Author: Al
Posted: 2006-09-14 14:50:31
|
The SAB has substantially more injustices listed for Exodus than Genesis. In my opinion it is a far harsher book. It describes a tough time for the Israelites, and as such it takes on a darker tone. Strangely enough, the SAB can find some good in it though. I am finding that the SAB chooses to ignore overriding and esoteric messages in the Bible, and instead chooses to dwell in the minutia of the text. With that being the case, I am surprised that I have been able to take it on under its own terms at all. Although Exodus is one of the more studied books of the Old Testament by Christians, it chronicles the Jews at a time when they were quite savage. As I said, these were hard times. Taken on its own, Exodus could hardly give anyone a reasonable view of God. There are injustices here that will not be corrected until the time of Christ. These predominantly have to do with the rights of women and children. Still, I do not wish to explain away my faith. I will defend every attack as best as I can upon the merits of the verses in question.
The following are my responses to the Injustices in Exodus as of 09/14/06
--
#38 Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking (Ex 2:11-12). It may be quite true that this killing was unjust (It was not if the Egyptian had been intent on killing the slave), but it resulted in the eventual freedom of the Israelites. I am okay with that.
#39 Why are some people born with disabilities? Because God deliberately makes them that way (Ex 4:11). That is a gross misinterpretation of the text cited. The claim has merit within reason, but it does not garner evidence from this verse. This verse is about the knowledge the Creator has of all of our faculties, and the use that he may make of them. If and when the Creator does disable someone, it is for a purpose (either personal or grand). It is good for the person, and/or for creation. But that is neither here nor there.
#40 The hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21). As a personal note, I have always thought of the “hardening of Pharaoh's heart” as a bit of a stretch. I honestly do not believe that God did it in the way that most of protestant theology accepts it. I can take it as a reference to the hubris, and callousness of totalitarian rule. But I just do not think that God actually did the hardening. Pharaoh was not the nicest guy in the world before the Exodus. Why then would the Creator have to go out of his way to make him meaner? If he did, I cannot see how it was just. The standard Protestant arguments just do not persuade me. Note: The SAB lists a contradiction for this passage with 1 Sam 6:6. I have no plans to tackle the contradictions in the manner in which I am doing the injustices and will do the cruelties. Suffice to say that I agree with 1 Sam.
#41 God threatens to kill Pharaoh's firstborn son (Ex 4:23). It took a very long time to find this snippet in the Moffatt Bible. It was buried between chapters 9 and 10. Unfortunately the reasons for doing so are not given. New Testament rearrangements are almost always explained, it seems that Old Testament ones never get such treatment. Biblical criticism of this story is fascinating. Apparently more than a few scholars have been concerned about the first chapters of Exodus. I find this story to be fairly just from a pragmatic point of view. The enslavement of a nation versus the life of the Pharaoh's son. The story is powerful to me. It takes a very cynical person to qualify it as unjust. If you accept the Christian view that God is God, and Jesus is Christ, then to bring about all of this, the threatening of a single life is hardly worth questioning. Even from a secular point of view, who would weigh one life against say, the enslavement of Africans in our own country?
#42 God decides to kill Moses because his son had not been circumcised (Ex 4:24-26). Here we find another tale under hot biblical debate as to what it says, let alone what it means. It is generally understood that the meaning of the text has been lost. The SAB takes a bold stand in saying that it was Moses who was going to be killed. The original verses are not nearly so clear. I could give a mountain of conjecture about this little story, but I feel that it would all be in vane. If someone wishes to accept it as the SAB states it, then explaining it away as a just story is child's play. We have already gone over the importance of circumcision. The importance apparently still stood at the time of Moses. I will admit though, that the imagery from the Brick Testament is hilarious.
#43 God makes sure that Pharaoh does not listen to Moses, so that he can kill Egyptians with his armies (Ex 7:4). That is a pretty cynical view of the verse. The SAB highlights the sections that it finds interest in. This verse in particular is only partially highlighted. The uninteresting text is as follows “and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.” When you put the whole verse together, it says nothing of the sort that the SAB is implying. It is prophetic in that it predicts that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses. It also implies that this is the only way to properly bring Israel out of Egypt. But that is all.
#44 "And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." (Ex 7:5, 17) The SAB uses this verse to be a little humorous. Their question is: “Who else could be so cruel and unjust?” But this verse has no cruelty or injustice in it.
