Sheep and Goats

Category: Bible Books

  • Burn Up Sons in the Fire? Atheists Strike Again

    At a home Bible study, the kind that Jehovah’s Witnesses offer, Darrel had a question. He brought up Exodus 22: 29-30.

    “You shall give me the firstborn of your sons. You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep.” (New International Version) This meant, he worried, that you burn up your firstborn child for God, same as you would your ox and your sheep. “You must do the same”—he repeated the expression.

    He got it from the atheists, I’ve no doubt. They would make a burnt offering of the entire Bible were it up to them. He doesn’t necessarily buy into it. He just doesn’t want to be snowed—by the atheists or by the Witnesses. He even apologizes for raising the question, as though for rocking the boat. ‘What—are you kidding me?’ I tell him. ‘We’d be worried if you didn’t have questions.’

    Should one be flustered? The snippet quoted does sort of sound like you’re supposed burn your sons. It will not do just to say, ‘It doesn’t mean that!’ Unless you explain why it doesn’t, it comes across as though you are covering up a crime. The challenge is enough to send the one conducting the study scurrying in search of other scriptures to shed light on the passage—using one scripture to explain another, the tried and true method in the JW world. Me, I’m just the companion, sitting there, taking up space.

    Actually, just backing out some and taking the entire passage into account would answer the question, but this is not immediately apparent. The entire passage reads:

    “You shall not delay the offering of your harvest and your press. You shall give me the firstborn of your sons. You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.”

    Three things are being compared in the expanded passage, not two: 1) the first offerings of the harvest and [wine]press, 2) your own firstborn, and 3) the firstborn of the oxen and sheep. You must "do the same," not with the manner of sacrifice, but that all are subject to sacrifice. Grain and drink offerings were not done in the same manner as animal sacrifices. Neither would people be.

    And here the atheists are trying to get him all pumped up over that passage! 'Well, it sure sounds like you're supposed to burn your son just like your ox or sheep,’ they mutter. 'If it’s not that way, it could have been explained more clearly!' Really? When we read of a celebrity roast, does anyone expect an asterisk explaining that they're not literally roasted (though many of them should be)?

    In time, the conductor emerges with a verse from Jeremiah that explains it all. He had one of three to choose from; the prophet makes the point that many times. Referring to when Israel went carousing with their rowdy neighbors (the nations surrounding them) and in time picked up their bad habits, the prophet speaks for God and says, “they built the high places of Baal in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to Baal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of and that had never even come into my heart.” (Jeremiah 19:5) Okay? If it “had never even come into [his] heart,” he’s not going to command his people do it. It is Baal they are thinking of.

    Ezekiel confirms what Jeremiah related. The raucous neighbors did such things. When Israel proved unfaithful to its God, Jehovah, it followed suit:

    “Because they did not carry out my judicial decisions and they rejected my statutes, they profaned my sabbaths, and they followed after the disgusting idols of their forefathers. I also allowed them to follow regulations that were not good and judicial decisions by which they could not have life. I let them become defiled by their own sacrifices—when they made every firstborn child pass through the fire—in order to make them desolate, so that they would know that I am Jehovah.” (bolding mine)

    These appeals to Jeremiah and Ezekiel fall flat to persons schooled in higher criticism. They will object that Exodus is a work of ‘the priestly tradition’ and Jeremiah a work of ‘the prophetic tradition.’ The two traditions fought like cats and dogs—you wouldn’t appeal to one for support of the other. But Darell is not a person of higher criticism. He is a person of common sense. The point registers with him. Had it not, maybe an appeal to an earlier portion of Exodus (4:22-23) would have sufficed. There, Moses is directed, “You must say to Pharʹaoh, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Israel is my son, my firstborn. I say to you, Send my son away so that he may serve me.”’” See what God wanted from his firstborn? He wanted service, not burnt remains. Since both quotes are from Exodus, the comparison might work with a higher critic. Though, it might not; even within a given Bible book, they claim to be able to see both the priestly and prophetic traditions squabbling with one another.

