Noah's Ark Revisited

Edward Hicks
Wikimedia Commons

I have a toddler, which means that for the last year and a half two years (wow, this has been in my drafts for that long?) I have seen a lot of kids toys and books. One thing that has really stuck me is that Noah's ark shows up a lot. I always find this striking as, by my reading, the Noah's ark story is really horrible. God decides to murder almost every person and animal on the planet, and the person he decides to save almost instantly shows himself to not be that great of a person. It's amazing to me that anyone would want to expose their children to such a story.

But then I started asking myself what I was missing. I look at this story and see a violent, maniacal God attacking his own creation, but clearly a great number of parents see something else. They see something that they value and want to share with their children. I want to find out what they see.

This kind of thing has been scratching at the back of my brain for a while. As I have read through Genesis I see very little of value. Much of it is nonsensical, God is often very violent, and his chosen people seem to be very shady indeed. And yet, this has been people's holy book for thousands of years. What am I missing? What would it take to see this story in a positive light? In an attempt to explore this angle, I have looked around at a few sermons online to see what positive messages they get out of the story, I will start by listing a few of these from their perspective. (I will respond to each point below).

1. Cleansing Evil

As one sermon put it "Mankind had become unbelievably evil... so much so that God was grieved and filled with pain and decided to send a flood to destroy all of mankind".

I can understand this view of things, it is pretty easy to look around the world today and see many evils. There seem to be evil people everywhere and I can certainly imagine a world where things are even worse than they are today. A few references to Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer can easily get us imagining a world full of people we might want to wipe out. Plus, God is doing this to get the world to a place where good can thrive. God is pained to have to go to such extreme measures, but ultimately he is getting rid of the bad to make way for the good.

(This first point is really the big one for this story. The remaining points below are interesting and worth talking about, but honestly, #1 is it. You have to fully accept this point or the story becomes pretty awful.)

2. Noah was Saved

As this sermon puts it, Noah was saved by the grace of God.

3. Noah was Obedient

God asked Noah to build the ark and Noah obeyed. By obeying God good things happen to him. If we also obey God good things should happen to us as well

4. Noah was Faithful

Noah had faith in God, that he would follow through with his word and cleans the world of evil by drowning. He also had faith that God would spare him and his family if he followed his commands

5. Noah was Fearful

Noah obeyed God out of fear. He was afraid of what would happen to him if he did not obey.

My Responses

1. Are the people who drowned in the flood irredeemably evil? To me, this is the crux of the story. If someone is rotten to the core and there is just nothing that can be done to make them a good person, then killing them seems like a reasonable thing to do. If we know that someone has committed a serious crime (say murder), and we also know that no matter what we do they will do it again given the opportunity, then the death penalty seems like a reasonable option.

However, what if they can be redeemed and made to see that what they have been doing is wrong? What if they can be changed in some meaningful way so that they will never commit such evil acts again? In this case, the evil has been cleansed without killing that person, and from the perspective of a loving God this seems like a much better solution. For the "cleansing evil" narrative to hold water, we must believe that every evil person who is going to be drowned in the flood is irredeemably evil. Are there some people in this category? Perhaps. Is everybody on the planet (including children) in this category? That's hard to believe.

When I look out in the world today, I see that most people are good. There are also many people who do bad things, but are really just in a bad situation. I think that for most of those people, if they could get dug out of whatever hole they are in and get a decent support system they would be much less likely to continue doing those bad things (I even saw a "documentary" about this). So in theory, if we really set our minds to it we could help most "bad" people to improve. Of course, there are some people who are rotten to the core, sociopaths and such that we really don't know how to get through to. For this story to make sense, everyone in the world (except Noah and his family) must be in this category. Furthermore, it has to be beyond God's power (not just ours) to improve them.

I just find this outside the realm of possibility and this seems to be the disconnect between most atheists and Christians on this topic. If the planet is full of people who are rotten to the core, who are so far gone that even God himself can't fix them, then it makes sense for him to kill everyone to make way for good people. But if people are not quite that bad, then the flood story is a tale of mass murder on an unimaginable scale. When I was a Christian I took for granted the idea that the world was full of evil, but that was mostly because I hadn't really thought about it. When I started questioning things this was definitely something that bothered me.

2. My first thought when I hear "Noah was saved" is that God is simply saving him from a death caused by God himself. If I almost killed you then stopped at the last second, you wouldn't exactly be giving me high-fives. The fact that God saved Noah from his own wrath does not earn him any brownie points from me.

But then I thought that perhaps the point was that God was saving Noah (and his lineage) from an evil world. If this is what is meant, I suppose I can grant that point. God is making the world a better place for Noah.

3. Obedience is one of those things that comes up in the bible a lot as a virtue. There is certainly a time and a place for it, obedience is really important in some circumstances. But there are also times when it is a bad thing. If someone commands you to do something awful (like murder your children) you shouldn't do it. Although I suppose in this story obedience is fine. If someone tells me they are going to murder everyone around me and they give me a way to avoid their wrath, I would probably do it too.

4. Noah has faith that God would follow through with his plan to murder nearly everyone on the planet and that if he built the ark he would be saved. I suppose that is a demonstration of faith, if Noah hadn't believed God he just wouldn't have done anything and died along with everyone else. Faith worked out for Noah in this story, but in general is it really a virtue?

5. This is one of those things that really confuses me. The whole idea of it being a good thing to be "God fearing". I should probably devote a whole post to this later on, but the idea of being God fearing seem antithetical to a loving God. Why is it a virtue to be fearful of a loving God? It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Exodus 14: Moses Parts the Red Sea

Scripture summary is in black
My comments and questions are in purple and numbered
Christian commentaries and my responses to those are in blue. Unless otherwise stated, these are from Guzik's commentary
(Note: I've changed my format a bit with this post, let me know if you like/dislike the changes)

Today's Podcast

Previously:

The Israelites are enslaved by the Egyptians, so God tells Moses to go rescue them. Moses proves to Pharaoh that God is on his side, but God hardens his heart so he won't let the people free. Then God sends plague after plague upon the Egyptians so Pharaoh finally lets the Israelites go.

