Exodus 12: God Slaughters the Firstborn in Egypt

Today's podcast

Previously:

God has sent a bunch of plagues to Egypt to try to get the Pharaoh to let his people go. Last chapter he warned of the final plague, the death of all the firstborn in Egypt.

The Passover (v. 1-28)

God declared the current month to be the beginning of the year. Then he said that on the tenth day of the month, every house (or if a house is small they can combine with a neighbor) shall take a year old male lamb without blemish. Wait until the 14th of the month and everyone will kill their lamb at twilight.

The specificity of the request for the sacrifice caught my attention. In fact, the whole idea of God wanting sacrifice seems odd. Perhaps that's just because we don't do sacrifices any more, but it just seems so strange.

From Guzik:

In this way, the lamb became part of the family. By the time it was sacrificed on the fourteenth it was cherished and mourned; God wanted the sacrifice of something precious.

I suppose some people would become fond of their lamb, but how attached are you really going to get to an animal that you know is being sacrificed in four days?

Take some of the blood from the sacrifice and put it on your door. Eat the meat with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Roast the meat, don't boil it or eat it raw, if any meat is uneaten burn it.

Again, the specificity seems strange to me.

From Guzik:

Structural lintel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As the blood was applied to the top and each side of the doorway, this blood dripped down, forming a figure of a cross in the doorway.

Wait what? How could it form a cross? Perhaps I'm picturing this wrong. So I went back and looked at verse 7 which says

take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses

I had to look up what a lintel is, but it is basically just the top of the door. Put blood on that and the doorposts and you get an arch, not a cross. It's amazing to me how desperate some Christians are to insert Jesus into the old testament.

google image search for passover blood

I then did a google image search for "passover blood". Most are what I was expecting, but one picture near the bottom right looks like a cross. Are they supposed to put the blood on the door as well? I had to go back and reread the text.

7 "Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it

Doesn't say anything about the door. I suppose they aren't forbidden from putting it on the door, so if they do you get a cross. But it definitely isn't inevitable as the rest of the images reveal.

And more from Guzik:

As our Passover sacrifice, Jesus had to come into direct contact with the "fire" of the Father's judgment on our behalf, and the bitterness of the cross is reflected in the bitter herbs.

Wow, again, inserting Jesus into the old testament. A few quick google searches found better answers. This site explains that the fire is symbol of what was happening with the exodus. If you cook with fire you separate ingredients, if you boil the meat will take on aspects of the water (such as spices I suppose). This site explains that he bitterness reminds us of the bitterness of the slavery the Israelites are escaping from. Honestly, I find the explanation from Guzik completely ridiculous, and I imagine a Jew would find it downright offensive. In fact, I showed this to my wife (who is Jewish) and she made a pretty funny "what the fuck!" face.

One more thing from Guzik here:

For the first Passover, the unleavened bread was a practical necessity - they left Egypt in such a hurry there was no time to allow for the dough to rise.

That just makes no sense (although I looked around at other sites and it seems to be the common explanation). For one thing, they were told ahead of time to eat unleavened bread. It's not like they were cooking it normally and they had to leave unexpectedly or something. If timing was the issue they could have just started making it earlier.

Leaven was also a picture of sin and corruption, because of the way a little leaven influences a whole lump of dough, and also because of the way leaven "puffs up" the lump - even as pride and sin makes us "puffed up."

That, on the other hand, is actually some decent symbolism. I could believe that this is really the reason for the unleavened bread.

God will pass through the land of Egypt and kill all of the firstborn, except the blood will be a sign for him to skip your house.

Why exactly does God need the blood on the doors to know which houses to skip? It's almost like he's not all knowing. I suppose an answer I would have given to this when I was a Christian is that God knew who was going to put the blood on their door ahead of time, and so he is still all knowing, but there is value in having them actually do it. It's not too dissimilar from God calling out to Adam and Eve to find out where they are in the garden after they ate the fruit. It seems much more likely to me that the God written about here wasn't supposed to be all knowing, but I also know that this explanation would have satisfied me as a Christian.

English: A depiction of the Matza.
 עברית: תיאור של מצה.
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Keep this day as a memorial throughout generations. For 7 days don't eat leavened bread, remove it from your house on the first day, for if anyone eats leavened bread during that time, they will be cut off from Israel.

God damn that is harsh. 

Have a holy assembly on the first and seventh days, no work shall be done on those days except to prepare food, but only what people need to eat.

No leftovers?

Then they repeat the instructions 3 times. Wow, God really doesn't want people to eat leaven, got it.

Then Moses calls over the elders and repeats the instructions again. Why the repetition?

The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn (v. 29-32)

As promised, God kills all of the firstborn. From the Pharaoh to the prisoners, every house has someone dead. Even the livestock have their firstborn killed.

I really don't understand why there needs to be so much death. It works in the story, but is there really no other way? I suggested in the last chapter that as a Christian I would have probably accepted a "no half measures" narrative to explain this. But damn, it's hard to believe an all powerful God can't find a better solution.

Interesting note from Guzik:

This plague was directed against two significant Egyptian gods. First, Osiris was the Egyptian god thought to be the giver of life. Second, against the supposed deity of Pharaoh himself, because his own household was touched

As before, it seems that this is really a pissing match between various gods.

