Author: Al
Posted: 2006-11-13 15:28:35
|
Day 1
Joshua 1 – 3
Well, I think that I like the veggie tales presentation better. Not to downplay the importance of our holy book, but it has whores and spies and stuff while veggie tales has a rocket and slushies in the same story.
Clarke talks at length about Rehab:
Verse 1. Joshua-sent-two men to spy secretly] It is very likely that these spies had been sent out soon after the death of Moses, and therefore our marginal reading, had sent, is to be preferred. Secretly-It is very probable also that these were confidential persons, and that the transaction was between them and him alone. As they were to pass over the Jordan opposite to Jericho, it was necessary that they should have possession of this city, that in case of any reverses they might have no enemies in their rear. He sent the men, therefore, to see the state of the city, avenues of approach, fortifications, his mode of attack.
A harlot's house] Harlots and inn-keepers seem to have been called by the same name, as no doubt many who followed this mode of life, from their exposed situation, were not the most correct in their morals. Among the ancients women generally kept houses of entertainment, and among the Egyptians and Greeks this was common. I shall subjoin a few proofs. HERODOTUS, speaking concerning the many differences between Egypt and other countries, and the peculiarity of their laws and customs, expressly says: "Among the Egyptians the women carry on all commercial concerns, and keep taverns, while the men continue at home and weave." Herod. in Euterp., c. xxxv. DIODORUS SICULUS,
lib. i., s. 8, and c. xxvii., asserts that "the men were the slaves of the women in Egypt, and that it is stipulated in the marriage contract that the woman shall be the ruler of her husband, and that he shall obey her in all things." The same historian supposes that women had these high privileges among the Egyptians, to perpetuate the memory of the beneficent administration of Isis, who was afterwards deified among them.
NYMPHODORUS, quoted by the ancient scholiast on the OEdipus Coloneus of Sophocles, accounts for these customs: he says that "Sesostris, finding the population of Egypt rapidly increasing, fearing that he should not be able to govern the people or keep them united under one head, obliged the men to assume the occupations of women, in order that they might be rendered effeminate."
Sophocles confirms the account given by Herodotus; speaking of Egypt he says:"There the men stay in their houses weaving cloth, while the women transact all business out of doors, provide food for the family," Nymphodorus for the information given above, and which he says is found in the 13th chapter of his work "On the Customs of Barbarous Nations."
That the same custom prevailed among the Greeks we have the following proof from APULEIUS: Ego vero quod primate ingressui stabulum conspicatus sum, accessi, et de QUADAM ANU CAUPONA illico percontor.-Aletam. lib. i., p. 18, Edit. Bip. "Having entered into the first inn I met with, and there seeing a certain OLD WOMAN, the INN-KEEPER, I inquired of her."
It is very likely that women kept the places of public entertainment among the Philistines; and that it was with such a one, and not with a harlot, that Samson lodged; (see Jud 16:1, &c.;) for as this custom certainly did prevail among the Egyptians, of which we have the fullest proof above, we may naturally expect it to have prevailed also among the Canaanites and Philistines, as we find from Apuleius that it did afterwards among the Greeks. Besides there is more than presumptive proof that this custom obtained among the Israelites themselves, even in the most polished period of their history; for it is much more reasonable to suppose that the two women, who came to Solomon for judgment, relative to the dead child, (1Ki 3:16, inn-keepers, than that they were harlots. It is well known that common prostitutes, from their abandoned course of life, scarcely ever have children; and the laws were so strict against such in Israel, (De 23:18,) that if these had been of that class it is not at all likely they would have dared to appear before Solomon. All these circumstances considered, I am fully satisfied that the term zonah in the text, which we translate harlot, should be rendered tavern or inn-keeper, or hostess. The spies who were sent out on this occasion were undoubtedly the most confidential persons that Joshua had in his host; they went on an errand of the most weighty importance, and which involved the greatest consequences. The risk they ran of losing their lives in this enterprise was extreme. Is it therefore likely that persons who could not escape apprehension and death, without the miraculous interference of God, should in despite of that law which at this time must have been so well known unto them, go into a place where they might expect, not the blessing, but the curse, of God? Is it not therefore more likely that they went rather to an inn to lodge than to a brothel? But what completes in my judgment the evidence on this point is, that this very Rahab, whom we call a harlot, was actually married to Salmon, a Jewish prince, see Mt 1:5. And is it probable that a prince of Judah would have taken to wife such a person as our text represents Rahab to be?
