“For when there are judgments from you for the earth, The inhabitants of the land learn about righteousness.” (Isaiah 26:9)
This is a very helpful verse to get our heads around John 5:28-29, which doesn’t make a lot of sense otherwise:
Says Jesus: “The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.”
Those who did good things arriving at a “resurrection of life” is a slam-dunk. It takes no imagination at all. Not so with “those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” What’s that all about? You’re going to raise them up from the dead just to pronounce them guilty? Who would do such a crazy thing?
Not Jehovah, it would appear. 26:9 says what he will do. There will be “judgments from [him] for the earth, [and] the inhabitants of the land learn about righteousness.” (Isaiah 26:9) They will. Maybe not all of them. The very next verse of Isaiah (26:10) convinces us that we are on the right track:
“Even if the wicked is shown favor, He will not learn righteousness. Even in the land of uprightness he will act wickedly.”
Yeah, what if they “practiced vile things” not through ignorance but because they are wicked through and through? If they really are wicked, a second chance won’t help. But it’s not really a second chance. Most of them never had a first chance. They lived at a time when knowledge of God was so distorted as to not even count as a first chance. Their second chance is really their first. And if they blow through it as though it is nothing—something much easier to do in this compromised world, so that it’s good not to get into the habit of judging—but if they do it when “there are judgments from [Jehovah] for the earth” and they should be “learn[ing] about righteousness,” then they find themselves enmeshed in the last verse of the chapter:
“For look! Jehovah is coming from his place To call the inhabitants of the land to account for their error, And the land will expose her bloodshed And will no longer cover over her slain.” (26:21)
It’s only God’s standards that work. Everything else results in the mess of the world presently seen. When the doomed experiment of human self-rule at last comes to its deserved conclusion, and there might be little interval of hiding out in the interior rooms, just like 26:20 says, then at last is realized the 24-27 “Isaianic apocalypse.”
“Go, my people, enter your inner rooms, And shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a brief moment Until the wrath has passed by.” (26:20) It’s sort of like that Lord’s Prayer verse: “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” If you want to be delivered from evil, don’t make a beeline to where it hangs out.
The first thing we do upon arrival in the new system, apparently, is chow down. Finally, we have arrived and all the promised blessings being to flow. We have been breaking eggs for the first 23 chapters of Isaiah. Finally, an omelette is emerging. The broken eggs were not for nothing.
It’s such a departure from what threatened to become same ‘ol, same ‘ol, that one theologian wrote a book about it, as though chapters 24-27 itself was a new book, a book within a book in Isaiah. This book is ‘Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic.’ by William R. Millar, published in 1976. The four chapters, he and his fellows maintain, find their origin in post-exilic community conflicts, as though those later exiled Jews say: “We may be down but we’re not out! Just wait till next season! Just you wait, ‘enry ‘iggins, there will be payback! Not only will your cans be kicked to the curb, but the rewards to us faithful will be out ‘a sight!. It’s all for us and none for you. Nyah, nyah!” This is about as much as you can expect from higher critics who don’t necessarily believe what they are critiquing, nor is its truthfulness their main concern.
There are omelettes aplenty in the banquet of well oiled dishes, prepared by Jehovah for all the nations at his table. Being from Jehovah’s Mountain, that is Mount Zion, it is the place where the temple was located. It stands symbolically as representative of God‘s government. Today, we would call it God‘s kingdom. When it comes to power, then is served the omelettes. Omelette do not really appear in any of the verses discussed, but it is on the menu. You can order one if you like:
“In this mountain Jehovah of armies will make for all the peoples A banquet of rich dishes, A banquet of fine wine, Of rich dishes filled with marrow, Of fine, filtered wine.” (Isaiah 25:6)
“Squeet!” would grunt my supposed Native American friend, poking fun at himself with his own made-up supposed Native American word, which, when translated, means “Let’s go eat.” Throughout his life, he had told one and all that he was Native American. His Innuet appearance easily convinced non-savvy chums. He believed it himself. But, in his eighties, he took one of those ancestry tests and discovered he had not a drop of Indian blood in him. It was all Swedish. His father had taken off before he was born. Turned out that all his neighbors, perhaps dad himself, were know-nothings. He believed what he had always been told and had come to have a special sympathy for Native Americans.
As to chowing down, Jehovah prepares his feast on the aforementioned “mountain.”—Mt. Zion, where the temple stood. It comes to symbolize God’s presence, wherever he is. It is when his will has come to overshadow everything else, everything that would oppose. Furthermore, he spreads this feast “for all peoples,” not just his own Israel. Many mysteries have been unveiled for that to take place.