An inscription was found in a shrine connected with the great Sphinx that records a solemn promise from the Egyptian gods vowing that Thutmose IV would succeed his father Amenhotep II - whom many believe to be the pharaoh of the Exodus. Why did they make such a unique, emphatic promise from the gods that something so natural would happen - the eldest son take his father's place as Pharaoh? Undoubtedly, because Thutmose IV was not his father's firstborn son, and the firstborn was struck dead at the first Passover. Therefore, they believed that the second born son needed special protection from the gods and the inscription seeks to provide that.

I'm no historian and have no idea how to verify any of these claims, but it is interesting nonetheless. 

In dealing with Pharaoh, God first had to inform his mind, and then break his will. Pharaoh's problem wasn't that there was insufficient intellectual evidence; his heart had to be broken and made soft towards God.

Wait, he needed to have his heart made soft toward God? Why did he harden it first then? Is the argument that it had to be hardened first in order to break it? Like, it was breaking a little bit, so God hardened it so that he could really break it? I suppose there is some logic to that, but damn.

Pharaoh calls Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night and tells them to gather up all of their people, and their flocks and herds, and be gone to serve God.

Way back at the beginning of all of this, Moses and Aaron weren't asking for the slaves to be free, just to be able to go out into the wilderness to worship God. It's not entirely clear to me whether Pharaoh is telling them to go forever, and be free, or just telling them to go worship God and then come back.

Pharaoh also asks Moses and Aaron for a blessing.

This seems beyond strange to me. He's asking for a blessing from the person whose God has just decimated his country. Is this perhaps a way of asking if God will knock it off now that he's finally releasing the Israelites?

The Exodus (v. 33-42)

The people of Egypt wanted the Israelites to leave urgently, so they had to leave before their dough was leavened.

Moses had told the Israelites to ask the Egyptians for silver and gold, and God gave them favor so the Egyptians would comply. "Thus they plundered the Egyptians".

Whoa! They plundered them? When this was brought up before I wondered what favor meant and I accepted the idea that they were receiving payment for centuries of slavery, and that they were probably taking money from wealthy people who had profited off of their labor. That still might be true, but I don't like the idea of them plundering. I thought it might be worth it to look at some alternate translations, I see "they robbed the Egyptians", "they took away all their goods from the Egyptians", "they stripped the Egyptians". Seems excessive. I suppose the question remains of who they are taking this money from, if it is the people who directly benefited from their enslavement maybe it's okay. If it is just random Egyptians (which this verse seems to imply to me) then it doesn't seem like justice at all.

600,000 men (plus women and children) journeyed from Rameses to Succoth with their livestock. They baked unleavened cakes, because they were rushed out of Egypt with unfinished dough and they hadn't prepared provisions.

I hadn't really thought about this before, but the whole point of the final plague was to do just this right? To make the Egyptians want the Israelites the hell out of their country. Why didn't god just tell his people to be ready to go. "Hey guys, in addition to putting blood on your doors so that I don't kill your firstborn, have your bags packed". [Later addition: Actually, a second reading reveals that he did: v.11 "In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste." Shouldn't this include having provisions packed for the journey?]

The text says that the 600,000 men were "a mixed multitude". I didn't know what that meant, but Guzik has some insight:

Not all of the 600,000 were Israelites. Many Egyptians (and perhaps other foreigners) went with them, because the God of Israel demonstrated that He was more powerful that the gods of the Egyptians.

Institution of the Passover (v. 43-51)

Here God sets the rules for the Passover celebration in the future.

No foreigner shall eat of it but your slaves, which have been purchased, can join in if you have circumcised them. However, no hired servants may eat of it.

This is interesting! There is a distinction between slaves that you have purchased and just hired servants. Doesn't this break the defense that slavery in the Old Testament is just indentured servitude? Those people would seem to qualify as hired servants, right?

If a stranger stays with you they can participate if they will agree to a circumcision. Such a stranger is subject to the same laws as you.

I guess the point is supposed to be that by getting circumcised, you are joining the tribe? Were there no other groups at this period in history that practiced circumcision?

In my summary I skipped the rule that the bones of the lamb can't be broken, but Guzik forced me to bring it up with this comment

None of the bones of the Passover lamb were to be broken. This looks forward to Jesus, the ultimate Passover Lamb, who had not one bone broken even in His crucifixion (Psalm 22:17, John 19:31-36).

This sounds pretty crazy to me, and it sounds like they are just trying to cram Jesus into the Old Testament again. I was curious what the real symbolism of the lamb not being allowed to have his bones broken, but all I could find was this same interpretation. I figured the best place to look would be on Jewish sites, but they all just explain that you can't break the bone at the passover seder and point to the verse, I couldn't find an explanation as to the symbolism here. If anyone knows the symbolism or has better googling skills than me, please enlighten me.

Moral of the Story: It's really just the same moral as the last few chapters, follow God's commands or else.

Verses of Note:

--Justice--

Exodus 12:15 Excessive punishment for trivial crimes

"if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel"

--Properties of God--

Exodus 12:23 Why does an all knowing God need blood on the doors to know which houses to skip

"For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you"

--Slavery--

Exodus 12:44-45 A distinction is made between slaves and servants

"but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it."

--Stealing--

Exodus 12:36 With god's help, the Israelites stole from the Egyptians before they left town

"And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians."

--Violence--

Exodus 12:12 God says he will kill all of the firstborn in Egypt

"For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD."

Exodus 12:29 God follows through on his threat to kill all of the firstborn in Egypt

"At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock."

Why Complain About a God I Don't Believe In?

