and therefore the perfect person to record the events of the time. In addition, there are quite a few parallels in the two books. Of course, they both relate to the same time period, so if the books are at all accurate they should have some overlap. The most important thing I’ve noticed since the Israelites were allowed to return home is a shift in the overall mood. Before the exile, they seemed to take the land for granted. That is, they had no problem with sinning and only calling out to God when they needed help. However, at this point they seem to be humbled completely. They are somewhat less willing to sin and are notably less argumentative with their leaders. This seems to further emphasize the point that Judah was, at one point, an independent kingdom, but is now reduced to a province of a large power. This is not a status the region would lose for millennia, as when one empire lost the region, it fell into the lap of another. This entry relates to the entire Book of Nehemiah, and the next section to be read will move through the Book of Esther and begin on the Book of Job.

2 Chronicles 34-Ezra 10

2009-06-14T22:20:00.000-07:00

Chronicles ended in this section, discussing the reign of Josiah once again, who reestablished Passover, found the Book of Laws, destroyed the Judean pagan worship, and brought Judah back to God. He was considered one of the great kings and the Bible also mentions that no other king held a Passover celebration like he did. Obviously this includes David, so he was apparently a comparable king to David and Solomon. Of course this makes sense because he followed God more closely than any of his ancestors since Solomon, but it also indicates that the Israelites were not totally hopeless after David. If there was a king who led them in the right direction, their obedience to God would be significantly improved. Josiah dies and the prophet Jeremiah composes a funeral song for him that eventually becomes the Book of Lamentations. Judah is effectively a vassal state starting with the deposition of Josiah’s successor by the Egyptians, a situation that I believe lasts for the rest of the Bible. Judah is then conquered by the Babylonians, who in turn are conquered by the Persians. This was of benefit for the Judeans, however; King Cyrus of Persia allowed the Israelites to return to Judah and rebuild their Temple. The return to Judah must also solidify the end of Israel and the tribes as lost (though there are groups of people claiming to be descended from these lost tribes, but that’s not particularly relevant). In any case, Chronicles ended and the reading moved into Ezra, which begins with the exiles returning to Judah. Cyrus finds and returns the treasures taken from the Temple, which includes various basins, bowls, and incense burners. The Ark and other specific religious items are not mentioned, so I therefore assume they are not returned (the Urim and Thummim are, however, mentioned as being needed to be consulted, so they might have made it back). The Israelites return to Jerusalem and rebuild the altar first, followed by work on the actual Temple, which is met with feelings of joy. The older members of the nation begin to weep when the foundation is laid, as they had seen the First Temple; I take this weeping to be out of joy, rather than sorrow, or perhaps a mixture of the two. After all, it had to have been a pretty emotional experience to see the new Temple in its infancy after having been through so much. They are met with slight opposition, including an order by King Artaxerxes to halt the construction, but this is overturned later on by King Darius. The Temple is finally completed and dedicated after a long stretch of work. Ezra is introduced as a scribe educated in the Laws of Moses, and he returns to Judah to help rebuild the society. Here the narrative shifts from third-person to first-person, allowing Ezra to describe his experiences first hand. Ezra and the exiles he travels with arrive in Jerusalem and present countless sacrifices, after which Ezra is informed that many Israelites have married people of other nations. Ezra tears his clothing and sits down in utter shock that the “holy race has become polluted.” I thought that was a bit xenophobic to be honest, but they seem to have their reasons. Ezra’s reaction was a little over the top, as he simply tore his clothes and did not speak until the evening. The entire ninth chapter of the Book of Ezra is devoted to Ezra’s prayer against intermarriage, so I think it is fairly clear where he stands on it. Ezra then demands that all the men who intermarried divorce their wives and abandon their children with those wives, which struck me as just a terrible solution. Abandoning those who were defenseless (and at this point, women and children are certainly defenseless) does not seem like a way to absolve for sin. Rather, it seems like a way to amplify sin. I suppose I understand the reason for this abandonment (in terms of the Laws of Moses, not in terms of survival), but I can’t say I am too pleased with it. In any case, the Book of Ezra closes with a list of people guilty of intermarriage.
This last section of Chronicles wasn’t too different from any others aside from the mention of Cyrus. The exiles are finally allowed to return to Judah which was, to me, completely new material. I did know they eventually returned based on the fact that I knew there was another Temple, but I did not know the exact story. In that light, the Book of Ezra was very interesting because it was new and did advance the narrative, whereas Chronicles, of course, did not. I can’t say I am particularly thrilled with Ezra’s solution to the intermarriage problem, although I don’t really even see it as a problem. My point of view, however, might make it hard for me to understand the feelings against intermarriage in ancient Judah, so I will just leave the issue at that. One important thing I noted in Chronicles was the name Jozabad, which had no actual relevance to the story beyond being a name I liked. Now that the Israelites are back in Jerusalem, I have no idea what to expect; my previous biblical knowledge was a basic understanding of Genesis, Exodus, and bits and pieces of stories here and there. The exile was even unfamiliar territory so I am looking forward to seeing more narrative. I hope there is more personal interaction with God as there was early on in the Bible, as that was lost after Solomon was king and I thought that made the story much more interesting. In my opinion, it gave the books of the Bible a very personal connection with, at the very least, the god of the ancient Israelites. It had almost a romantic feel to it at times because the people would strive so diligently to follow God but come up short regardless of their efforts. Even the paramount figure of Moses could not be perfect all the time. Tomorrow I move through the Book of Nehemiah, followed by Esther and later the infamous story of Job.

2 Chronicles 23-33

2009-06-14T00:44:00.000-07:00

This section continues the summary of the kings of Judah and, to a lesser extent, Israel. Athaliah is overthrown in favor of a seven year old Joash, who is advised by the priest Jehoiada. Jehoida institutes various religious reforms to go along with Joash’s renovation of the Temple, but these reforms are reversed when Jehoida dies and Joash begins worshipping other gods. Joash even has Jehoida’s son killed for disagreeing with him, so Joash is no longer in God’s favor and dies. He is succeeded by Amaziah and Uzziah, who are both generally in God’s favor until Uzziah burns incense in the Temple on his own. Because of this, he contracts leprosy for the rest of his life and is finally succeeded by Joham, who rebuilds some of the Temple. Ahaz succeeds Uzziah, but follows the lead of the Israelite kings and worships other gods. Again, I noted that Judah is the main focus of the book, which makes me believe the author was from Judah. Israel is considered the enemy many times and their kings are constantly made to sound evil. The idea of Israel being evil seems to also be an explanation of why Israel was not reestablished while Judah was. Ahaz closes the Temple because he believes worshipping the gods of the nations that are defeating him will increase his chances of winning battles, but God causes him to lose. Obviously God would be angry, because Ahaz is breaking one of the Ten Commandments; it is another case of a blatant disregard of God’s rules, but I can’t say much more about the amount of apparent apathy towards God’s laws than I already have. I still feel that the Israelites tend to give up on God too easily. King Hezekiah is the next king of Judah, and he rebuilds and rededicates the Temple. Hezekiah’s reign is discussed in greater detail now than it was in Kings. He reinstitutes the celebration of Passover and invites the people of Israel to Jerusalem to celebrate. Many come, and this actually makes the Israelites want to destroy any pagan symbols. The celebration lasted for seven days as mandated by the Laws of Moses. He also defeats the invading Assyrians when they move to conquer Judah, thereby saving Judah from the same fate that Israel eventually meets. Hezekiah is considered a good king in the eyes of God and is eventually succeeded by Manasseh, who worships pagan gods. He is considered a failure and is succeeded by Amon, which ends the section.
I thought this was a little more interesting; there was very little detail about Hezekiah’s reign in Kings, so hearing a little more information was a nice reprieve from the monotony that I have found in Chronicles. It was new information, which has not been the point of Chronicles so far. For the most part, Chronicles is just a basic summary of what happened after Moses. I think reading Chronicles and Deuteronomy might be enough to give someone a good understanding of the major biblical stories as they both act as summaries. Of course, the reader would miss out on some of the more interesting minor stories that are uncovered throughout the narrative. I am looking forward to getting into the next few books, including Psalms and Proverbs, but before that, I have a few other famous books to move through. Tomorrow though will be the last day of Chronicles and, incidentally, the entire Book of Ezra.

2 Chronicles 7-22

2009-06-13T16:08:00.001-07:00

This section summarized the end of Solomon’s reign and the fracturing of Israel. The north, known as Israel, broke off from the south, known as Judah. Judah was the main focus of these chapters, however; Israel was only mentioned when an evil comparison was needed. For instance, though some kings were not wicked in the eyes of God, the ones that were apparently followed in the ways of the kings of Israel. The reign of Rehoboam was expanded upon, as well as those of Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, and their successors. The kings get progressively less and less interested in following the laws of God, which, as we already know, eventually leads to their being conquered by foreign powers. Jeroboam, the first king of the separate kingdom of Israel, is mentioned by name and battles with him are described, but it is rare to see any more than a brief mention of a king of Israel as opposed to Judah. I believe this is because Judah was reestablished later on, but Israel was not. The kingdom of Israel was completely destroyed by the Assyrians, and the people were exiled. This of course led to the lost tribes of Israel, as the tribes living in the north were never allowed to return to their homeland. However, the tribes living in Judah (Benjamin and Judah) were allowed to return, albeit as subjects of a foreign power. Therefore, Judah became the sole homeland of the Israelites, and the histories (in this case, the Bible) were written by people from Judah causing them to be biased and focused on Judah. The section ended with a string of bad kings culminating in the queen mother, Athaliah, ruling in Judah after killing the rest of the royal family. I can’t say much else about this section because I’ve already given my thoughts on it in earlier posts and this is still just a summary of what has happened so far. I do have a theory though that Chronicles was not necessarily meant to be in the same book as Exodus, Judges, Samuel, and all the rest of the books describing the Israelite exploits in great deal. That is to say, Chronicles is an apt title; it chronicles the history of the Israelites, but it is a redundant book because the previous books had the same function with greater depth. I feel it might have been written as a way to briefly educate the people of Judah on their society’s history, as it does indeed take less time to read Chronicles than the many books before it. It also could have helped because there was less organization in terms of a single reference for the information. Having something like Chronicles would allow the people to learn their history in a single, summarized place.