#45-47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 The first, fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth plagues (Ex 7:17-24, 9:2-6, 9:9-12, 9:19-25, 12:12-30). These are the plagues that the SAB finds unjust. They are (for the uninitiated), the river turning into blood, the death of cattle, boils upon man and beast, hail, and the death of the first born. Again, weighed against the enslavement of a nation, these are trivial complaints.
#48 God sends plagues so that we may know him better (Ex 9:14). St. Theresa said something like, with friends like God, you don't need enemies. The Eternal has no reverence for our mortal coils. He uses them for his purposes and will dispatch with them when necessary. That does not mean that we are unloved. It means that we are something more than a body. Look at it this way, if God had not sent these plagues, the Egyptians might have been completely wiped out due to their inequity. A large slave population causes problems. These plagues, apart from saving Israel, may have been an act of benevolence to the Egyptians as well. It is obvious that doing what is good for you often hurts. The Creator is very willing to do what is right for us regardless of how much it hurts. There exists no mortal pain or price that is beyond the point of diminishing returns when seeking your salvation.
#51 These verses clearly show that the mass murder of innocent children by God was premeditated (Ex 11:4-6). I can hardly blame the SAB for using diction like premeditation against the Eternal. Most of the Protestant faiths do it too. The fact of the matter is, that any past, or future tense description of God's actions will be clumsy. The God of Christendom is outside of time. All moments, from beginning to end are ever present. Thus, words like “premeditated” and “predestined” are ill used. Our linear minds cannot grasp how these things work for the Creator. This leads to a great deal of division among our own ranks. It leads to easy attacks by detractors like the SAB. Such matters should be approached humbly by Christians. Apologia should simply state that it is a great unknown, and descriptions in our native concepts are prone to oversimplification. Thus, if you wish to believe that the action was premeditated, then that is fine. Does having a plan for freeing the Israelites make the actions of the plan worse? Such a weighty undertaking (if done by a man) would be silly if it were not premeditated.
#55 God encourages the Israelites to steal from the Egyptians (Ex 12:35-36). This is a fun little part of the story. The Egyptians were so very happy to be getting rid of the Jews that they gave them all of their jewelry. If the Egyptians were happy to send the Israelites on their way with the items, then I suppose that we should not complain. Still, the story seems a little amoral. I suspect that the jewelry came from the upper class as most commoners would not have such possessions. This makes the story much easier to swallow. Then, it would seem that the Israelites were not ripping off the common man, but rather the ones who had directly benefited from their enslavement. At any rate, I see the point that the SAB is trying to make here, and even sympathize with it a little. I really have to play my trump card and say that this story is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Thus the verse becomes qualified by an admonishment later in the Bible. We might not be able to condemn the Israelites for taking this property, but it certainly is not an action which we can hold up and applaud.
#56 No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover (Ex 12:43-48). Which of these people would want to eat the Passover? Seriously. Judaism is not exactly an inclusive religion. As such, why would it be unjust to not include them? Please remember the historical context here. Strangers were your enemy. They were just as likely to kill you as to do anything else. Thus, they were not included in such ceremonies. The same people who complain about this complain about the overzealous inclusiveness of Christianity.
#57 God shows his approval of slavery (Ex 12:44). That is not what it says. Interestingly enough, this verse includes slaves as part of the community. They have a higher standing than strangers. To me, these are the first gingerly taken steps to abolishing slavery from Jewish society. The SAB seems to just enjoy throwing the word slavery about because of the negative connotation that it has in our society.
#58 To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to "sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix" -- all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies (Ex 13:2, 12, 15). The way in which the SAB phrases this is funny. Are we to assume that it would not be an injustice if male and female were sacrificed alike? Aside from the fact that Christians do not perform blood sacrifices at all, I would still like to defend this verse. The deliverance out of Egypt was a costly ordeal for all involved. These sacrifices have a few weighty meanings in the light of this. First, they serve as a kind of atonement for the price paid by others to gain their freedom. Second, they serve as a concrete display of trust in God. Third, they allow participation on a very symbolic level in this historic event.
#59 After hardening Pharaoh's heart a few more times, God drowns Pharaoh's army in the sea (ex 14:4-28). We've already talked about the heart hardening thing, but as for Pharaoh's army, what else was God supposed to do with them? Without Pharaoh they were still not likely to have left the Israelites alone. With a standing army, the next leader of Egypt may have very likely recaptured the Israelites. The army had to go.
