bookmark_borderAug 22

Reference links:

Old Testament

The key thing to remember while reading the speeches of Job and his friends is that the prologue has set Job up as righteous. It is something of a tradition to try to figure out what what Job had done wrong so as to justify his suffering, but that defeats the purpose and power of the book. The book of Job expounds upon the observation that suffering cannot always be seen as punishment (for even when suffering comes to one who is not completely righteous, it is often vastly disproportionate to what would seem to be a just punishment). Without the basis of Job’s righteousness, this becomes nothing more than yet another overly simplistic theology which does not align with real world data. With the basis of Job’s righteousness, it becomes a powerful (if, as we’ll see, ultimately unsatisfying) attempt to address the problem of evil and human suffering.

In today’s reading, Eliphaz the Temanite responds to Job’s despair. He accuses Job of not being strong in the face of adversity and of being guilty before God (and therefore deserving of punishment). Eliphaz focuses on the good that God does in language that is probably not unintentionally reminiscent of the  proverbs. Eliphaz argues that if only Job makes himself right with God, then all will be well again. Eliphaz’s argument is comforting, but does it account for reality where both the good and wicked suffer, both the good and wicked succeed?

Job’s response defends his right to complain. He does not accuse God of being unfair, but he does maintain that his complaints are no sin. He also points out that his despair is more than he can bear. This passage provides an interesting pairing with 1 Corinthians 10:13 which implies that the trials of believers are never more than they can bear.

There is one line of Job’s response that sheds light upon the response of Eliphaz:

You have seen my calamity, and you are afraid.

Eliphaz’s explanation is so temptingly comforting because no one wants to believe that they are a slight turn of events away from despair and misfortune. Eliphaz wants to believe that Job is quantitatively different from him. He wants to believe that he would not be like Job in a similar situation but, even more, Eliphaz wants to believe that he would never be in such a situation. This is human nature. People always assume that bad things will never happen to them. “Worse case” scenarios are never really worst case. Job acts as a direct affront to such deeply held beliefs.

New Testament

Paul continues on about how the gift of prophecy is more important than the gift of speaking in tongues. He then talks about particular rules for making sure that the worship sessions are orderly. As part of this he says the following:

Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

Now, there is some controversy about which (if any) of the Corinthian passages about the proper behavior of women are genuinely Pauline. This passage makes it clear, to me at least, that one of this or 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 must be questionable. As much as there is to dislike in the earlier passage, it makes it pretty clear that women are allowed to prophecy and pray as part of public worship.

But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head.

and

Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head?

I cannot see how to reconcile that as consistent with the above passage from today’s reading. Either Paul is inconsistent and uncertain about his approach to women in the church (quite possible) or one both of these passages were inserted by later redactors.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing particularly interesting to me.

bookmark_borderAug 21

Reference links:

Old Testament

Book of Job! Let’s see what our references have to say about it. According to Understanding the Bible:

A bold challenge to traditional views of God, the Book of Job dramatizes the plight of an innocent man whose tragic sufferings inspire him to question the ethical nature of a deity who permits evil and the unmerited pain of sentient creatures. …

Although scholars do not agree on when Job was written, the general period of its composition can be inferred from the theological issues it confronts. … In its questioning of God’s right to prosecute a person of exemplary goodness without just cause, however, the book is far more than an edifying study of the hero’s fortitude and loyalty under sever testing. The Tanakh’s most fully developed theodicy … Job seems to express the deepest concerns of the postexilic era, when old assumptions about rewards for faithfulness and penalties for wrongdoing had lost much of their former authority.  …

After Babylon’s destruction of Judah, however, when thousands of Torah-abiding people permanently lost family, health, land, and possessions, confidence that righteous behavior could ensure a good life was less easy to entertain. Observing widespread injustice that turned the Deuteronomistic thesis on its head … the anonymous author of Job could accept neither Deuteronomy’s simplistic theories nor Ezekiel’s implication that human misery always drives from sin. Combining traditional reverence for Yahweh with an acutely critical intelligence and demand for moral logic, Job’s author protests comfortable but outmoded notions about the connection between good behavior and good fortune. … the writer … forcefully illustrates his conviction that old theological claims about the certainty of divine justice were woefully inadequate to explain the apparent random and arbitrary nature of human pain.