Crossing the Red Sea (v. 1-31)

God tells the Israelites to go to a particular spot and set up camp where they will be trapped by the sea. Then God will harden Pharaoh's heart to make him pursue the Israelites. Then God will "get glory over Pharaoh" and the Egyptians will know he is the lord. The king of Egypt was told that the Israelites had fled and his mind and the mind of his people was changed toward the people. They pursued the people of Israel as they had gone out defiantly.

1. Free Will: Once again, God has taken away Pharaoh's free will. He didn't simply make Pharaoh aware of the Israelite's apparent poor tactical position, he hardened his heart. 

Even after the horror of the death of the firstborn, the change in Pharaoh's heart was only temporary. He was quick to strike at Israel when he had the chance.

Wow, if Pharaoh was so quick to strike whenever he had the chance, then why did God have to harden his heart?

2. God's Motivation: The reason that God has done this is to "get glory over Pharaoh" and so "the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD". It really does appear that God is doing this just for his own ego, how does him getting glory help his people?

3. Do the Egyptians Know God is Powerful? God does this in part so that the Egyptians will know that God is the LORD. Why is this necessary? God just plagued the shit out of Egypt to convey this message. And the message was apparently received earlier when the people of Egypt insisted that the Israelites leave, have they forgotten the plagues already? It just doesn't make sense. 

i. This demonstrates how we are often quick to forget what God has done and what He has shown us. It is easy to quickly move from walking in the spirit to walking in the flesh. 

ii. Perhaps Pharaoh thought that the LORD had shot all His arrows and had no more "ammunition" against Egypt. After all, no more died after the plague of the firstborn; but God isn't short on resources. He had plenty of ammunition left.

ii doesn't make much sense to me, if Pharaoh thought that then he wouldn't have let them leave in the first place, right? i though, is exactly the kind of thing I remember hearing from church all the time. Seems like a good way to relate the story to our lives "don't be forgetful, don't fall into your old ways" etc. Seems good for that purpose I suppose, still though, for the story itself it doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you really going to forget so fast with so much death and destruction around you? 

4. Pharaoh and the King of Egypt: I was actually a bit confused on whether Pharaoh and the king are the same person. Verse 8 seems to suggest they are the same person. However, in verse 5 seems to suggest that the king is surprised that they Israelites have been set free even though in chapter 12 Pharaoh was the one who let them go in the first place. It's possibly a minor point, but the story doesn't really make sense if they are the same person. I wonder if this is a case of two different stories being merged into one. This would also explain why he has two different titles for no apparent reason.

5. Defiance: Verse 8 says that the people of Israel "were going out defiantly", but that makes no sense as they were told to leave Egypt. In fact, they were pushed out of Egypt so fast they weren't able to finish their bread, which is supposedly the origin of the unleavened bread at passover. Am I missing something here?

6. My Previous Christian Perspective: I often like to think about how I would justify things back when I was a Christian. I'm pretty sure that in this case I would have said that the Egyptians would chase the Israelites at some point in time no matter what God does. Therefore God is only manipulating the timetable of things rather than actually changing Pharaoh's ultimate actions. I'm fairly certain this would have satisfied me back then, but the problem is it is not supported by the text at all. If that's what God was doing why not say it? Instead he says he's doing it to get glory. I suppose it doesn't contradict the text, but if that was really the reason it seems like it should have been stated.When the Egyptians got near to the cornered Israelites they were very afraid and complained to Moses. They even said that they would rather have stayed in Egypt as slaves than to be killed out here. Moses said that God would fight for them and save them out here.

7. Should they be afraid? I've seen atheists complain about the reactions of the Israelite slaves in the past. "They have an all powerful God helping them, why would they be afraid?". And while that might play in a bit here, I can totally understand them being afraid anyway. Imagine yourself in the same situation, even if there is a really powerful being who can save you, are you sure he will? Hell, even if you were convinced that he was going to save you, it would still be scary seeing that army close in on you.

God complains that the people are crying to him. He tells the people to walk forward and for Moses to lift his staff in order to divide the sea so the Israelites can walk on dry ground there. God will then harden the hearts of the Egyptians to ensure that they will follow, then they will know that god is the LORD once he "gets glory" over them.

8. God's Attitude: I don't really understand why God is complaining about these people. He's put them in a very scary position with no apparent way out and they are asking him for help. He seems to be put off by it, like they should have known that Moses could part the sea for them. It kind of reminds me of the stereotypical douchebag IT guy from the 90s.

The children of Israel cried out to the LORD: This was a good thing to do. When we find ourselves in dangerous places with no easy escape, we must cry out to God, because God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble (Psalm 46:1)

This I find interesting, he says that crying out to God was a good thing, and yet it seems to me that God is saying they shouldn't have done it. In verse 15 God says "Why do you cry out to me?" I was thinking perhaps I was reading too much into it, but then Guzik says

Their fear could be understood and their cry to the LORD made sense. Yet their words to Moses show a great lack of faith and loss of confidence in God.

So it's good to cry out to God, but you shouldn't need to if you have faith? I dunno, seems a bit mixed up to me. And one final comment along these lines

The children of Israel were not yet a week out of Egypt and they were already distorting the past, thinking that it was better for them in Egypt than it really was.

This just made me laugh. Yes, they were slaves in Egypt and the conditions were terrible. But they are comparing it to the fact that they think they're about to die. 