#60 If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... (Ex 15:26) Let us pay special attention to this verse. It is in a number of the SAB lists. According to the SAB, this one little verse is cruel, unjust, intolerant, scientifically inaccurate, and absurd. Very well then, if all of that were true I would imagine that some snippet from the scripture would be included in the complaint. That would just get in the way of the cynicism though. In a way it is helpful for me to deal with the problem exactly as the SAB has phrased it. In the actual scripture we find tempting legalities that we might use to wiggle out of this spot. For instance, the verse is very specific that the diseases in question are the ones that were visited upon the Egyptians. It would be tempting to say that these particular horrors have not been wrought upon Israel. That would not be very fair to the SAB, so let us throw that argument out completely. It may have validity, but we will not need it in our current proof. This is part of the buildup to Christianity. No one will keep God's laws perfectly. Thus, to escape the ultimate consequences of sin Christ is needed. Consider that death is the wage of sin. This goes back to the justice of the fall. If you were created for God, then to turn from him is to negate your purpose, and thus forfeit your life. There is a mountain of Christian apologetics on the problem of pain. This particular verse is a warning to all that iniquity will bring about heartache. Perhaps God will personally bring the world down around you, perhaps he will be content to let you bring it down about yourself. Either way, pain, suffering, and death have been reconciled with the Christian viewpoint as very just things from the Creator. Indeed, in many cases these things are considered gifts from him.
#61 When the people complain to Moses, he tells them they aren't complaining about him, but about God, making them apostates and heretics, and therefore deserve severe punishment. Religious leaders have used this tactic ever since (Ex 16:8). I am inclined to think that it was used by religious leaders prior to Moses as well. The exact problem here is that the verse says nothing about apostasy or heresy. Indeed, the children of Israel are rewarded (in a manner) for their murmurings. I cannot help that horrible leaders do horrible things with scripture. This has been covered already. It is quite sad to see the SAB add to this verse what it wishes for it to have so that it may be a talking point. There will be plenty of opportunities to air this grievance when it is somewhat appropriate. This time it is not.
#62 Exact Repeat of #59, verse and everything. Perhaps a programming error?
#63 God favors Israelites "above all people." (Ex 19:5). It is really a mystery as to why God picked the Israelites to reveal himself to most completely. We can speculate, but that really would not answer the question. Christ may have revoked this “most favored nation” status when he set the disciples about preaching to the gentiles. There is a certain funny business about a book written by Jews about how they are the most favored nation that I do appreciate though. Don't worry SAB the rest of us do kind of chuckle at it. As Americans, rightly or not, we tend to think that we are favored by God. This wasn't written down in the Bible, so we are obviously open to the notion of change. As it stands, here are my personal beliefs. Every nation/race was given some of the truth of God. Hence we find the many parallels to Christianity in pagan religions. This has been noted for centuries. Jews, because of their size, location, and a host of unknowable facts were chosen to come especially close. One nation had to be built up to teach the others. Christ came, corrected the remaining flaws, and sent his disciples into the world to begin the process.
#64 Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." Did Moses impose such severe penalties because he feared that someone might see him fake his meeting with God? (Ex 19:12-13) I find that the apologia for #63 holds for this qualm as well. Here are the problems with others vying for Moses' Authority. First, if the others were less than scrupulous, then they might lead the Israelites astray with false authority from going up on the mountain. Second, let us acknowledge the claim that these meetings were faked. Indeed, I can understand the skepticism here. If one of my leaders went up to have a personal chat with God, and forbade me from viewing the exchange, I would instantly cry fraud. I, however, am in a different position than was any Israelite. Moses really had nothing to gain from them. He was free, and had a family. He had no impetus to return to Egypt to free the Israelites. They were nothing but a hassle to him from thence forth, and any fool could have foreseen that fact. If the Israelites were rich, or could afford Moses comfort, then this item might hold weight. As it was, leading this group of people was a very selfless act on his part.
