If we were to have a competition to find the most tedious and irrelevant chapter in the Bible, the seventh chapter of Numbers would be a strong candidate.
It describes the offerings brought to the tabernacle when it was dedicated. The leaders of the twelve tribes brought in their offerings on twelve consecutive days. There were silver plates, silver basins full of fine flour, gold dishes full of incense, and a number of bulls, lambs, rams and goats.
Again, the question arises: where did they get all this gold and silver in the middle of the desert, and where were the plates, basins and dishes made? But the most striking thing is that although all the twelve offerings were identical the list, which takes up five verses, is repeated word for word twelve times! I suppose the point was to show that all the twelve tribes had equal status, or perhaps it was originally meant to help people learn the list by heart - whoever it was who needed to know it by heart.
But what can we honestly say it means to us today? How do these plates and basins and dishes, and all these poor animals brought for slaughter 3000 years ago, have any interest for us? What benefit do we get from reading it, apart perhaps from training in patience?
Just before this, at the end of chapter 6, is the blessing that 'Aaron and his sons' were to give to the people, those beautiful words that are valued as much today as they were then: 'The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace'.
How can this and chapter 7 be equally 'the word of God'?
Friday, 5 March 2010
Saturday, 20 February 2010
So that's where it comes from!
Right there in the middle of Leviticus, among all the complicated rules about sacrifices and priests and the extreme punishments to be meted out to sabbath breakers, not to mention adulterers and homosexuals, we suddenly find those immortal words that have always been regarded as the foundation of the Christian way of life: 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself' (Lev.19:18).
Coming a little later, not quite as well known and even less observed, is the command 'you shall love the alien as yourself' (v.34).
This chapter does say quite a lot about ordinary social justice, honesty, concern for the poor, and so on - something more relevant to life as we know it. But even here we have some peculiar and apparently arbitrary commandments. Immediately after 'love your neighbour as yourself' comes that odd command about not letting your animals breed with a different kind (no mules then!), sowing your field with two kinds of seed (does this apply to herbaceous borders too?), or wearing a garment made of two different materials (so it's out with most things we wear today!).
Leviticus is one of the clearest illustrations of the complex nature of Scripture, and indeed of religion in general - sublime truths and ideals mixed up with irrational and sometimes barbaric taboos. There is no alternative to being selective, and letting our conscience and common sense tell us what to choose and what to reject - Jesus himself did it.
Coming a little later, not quite as well known and even less observed, is the command 'you shall love the alien as yourself' (v.34).
This chapter does say quite a lot about ordinary social justice, honesty, concern for the poor, and so on - something more relevant to life as we know it. But even here we have some peculiar and apparently arbitrary commandments. Immediately after 'love your neighbour as yourself' comes that odd command about not letting your animals breed with a different kind (no mules then!), sowing your field with two kinds of seed (does this apply to herbaceous borders too?), or wearing a garment made of two different materials (so it's out with most things we wear today!).
Leviticus is one of the clearest illustrations of the complex nature of Scripture, and indeed of religion in general - sublime truths and ideals mixed up with irrational and sometimes barbaric taboos. There is no alternative to being selective, and letting our conscience and common sense tell us what to choose and what to reject - Jesus himself did it.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
An Interesting Bit
Leviticus 12 is interesting because of a link with the New Testament. It gives the rules for a woman's purification after childbirth. She has to bring a sacrifice of atonement for her 'uncleanness'. It should be a lamb and a pigeon or turtledove, but if she cannot afford a lamb she can bring two pigeons or turtledoves.
In Luke 2:24 we read that after the birth of Jesus Mary and Joseph went to the temple for her purification, taking 'a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons'. This indicates that they were relatively poor - a point often made in sermons.
But this raises at least two questions. First, why should a woman have to make a sacrifice to 'atone' for having given birth to a child? And secondly, how does this fit in with the Roman Catholic idea of the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary? Why did she, of all women, need to be purified?
