The Israelites were concerned primarily with worldly gains

“Hear, O Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey…” - Deuteronomy 6:3

“Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land…” - Deuteronomy 6:18

“He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land – your grain, new wine and oil – the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you.” - Deuteronomy 7:13-15

These excerpts from Deuteronomy show Moses explaining to the Israelites the wonders and the benefits of their relationship with God. But interestingly, everything that Moses promises the Israelites is worldly! Indeed, the only mentions of heaven thus far are vague references to “the heavens.”

“To the Lord belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.” - Moses, Deuteronomy 10:14

There has been no mention of a heaven as an afterlife. In fact, there’s been absolutely NO emphasis on an afterlife at all! One of the charges often leveled against Christianity is that it promises rewards only in a posited afterlife. Ironically, the Old Testament has made no such promises whatsoever! Everything the Lord has promised man has been of a worldly nature.

What motivation did the Israelites have for following the Lord? Surely none of them had any reason to believe that the Lord would provide for them in an afterlife; He makes no mention about one. I am vaguely familiar with the notion of Sheol, does the Old Testament ever allude to an afterlife? Do the Israelites (or modern Jews?) have any reason to follow the Lord other than for earthly gain?

If not, then what does that suggest about the notion of the immortality of the soul? Christians are especially worried (and rightfully so) about the conditions that their eternal soul meet with after their temporal existence terminates. But what basis does Christianity have for positing a heaven when it does not receive mention within the vastness that is the Old Testament? I have heard it said that many readers are struck by a seeming difference in the Lord’s personality between the old and new testaments. But all this is deserves further consideration later.

Right now, the most pertinent question is this: Are the Israelites of the Old Testament concerned only with worldly gain? Or is there reason to believe that they are also concerned with the immortal future of their souls?

Religious zealotry and vigilante justice in the Old Testament

While Israel was staying in Shittim, the Bible makes note that the Israelites began to indulge in sexual immorality with the Moabite women. The men went to Moabite sacrifices and bowed down before their gods, such as the Baal of Peor. As should be expected, this angers the Lord (Numbers 25:3). One day an Israelite man brings a Moabite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the entire assembly of Israel as they are weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. This thoughtless and brazenly insulting action prompts a particular Israelite to jump into action:

When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them – through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. - Numbers 25:7-8

Interestingly, this action causes the plague against the Israelites to cease. The Lord then comments explicitly on Phinehas’ vigilantism.

“Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. Therefore tell him that I am making my covenant of peace with him.” - Numbers 25:11-12

The Lord condoned Phinehas’ action of vigilantism! It is an oft repeated phrase that one should, “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Here we have a man who judges and sentences to death! Phinehas was a part of the assembly, and as a descendant of Aaron, perhaps he had some priestly authority, but certainly there was no court or ordered judgment that was passed down!

Clearly, the Lord approves of when his people do his work. Accordingly, the Lord has granted his people the right to cast judgment:

So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor.” – Numbers 25:5

“…the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations.” – Numbers 35:24

It’s amazing how often that tired old phrase, “judge not, lest ye be judged,” is thrown around! How often have you been told not to judge someone, or not to be judgmental? Clearly the Lord here grants man the right to judge. Judge not, lest ye be judged. And should your conscience be clear, fear not such judgment, and judge with a clear and clean mind.

Additionally, Phinehas’ act of violence suggests a sort of condoning towards religious zealotry. I recall when the movie “The Boondock Saints,” became popular, it was a charge that was regularly leveled against the movie that it condoned religious fanaticism and zealotry. If you truly follow the Lord, then surely his law is above any law that is man-made, yes? When the Israelite man offended the Lord, Phinehas took up his Lord’s honor in righteous wrath.

The Lord gave a commandment against murder, not against all forms of killing. There are (according to the Bible so far) righteous reasons to kill another. Numbers certainly defends the notion of killing in the name of the Lord, as well as righteous vigilante justice.

Does the Bible speak in riddles, or does it show us the form of the Lord?