1 Chronicles 24-2 Chronicles 6

2009-06-11T19:53:00.000-07:00

This section summarized the end of David’s reign and the beginning of Solomon’s. In this time, the Temple was built and Solomon said a public prayer to ensure the continued protection of the Israelites. In addition, the tasks of various groups of people, including the musicians, were elaborated on. The only thing I felt worth mentioning was the musicians’ sons; each one had at least twelve sons, as twelve sons were chosen from each of them to aid them in their work. This struck me as incredibly convenient, as I have trouble believing so many (there were quite a few musicians) people would have such a consistent amount of children. The amount of offspring per person varies considerably, and though this isn’t a criticism, I was skeptical of the number. Tasks of priests were chosen by sacred lot (that is, the Urim and Thummim) to ensure no favoritism was shown. David’s reign ended 1 Chronicles and Solomon took the throne and built the Temple, overlaying it with gold as was discussed in earlier chapters and books, at the start of 2 Chronicles. The Temple is completed, and the Israelites are at the height of their power. There is not much else to say about Chronicles; I honestly do not think it is even relevant to ancient Israelites if they have the rest of the books. The genealogy is not even particularly useful. It is, at most, somewhat interesting. I suppose though that the genealogy was more important if it could determine one’s role in society. However, the Israelite society does actually seem quite fluid. David was the last son of Jesse who had no important achievements to his name, and he became the king of a united Israel, for example. Because of that, I don’t believe the genealogies were pivotal in the lives of the Israelites. Beyond that I don’t have anything to say; Chronicles is not terribly exciting.

1 Chronicles 10-23

2009-06-10T23:03:00.001-07:00

This section continued in the same vein as 1-9; it was largely a summary and wrap-up of what has happened so far. This section, however, focused on the exploits of King David, including his ascent to power and his reign. Saul’s death was discussed in the first chapter, as was the reason for his death. To refresh your memory, he died because he had disobeyed God on multiple occasions, starting with being merciful to a group of people God had ordered killed. However, before his death, he pursues David, fearing David will eventually gain more power than himself. This fear was obviously legitimate because the situation that occurred left Saul’s family destroyed and David on the throne. But David did nothing to Saul to provoke this hostility, so obviously the reader sympathizes with David, despite Saul starting out with such high hopes. David is made king of Israel and proceeds to conquer the rest of the land, fighting against Saul’s son Ishbosheth. When David attempted to move the Ark, the cart carrying it hit a bump and Uzzah, one of the men assisting in moving the Ark, reached his hand out to steady it, and God “struck him dead.” David was angry about this, which I thought was interesting; it gave a unique amount of depth to David, something that is not demonstrated with a large portion of the biblical figures. David names the land after the man and leaves the Ark in a safe place for the time being. David finally succeeds in moving the Ark to Jerusalem and sings a song of praise. His military exploits are summarized and the section ended with a description of the duties and divisions of the Levites.
Again, I have very little to say. There was nothing particularly new about this section that I have not already said in a previous section (namely Judges, Kings, and Samuel), so I think I will end this response with this, and hope that, as I continue Chronicles over the next few days, more information that I have not seen before is presented.

1 Chronicles 1-9

2009-06-09T21:32:00.001-07:00

There is really not much to say about this section. The majority of it is dedicated to genealogy, which is not particularly relevant to the story or to my personal interpretation thereof. There are a few interesting points though. First, it is said Reuben, the oldest son of Jacob, slept with his father’s concubine, and was therefore denied his birthright, which went to Joseph. I presume that, if a birthright is rejected somehow, it may be given to whomever the father decides is the most worthy. We know Joseph was the favorite, so it comes as no surprise that Jacob would have chosen him to receive the birthright. Another interesting section discussed musicians of the court, who were all Levites. They weren’t relevant, but I thought it was worth noting their mention. The territory for the Levites was discussed as well as the family of Saul, who is, incidentally, of the tribe of Benjamin. A small mention of returning exiles is also included. It appears that the Levite priests returned to Judah first, followed by small bands of the other tribes that had lived in Judah before the exile. The section wrapped up with another listing of Saul’s family tree, and that was basically it.
I have very little to say about this. I liked hearing an explanation for why Reuben was not given his birthright, but the genealogies are irrelevant. I am certain they had a purpose; it was the family histories of the Israelites, and putting them in the one book everyone referenced and had access to was an obvious choice. I am also sure these lists were once oral traditions, but obviously writing them down is more accurate. I hope they expand on the return of the Israelites to Judah more because the mention of the event in this section was slim.

2 Kings 16-25

2009-06-08T17:56:00.001-07:00

This section opens with King Ahaz of Judah, who is wicked in that he sacrifices his own son. He also tears down parts of the temple and builds a new altar to worship pagan gods, acts which anger God. Ahaz puts the old altar on the other side of the new one, and commands that it be for his personal use. There is at least one benefit of the Bible over other religions and their customs: the Bible expressly forbids human sacrifice. While I am in no position to judge other cultures, I think this is a pretty positive attribute of the Bible and the religions that adhere to it. When King Hoshea of Israel is in power, Israel is attacked and defeated by Assyira; they are forced to pay tribute, but King Hoshea eventually stops. Because of this, Israel is conquered by the Assyrians, and the people there are forced into exile. This would be the point that serves as the basis for the phrase the “Lost Tribes of Israel,” as foreigners settle in the land and the Israelites of the north are sent away. The explanation given is God’s wrath; he has continually given them more chances to redeem themselves and repent from their evil ways, but they do not. Therefore, God tires of giving them so many opportunities and banishes them from his presence. To provide a secular view as well, it is possible this event was just a typical conquest of one nation by another. The domination of the Israelites and subsequent exile is not atypical of a multitude of historical events, and the Bible simply gives a religious explanation. These are not, of course, mutually exclusive; in fact, the religious explanation simply helps the Israelites to understand why a bad thing can happen as opposed to another common explanation, which is that there is no reason and they just happened to lose. The new residents of Israel allow some Israelite priests to return and teach them the laws of God, because when they first moved in some were killed by lions for not obeying God. However, though they did begin to obey God, they also followed past religious traditions, a practice that was still going on when the Book of Kings was written (which is to say awhile after the initial conflict). In Judah, King Hezekiah rules in a manner that pleases God. He destroys the pagan shrines and the bronze snake Moses had made because the people were offering sacrifices to it, which constitutes idol worship (incidentally, at this point the narrative names the bronze snake “Nehushtan.” It isn’t relevant at all so I wonder why they even included it, but I liked the word so I thought I would mention it). The Assyrians threaten Judah and send messengers who inevitably insult the Judean king. God is on the Judeans’ side so He has the Assyrian king killed. The prophet Isaiah informs Hezekiah that God will help defeat the Assyrians, who then sends His angel of death to kill 185,000 Assyrian troops. With that, the Assyrian threat to Judah is eliminated. I am slightly inclined to think that the prophesying done by Isaiah to predict the Assyrian downfall was inserted later to make the result seem more based on God’s will and reinforce his power. I do not know for sure, of course, but I do have suspicions. Hezekiah is succeeded by Manasseh, who does evil in God’s eyes, cursing Judah to be destroyed just as Israel was. Manasseh is assassinated and succeeded by his son Amon, who is in turn succeeded by Josiah. Josiah orders Temple repairs and renovations, and in the process the Book of the Law is rediscovered. This is a pretty significant event; it not only explains how the people could have fallen so far from God but also why the Temple was constantly defiled by pagan altars. It also surprises me that they could have misplaced such a valuable document, but I suppose this event is explained by all the evil kings ruling Judah and Israel. The king has the high priest find a prophet and inquire about the words written in it. The prophet tells the priest and his entourage that Judah will be destroyed for not following the Book of the Law, but to tell the king that, because he showed remorse, the curse will be lifted. Josiah then travels around Judah and eliminates any trace of their worship to pagan gods followed by reinstitution of the celebration of Passover. Despite this, God is still angry with Judah and plans to banish them just as He did with Israel (which to me reads like an explanation of why Judah fell, similar to the explanation for Israel-as in, God being angry was not decided upon until later). When Josiah dies, he is replaced by a string of different kings, and Judah comes under the dominance of Egypt. Later, they come under the influence of Babylon, an experience that concludes with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians after King Zedekiah rules. Zedekiah’s eyes are gouged out and he is taken prisoner, and the Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed, thus ending the age of the First Temple. The people of Judah are exiled and the Book of Kings ends on that low note.
This section was a little depressing. After reading about the struggle for the Promised Land, the Israelites end up banished from it, and I have come to sympathize for the Israelites, as one is supposed to do while reading the Bible. Of course, I understand this is a history book in addition to a religious one, so the events that occurred were not, theoretically, simply fabricated to extort an emotional response. I realize it is largely their fault; they did not follow the laws set down by Moses, and losing the book is not an excuse. The loss of the book is simply another example of the Israelites’ disinterest in following God. It was interesting to read the source of the lost tribes, which is the exile by the Assyrians and Babylonians (specifically the Assyrians, as the lost tribes were concentrated in the north, or the kingdom of Israel, as opposed to the south, which contained Judah). I was not as happy with 2 Kings because I felt there was less interaction with God. The people and kings of the two kingdoms were simply living their lives completely disconnected from God, and the actual interaction with Him made the previous books of the Bible very interesting. I hope to see a little more of that in the books of the Minor Prophets, but I don’t expect it in Psalms or Proverbs because my first impression of those books is of sayings and advice more than narrative and explicit discussion with God. This section ended the Book of Kings, and tomorrow will see the start of 1 Chronicles.