It is granted that the Septuagint, who are followed by Heb 11:31, and Jas 2:25, translate the Hebrew zonah, which generally signifies a prostitute; but it is not absolutely evident that the Septuagint used the word in this sense. Every scholar knows that the Greek word comes from, to sell, as this does from, to pass from one to another; transire facio a me ad alterum; DAMM. But may not this be spoken as well of the woman's goods as of her person? In this sense the Chaldee Targum understood the term, and has therefore translated it ittetha pundekitha, a woman, a TAVERN-KEEPER. That this is the true sense many eminent men are of opinion; and the preceding arguments render it at least very probable. To all this may be added, that as our blessed Lord came through the line of this woman, it cannot be a matter of little consequence to know what moral character she sustained; as an inn-keeper she might be respectable, if not honourable; as a public prostitute she could be neither; and it is not very likely that the providence of God would have suffered a person of such a notoriously bad character to enter into the sacred line of his genealogy. It is true that the cases of Tamar and Bathsheba may be thought sufficient to destroy this argument; but whoever considers these two cases maturely will see that they differ totally from that of Rahab, if we allow the word harlot to be legitimate. As to the objection that her husband is nowhere mentioned in the account here given; it appears to me to have little weight. She might have been either a single woman or a widow; and in either of these cases there could have been no mention of a husband; or if she even had a husband it is not likely he would have been mentioned on this occasion, as the secret seems to have been kept religiously between her and the spies. If she were a married woman her husband might be included in the general terms, all that she had, and all her kindred, Jos 6:23. But it is most likely that she was a single woman or a widow, who got her bread honestly by keeping a house of entertainment for strangers. See below.
Day 2
Joshua 4 – 6
Crossing into the promised land. I've heard that crossing the Jordan really isn't all that much to write home about. Still, if for no other reason, it is worth remembering in a similar manner as stepping over the threshold of a new house.
Again, this reading brings up visages of Veggie Tales. I was surprised at how closely the dialog in chapter 5 followed Moffatt.
Joshua 7
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Joshua 8
This is an interesting war story. I had no idea that tactics were even this developed so long ago.
Clarke:
Verse 29. The king of Ai he hanged on a tree] He had gone out at the head of his men, and had been taken prisoner, Jos 8:23; and the battle being over, he was ordered to be hanged, probably after having been strangled, or in some way deprived of life, as in the case mentioned Jos 10:26, for in those times it was not customary to hang people alive.
As soon as the sun was down] It was not lawful to let the bodies remain all night upon the tree. See the note on De 21:23. The Septuagint say the king of Ai was hanged, upon a double tree, which probably means a forked tree, or something in the form of a cross. The tree on which criminals were hanged among the Romans was called arbor infelix, and lignum infelix, the unfortunate, ill-fated, or accursed tree.
Raise thereon a great heap of stones] This was a common custom through all antiquity in everycountry, as we have already seen in the case of Achan, Jos 7:20.
Joshua 24
Death of Joshua. Joshua's speech here is quite powerful. I have gathered commentaries on select verses:
Wesley on 15:
Seem evil - Unjust, unreasonable or inconvenient. Choose ye - Not that he leaves them to their liberty, whether they would serve God or idols; for Joshua had no such power himself, nor could give it to any other; and both he and they were obliged by the law of Moses, to give their worship to God only, and to forbear all idolatry in themselves, and severely to punish it in others; but it is a powerful insinuation, whereby he both implies, that the worship of God is so highly reasonable, necessary and beneficial; and the service of idols so absurd, and vain, and pernicious, that if it were left free for all men to take their choice, every man in his right wits must needs chuse the service of God, before that of idols; and provokes them to bind
Clarke on 15:
Joshua well knew that all service that was not free and voluntary could be only deceit and hypocrisy, and that God loveth a cheerful giver. He therefore calls upon the people to make their choice, for God himself would not force them-they must serve him with all their heart if they served him at all. As for himself and family, he shows them that their choice was already fixed, for they had taken JEHOVAH for their portion.