    Thing is, to the higher critic, any words attributed to God are really human in origin. They cannot prove God by their scientific method, and the scientific method is all they recognize. God, for them, is a human construct. So, necessarily, words attributed to God are merely that of some human spinning his own theology. Moreover, how strong can a human construct be? Strong enough to fly in the face of tribal neighbors who did indeed offer children as burnt sacrifices? The critics judge it is not. Therefore, when Jeremiah and Ezekiel present Jehovah as condemning the practice, they are to the critics just reformers proclaiming what they would like to see, not what is. They are just whistleblowers. Their protests are but the protests of human prophets, not of God himself, who is imaginary. To the higher critics, Jehovah is a tribal god like all the rest. The religious zealots that are Jeremiah and Ezekiel may try to extricate him from the abhorrent practice, but it will not fly with higher critics. All gods to them are really but one god, and all are figments of the common human urge to worship what they can neither control nor understand. The human sciences of sociology and anthropology lead them to conclude that if one god did it, they all did. A passage such as Leviticus 18: 24-25 makes little impression on them: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” To them, it is like the words of an ascending politician explaining why he must beat up on his rivals. He is just talking sweet until he gains power, whereupon he will revert to true form.

    Biblical passages drawing a favorable distinction between the God of the Bible and the gods of surrounding nations are defused by the critics in short order. For example, a passage of Deuteronomy: (FN 4:5-8)

    “See, I [Moses] have taught you regulations and judicial decisions, just as Jehovah my God has commanded me, for you to do that way in the midst of the land to which you are going to take possession of it. And you must keep and do them, because this is wisdom on your part and understanding on your part before the eyes of the peoples who will hear of all these regulations, and they will certainly say, ‘This great nation is undoubtedly a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has gods near to it the way Jehovah our God is in all our calling upon him? And what great nation is there that has righteous regulations and judicial decisions like all this law that I am putting before you today.  Deut 4:5-8

    With no way to ascertain that there is a God, the higher critic regards the above as a concoction of Moses, who was a great man hoping to impose his theology upon a resistant nation. He is attributing his own forward vision to God, saying the ways of his god are best, when he actually should be saying, ‘My ways are best.’

    As an exercise, in the following summation of 2 Kings 17:7-18, replace every mention of Jehovah (FN traditionally thought to be Jeremiah, though you won’t be able to ram that by the higher critics, either). with the name of the author writing the account. Doing so moves it into the realm of a political statement, not one of God. Modern critics can identify with political statements. They cannot with statements of faith, so they repackage the latter as the former:

    “[Calamity] happened because the people of Israel had sinned against Jehovah their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the control of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshipped other gods, they followed the customs of the nations that Jehovah had driven out from before the Israelites, and they followed the customs that the kings of Israel had established. The Israelites were pursuing the things that were not right according to Jehovah their God. They kept building high places in all their cities, from watchtower to fortified city. They kept setting up for themselves sacred pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every luxuriant tree; and on all the high places they would make sacrificial smoke just as the nations did that Jehovah had driven into exile from before them. They kept doing wicked things to offend Jehovah. They continued to serve disgusting idols, about which Jehovah had told them: “You must not do this!” Jehovah kept warning Israel and Judah through all his prophets and every visionary, saying: “Turn back from your wicked ways! Keep my commandments and my statutes according to all the law that I commanded your forefathers and that I sent to you through my servants the prophets.” But they did not listen, and they remained just as stubborn as their forefathers who had not shown faith in Jehovah their God. They continued rejecting his regulations and his covenant that he had made with their forefathers and his reminders that he had given to warn them, and they kept following worthless idols and became worthless themselves, imitating the nations all around them that Jehovah had commanded them not to imitate. They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baal. They also made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, they practiced divination and looked for omens, and they kept devoting themselves to do what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, to offend him. So Jehovah was very angry with Israel, so that he removed them from his sight.”

    None of the above is God’s complaint, according to the higher critics. It is all the complaint of Jeremiah—or whoever is writing as though Jeremiah.