2 Kings 5-15

2009-06-07T22:14:00.001-07:00

This section opens with the story of Elisha healing a leper by instructing him to bathe in the Jordan River seven times. The leper, Naaman, is an Aramean commander. He promises to only worship God, but requests that God forgive him for helping his king worship the Aramean god. He tries to give Elisha a gift, but Elisha refuses. However, Elisha’s servant Gehazi finds Naaman and takes the gifts for himself. Elisha finds out about this and curses Gehazi by giving him the same leprosy Naaman was cured of. More miracles undertaken by Elisha are discussed, including an event where he makes an ax head float so it can be recovered and placed back on the handle of the ax. The Arameans attack the Israelites again, but Elisha tricks them into walking into Samaria, the capital of Israel. He allows them to leave, claiming they do not kill prisoners of war but instead allow them to return home, which they do. However, the Arameans are said to leave Israel alone (at least for a little bit, as they attack Israel now more than the Philistines). When the Israelites are attacked again though, a great famine erupts in the city. A woman appeals to the king, claiming she and another woman made a pact to eat their sons; on the first day, the first woman’s son was eaten, but on the second day, the second woman hid her son. This was presented in a pretty casual way, as if it was not uncommon for cannibalism to be the best method for fighting famine. The king reacts in horror (at least what I optimistically interpret as horror) by tearing his clothes and calling for Elisha’s death. Lepers visit the camp of the attacking enemies, and find it deserted; God has tricked them into fleeing, and the lepers discover an abundance of food and wine. They share the news with the city, and the town is relieved of its famine. The Aramean king is murdered by his eventual successor, Hazael, who will eventually attack Israel. At this point, the king of Israel is Joram and the king of Judah is Ahaziah (still of the Davidic line). Elisha anoints a man named Jehu to be king of Israel; he eventually kills both Joram and Ahaziah, succeeding Joram as the king of Israel. Jehu kills Jezebel in a very brutal fashion. He convinces some eunuchs that appear to be waiting on her to push her out a window, and the Bible expands on the result. Blood is everywhere, and her remains are subsequently eaten by dogs. Finally, Jehu tracks down and kills the rest of Ahab’s family, eliminating his descendents once and for all. To do this, Jehu coerces the city elders in Samaria to deliver him the heads of the seventy sons of Ahab. They are put in two large piles, giving one of the more gruesome images in the Bible so far. Jehu also manages to kill a large amount of Ahaziah’s descendents. It struck me that Jehu has killed quite a few people in a very short amount of time. I understand this is God’s will, but I have trouble accepting or stomaching the massive amounts of slaughter that go along with being a man of God. The family of Ahab is now wiped out, and Jezebel has been eaten by dogs. To refresh your memory, Ahab was the king before Joram, and his wife was Jezebel. She is no longer the queen, but the queen mother. Ahab was one of the more evil kings so far, so God cursed him. Being the most evil is certainly saying something; the depictions of each king after David have been becoming consistently more negative. Jehu then kills all the prophets of Baal (the god Ahab worshipped) by tricking them into coming to a large gathering and instructing his army to slaughter them in a lovely display of religious persecution. I do understand his motives, of course; Jehu was enforcing the law as well as the will of God who had physically spoken to him through visions. In addition, the context of the story must be taken into account. It was not a liberal-minded era and most of the issues presented had a kill or be killed result, so much of the bloodshed was absolutely necessary for survival. The temple of Baal is destroyed, and in its place a public toilet is built. This struck me as adding insult to injury, but it was actually a slightly comical idea (of course, it is also pretty intolerant and disrespectful, but I figure you have to look past that aspect). Jehu dies and is replaced by his son Jehoahez (if you have been following these names, I applaud you; even I find them to be incredibly confusing). In Judah, Ahaziah’s mother kills the rest of the royal family. Ahaziah’s sister saves his infant son Joash and hides him from the reign of terror committed by his mother, Queen Athaliah. Joash is hidden for six years, but this story reminds me strongly of the birth story of Zeus. His father eats his siblings, but he is hidden by his mother to one day overthrow his father. Both Joash and Zeus were hidden away for an eventual rebellion against the reigning leader, a situation that did eventually occur against Athaliah. Athaliah is finally killed after the priests overthrow her and install Joash, the rightful king, on the throne. Joash is later assassinated after ordering the Temple to be repaired. The exploits of various other kings in their wars against Aram are summarized in the next few verses, which is honestly starting to get a little boring. I understand this is a historical as well as a religious text, but I imagine this is the part of history class where ancient Israelites fell asleep. Israel and Judah fight a battle in which Judah is absolutely crushed, and the section ends with a brief summary of later kings of both Israel and Judah. Most of these reigns appear to be detailed in two books, the Book of the History of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. I am curious as to what these books say, but I doubt it is of any significance beyond satisfying my mild curiosity.
One of the major points I noticed was the inconsistency of the kings of Israel. There is very little familial continuity. For example, a few of the kings are assassinated by an unrelated individual who then becomes king himself. This is in direct contrast to the kings of Judah, who seem to have a much more solid right to rule; after all, they are descended from David. This is explained in the Bible by claiming God has kept the line of David intact because David was such a God fearing individual, whereas the kings of Israel have no such covenant. I also noted that it seems the kings and history of Israel is more of the focus than Judah. I feel this is somewhat backwards; I get the impression Judah is the more continuous line of the ancient Israelites because this is a more ancient line of kings who get their right to rule directly from God. In any case I am finding these last few chapters to be fairly boring overall. There is little to discuss, as most of the history appears to be in the two books I mentioned at the end of the summary. I wonder if these are still in existence, though I doubt they are of much significance to the narrative. I will end 2 Kings tomorrow and begin 1 Chronicles the next day.

1 Kings 16-2 Kings 4

2009-06-07T01:21:00.000-07:00

This section opened up with some more kings who were wicked in the eyes of God. We eventually get to a certain king of Israel known as Ahab who marries a Sidonian named Jezebel. She convinces him to worship one of her gods, which angers God. The narrative then shifts over to a new individual, the prophet Elijah, who is fed by ravens and helps keep a woman and her son alive by promising their flour and olive oil will not run out until a new harvest comes. Her son eventually dies, but Elijah stretches himself out three times over the boy and he is resurrected. This is proof to the woman that Elijah was a man of God (the unlimited flour wasn’t?), and she is satisfied with his work. We move to Elijah’s appearance in front of King Ahab, telling him the drought they are experiencing will end soon. Elijah also calls 450 prophets of Baal, a pagan god, to participate in a contest. Both are told to call upon their god or gods to light an offering on fire without doing it themselves. The prophets of Baal call for him to light the offering on fire all day but to no avail, while Elijah pours water all over his offering and has it immediately light on fire when he calls out to God, disproving Baal’s existence. Elijah calls for rain, which comes in droves; however, this kills the prophets of Baal, which angers Jezebel. She vows to kill Elijah who flees for his life, calling out to God that he has had enough, and finally falling asleep under a broom tree. God wakes him up twice, both times telling him to eat, and Elijah then travels to Mount Sinai. God asks Elijah what he is doing there, and Elijah repeats his complaint. He cites the Israelites breaking of their covenant as a reason to give up his prophesying, and mentions that he is the only prophet left, but they still are trying to kill him. God gives him instructions on who to appoint as king of Israel and Aram in addition on who to appoint as a replacement for him as prophet after his death. Elisha is chosen to replace Elijah, who begins his career as Elijah’s personal assistant. Israel is then attacked by Aram, who is defeated in the hills by Ahab. The Arameans attack again, and are again repulsed by the Israelites. A different prophet condemns Ahab, which doesn’t make sense. Elijah was said to be the last prophet, and he only has appointed one other person: Elisha. I don’t know where this other prophet came from and I wonder if this section was inserted later, because it seems like a rather hasty addition to the book. This unnamed prophet tells someone to hit him, but the person refuses to strike a man of God. This person is rewarded in a biblical way: he is slaughtered by a lion for disobeying (which is, at least, a new way to be executed in the Bible). The prophet has another person hit him, which injures the prophet. He tricks Ahab and winds up explaining that, because Ahab did not kill the Aramean king when he was captured, God will strike Ahab down. The narrative moves back into a domestic setting wherein Ahab’s wife has a man named Naboth falsely accused of cursing God and the king. The man is promptly stoned, which angers God. In addition to the murder, however, Ahab tries to claim Naboth’s vineyard for himself. Ahab is cursed by God, but humbles himself by mourning deeply. Thus, God promises to destroy Ahab’s dynasty through his sons instead of through Ahab himself as the prescribed punishment. Israel and Judah unite to recover a town they believe rightfully belongs to Israel from Aram, but before they attack, they consult a prophet named Micaiah (again, I don’t know where the prophet came from). Micaiah tells Ahab he will die in this battle, so Ahab has the king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, dress in royal robes, while he dresses in disguise. The Arameans wind up accidentally killing Ahab by firing a random arrow into the air. This air penetrates Ahab’s armor, and Jehoshaphat is safe. Ahab’s son Ahaziah takes the throne in Israel, and Jehoshaphat continues to reign in Judah. This ends 1 Kings, and 2 Kings opens up with Ahaziah falling through latticework in an upper room at his palace. He sends people to find out his fate from the god of Ekron, instead of the Israelite god. Elijah confronts Ahaziah about this, telling him that for this disobedience, he will surely die. Ahaziah dies, and is succeeded by his brother Joram. Elijah then begins travelling with Elisha, and is told that he will soon be taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. This is an interesting twist of fate; Elijah is not going to die, but is going to be taken up to heaven with his body intact. I wonder what the implications of this are; he has not been an especially important prophet especially when compared to various other important individuals, namely Moses, Aaron, and David. Every one of these men died, though; Moses and Aaron weren’t even allowed into the Promised Land. When Elijah is actually taken up, Elisha inherits all of his powers, and begins to perform miracles. In a brief narrative interlude war breaks out between Israel and Moab, as Moab has been a vassal state to Israel but is now in open rebellion. When the Moabite king sees he is losing the battle, he sacrifices his heir as a burnt offering on the wall of his city. The Israelites withdraw after this event, sensing a large amount of anger against them. Finally, the last chapter of the section first sees Elisha helping a poor widow. She cannot pay her debt, so Elisha gives her enough olive oil (by allowing it to never run out) to sell and pay off said debts. After this, Elisha gives an older couple a son because they are very kind to him. However, this son dies a few years later while he is working in the fields with his father. Elisha lays on the child’s body, places his mouth on the child’s mouth, and his eyes on the child’s eyes, and the boy is resurrected. This is interesting; it is the second resurrection in a very short time, and also the second in the entire Bible. I wonder if these sections were sort of an addendum. They do fit to some extent, but there is something a little out of place about them. The section closes with Elisha feeding a large group of people with only a very small amount of bread, which is again a new type of miracle.
These books have a distinctly different feel from the earlier parts of the Bible. For instance, the resurrection miracles probably would not have fit in the Pentateuch or even in Joshua or Judges. These miracles are along the same vein as getting water from a rock, but they seem more fantastic and public. The fact that they can stretch a bottle of olive oil or a loaf of bread gives the reader the perspective that, at the very least, the Israelite population is now very different, as are the authors of the Bible. The most interesting part of this section, in my opinion, is Elijah being taken up to heaven in his body. He is the only person so far who does not die; instead, he is taken up to be with God, which actually brings up the lingering issue of what happens after death. There is still no explanation, but Elijah’s fate to me implies there is some sort of afterlife. However, being whisked up to heaven also seems like an addendum. This is surprisingly out of place. Humans, specifically Israelites, may be God’s special possession, but until now he has at most appeared to them. I would understand it more if Elijah was a particularly special case, but I did not feel he warranted what one would consider a good fate any more than anyone else so far. I will have to look into this matter, and I will be ending Kings very soon.