9. Free Will Again: Seriously, is there any part of this plan where God isn't manipulating the Egyptians to do what he needs them to do?

parting the red sea (Photo credit: amboo who?)

The pillar of cloud moved to be between the Israelites and the Egyptians and the two groups stays separated throughout the night. Moses raised his staff and there was a strong east wind all night that made the sea part like walls so the men could walk on dry land. The Israelites went onto the path and the Egyptians followed. In the morning God looked down from the pillar of cloud and fire and threw the Egyptians into a panic by clogging the chariot wheels so they would be slow. God had Moses hold his staff toward the Egyptians and the water rushed over them, yet the Israelites still were able to walk on dry land, having walls of water on both sides of them.  The Israelites saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore, so they feared the LORD because of the great power he used against the Egyptians, and they believed Moses.

10. How Long Did This Take? It's funny, my mental picture of this story has the water turning into walls pretty much instantaneously, yet in the actual story it takes all night. I suppose it's from a smattering of popular culture references that my impression is wrong here.

11. Omniscience? I find it interesting that God was looking down from the pillar of cloud and fire. This appears to be describing a powerful being in a specific physical place rather than an omniscient God.

12. Fear: I find the very concept of being "god fearing" and odd, it certainly seems to fly in the face of an omnibenevolent God

13. Violence: Once again, we see extreme violence from God, he kills tons of Egyptians apparently to prove a point to his people.

An oppressed people are slow to believe they are free while their tyrant still lives. God wanted Israel to know that their oppressors were dead

I guess that is a decent explanation as to why God would go to these extremes. Really seems like a fucked up route to go though.

Verses of Note:

--Fear--

Exodus 14:31 The Israelites fear God, which seems to largely be the point of this story

"Israel saw the great power that the LORD used against the Egyptians, so the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses."

--Free Will--

Exodus 14:4,8,17 God takes away Pharaoh's free will again

"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." And they did so."

"And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the people of Israel while the people of Israel were going out defiantly."

"And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them..."

--God's Ego--

Exodus 14:4,18 God's motivation seems to be stroking his ego

"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." And they did so."

"And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen."

--Violence--

Exodus 14:27-30 God killed all of the Egyptians in this story (through Moses)

"the sea returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians fled into it, the LORD threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea....and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore"

Exodus 9: What Are the Egyptians Eating at This Point?

Today's Podcast

Previously:

God sent Moses and Aaron to ask Pharaoh to free the Israelite slaves, but God wanted to punish Pharaoh and the Egyptians, so he hardened Pharaoh's heart to keep him from releasing his slaves and then sent plagues into Egypt. We have seen 4 plagues so far.

The Fifth Plague: Egyptian Livestock Die (v. 1-7)

(Photo credit: Nottingham Vet School)

Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go to worship God or a severe plague will hit the Egyptian livestock and kill them all, however, the Israelite livestock will all be spared. However, Pharaoh's heart was hardened and he did not let the people go.

From Guzik(along with the rest of the commentaries on this post):

Let My people go, that they may serve Me: In this appeal, it is clear that God wants Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go for the sake of the LORD Himself, not even so much for the sake of the children of Israel.

I've pointed this out before, but didn't highlight it this time. Pharaoh isn't being asked to let his slaves go free, just to be allowed to go worship Yahweh. I find it interesting that God isn't so much interested in helping them out, as much as he wants them to be able to worship him. It seems quite selfish of God. Furthermore, this fact seems perfectly find to the Christians here. He even goes on

We must treat each other well not only for the sake of our fellow brother or sister, but also for the sake of the LORD. We owe it to Him even more than we owe it to them.

We owe it to God more than we owe it to the people we are interacting with? What an insane way to view the world. This is one of those things that really bothers me about this religion. Suppose we are friends and then you fuck me over in some way, according to this philosophy, you have wronged me, sure, but more importantly you have wronged God. So if you go to confession and get yourself right with God is it over? I'm sure many Christians would argue that you also have to patch things up with me, but doesn't the fact that I am the less important person harmed mean I will be dealt with last, or possibly never? Especially if you really don't want to rectify things, but you feel guilty, this gives you an out. You can feel like you did something, alleviate your guilt, and I'm equally as harmed as I ever was.

I had to double check that. v6 "All the livestock of the Egyptians died". That is fucking harsh. So all of the fish in the Nile died in the first plague, now all of their livestock are dead. What are these people supposed to eat? Also, are we supposed to expect that starving Egyptians are not going to steal the livestock from their slaves?

I'm guessing the real reason for this plague was so that the Egyptians will have nothing to sacrifice to their gods rather than to simply punish the Egyptian people. As we have seen in the previous plagues, this really seems to be Yahweh's intent. 

This plague was directed against the Egyptian god Hathor who was thought to be a mother goddess was in the form of a cow. In addition, Egyptian religion considered cattle sacred and the cow was often a symbol of fertility. God shows Pharaoh and all of Egypt that He is mightier than this imagined pagan god.

There you go, another pissing match between gods.

The Sixth Plague: Boils (v. 8-12)


God then instructed Moses to throw soot into the air and it would cause boils on all man and beast of the Egyptians. It was so bad the magicians could not stand. But the lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he didn't listen.

First of all, what beasts? All of their livestock just died. Do they have beasts other than livestock? Between the fifth and sixth plagues did the Egyptians rush out to neighboring lands and get replacement animals?

Also, this verse had no ambiguity at all, this time God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He definitely took away his free will here.

This plague was probably directed against the Egyptian god Imhotep, who was said to be the god of medicine; even those who would be thought of as closest to the Egyptian gods (the court magicians) were stricken with this plague.

Again, I find the real reason for the plagues interesting, gods attacking other gods, the humans being hurt seem to just be an afterthought.