    So destructive to faith is higher criticism that it ought to be as banned as DDT and thalidomide, for it triggers no fewer spiritual stillbirths. Instead, it is the method of theological preference today. If you shop the theological schools for your church pastor, it is what you most likely have inflicted upon your congregation. Jehovah’s Witnesses will have none of it. To them, the words of Peter apply, that “prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21) Those words of Peter lead them to assume unity of scripture, not inherent discord between them. It necessarily makes scripture more powerful. You can focus things that are united. You cannot things that are disunited.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Sometimes Life Sucks: Psalm 88

    There are 18 verses in Psalm 88. Save for verse 13, not a single positive thought is expressed. Everything is disastrous. Nothing good anywhere. Plus, the psalmist all but blames God: ‘When are you going to pour out your loving-kindness—when I’m dead?’ He makes the point repeatedly.

    Look those verses over. You can’t find a positive thought. Except for 13: “But I still cry to you for help, O Jehovah, Each morning my prayer comes before you.” Though, he immediately follows up (verse 14) that it does him no good: “Why, O Jehovah, do you reject me? Why do you hide your face from me?” The question is nowhere answered.  He has tried the “peace of God will safeguard your heart” thing. It hasn’t worked, and so he tells God about it!

    Psalm 88 is just like the Book of Job, but without the preface pulling back the heavenly curtain to explain what it’s all about. What is this psalm even doing in the Bible, which is overall a book of faith? You could easily get all cynical over it, were that your inclination. Nowhere is the psalmist’s faith rewarded. But it is steadfast, if only by force of habit, per verse 13. Is it the more powerful on that account? Life is not consistently rosy. It can be horrendous for the long periods of time.

    There is precious little commentary on this psalm from the JW Library app, which likes to focus on the positive. No wonder. There’s nothing positive here, save for the verse about hanging in there with prayer. ‘Sometimes we have to wait awhile’ is the gist of the Library’s sole remark (on 13). There’s one other remark, too, but it is simply the definition of a term.

    The fellow is going through a trough. Sometimes we are in troughs. Don’t feel unique if it has ever happened to you. The ground has been plowed before. If you have ever felt as the psalmist, don’t feel bad. Or, at least, don’t feel guilty about feeling bad. Part of the roller coaster of life, someone said during field service, which delivers both good times and bad.

    It reminded me of how the circuit overseer said he would get carsick as a boy. The solution? Fix your gaze far off into the horizon, the one thing that does not change. So it is that the psalmist fixes his gaze upon God to carry him through a rough period of life.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Psalm 73: Nothing so Corrosive as Envy: Asaph Escapes

    Here is someone who gets right to the point. After a quick little genuflect to show he  still had the overall picture—“God is truly good to Israel, to those pure in heart,”  (Psalm 73:1) he relates how he almost lost it.

    As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped.” (vs 2)

    The problem? He became envious! Few things are as corrosive as envy.

     “For I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked.  For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men. Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. . . Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They just keep increasing their wealth.” (3-12)

    And just how do these ones feel about God? They tell him to take a hike!

    “They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” (vs 11) And it goes well for them! The game never gets old. The deck never gets cold.

    They don’t all hit the party scene upon forgetting God! They don’t all turn to drugs and sex and the bottle! Someone at the meeting cited 2 Timothy 3:2-5, with its laundry list of bad traits typifying the last days:

    “For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.” 

    It works for some. Some dance with the tune and they make out just fine! It was enough to make Asaph pull his hair out! If he were living in modern times, he’d be whining about being misled, about being brainwashed, about the Levites lying to him! In fact, when a recent Watchtower study incorporated Psalm 73 for the benefit of any feeling what Asaph did, virulent ex-Witnesses were all over it, but spinning it without reference to Asaph or the psalm. Instead, they spun it in terms of politics and cult manipulation; you know, further manipulation to keep the deluded in line. I mean, sheesh—if you’re going to carry on about Jehovah’s Witnesses, you must also carry on about what motivates them, not change that motivation to something else. It’s as though the grousers have forgotten that there are such things as scriptures.

    The ones who forsake God (from vs 11) don’t actually say they no longer believe in him. They just act as though they don’t. They have their religion but they have learned to keep it in its place—last place. Here Asaph is exerting himself every day, keeping God in first place, crossing Ts and dotting Is, while “the arrogant,” and “the wicked” are “not troubled” over anything!  Their “bodies are healthy.” When they die—at least they have not escaped that bit of unpleasantness—there is “no pain in their death.” It’s as though they say, “Well, it’s been a fine run. Remind me to do it again sometime,” as they reach to switch off the light.