“When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.” - Numbers 12:6-8

This is a remarkably interesting passage. God states that with many prophets, he merely reveals himself only partially, or in disguises. However, with Moses, God states that he reveals himself fully. Is this merely an allegory to express the notion that Moses gives completely accurate and divine revelation? Were the Lord to have only stated that the second part, whereby I mean the 12:8, where he states that with Moses he speaks face to face, then I could more easily accept the idea of this as mere allegory. But 12:8 is drawn in sharp contrast to 12:6, which shows the Lord revealing himself to others only in visions and dreams.

This contrast is, I suspect, very important. If 12:8 were merely allegorical, then it would suggest that an abstract God, which Moses divines fully, rather than a concrete God, which actually shows himself face to face as a literal reading might suggest. However, the contrast is important. If the contrast were merely to suggest that Moses reveals accurately whereas other prophets reveal only partial or incomplete truths, then I think there would be more emphasis on suggesting that, rather than suggesting that the Lord reveals himself in “visions” and “dreams.”

I really feel like this passage almost explicitly denies the notion of the stories of the Bible as allegory. I think this passage suggests that the Lord actually reveals himself to Moses. Moses is not merely a man who gained renown for accurately divining the nature of the Logos, Moses was actually spoken to by a deity, Yahweh.

An allegorical and non-literal reading of the Bible lends credence to a view of the Bible as being an accurate divination the Logos, but when the Bible itself seems to suggest that this is a non-faithful reading of the text, then I can’t help but feel like the reading becomes a practice of eisegesis, rather than exegesis, that is, it becomes a practice of injecting one’s own meaning into the text rather than divining it’s true meaning.

I can fully appreciate an allegorical and non-literal reading of the Bible, and I can see some of the pragmatic benefits, but is this something one can be comfortable with? Either way, I believe this passage suggests a literal interpretation of the Bible, but is a literal interpretation of the Bible feasible? Very few Christians even assert that the Bible should be read literally…

Leviticus: an interesting relic of the past, but nothing more

As a potential future lawyer, Leviticus holds special interest for me. Leviticus is notable for setting down the laws of the Israelites, and for setting up the rules for a relationship with God. Leviticus may seem pretty long and boring compared to Genesis and Exodus, but the fact that almost the entirety of the Israelite legal code can be found in this small portion of text is pretty incredible! Nowadays the average person has only a rudimentary understanding of the law, and specialists in law are required for numerous transactions, and even lawyers often divide themselves into sub-specialties! However, anyone can understand Leviticus. It really speaks to the common man, and it’s very special in that way.

That said, the laws laid out by God are notable in that there are certain facets of God’s law which would today be considered progressive and liberal, but there are also certain facets of God’s law which would be considered regressive, and at times downright tyrannical!

“progressive” aspects:

• People were more important than property
• There was no hierarchy of social classes
• The punishment fit the crime
• Forms of social welfare for the poor

“regressive” aspects

• Immoral sexuality was not tolerated
• “Attitude” mattered (love your neighbor as yourself)
• Extremely harsh punishments for sin
• Animal sacrifice an acceptable (required!) form of atonement
• Slavery is considered acceptable

I place progressive and regressive in quotes because the terms are loaded with bias, and I for one don’t regard each as progressive or regressive. For example, I don’t feel that restraining sexual immorality is a regressive thing, but by today’s standards I believe this is what it would be considered.

These laws are interesting because they display at times the law of a God who is merciful (forms of social welfare), and yet also a God who is unforgiving (cursing your father or mother requires a capital punishment! (20:9)).

The laws are at times so harsh, that it suggests that God made the laws as harsh as they are so as to say, “you cannot possibly afford to sin!” Many sins require that the sinner be cast away from his people, some require the death penalty, and at the very least, a sin requires an animal sacrifice, which in those times would be something you could hardly afford to make very often! It’s almost reminiscent of the Soviet regime, which would punish it’s civilians so harshly that it terrified its populace into being virtually devoid of crime.

All in all, Leviticus makes a lot of sense for the time it was conceived in. By having such harsh punishments for sins, the Israelites probably promoted a very safe and crime-free existence. Indeed, in those old days, to be free from the sins that plagued other peoples may have been very instrumental in allowing the Israelites to prosper and continue.