There is someone on twitter that I have been having a friendly back and forth with lately (well, lately as of starting this post, took me quite a while to write it). He recently asked me an interesting question which touches on some topics I've been meaning to write up anyway, so I figured it would be a good time to get it out. First, here's a few of the tweets he sent me

@hausdorff80 You say you don't believe in God yet you complain about him all the time. Is it because you don't believe God would be this way
— Interzone119 (@Interzone119) October 20, 2013

@hausdorff80 I'm trying to understand. If you don't believe God is real, why complain about him?
— Interzone119 (@Interzone119) October 20, 2013

I think this is a really good question, why do I bother complaining about a God who I don't even think is real? Ultimately it is the same reason any atheist would have a blog, or care about any of this stuff at all, it's because Christians think this God is real. Their belief in God affects their actions in ways that I believe are negative for society overall. A simple example is that we have to fight tooth and nail to get evolution taught in schools, it's a proven science, but people see it as a threat to their faith and do everything they can to prevent it from being taught to children. (I'm sure that's not quite they way they would put it, but that's the way I see it)

(Photo credit: Tom Paton)

But this question is a bit more focused than the simple "why blog about atheism?" that we get so often. I tweet a lot of bible verses showing horrible things in the bible, much of which involves God directly. Why do I do that? Christians are more than willing to describe their God to us, they describe a God who is loving, merciful, generous, and just. They will also say that this is the God described in the bible, they are wrong. The God described in the bible is very different from the God typically described by the average Christian. The Bible God is a monster, and I think most Christians aren't aware of what is in that book. When I was a Christian I certainly wasn't, and if I had been confronted with these verses it would have prompted me to rethink things, and that is really what I'm after. In fact, much of what I do is aimed at a younger version of myself, these are the kinds of things that would have gotten my wheels turning when I was a Christian, so it is the kind of thing I like to put out there.

One last thing, when I say that the God described in the bible is a monster, I'm a little concerned that it might sound like I came in with this bias. I started this project with no idea what I was going to come across, I knew that Christians will generally reference good things from the bible and atheists will generally reference bad things, but I had no idea how how much of each there is in the bible. I honestly came in prepared for the possibility that the atheists were being super biased and the vast majority of the bible was really positive stuff, that's just not what I have found.

Is the God of the Bible Really Supposed to be Omnipotent?

Last week I was reading Exodus 3 (that post should go live as soon as I can find 20 quiet uninterrupted minutes to record a podcast) where God talks to Moses through the burning bush. Within his speech to Moses, God says that he sees his people suffering and wants to help them get out of their current situation. He wants Moses to go help them, and God will be there with him to help him be successful. I have been having trouble interpreting passages like this for a while now.

I'm trying to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt as much as I can, I don't want to just always look at things in a negative light, I want to try to consider a positive interpretation whenever possible. In this case God sees a group of people dealing with extreme hardship and takes steps to help them out. He seeks out Moses and tells him to go help those people, and God will even be there with him to make sure he's successful. That sounds pretty good right? He's helping people.

pic source

On the other hand, he's omnipotent. He supposedly can do anything. Is he doing enough to help these people? He could just blink them out of their slavery. He could put the Egyptians in prison long enough for his people to get away. Hell, given that he is also omiscient, he could have made sure they were never put in slavery in the first place. Early on when the king of Egypt was screwing them over and putting them on the path toward slavery he could have put a stop to it somehow.

You might say God is doing all of this for the benefit of Moses, to teach him that he can be a powerful leader. That seems to be a lot of suffering happening to a lot of people for the benefit of one man. And as far as I can tell, any other rationalization will have the same problem. Whatever God's aims, it is hard to imagine that an omniscient and omnipotent God couldn't come up with a better way to do it. But what if God wasn't originally supposed to be so powerful?

We know that the surrounding people all had their own gods, my understanding is that everyone around back then were polytheists. I have my god, you have yours. My god could come and help me out when I am fighting against you with the help of your god. From this perspective Yahweh looks so much better in this story. His people are slaves of the Egyptians, of course the Egyptians have their gods. Yahweh asks Moses to go help his people and he will use what power he has to make sure Moses is successful. This would show real bravery on Moses' part, and even on Yahweh's if there could be a potential battle of the gods.

This goes for other stories that we recently saw in Genesis, consider the whole story of Joseph (Genesis 37-Genesis 46). One reason given for the whole episode is so that Joseph can save a bunch of people from starving during the 7 year famine. How much sense does that make? An all powerful god could have just made the famine not happen, or he could have warned someone already in a position of power, or even with the famine he could have given everyone a magical pantry that refills with food whenever it runs out. However, if he's one god among many with a limited amount of power, he could be setting up some very delicate events to save as many people as possible.

There are many other stories like this, if Yahweh is one god among many with limited power it is easy to imagine that he is doing the best he can with the situation in front of him. He can't save everyone but he can push things one way or the other and help large groups of people. If he's the one and only god with unlimited power and ultimate knowledge his actions are inadequate at best and psychotic at worst.

Genesis 32: Jacob Kicks Gods Ass

Check out today's episode

Jacob Fears Esau (v. 1-21)

Jacob was heading to his homeland after 20 years being away. He was still afraid of Esau from their last encounter so he sent some messengers ahead to let Esau know Jacob is back in town and to grovel a bit. The messengers returned saying that Esau is heading this way with 400 men. Jacob is obviously scared by this. He splits his people into 2 camps, thinking that if one is attacked the other can get away. He also sent a whole bunch of livestock toward Esau as a gift to try to calm him down.