    It’s driving Asaph mad! “Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence. And I was troubled all day long; Every morning I was chastised.” (13-14) Every morning he asked himself! “Why am I still doing this, striving so hard to measure up for God? Where is it getting me?” It’s a little like when we left our snowy clime to visit friends down south and they said, “Yeah, why are you still up there?” (And, in fact, why are we? Probably because it’s not so bad a test as Asaph’s.)

    “But if I had said these things, I would have betrayed your people.” (15)

    Great! So, he can’t even complain about it! It wouldn’t be “upbuilding.” You don’t want to rain on everyone else’s parade at the Kingdom Hall. You want to say, “Attaboy! Keep it up!” But it’s getting harder for him to do. “When I tried to understand it, It was troubling to me.” (16)

    Sorry to those who hoped for something a little more dramatic, but the solution appears to have been to “hit the books.”

    “Until I entered the grand sanctuary of God, And I discerned their future. Surely you place them on slippery ground. You make them fall to their ruin. How suddenly they are devastated! How sudden is their finish as they come to a terrible end!”

    A terrible end? Like in the Braveheart movie, where William Wallace’s chum confides, as both are under heavy arrow bombardment, that he had prayed to the good Lord, and the good Lord was pretty sure he could get him out of this spot. “But you’re finished!”      (*He used a cruder synonym, not ‘finished.’)

    There is an Act II! How could Asaph have forgotten that? The opening act is not also the closing act! If it was, the naysayers would be right. He is knocking himself out for nothing. But it’s not! It’s as though Asaph awakens from a bad dream: “Like a dream when one wakes up, O Jehovah, When you rouse yourself, you will dismiss their image.” (Vs 20)

     “I was unreasoning and lacked understanding” he says, once he has corrected himself. “I was like a senseless beast before you.” (vs 22)

    Whoa! There it is! A reference to those who quickly settle that this life is all there is, to those who imagine nothing beyond the present 70-90 years.  They are like ‘senseless beasts!’ And Asaph had almost become one of them! No more!

    “But now I am continually with you; You have taken hold of my right hand. You guide me with your advice, And afterward you will lead me to glory.

    Whom do I have in the heavens? And besides you I desire nothing on earth. My body and my heart may fail, But God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.

    Truly, those keeping far from you will perish. You will put an end to everyone who immorally leaves you. But as for me, drawing near to God is good for me. I have made the Sovereign Lord Jehovah my refuge, To declare all your works.” (vs 23-28)

    Back on track, he is. The opening act is not also the closing act. He’s setting himself out to weather the entire play, not just the first act.

    ***Sorry, that Psalm 73 reference to the people who have it made recalled for me when my new bride and I went to a gala hi-brow affair where everyone was dressed to the nines. Tuxes and gowns! When intermission came and all were out in the foyer sipping drinks, each one of which cost more than the antifreeze in my car, I whispered to my wife, “Here are people we don’t usually hang out with—the wicked!”

    Yes, I know, I know. Completely unfair. No doubt, most were nice. My new wife looked at me oddly—but I couldn’t resist.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • An Insular People—No Part of the World: Part 1

    There is a fine reality check in Deuteronomy to guard against Israel of old getting too big for its pants: “It was not because you were the most numerous of all the peoples that Jehovah showed affection for you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples.” (7:7)

    Got it. They weren’t a big deal on the world stage. So, when you read up on ancient history, as presented by anyone other than the believers, don’t be surprised that they are still not a big deal. You might be wowed, for example, by Jean-Pierre Isbouts relating the history of the ancient biblical world, and then say, ‘Whoa! Those Bible writers were so insular in their outlook! They saw everything in terms of their worship of God. They touch on secular events only insofar as it furthers their religious narrative.’

    Frankly, it reminds me of my own faith, also said to be ‘insular.’ Most Witnesses would not agree to the label ‘insular’, but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are ‘separate from the world’ and ‘no part of’ it.' It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself.