But what can Leviticus offer us in this day and age? How many people have animals that they can sacrifice? Are we still to believe that slavery is permissible, and that a man may take more than one wife? Do Christians consider Leviticus extant? Or are the laws laid down by it no longer of importance since Jesus established a new covenant? How do modern day Jews reconcile Leviticus with the world they live in?

It seems to me that, much like the Code of Hammurabi, Leviticus was of great practical use for its time, but is now of little use other than as a relic of the past. Following all the laws of Leviticus wouldn’t be very practical for a modern people, and although admirable, it must be moved past.

Exodus undercuts the notion of freewill

“But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.” – Exodus 7:3

In Exodus God repeatedly states that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and that this is the reason that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses. Honestly, God states that He hardens Pharaoh’s heart more than a dozen (if not two dozen!) times! This really calls into question our freewill in God’s scheme. How can the notion of freewill be reconciled with a God that can control our actions, and what’s more, our emotions?

God also takes credit for the skill and abilities of men:

“See I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts…” – Exodus 31:2-3

But not only do we need to reconcile the notion of God with our own selves, for God takes credit over things that happen outside of ourselves as well. There are many miracles that occur in Exodus, especially the ten plagues, which God all takes credit for. If a natural disaster occurs, are we to interpret it as a sign from God?

There’s an old saying, attributed to Ben Franklin, that God helps those who help themselves. But Exodus seems to suggest just the opposite! When the Egyptians were chasing the Israelites as they fled towards the Red Sea,  Moses had this to tell his people:

“The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still.” - Exodus 14:14

So how are we to treat the world around us? More importantly, the world within us? Are we not to trust our eyes, are we not to trust our hearts? Exodus is very troubling because it paints a picture of the world in which God has a hand in everything, and we can have control over nothing, and indeed, we can know nothing.

If at least we could know that our hearts and our souls belong to us, then we could find comfort in the idea that although our senses may be deceiving, we can at least be righteously judged by our responses to the world around us. But if God can harden the heart of Pharaoh, then he can harden the hearts of us as well. How can we be expected to take responsibility for our actions if anything we do can be attributed to God?

Exodus really undercuts the notion of freewill, and without freewill, a lot of things become meaningless, indeed existence itself may be suggested to be meaningless. Does the Bible reconcile this later on? Have I misunderstood something?

Exodus: a great characterization of God

Exodus has been pretty interesting. I just got past the ten commandments, and one of the most remarkable parts of Exodus that really distinguishes it from Genesis is God’s personal involvement in the events in Egypt. In Genesis God created the world, but then after that he mostly stepped aside. He would speak to a few men, hand down some judgments and blessings, but aside from the flood, he didn’t cause much physical disturbance.

Exodus, on the other hand, has been all about the miracles of God. God curses Egypt with ten plagues, He gives Moses a shape-shifting snake staff, He allows Moses to part the Red Sea, He makes bread rain down from the sky, and He makes a rock leak water. I probably even missed some miracles, and there’s probably more to come.

Either way, this chapter shows a personal involvement from God not seen from before, furthermore, God’s finally deciding to tell His people what he really wants from them. We no longer need to look to who he finds favor with to try and figure Him out, He’s now granting us commandments and rules to follow.

Exodus has been incredibly important in characterizing God. Exodus gives much more credence to the view of God as being an actual deity, rather than just a personification of an idea. It’s tough to ascribe all those miracles to chance, so if you take the story of Exodus to be literal and to have actually happened, then it seems you’re going to have to posit an active and imminent God.

Which brings me to another important point. God’s name. When you speak of a god (no capitalization), it seems to suggest a mythological supernatural deity. A Jupiter or Odin or what have you. But when you speak of God (with a capital G), it seems to suggest a deity that personifies the idea of higher force. God could be synonymous with the logos, or at least a personification of it. But the Bible clearly illustrates it’s God to be a very personal and immanent. This contrasts explicitly with the idea of a logos, or overriding order and logic, which might be understood to be the body of existent truth. Now, I’m open to the idea of a higher power being personified in a god, since it may be pragmatically beneficial to think in terms such as that. But if the Bible posits a god which actually interacts in human affairs, then that’s far more akin to the type of gods that are traditionally understood as being mythological. The Bible I read refers to God only as God, or the Lord, which suggests that this god is the only god, which in turn suggests that He is representative of truth, absolutes, the logos, etc. A real philosopher’s god. However, I understand from doing some readings elsewhere online that the God of Abraham also has His own name. Yahweh, supposedly, or He may be referred to as YHWH, or Jehovah. This would suggest a more mythological god, one that stands next to Jupiter and Odin rather than above them.