1 Kings 8-15

2009-06-06T17:02:00.001-07:00

This section opened with the Ark of the Covenant being moved to the Temple, where it was stored in the Most Holy Place. This basically completes the Temple and readies it for worship, so Solomon praises God and dedicates it to Him. In this prayer, he mentions that foreigners will come to the Temple to praise God because they hear of His greatness. I thought this particular line opened the religion up to conversions by non-Israelites, whereas before there was no provision (and, incidentally, no restriction) for it. Obviously they would have to adhere to the same requirements as native Israelites, but I think it is of note that a conversion is, at this point, an acceptable practice, considering religion and ethnicity are so closely related. The Temple is finally dedicated with countless sacrifices, and God responds to Solomon by appearing to him and telling him He has designated the Temple as holy. However, God warns Solomon that if he or his descendents disobey God’s decrees or worship other gods, He will uproot Israel from their land and reject the Temple. Solomon then repays Hiram, the king of Tyre who provided him with resources, with a few cities. The Queen of Sheba pays tribute to Solomon, who continues to grow in wealth. Solomon appears to be so wealthy he doesn’t even know what to do with himself. He covers absolutely everything with gold, including his goblets and eating utensils (which is not at all ludicrously excessive). Silver is not used, however, because it is deemed worthless. However, silver was still given as a gift and considered a valuable prize to be had when ships returned with it, which I found strange because the Bible made note to describe it basically as the aluminum foil of its time. The Bible does mention Solomon made silver as plentiful as stone; perhaps this means its value dropped significantly. In any case, his wealth and military might are discussed in great detail. He had an exorbitant amount of chariots and horses which were stationed all over the kingdom. But this lifestyle, apparently, could not last. Solomon broke a major law by marrying foreign women, as well as having an incredible amount of wives and concubines, since kings were not supposed to have many wives: he had 700 wives and 300 concubines (which is a lot to keep track of, if you ask me. I doubt I even know a third of that many people.). Solomon built altars for these wives to worship their own gods, and began worshiping other gods himself. Why the Israelites cannot keep from doing this, even when God physically appears to them, I do not know. It is almost as if they are trying to make God angry. God tells Solomon that his descendents will not rule over all of Israel after him, but they will still rule over two tribes, Judah and Benjamin. This is because God is repaying David for his service. David followed all of God’s decrees (except for his issue with Uriah and Bathsheba), so his descendents would still be the kings of some land. Solomon finally dies, and the entire Israelite population tells his son, Rehoboam, that they will be his loyal subjects if he lightens the harsh demands and heavy taxes of Solomon. Rehoboam refuses, claiming he will not whip his subjects with whips, as his father did, but with scorpions (talk about overkill). They reject him in the north, so the northern tribes rebel. They then choose Jeroboam as their king, and the two countries are split: Israel in the north ruled by Jeroboam and Judah in the south ruled by Rehoboam. I notice both of their names end in –boam, so I wonder if that is significant or what its translation from Hebrew is. The Israelites begin to mobilize for a war with each other, but God commands them to stop, claiming the recent events were of His doing, so they cease in their actions. To continue with the rich tradition of Israelites blatantly disobeying some of the easiest laws to follow, Jeroboam built pagan idols (specifically golden calves, which makes the situation all the more ridiculous) and altars and started making sacrifices himself. God understandably got angry (I have to say, the whole “God is forgiving” tenant of Christianity is starting to make sense) and curses Jeroboam’s family; he claims that no one of his family will survive, and that the next king of Israel will be from a completely different family. Rehoboam in Judah is also breaking the laws of God, as do the successors of both kings, Abijam in Judah and Nadab and Baasha in Israel. After Abijam, however, Asa reigns in Judah, and he is actually a virtuous king who attempts to clean up the realm. He has some limited success, but remains a man of God his entire life. This whole time, however, the Israelites (in more direct disobedience of God’s instructions) are fighting each other. It should be noted that God specifically told them not to do so. With this, the section ended.
I can honestly say this section was impressive. I don’t mean that in a good way, of course; almost every king after David just completely ignores God. The people don’t help when they blindly follow the kings and worship other gods as well as fight each other after being prohibited from doing so. The most inexcusable of these infractions is the one (or ones) committed by Solomon. He has actually received visions from God and was the son of God’s leading man. But the separation of the kingdoms has finally come to pass, although they started referring to them separately much earlier on. I suppose the two cultures were separating a little bit because they seemed to have some problems with each other (for instance, the David/Ishbosheth war). The Temple is finally built, but I really don’t have much else to say beyond my comments in the summary. The next section is more Kings, but I do move into 2 Kings.

2 Samuel 22-1 Kings 7

2009-06-04T14:10:00.000-07:00

This section started with an account of David’s song of praise and his final words which were completely out of place because he was still quite alive. I know this because the next chapter saw David being told by God to take a census. He does this, and for some reason, decides he has sinned and asks God for punishment. This seems odd because God told him to take the census, so David should be rewarded if anything for obeying God. What makes this situation even stranger is that a census is considered to be such a cruel thing to do. It doesn’t seem to harm anyone; counting how many people live in a certain area is not a particularly brutal thing to do. God gives David the choice of three years of famine, three months of fleeing, or three days of plague, of which David chooses the third. However, he feels the punishment is unjust because it is not being enforced on him but on the people of Israel. So David buys a threshing floor (a flat area where the edible parts of grain would be separated from the inedible parts) and builds an altar to God, which ends the plague and subsequently 2 Samuel. Incidentally, this threshing floor is generally accepted to be the location for the temple Solomon will eventually build. The next book is 1 Kings, which opens with David in his old age. David cannot keep warm so his advisors find a young virgin to lie with him (literally, not in a biblical sense) in his arms in hopes that she will help keep him warm. This isn’t relevant to the story, but I thought it was an odd interjection. For one, it is a strange and random idea to have to keep David warm. Also, the king does not have any children with her, so her purpose in the narrative is basically none at this point. However, I thought it was worth mentioning that he did not marry her because he was at the maximum amount of wives for a king, which is at least eight and possibly eighteen (I have read contradicting accounts). This is interesting because earlier books instruct kings not to take too many wives, and both numbers seem like quite a few. In any case, the significance of Abishag does come into play a little later. David’s son Adonijah claims the throne for himself, but does not invite Nathan the prophet to a sacrifice in honor of his self appointment. Nathan tells Bathsheba to report these events to David, who has not yet announced who will succeed him. David had apparently promised Bathsheba that Solomon would be the next king, so there is a bit of a crisis occurring; Adonijah has basically decided he is the next king (indeed, he is the oldest living son of David in contention), but David must make an announcement before any official action can be taken. David subsequently announces Solomon as his successor, who rides into Jerusalem on David’s mule and sits on the throne. Adonijah swears loyalty to Solomon, so the crisis is averted and everyone returns home happily (seriously). David gives Solomon final instructions, including an order to not allow Joab to go to his grave in peace because of Joab’s murder of Abner and Amasa in earlier books. David finally dies after a reign of predictable length: forty years. So far, I believe forty is the most prevalent holy number, followed closely by seven. Solomon firmly establishes his rule, and hears a request from his mother, who in turn had heard it from Adonijah. Adonijah requests the hand of Abishag in marriage, which inexplicably makes Solomon fly off the handle. Solomon has Adonijah killed, claiming that if he gave Adonijah the girl in marriage, he might as well give him the entire kingdom because both Joab (who is soon killed) and Abiathar (who is sent away) are on Adonijah’s side as well. I am unsure of the reason behind this; I do not understand how Abishag could represent the entire kingdom, as she was basically just a live-in nurse for David. Perhaps Solomon planned to marry her himself as a representation of his ascension to the throne. By this logic, giving her to Adonijah would explicitly assert that the kingdom was rightfully his, not Solomon’s. Solomon goes on a killing spree, ridding the kingdom of all the people who were mild annoyances for David. I can’t say this endeared Solomon to me because he was basically just slaughtering people who showed slight dissent, which seems like a paranoid and unreasonable thing to do. Solomon then asks God for wisdom, which he is granted, an attribute for which he is traditionally known. Two prostitutes come to visit Solomon to settle a dispute. The first prostitute claims the second one switched the first one’s living baby with her own dead one, but the second one denies this accusation. Solomon orders the baby cut in half, and the first one gets hysterical and begs Solomon to give the child to the second prostitute so he might live, while the second prostitute is fine with the idea of both women having half the child (there is little about that situation that would not be appalling. The second prostitute is not a particularly decent person, apparently). Solomon deduces the first prostitute is his mother because she only wants the child to live, while the second one does not particularly care. This story is an example of Solomon’s wisdom, which is also demonstrated by discussing his knowledge of plants, animals, and people, as well as his brilliant leadership. I thought the prostitute story was clever. It is fairly obvious Solomon had no intention of killing the child, so the method was effective in extracting the truth from the two women. Solomon then begins construction on the Temple, which takes seven years to complete, and his own palace, which takes thirteen. Both buildings are described, and the section closes.
An interesting point that seems to arise time and time again is the fact that, despite being mandated in the early books, the oldest sons are not always given preference. Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and Solomon are examples of this; they are the younger sons, sometimes the youngest sons, but they are the most favored. As a middle child I don’t have a problem with this; it was just interesting to note. Also, the issue with the census makes some sense if one considers context. People were thought to be God’s property, so knowing how many were in existence was only something God should have the right to do. Thus, a census was taking the position of God. The only major problem with that story now is David being punished for obeying God. I also read into the polygamy issue. Polygamy is, again, a contextual issue. When the biblical stories were occurring, it was important to have as many children as possible to ensure survival of the human race. Pregnancy and childbirth have long been exceptionally dangerous events in a woman’s life, so having many wives meant many women could be pregnant at once. This raised the amount of babies who survived, and the fact that these women had husbands meant the children were guaranteed to be taken care of because a child in wedlock was a legal responsibility of the father. This also helps explain why marriage was so important; illegitimate children were not as legally bound to the fathers. This section was somewhat interesting because the Temple finally comes into play, as well as Solomon and his wisdom. It is mentioned that he wrote many proverbs in one of the chapters, which I am looking forward to reading. So far though, I like Solomon significantly less than David because he is not nearly as merciful as David was. Solomon kills many more people than David in a much shorter time span while being significantly more indiscriminate about it. In any case, 1 Kings will continue tomorrow.

