Unfair Punishment?

In Joshua Ch. 7 we have a very interesting narrative.  I’m not quite ready to call it the most important passage in Joshua yet, but I do think it is very important to look at a little further than usual.  I recently did an article review for this class on “Jewish Sin” which I presented today in class, the actual article is called “Sin, Sinner (Old Testament)” by Robin C. Cover in the Volume 6 of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, very interesting article you should look it up if you get the time and the desire to do so.  Anyway in this article Cover discusses this idea that not all sins are punished individually.  That is to say sometimes a punishment from just one person or a minority group can effect the entire community as a whole even if they did not actually partake in the sin.  I was just lucky enough to be reading this article and Joshua at the same time and I found that Joshua Ch. 7 is a perfect example of this.  Here you have God telling the Hebrews that when they go into conquer people that they should not loot “devoted things” the command not to do such a thing is found just prior to Ch. 7 in 6:18-19 and then lo and behold the text says that one man, Achan, did just this unbeknownst to everyone else.  So they go into conquer the land of Ai and lose and they can’t figure out why especially when God has sent his blessing on them to win and God let’s them know that because of Achan’s sin that that is the reason that they lost.  One man’s sin has the punishment put on all of the people.  In our Western American minds we automatically want to de-rail against this.  Those who believe in responsibility believe that the sole individual should take sole responsibility to any and all sins that they might commit and that is all well and fine, I am of that mind for the most part as well.  But I have to take careful notice that God warned them not to take these devoted items and what would happen if they did, so that the fact that only one man did it seems to be beyond God’s point and his if/then statement applies no matter the case.  It just seems if the Hebrews would really listen to all of God’s many if/then statements then they could avoid personal and communal punishment (hind-sight, I admit).  I strongly dislike that we all have to suffer for someone’s individual screw up, but I often recall in team sports when one of us messed up we all had to suffer the consequences and at the time I hated that beyond reason, but as I grew older I saw that in that we were really taught to continually not mess up so that we would not only avoid doing wrong, but we also avoided the chastisement of the rest of the group.  There is some weird sense of unity that is formed in the masses suffering for the individual.  Maybe that whole thought of “you’re only as strong as your weakest link” starts to take on a new meaning . . .

Kalos Eplis

Kelly M. Doolittle

Worshiping The Hollow Eyed Jesus

Deuteronomy 4:15 Since you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, 16 so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure-- the likeness of male or female.

I think some blasphemous words are in order at this point ( I say sarcastically).  Christians and Jews alike have this innate need and/or want to make a statue of someone or something, in particular God and other “holy” things, people.  I can recall in Israel once upon a time ago when I was very young there being a statue of Judith holding a sword in one hand and Holofernes’ head in another, which of course to us Jews is ironic since we don’t consider the Apocrypha canonical, but I have always found it very funny that we still know the stories very well and in most cases believe them (This statue was eventually blown up in one of the many battles in the homeland).  Then of course there are the countless Jesus statues across the Christian campuses and churches everywhere (including here at Truett and oddly enough he is at the back of the building).  In all of this we seem to skim over this passage in Deut., which of course most Christians skim over this book as a whole anyway, which is sad in its own right.  Even sadder is our blatant idolatry, which by these two verses is what our statues are.  God plainly states that we didn’t see him and so we have no clue what he looks like and could not make a accurate representation of Him nor should we God says as it would be idolatry.  Now it is of course true that living people physically saw the living Jesus, but we good Trinitarians have to say God’s words are Jesus’ words and vice versa, that whole “come to fulfill the law” thing then comes into play and whether we believe that or not I am almost certain that Jesus would adhere to this anyway.  The whole point of it is to not get caught up in the object rather than what is really there even if you can’t see it.  All of us get into that dangerous territory of relying on praying to our cross rather than praying directly to Jesus and other things of this nature and the Hebrews were nowhere near above this and so God made sure to tell them not to make idols/statues of Him even.  There is this want in all of us to have this physical representation of what we worship in some form or another, be it a cross or a sad looking Jesus statue, but I think God’s point is that we should be alright with what we have even if we can’t directly see it.  Which of course brings us to saying “faith-based” which gets overused and is tiresome at times, but it is what it is.  Do you have to have something to see, or are you content enough to trust in what has always been there and continues to be there, but you’ve never seen?  This also applies to our human heroes as well for when we make a statue of them we start to dangerously elevate them, i.e. which is why I mentioned the Judith statue. I can recall several times one of my undergraduate teachers saying our Jesus statue was heretical and at first I did not get this or thought he was just joking (which he wasn’t), but after reading this passage I am actually picking up on what he was saying, so I guess it turns out you were right Dr. Allen ha ha (good intentions be damned ha ha ha).  Of course our Jesus statue was creepy anyway because his eyes were hollow, literally, which is after all the moral of the tale; don’t make a hollowed eyed Jesus statue or a sad Jesus statue and put him at the back of the building.  But really we do need to be more aware of this and its possible implications for us.  God has been there all along so let’s keep our worship to him and not to a statue of him.

