Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures

In response to reading genvessel’s most recent post entitled “Empire and Scripture”, I would like give my own analysis.

First and foremost, we must never assume that any portion of the Bible could be inept at speaking to us in some way. I think the point might be easily made that most, if not all, of scripture might be more than we can understand contextually. Certainly, there are means by which we cannot understand the nature of what is being written and reported and lived and dealt with in scripture, but that is what makes the Bible so precious….it still speaks to us across vast expanse of elapsed time! Perhaps I may not understand the realm of the oppressed in terms of hunger and poverty and injustice. I do, however, understand social inequality, general apathy, social disorders, and the like…things that are native to me. And these things are addressed by the same work speaking to the aforementioned physical things.

Secondly, at what point does it stop being okay to be a blessed society? When the market crashes and people lose their retirement are we supposed to say, “Bless God, now I’m oppressed and can understand people better?” Or should we bemoan the loss of those things we worked hard for? I think that we see plenty of scripture that would support the latter. It’s all a matter of perspective.

And as far as “persons whom are undocumented” go, they are called “illegal aliens” for a reason. They are called this because they are not from our land, hence the term “alien”, and because they are illegally within our borders, hence “illegal”. Our society has set up rules that determine what should go on in order to preserve what is best for the entire citizenry. In doing so, we have decided that our borders should be closed. They are more than undocumented people, they are unwelcome people in terms of legality. Whether this is consistent with OT passage concerning aliens is another matter.

I think, however, that it is most correct to say that we should begin by admitting that we live in an empire and that we have much to learn from those who do not. We have much to learn from people who have felt physical hunger when all we’ve felt is the emotional equivalent. We cannot, though, completely discount our own roles in the narrative as evil. Instead, we must ask the question, “How can God’s kingdom be fashioned here?” That, I believe, is a more firm step toward redemption and reconciliation.

In Exodus 1-15, there are food and story.

Passover story shows Ethnological etiology (Exodus 1), Extended call of Moses (Exodus 2-4,6), Contest between the Lord and Paraoh(that is about ten plagues), Deliverance (the crossing the sea), and song of Moses and Miriam.

Pilgrimage Festivals categorize spring (Passover and Unleavened bread) and Fall (Tabernacles and Ingathering). Moreover, there are Harvest and Pentecost.

Murmuring Traditions talk about the problem of water and food such as manna and quails.

What I am interested in is Pilgrimage Festivals because there are many festivals for the commemoration of the exodus from Egypt. Moreover, I think that those festivals develop not only to commemorate the history of Israel about exodus from Egypt but also to remember how the Lord take care of the Israelies from the exodus from Egypt to Cannaan.

Genesis 3; Exodus 16:2,7,8,9,12

resentment

In Genesis 3, when God asks “who told you that you are naked?”, Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent. I just think of the situation if they do not blame. I am not sure whether God drive Adam and Eve out from the Garden of Eden.

Exodus reveals the resentment of Israelites against the Lord, who makes the exodus of Israelites from Egypt. They blame God because of the lack of food and water, so God gives them manna and quails. I premise if Israelites do not resent God, they would go to the land of promise without the demise of early Israelites who experienced the exodus from Egypt. According to the demise of Israel’s early history, there are two explanations: collapse of the Albright-Wright synthesis; demise of Wellhauseniam source criticism.

Genesis 22 and 1 Samuel 1-2

Those parts talks about common topic that Abraham offers his son, Isaac, and Hannah offers her son, Samuel. Isaac and Samuel are their first child. Abraham does not have a child until ninety-nine years old. Also, God closes Hannah’s womb. Sarah and Haanah are barren, so their first children are so precious to parents. However, they are willing to offer their children to the Lord, and God uses Isaac and Samuel as his servants. Isaac is one of the genealogy of Jesus, and Samuel is faithful prophet.

The book of Exodus

1. In Exodus, I saw how God was with Israelites in Egypt and wilderness. Those were  amazing. Even though the Israelites repeated complaint and lament, God listened and solved their complaints. His love toward the Israelites reflected now God’s love toward me.

2. God showed them the sign of covenat by circumsicion. God trained the Israelites in the lives of wilderness as God’s people for forty years.

2.

1. Genesis 48:14

Genesis 48:14 was interesting part because Jacob crossed his arms when he blessed Manasseh and Ephraim. I never think of this part deeply.

2. Rank of Marriage

I had a chance to see ”polycoity and polygyny” in the book of Genesis.