In Luke 2:24 we read that after the birth of Jesus Mary and Joseph went to the temple for her purification, taking 'a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons'. This indicates that they were relatively poor - a point often made in sermons.
But this raises at least two questions. First, why should a woman have to make a sacrifice to 'atone' for having given birth to a child? And secondly, how does this fit in with the Roman Catholic idea of the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary? Why did she, of all women, need to be purified?
Sunday, 14 February 2010
The Holy Slaughterhouse
The first seven chapters of Leviticus are also a bit of a fag to read. They give all the rules for the offering of the various sacrifices - sin offerings, thank offerings, whole burnt offerings etc etc. Then the eighth chapter describes how Aaron and his sons were ordained as priests (more sacrifices), and the ninth describes how they made all these sacrifices, and then the glory of God descended on the Tabernacle and the fire of God consumed the burnt offerings.
We get all the details about killing the animals, removing the fat and the offal, what to do with the blood and so on. It looks a bit like a butcher's manual. If you are squeamish and really think about what you are reading, it's all a bit sickening. It makes you wonder whether, if the Temple was restored today, modern Jews would want to go back to all that.
We tend to think of a place of worship as somewhere clean and quiet, with a peaceful atmosphere. But the Temple in its heyday was evidently flowing with the blood of rams, bulls, goats and all sorts, not to mention the noise they all must have made when they were dragged in and slaughtered. It was certainly no religion for vegetarians!
Again, I can't help asking: how, for Christians today, can this be the word of God?
We get all the details about killing the animals, removing the fat and the offal, what to do with the blood and so on. It looks a bit like a butcher's manual. If you are squeamish and really think about what you are reading, it's all a bit sickening. It makes you wonder whether, if the Temple was restored today, modern Jews would want to go back to all that.
We tend to think of a place of worship as somewhere clean and quiet, with a peaceful atmosphere. But the Temple in its heyday was evidently flowing with the blood of rams, bulls, goats and all sorts, not to mention the noise they all must have made when they were dragged in and slaughtered. It was certainly no religion for vegetarians!
Again, I can't help asking: how, for Christians today, can this be the word of God?
Monday, 8 February 2010
B-O-R-I-N-G!
My reading through the Bible has slowed down a bit recently, but I've now got to the end of Exodus. Reading through the last six chapters was hard work. It's a description of the building and furnishing of the Tabernacle - loads of gold, silver, linen, silk, scarlet and purple. How did they find it all in the desert? The probable answer of course is that this is really a description of Solomon's temple read back into the desert days.
But my reaction is: do we really want to know all this? Even to the description of the pans, shovels and washing bowls, repeated three times - first planned, then made, then dedicated - there is so much unwanted information.
This is one of my problems with talking of the Bible as the Word of God. I can cope with its scientific and historical inaccuracy. I can understand how some people cope with the morally questionable parts by talking of 'progressive revelation'. But what about those vast stretches that are simply irrelevant? Is there anything in the last six chapters of Exodus that has anything to say about morality, the meaning of life, the nature of God or the gospel? If not, how can it be the word of God?
I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on it!
But my reaction is: do we really want to know all this? Even to the description of the pans, shovels and washing bowls, repeated three times - first planned, then made, then dedicated - there is so much unwanted information.
This is one of my problems with talking of the Bible as the Word of God. I can cope with its scientific and historical inaccuracy. I can understand how some people cope with the morally questionable parts by talking of 'progressive revelation'. But what about those vast stretches that are simply irrelevant? Is there anything in the last six chapters of Exodus that has anything to say about morality, the meaning of life, the nature of God or the gospel? If not, how can it be the word of God?
I don't recall ever hearing a sermon on it!
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Who really believes the Bible?
In Exodus 31:15 it says: 'whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death'. This is one of many passages in the Old Testament laying down the death penalty, but while reading it the other day the thought struck me almost as if it were new. So many people say they believe every bit of the Bible is the infallible word of God, 'the Maker's instructions' and so on. But who takes passages like this seriously?