The Seventh Plague: Hail (v. 13-35)

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God had Moses warn everyone that huge hail would come the following day. Anyone who fears the word of God will go inside and be safe, anyone who ignores God will be hurt or have his livestock or slaves killed by the hail.

That's kind of interesting, he gave fair warning on this one, and anyone who wants to can protect themselves. It is certainly interesting that what God seems to what from the Egyptians is fear.

There was hail everywhere, any man or beast that wasn't under cover was killed. Also, every plant was destroyed. Except this didn't affect the land of Goshen, where the Israelites were.

I guess you could protect yourself unless you're a farmer, then it doesn't matter how much you fear God, you are screwed. Also, if you are keeping score, the plagues have now killed all of the fish, all of the livestock, and all of the grains in the field. Seriously, everyone in Egypt would have to die soon of starvation.

Pharaoh then told Moses that he was sorry and would let the people go, so Moses went out of the city and stopped the storms, but as soon as the rain stopped Pharaoh changed his mind (he hardened his heart).

Again, we have the same problem, is Pharaoh hardening his own heart, or did God do it? Based on the difference in wording from plague 6, it seems that Pharaoh did it to himself this time. In that case, what the hell is he doing? God is destroying his kingdom, just let the damn slaves go do their thing.

This plague was directed against several Egyptian gods. Notable among them would was Nut, the sky goddess.

Moral of the Story:
I guess the moral for all of the plague chapters is pretty much going to be the same, if you worship the wrong God you are fucked.

Verses of note:

--Free Will--

Exodus 9:12 God took away Pharaoh's free will so he could continue punishing his people

"But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them"

--God's Ego--

Exodus 9:1,13 The reason God wants the Israelites to be free is so they can worship him

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, "Let my people go, that they may serve me."

Exodus 9:16 God is plaguing the Egyptians so they will know he is powerful and spread his name

"But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."

Exodus 7: Let the Plagues Begin

Today's Podcast

Previously:

God sent Moses and Aaron to Egypt to ask Pharaoh to free the slaves, armed with a few neat sounding powers. Pharaoh responded to this request by punishing the slaves harshly. Moses was discouraged and wanted to give up, but God assured Moses that his people would be freed from Egypt.

Moses and Aaron Before Pharaoh (v. 1-13)

God says he has made Moses like God to Pharaoh and Aaron is like a prophet.

I'm not sure what this means, but I have two guesses. The first is that the powers that Moses was given in chapter 4 are what makes him like a God. The problem with this thought is that Moses had those powers in chapter 5 and Pharaoh didn't look at him as a God then (although I guess Moses didn't use those powers then, what's up with that?). The only other thing I can think of is the genealogy thing in chapter 6, since that happened right before this declaration perhaps it is related. My understanding is that genealogy played a big role in their lives back then, perhaps God telling Moses his true family line is supposed to make a difference to him and also to Pharaoh. Hopefully the commentaries will weigh in on this.

Guzik says that this means God will be talking to Pharaoh through Moses. Does that sound wrong to everyone else? It could just mean that I'm completely misunderstanding what is written in the bible (wouldn't be the first time), but shouldn't being like God to someone mean you have power over them, or perhaps that they are in awe of you? Not just that you are a conduit for God to talk to them. 

Guzik goes on to say that if Pharaoh rejects Moses, that Moses shouldn't take it personally, because this will just mean that Pharaoh is rejecting God. He then makes the connection to Christians of today by saying

In the same way, God will make us "as God" to people we encounter who are rejecting God. If they harden their hearts or reject us, we shouldn't take it personally.

And there we go. Christians shouldn't take it personally if they can't convert people, they aren't rejecting you, just your God. I suppose I could put that in the morals of the story section if I didn't think Guzik was so far off base here.

Matthew Henry seems to agree with Guzik here somewhat, although he clarifies that it is not just that Moses is speaking for God, but that he has godly powers. This lines up with my first guess, and it also seems to mess up Guzik's moral of the story. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown have a similar interpretation to Matthew Henry.

God says he will tell Moses and Aaron what to say and ask Pharaoh to release his people, but God will harden Pharaoh's heart so he won't comply. Then God will multiply his signs and wonders throughout Egypt and bring his people out with great judgement.

So basically, God is going to prevent Pharaoh from releasing his people and then punish him for not releasing them. I thought God was supposed to respect free will. And how the hell is this just? It would be like holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to commit a crime, and then punishing them for that crime.

We see the same nonsense about this from Guzik as in chapter 4. 

We remember that God will not harden Pharaoh's heart against Pharaoh's own desire. It is not as if Pharaoh wished to have a tender heart towards Israel but God would not allow him. God confirmed Pharaoh in his wicked inclination against Israel.

Instead, Pharaoh revealed his heart when he refused the humble request of Moses back in 5:1-4; now, God will merely strengthen Pharaoh in the evil already chose.

This just makes no sense, if it is already Pharaoh's own desire, then God wouldn't have to harden his heart, his heart would already be hardened against God's people. Guzik then quotes from the text and continues

"So that I may lay My hand on Egypt … and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD": This explains why the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart - essentially, to bring righteous judgment upon Egypt: Pharaoh and the Egyptians said they didn't know who the LORD was; God is going to let them know.

Even if we give Guzik his ridiculous premise, it says that Pharaoh was coming around and God put him back on his original path, for the purpose of punishing him and his people more. Who in their right mind would classify this as "righteous"? Guzik also applies this logic to our lives

God can do the same today. In our rebellion, we may reach the place where God will strengthen us in the evil we desire

Why is this acceptable? Let's say I want to do something evil, (Oh I don't know, let's say my older brother died before he and his wife had a kid and I don't want to have sex with his wife so that he can have an heir). But then after some reflection, I realize that it would be something that God would really want me to do, but just as I am about to make the decision God "hardens my heart" against the idea and I don't wind up doing it. Then later, God punishes me for not changing my mind. Is that fair? God prevented me from doing the "right" thing here, how can he punish me? Even interpreting this in Guzik's way, the way God acted is still reprehensible.