2 Samuel 12-21

2009-06-04T00:05:00.001-07:00

This section opened up with the beginning of the punishment doled out to David by God for his acts with Uriah and Bathsheba. God sends Nathan, a prophet, to tell David a story. A rich man and a poor man both live in a town and the rich man has many sheep and cattle. The poor man has only one lamb that he has raised its entire life and treated as if it was one of his own children, even letting it eat from his own plate and drink from his own cup (sanitation was not the point of this story). When a visitor comes to town, the rich man steals the poor man’s lamb and cooks it, instead of his one of his own many animals. As depressing as the story is, it has a point: David has so many wives and anything he could possibly want but Uriah only had Bathsheba, with whom David slept. The poignancy of this story is pretty impressive, I thought. The parable cuts right to the quick; it expresses the wrong David has committed in a very true manner. God punishes David in a surprisingly non-biblical fashion (that is, David himself does not die or have any limbs lopped off), but still in a pretty intense manner. He causes David’s son with Bathsheba to die after seven days, during which David mourns and refuses to eat. When the child finally dies, David stops mourning, claiming it will do no good; the mourning period while the child was alive was to hopefully extract some mercy from God. Since the child died anyway, David felt it was not prudent to mourn him anymore. David then slept with his wife Bathsheba again, and she gave birth to Solomon, although God tells them to name him Jedidiah. The next section was happily disturbing; I suppose going too long without a tale that makes the reader cringe is just bad storytelling. One of David’s sons, Amnon, is in love with his half-sister Tamar. He tells her full-brother (his half-brother), Absalom, who instructs him to pretend to be sick and have Tamar feed him his favorite meal with her own hands. He does so, but while she is helping to nurse him back to health (keep in mind he is lying about being sick), he demands that she go to bed with him. When she refuses, Amnon rapes her. She begs him not to, claiming that once David learns of his desire for her, he will allow the two of them to marry. Of course, Amnon does not listen, and Absalom learns of what he has done. David also learns of the rape but does not punish Amnon, according to my Bible’s footnotes, because he is the oldest son. The story isn’t over, however; a major theme in the last few books is retribution, so Amnon is not clear of his crime. Absalom invites all of his brothers to a feast where he orders his men to kill Amnon. The other brothers flee, presumably because they think they are next, and David’s advisors inform him that Absalom has had all of the sons murdered. However, David’s nephew tells him the truth, which is verified when the brothers return to Jerusalem. Absalom has fled by now, fearing for his life. He goes to the house of his maternal grandfather and remains in exile until David is convinced to allow Absalom to return. Joab instructs a wise woman to trick David’s logic into allowing Absalom to come home. That is, she tells him a story that represents his own plight, and the response David gives indicates Absalom should be allowed to come home. When Absalom returns, he is not allowed in David’s presence at first. Absalom sets fire to Joab’s field when Joab refuses to see Absalom, but this action convinces Joab to meet with Absalom (a little drastic, if you ask me). The two are finally reconciled just in time for Absalom to demonstrate his loyalty to his father and his gratitude for the leniency he has been shown by inciting a rebellion against David. David is forced from Jerusalem, and claims that if God is through with him, he will accept this fate. David is probably the most devout and fervent follower of God so far; rivaling even the devotion of Moses. He is not modest in his love for God and he is constantly reaffirming his trust in His will. I can definitely understand why David would be favored by God to the extent that he is. Later on he doesn’t even question being cursed if it is God’s will. It is rare that anyone is as devoted to anything as he is to God. Absalom is given bad advice on how to conduct his search for David and is defeated, bringing David back to the throne as expected. Absalom is killed, but David is distraught; he calls out, wishing the death of his son upon himself. This is an emotional scene that really encompasses David’s character; he is a man of war and leadership, but he is also very loyal regardless of the wrongs committed against him. He has a strong moral compass that cannot be broken despite even a full-scale rebellion. I assume portions of these stories are embellished to cement that characterization of David, but I still find them to be meaningful. The next chapter sees a man named Sheba lead the Israelites against David and the tribe of Judah, but this rebellion is quickly quelled when the people of Gibeon, where Sheba is hiding, decide to save their town from being destroyed in search of Sheba by killing him and giving Joab his head. The last chapter of this section sees David trying to end a famine by allowing seven of Saul’s sons to be sacrificed by the Gibeonites because Saul had broken an oath between the Israelites and Gibeonites. This was a pretty barbaric action. It did not strike me as the action of a modern religion; instead, I got an impression it was the type of event that harkened back to a more brutal Israelite society. The section ended finally with a few battles against the Philistines again who seem to act as the Israelites’ rivals (but not very good ones, as they have not won since David took over).
This section was a little bit of a drop off from the last few. It wasn’t quite as exciting, although I thought there were a few particular scenes that were more powerful than anything I have read in the last few days. Overall though I do not have much else to say; David’s reign has experienced a few hiccups, but he is back on the throne. His two sons were killed, both of whom David mourned a considerable amount. However, as a good leader, David was able to bounce back and lead the Israelites to victory over the Philistines again. David is, in my opinion, the most interesting character in the Bible so far. He is not quite as thrilling as Samson or as blessed as Moses, but I think his flaws enhance his character in a way that elevates him above the other individuals who tended to be somewhat one dimensional. He struggles more, which makes him more human. The result of these struggles is not always a pleasant or beneficial one, but he does learn from his actions to a greater extent than anyone else in the Bible. Perhaps it is because God is so lenient to David; where one man might be killed, David is simply scolded by a prophet. Tomorrow will be the last of 2 Samuel, and I will begin 1 Kings.

1 Samuel 28-2 Samuel 11

2009-06-02T21:08:00.000-07:00

This section opens with the Philistines preparing for another war with Israel and the Philistine king requiring David to join him in battle (does anyone else suspect a little deceit?). Saul is cut off from God completely, who will not help plan for the battle at all, so he decides to contact a woman who is a medium. One is found in Endor, and anyone who finds that name familiar is definitely a friend of mine. The medium calls Samuel back to the world of the living, and Samuel is upset at having been disturbed. This brings up an interesting question in my mind: what is the current accepted destination after death at this point in the Bible? There is little to no reference to anything but death as a final step, so I am curious about where Samuel actually is that he can be called back from. Samuel warns Saul that his armies will lose the battle, and Saul seems to finally realize he is doomed as he can hardly bring himself to eat. As David is about to go into battle with the Philistines, the Philistine commanders get angry with the king and tell him to make David leave because they fear he will simply kill them as opposed to their enemies. David reluctantly removes himself and his men from the army and moves back into the land of the Philistines. When he arrives home, he finds the Amalekites have raided it, burning the houses and kidnapping, but not killing, the women and children. He asks God for advice on what his next course of action should be, and God instructs him to take his men out in pursuit of the Amalekites. An Egyptian who was abandoned by an Amalekite slaveholder guides David to his enemies and David’s men slaughter every last Amalekite, recovering every bit of the plunder they stole. The narrative shifts back to Saul and the Israelites who are routed in battle by the Philistines. Three of Saul’s sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malkishua, are killed, and Saul commits suicide. The Philistines conquer a portion of the Israelite territory, and 1 Samuel ends on this low note. 2 Samuel opens in a very confusing fashion. An Amalekite admits to killing Saul as per Saul’s request, so David has him killed for slaying God’s anointed one, an act even David won’t commit. While I admire his consistency, I thought killing the man was excessive; Saul had theoretically requested to be killed, so the Amalekite was simply following orders, as he was technically a subject of Saul because he lived in the land of the Israelites. However, that is why this confused me; in 1 Samuel, Saul is said to have fallen on his sword by himself. Therefore, the two stories don’t match up. Perhaps David killed the Amalekite because he suspected a liar. If this is so, it could be accurate, the Amalekite being someone sent to exact revenge on David for his destruction of his people. He could be lying to David to earn his trust and get close enough to kill him, but even that doesn’t really make sense. The Amalekite was in possession of the royal crown and armband, so one would think the man really had some contact with Saul. I will have to look into this apparently blatant discrepancy occurring over the course of only two chapters. David sings a song mourning Saul and Jonathan, and in it he mentions Jonathan’s love for him was “deeper than the love of women.” I thought this was strange. I have read before about possible homosexual connotations in the relationship between David and Jonathan, and I wonder now what the exact meaning of the Hebrew was, and what the lines are implying. David is crowned king of Judah and Saul’s son Ishbosheth is crowned king of Israel, giving the separation of the two kingdoms an explanation (although I suspect this explanation was inserted after the previous books were originally written to fit the more recent history). War breaks out between Israel and Judah, David commanding from Hebron and Ishbosheth from Mahanaim. The troops soon realize they are fighting a civil war that pits relatives against relatives, so they choose to cease in the battling for the time being. However, the actual war continued for a long time, with David gaining a consistent edge. The most influential commander of Ishbosheth’s forces, Abner, defects to David’s side, which seems to pretty much seal the deal with David; he is basically assured victory and the throne now. However, Joab, a commander in David’s army, kills Abner seeking revenge for Abner’s murder of Joab’s brother (I am aware this is getting confusing, but bear with me). David mourns, and his example is followed by the Israelites (both Judah and Israel). The next chapter sees two brothers assassinate Ishbosheth and present his head to David for a reward. David, of course, rewards them in a typically generous biblical fashion: he has them killed and their hands and feet cut off. David does this because he does not condone an innocent man being killed in his own bed; I will submit that David’s thirst for justice and equality is a pretty enviable quality, even though he goes about it in a brutal way (of course, this is the Bible). Finally, David is declared king of all Israel. He captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and marries more women, one of whom gives birth to Solomon. Solomon is obviously not important yet, but it is an interesting plot point to note. David conquers the Philistines, and brings the Ark of the Covenant back into his own care. He continues to defeat his enemies, including the Ammonites and the Moabites. David repays Jonathan’s kindness to him by giving his son Mephibosheth all of Saul’s old land and servants, as well as a place at the king’s table for meals. Later, David sees a woman named Bathsheba bathing on a roof; he summons her, and they sleep together (apparently didn’t take much persuasion). Bathsheba becomes pregnant as a result, so David calls her husband back from the army to hopefully have him sleep with her and fool him into thinking the child is his. Her husband, Uriah, refuses to sleep anywhere but in the palace entrance while his men are out in the fields, so David arranges for his death. This attempt is successful, and David marries Bathsheba. This section ends with a mention of God’s unhappiness with the actions of David. I am interested to see the repercussions of his actions tomorrow night.
I thought this section was just as consistently interesting as the ones prior to it. So far, both books of Samuel have not disappointed. I feel I understand the motives and actions of biblical figures much more now. For instance, when a death occurs that initially seems needless, one must dig deeper to find the meaning behind it. When David kills the brothers who assassinated Ishbosheth, there seems to be a message under the surface. I feel that, in this particular case, the message is that justice cannot be served without direct cause. Ishbosheth was sleeping, and the brothers snuck up on him. When I began this reading, the meaning behind many of the deaths was lost on me. With a little experience, however, I have been able to see a higher significance in many biblical actions. A smaller note I have made is that the ages of death of the important biblical figures has been steadily decreasing. Adam lived to be nearly one thousand years old, but people are barely reaching one hundred if they are lucky at this point. I think it’s interesting to see how the ages taper off to a point that modern (when the Bible was written, that is) Israelites would be familiar with. I have not changed my opinion that the ages are not accurate for most of the Bible, but I was interested to come to this conclusion none the less.