#65 Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live (Ex 19:21). Is the SAB really implying that the Wizard of Oz came first? That is what it seems like to me. Assuming that this obvious fallacy is not the case, then the only objection that I can think of would be that it is an injustice for us to not be able to see our creator. That is a little sad at first. Upon reflection though it seems like a very glorious plan. In my personal story, I met my wife in a similar manner. We met on the Internet and chatted with each other for years before I was finally able to fly in and see her in person. There is something indescribable about such a meeting. I cannot fathom what it would be like with the Eternal, but when I am at my best, I am so very grateful to have had an earthly caricature of this meeting on which to reflect. When I think about it, knowing God before seeing him is the only proper way for such a relationship to mature.
#66 "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Ex 20:5) Nik takes issue with this verse. It does not sit well with her. So I can understand that the SAB finding fault with it. To me, it is a perfect verse. A “Jealous God” seems to me like the perfect way to describe monotheism to a polytheistic society. In our own time, it seems to be the perfect way to describe the destruction wrought on us all by modern idol worship. Visiting the sins of the father on the child is simply how the world works. Turn from God, and your children will most likely turn from God, and so forth, and so on. Reminding folks of this fact seems pretty logical. Most people are far more reckless in their youth than they are once they have children. Responsibility sobers us. All parents know that. They also know the little ways in which they ruin their children with their own sins. If we are thoughtful, it is a good deterrent against those particular sins.
#67 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ... manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." (Ex 20:17) The SAB cut out wife. Don't forget, that wife was included in this list. Well now, slave and wife are both property. Of course, it is not so difficult to see why wife coveting would be bad. We have already discussed slavery. If your neighbor has slaves, do not covet them is a darn good commandment.
#68 God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? (Ex 20:24) And what kind of mind that did not believe in God would care? Not to be too blunt, but really? We spoke briefly of the value of sacrifice in our Genesis discussion. Sacrifice is (in it's literal meaning) an act of faith. It says, “Thank you for my blessings Lord, I know that this came from you. In returning it to you, I know that you will sustain me without it.” That is powerful. I, of course, do not go in for animal sacrifice, but I have no animals to give up anyway.
#69 Rules for Hebrew slaves (Ex 21:2-6) There is no escaping that the rules are just wrong. In fairness to the Bible, they did temper existing regulations, but that does not cut it for me. It seems that biblical slavery deserves a column all to itself someday. So the question is, does the fact that the rules were more just than had been the status quo excuse them? To some Christians it might, but I think that I will have to side with the SAB on this one. The verses are absolutely impracticable today. In the interest of completeness I will mention the commentary of Wesley that says the 'for ever' part of that verse is only until the next Jubilee. This would have made for an extended servitude of another seven years. Clarke also adds that the wife and children in this (rare) case would have been Canaanite. Thus we find the harsh practice in the typical light of the treatment of foreigners. All of that really does not matter to me. It might temper the verses sufficiently for some though, and that is why I mention them.
#70 Selling your daughter (Ex 21:7-8) I offer Clarke's commentary on verse 7:
“This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.”
Verses 8, and the omitted 9 - 11 further temper this practice in so much as to make the daughter a part of the family. In light of this I cannot side with the SAB. The verses may seem unjust in our time, but they strike me as rather pragmatic when all things are considered. This little section paints a part of the bleak picture of which I spoke at the beginning of this column. Surprisingly enough, although the circumstances mentioned are difficult, I find the love of God in the passage dealing with them.
#71 Executing children (Ex 21:15, 17) The importance that antiquity placed upon the role of parents cannot be understated in looking at these two verses. Would I live by them today? No. Does any Christian live by them today? I doubt that any good ones do. So let's just call this an injustice and be done with it. All of my favorite commentaries are deafeningly silent on these verses. I would sure like to know what Moffatt would say about them. He seemed to have a knack for dealing with the hard parts of the Bible. Alas, I do not have his commentary in any form.
#72 Those who steal slaves... (Ex 21:16) That is not quite what the Bible says. It says "steal a man". Elsewhere it is pretty evident when the Bible is talking about slaves, and men in general. I once again, give Clarke's commentary:
“By this law every man-stealer, and every receiver of the stolen person, should lose his life; no matter whether the latter stole the man himself, or gave money to a slave captain or negro-dealer to steal him for him.”
Not very unjust in my book.