(Sarah and Hagar-polycoity, Rachel and Leah-soral polygyny, the Rebekah cycle: monogamy)

Endogamy: marriage inside group

Exogamy: marriage outsede group

I don’t like the David in 2 Samuel.  He seems always concerned with his image and consistently exploits the achievements, blessings and people that have been entrusted to him as king.  While he’ll publicly execute those connected to the murders of Saul and Ishbaal, he refuses to deal with murders committed by Joab.  He also has little trouble breaking his former oath by handing seven descendants of Saul over to be impaled by the Gibeonites.  I even find myself wondering if his public charge to spare Absalom was simply a way of protecting his innocence, while secretly seeking his death at the hands of Joab.  The text does not affirm this, so it is mere speculation, but it doesn’t seem much of a stretch based on what David has done or overlooked.  It would seem the whole episode could have been avoided if he had just dealt with Amnon’s rape of Tamar; there was certainly plenty of time for him to do so, as Absalom did not act for two full years.  I am sympathetic with Ahithophel, especially if it is true that Bathsheba was his granddaughter.  Perhaps the only thing that is truly redeeming about David in this story is that his repentance does seem genuine when confronted by Nathan and following his census of the people.  Israel was certainly prosperous and strong under his rule, but there are far too many problems which will have far reaching consequences.

I wonder if David was truly intimidated by Joab or if his statement in 2 Sam 3:39 is a sort of ploy to demonstrate his innocence or to cover up some measure of complicity in Abner’s murder.  For it would seem that Abner’s death effectively ends the dispute between the houses of David and Saul, and shortly thereafter David is crowned king of all Israel. Plus, David summarily executes the murderers of Saul and Ishbaal.

I find 2 Samuel 6 to contain quite a humorous, and yet poignant tale that teaches us something about the human condition.

David and the Israelites decide to move the Ark of God (God’s dwelling place among men) to a new location.  During the move though, David got a little more than he bargained for.

David didn’t pay top dollar for the professional movers; no–he hired the kids from down the block for $20 bucks to move his stuff, the sons of Abinadab; there the kids that don’t really know how to use the bubble wrap and literally throw your box of fine china into the trailer.

Sometime during the move, the wagon slips and the Ark begins to slide off (apparently they didn’t know how to use a bungee cord).  Instinctively, Uzzah reaches out to catch it; he finds out, like many other characters in the Old Testament, that encountering unmitigated divinity unprepared is often fatal to frail humans.

Then David, who has been leading the Ark around in parade-like fashion, stops and says “Wait a minute!”  In fact, the Bible says that he became angry (2 Sam 6:8).  A God who would strike someone dead for trying to protect the Ark?  I don’t want nothing to do with that David says.

So he refuses to let the Ark enter into his city, and he sloughs it off on the poorest schmoe he can find nearby (Obed-edom).  And there the Ark remained the rest of David’s days…

HAH! Just kidding.

In the immortal words of Lee Corso, “not so fast my friends!”

Shortly thereafter, King David gets word that the Lord is blessing that poor man’s household and possessions because of the Ark’s presence.  All of the sudden, David exclaims “I got to get me some of that!” (rough translation) (2 Sam 6:12).  David quickly goes back to Obed-edom’s house and has the Ark of the Covenant moved into the City. 

It’s really interesting, isn’t it?  When following God was difficult, confusing, or causing pain, David didn’t want to have anything to do with it, but when he thinks God will give him something, he can’t get that ark in there quick enough.

I wonder how often am I like this in my own life.  How often do I “love” or pursue God simply because of what I think He can do for me?  I should love God for who He is.  A lot of people, including myself, tend not to give a rip about God until we are in a tight spot or we perceive He can give us something.

In a sense, we all come to faith initially because of what God can do for us–not the other way around.  We put our faith in Jesus because He offers us the security of eternal life, or freedom from addictions that threaten to destroy us, contentment in life, etc.  I’m not saying that this is a bad thing–its a great starting point–it just can’t be a stopping point.

We must learn to take the pleasant with the uncomfortable.  Otherwise, we become like the disciples who wanted to sit at Jesus right hand but did not want to be involved with His call to suffering and hardship.  We can not treat God like the Santa Clause we love only because He can give us something, and we must learn to love Him like we would any human being–because of His character, because of who He is.

In all of the discussions of the theological and ethical problems raised by the holy war texts in the Old Testament, there is a glaring assumption.  The question is often raised “what if we were to wage war in God’s name” or in a similar manner.  The dangerous assumption is that we (America) will always be the one fighting for God.  This seems to be the same problem facing Israel in the texts of the latter prophets.  Amos in particular points out the justice flaws of the Northern kingdom, which was smug in it’s prosperity.  The day of the Lord would not be a pleasant experience of divine favor, but a reception of wrath.  I can’t help but think of the United States as being in a similar place.  We often assume that we speak for God or that he is on our side.  It’s easy to get caught up in the deception – some believe that America is simply a Christian nation, case closed.  Others believe they are supporting the poor and doing God’s work by purchasing fair trade coffees and scones that are $6 a piece (when they could be putting that money to better use and actually helping somebody).   In the holy war texts should we place ourselves on the giving or receiving end?