Perhaps Wisely, the other Christian commentaries that I read didn't even address this as a problem. They just mention that God hardened Pharaoh's heart as a matter of fact.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When they went to Pharaoh, Aaron proved they were with God by throwing down his staff and having it become a snake. Pharaoh then summoned his wise men and magicians and performed the same trick with secret arts. Aaron's staff/snake swallowed the rest. Pharaoh's heart was hardened and he still didn't listen to them.

The snake trick is pretty cool, what is the deal with Pharaoh having people who are able to do the same thing? I guess that Aaron's snake eating the others shows his is more powerful, but you would think God would be more original. This really just boils down to being a better version of a trick the Pharaoh has already seen.

Of course, it was Satan (again Guzik)

In the midst of an unmistakable miracle, Satan provided Pharaoh with a reason to doubt - and Pharaoh seized on the doubt and hardened his heart.

Notice what he does here with Pharaoh's hardened heart, the way Guzik writes this, it sounds like Pharaoh hardened his own heart. He must have been reading ahead to the next section.

The First Plague: Water Turned to Blood (v. 14-25)

God tells Moses that Pharaoh's heart is hardened, and he refuses to let the slaves go free.

I noticed a bit of a change of tone here, previously God kept talking about how He was going to harden Pharaoh's heart, but now he's just saying that his heart is hardened. Compare these older verses:

• v3: I will harden Pharaoh's heart
• ch4 v21: I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go

to these verses

• v13: Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them
• v14: the LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go

It's like God goes from "I will keep him from releasing your people" to "Hey look, Pharaoh's being a dick and not letting your people go". 

Aaron changes the water of the Nile into blood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

God had Moses turn the water in the Nile (as well as all water in canals, ponds and pools of water) into blood in the sight of Pharaoh. All of the fish in the river died, and the Nile stank, so the Egyptians couldn't drink the water. They had to dig along side the Nile to find water to drink instead. But Pharaoh's magicians were able to do the same trick so Pharaoh's heart was still hardened.

Where shall I start? I suppose I'll ask why it was necessary for God to ruin all of the other water in the place. Doesn't turning the Nile into blood prove your point? Why ruin water that people had collected the day before? 

Won't tons of people die here? Not only did they lose their water supply, but if all of the fish died I imagine a lot of people lost their food source as well, not to mention the fishermen's livelihoods. 

Pharaoh's magicians could do the same trick? Who the hell are these guys, and why did God do generic tricks that any random magician can do? Also, how did they do the same trick? Moses turned all of the water in Egypt to blood, then the magicians also turned the water to blood? But all of the water is already blood, so that makes no sense. Are we to believe that the magicians had done this previously? Why the hell would they want to do that?

And finally, verse 22 says that Pharaoh's heart was hardened because his magicians could do the same trick, not because God hardened it. So which is it?

A few interesting things from Guzik here

God did not plague Egypt because Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go; but because Pharaoh refused to recognize and honor God

Why do Christians find this kind of reasoning acceptable? Bring it down a few levels, suppose we have a father who has a couple of kids who are getting beat up in school. What if he was upset at the bullies because he felt disrespected instead of the simple fact that his children are being attacked? What would you think of that father? He's a piece of shit right? But for some reason it's acceptable when it is God.

Specifically, this first plague was directed against the numerous Egyptian river deities. The Nile itself was virtually worshipped as a god by the Egyptians, and the LORD God shows that He has complete power over the Nile, not some river god.

Now that is actually really interesting.

Moral of the Story

Apparently the moral of this story is recognize and honor God or you could face God's wrath. Essentially worship God or else. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to no one that I find this completely unacceptable.

For the Verses of Note post:

--Free Will--

Exodus 7:2-4 God hardens Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from following God's command

"..you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you..."

--Justice--

Exodus 7:3-4 God punishes the Egyptians because God prevent Pharaoh from listening to him

"But I will harden Pharaoh's heart...Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment."

--Magic--

Exodus 7:10-11 Aaron and Pharaoh's men all turned their staves into snakes

"Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers, and they, the magicians of Egypt, also did the same by their secret arts."

Exodus 7:20,22 Moses turned all of the water in Egypt into blood, as did Pharaoh's men

"Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded. In the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants he lifted up the staff and struck the water in the Nile, and all the water in the Nile turned into blood....But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts."

Memes of The Week

I recently decided it might be fun to collect little one liners or phrases that caught my attention and memeify them. I thought I might try to make it a weekly thing, but maybe more of a "once I gather enough of them" thing.

From TWF in a comment on his blog post Premature Exoneration

From Ahab in a comment on Atheist Revolution

From Rebecca Watson on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Ep 411

This last one is not related to atheism at all, but made me laugh so what the hell. From Adam Carolla on his podcast with Illeana Douglas

Five Reasons Christian Parents “Lose” Their Children

While reading reddit recently, I stumbled upon an article about parents who are afraid their children will leave their faith. It gives 5 mistakes parents commonly make in this regard, let's take a look at the list

source

1) Falling into the temptation of using religion to control their children through guilt and shame.

How do you even have Christianity without guilt and shame? It's a religion built around "you are all so evil you deserve to be tortured for eternity, but God killed his son to give you a loophole out of that fate." It's all about making you feel guilty for the things you've done and shaming you into acting they way they want. The article talks about parents who use God to win conflicts with their children "God wouldn't want you to do that" and "Jesus is watching", I heard these types of things from church. From talking with many Christians, this doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary. Telling parents not to use these same methods seems a bit disingenuous.