I find it interesting that it was reported the Esau was coming with 400 men but it doesn't explicitly say he is still angry. Is Esau coming to kick Jacob's ass, or is there going to be a twist where Esau was just coming to greet a brother he hasn't seen in 20 years? Presumably we will see.

Jacob Wrestles with God (v. 22-32)

Source

Jacob took his wives and children to safety across the river. Then he was left alone and he started wrestling with a man who turned out to be God. God didn't prevail against Jacob so he touched his hip and Jacob's hip poped out of the socket at that point. God then asked for Jacob to let him go, but Jacob refused unless God blessed him. God then named him Israel because he has prevailed against God and man and he blessed him. Because of this story the people of Israel don't eat the sinew of the thigh on the hip socket.

What?! There's so much ridiculous stuff here, let's enumerate it

1. So God decided to wrap himself in a human body wrestle with Jacob for what reason exactly? I bet the Christian commentaries are going to say this is Jesus! 
2. God lost. I'm sure they will say he threw the fight.
3. God used his power to pop Jacob's hip out of socket but still had to ask to be let go
4. Jacob insisted on getting another blessing from a God who can't beat him at wrestling
5. Why exactly does this translate into that particular food being off limits?

1. I was right, Guzik says that this is another appearance of Jesus in the old testament

2. Again, this wasn't too hard to predict, but Guzik says roughly was I had guessed

Sometimes we feel man really can contend with God. A man or woman in rebellion against God might seem to do pretty well. The “match” is even in appearance only. God can turn the tide at any moment, and is allows the “match” to go own for His own purposes.

Obviously this would have to be their take on this passage, although he also said this, which puzzles me

It isn’t hard to imagine Jacob working so hard and feeling he is getting the best of his “opponent,” until finally the Man turns the tide in an instant. Jacob must have felt very defeated.

When exactly did God turn the tide here? I read the passage again and don't see this. It seems to me that Jacob just won hands down. Actually, I think Guzik's analysis is pretty ridiculous here, I'm going to go through it point by point. It looks to me like he's injecting a lot into the passage that simply isn't there. Indented things will be stuff from his commentary and quotes will be him quoting the bible

"Let Me go, for the day breaks": The Man let Jacob know this won’t go on forever. Even though Jacob clung to him desperately, Jacob has lost. A better, greater Man defeated Jacob.

In the story God asks Jacob to let him go, he interprets this as "God has won"

"I will not let You go unless You bless me": This wasn’t Jacob dictating terms to God as he did on previous occasions. God did overcome Jacob here

It seems exactly like Jacob dictating terms to God.

"For you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed": Jacob prevailed in the sense that he endured through his struggle until God thoroughly conquered him. When you battle with God, you only win by losing and by not giving up until you know you have lost. This is how Jacob prevailed.

When exactly in this story did it say God won? Because I don't see it.

"And He blessed him there": Surely, this was the blessing of being defeated by God. It was the blessing of the passing of the old (Jacob) life, and the coming of a new (Israel) life. It may also have had to do with the great idea of the blessing of Abraham, and meeting Jacob’s immediate needs for security in the midst of fear. Whatever Jacob needed, God’s blessing provided at the moment.

Or perhaps it is the blessing you get when you defeat God. That is certainly what the story seems to actually say.

For the verses of note post;

--Food--

Genesis 32:32 Jews can't eat the sinew of the thigh on the hip socket

"Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh."

--Properties of God--

Genesis 32:26 God loses a wrestling match with Jacob, clearly not omnipotent

"Then [God] said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

Genesis 18: Abraham Negotiates With God

Check out today's podcast

Isaac's Birth Promised[cont.] (v. 1-21)

The lord (plus 2 others) came to visit Abraham and he bowed to him and provided a nice meal for him. The lord, once again, promised that Sarah would have a son. She was listening through the door of the tent and laughed because she has already gone through menopause (or as the bible puts it, the way of women ad ceased to be with Sarah). The Lord asks why she laughed and if anything is impossible for him to do, and Sarah denies laughing because she's afraid.

The idea of God showing up with 2 others and sitting down for dinner is definitely a strange picture. It certainly doesn't fit very well with the picture of an almighty God that I have in my head. Also, what is the deal with the other 2 with him? That isn't explained at all. There are also a few times where "the Lord" refers to himself in third person, which seems strange, it makes me wonder if this was supposed to be three gods originally and all of the dialog eventually got subsumed into one character, which is why it's a bit awkward. I'm sure the Christians will say this is evidence of the trinity though.

Not surprisingly, Guzik again takes the position that this is Jesus, he doesn't actually address the other 2 people who are with him though. In fact, I guess he can't say it is the trinity like I thought he would, because the justification for it being Jesus before was that no one has ever seen God. Matthew Henry had this to say

These three men were three spiritual heavenly beings, now assuming human bodies, that they might be visible to Abraham, and conversable with him. Some think that they were all created angels, others that one of them was the Son of God, the angel of the covenant, whom Abraham distinguished from the rest (v. 3), and who is called Jehovah

I definitely like this perspective better. The text is definitely vague about who the three people are, he gives out a couple of possibilities and the moves on.

I also find it very interesting that Sarah is so afraid of God that she lies about having laughed at what he said.