Kalos Elpis

Kelly M. Doolittle

If/Then

As I have stated before we are often asked in class what we think are the key passages of a particular text and in thinking about this for Leviticus and Numbers I found that what I thought were the key texts in both of them are very much related to one another almost dramatically so.  In my opinion the key text of Leviticus is in ch. 26 and in Numbers it is ch. 14 and they directly correlate to one another.  Leviticus 26 is God saying to the people a series of if/then sayings and the basic gist of it all is that if the Hebrews do good then they will prosper under God and if they do bad then they will fail under God, it’s all about following God’s commandments and what will happen if you don’t; this is a very broad explanation of this text as there are some very specific if/then instances given, but for time’s sake this broad view will most help us understand it’s correlation to Numbers 14.  So skip ahead in time to Numbers 14 and here we find the desert wondering Hebrews very close to the land that God has promised to them and they decide to send spies in to scope out the place which is bad on their part because they did not trust God that the land would be good enough in the first place and so the spies return and say it’s not that great of a place and then in Ch. 14 the people start to whine about how they wish they were back in slavery in Egypt as it would be better than this, which of course angers God and admittedly so.  It is particularly in 14:40 and 43 where we get this correlation to Leviticus 26.  The people seeing God suddenly change their mind and say that the land is good enough to go into now, but it is too late at that point, v. 43 says, “because you have turned back from following the Lord, the Lord will not be with you” and this in a nutshell is what God promised them in Leviticus 26.  There is the if/then correlation.  “If you trust me I will lead you into this land, if you don’t woe unto you”.  For me we really see Leviticus 26 perfectly fulfilled in Numbers 14; it is simply one more time that God actually did what he said he would do and sadly the Jews were either not paying attention or did not believe him.  All of that to say, there is something to taking God at face value.  Generally if he makes a if/then statement you can bank on that if you do one thing then a particular something will happen as a result.  Now whether it is positive or negative is up to us.

Kalos Elpis

Kelly M. Doolittle

So You Think You're Priestly Enough For The Job

When we first get the priest’s role in Exodus we still have an almost vague understanding of who they are and what they do.  Sure things are clearly defined in places, but I feel we get a huge and better definition of what the Priest does in Leviticus.  And really there is a massive shift of the priest’s role from just being a priest here in Leviticus.  For instance in Lev. 4:22 it mentions what to do when a “ruler” sins, however, when we get to the end of this section in v. 26 it clearly states that the “rulers” previously mentioned are the priests. So the first new role of priest we find is Ruler.  Now ruler to what extent we’re not entirely clear on, but it is interesting to see this shift.  There are repeated phrases of “ and the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for the error that you committed and you shall be forgiven” given throughout Leviticus and in this, chief among the new roles of the priest I think, makes the priest our scapegoat, or our interceder on our behalf for our sins, because we cannot do it for ourselves.  Then in ch. 12-15 we see the Priest become a doctor of sorts, “examining” all of these unclean things and then making a diagnosis from this and how to cure it, or as they say make them clean again.  Then there is an underlying sense too that the Priest has taken on a Judge like role as well, because the laws are given and when they are broken the people have to come to the priests for their offerings and subsequent forgiveness for sins.  Then as we finally get to the end of the book of Leviticus around 27:23 the priest also becomes a sort of banker as well, “computing for it the proportionate assessment”.  Wow.  The Priest takes on a whole new role in Leviticus, a much broader, bigger role at that.  One might even say he pretty much does it all as it were.  To Recount:

        i.            He is a Priest

      ii.            He is a Ruler

    iii.            He is an Interceder

    iv.            He is a Doctor

      v.            He is a Judge

    vi.            He is a Banker

Not only this, but he gets fed by the people’s offerings, some of them anyway.  I have to say the Priest has pretty much got it made.  He of course does have the most responsibility, more money more problems as they say.  But he is in charge of all of the holy stuff and communicating with God for us and carrying the Ark of the Covenant.  Whew!  I may have left out some underlining changes in the priest’s role and for that I apologize, but in these six things alone we see a major change in all that the Priest is and does.  For me it is just interesting to take notice and I hope it is for you as well.  I want to expound further on each role, but I don’t have the time or space so it is really key to see the shift and you can pretty much pick up in the meanings of most of them from the reading alone.  Maybe relevantly speaking it might give us a sense as to why we rely on our priests and pastors for so much.  Something to pounder . . . .

Kalos Elpis

Kelly M. Doolittle