2) The parents seem to be afraid of the world, instead of empowered to live in it.

Many Christians talk about the world as if it is an evil, malevolent, dangerous place and should be avoided as much as possible. Again, I personally got this type of attitude from my parents, but equally as much from my church. They were always talking about how bad the outside world was. Granted, I think it was a mistake for my parents to have that perspective, but it came directly from the church. Something I found interesting is why this is supposedly bad, the article says:

"If a parent lives in fear of the world, the children will pick up on that and will naturally seek alternative beliefs."

I think that is the wrong reason this is a problem. What happened for me is my family was always terrified of the things out in the world, therefore I was scared of them as well. When I was forced to go out into the world I realized just how wrong they were, it made me question everything else they had told me.

3) The children do not see the parents drawing any joy from their faith.

My parents tried pretty hard on this count, but church sucks. I hated going, and even though they tried putting a good face forward, I could tell that most of the time they dreaded church as much as I did. It's not their fault that church sucks.

4) The children are discouraged from finding answers to their questions.

 Not only discouraged, but yelled at for asking sensitive questions. I learned very early on to keep my questions to myself. One thing I found really funny here was this line

No one needs to have all the answers. Children will not only respect a “I don’t know, let’s find out together,” they will remember such journey’s for the rest of their lives.

 I love this attitude, but it seems to be the opposite attitude I see in most Christians. They don't look for answers, they have all of the answers already. If you challenge any of their answers they will simply cite faith.

5) The children believe they have nothing to offer the Christian community.

This last item is saying that parents should lead by example and be involved in the church so their children will want to as well. My parents at least did this one right, they were involved in their church, and so was I. I was never worried about not contributing to the church, my question was always "what does the church offer me?"

Why Is Abraham Considered a Hero?

I recently finished reading the Genesis stories involving Abraham, and looking back at it, I really don't understand why he is considered a hero. You often hear the phrase "the God of Abraham" and people will speak of Abraham with great reverence. It really makes me wonder if I am reading the same stories as they are. Let's take a quick look, shall we.

Let's start with the positive things that Abraham does. In chapter 14 Lot get's captured and Abraham saves him. That was pretty cool. In chapter 18 Abraham tries to help the people of Sodom by arguing with God on their behalf. Pretty cool move, although it does seem to go against the idea that he was obedient and trusting in God. As far as I can tell, these are really the only things that he does that I would put in the good column.

As far as negative things, let's start with the first significant thing we see Abraham do. In chapter 12 when he is afraid he will be killed for his wife's beauty, he responds by claiming she is his sister instead of his wife. This cowardly act resulted in his wife being taken as some other man's wife. Furthermore, at the end of the story the Pharoah returned Sarah and was just pissed that he was lied to. We see at this point that Abraham is not only a coward, but a horrible judge of character. For some reason, Abraham tells this same lie in chapter 20.

Throughout these stories, God promises them they will have a son over and over again, and yet Abraham goes ahead and has a baby with Sarah's maidservant Hagar in chapter 16. It would seem that Abraham's trust in God isn't really that great. In chapter 21 God finally comes through and gives Abraham and Sarah a baby, and they kick Hagar out on her own. Really a screwed up move.

pic source

Chapter 22 is the famous story where God asks Abraham to kill Isaac. This story is horrific, and yet for
some reason is held in high regard by the religious. They will say it is good that Abraham was obedient, and that he trusted God. I have two responses to that. First, if we look at the rest of the stories involving Abraham, we can see that he doesn't seem to trust God all that much, and he wasn't always completely obedient. But more importantly, when someone tells you to kill your child, it is a bad thing to be obedient to them.

Finally in chapter 25, Abraham remarries but he has a bunch more kids. He treats Isaac much better than the rest of his kids, which I must say I am not a fan of at all.

Honestly, I keep asking myself if I'm being too hard on the things I read in the bible, and I really don't think I am. Take these stories and tell them to someone who has never heard them before and how do you think they would react? Would they consider Abraham a good guy or a bad guy? I'm guessing pretty much everyone would think he is a piece of shit. Why would you consider him a hero? Why would you want to follow his God?

Genesis 22: Insanity or Divine Instruction?

Check out today's episode

The Sacrifice of Isaac (v. 1-24)

I think this is a story we are all familiar with, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son on the altar, Abraham listens and gets ready to do it but God stops him at the last second and has him sacrifice a ram instead. He is praised for fearing God and obeying.

This story is really a strange one, I think anyone who reads this story at face value would be disgusted. The idea of murdering your own child is horrible, and I think generally anyone who is willing to do that would be viewed as a monster, or perhaps someone who has been psychologically beaten down like in some psychological horror movie (I've never seen any of the Saw movies, but it's the kind of psychological torture I could imagine in a movie of that type). I can't imagine a situation where the character who is willing to murder his own child is seen as the hero. Enough of my rambling, I think the focus of today's post should be on the Christian commentaries.

Let's start with Guzik:

Significantly, God calls Isaac your only son Isaac, when in fact Abraham had another son, Ishmael. But since Ishmael was put away from Abraham’s family, then as far as God was concerned, Abraham had only one son.

Wow, I totally missed that part, that's screwed up. As to the sacrifice itself, Guzik references an LA times columnist who said he would have told God to mind his own business. Guzik's response:

That’s what the world always says to God.

So Guzik says it is wrong to fail to listen to God's order, and yet he recall the story of Andrew Cate who murdered his child thinking God would stop him at the last moment. Guzik says

The man was obviously deranged. What Abraham did was something completely unique in God’s redemptive history, given for a specific purpose once for all fulfilled. There is no way God would ever direct someone to do this same thing today.