Wesley on 19:
Ye cannot - He speaks not of an absolute impossibility, (for then both his resolution to serve God himself, and his exhortation to them had been vain) but of a moral impossibility, or a very great difficulty, which he alledgeth not to discourage them from God's service, but to make them more considerate in obliging themselves; and more resolved in answering their obligations. The meaning is, God's service is not, as you seem to fancy, a slight and easy thing, but it is a work of great difficulty, and requires great care, and courage and resolution; and when I consider the infinite purity of God, that he will not be mocked or abused; and withal your proneness to superstition and idolatry, even during the life of Moses, and in some of you, while I live, and while the obligations which God had laid upon you in this land, are fresh in remembrance; I cannot but fear that after my decease you will think the service of God burdensome, and therefore will cast it off and revolt from him, if you do not carefully avoid all occasions of idolatry. A jealous God - In the Hebrew, He is the holy Gods, holy Father, holy Son, holy Spirit. He will not endure a partner in his worship; you can not serve him and idols together. Will not forgive - If you who own yourselves his people and servants, shall wilfully transgress his laws, he will not let this go unpunished in you, as he doth in other nations; therefore consider what you do, when you take the Lord for your God; weigh your advantages and inconveniences together; for as if you be sincere and faithful in God's service, you will have admirable benefits by it; so if you be false to your professions, and forsake him whom you have so solemnly avouched to be your God, he will deal more severely with you than with any people in the world.
Clarke on 19:
If we are to take this literally, we cannot blame the Israelites for their defection from the worship of the true God; for if it was impossible for them to serve God, they could not but come short of his kingdom: but surely this was not the case. Instead of lo thuchelu, ye CANNOT serve, lo thechallu, ye shall not CEASE to serve, ingenious emendation, but there is not one MS. in all the collections of Kennicott and De Rossi to support it. However, it appears very possible that the first vau in did not make a part of the word originally. If the common reading be preferred, the meaning of the place must be, "Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is holy and jealous, unless ye put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the flood. For he is a jealous God, and will not give to nor divide his glory with any other. He is a holy God, and will not have his people defiled with the impure worship of the Gentiles."
Day 3
Judges 1 - 2
Clarke on Chapter 2:1;
An angel of the Lord] In the preceding chapter we have a summary of several things which took place shortly after the death of Joshua; especially during the time in which the elders lived (that is, the men who were contemporary with Joshua, but survived him,) and while the people continued faithful to the Lord. In this chapter, and some parts of the following, we have an account of the same people abandoned by their God and reduced to the heaviest calamities, because they had broken their covenant with their Maker. This chapter, and the first eight verses of the next, may be considered as an epitome of the whole book, in which we see, on one hand, the crimes of the Israelites; and on the other, the punishments inflicted on them by the Lord; their repentance, and return to their allegiance; and the long-suffering and mercy of God, shown in pardoning their backslidings, and delivering them out of the hands of their enemies.
The angel of the Lord, mentioned here, is variously interpreted; some think it was Phinehas, the high priest, which is possible; others, that it was a prophet, sent to the place where they were now assembled, with an extraordinary commission from God, to reprove them for their sins, and to show them the reason why God had not rooted out their enemies from the land; this is the opinion of the Chaldee paraphrast, consequently of the ancient Jews; others think that an angel, properly such, is intended; and several are of opinion that it was the Angel of the Covenant, the Captain of the Lord's host, which had appeared unto Joshua, Jud 5:14, and no less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself. I think it more probable that some extraordinary human messenger is meant, as such messengers, and indeed prophets, apostles, angels, that is, messengers of the Lord. The person here mentioned appears to have been a resident at Gilgal, and to have come to Bochim on this express errand.
I will never break my covenant] Nor did God ever break it. A covenant is never broken but by him who violates the conditions of it: when any of the contracting parties violates any of the conditions, the covenant is then broken, and by that party alone; and the conditions on the other side are null and void.