    This is exactly what the stalwart ones of Israel did: they stayed ‘separate from the world,’ from that position later to benefit ones within it. “Jehovah your God I am, who has set you apart from the peoples. . . . You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy, and I am setting you apart from the peoples to become mine.” (Leviticus 20: 24-26) They were separate, ‘set apart.’ They were not to mingle with those making no effort to be ‘holy’ or, with regard to God, to be ‘mine.’ Thus, it is not surprising that their writings (the Old Testament) might read as ‘insular,’ just as do the writings of the modern Christian congregation. What is insulation if not material to keep one substance ‘no part’ of another? Surely, that determination will be reflected in the writing. Compare the Bible writings with those of ancient secular history and you may say, ‘They barely know that an outside world exists!’

    Separation is resented by ‘the world,’ however. In this modern age of ‘inclusion,’ the very opposite of separateness, activists even try to make it illegal. Thus, within the Witness congregations, disfellowshipping, a last ditch effort, after all else has failed, to ensure that, either members stay true to the Christian way of life they have voluntarily chosen or else separate, is under ferocious legal attack today. It is an escalation of the scenario described at 1 Peter 4:3-4, where the apostle describes the world he and his separated from in not flattering ways:

    “For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries. Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.” They speak no less abusively today, and are even inclined to add, “Water’s fine here in the low sink! Who are you to judge?”

    After the Holocaust, Jews discarded a lot of baggage that they deemed had caused them nothing but trouble. Belief in a coming messiah was among those items carted away. Maintaining separateness as a nation was another, even though the legal establishment of a homeland might suggest otherwise. From that homeland in the original ‘Promised Land,’ Jewish descendants operate in the arena of political nations, with no particular reliance upon God. God himself is a baggage that many left behind, as a direct consequence of that Holocaust. It is enough for them to keep alive Jewish tradition.

    Even that is enough to rile some non-Jews. But, since Jews make no special effort to pull people from the ‘low sink,’ they do not arouse the furor of those who wish to swim in it—or even return to it. Jehovah’s Witnesses do make that effort, however, and thus encounter pushback. Where do you think the name of my ‘house apostate,’ Vic Vomodog, comes from if not from the writings of Peter? “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:22) In fact, he used to be ‘Vomidog,’ but several people said the name was disgusting, so I softened it to ‘Vomodog.’ It makes it easier to present him as a ‘Wily E Coyote’ type of fellow, eternally scheming against the Road Runner and eternally frustrated. So far, there is no Larry Lowsink, but I am thinking of introducing him as a companion. I might even make it a she—Loretta Lowsink, and have them married. Or I might just marry them gender-unchanged, in keeping with the spirit of the times.

    In real life, however, Vic and possibly Larry makes considerable trouble for those who are yet determined to stay separate from the world. They have had a few court cases go their way. For now, such outcomes tend to be reversed by higher, less activist courts, the kind that are quicker to spot ‘mischief by decree.’ But they press on, in accord with the greater agenda to make separation from the world illegal, in mandated ‘inclusion.’

    The reason I think this is the greater agenda is that today’s reality so closely conforms to Jesus’ words: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.” (John 15:19) Therefore, all these efforts to frame mischief by degree are a facade. That is not to say they are nothing, but they mask the real reason Jesus gave. 

    The CSA court cases, not so much the cases themselves, but the brouhaha over them, for example, are largely a facade. They are like saying “Jehovah’s Witnesses have zits!” Everyone has zits. CSA is the Gross Planetary Product. Whatever ‘records’ Witnesses may or may not have that opponents say should become police property exist only because they attempted to police themselves, in accord with Romans 2:21-23: “You, the one preaching, ‘Do not steal,’ do you steal?  You, the one saying, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery? You, the one abhorring idols, do you rob temples? You who take pride in law, do you dishonor God by your transgressing of the Law?" Even that is spun as an abuse of personal freedom by opponents. Only the police can police. If overall society comes to feel that adultery is not a biggie, for example, then you’re on thin ice trying to discipline people over it, even if it is in the bylaws that all agreed to.

    Continued in Part 2.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Who We Are and Why We Are and Where We Are Going?

    “How can people believe Bible texts the way they do? People were superstitious then. And it is violent.”