#73 & #75 Beating slaves (Ex 21:20-21 & 26-27) We have that beating a slave to death is a crime. Alright, not terribly unjust. I think I would rather that it were treated as a more severe crime, but at least it is a crime. Then we have a legalistic escape from punishment if the slave dies several days later. While there may be something to learn here (leniency towards the accused), I find the verses to be rife with much of what Christ taught against. As such, it gets its rightful place in the Bible, but anyone reading it would hopefully have been exposed to the teachings of Christ first. Even as such, the verses carry some messages of temperance (the eyes and teeth bit) that the SAB makes fun of. Pragmatically, these verses may well have spared a number of slaves grievous beatings. That is nothing to be so glib about.
#74 Eye for an Eye (Ex 21:24-25) Christians get picked on for this verse a great deal. Bear in mind a couple things. One, that this law was not meant to be carried out by just anyone. Only magistrates could deal out such punishment. Two, “like for like” punishment tends to be lauded by many common men. There is a satisfaction in seeing child molesters go to jail, where we all know what happens in jail to such people. Three, on an individual level, Christ has negated this practice with his commandment to turn the other cheek.
#76-78 Unruly oxen (Ex 21:28, 29, 32). Oxen can be dangerous creatures. For the modern day equivalent replace “oxen” with “pit bull” and “man or woman” with “child.” See if you still think the verses unjust. I do not. I honestly cannot see how anyone would.
#79 Selling thieves into slavery (Ex 22:3). Is that worse than putting them in jail? This slavery would last, at most, six years. During that time, the slave would have a home and be fed. If he was so destitute that he could not pay monetarily for his crimes, then this is a step up in the world for him. In contrast with our current system of dealing with such criminals, it seems like a very enlightened system. Not that I condone slavery, but really, this seems good to me.
#80 Punishments for seducing a virgin (Ex 22:16). Seems quite just to me. Given the value placed upon virginity at the time, it seems far more than just. It is almost too lenient.
#81 Witches can't be allowed to live (Ex 22:18). Mecash-shephah is the phrase which we translate to witch. Now a days, we do not believe that such endeavors are successful. During this time, it was held that they were at least possible. As Lewis points out, “If witches did exist, we would be quite right to kill them.” But, this leaves us open to all sorts of “If God did exist...” jokes. Even so, it is the best defense that I can put forth. People who think that they have such powers really tend to be wretched creatures. As such, I can see the desire to rid a society of them. But that doesn't do it for me. I could not condone executing a person for being deluded. As for the comments from the SAB about the thousands of innocent women killed under this law, those who carried it out were deluded as well. Yes, where they were not using the scripture as mere pretext, they were deluded by it. That is sad, and I appreciate the point that the SAB makes here. However, I think that the law was viable at some point just by the fact that the scriptures were dealing with such small communities. Moffatt translates the word as “sorceress” which I have been told is biblical euphemism for drug user. If that is the case, then the Israelites had a far different solution to the problem than we have. Ours obviously is not working. Only one omniscient could really tell if this were a better attack.
#82 ... with the animals (Ex 22:19). The SAB suggests counseling for such persons. Sad truth is that counseling did not exist during biblical times. Today, I was unaware that it was acceptable to counsel persons on sexual deviancy. Such persons bring diseases into our species. Such deviancy is rarely unaccompanied by other perversions. At the time, the behavior was incurable (as it may well be today). All of this combines for a rather just law in my eyes.
#83 Sacrifices to other gods (Ex 22:20). The SAB uses this verse to say that everyone who does not believe in God should be destroyed. That is a stretch at best. This is an internal law. It was meant for the Jews, and then later Christians. It does not apply to the rest of the world. As for the atheists of the world, if you do not believe in any god, then how can you be faulted for worshiping many. Of those that are left, (pantheists of antiquity, and modern Hindu) this law was not given to them. They are not bound by it.
#84 God will kill you with his own sword (Ex 22:24). By sword, he means war (in case the SAB was uncertain). This is a wonderful law. It was especially needed in those times too. The full text from 21 – 24:
You must not injure or maltreat an alien among you, for you were aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt. You must not oppress a widow or an orphan; if ever you oppress them and if ever they cry to me, I will listen to their cry, and my wrath shall blaze till I kill you in war, leaving your own wives widows and your own children orphans.
Oversimplified, it sounds unjust, but in a proper context I find it righteous.