How are we supposed to tell the difference? How can you tell the difference between God talking to you and you being deranged? And don't we have to put some of the blame of that tragedy on the bible? And finally, how can he be so sure God would never ask someone to do that again? If it was a good thing why can't it happen again, and if it was bad why was it good for it to happen once? Anyway, let's move on.

In wonderful, trusting obedience, Abraham went right to the spot.

This sentence really bugged me. Obedience is held in such high regard even though he is being asked to do such a horrible thing.

The next thing that Guzik brought was was very interesting and it was something I completely missed when I read it. Abraham and Isaac had some servants along with them for most of the trip, but near the end they went up the part of the trip just the two of them and Abraham said they would both be back.

Does this mean Abraham somehow knew this was only a test and God would not really require this of him? Not at all. Instead, Abraham’s faith is in the knowledge that should he kill Isaac, God would raise him from the dead, because God had promised Isaac would carry on the line of blessing and the covenant.

What are the implications of this line of reasoning? It certainly seems to take away how horrible the story is. Abraham isn't such a bad guy for doing this if he thought Isaac would just be brought back to life and they could go back home, but then it's also not as much of a sacrifice. The whole point of the story seems to be that Abraham was willing to obey God and sacrifice what he loved most, that message is ruined if Abraham thought they would come home together at the end of the day.

And we have to end with another comparison between Jesus and Isaac

• Both were loved by their father.
• Both offered themselves willingly.
• Both carried wood up the hill of their sacrifice.
• Both were sacrificed on the same hill.
• Both were delivered from death on the third day.

I also looked at Matthew Henry's commentary (I scanned it at least), most of what was said there was covered above, although I did find an interesting line. At the part where God stopped Abraham from going through with the sacrifice

Abraham did indeed love God better than he loved Isaac

Is that was this was all about? God wanted to make sure that Abraham loved him more than he loved Isaac? What an egotistical God.

I was thinking of trying to draw a comic for this, but I can't think of a good joke that hasn't already been done to death. Instead I'm going to just include my 2 favorite youtube videos based on this story.

From Non Stamp Collector

And from SMBC Theater

 

For the verses of note post:

--Fear--

Genesis 22:12 Abraham rewarded for fearing God

"He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.'"

--Obedience and Violence--

Genesis 22:2-3, 10 Abraham rewarded for being willing to murder his son on God's order

"He said, 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.'  So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him...Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son."

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 15: God Promises Other People's Land to Abram's Descendants Again

Check out today's episode

God's Covenant with Abram (v. 1-21)

God comes to Abram in a vision and tells him not to fear, that God will be his shield, and that he will be greatly rewarded.

pic found here

I have a few comments already, the first is that God is talking to Abram in a vision. Previously God just talked to Abram (example, in chapter 12), what is the significance of it being in a vision this time? And what exactly does God coming to him in a vision mean? Is it in a dream, a hallucination, or what? What information is being conveyed by saying God talked to Abram through a vision?

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown suggests that describing this as a vision indicates that a prophetic message is on the way. That certainly happened this time, I'll try to keep my eyes out for this in the future and see if it holds true in future.

Second, it is interesting that god tells Abram not to fear. I'm guessing we have all heard the term "God fearing", of course the context of this statement is that Abram is not supposed to fear his enemies because God is on his side. This all makes sense, if God is on your side why would you fear any mere human? Still, I find the use of fear here interesting.

Guzik points out that the reason God is telling Abram not to fear is because Abram has a good reason to fear right now. He just came through a battle where he defeated a large army with a small force, he should expect retaliation. God is saying he will protect him. Makes sense to me.

Abram then complains to God that he has no offspring, he complains that his heir will be a member of his house. God responds that he will give him a son and his offspring will be as numerous as the stars and Abram believed God.

I'm not sure what "a member of my house" means. My best guess is that his heir would be a nephew instead of his own son, anyone know if that is correct?

Guzik's interpretation here is that Abram appreciates that he is going to help him, but what is the point of saving him if he has no offspring. This helps me actually, when I read the text itself, it felt like a non sequitur to me, but from this perspective it makes some sense. Good. As to whether Abram was doubting that God would give him offspring, Guzik has this to say

Did Abram’s question mean he doubted God? Yes. But there is a difference between a doubt that denies God’s promise and a doubt which desires God’s promise. Abram wants to believe and is looking to God to strengthen his faith.

This is an interesting statement to me. Denying God's promise sounds to me like not believing in God, or at least in what he says, desiring God's promise but doubting it sounds like it means that you believe in God and his promise, but you aren't sure if he will come through. The second sounds worse than the first to me.

God goes on to say that Abram's descendants would possess the land, and Abram asks how he can be sure. God then tell him to go get a bunch of animals to sacrifice to him, a three year old heifer, a three year old female goat, a three year old ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon. Abram did that and cut them in half (except the birds) and put them on top of one another.

Wait what? This is a bizarre interaction, first God promises some land to Abram's descendants and Abram doesn't seem to trust that God will follow through, even though God just told him he would give him a miraculous son and there was no hesitation in believing that. In response to him asking how he would know about it, God tells him to gather a bunch of animals for sacrifice. I just have a hard time seeing what one thing has to do with the other.

Guzik justifies this by saying it is the kind of thing Abram would have expected, it is a serious contract signed in blood.

After the sun went down Abram fell asleep and a great darkness fell upon him. God tells him that his offspring will be slaves in a land they don't control for 400 years, but then he will bring great judgment upon nation that they serve and they will come out with great possessions. 

Such a strange action for an all-loving all-powerful God, setting things up this way requires generations of people to live in servitude, why? Also, this chapter started with God telling Abram not to fear because God was on his side, and yet his offspring will certainly fear for hundreds of years.

You, Abram, will die in old age and be buried, after 4 generations you offspring will come back and I will give them this land, the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites.