Echoes and glimmers and even the exact same thing appear elsewhere in Scripture, both in the Old Testament, as prophetic parallels or echoes, and in the New Testament, as fulfilled in Jesus and the kingdom. Isaiah 55:1-2, for example, and Psalm 23:5, 36:8, Exodus 24:9-11.
In the New Testament: “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 8:11), in the parable of the wedding banquet (Matthew 22:1–14): A king prepares a magnificent wedding feast for his son. When the originally invited guests decline—they’re all busy— the invitation goes out to everyone—good and bad alike—until the hall is filled. This reflects the universal scope of Isaiah 25:6.
The promise to his eleven, after Judas has been dismissed: “You will eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones…” Luke 22:29–30
The parable of the great banquet: A man prepares a great dinner and sends servants to compel people from the highways and hedges to come in, so his house may be full. Again, the emphasis is on abundant provision and inclusion of unexpected guests, echoing the “all peoples” of Isaiah. (Luke 14:15–24)
The foretaste of Matthew 26:29, with parallels at Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18: “I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
The Last Supper and the future Messianic Banquet: Jesus connects the Passover wine to a future joyful drinking of new/aged wine in the fulfilled kingdom—directly recalling the “finest of wines” and “aged wine” of Isaiah 25:6.
The Grand Finale itself in Revelation 19:6–9: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad… Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”
Really, every time Jesus fed the masses it was a precursor of the messianic feast.
So it is that meetings and publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses love to dramatize this scene. Take the 2021 Regional Convention, for example, which I wrote up in ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction.’ All the trimmings are there, the participants are exchanging recipes, all of which are from the same recipe book, and there is contained even the extra-apocalyptic account of the guard who came into the faith because the guard of Acts 16 did. And then—knock me over with a feather!—a special guest of honor is there. It was the resurrected Joseph at the convention, though I made him the resurrected Mephibosheth in my book. Both are sure that the fellow guests will have many questions to ask. In my book, the first question is mine, and it is how did he ever get stuck with such an unpronounceable turkey of a name, to which he replied that it was just one of those things. Nonetheless, the great evening banquet scene was sort of a show-stopper at the convention, as it will be when the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promises in the kingdom of his son brings it about.
William R Millar, the author of ‘Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic’ (1979) argues, not for the first time, but he puts major flesh on the bones, that those four chapters are those of the prophet, or whoever wrote as though the prophet, attempting to rustle up a little “proto-apocalyptic” stew in the kitchen. Chefs of later centuries, such as Daniel and John, would enhance the recipe more fully. His book, in effect, applies the theory of evolution, always a fact, to them, to biblical development. In this case, it is how prophetic writings evolved to eventually include apocalyptic writings. Isaiah 24-27 is a missing link; well, not so much “missing,” because there it is, but a connecting link. It is the land animal that became a porpoise on its way to becoming a man.
He also includes a detailed study of the books’ poetic form. This point was made, too, at the Witnesses mid-week meeting—that the chapters are poetic. Whereas previous editions of the New World Translation presented them as prose, the 2013 revision took to presenting them in verse fashion. You never quite know what “gem” the second portion of that meeting will present for discussion. It is seldom the most monumental topic, but that is likely because it exists to get the ball rolling. The first “gem” is fixed and specific. The second “gem” is wide open to the congregation. What gems did they notice and want to talk about.
A gem I could have offered, but didn’t because it really wouldn’t have been a gem, is that if much of the book is poetic, not all of it is, or if it is, it becomes downright clunky in parts. Take, for example, 24:16, in the King James Bible:
“The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.”
Four treacherouses! it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it? Try to say it fast ten times. Twenty-six English translations displayed at Biblegateway*com all include the four, so it’s clearly well-based and not going anywhere. Still, you’d think that someone would try to clean them up a little.
Yikes! Although the 2013 New World Translation often does simplify, in this case they’ve thrown in a firth treacherous! “Woe to me! The treacherous have acted treacherously; With treachery the treacherous have acted treacherously.” Yeah. Woe to me, too. You get the impression that it’s more precise to the original Hebrew—I mean, “very treacherous” is probably the treacherous acting treacherously with treacherousness—but a little easing up on the precision might be just the thing, here. Ah, well, there is nothing for it except to exclaim at whatever presents that it is exactly the right food needed at exactly the right time. Five may be more accurate but, it’s sort of like Pharaoh told his magic-practicing priests after they duplicated a few of the early plagues: “So! Moses is not so clever after all, is he! But we don’t know MORE frogs.” Get rid of these things. (Hop to it!)