Then the three men head out and Abraham comes along to send them on their way toward Sodom. The three men have a conversation as to whether they should hide what they are about to do from Abraham because he will be the leader of a great and mighty nation.

I definitely don't follow what is being said here. Why is God contemplating hiding what he's about to do from Abraham, and how does him being destined to lead a great nation play into it? I hope the commentaries have some insight here.

This is actually pretty interesting insight from Guzik. The purpose is actually opposite from what it seemed like to me. The natural thing would have been for God to not mention what he was going to do at Sodom and Gomorrah at all. In effect he would have been hiding it from Abraham just by default. Instead, he was asking if he should instead bring it up to him and see what he thought. So it's not that god was contemplating hiding it from Abraham, but instead he was contemplating not hiding it from him. Since he would be a great leader of nations, God is giving him a chance to weigh in on it. This actually makes a lot of sense I think.

It turns out (as I'm sure everyone already knows) that God is thinking of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because they have been committing sins and the outcry against them is very great. He is planning on going down there to check it out and see if the outcry matches the reality of what is going on.

Okay, this is definitely not the omni-god that we all have heard about. He apparently has some kind of reports coming in to him somehow that these people are sinning, and he has to go down to the city and check it out to verify those reports. This God is obviously not omniscient.

From Matthew Henry:

Not as if there were any thing concerning which God is in doubt, or in the dark; but he is pleased thus to express himself after the manner of men

of course, God didn't need to go down there and look, this was for the benefit of Abraham. The only problem with that is what happens next thought right? If I remember this story correctly, in the next chapter or so, God is going to send down some angels to actually check stuff out. If God really knew all of this he wouldn't bother actually doing it. If this was for Abraham's benefit and he really didn't need to investigate in person, God would just say these things to Abraham and then not follow through. You might complain that in this situation God would be lying to Abraham, but according to this interpretation he's already lying to him, so what's the difference?

Abraham Intercedes for Sodom (v. 22-33)

Apparently though, Abraham heard the conversation between God and the 2 others there and asked God if he was willing to kill a few righteous people in order to kill the wicked people as well. He asks God if he will spare Sodom if he can find some righteous people within the city. The conversation starts with Abraham asking if he will spare the city for the sake of 50 righteous people, then in a really bizarre negotiation, bargains him down to 10 righteous people.

This section is really weird, the whole bargaining aspect here is strange and certainly doesn't seem Godly to me.

Pic found here

For the verses of note post:

--Fear--

Genesis 18:15 Sarah was afraid of God and lied to him

"But Sarah denied it, saying, 'I did not laugh,' for she was afraid..."

--Properties of God--

Genesis 18:20-21 God is not omniscient

"Then the LORD said, 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.'"

Genesis 10 & 11: God Doesn't Want You to Succeed

Check out today's episode

Nations Descended from Noah (ch. 10 v. 1-32)

A huge worthless list of genealogies, guess I'll do two chapters today. The only thing in this chapter that was even mildly interesting was that Ham the ancestor of Canaan, Sodom, and Gomorrah. All places that were "evil" and eventually will suffer a bad fate at the hand of God. 

Oh, also in the middle there is a guy named Nimrod who was the first "mighty man", whatever that means.

The Tower of Babel (ch. 11 v. 1-9)

The section starts off by describing the material that the bricks and mortar would be made from. I didn't mention it myself as I thought it was uninteresting, but Guzik says that they are waterproof, and this is evidence that the people didn't believe God when he said he wouldn't flood the earth again. That seem idiotic to me, do you really think a tower would stand a global flood just because it is waterproof? And if it would that God couldn't just strike it with lightning or something.

Everyone spoke the same language, and a bunch of people settled in the land of Shinar. They said they wanted to build a huge tower with the top in the heavens, otherwise they would be dispersed over the whole earth.

I'm not really sure how these 2 things are connected, the way this reads there are 2 options, either build a tower to the heavens or spread out on the earth. Is this tower full of condos? That might make sense "we need to build a bunch of condos, otherwise we will have to spread out to find a place to live". Seriously though, it seems like a weird dichotomy to me. Also, it doesn't say "tower to heaven", it says "tower with a top in the heavens". I'm not totally sure of the significance here, but it seems important.

Guzik definitely focuses on this detail, these people are being disobedient to God as they are building the tower instead of dispersing.

He also addresses the heaven vs heavens thing...sorta. I'll just quote it as it is hilarious

The top of the tower was intended to be in the heavens. It is doubtful they thought they could build a tower to heaven. It is more likely they built the tower as an observation point of the heavens.

Yeah, it's not ridiculous now. He also says

If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains.

Fair enough, but doesn't that logic also hold if they are trying to avoid a global flood? 

God came down to see the city and the tower, he said that this is just the beginning and that nothing will be impossible for them. Therefore, he came down and confused everyone's speech so they couldn't understand one another. They dispersed instead of building the city and the tower.

First, God is clearly not omniscient in this story, as he had to come down to check out the city and the tower. 

Second, why does he not want people to be able to do stuff? It very specifically says that God confuses their language because they will be able to accomplish anything they want if he doesn't. It's not because they are trying to reach heaven, it's because they will be able to do anything. What is god afraid of here?

My Comic Archive

The way Guzik tries to explain this is that God is putting a check on the power of the fallen nature of man. He then cites the evils of 20th century men. So basically, God just delayed these things, he didn't actually stop it. Well done. He also says this is more mercy than judgement, again, if this were true wouldn't God have to come back and do this over and over again as soon as a critical mass of people speak the same language?