Judges 4 - 5
Wesley on 4:1;
It will aggravate their perdition, that the land from which they shall perish is a good land, and a land which God himself had given them: and which therefore he would have secured to them, if they had not thrown themselves out of it. "Thus the goodness of the heavenly Canaan, says Mr. Henry, and the free and sure grant God has made of it, will aggravate the misery of those that shall forever be shut out and perish from it. Nothing will make them see how wretched they are, so much as to see, how happy they might have been." Might have been! What on the supposition of absolute decrees? How happy might a person not elected have been? And if he was elected, how could he be wretched for ever? What art of man can reconcile these things? Again, shall any of the elect perish for ever? or has God made to any others, a free and sure grant of the heavenly Canaan? If not, how can the misery of those that perish be aggravated, by a free and sure grant which they never had any share in?
Day 4
Judges 6 - 8
The most bizarre is verse in this has to be 8:27. Here is Clarke's commentary on it:
Verse 27. Gideon made an ephod thereof] That is, he made an ephod out of this mass of gold; but he could not employ it all in making this one garment, for it is not likely that any man could wear a coat of nearly one hundred pounds weight. It is likely that he made a whole tabernacle service in miniature out of this gold.
All Israel went thither a whoring after it] This form of speech often occurs, and has been often explained. The whole Jewish nation is represented as being united to God as a wife is to her husband. Any act of idolatry is considered as a breach of their covenant with God, as an act of whoredom is the breach of the marriage agreement between man and wife. God calls himself the husband of the Jewish nation, and their idolatries acts of whoredom, adultery, and fornication. All Israel paid idolatrous worship to the ephod or sacerdotal establishment made by Gideon at Ophrah, and this is called going a whoring after it; see on Jud 8:33. For a description of the ephod, see Ex 25:7; and for the othergarments of the priests, see Ex 28:4,
Day 5
Judges 13 - 16
God bless James Moffatt! He gives us lines like:
Had you not used my heifer for your plough,
you never would have guessed my riddle now!
And
With the jaw-bone of an ass I have piled them in a mass!
As for the text itself, we have Clarke's commentary on 5:18;
If my wife had not been unfaithful to my bed, she would not have been unfaithful to my secret; and, you being her paramours, your interest was more precious to her than that of her husband. She has betrayed me through her attachment to you.
Calmet has properly remarked, in quoting the Septuagint, that to plough with one's heifer, or to plough in another man's ground, are delicate turns of expression used both by the Greeks and Latins, as well as the Hebrews, to point out a wife's infidelities.
Thus Theognis, Gnom. v. 581: "I detest a woman who gads about, and also a libidinous man, who wishes to plough in another man's ground."
Fundum alienium arat, incultum familiarem deserit. PLAUTUS.
"He ploughs another's farm, and leaves his own heritage uncultivated."
Milo domi non est, perepre at Milone profecto Arva vacant, uxor non minus inde parit. MARTIAL.
"Milo is not at home, and Milo being from home, his field lies uncultivated; his wife, nevertheless, continues to breed, and brings forth children."
There is the same metaphor in the following lines of Virgil:-
Hoc faciunt, nimo ne luxu obtusior usus, Sit genitali arvo, sulcosque oblimet inertes. Geor. l. iii., v. 135.
In this sense Samson's words were understood by the Septuagint, by the Syriac, and by Rabbi Levi. See BOCHART, Hierozoic. p. 1., lib. ii., cap. 41., col. 406.
The metaphor was a common one, and we need seek for no other interpretation of the words of Samson.
Day 6
What would it mean today to do what is evil in the eyes of God?
Same thing that it has meant for all of creation.
How does God raise up good leaders today? In government? In church?
I don't see that happening. We're in one of those transitional periods that are the dregs of civilization. We've come away from a time that had Chesterton and Lewis into a time that has a bunch of no talent hacks.
What kind of people do you think God chooses as leaders?
Humble people.
What causes you to believe that a particular leader is chosen by God?
Nothing. Ever.
What does it mean to place yourself under the authority of your spiritual leaders?
To trust their judgment and assessments. The problem is, that those whom I do trust do not want the authority.
Describe a time God called you to be a leader.
Never. Leadership is not one of my qualities.
Some homes display a plaque that reads, “Christ is the head of this house.” How is such a motto lived out in daily life?
I'm not sure. Such outward expressions tend to revolt me. I'm sure that the motto can be carried out, but I have yet to see it in such a place as it would be displayed. Typically, if you have to advertise, then your product does not live up to your claims.
Describe what would happen if in your country or church or household “all the people dis what was right in their own eyes.”
Pretty much what you see all around us. |
|