This is why, though I usually just stick with the NWT as my house Bible, there is value in monitoring them all. Here, AI makes a pretty good research assistant, too. When one Bible differs from another, and you don’t quite know why, simply run the question past AI. Ask it neutrally. Don’t try to prejudice it. Don’t say, for example, if you don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Why is the New World Translation lying as usual in translating this verse?” No. Just ask it to account for the differences. You’ll find it makes a pretty good pocket theologian and you’ll learn a lot of the choices and challenges facing translators. Of course, AI does not believe in God, but that is often true of theologians as well. Theology is not the study of God, as the casual observer supposes. It is a study of man. Specifically, it is a study of man’s interaction with the concept of the divine. As such, it doesn’t even assume there is a divine. It is the concept that counts for them. It is not so much straining the gnat to swallow the camel as it is dining on the gnats and ignoring the camel.
Some translations have tried to cut down on the treacheries, and do not appear to have suffered for it. CEB says: “I waste away; I waste away; I’m doomed! Betrayers betray; treacherously betrayers betray.” Just one ‘treacherous’—-though it appears to be at the expense of ‘betrays,’ which balloons to four.
Some have made the mess worse—or at least, they’ve just traded devils. Such as “My secret to myself, my secret to myself, woe is me: the prevaricators have prevaricated, and with the prevarication of transgressors they have prevaricated.” (DRA)
Others, such as ERV, I kind of like: “But I say, “Enough! I have had enough. What I see is terrible. Traitors are turning against people and hurting them.”
Then, there is the Message version—not a translation, but a paraphrase—which must sit on ones bookshelf like a battleship, saying: “But I said, “That’s all well and good for somebody, but all I can see is doom, doom, and more doom.” All of them at one another’s throats, yes, all of them at one another’s throats. Terror and pits and booby traps are everywhere, whoever you are. If you run from the terror, you’ll fall into the pit. If you climb out of the pit, you’ll get caught in the trap. Chaos pours out of the skies. The foundations of earth are crumbling. Earth is smashed to pieces, earth is ripped to shreds, earth is wobbling out of control, Earth staggers like a drunk, sways like a shack in a high wind. Its piled-up sins are too much for it. It collapses and won’t get up again.”
Then there was Joe, who in this early days of being a Witness, would decline vacations, saying he as awaiting the Big Vacation.
This is plainly what Isaiah 25 is: the big vacation. After that formidable banquet of all the choicest dishes, the real treats roll out
“On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. (25:7-8)
Death, the great swallower, that swallows us all, is itself swallowed and becomes no more. Despite all the clerical representations that it is somehow a friend, since (if you’re good) it means promotion to the heavenly choir—and especially if a baby dies and the preacher says it is God picking flowers for his most beautiful garden that is only lacking one: yours! then, you can believe that death is always presented as a friend.
But even for regular people, it is as overenthusiastic Don would say: “Now, weren’t we always told that there are more bad people than good people? That the world is the way it is because bad people ruin it , but, not to worry: they will all get their comeuppance in hell? Weren’t we always told that?” And, when I would at last admit yes because it was the only way to stop him, he’d go on: “When was the last time you ever saw a preacher pack someone off to hell?!” Death, in clerical terms, is always a friend.
But, in the Bible, it is an enemy—the very last enemy, which is swallowed up forever. “Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing,” says 1 Corinthians 15:24-26. It is, at long last, “swallowed up forever.” (verse 54)
It’s not just death, though, but it includes all that leads to it, in verse seven called a ‘shroud that enfolds all peoples.” It represents mourning, separation, or the pall of death covering humanity. But, it is also the sin inherited from Adam is itself, a shroud that muddles our paths through life. All must come to grips with a vague sense of unease that invariably accompanies this sin. Everyone identifies at some level with a Kafkaesque trial in which guilt is assumed—there would not be a trial, otherwise, but the charges are never laid out, and the fact that one may think themselves innocent is irrelevant.
This shroud that enfolds all peoples is destroyed. It is through jesus, who dies to offset the condemnation to sin brought about through Adam’s rebellion against God. Put faith in that arrangement, do nothing to sabotage it, and you’re golden. It is —again, from 1 Corinthians 15–“The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (verse 45)
John echoes it in Revelation 7:17 and 21:4 (God wiping away tears in the new heaven and earth).