    Maybe because they are enamored with its main character, God. Those not enamored with him are not attracted to the text. Psalm 34:8 is a favorite of mine: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Some people think he tastes bad. Taste is not a provable topic. It resonates with some and not with others. It is not primarily a matter of intellect. Some people hate asparagus. Good luck trying to ‘prove’ to them that it tastes good.

    The reason God and the texts long associated with him ‘taste good’ to people of faith is summed up in this quote from a newspaper editor, as true today as when he wrote it 60 years ago: “Here is a curious thing. In the contemplation of man himself, of his dilemmas, of his place in the universe, we are little further along than when time began. We are still left with questions of who we are and why we are and where we are going.” (Vermont Royster) People of faith want to know “who we are and why we are and where we are going.” They are convinced secular society has no answers (“we are little further along than when time began”), so they look to God. They are not put off by the fact the Bible is old. (You would hardly expect a message from God to all mankind to have been written recently) They don’t consider those ancients inferior. If anything, with less to distract them, they had the time to think deeper thoughts.

    Nor do they think science answers Royster’s question. Professor Viskontas* addresses how our present life is but an hour or two on the year-scaled cosmic timeline. “Does this mean that our short little lives hold no meaning? I would argue that it certainly does not. In fact, it gives us a sense of how far we’ve come and how connected we are even to the very beginnings of the universe. And surely life gains meaning through the connections that we make to each other and to our world,” se says. I dunno. It’s not nothing, but it doesn’t compare to the thought of everlasting life. Isn’t it more akin to persuading a speed bump to find meaning in its role on the highway of life?

    Too, God’s revealed personality attracts some. To Moses, he presented himself as “a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.” (Exodus 34) Those are good qualities to have in a God, particularly in a world not typified by such qualities. They draw people. He ‘tastes good’ to them. They see a world deteriorating at an almost visibly increasing rate. They see human governments have no answers. They look for one in the Scriptures, and there they find it.

    They do not find it offensive that God would have requirements, as is intimated at the end of the Exodus phrase. It instantly strikes them as right that he would. They like the illustration of an owner’s manual for a product, say a new Ford. It makes perfect sense to them that Ford would be the one to consult as to how to care for the product it created.That’s why “people have believed in this text for so many years.” It is a vehicle through which one may get to know one’s Creator. Ordinary people find that very comforting, even if some more independently minded others find it offensive.

    Is there concern that there is much violence in the OT? Don’t think people are any less violent today. It is just that modern societies have found a way to sanitize and corporatize violence, so that it can be inflicted from afar by horrific weapons, while the ones congratulating themselves at their supposed moral progress safely watch on TV. Some have heard the terrorist argument for attacking innocent civilians. There are no innocent civilians, they say, because these ‘innocent’ civilians willfully empower governments that go on to commit atrocities in their homeland.

    No need to fuss about things that happened 4000 years ago, which is when most of the OT violence occurred. Parties have had plenty of time to reform, if they see fit to do so. Besides, you can always assign that Bible reading of Elisha calling down bears on the jeering children to a bald brother, who will tap his own shiny dome as though to say, ‘Don’t mess with me.’

    …* Indre Viskontas, lecturer of 12 Essential Scientific Concepts, from Great Courses

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of May 9, 2024

    Think of a deep intimate, heartfelt connection—how can good not emerge? The phrase itself all but guarantees it.

    Sigh….not with this lout:  “Transgression speaks to the wicked one deep within his heart. Ps 36:1

    “There is no fear of God before his eyes.” (vs 1b) That’s half of the problem.

    “For in his own eyes he flatters himself too much to detect and hate his error.” (vs 2) That’s the other half.

    1b and 2: Therein lies the remedy. If he learns to fear God and gains a realistic view of himself, even this character can turn around.

     

    Peter entering Cornelius’ home after three times having the vision of unclean foods descending from heaven. (Acts 10:9-16)

    This is like Ananias being directed to bring Saul in. ‘No way, Lord—the guy’s an animal!’

    “Be on your way” (9:15) says the Lord. The man is a chosen vessel to me.

    “Be on your way”—Andy Laguna the CO’s said long ago at the Pioneer School—Andy loved this scripture that typified his own life. He didn’t say it, but he may as well have: ‘Don’t give me any bunk! Be on your way!’