Third, who is God talking to? verse 7 "let us go down and confuse their language". I'm guessing Christians will say that he is talking to angels, but I bet he's supposed to be talking to other Gods.

Guzik goes a different way than I was expecting, he say it is a reference to the trinity. He also says that when God came down he was in the form of Jesus, I love how they just make this stuff up.

Guzik talks for 3 paragraphs about how language must be from God and can't be man figuring it out on his own. He says that the only way linguists can explain it without God is if language went through and evolutionary process. Yeah, no shit. I guess if you don't believe in evolution that argument looks like a slam dunk, but really it just makes him look stupid.

Guzik also mentions that after people spread out they have to get by in different environments and have different stresses and with small populations their small genetic differences spread quickly. He's basically describing evolution, well done. I'm sure he would say "it's micro-evolution not macro-evolution", of course what he doesn't understand is that they are the same thing on different time scales.

Finally, Guzik says that man rebelling shows that people are no better after the flood than they were before it.  Now God will start to make man better by starting with a man who will do his will. Why didn't he just do that with Noah then? If people are just as evil now as they were before then what was the whole point of the Noah story?

What is good about this story?

This is a new thing I'm trying, which I mentioned a few days ago. I want to try to find a good angle on the story, or at least explain why people have thought it valuable for thousands of years. The only thing I can really think of here is that it attempts to explains why we have languages. For people who don't understand how language could evolve, this would give them an answer. That's basically what all old myths are for right? To give an explanation when the real answer is out of reach.

Shem's Descendants (ch. 11 v. 10-26)

Just a bunch of genealogies. I suppose one interesting bit is that people seem to be living shorter lives as time goes on.

Terah's Descendants (ch 11 v. 27-32)

There is nothing of value here.

For the "verses of note" post:

--Knowledge--

Genesis 11:6-7 God wants you to fail

"And the LORD said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.'"

--Obedience--

Genesis 11:4 They didn't want to follow God's command to spread out on the earth

"Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.'"

--Properties of God--

Genesis 11:5 God is not omniscient or omnipresent

"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built."

Genesis 4: Jealousy Turns to Murder

Check out today's episode

Cain and Abel (v. 1-26)

Adam and Eve had 2 sons, Cain and Abel. Abel kept sheep and Cain worked the ground. They both brought sacrifice to the lord, Cain brought fruit from the ground and Abel brought the first born of his flock. The Lord was happy with the offering from Abel, but he was not impressed with Cain's offering. Cain got angry and God asked him why he was angry, he just had to do better and the sacrifice would be accepted, if not he is opening himself up to sin.

So Cain offers fruit from the ground, and he works the ground so this seems reasonable, but God is not happy with his offering. Is it because it is fruit, or because he is offering a poor selection of his fruit? If it's just because it is fruit that seems pretty unfair for God to be upset. On the other hand, Abel didn't just bring a lamb, he brought his best. As a kid I remember this story being told as if Cain just brought scraps and that is why God was upset, I'm not sure I read that in the story here, except perhaps verse 7 where God tells him to do better. I wish there was a little more detail here, oh well.

I looked at a couple of different commentaries here (Guzik, Matthew Henry), they both don't really have a good answer, but they do seem to read a lot into this. It seems that they have the same wish as me that this was explained better. 

Cain responded to all of this by killing his brother.

That seems like a bit of an over reaction. So what is the lesson here? Don't be jealous? Perhaps not to let your emotions get that far out of control.

Guzik says this is a message about the destructive power of sin.

God asks Cain where his brother is, and Cain responds "Am I my brothers keeper?" God then says that Abel's blood calls out to him from the ground, and he then curses Cain saying the ground won't yield its strength to him anymore. Cain says it is more than he can bear and is worried that anyone who finds him will kill him. The lord puts a mark on him and says that anyone who kills him will have vengeance in return sevenfold.

God punishes Cain, takes away his livelihood but doesn't allow him to be killed by other people. I'm not really sure how I feel about this, Cain clearly needs to be punished and he is, but God also shows mercy by not allowing him to be killed. It's good I guess.

Guzik brings up a good point that I missed, he points out that when Cain said "My punishment is greater than I can bear!" he didn't feel bad about what he did, only about his punishment.

Cain went away from the presence of the lord and ran east to the land of Nod. We hear about 7 generations of Cain's descendants before we get back to Adam and Eve.

Cain's family tree. Hope you enjoy my MS paint skills :)

This raises a few questions for me. First, how get Cain get away from the presence of the lord? Yesterday we had a similar situation where Adam and Eve were hiding from God in the garden and he was asking where they were. I argued that it is possible God was feigning ignorance of their position. This is different, verse 16 is not from the perspective of Cain thinking he was getting away from God, it is just stated as fact from the narrator. Clearly the God described here is not omnipresent or omniscient.

Second. where did Cain's wife come from? We say yesterday (Gen 3:20) that Eve is the mother of all of humanity, and yet Cain is going to another land to find a wife. Further, we will see shortly in verse 25 that Eve is given a son to replace Abel, implying that Abel is her third son. Again, where did the other people come from? Given that God in this story apparently only can see a small area of the planet, and there are people outside of his influence, maybe he is only one of many God's creating life on this planet. 

Guzik says that he must have married his sister. Still doesn't explain when she was born or where she came from. Also, there was apparently this whole land of Nod to the east, where did all of those people come from?