This death to be swallowed up is not limited to death from war, sickness, or violence (though those are included as causes of death); it encompasses death in its totality—the cessation of physical life due to the curse of sin, from Genesis 3.
Isaiah 26 continues along the same line, but with an addition: “But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise—let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy—your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.”* (verse 19)
Of course. It’s all very nice for death to be swallowed up, but that does nothing for those who have already died. So, to complete the picture, there has to be a provision for those people, too, and here it is found in the resurrection. The verse is widely regarded as one of the clearest Old Testament references to bodily resurrection.
When the boss realizes he has signed off on your vacation, he begins to regret letting his people go. He tries to walk back the action. Maybe he can make you do work through emails or teleconferencing. However, your answer to him can be the same as that from Isaiah, who observes that “the blast of the tyrants is like a rainstorm against a wall.” (25:4)
“I knew it!” Jonah fumed. “I KNEW it! I knew you were going to cave at the last minute! You’re just so nice! That’s why I didn’t want to go in the first place!”
Isn’t that the gist of Jonah 4:1-2, discussed at the mid-week meeting?
“But this was highly displeasing to Jonah, and he became hot with anger. So he prayed to Jehovah: “Ah, now, Jehovah, was this not my concern when I was in my own land? That is why I tried to flee to Tarshish in the first place; for I knew that you are a compassionate and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love, one who feels grieved over calamity.”
Who cannot see his point? All that preaching from Jonah, at great inconvenience, and now it turns out that God is going to spare a ton of people that he said he wasn’t going to spare!
And all God says in reply is (verse 4): “Is it right for you to be so angry?”
Then he maneuvers a circumstance in which Jonah feels sorry for a dopey plant that flourishes one day and is struck down the next. After that, he follows up with:
“You felt sorry for the bottle-gourd plant, which you did not work for, nor did you make it grow; it grew in one night and perished in one night. Should I not also feel sorry for Nineveh the great city, in which there are more than 120,000 men who do not even know right from wrong, as well as their many animals?” (vs 10-11)
We can overthink it. We can take ourselves too seriously. Jonah had reached the point where he wanted to see people die. God readjusted him. If it turns out that Jehovah will spare some thought to be unsparable—that they have a change of heart—that’s not a good thing?
It’s a good thing to speak up for God, to be used as his mouthpiece. Those doing so ought not second-guess it. I am reminded of a circuit overseer from years ago, doubling down on what was apparently his favorite line, from God to Ananias: “Be on your way!” (Acts 9:15) It was a line that typified his life-course.
Here was Ananias doing a ‘But . . . but . . . but’ as to all the reasons he shouldn’t go, primarily because the one he was being sent to was, at the time, a nasty piece of work, then God cuts him off with a “Be on your way!”
(“But Ananias answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man [Saul—later to be known as Paul the apostle], how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” But the Lord said to him: “Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel.” (9:13-15) It’s no good overthinking it, just like it wasn’t for Jonah. We don’t have to know everything.
You go to people’s home because that’s where they are. If some get bent out of shape by this, learn to be pleasant and tactful. If they still get bent out of shape, realize the problem may have nothing to do with you but with the topic you are discussing. Add a few venues, if need be, in which people can approach you if they want, rather than you approach them.
Alas, with the 2013 revision to the New World Translation, it is no longer “Be on your way!” but is instead a simple “Go!” One can picture that CO, if he were still alive, fuming over this, so that God would have to plant a translation tree over his head for him to feel sorry for.
Always there are public officials, it doesn’t matter where you go, who, during their tenure, amass far more wealth than you would think possible given their salaries. Who can say how they do it? Let me count the ways, but they do it.