Of course, Christians don't observe the Sabbath anyway, which is strange when you consider it is in the Ten Commandments, which most Christians talk of as the 'core' set of God's laws. We observe the first day of the week as 'the Lord's Day', but many Christians call it the Sabbath and have all sorts of rules about it. But have you heard of anyone recently, whether Jewish or Christian, advocating the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath?
They accuse us 'liberals' of picking and choosing rather than accepting the whole Bible as the Word of God. But doesn't everybody?
Of course, Christians don't observe the Sabbath anyway, which is strange when you consider it is in the Ten Commandments, which most Christians talk of as the 'core' set of God's laws. We observe the first day of the week as 'the Lord's Day', but many Christians call it the Sabbath and have all sorts of rules about it. But have you heard of anyone recently, whether Jewish or Christian, advocating the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath?
They accuse us 'liberals' of picking and choosing rather than accepting the whole Bible as the Word of God. But doesn't everybody?
Friday, 21 August 2009
What is God like, really?
In my reading through the Bible I am now in the middle of Exodus. In chapter 19 the Israelites are at the foot of Mount Sinai. The LORD tells Moses to go down and warn the people not to come near the mountain, not to "break through to the LORD to look; otherwise many of them will perish". Then again "the LORD" says "do not let either the priests or the people break through to come up to the LORD; otherwise he will break out against them". It seems "the LORD" is talking about himself in the third person, and warning people that he is dangerous!
There are many passages like this in the Old Tstament. There is, for instance, the strange little story of how the LORD, having sent Moses into Egypt to tell Pharaoh to set the people free, meets him on the road and tries to kill him, and how apparently his wife saves his life by cutting off his son's foreskin and touching his feet with it (Exodus 4:24-26). What kind of a god is this who keeps trying to destroy people for no apparent reason?
We today like to dismiss things like this as ancient mythology based on a false view of God. But just think for a minute. Perhaps the ancient writers were simply being logical. If there is one God who controls everything, and bad things happen sometimes unexpectedly and without reason, then it must be God doing them - who else could it be? We, on the other hand, believe in a God who is all loving. But we are still stuck with the fact that bad things happen - not only bad things, but quite cruel, arbitrary and senseless things. Is the Old Testament picture of God just a way of recognising that God is beyond our understanding and can never be tamed into what we would like him to be? Were those writers perhaps more honest and realistic than we are?
If we believe in God as the Father of Jesus Christ, an all-loving God, we do so in the face of loads of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps these ancient images of an unpredictable, impersonal, dangerous God are a sobering reminder of this. Like the Bible writers, we struggle to believe that God is on our side, and sometimes it is really difficult.
There are many passages like this in the Old Tstament. There is, for instance, the strange little story of how the LORD, having sent Moses into Egypt to tell Pharaoh to set the people free, meets him on the road and tries to kill him, and how apparently his wife saves his life by cutting off his son's foreskin and touching his feet with it (Exodus 4:24-26). What kind of a god is this who keeps trying to destroy people for no apparent reason?
We today like to dismiss things like this as ancient mythology based on a false view of God. But just think for a minute. Perhaps the ancient writers were simply being logical. If there is one God who controls everything, and bad things happen sometimes unexpectedly and without reason, then it must be God doing them - who else could it be? We, on the other hand, believe in a God who is all loving. But we are still stuck with the fact that bad things happen - not only bad things, but quite cruel, arbitrary and senseless things. Is the Old Testament picture of God just a way of recognising that God is beyond our understanding and can never be tamed into what we would like him to be? Were those writers perhaps more honest and realistic than we are?
If we believe in God as the Father of Jesus Christ, an all-loving God, we do so in the face of loads of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps these ancient images of an unpredictable, impersonal, dangerous God are a sobering reminder of this. Like the Bible writers, we struggle to believe that God is on our side, and sometimes it is really difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)