Adam and Eve then had another son and called him Seth, a replacement for Abel as Cain had killed him. Seth had a son named Enosh.

I'm guessing this didn't have to happen in this order. We don't necessarily have to take Seth's birth as happening after all of the descendants of Cain right? If they tried to interleave them it would be confusing. I hope this isn't the reason why people say Adam and Eve lived so long. [edit - Tomorrow's reading specifically says Adam lived 930 years]

For the verses of note post

--Jealousy--

Genesis 4:1-8 Jealousy leads to murder

"...the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell...And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him."

--Properties of God--

Genesis 4:16 God is not omnipresent

"Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden."

Genesis 3: Evicted for Eating Fruit

Check out today's episode

The Fall (v. 1-24)

The serpent was the craftiest creature God had made, he asked Eve if she was forbidden from eating any fruit in the garden, she replied that she was not allowed to eat the fruit from that one tree, if she did she would die.

That answers the question from yesterday, Eve certainly did understand that she was not allowed to eat the forbidden fruit. Whether God repeated himself or Adam passed on the message doesn't really matter, the point is she understood.

Guzik says that while it is not explicitly stated that this is Satan, it is pretty clear. Seems reasonable to me. He goes on to say

Eve’s first mistake was in even carrying on a discussion with the serpent. We are called to talk to the devil, but never to have a discussion with him. We simply and strongly tell him, “The Lord rebuke you!” (Jude 1:9)

That's hilarious, this very idea is designed to keep people in their own little bubble, you aren't even supposed to communicate with people of an opposing viewpoint.

The serpent told Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit, her eyes will be open and she will be like God in that she will know good and evil.

The serpent is actually being truthful here, God lied when he said she'd die.

Guzik goes on at length about how Satan was contradicting God and how Satan was evil for this. He never addressed the fact that God was indeed lying.

She saw that the fruit looked good, was good to eat, and would grant wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it, she also gave some to Adam and he had some. Their eyes were opened, they realized they were naked and they made themselves loincloths out of fig leaves.

Doesn't really seem like it took that much to get her to eat the fruit. Also, it didn't take that much convincing to get Adam to eat it with her. I remember watching cartoons of this scene when I was a kid, they really expanded this part a lot. I seem to recall Adam trying to resist and her insisting. Wish I could remember better, damn fuzzy childhood memories.

Also, we have this naked thing again. Why is this suddenly a big deal? Understanding good and evil makes the ashamed of being naked? What?

Adam and Eve heard God walking through the garden and they hid from him in the bushes.

I love the idea of God taking a stroll.

God called out to Adam asking him where he was, Adam responded that he hid because he was naked.

I can imagine people asking why God would have to ask this question, and claim it shows he's not omnipotent. However, it is possible God is humoring Adam. Think of a father looking for his son in the house, he probably knows where the kid is, and still calls out for him to come out on his own.

God asks Adam how he knows he is naked and asks if he ate the fruit. He says yes, and that Eve gave him the fruit. Eve says that the serpent tricked her.

I remember this was a big thing when I was a kid. I can still hear my dad saying "everyone's passing the buck". This is true, but they are also explaining what happened.

Whoa, Guzik gives Eve credit saying that she wasn't necessarily shifting blame to the serpent as much as she was explaining that she was deceived. But then he goes on to say

The only problem comes when we fail to see that being deceived is sin in itself.

What the hell? It is a sin to be a victim? Screw that!

God turned to the snake and told him he would now be cursed to crawl around on his belly and women would hate him forever.

Fair enough, the snake was a dick in this story, he gets what he deserves. I wonder what the snake looked like before he lost his legs, is he just a salamander? Why are there still salamanders?

The punishment for women is the pain of childbirth. They also shall desire their husbands, who will rule over them.

The childbirth thing seems like a bit of an over reaction.

Wow, I love the way people try to rewrite history, Guzik says this about women

Under Jesus, some of the effects of the curse are relieved, and it has been the Christianizing of society that brought rights and dignity to women.

I'll just link to my post on what the new testament says about women and call that done. Further he comments and quotes someone else

Your desire shall be for your husband: This is true of women in a way that it is not true for men. “This verse will be understood better when it is realized that the desire of man toward his wife alone is solely by God’s grace and not by nature.” (Barnhouse)

I just live in a different universe than these people. A man's desire for his wife isn't by nature by solely by God? I'm not even sure what to say here, I just included it because I find it bizarre and interesting.

Adam's punishment for listening to Eve is that the ground will be covered in thorns and thistles and he has to work the ground.

What? Why does Eve have to deal with a bunch of pain and Adam just have to work the ground, which now happens to be covered in annoying stickers.

God made them some clothes and kicked them out of the garden to deny them the tree of life. He stationed a cherubim at the entrance with a flaming sword to keep people from going back in.

Is the garden of Eden still around? Off to google maps! Looks like there's a lot of places to check here in America, we should look for flaming swords out front.

search for "garden of eden" on google maps

For the verses of note post:

--Lies--

Genesis 3:4-5 God lies, the serpent tells the truth

"But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.""

--Properties of God--

Genesis 3:8 God walks through the garden of Eden

"And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"

Revelation 1: Jesus Vomits Swords

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Let's start by looking at the wikipedia page. Looks like it is written by John, although it seems to be a different John from the books by that name. Also, it seems many believe it was written in 95AD, although some place it at 70AD instead. There is actually a ton of information there, but most of it seems to be about the content itself, which we will get to in the reading soon enough. Near the bottom though is a section Criticism which contains a quote from Ingersoll that Revelation is "the insanest of all books." Awesome!