These people all regard Shebna as their patron saint. They are his antitypes. Where the homes of God-fearing people will post some favorite scripture, like maybe the Lord’s prayer, their homes post Isaiah 22:15-18, the mission statement of their hero. Not the penalty part—where he is wadded up like a ball to be tossed into the wastebasket. That’s not an outcome they figure will happen. The mission statement part is where they focus:
“Go in to this steward, to Shebna, who is in charge of the house, and say, ‘What is your interest here, and who is there of interest to you here, that you hewed out a burial place here for yourself?’ He is hewing out his burial place in a high place; he is cutting out a resting-place for himself in a crag. ‘Look! Jehovah will hurl you down violently, O man, and seize you forcibly. He will certainly wrap you up tightly and hurl you like a ball into a wide land. There you will die, and there your glorious chariots will be, a disgrace to your master’s house.” (22:15-18)
Shebna is the only individual specifically rebuked in these many chapters of Isaiah. We’ have seen Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Damascus, Etheopia, Egypt, Edom, Arabia, Tyre, and Sidon all chewed out in previous chapters, but no individual people. Then there are groups of people: rulers and princes (3:1–15), elders and dignitaries (3:2–3), women of Zion (3:16–4:1), priests and prophets (28:7–13), scribes and wise men who rely on human counsel (29:14–15, 30:1), but no individuals. A few individuals are named, such as Ahaz, but they are not rebuked. So, Shebna must have been pretty bad to be disfavored so. And yet, it doesn’t seem that way when compared to the corruption of our time. The guy wants a fancy burial place? There are worse things than that.
Just how fancy a burial place are we talking about? For what was he ignoring his official duties to prepare? Was he going the way of the Egyptian kings, scheming out a lavish pyramid for himself? No. Much more modest than that. I mean, his offense seems not too much more than reaching for a luxury sedan when an econobox would do just fine. He can’t hold a candle to his modern-day antitypes. If his example of pride and self-aggrandizement got God going, what are we to say of modern figures who outdo him twentyfold? If you hold public office, you’re not supposed to abuse it.
We know for sure that his proposed burial place was no pyramid because it has been found. No one ever said that the tomb would not be built. They just said he would not be around to die in it. He’d be wadded up and tossed like a ball. But, the tomb was built, and it is one of the more elaborate tombs in the area: a rock-cut tomb with finely dressed stonework, chambers, and a monumental inscribed lintel over the entrance bearing the words: “This is [the sepulcher of …]yahu who is over the house. There is no silver or gold here but [his bones] and the bones of his maidservant with him. Cursed be the man who will open this.” It is widely acknowledged as his.
It’s in the town of Silwan, just across the Kidron Valley from ancient Jerusalem. In 1870, French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau caught wind of it and paid the place a visit. it was occupied!—long ago turned into a private dwelling in the densely packed town! Today, it’s even more densely packed. It’s mostly working-class Palestinian families living in a crowded urban neighborhood of East Jerusalem—concrete houses, narrow streets, kids playing football, satellite dishes, the usual city-suburb mix.
There is no word on whether the current resident experienced the curse warned about. Maybe that terrible experience commenced with the visit of the archeologist himself. He knocked on the fellows door, or rang the doorbell, or something, and talked him into letting him chisel out the inscription, so he could spirit it off to the British Museum, where it rests today.
Roving archaeologists are always pestering me, too. They are incessantly ringing my doorbell—or at least you never know when they may start—to abscond with my “Home Sweet Home” banner just over the support beams, or if not that, then the welcome mat that says “Don’t Bug Me.” Here I’ll be tilting back in my easy chair watching TV, when someone pounds on the door. Another archeologist! I am inclined to tell him to take a hike. He doesn’t have to know everything. But it is an archeologist, after all, from the university, and I don’t want to appear disdainful of education. I say, “Don’t I know you from the archeologists’ party?” He replies: “Who are you to blow against the wind?” I let him in and he and his cohorts strips the house bare.
It’s not such a rare thing as it might at first seem, for people to build and live over, around, or even inside the tombs. It is known as a “necropolis,” a city build among the dead. It has happened in far more modern times than Shebna’s. Colonial Cemetery, for example, in Savannah, Georgia, might, at first glance, seem one of the many town squares that dot the city, though a much enlarged one, but it is not counted as one. It has not even been a complete cemetery since Civil War times, because the Union soldiers camping out one cold overnight took to burrowing into the tombs for warmth and threw all the remains outside. The city has been the setting for many battles through the years as to be described a necropolis. Our tour guide told us of one church in which the preacher preached long to the Confederate troops, and then the following Sunday, the very same sermon to the Union troops who had killed off the Confederate ones during the intervening week.
So it is with Silwan. There’s about fifty tombs in the area. It’s choice property. Those dead were placed there centuries ago. Might as well recondition the place for more modern use. They don’t all make for homes, and when they do, they might just be a section of the home, or the modern home might sit atop the ancient structure. Maybe it serves as the garage or basement or pool room. But some old tombs would serve as livestock enclosures, water cisterns, storage spaces, or even sewage dumps. (The latter would have been the ultimate put-down of Shebna, but his foretold abasement was not to that degree).