    I remember working with him in service one 10 degree day on an endless street. Didn’t take a break. Only a handful answered. When they did, they may as well not have because I was too cold to speak coherently.

     

    They’re all rather trivial things—all these updates of late. Still, they are changes to long-standing policy, so many make a big fuss over them. A bro at our hall, commenting on fast-moving changes we all must adjust to, mentioned “sisters wearing pants,” (did he also mention no ties?) as though aghast that someone had run the chariot into a ditch.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Why No Theological Terms in Watchtower Publications?

    ‘The author of a theodicy consents that his case be tried before the court of reason, and offers to represent the accused by refuting all the accusations of the planitiff.’ — Immanuel Kant. (1704-1804)*

    Is that why publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses never use the term theodicy—nor any other theological term? Why submit to trial in a kangaroo court run by rationists, replete with myriad ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ rules, some of which you suspect are specifically designed to ensure that ‘the accused’ is found ‘guilty?’

    Witness governing members look to those taking the lead in the first century, men they strive to emulate, men described in the Book of Acts (4:13) as “unlettered and ordinary.” They ask, ‘Would these ones know a theological term if it bit them in the rear end? Taking as self-evident that the answer is no, they say, ‘If it worked for them, it should work for us.’ They hold to the thought expressed by Paul to Timothy. “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    If Scripture really has that effect, that of setting things straight and making the man of God fully competent, then aren’t theologians out of a job? Isn’t in their interests, therefore, to maintain that it doesn’t? They become like the agency head who insists ‘much work remains to be done.’ The moment he says that the work is done, he faces the unemployment line. Those above words of Paul are a threat to the theological machine. So, with regard to Scripture, the theologians make themselves a middleman. ‘It sets things straight’ when we say it does,’ they say. Thus, the Book of Job is not, per them, a record of a man who actually lived. It is the work of a writer presenting his theodicy, perhaps his evolving theodicy. Or, perhaps it is the work of multiple writers presenting multiple theodicies, of which you may take your pick or reject them all.

    The Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body will have none of it. ‘Try God’s ways in a human court, will they?’ they say. It is the other way around. You look into a mirror so as to adjust your skewed appearance. You don’t look into that mirror and wonder what is wrong with it for reflecting such an appearance. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts,” are the words attributed to God at Isaiah 55:9. Should higher thoughts be tried in the courtroom of lower thoughts?

    Dr. James Hall is a theologian setting up such a courtroom. Introducing his Great Courses Lecture series, entitled, Philosophy of Religion, he says, “Let me assure you up front I’m not going to tell you what to think. The real purpose, the real goal of this course, is to encourage you to think, to push you to think and to help you organize your thinking equipment so that you can think more effectively.” Is it worrisome that five variations of ‘think’ are included in this mission statement? All of those thoughts, per Isaiah, will be ‘lower thoughts’—even though enhanced (or lowered still?) by embracing the modern critical thinking. Should such thoughts be the criteria for judging the higher ones?

    Exploring the merits of the ontological argument for God—a term that,  once again, you will never hear from Jehovah’s Witnesses, though possibly a Watchtower article somewhere quotes someone using it and the editors figured it was more trouble than it’s worth to pull it out, Dr Hall cites an earlier philosopher and churchman (Anselm of Lucca) who quoted Scripture: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” He then (incorrectly) repeats the phrase, apparently so his audience can mull it over: “The fool has said, ‘There is no God.’ (dropping the ‘in his heart’) Then, he contrasts ‘God’ and ‘no God.’ From there, he goes on to explore the attribute of ‘existence’ as opposed to non-existence. He holds aloft two identical books with identical attributes, attributes he describes at length, save for one: The one in his right hand “has a counterpart in reality.” The one in his left hand (which holds nothing) does not.

    About this time, the unkind reader may think of a certain internet profile which begins with an apology for “not having a PhD in whatever b******t your PhD is in.” Be that as it may, he or she may also note that the only point of significance is how the doctor, seemingly unaware, changed the underlying ‘fact’ of Psalm 14:1. Is the fool saying something in his heart the same as the fool saying it aloud? Or doesn’t the in his heart imply that he doesn’t say it aloud? Were there even people in that ancient Hebrew society who said there was no God? Isn’t the reference, in reality, to those who act as though there is no God—who think they lack accountability to God? You probably don’t want to use that scripture in calling atheists ‘fools’ because that is unlikely to be its intent. Whether they are or not is another matter, but this is not the verse to clinch it either way.