I’m not going to make an judgments yet, but I would be interested in knowing why I have yet to see Yahweh in my version of the Bible. If The god of Abraham has an actual name other than the very general and non-descript “God,” or “The Lord,” then I think that’s of some pretty high importance.

God wants our faith, not our moral perfection

One of the biggest things that I’ve noticed so far in Genesis is that God seems to value our faith much more than our moral perfection.

First God tells Abraham to pack up and leave his whole life behind. Then in Abraham’s old age God insists that he will provide for Abraham a son through Sarah, even though she is barren. Isaac is finally born, and then God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. All through this, Abraham obeys.

One thing that is interesting though, is that God seems to give a little leeway at times. Abraham and Sarah both laughed at the notion that they would conceive a child in their old ages, yet God provided for them anyway. Yet when it came to Lot and his family, Lot’s wife merely looked back at their former home, and yet she was turned to a pillar of salt for it.

God seems to be merciful in some cases, yet entirely without mercy in others. It’s interesting that He has so far given no rules to his worshippers so far, he only demands that they be obedient to Him. God was merciful to Cain, and He was entirely without mercy for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Although Abraham seems to be set up as a paragon of faith, Isaac seems almost to lack importance in his entirety, barring his place as an instrument in the test of Abraham’s faith.

Far more interesting than Isaac are his two sons: Jacob and Esau. The Lord blesses Jacob even before his birth, yet Jacob seems to be one with whom we would not normally identify as being a model to look up to. Jacob denies his brother food in order that he may steal his birthright, and then he tricks his father Isaac into blessing him in Esau’s stead.

Fortunately, Jacob gets his come uppance as he is tricked by Laban into marrying Leah before he may marry Rachel. Poetic justice perhaps (how horrible it must have been to have two wives).

Yet still, even after years of maturing, when Jacob attempts to gain his brother’s favor, he shows a distrust of his brother and flees to Succoth rather than follow Esau to Seir.

So, what do these stories teach us? God seemingly uses all types of people for his work, but then what should we aspire to be? The story of Abraham clearly suggests that God favors those who are faithful to him, yet God also favors Jacob, who was manipulative. Jacob even expresses a degree of indifference to murder, when Simeon and Levi murder all the Shechemites. Jacob’s response to their murder is only to rebuke them for bringing trouble upon him. Jacob seems to express no remorse over their deaths.

So far, one of the only messages that can be implicitly drawn from the text is that God rewards faith, perhaps, I would argue, above moral excellence in it’s own right.

The Tower of Babel and my ambitious writing

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” - Genesis 11:6 and 11:7

Genesis 11 is an important passage for it gives us a characterization of God. It shows us a God who is jealous. Despite God’s omnipotence, God feels affronted by the Tower. He accordingly scatters man across the Earth and confuses man’s tongue.

I believe, that lest the Bible become a chore, and these writings take more importance than the actual readings, that I will have to lessen the intensity of this exegesis. Rather than detail my thoughts over every single page, I’m going to have to read a bit further and reflect on the larger picture.

I initially read half of Genesis in one night, but then each time I sat down to detail my thoughts on the first half of Genesis, I got bogged down on a single concept and devoted an entire post to merely a page or two.

Well, now that Genesis has become centered on longer stories, there’s more detail and there’s less to comment on explicitly. If I try to write too much over merely a page or two of content, I will get bogged down, and I’m certain that I’ll never finish the book.

As such, I’m going to try to read further, maybe get closer to the end of Genesis before I make another post. Hopefully this will keep my posts interesting and insightful, since my fear that these posts may devolve into mere summaries of the text is very real.