On to today’s reading!

Job starts with an introductory passage where the satan, God’s monitor of humanity responds to a challenge from God that Job is a truly righteous man. The satan posits that Job will not be so righteous if he experiences misfortune and God gives the satan leave to test Job.

In modern Christian thought, the satan has evolved into an individual, Satan. Satan, the individual, is seen as God’s enemy. Thus, this exchange between God and Satan often seems highly problematic. Even the traditional Jewish view that the satan is God’s servant charged with monitoring humanity is problematic to the popular view that God is all goodness and love. The book of Job shows that, in the mind of its author, God is the author of both good and misfortune. There is no separate entity responsible for that which humans consider bad, only God’s assistant who carry out his sometimes incomprehensible will. As we will see, this theme will be enlarged upon.

Job first loses his children and his wealth. Although this causes him great grief, he does not curse God. This causes the satan to go back to God and suggest that Job might not be so reconciled if he were to experience bodily harm. As a result, Job is afflicted with painful boils.

Job still refuses to curse God, but he suffers greatly and eventually speaks out, beginning the transition from the prose prologue to the poetic core of the book. Job curses the day he was born and comments upon the release from suffering of those who are dead. Essentially, Job is laying out poetically the problem of evil. Why would a just and good God allow unnecessary suffering? Why would God let people live lives that can only be improved by death?

This poem also gives interesting insights into the author’s beliefs about the afterlife. In general, the Old Testament presents the afterlife as nothing. There is no great reward for the good or eternal suffering for the wicked. There is only punishment and reward in this life and then an afterlife of neutral blankness. Popular conceptions of heaven and hell did not develop until the period between the Old and the New Testaments.

New Testament

After going on about how all of the spiritual gifts are important, Paul tells the people of Corinth to prefer the gift of prophecy over all others but love. That’s something of a mixed message.

Paul then goes on to describe why prophecy is to be preferred over speaking in tongues in a way that gives useful insight into communication generally:

Dear brothers and sisters, if I should come to you speaking in an unknown language, how would that help you? But if I bring you a revelation or some special knowledge or prophecy or teaching, that will be helpful. Even lifeless instruments like the flute or the harp must play the notes clearly, or no one will recognize the melody. And if the bugler doesn’t sound a clear call, how will the soldiers know they are being called to battle?

It’s the same for you. If you speak to people in words they don’t understand, how will they know what you are saying? You might as well be talking into empty space.

Psalms and Proverbs

The proverbs the last couple days have felt redundant with ones we have read before. Today’s proverbs continue that trend.

bookmark_borderAug 20

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish Esther today, making it our shortest book (in days) so far. We wrap things up in a somewhat unpleasant way.

The command that was issued in the king’s name cannot be taken back. (Hint to anyone who might design a government: bad idea; always leave yourself loopholes.) Because of this, the people of the empire are still free to murder Jews on the appointed day. However, the king issues a new decree giving them permission to defend themselves.

Now, I am guessing the real point of this new decree was to indicate to the people that, despite what the previous decree had said, they should not attack the Jews. I cannot imagine that before getting this permission to defend themselves, the Jews were going to just let themselves be killed.

The Jews defend themselves with great success. However, despite having the permission to take the property of anyone they kill, they do not take advantage of this. I suppose the point of this is to show that the Jews are better than the people who would have killed them.

Up to this point, I am kind of okay with this. If you have a stupid government system that does not allow the king to change his mind, then encouraging self defense is the next best thing. And if people were stupid enough to attack the Jews under these conditions, let them die.

It’s what happens next that bugs me and makes me like Queen Esther less than I have so far. After the appointed day, the Jews had killed 500 people in the fortress of Susa (where the king and queen lived) and 75,000 throughout the rest of the provinces (side note: these numbers are one of the things that leave scholars to think this is fictional; such massive killing is unlikely to have gone unrecorded in other sources).