Yet again, God is promising other people's land to Abram's descendants. This only makes God look good if you only consider one perspective, it's great for Abram's people, but what about the people who are getting screwed in this deal?

For the "Verses of Note" post:

--Fear--

Genesis 15:1 God tells Abram not to fear enemies since God is on his side

"After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: 'Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.'"

--Justice--

Genesis 15:18-21 God promises other people's land to Abram's descendants AGAIN

"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites."

--Slavery--

Genesis 15:13 God tells Abram his descendants will be slaves for hundreds of years (see other translations)

"Then the LORD said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.'"

Genesis 15:14 God punishes people for enslaving Abram's descendants.

"But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions."

Genesis 9: A Botched New Beginning

Check out today's episode

God's Covenant with Noah [cont.] (v. 1-17)

God tells Noah to be fruitful and multiply and to fill up the earth. He also tells him that every animal will be afraid of him and he can use any of them for food as well as any plant he wants, although he instructs people not to eat any meat that still has blood in it.

I know he is talking about animals, but here we see being feared as a good thing. The animals all fear him and that is good, he will rule over them. Definitely some might makes right here.

Guzik's take on this is that before the flood man didn't eat animals, so our relationship with them was much different and they had no reason to fear us. But after the flood man was going to start eating meat, which necessitated him changing their reactions to us. I guess that makes some sense.

Also, notice that in verse 3 it says quite explicitly that it is okay to eat any living thing, aren't there certain things that are forbidden to eat? Like shellfish and pigs for example. What's up with that? Does God change his mind later?

Matthew Henry basically that yes, God changes the rules later. He says that some foods were later prohibited for ceremonial law. Seems quite peculiar.

Similarly, Gill says that there is a difference at this time between clean and unclean animals when it comes to sacrifice, but not for food.

God also says that whoever sheds blood of another man shall have his own blood shed by man, "for God made man in his own image"

We definitely have eye for an eye here, but that last phrase is interesting, "for God made man in his own image". In my mind, there are 2 ways to interpret this, the good version is that man is made in God's image, and therefore it is really bad to hurt them. Damaging an image of God is a very high sin. The other interpretation is that God would engage in retributive justice, and since man is an image of God he should do the same. Given that God just killed almost everyone and everything on the planet, the second interpretation makes more sense to me.

Guzik and Gill seems to go along with my first interpretation.

God promises to never flood the earth again and kill almost everything, the rainbow is a sign of that promise.

I remember this part of the story from childhood, and the idea that a rainbow was a sign from God was always cool. 

pic found here

This is interesting, Guzik says that the rainbow was new at this point, the 

blanket of water vapors was broken up in the flood and the water cycle of the earth changed after the flood, this may be the first occurrence of a rainbow.

I suppose this is a necessary step to take if you want to take this whole thing literally, but it just seems silly to me.

Noah's Descendants (v. 18-29)

Noah wound up planting a vineyard and became drunk on wine and was passed out naked in his tent. Ham (who later will be the father of the Canaanite people) saw his father's nakedness, so he told his brothers, who managed to cover their father by walking backward toward him and putting a garment on him. In this way they didn't see him naked. When Noah woke up he somehow knew exactly what had happened and he was pissed about what "his youngest son had done to him". He cursed Ham and said Canaan should always be servants to the descendants of Ham's brothers.

What the hell? What crime did Ham commit that was so terrible? He accidentally saw his father naked. If there is any issue here it is that Noah is apparently a drunk. This was some dedication to being a drunk too, he didn't pop down to the corner store for some liquor, he had to plant a damn vineyard. Let this sink in too, Noah is the guy who God chose as the best person on the planet, the only person who deserves to live. He is apparently a drunk, and a totally irrational asshole. He's punishing Ham and all of his descendants because Ham walking in on him passed out drunk and naked?

You can tell how unjust this passage from the bible is from the way that the Christian commentaries have to add details to make it okay. Matthew Henry first tries to redeem Noah by conjecturing that he was celebrating the wine being made, and saying that he must have given glory to God first, and that it was the first and last time he got drunk. All of these details are nowhere to be found in the actual text. He then says that Ham had looked on his father with a pleased an insulting manner. He also suggests that Ham was a drunk himself, and that is why he delighted in his father's drunken nakedness. None of this is in the text at all. Let me quote the entirety of what the bible actually says on this point:

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.

Gill also adds details, he says that if Ham had merely seen him on accident it would have been no big deal, but he was going into his father tent (where he didn't belong) and he looked with pleasure and delight on his father's nakedness. He also points out that many people cast Ham as a very wicked, immodest, and profligate creature, a magician, and the public corrupter of mankind. That may be true, but based on what? As I see it, this is all based on trying to make sense of a horribly unjust story.

Guzik says that it is possible that Noah was sexually abused by his son. There is nothing in the text that suggests this, it is so painfully clear that you are reaching to try to explain something that is completely ridiculous in the bible. Alternatively, he suggests that Ham was making fun of Noah and mocking him, he supports this idea by saying that the ancient Hebrew says that he told his brothers with delight. It's hard for me to check on this, but I can look at the lexicon, which says no such thing.

That's it for today, and I'm going to be gone for about a week. I have a few guest posts to fill in the gap, but I may not respond to comments right away. I have a feeling there might be some interesting ones from this post.

For the Verses of Note post:

--Fear--

Genesis 9:2 Being feared is is given high praise

"The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered."

--Food--

Genesis 9:3 You can eat any animal

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you."

Genesis 9:4 Don't eat meat with blood still in it

"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood."

--Justice--

Genesis 9:20-25 extreme punishment for accidentally seeing your father naked

"...Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father...When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, 'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.'"

--Violence--

Genesis 9:6 eye for an eye

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."