Prologue (v. 1-3)

God sent an angel to John so that his followers would know what is about to take place. Blessed is anyone who reads or hears this prophecy, for the time is near.

First, I'd like to point out that it says the events which are going to be described in this book are right around the corner. It says it twice actually, in v1 it says "must soon take place" and in v3 is says "the time is near". Seems pretty clear to me that it is therefore going to be a failed prophecy. The only way out of it is to redefine what they mean by "soon". I suppose it is up to each individual person to determine whether they think it is reasonable to define soon to be "in about 2000 years.

Guzik has 2 answers for this point. The first is one that we have seen him use many times in the past, that we are not running toward a distant brink, but we are running along side it, always right near the edge. With this logic we can be on the verge of falling for thousands of years without ever falling. Honestly, I think he's pushing his "falling off a cliff" analogy pretty hard here. If that was what was meant by the book, you would think it would say something like "it could happen at any moment" or something. Would you describe his situation (running along side the edge) as "must soon take place" or "the time is near"? I think not.

His other defense here is a quote from someone named Walvoord, he says 

Shortly is the ancient Greek phrase en tachei, which means “'quickly or suddenly coming to pass,' indicating rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden.”

which I decided to check out on the lexicon for this point, when it comes to verse 1, he is potentially right, the Greek is tachei which translates to speed. Perhaps his interpretation here is correct here and we are talking about speed once it starts but not speed in it getting started. But what about verse 3? Here 'near' is from the word engus which means 'near (in place or time)'. Given that the phrase is "the time is near", I don't think there is really a way around this.

Second, if God really is all powerful, why would he only send an angel to John? Why not send one to everybody?

Greeting to the Seven Churches (v. 4-8)

John greets the 7 churches in Asia. He wishes them peace from God and the 7 spirits before his throne.

Is there supposed to be one spirit for each church? I feel like I'm missing something here.

According to Guzik, this is a reference to Isaiah 11 which describes 7 aspects of the holy spirit. I don't know about that, because the text clearly says "seven spirits". I also looked at the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown for this and didn't find anything very satisfying. They talk about seven's a lot, it has a bit of a numerology feel to it. I still might just be missing something here.

Jesus freed us with his blood, he will come with the clouds and everyone will see and wail on account of him.

I'm guessing 'coming with the clouds' means he will be flying down from the sky. This makes some sense as they believed heaven was up in the clouds. Does the idea that everyone will see him indicate a flat earth? I suppose it would be argued that Jesus could fly around the earth and everyone would see him, they don't necessarily have to all see him at the same time.

Guzik says that "every eye will see" refers to the fact that when Jesus returns everyone will know about it, in contrast to his first coming which was "somewhat obscure", and "never made front-page news in Rome". I don't know about that, didn't Herod kill a bunch of children because of the birth of Jesus? Doesn't sound so obscure to me.

God is the alpha and the omega, "who is, who was, and who is to come"

This is said twice, in verse 4 and 8. I guess it is the way the bible says God is eternal.

Interesting point from Guzik here

The Greek construction of who is, who was and who is to come is intentionally awkward in the Greek. It seems that John searched for a phrase to communicate the Old Testament idea of Yahweh.

 Vision of the Son of Man (v. 9-20)

John tells us that God sent him to the island Patmos, and while he was 'in the spirit' a loud voice like a trumpet told him to write a book and send it to the 7 churches.

Apparently Patmos is a prison island. (Guzik)

I'm not really sure what it means to be 'in the spirit', was he praying?

Again from Guzik's commentary, Walvoord says he was "Carried beyond normal sense into a state where God could reveal supernaturally the contents of this book." Whatever that means.

When he turned to see the voice, he saw 7 golden lampstands. In the middle was Jesus in a long robe with a golden sash around his chest. His hair was white like wool or snow. His eyes were like fire, his feet were bronze, his voice was like the roar of many waters. He held 7 stars in his right hand, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like staring into the sun.

Uhh...so he's insane right? Or stoned out of his mind, or something. Seriously, how are we supposed to make sense out of this?

Looking at Guzik once again, the lamp stands are not lamps, they are a vessel to put a lamp where you display light, but they don't produce light themselves. This is an analogy for the church, which is more of a platform for Jesus. He also says that the garments are meant to show that Jesus is of high status. Long robes are worn by people who don't have to work much, and the sash is gold and therefore very valuable. The hair is about old age and wisdom. Eyes are about judgement. The feet are also about judgement, as well as stability and permanence. His voice is powerful. The sword is power and it is coming out of his mouth because it is supposed to be his words. His face is shining because of his glory.

Jesus says he is the first and last, and then says he has the keys of death.

A third time he is saying he is eternal, and that with Jesus you can't die.

Jesus explains that the 7 stars in his hand are the angels of the seven churches, and the 7 lamp stands are the churches themselves.

Okay, so does every church have a corresponding angel then, or are these 7 churches special? Why do the stars and lamp stands go together? What about all of the other crazy images here?


What we learned today:

--Apocalypse--

Revelation 1:1,3 The end is near

"must soon take place", "the time is near"

--Properties of God--

Revelation 1:4,8,17 God is eternal

"who is and who was and who is to come" (twice)

"I am the first and the last"

---

Check out today's comic