When the day is over, the king asks Esther if there is anything else she wants.

Esther responded, “If it please the king, give the Jews in Susa permission to do again tomorrow as they have done today, and let the bodies of Haman’s ten sons be impaled on a pole.”

How unnecessarily vengeful! Asking to let the Jews kill anyone they want for another day. Now, if this had been phrased as a request for continuing permission to defend themselves, that would be acceptable. But this! This just sounds like Esther is out for blood.

In any case, the purpose of this story (and it was a good story) was to explain the origin of the festival of Purim. Thus ends Esther. Tomorrow: Job!

New Testament

Paul finishes his body analogy by talking about some of the specific roles within the early church. This is followed by one of the most famous Pauline passages: the commentary on love. This passage is so familiar that I have nothing to say about most of it except that, even to a non-believer, it is very lovely.

I do, however, want to highlight one passage,

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

Paul has often implies that believers should not be too critical of those who express their beliefs differently, and should limit what judgments they have to fellow believers. The main tempering of this permissiveness is the warning that people should take into account the needs and limitations of those they interact with. (Paul’s discussion of what is and is not proper to eat is a illustrative example).

The passage above takes those ideas even further. Here, Paul emphasizes that even what he knows is partial and incomplete, despite the fact that he sees much more clearly than he use to. This makes clear why he often hesitates in condemning others. Even though he has certain feelings about what is right and wrong, he knows that he only has partial knowledge now.

This is, in my opinion, one of those passages that many modern Christians, especially the type who end up getting attention in the main stream media, do not take seriously enough.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing new.

bookmark_borderAug 19

Reference links:

Old Testament

Esther continues to be a fun and exciting read.

Mordecai mourns the fate of the Jews. Eventually, Esther hears of her cousin’s distress and asks him what is wrong. He tells her, and asks her to intervene. Esther, however, is reluctant to take on that role. She knows that going into the king’s presence uninvited can mean death.

Mordecai persuades her to take that risk. Perhaps, he tells her, she was placed in the position of queen for just a time as this. He does not fail to add that she too would likely be killed in a massacre of the Jews.

Esther agrees to intervene with the king and, after a period of fasting, does so quite skillfully. She enteres the king’s presence and is forgiven. She then invites the king and Haman to a banquet. (Remember, Haman was the official who ordered the killing of the Jews because he was annoyed at Mordecai).  I love Esther’s invitation to the second banquet:

If I have found favor with the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my request and do what I ask, please come with Haman tomorrow to the banquet I will prepare for you. Then I will explain what this is all about.

She does not hide that she is buttering the king up, but she reveals it in such as way as to make it seem flattering rather than pathetic. Brilliant!

After that banquet, the king learns that Mordecai once saved his life and decides to honor Mordecai. He asks Haman how the king should honor the man, and Haman, thinking the king means to honor him, answers,

If the king wishes to honor someone, he should bring out one of the king’s own royal robes, as well as a horse that the king himself has ridden—one with a royal emblem on its head. Let the robes and the horse be handed over to one of the king’s most noble officials. And let him see that the man whom the king wishes to honor is dressed in the king’s robes and led through the city square on the king’s horse. Have the official shout as they go, ‘This is what the king does for someone he wishes to honor!’

The king has Haman do this for Mordecai, and this after Haman had been planning to kill Mordecai. Haman is mortified.

After that, Esther holds her second banquet. She reveals that Haman is the enemy of the Jews. While the king temporarily walks away in rage, Haman begs Esther for his life. The king comes back and thinks this begging is an assault on Esther and orders Haman killed.

While I think that it is properly literary justice that Haman be killed, I do wish that he was not killed on false pretenses (assaulting the queen). I wish, instead, that his crimes had been seen as enough on his own. But either way, it makes for good story.

What happens tomorrow? We’ll have to wait and see.