1 Samuel 16-27

2009-06-01T20:12:00.001-07:00

And so finally David is anointed in the opening chapter of this section. Saul, who began with such high hopes, has developed into a sad, disappointing character. His present demeanor is a complete departure from his initial description. At first, he was humble and modest, not even believing he should be king. At this point, he is much more arrogant and disobedient to God. Incidentally, I have found biblical characterizations to develop and evolve in a very fluid way. The phases of the important individuals’ lives are not disjointed. Rather, they are smooth and easy to understand. I have noticed this with most of the individuals in the Bible; each one begins as a young man or even child, and eventually grows into an elderly man in a very natural way. David serves in Saul’s court as his harp player and armor bearer, and Saul is very pleased with David. The Philistines challenge the Israelites once again, and a man described to be very large and very powerful named Goliath gives the Israelites an option: if one man can defeat him, the Philistines will be slaves to the Israelites. If he defeats the man, however, the Israelites will be slaves to the Philistines. Goliath struts in front of the Philistine camp for forty days, the number I still cannot find the meaning of. David offers his services to defeat Goliath, claiming he has killed many lions and bears in his lifetime. He refuses armor, and picks up five smooth stones from the river. This story is becoming pretty fantastic, so I wonder if it isn’t just another romanticized version of a similar event. David knocks Goliath out with a single stone to the head and uses Goliath’s own sword to cut off his head. The Israelites eventually rout the Philistines, and Saul becomes jealous of David (rightly so, he is pretty impressive so far-so much so that I wonder how accurate the tales are). David becomes incredibly popular with the Israelites and is constantly successful leading Israel and Judah into battle. As a side note, the Bible has started referring to Israel and Judah separately. I am not sure of the reason for this, but I think it is worth mentioning because it could be significant later on. Saul promises David one of his daughters in marriage, saying that David must present one hundred Philistine foreskins to be deemed worthy, so he presents two hundred, having killed their previous owners. Saul then tries to kill David numerous times, but these attempts are foiled for various reasons. Jonathan, Saul’s son, saves David, as does David’s new wife Michal, Saul’s daughter. David flees to live with Samuel, and more assassination attempts are foiled, this time by God Himself. At this point, David is convinced Saul wants him dead. Jonathan and David hatch a plan to determine once and for all if Saul truly intends to kill David. David hides in a field, and Jonathan brings him a signal that will indicate how Saul feels. Saul’s intentions are confirmed, and David leaves for protection. I thought it was interesting that Jonathan, next in line for the throne, would help David, who will probably be king instead. I suppose it is all in the nature of obeying God; you should aid in His will, regardless of what your own suspicions are. In addition I am finding Samuel and Judges to be some of the most interesting narrative so far. There is constant action, accompanied by some major plots and twists; Saul, the potential savior of the Israelites, loses favor. His son helps his rival, who is also married to his daughter, escape. The intrigue of these last few stories is nothing short of fascinating. David seeks refuge with another priest, where he is given food and the sword of Goliath as a weapon. I get the impression David is a little desperate at this point, a feeling that is compounded by the mention that he begins to act insane to throw off any suspicion of why he is not leading the Israelites. He is constantly worried, it seems. Saul hears about the priests helping David, so he has them all killed, including their families. David might be desperate, but I get the distinct impression that Saul is almost losing it. He is wildly paranoid and making claims that are, for the most part, fabricated. David hides in the wilderness while Saul pursues him, but eventually gets the opportunity to kill Saul: Saul happens into a cave where David and his men are hiding to relieve himself. David nearly kills Saul but thinks better of it. When Saul realizes this, he admits he is at fault. David requests aid from a man named Nabal, but Nabal denies him in a very crude way. He insults David, who then readies to attack Nabal. However, Nabal’s wife Abigail intercedes for him, convincing David not to kill Nabal in such cold blood. David is thankful; he will not have this blemish on his conscience. However, Nabal dies anyway when Abigail tells him what she did, so David does what anyone would do in this situation and marries her. David marries another woman as well, but Saul gives Michal away to a different man. Either way, David is still practicing polygamy, which I found interesting once again; it seems like so many important figures in the Bible were polygamists. I still have not found where monogamy is specifically endorsed, if it is at all. David spares Saul’s life again, and the section closes with David taking refuge with the Philistines, who I was surprised to see take him in. He claims to be attacking the Israelites, tricking the Philistine king into thinking David would have to serve him forever.
I thought this section was very interesting and very fun to read. Like I said before, there are a lot of dramatic events going on with Saul and David. David seems to be in the right, but whether that is accuracy or just the Bible making David seem like a better man than Saul I do not know. In any case, I did not realize how much time was devoted to David’s fleeing from Saul. Saul is evidently more powerful than David so far, despite the fact that David has spared Saul’s life twice. This means that David must live in exile because of Saul, but I know that won’t last. Reading the David and Goliath story for myself was one of the top five stories experiences of reading the Bible so far because of how famous it is. I have seen spoofs and allusions to it my entire life, and after I read it I was surprised to find that it is widely different than most contemporary interpretations. Goliath did not strike me as a real giant; rather, he was more like a gladiator in that he was powerful and trained in killing. David defeating him was somewhat anticlimactic, but the principle behind it was significant. The next section will bring me into 2 Samuel, and I look forward to seeing what stories are next.

1 Samuel 1-15

2009-06-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

This section opens up with a discussion about a woman named Hannah who is unable to conceive. Distraught, she prays to God for a child, promising to dedicate him to God. She finally becomes pregnant, and when the boy is old enough, Hannah leaves him with the priests at the Tabernacle. Meanwhile, the current priest’s sons are shown to think lightly of God and their duties as priests; they steal food from God and seduce the women who help at the Tabernacle. Because of this, God causes them to die young, which ends the line of Aaron as a special line of Levites devoted to the priesthood. I thought this was a little sad because Eli is a pretty God-fearing man. He even accepts that his sons must die if God thinks it is best. In any case, the boy, Samuel, receives a vision from God explaining just that; Eli’s sons will soon die for blaspheming God. The next chapter sees the sons die and the Ark captured by the Philistines, followed by the death of Eli. As the Philistines maintain control of the Ark, anywhere it goes causes the citizens to succumb to a plague of tumors. They eventually do return the Ark, along with some gifts to hopefully end the plagues they are experiencing. Samuel then becomes Israel’s last true judge and leads them to victory over the Philistines, throwing off the shackles of their rule. However, instead of a new judge, Israel requests a king because the new judges that Samuel has appointed, his sons, are very corrupt. Samuel warns them against a king, but God tells Samuel to do as the Israelites request; He says they are rejecting Him, not Samuel. This does not seem to bode well for any future kings, but I am optimistic that the stories of the different kings will not disappoint. Samuel meets Saul and appoints him as king; the first king of Israel appointed by the last effective judge of Israel. Saul’s first act as king is to defeat the Ammonites, and Samuel makes a farewell address. The next chapter sees Saul make his sacrifices himself as opposed to waiting for Samuel, so Samuel declares that Saul’s kingdom will have to end; I believe this sets the stage for David, son of Jesse, to become king as opposed to Saul’s son. Saul proceeds to battle and defeat the Philistines, liberating Israel. Saul’s son Jonathan manages to kill a contingency of Philistines without telling his father, which causes confusion and winds up giving the Israelites the edge in battle. Saul makes the soldiers take an oath not to eat until he has revenge on his enemies, which makes them weary and not quite as effective as soldiers. Jonathan eats some honey and tells the soldiers the oath was ridiculous, and they all started eating meat without draining the blood first. Saul ordered them to drain the blood at a large rock before eating it, and then orders the Israelites to chase the Philistines all night. Saul completely defeats the Philistines in addition to his other enemies, being victorious in every way. I think this is interesting because God seemed unhappy with the Israelites choosing a king; despite these reservations, He is allowing the Israelites to be incredibly successful on the battlefield. However, God then claims that Saul is disobeying God’s every command; this comment is spurred from the actions of Saul, wherein God tells him to destroy the Amalekites. That is, the men, women, children, and animals. However, Saul only kills what is worthless and takes the best of the animals as plunder. This upsets God, so God rejects Saul. This is basically where the first section of Samuel ends up.
I thought this section was fairly interesting; I liked hearing about Saul, and I thought his characterization was actually one of the more engaging ones so far. His character developed over the course of this section from a humble servant of God to someone becoming quite fond of himself; at one point, Saul is building himself a monument. Saul repeatedly disobeys God in different ways, from direct orders to simple oversights. This causes him to fall out of favor with God, who seems to admit making a mistake. This conclusion is one I found most interesting; rarely in the Bible is God specifically referred to as “perfect.” As such, He seems to go back on His decisions occasionally. For instance, he regrets the great flood as well as making Saul king. I was always under the impression that God was completely right all the time. The fact that Saul’s line would not continue is obviously a method to make David king and lend his line legitimacy, as Solomon, David’s son, takes the throne later. I didn’t think there was much else to say about this section, other than I like reading about these figures that are so famous (including Samson).