Clermont-Ganneau had it easy. These days, homeowners are more likely to chase archaeologists away with pitchforks. They’ll zero in on some ancient rock-cut tomb currently embedded in or under modern houses. they may be completely inside private properties, with deeds going back generations. Let them in and you may find yourself ensnared in property claims, eviction risks, or ideological disputes. You never know when politics might be involved, where nobody trusts anybody, and what you buy as “research” is actually some resettlement scam. It’s almost like picking up your phone today for an unknown caller. Horrible things can happen. Who would do such a thing?
They come in with their hi-fullutin’ super educated ways and make your life a living hell. There have been digs so undermining foundations or triggering structural damage as to render homes unsafe or uninhabitable—say, when they conduct excavations just three or four meters under the structure, so that families have no choice but to leave. File damage claims filed in court and it might be honored, but other times you might be told that you should just suck it up for science. They all but claim squatters rights on your house, throwing wild, archaeological parties and chipping away at your infrastructure in the process, college-kid interns peeing in the corners of your basement. It is easier not the let them get a toehold in the first place. They are usually turned away.
Thus, Shebna’s friend Bob has a tomb that remains unexcavated to this day. Following his mentor, only one step better, he too was raiding the public till. This fellow is unmentioned in the Bible record, unmentioned anywhere, in fact. It’s only I that I know of him. But he too, was planning for the high death with his own blinged-out rock-cut condo. He too earned a rebuke, but not before he had finished his tomb. There is an Archie Bunker type who lives in it now. Every time archaeologists come calling, he chases them away with a shotgun.
If you’re a god, you have to have confidence to disallow images of yourself. Won’t people forget about you? If Jehovah started off a tribal god, the way theologians claim, he is nevertheless a tribal god that would not allow himself to be represented by images or idols. That circumstance alone suggests that he is not and never was. None of the other gods of the ancient world took that chance. All of them—there were literally thousands in the Mesopotamian world—were somehow represented by physical objects, maybe statues or figurines.
Take the gods of the Exodus drubbing, for example. Every one of them had tangible, physical representations—whether large temple cult gold-covered or stone statues, smaller household idols, amulets, reliefs on walls, or living sacred animals—something. The image of the god was essential. That was how you serviced it, through attendance to its image.
To take some of those Exodus gods and how they appeared, Khnum had the head of a ram, and Osisis, a mummiform man with green skin. These gods were in charge of the Nile. (first of the ten plagues) Heqet took the form of a frog-headed woman. (second plague) Geb, an earth god, was a man with a goose head lying beneath Nut, a sky goddess. (third plague) Khepri was scrub-headed. (fourth plague) Hathor and Apis both looked like cows. (fifth plague) Moo.
Then there was Sekhmet, a lion-headed woman (sixth plague) and Shu. (seventh plague) Osiris, again, trying unsuccessfully to shoo the locusts away, along with Renenutet, a woman with a cobra-head. (eighth plague) Ra and Horus failed to allay darkness, despite the falcon head of the first and scarab of the second (ninth plague) Isis, the protector of children, didn’t protect them too well, nor did Min, assigned to fertility. You would think that Pharaoh, as divine son of Ra, would have some pull, but he did not.
Nonetheless, the God without images clobbered them all. The biblical narrative’s emphasis is on YHWH executing judgment “on all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12) They were all in charge of stuff that the Hebrew God ran roughshod over. Tribal god, my foot. Tribal gods put their mugs on display, lest people forget they exist, because you sure can’t tell it by their actions. Every one of them was asleep at the switch, as Jehovah took their area of expertise and turned it inside out. None of them would be parting any Red Seas.
And there was Pharaoh, cheering them on as though the mayor of a city with a wretched football team. His players are horrrble. They get creamed every time they take the field. Yet, they ARE his team, so Pharaoh has no choice but to root for them. Why else would he dig his heels in the way he does as, one by one, the ball is stripped from each player. Putting more flesh in the game is the fact that Pharaoh WAS in the game, divine himself. As quarterback, he can hardly roll his eyes as his teammates get shellacked. He’s supposed to be displaying good team leadership. Nonetheless, YHWH stomps upon them all, including Pharaoh.
The ten plagues were 700 years before Isaiah. Why bring them up again? It’s because, to him and all Israel, they were always like yesterday. None of those shown-up gods got fired, and so the prophet, 700 years later, refers to them as examples of the “worthless gods of Egypt.” They haven’t improved: “A pronouncement against Egypt: Look! Jehovah is riding on a swift cloud and is coming into Egypt. The worthless gods of Egypt will tremble before him, And the heart of Egypt will melt within it.” (Isaiah 19:1) I mean, if it happened before, you don’t think it will again?