New Testament

Paul talks about the importance of spiritual gifts. The members of the church in Corinth have received many spiritual gifts, but they come from the same spirit and so are all important. To emphasize the importance of all of these gifts, and to, presumably, speak against those who may have been puffing themselves over the importance of their own gifts, Paul gives an analogy of the human body. Paul is much better at analogies than he is at logical reasoning.

The members of the Corinthian church are like the different parts of the human body. All of them are important in their own way; all of them are necessary. Without all of the different parts, the body would not function. He then extends this analogy to talk about harmony and caring in the church. Since they are all parts of one body, they all share suffering

Psalms and Proverbs

Whoever pursues righteousness and unfailing love
will find life, righteousness, and honor.

As non-religious as I am, I have observed enough to recognize that mature belief calls for balance. Depending on tradition, exactly what is in balance varies. However, there is always balance. Today, we see that is the above proverb.

The wise conquer the city of the strong
and level the fortress in which they trust.

This, I think, is totally the proverb for nerds and geeks. Those of us who consider ourselves wise and have rarely been among the strong. (Ignore, just to indulge us, the difference between intelligence and wisdom.)

bookmark_borderAug 18

Reference links:

Old Testament

New book! Today we start the book of Esther. According to Harris’s Understanding the Bible,

Esther is a strongly nationalistic story in which a beautiful Jewish queen risks her life to help save her people from Haman’s plot to annihilate them. This secular tale of heroic resistance to Gentile persecution celebrates the origin of the festival of Purim. … 

The only book in the Hebrew Bible that does not even mention God, Esther at first glance appears to be an entirely secular tale, one in which human characters seem to act on their own initiative and without specific divine guidance. On closer inspection, however, Esther may represent a fresh and subtle way of representing God’s hidden influence on human history. … 

As a work of historical imagination, Esther interweaves some reliable information about the Persian Empire during the fifth century B.C.E. with an ingenious tale of imminent catastrophe and redemption. Scholars believe that the author may have adapted the historical background … Attempts to verify specific events in the story, however, have been unsuccessful.

Wikipedia adds the following interesting detail:

The story is also the first time that the word Jew (יְהוּדִי) was used, thus denoting a distinction between the Hebrews, the Israelites, and their Jewish descendants in the diaspora.

Note that this is relative to the traditional ordering used in the Tanakh. As I have noted, both Ezra and Nehemiah use the term, but they come after Esther in the Tanakh.

Probably the most important thing about the book of Esther from my point of view, is that it is a good story. That is quite a relief after Ezra and Nehemiah. King Ahasuerus (a.k.a., King Xerxes), deposes his wife, Queen Vashti, when she refuses to appear before the drunken king and his drunken guests. This, in my opinion, should be any woman’s prerogative, even if her husband is the king.

Having sent away Vashti, Ahasuerus gathers up all of the beautiful women of the land and adds them to his harm. He sleeps with them one by one until he finds one he likes well enough to be his king. Interesting but rather disturbing detail:

When it was time for [one of the young women] to go to the king’s palace, she was given her choice of whatever clothing or jewelry she wanted to take from the harem. That evening she was taken to the king’s private rooms, and the next morning she was brought to the second harem, where the king’s wives lived. There she would be under the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch in charge of the concubines. She would never go to the king again unless he had especially enjoyed her and requested her by name.

So for most of these women, the best of the beautiful young virgins of the land, this signals the end of their chance at a loving or even at a sexual relationship. Unless they happen to get pregnant in that one night, they will never be mothers. They will live their life out as unused possessions of the king. They probably lived a life of relative luxury, but still, it is kind of a harsh fate for a king to try and throw off so many women.

Can you tell I’m not so fond of Ahasurerus? In any case, the chosen woman is Esther, a beautiful Jewish woman. She hides her heritage under the instruction of her cousin and caretaker, Mordecai. Mordecai saves the king from an assassination plot, but he also angers Haman, the kings official, by not bowing down when Haman goes by.