Judges 15-Ruth 4

2009-05-31T22:09:00.000-07:00

This section opened with a bang. Samson tries to sleep with his wife, but her father does not let him; he tells Samson that he has married her off to another man, and he gets very angry. He captures 300 foxes, ties their tales together, and puts a torch in each of the pairs of tales. Then he lets the foxes loose among the grain of the Philistines and burns all the grain down. When the Philistines learn who did this and why, they burn Samson’s wife and her father alive and prepare to attack the Israelites. Samson then allows the Israelites to tie him up and turn him over to the Philistines, but Samson breaks free from the ropes, picks up the jaw bone from a dead donkey, and kills one thousand Philistines with it. This is probably the most intense chapter so far; it reads almost like a Rambo movie. Samson then moves on to Gaza, a Philistine town, and spends the night with a prostitute (Samson gets cooler and cooler with every chapter). The people of Gaza hear Samson is in the town and decide to kill him in the morning, but Samson stays in bed until midnight. He then gets up and takes the doors of the town gate away while he leaves. I am not sure exactly why he does this, but I am enjoying this story quite a bit. Samson falls in love with a woman named Delilah and the Philistines offer to pay her one thousand shekels if she can determine how to weaken him. He tells her that if he is tied up with seven newly made bowstrings, he would be as weak as anyone else. However, this is a lie (and a strange one at that); he is able to easily break out of these. Samson lies to her two more times, and finally relents as Delilah persists in asking what the source of his strength is: his hair. If his hair is to be cut, he will no longer be strong. Delilah cuts the seven (interesting to note that the number is seven) locks of hair on Samson’s head. When he is captured, he cannot free himself, because God has left him. I do not understand why God left him if his hair was cut by someone else. I don’t think he should necessarily be punished for what someone else does to him. In any case, the Philistines gouge out his eyes and force him grind grain in prison. In the ultimate cliffhanger though, the verse ends with the phrase “But before long, his hair began to grow back.” At a feast to celebrate his capture, Samson is brought out to entertain the Philistines. He is tied up between temple pillars, and prays for his strength back one more time. His strength is granted and he destroys the temple, killing more people in that instant than he had in his entire life. It was a fitting end to the action hero life led by Samson-he was able to rebound and deliver a fatal blow to his enemies. The section continued with a discussion of a man named Micah who creates an idol and builds a shrine to it. A traveling Levite is invited to be Micah’s personal priest, and he accepts. The tribe of Dan, still wandering, steals this idol along with others, and conquers a city to live in. This story is put on the backburner, and the next chapter sees a man traveling from Bethlehem to Gibeah, where he is invited to stay with an Ephraimite living in Gibeah (which is in the territory of Benjamin). That night, a crowd of people demanded the traveler come outside to be raped. This story is a direct parallel to the story of Sodom, because the man even offers his virgin daughter as an alternative. It strikes me again that this option is no better than the guest being raped. In a horrific twist, the guest shoves his concubine out the door and the crowd takes turns raping her all night. In the morning, he finds her laying on the front step. She is very obviously dead because she is unresponsive, so he takes her home and cuts her body into twelve pieces, sending one to each tribe. This is a pretty horrible story, I have to say; it is probably worse than the story in Sodom, because at least that story didn’t end up with anyone getting abused in such an appalling manner. There was some vindication, however. The tribes were stunned that such a horrible crime was committed and united as one to destroy Gibeah. Benjamin protected its town, but God encouraged the Israelites to attack. The Israelites eventually defeat Benjamin, destroying many towns and killing every woman who is not a virgin. The men who still live are given wives from the virgin women to preserve the tribe of Benjamin, and the Book of Judges closes with this story. It was at least somewhat encouraging to see God and the united Israelites so appalled by the crime committed against the traveler’s concubine that they attacked one of their own tribes. I thought this story was one of the most brutal in the Bible so far considering that not only was a woman raped and murdered, but also an entire tribe was nearly wiped out. The Book of Ruth was next, and it began with a description of Ruth’s family. Her husband dying is really the only relevant part of that; it leaves Ruth alone. Ruth is told to return to her own people, the Moabites, but refuses; she remains with her Israelite mother-in-law, and moves to Bethlehem to live with the Israelites. She begins to harvest grain for herself and her mother-in-law Naomi from a field owned by a man named Boaz, who treats her very kindly and allows her to eat at his table. Naomi then instructs her to follow Boaz until he falls asleep, uncover his feet, and lie down at them. Boaz sees her, and promises that either he or another man will marry her. In the end, Boaz marries Ruth, and the Book of Ruth ends with a genealogy: the line beginning with Ruth and Boaz eventually leads to David.
I thought this section began in a pretty interesting way. The story of Samson is, in my opinion, one of the best stories so far. I liked the battles and the action hero status Samson had. It is unfortunate that he died in the way he did, but he was able to fulfill his goal of destroying the Philistines and liberating Israel. The story about Gibeah and the war against Benjamin was probably the most brutal so far, but I think the story is somewhat vindicated by the fact that the Israelites were just as appalled as you would hope them to be by the crime committed against the woman. Finally, the Book of Ruth was a short story about the line of David, probably legitimizing his later claim to the throne as the King of the Israelites. I am looking forward to Samuel, the next book, quite a bit, because I think we will finally get to read about David. Of course, Judges is at the very least one of the most exciting books so far.

Judges 4-14

2009-05-30T01:31:00.000-07:00

This section opened with, in my opinion, a very progressive chapter: Deborah was the judge of Israel. Israel did evil again (they never learn), and Deborah was asked to help them. She gave them instructions on how to defeat their oppressors, but was asked to accompany the Israelites into battle. Here the progressiveness was neutralized because Deborah stated that there was no honor in having a woman lead the army into battle. Regardless of honor, the Israelites won, and the enemy commander Sisera fled to a nearby tent. The wife of the man who owned the tent was on friendly terms with the enemy king, so his wife gave Sisera refuge from his pursuers (in this case, a man named Barak). However, when Sisera fell asleep, the woman drove a tent peg through his temple. I won’t bother to comment on the brutality of the assassination for fear of my comments sounding redundant, but I do wonder why she decided to betray her husband and presumably her own allegiances to help the Israelites. The Song of Deborah was the next chapter, and it was basically a summary of what happened in the battles against Sisera’s forces. Tribes that had not helped were criticized while tribes that had helped were thanked, but the most significant portion of the song was when Sisera’s mother was mentioned as waiting for her son to return. I thought this little mention was somewhat depressing, because as we all now know, Sisera would not be returning to his mother. Such is the Bible, however; there is absolutely no mercy for God’s enemies or their families. There was peace in the land for another forty years, which is not significant except that the number forty is used again. Unfortunately, the efforts of Deborah are for naught; Israel once again “[does] evil,” so a young Israelite named Gideon becomes a judge when he sees a man claiming to be an angel and asks it to prove it is an angel of God. I was under the impression that forcing God to prove Himself was a significant sin, but I suppose that might not be true if it is only an angel, or messenger, of God who is appearing for someone. Gideon destroys an altar to Baal, a god that is not of the Israelites, and is nearly killed for it. However, Joash, Gideon’s father, defends him, demanding action from Baal if he truly is a god. Since no action is taken, Gideon is forgiven by the town, and the power of God is once again demonstrated. As the narrative progresses, Gideon is now in charge of a large number of Israelite forces. When he awakens one morning, God tells him He has given him victory over the current foreign pest, the Midianites. Gideon approaches the edge of camp to listen in on Midianite conversation, wherein one Midianite tells his friend about a dream. The friend makes the somewhat odd jump to the conclusion that the Israelites have been given victory over the Midianites by God. I thought this was a little over the top because I do not think a soldier would assume that a dream spelled certain defeat for his army, regardless of the time. Gideon kills the enemy kings, and lives for another forty years, after which the Israelites prostitute themselves to other gods once again. Gideon’s son Abimelech is the next subject, and he decides to kill seventy of his half-brothers to be proclaimed king of Shechem. I thought this was going a little overboard, but I suppose Abimelech did not want anyone challenging his throne. Still, I have trouble understanding why Abimelech was so brutal in his quest for a throne that did not even exist until he decided to claim it. The youngest brother, Jotham, does indeed escape the murders and warns the people against Abimelech. The people eventually do rebel against him, which is punishment for the murder of Gideon’s seventy sons. Abimelech commits a few more atrocities before he is finally defeated. I was glad to see some actual punishment on God’s part for some sins that strike me as horrendous. Some minor judges are listed, followed by Jephthah, who vows to sacrifice the first thing that leaves his house to God upon his return if God helps him defeat the enemies of the Israelites. This happens to be his daughter, but he feels he must keep the vow, so he kills his daughter. Incidentally, this is the first actual human sacrifice in the Bible so far; the next closest one would be Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac. I can’t say I was pleased with the story, but there is not much more to say about this kind of event that I have not already said. It was barbaric, and another example of the brutality of the Bible. However, her father is distraught over the loss, and the Bible uses this story to explain why Israelite women must leave for four days every year to lament the loss of Jephthah’s daughter, as she left for two months to mourn the fact that she would die a virgin. Jephthah then quells a potential civil war in Israel, and more minor judges are discussed. Finally, the section closes with some parts of the life of Samson. His parents are told to never cut his hair, as he is a Nazirite from birth. As a demonstration of his strength, the Bible asserts that he is able to kill a lion by ripping apart its jaws as if they were nothing. When he grows up, he marries a Philistine, and gives her people a riddle. They cannot solve the riddle, so they order her to find out the answer from Samson. He refuses at first, but after a few days of her incessant “nagging” (a direct quote) he relents and gives her the answer, which she passes on to her people. However, this displeases God, so he smites the thirty men that heard the riddle and gives their possessions to Samson. His wife is then married off to someone else, and the section closes with that.
This section was, at the very least, fairly eventful. A large amount of judges are introduced, and while some of them are entirely forgettable and only have a sentence or so devoted to them, some are very notable. For instance, the stories pertaining to Samson are pretty famous, but I have never heard his entire history until now. In that light, this section has been interesting; there were a few questionable events, but I think the overall narrative is fairly engrossing at this point. I am moving right along within the Bible, but still have quite a bit of reading to do. I am looking forward to reading about King David, as that is one of the parts of the Bible I am most interested in.