There was one pharaoh of Egypt, however—I mean, this is really strange—who apparently saw things Isaiah’s way. Not that he turned to worship the Hebrew God, but he did turn to booting out all but one of his own. They could take their horns and feathers and scarab faces and flakey heads and shove em. This was Akhenaten, from the fourteenth century BCE. He promoted one—only one—god, the Aten, represented as a solar disk. All other gods he snuffed out. He closed their temples and funneled all their resources to his one single god. He even founded a new national capital, where Aten could get away from their slimy influence. When this renegade pharaoh died, however, Egypt reverted back to many gods. Akhenaten’s legacy is that of an embarrassment.
Now, all this invites irresistible speculation to any student of the Bible. Maybe he picked it up from Joseph, the Hebrew who entered Egypt as a slave and rose to number two man, second only to the pharoah himself. No, scholars insist. There is a difference of 200-400 years. Joseph came first—and that’s assuming you can arm-twist these great ones to acknowledge that Joseph even existed. Bob Brier is willing to go there. He is the Egyptologist behind a 36-part (it might even be 48) Great Courses Lecture series on Egyptian history, but you get the sense—or maybe it was just me—that he is playing to the crowds. I mean, he didn’t come out with any ringing endorsements. He just acknowledged it was possible. Still, there is no way Joseph influenced Akhenaten, the experts say. In fact, one of them even thought it was the other way around. Sigmond Freud, who thought religion a “neurosis,” wrote that Ahmeneton laid down the template that later Hebrew society ran with. Fortunately, he is discredited on this, as well as virtually anything else he ever wrote, a circumstance that leads one to marvel that he is still regarded as one of history’s greats. First to explore a new genre, I guess it is, even though all of his explorations proved wrong.
Yeah, it is probably that way—no connection between Akheneten and Joseph. On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, the reality is more akin to that of the pyramids themselves. The purpose of the pyramids is settled science, mainstream Egyptologists insist, but has it been settled by decree? No matter how much they insist that pyramids were just gaudy tombstones for the pharaohs, alternative theories pop up regularly that they originated in the craziest of ways to serve the most fantastic of purposes.
When your enemy pops off, don’t jump for joy. His replacement may be worse. That’s the message for Philistia after Ahaz dies:
In the year that King Ahaz died, this pronouncement was made: “Do not rejoice, Philistia, any of you, Just because the staff of the one striking you has been broken. For from the root of the serpent will come a poisonous snake, And its offspring will be a flying fiery snake.” (Isaiah 14:28-29)
You can call Philistia the house villain of the Israelites. Enemies come and enemies go, but Philistia is a constant. They are the ones who captured the Ark and so Jehovah struck them with piles (hemorrhoids!) to persuade them to give it back. Only they couldn’t just hand it over. Since they loved to make idols, they had to forge golden images of those piles. You have to admit, that’s a pretty deft touch if the goal is to humiliate those who think deliverance lies in idols.
They are also the ones on whom blinded Samson brought the house down, stationed between two major support pillars. David, at a time of lessened tensions, felt obliged to disguise his sanity among the Philistines, so that their king would later mutter to his advisors: “Here you see a man behaving crazy. Why should you bring him to me? Am I in need of people driven crazy, so that you have brought this one to behave crazy by me?” An excellent point. Not too different from when two of us were out in the ministry and the weather very abruptly shifted and a woman answered the door and said, “Are you crazy?” “You know, she raises a pretty good point,” I said to my companion.
So, it’s just constant trouble between the Israelites and the Philistines. They’re the ones who sent huge Goliath to taunt Israel. I knew they were the perennial villains even before I took up Bible study with the Witnesses. They came in from the West, from Crete across the Mediterranean Sea, before the Israelites began settling in Canaan from the other direction. Jehovah had his people leaving Egypt steer clear of them initially: He “did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although it was near. For God said: ‘The people may change their minds when they are confronted by war and will return to Egypt.’ So God made the people go around by the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea.” (Exodus 13:17-18)
Now, back to: “For from the root of the serpent will come a poisonous snake, And its offspring will be a flying fiery snake.” (14:28-29) If they thought Ahaz was bad, he would be a creampuff next to his successor, Hezekiah. The first, divided in his loyalties between Assyria and Jehovah, would be an ineffectual force against them. The latter, standing in the face of Assyria and steadfast toward Jehovah, would not be. Then there would be the Assyrians themselves who would devastate Philistia. Maybe that works better with the “poisonous” and “flying fiery snake” comparison.