This bugs Haman, so he decides to kill off all the Jews in the land. Ahasureus agrees, and a degree is sent out that in a bit less than a year, there would be a day when everyone would be allowed to kill Jews and take their property.

Oh no! We’ll have to wait until tomorrow to see what happens next.

New Testament

Paul talks about proper behavior at the Lord’s Supper. During that discussion, he drops this bomb of a statement (emphasis mine),

So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. That is why you should examine yourself before eating the bread and drinking the cup. For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself. That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died.

Paul just claimed that people who approach the Lord’s Supper the wrong way get sick and die. Do any Christians actually believe this? It sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing new.

bookmark_borderAug 17

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish Nehemiah today. We get to see another case of applying commands explicitly meant for the Israelites as they were taking over the land of Canaan to the Israelites returned from exile (or, alternately, we see another case that adds to the suspicion that the details of the traditional stories were doctored to apply more closely to the situation of the returned exiles). We also have a couple more passages that make it seem like the point of Nehemiah is to show what a great and obedient person Nehemiah was.

Overall, I was rather bored with Nehemiah. Our next book, Ester, should be much more interesting.

New Testament

In today’s reading, Paul tries and fails to make a case that his cultural norms are somehow absolute.

Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.  But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches. [emphasis added]

Essentially, Paul is arguing that women should have long hair because… women have long hair. Nice tautological reasoning there.

This is part of an argument that women should wear head coverings in prayer and men should not. I don’t buy the argument. Not only, as is not unusual, do I no buy the premises. I also think that the reasoning makes no sense. Paul seems to be working under the assumption that if he strings enough statements together, eventually he will be convincing. There is no actual underlying argument here. Even Harris says, in Understanding the Bible, Eight Edition,

Paul’s argument for relegating women to a subordinate position in church strikes many readers as labored and illogical.

That’s the problem here. This whole passage feels labored. It seems like Paul is trying to make a logical argument, but his statements follow none of the rules for a logical argument.

Paul should, perhaps, stick to passionate persuasion and leave logic to someone else.

It’s also worth noting that Genesis most distinctly has two creation stories. One where man and woman are created at the same time and one where woman is created from man. Paul very selectively chooses the later. A case nearly opposite to his easily could be (and has been) made with the other.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing new.

bookmark_borderAug 16

Reference links:

Old Testament

Once again, pseudo random number generators are being declared holy. After that, more lists.

How many days worth of reading would be be able to skip if got rid of all of the boring lists of people. I’m guessing at least two weeks worth. If we added other random lists (such as the detailed descriptions of the tabernacle and temple), I am guessing we could probably get rid of another week’s worth.

Overall, I am still finding this project interesting and valuable, but those lists represent hours of my life that have been utterly wasted.

New Testament

Paul continues to talk about eating habits. Paul touches here upon a very valid point. There is much importance and symbolism in eating and drinking. Both what we eat and how we eat it. A McDonald’s burger eaten in the car is an emotionally different thing than a lovingly made meal eaten with loved ones.

Paul spends any points he may have gained today by saying that all idols are demons. Really Paul, really? Demons? Not just fake or perhaps incorrectly worshiped manifestations of the one true God? But demons? That is both likely to breed disrespect and kind of ridiculous.

I think Paul’s feelings on what one should and should not eat can be summed up with this statement from near the end of today’s reading:

So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Psalms and Proverbs

Another proverb of questionable morality:

A secret gift calms anger;
a bribe under the table pacifies fury.

bookmark_borderAug 15

Reference links:

Old Testament

We finish up the summary of Israel’s history covering: the conquest of the land of Canaan, the disobedience of the people, and God’s repeated mercy. This is followed by yet another list. The people then vow to follow the Law of Moses.

It is interesting how exactly the regulations expressed in the Law of Moses seem to fit with the needs of the time. E.g., preventing marriage between the easily absorbed group of returned exiles and the locals or supporting the priests in the newer and much poorer temple. This, in my opinion, provides support for the scholarly opinion that much of the Mosaic law was actually codified at this time.