Joshua 14-Judges 3

2009-05-29T00:21:00.001-07:00

This section started off very slowly with a description of the apportionment of the Promised Land and the various towns given to each tribe. Levites were not given any land because they had a special relationship with God, who said He was their gift as opposed to the land. They did, however, get a few cities; some of these cities were to be used as places of refuge for people fleeing vengeance from another party. Occasionally the Israelite tribe that is moving into a city or plot of land cannot drive out the current residents, so they tend to remain as subjects of the Israelites, including the Jebusites in Jerusalem, who the tribe of Judah could not drive out, and the Canaanites in Gezer, who the tribe of Ephraim could not drive out (incidentally, a point I don’t think I’ve gone over yet is that the descendents of Joseph’s sons of Ephraim and Manasseh are treated as tribes, even though they are just the tribe of Joseph split in two. This was done so the number of tribes could remain at twelve, since the Levites are treated differently). The eastern tribes (Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh) then build an altar as a memorial to their service to God, because they do not want future generations alienating them. They worry that, because there is a boundary in the Jordan River, the future descendents will claim the eastern tribes have no right to worship God. I am not sure why this would necessarily stop them from praising God or why the other tribes would be offended by foreigners worshiping God, but I suppose they figured they should be safe rather than sorry. Finally, in the last chapter, Joshua dies and is buried in the plot of land Jacob bought early on in the Bible, thus closing the Book of Joshua. The next three chapters were in the Book of Judges, which starts off with a few more conquests. One thing that I did not understand, however, was the issue of Jerusalem. At first, the narrative discusses its destruction by Judah. However, the narrative then moves on to explain that Benjamin cannot drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem. I do not understand how both events could occur with Jerusalem, and I do not think there was more than one city named Jerusalem. This seems like a pretty blatant contradiction because the city could not be both destroyed and saved. In any case, the narrative continues on and describes the Israelites loss of faith in God, who then punishes them by making them (to be general) a very weak nation. But when the Israelites cry out for help, God appoints leaders to help them defeat their enemies and take more of their homeland for themselves. These leaders are known as judges, and there is a long string of them. The first is Othniel, followed by Ehud and Shamgar. Most of Ehud’s verses are devoted to an excursion he makes to kill the king of a foreign nation. To do so, he hides a knife until there is an opportune moment and stabs the king. The Bible explicitly details the gore of the scene; the knife is plunged so deeply that it goes beyond the king’s fat, and his bowels start to fall out-a very pleasant scene to read. Shamgar’s sole mention is very short; all it says is that he once killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad (a farming tool). When Othniel is the judge, there is peace in Israel for forty years. I mention this only because forty has reoccurred many times throughout the Bible. When Ehud is the judge, Israel has peace for eighty years, which is just two sets of forty. I still do not know why forty is repeated so many times. I wonder if there was an ancient significance to the number that had some sort of power over the people in those times.
I thought this section of the Bible was fairly average. There were battles, but they were only briefly mentioned and the apportionment of land was the majority of the last part of Joshua. Judges was not much better because it just glossed over battles by simply mentioning they occurred. My major complaint is the issue with Jerusalem, which seems to be the name of two cities or the subject of a total contradiction. I also am curious as to the significance of the number forty because it is so prevalent in the Bible. I believe I have discerned the thought process behind using eight days for various rituals, which I discussed in an earlier post, but I am not sure where forty comes from yet.

Joshua 1-14

2009-05-28T00:26:00.001-07:00

This section begins with God giving Joshua a blessing to lead the Israelites, and the Israelites (specifically the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh) swearing to do as he commands. Joshua sends spies to Jericho, the city I presume they intend to capture (and possibly destroy), but the spies are discovered. Fortunately, a prostitute named Rahab hides the spies in her attic and sends the king’s men on a wild goose chase to find the spies. When they return, the city gates are closed, and the spies are safe for the night. Apparently the “prostitute with a heart of gold” archetype is just as ancient as the Bible, seeing as Rahab is friendly to the Israelites. The spies agree to spare her and her family’s lives in exchange for continued safety. When the Israelites begin their march towards the city, Joshua orders the Levite priests holding the Ark of the Covenant to walk up to the Jordan River and a few feet into it. The river forms a wall of water upstream, giving the Israelites a path to cross over dry land, similar to the Red Sea parting. The Israelites next build a few memorials to this crossing, which are allegedly still there to this day. Joshua circumcises the new generation of Israelites, a practice that had apparently been discontinued (I wonder why), and they celebrate Passover. After these rituals, the Israelites attack Jericho and the city falls. God instructs Joshua to have the fighting men march around the town once a day for six days, followed by a seventh day that has the Israelites march around the town seven times. The priests holding the Ark will blow a horn and the people will all shout as loud as they can, causing the walls to collapse. The aid of God in this battle is fairly important; He even destroys the city wall for them. Without this help they would not be able to charge the city and destroy all its inhabitants, save for Rahab, which is the next step in their battle plan. This victory solidifies Joshua’s role as the leader of the Israelites, and the preservation of Rahab demonstrates God’s mercy to those who are helpful to Him and His people. I think that is an important point to take away from this story, because otherwise it is somewhat meaningless in the modern day. If someone is an accomplice in righteousness, they will be rewarded. Unfortunately, a man named Achan stole some of the items set apart for God, which include bronze, gold, and silver statues. This, in God’s eyes, is a “detestable sin,” so when the Israelites attack Ai, they are soundly defeated. Joshua asks God why this happened, and God explains the crime that has been committed and instructs him in how to determine the culprit. When Achan is discovered, the stolen treasures are recovered and he is stoned along with his family. I did not think this reaction was necessary; for one, Achan confessed to his crime, and the objects were recovered. I should think that since Achan did not harm anyone, his crime would be forgiven. In the biblical context though, I am not surprised. As such, my second issue with this story is the fact that his family is stoned as well. I do not think they should be punished for his crime, as they are innocent. This, to me, is another example of a lack of divine mercy, as well as a lack of mercy from the Israelite leadership. The Israelites then attack Ai again with an ambush; they draw the entire army of Ai out of the city, and a small contingency that is hidden runs in and sets fire to the city. They then turn around and attack the enemy from the rear while the initial force attacks them in the front. Everyone in the town is killed, and the town itself is completely destroyed. Joshua kills the king of Ai himself in a very biblical fashion-he impales him on a spear and leaves him for the entire Israelite population to see. Next, the Israelites are deceived by a group of people called the Gibeonites. These Gibeonites tell the Israelite leaders that they come from a distant land and want to establish a treaty. Obviously, if the Israelites knew the Gibeonites were from a nearby town, they would be forced to say no. The Israelites accept the treaty, and bind it with an oath in the name of God. Because of this, they cannot kill the Gibeonites and sack their city when they learn the truth. As a result, the Gibeonites are forced into servitude for the Israelites. I thought this was interesting. God will not allow them to break an oath, even if it means going against another instruction. It is kind of a moral quandary that has no right answer, but the Israelites decide they must honor the oath. In addition to the Gibeonite deception, it is learned that the rest of the armies in the area have combined to attack the Israelites and kill them. The king of Jerusalem, along with other southern cities, attacks Gibeon, but Joshua leads the Israelites to their rescue, and destroys the army attacking Gibeon. It is at this point that Joshua prays to God and has the sun stop in the sky, giving the Israelites more time to defeat their enemy. Like a majority of biblical stories that obviously could not happen, I have taken the view that this story is meant to be taken purely metaphorically. It simply represents the ferocity and swiftness with which the Israelites defeat their enemies. They did with such speed that it seemed as if the sun was sitting still. The narrative then moves into a general summary of the next lands to be conquered, the land yet to be conquered, and the apportionment of land given to various tribes. Caleb requests his apportionment, and the section ended with that.
Overall, this was a pretty interesting section; a lot happened, which is a welcome change to the laws of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Israelites were incredibly brutal in their conquest techniques, but unfortunately, I do not think they were particularly different than any other conquering group of people. For the most part, the people being conquered tend to be destroyed, assimilated, or oppressed. In this case, the people were either destroyed (most tribes) or oppressed (Gibeonites). I do wonder, however, if the biblical account is simply a romanticized version of the actual events. Perhaps many of these tribes did simply assimilate into the Israelites, who appear to be the dominant tribe at this point (though I have read articles indicating that Israel of the Bible is an exaggerated form of what Israel actually is at the time). I do have one further question: if all the cities had to be destroyed and never rebuilt, and they fought against a king of Jerusalem, how does that city still exist? There was a brief mention of Joshua not destroying the towns that are on “mounds,” so maybe Jerusalem is one of these, assuming they are indeed the same Jerusalem. This is not a very long book, so I should be done with it after tomorrow.