One might liken the written material of Witness meetings to a cake mix. It isn’t complete until you mix the ingredients. There are times when I look at the upcoming Watchtower article and say, ‘Well, this is going to be a yawner.’ But, mixed in with the 60 or so congregation comments, it becomes an entirely different experience. I think when people approach the meetings with ‘What can I bring to the table?’ rather than ‘What can I take from the table,’ any perception of boring meetings goes away.
The mid-week meeting, for example, is far more integrated—and thus inherently interesting—than it once was. Two or three chapters in the Bible set the tone for the entire meeting. Highlights of that reading are expounded in the first part, audience comment on any of it invited in the second part (participation is enthusiastic in our congregation), thereafter, to the extent possible, all other parts dovetail with those Bible chapters. Before the current format for mid-week meetings was devised, those meetings were more open to the charge of being boring. Parts were more likely to be a grab-bag of different Bible sections and themes, with no connection to one another.
Some years ago a newbie summed up his impression of the meetings: “You can prepare for them.” It’s a fairly unusual attribute for religious gatherings, most of which you just experience as it comes. It is a classroom-type atmosphere, based on the premise that “all Scripture is inspired and beneficial for teaching, reproving, setting things straight that the person of God my be completely equipped,’ etc. (2 Timothy 3:16) But if you want to get bowled over by mystery and emotion, sometimes under the guise of being filled with holy spirit, you may not like them. Meeting, for Witnesses, are the starting point of our worship, not the end point. There, they encourage and incite to love and fine works, as stated at Hebrews 10:24.
Lately, the final mid-week portion has been consideration of a children’s book covering the usual retinue of Bible characters. I thought it might be a downer, but it works. The simplified format allows participation at different levels. In all cases, the scriptural passages are presented. They may run entire chapters of a Bible book. In your preparation, you can read and comment from those chapters themselves when the corresponding item comes up. For some, the summarized children’s version will be quite enough, but you can skip it all if you want and just comment from the Bible passages directly.
Q: How come it seems like there’s people who honestly and wholeheartedly seek God/truth, yet end up in different religions/denominations? I’m trying to understand why/how people can earnest seek Truth yet come to different conclusions and paths.
A: Different people seek God according to different criteria. Sometimes, at the door with someone inclined to be contentious, I might say, “Look, why don’t we just agree to leave that in God’s hands? He knows if he’s a trinity or not.” (or whatever be the issue left unresolved)
The meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses take the form of Bible studies. You can prepare for them. We Witnesses think that is that way to go, but there are people drawn more to denominations or venues more experiential, more triggering the emotions, ones where they will say they experience the holy spirit. The gatherings for many faiths there is no point in preparing for, beyond getting yourself in the mood.
Then, there are faiths as Catholicism, where a sense of mystery is thought highly desirable in any worship service. There’s not too much of this at Witness meetings, which look more like a classroom, which are more for edification and encouragement, that a person might be better equipped to worship God in their daily life.
Charlie Kirk said Catholicism is experiencing a resurgence these days, somewhat against his preference, as an evangelical. He attributed much of it to their long history and confidence that it was less given therefore to flip on the dime of new social trends. Stability is what attracted people, he thought.
JWs think that God speaks to us primarily through the pages of his written Word, and we to him primarily through prayer. Not everyone is drawn to that formula. It used to be, maybe still is, that there were denominations where you might ‘roll in the aisles’ (they were nicknamed ‘holy rollers) getting upon getting ‘filled with the spirit.” There are many modern updates of that formula.
Paul spoke of his Jewish countrymen at Romans 10:2: “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” Witnesses do think it best to do things “according to knowledge.” But, rather than attack each other online for being wrong—attacks that tend to be endless—online, it is better to adapt to the formula: present whatever you have to present (let your light shine) and let people be drawn or not to the faith you espouse. Or, in the words of Bob Dylan: “Let me see what you got. We’ll have a whoppin good time.”
It’s not a call for ecumenism. It is simply a call for practicality, so that we all may realize the words: “Can’t we all just get along?” No one’s trying to sweep 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 under the rug:
“But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”
It’s just that you can’t settle it through debate. Frankly, I think the above is evidence that God is having the last laugh on those who think you can. It will have to be a “Let me see what you got.” It is a dictum not too far from Jesus’ own: “By their fruits you will know them.”