New Testament

After finishing his speech about adjusting your behavior to those you live among, Paul also gives us a history lesson. Paul claims that Christ was travelling with the Israelites through their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. He also implies that everything that happened to the Israelites, happened to provide a lesson for Christians of Paul’s time.

Claims like these annoy me. Certainly, Paul and his followers should reinterpret the past to get meaning that is applicable to their present situation. But what bugs me is the implication, based on the wording, that this Christ-centric interpretation is the only valid interpretation of those past events. This, in essence, says to the Jews, “Everything you believe about your past is wrong. Here is what it actually means.” A more healthy attitude would be, “Everything you believe about your past is valid, but here is an additional level of meaning.”

Of course, it’s always hard to analyze such subtle issues as wording in a translation. Paul’s original Greek may very well have had more of the second sense than the first. In that case, the issue still stands, but the subject changes. Instead of Paul showing disrespect for the interpretive traditions of the Jews, it is the translators. Either way, still annoying.

It’s also worth noting that the sexual immorality that caused 23,000 people to die in one day is, as best as I can tell, referring to Numbers 25 (although that says 24,000 people died). Paul fails to mention that the primary source of God’s wrath is that the Israelites are having sex with foreign Moabite women and worshiping their God. Paul, it seems, is committing something of a lie of omission by not mentioning that aspect of the situation.

I find it interesting that Paul says this:

And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.

Not only does God choose who he will let believe properly, but then he makes sure that those who have been led to believe are not put into situations that will test their belief beyond their abilities. This seems rather unfair.

Now, I know that one standard answer for this unfairness is that God leads everyone who would believe to believe. Thus, it’s perfectly fair because the people God does not lead to belief would not believe even if God did try to help them, and so, since God knows everyone’s hearts perfectly, it’s perfectly okay for him not to try.

However, I have not really seen anything which makes a Biblical case for that particular theodicy. Everything I have noticed so far seems to imply, like today’s reading, that God just favors some people or another for no reason that we are given.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of particular note.

bookmark_borderAug 14

Reference links:

Old Testament

So, the first part of today’s reading, Nehemiah 7:61-73, is pretty much word for word the same as Ezra 2:59-70. Boring!

The rest is not much more interesting. Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people, they paid attention and worshiped the Lord, celebrated the festival of shelters, and then listened to a recap of the adventures of the Israelites from Abraham to the 40 years of wandering.

The idea of a festival where you build yourself a shelter still entertains me, so at least that bit was interesting.

New Testament

Paul discusses how it was within his rights to expect the support of the churches he founded, but he never took advantage of that right. Reminds me of Nehemiah.

Psalms and Proverbs

I do not think I get this proverb:

If you punish a mocker, the simpleminded become wise;
if you instruct the wise, they will be all the wiser.

The second part is pretty clear, but the first part confuses me. I am guessing the author is saying that people learn from seeing others punished? I suppose so although there is much proof to support that punishment is among the least effective ways to regulate behavior.

bookmark_borderAug 13

Reference links:

Old Testament

I am reading Jane Austen’s Persuasion and, since I am not a Christian, I can say with out guilt that is is vastly more interesting and instructive than the vast majority of the Bible. This includes today’s reading which consists largely of more lists.

Nehemiah describes his virtue in refusing to put more burdens on the people during his years as governor of Judah, his devotion in working on the wall of Jerusalem, and his faithfulness in resisting his enemies. Both the things described and the wording make it seems like Nehemiah is mostly using this document to count up the points God should award to him and deduct from his enemies.

After that, a long dull list of the people who returned from exile.

New Testament

Paul talks about whether or not one should eat food sacrificed to idols. It is okay, but because some weak minded folks might be led astray by it, it should be avoided. Independent of the religious content, this seems like sound advice with respect to personal relationships: don’t lead the people around you into temptation. However, I think that such cautiousness can be taken to the extreme. If you never do things because someone might be led astray by them, then you will live a very limited life since almost anything can be a source of weakness to someone.

Psalms and Proverbs

Nothing of a particular note.