#85 Give me your eldest sons (Ex 22:29). The SAB asks if this is for a burnt offering. That's funny. As it stands, the only way that I can find this potentially unjust would be that God does not ask for all of our children. Why should only one get the pleasure of being given to God? Because it is prohibitively difficult to have an entire self-sufficient community of priests and priestesses I suppose. Perhaps some day we will have gotten to the point where this is desirable.
#86 God will send his fear before the Israelites (Ex 23:27). The SAB talks about killing everyone, but that is not what the verse says, nor what the context around it implies. The whole story talks of relocating the indigenous peoples. They would have corrupted the Israelites had they coexisted.
#87 God's hornets (Ex 23:28). Sounds like a humane way to relocate people to me. As an absurdity this might be tricky to deal with, but as an injustice it is a non point.
#88 Wash up or die (Ex 30:20-21). This commandment is not just for any arbitrary point of your life. It specifically deals with worship. I cannot think of a religious person who would go to worship services filthy under normal circumstances. As for the death part, it says that they will surely die. I take this to mean that improper behavior (attitude, etc) in worship will lead to spiritual death. It is a warning, not a punishment.
#89 Holy oil on strangers (Ex 30:33). My favorite commentaries are silent here. The verse reminds me of wasting a good microbrew on a swill drinker. Not worth being outcast for, but the analogy is incomplete I suppose. This law comes from the need to separate Israel from its neighbors for a while. As such, you will find no Christian dogma supporting it.
#90 And whoever uses God's favorite perfume will be exiled (Ex 30:37-38). See #88. The verses deal with the special circumstances involved in worship. Consider it analogous to having Christmas music going year round. Your friends would exile you.
#91 Sabbath breakers (Ex 31:14). The punishment for desecrating the sabbath is death. Any generic breaking thereof does not qualify as desecration. The following verses which the SAB omits clear that up. On a more pragmatic level, working all day every day is a good way to drive yourself to an early grave. I think the SAB should be a little grateful that the rest of us have a good excuse to give them a day off.
#92 Aaron makes a golden calf and tells the people to take off their clothes and dance around naked. God then punishes them mercilessly for following their divinely appointed religious leader (Ex 32:1-35). This is a wonderful tale of how men are corruptible. Blindly following Aaron got them into trouble just as blindly following any mortal leader will get us into trouble. This is a perfectly just story, and it has a powerful moral to boot.
#93 God repents (Ex 32:14). He can't. The scriptures have it wrong. They are from the Eloist text which are a very primitive look at the Eternal.
#94 Moses burned the golden calf, ground it into powder, and then forced it down the throats of all the people.(Ex 32:20). There had to be a very severe punishment for this sin. Even so, I am inclined to think that this is a metaphor rather than what actually happened. Either way, when compared with the sin of idol worship, I find it just.
#95 Slaying the idol worshipers (Ex 32:27-28). They were warned. Even so, they had the chance to repent. Would I slay such people? No. Then again, I do not stand at such an important crossroad.
#96 Plague of the idol worshipers (Ex 32:35). The sons of Levi did not do a complete job. Again, this sin required drastic intervention.
#97 Sins of the father (Ex 34:7). See #66
#98 Destruction of pagan alters (Ex 34:11-14). Remember #92? Jewelry in their possession was too tempting to them. How would they have stood up against preexisting idols?
#99 If you can't redeem him, then just "break his neck." Hey, it's all for the glory of God.(Ex 34:20). God softening his requirement for sacrifice is somehow unjust? This verse alone is hard to understand, but in the context of the verse prior and the one following, it comes across as very lenient.
#100 Sabbath breaking (Ex 35:2-3). In addition to my answer of #91, I think it proper to add that the fires mentioned in these verses are understood as fires for doing work (smiths, plumbers, etc). Most Jews, and almost all Christians understand that fires for heat and comfort are not prohibited.
--
That was difficult, but very satisfying. I am shocked that I am able to have any success at all in this endeavor. I am not exactly a biblical scholar. Still, I have good resources at my disposal. The commentary of Adam Clarke has proven quite useful for this book. Clarke took forty years to compile that. I feel blessed to have such a work at my disposal.
It occurs to me that when this is all over, I will have my own commentary of sorts. It won't be very good, as I am not much of a scholar, and by the nature of my task, I am ignoring the good parts of the Bible.
I have also been pondering the fact that the SAB prefers simplification to any other weapon at its disposal. This reminds me of a quote from Chesterton: “The simplification of anything is always sensational.” |
|