Like the Tower of Babel, I set before myself a task that was too great. If I were to continue upon this path, it would only lead to more problems and confusion. By grounding myself in reality, I can better navigate my way through this text. I must remember, exegesis of the text is the important thing, not the narration of the text that is supplied in these writings of mine.

Genesis 4-10: The Eternal Fallibility of Man

Then the Lord said to Cain, “why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” - Genesis 4:6 and 4:7

The position that Cain was placed in deserves critical reflection. It seems odd that God would look upon Abel’s offerings with favor, yet not upon Cain’s. The only distinction between the two offerings is that Abel’s was an offering borne from his livestock, while Cain’s offering was borne of the soil. Does God prefer herdsman to men of the soil? Or is it rather that it was test? By looking upon one brother’s offerings with favor and not upon the other, is God testing the first born generation of Man? Either way, we see that it is not long since Man has left Eden, and already sin has reached the climax that is murder. The first man born becomes the first man to kill. The very next chapter we see God cleansing the Earth already of his creations! Man has become so sinful that God has decided to create a great flood which will eradicate mankind!

So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air – for I am grieved that I have made them.” - Genesis 6:7

Not only does God decide to eradicate mankind, He even expresses grief at having created man! Which is extremely odd if your conception of God involves Him being omniscient. Regardless, the Bible launches into the story of Noah, who is a righteous man, and who God creates a covenant with. However, it once again does not take long for Man to prove his fallibility. Noah gets drunk and lies naked. Enraged that Ham saw his nakedness, while Shem and Japheth stayed their eyes and yet covered their father, Noah curses Ham and with him all of Canaan, while blessing Shem and Japheth. The message from these chapters seems quite clearly this: Man is fallible, and even the most righteous may sin.

Genesis 2-3: The Fall of Man

“And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” – Genesis 2:16 and 2:17

Genesis 2:17 has that peculiar trait of being at once immediately disturbing and yet somehow righteous and comforting. God plays the role of concerned parent has he warns his creation of something potentially dangerous. Admirable. Yet, why would man be forbidden knowledge? Why would knowledge be so unfortunately linked with death?

The answer, it seems, is because knowledge of good and evil belongs to God, as does immortality. Man must choose between one or the other. Knowledge of good and evil or immortality? Which would you choose? Would you rebel against God and choose your intellectual independence? Or would you remain his servant and live in perpetual peace?

Prior to Man’s Fall, existence must have been blissful. There was no good and evil, for man had no conception of such. There was only true and false. Things are as they appear, and there can be subjective judgments regarding them. Only God’s word existed as judgment, and his judgments must have been understood as exact. This must have been a transcendental existence; oh! to be able to comprehend monism! To be able to comprehend noumena and understand things as they are in themselves!

However, when man fell, he gained knowledge of good and evil, and I believe this signifies man’s perception becoming layered by dualism. No longer could the world be understood simply through the schemata of true/false! God’s word no longer held the power that it once did, for it can be (and it was) disobeyed. Man’s perceptions of the world would from then on be schematized by judgments of good and evil.

What does this mean precisely? Should we regret our fall? Should we lament the failure of Adam and Eve? Metaphorically, I believe that The Fall of Man symbolizes humanity’s coming to terms with itself on a deeper level. At some point in our evolution we no longer saw the world the way animals do; in there being merely truth and non-truths. Rather, humanity became the first species to view the world in terms of good and evil.

But dualism means more than just seeing the world through the schemata of good/evil. It is an entire way of viewing the world through relationships between mind and matter.

It is my conviction that there is an absolute way of viewing the world, and it is a way in which humans are now incapable of seeing. There are limits to reason, and we can never know the absolute. As such, dualism should be rejected as ontologically valid, though it should be accepted as a working distinction that can be cast as being functionally valuable, and therefore of pragmatic necessity.

Although we may never be able to comprehend a monist or absolute view of the world, dualism affords us working distinctions, without which man would scarcely render his existence more valuable than that of the sheep he tends. Whether you lament or praise the Fall of Man and our condemnation to dualism, it must be posited that the Fall has given man purpose.