    This is the fellow you want running your rationalist courtroom, who passes over what is significant to quibble over word salads of existence and non-existence?  Who can be confident submitting their theodicy before a such a court that may even disbar the defense attorney for failing to take that nonsense seriously, who just wants to focus on what is meaningful? Why would anyone feel obliged to submit their case to it?

    *as cited in Kraeling, ‘The Book of the Ways of God,’ (1939) p243

    To be Continued (maybe)

    ******  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of March 25, 2024 – Psalm 22

    Just a single psalm for the Bible reading this week: 22. There are verses in this psalm that NT writers later apply to Christ. Read 1 and 8, for example. They sound awfully familiar. 

    My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (1)

    ”And at the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” which means, when translated: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

    The April 2021 Study Watchtower suggests 7 possible ways that cry might be understood. (Questions from Readers) Click on the Research Guide for Psalm 22:1

    ****

    All those seeing me mock me; They sneer and shake their heads in derision: “He entrusted himself to Jehovah. Let Him rescue him! Let Him save him, for he is so dear to Him! (7-8)

    ”In the same way also, the chief priests with the scribes and the elders began mocking him, saying: “Others he saved; himself he cannot save! He is King of Israel; let him now come down off the torture stake, and we will believe in him. He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:41-43)

    One verse not cited by any NT writer is Pslam 22:16. Almost alone, the New World Translation renders that verse (the last phrase): “Like a lion they are at my hands and feet.” Almost all other translations pick up a corruption of the Septuagint and render that phrase: “they pierced my hands and my feet.” The NWT sticks with the earlier Masoretic version. Frankly, they’d love for it to say ‘pierces my hands and feet’ too—it fits better with the program—but it doesn’t say that originally. It says ‘like a lion they are at my hands and feet.’ This was not brought out at the meeting, but I knew it anyway from when the Lutheran evangelical tried to convert the rabbi.

    It was our circuit overseer this week. In showing a video, he was all excited that when Jade says ‘Oh, I get it!’ in the coffee shop setting, at that same moment the cash register bell goes off. ‘Ka-Ching’ and he is convinced it is deliberate. Ha! It probably is. I can see it being slipped in as a cute little joke, as though to see how long it would take for anyone to pick up on it. Who would have thought it? Maybe, Governing Body members themselves don’t know about it.

    Next day, I told him that, for his talk, I and some others had brought little bells that we would ring every time he made a point that we understood.

    Then, there was Transgender Visibiltiy Day, proclaimed by the President for that Sunday—Easter Sunday. Now, Witnesses don’t do Easter, and there was no mention of either Easter or the Visibility Day, but you should have heard the uproar on social media! Carrying on about the desecration of a sacred holiday and all.

    Ah, well. Doesn’t it proves that it is not possible to dress up a pig?

    As any Witness knows, Easter is an example of slapping a Christian label on a pre-existing sordid holiday, in this the celebration of the goddess Ashtarte—always coinciding with the rebirth of the earth every springtime, once again the explosion of life, and so carried out with orgies and fertility rites. Hence, the bunnies and eggs which clearly have nothing to do with Jesus. Then along come the church fathers much later, hoping to hijack and redirect an already-wildly popular holiday by pasting a Christian label on it!

    Witnesses seem to never tire of revealing the unsavory roots of holidays such a Christmas, Halloween, and Easter. My response is to say, ‘Give it a rest already. Nobody cares. If people haven’t given them up by now, they’re not going to.’ It’s like what my brother, who is vaccinated against Covid-19 but drew the line at the frequent boosters, said about the State’s incessant vaccine ads; ‘Sheesh! You’d think they’d realize that if people haven’t gotten it by now, they’re not going to.’

    But, in this case, those Witnesses are right on the money and I am wrong. Transgender Visibility Day (as though they were invisible before) is no more than the holiday reverting closer to its origin. I mean, there have been people misgendered at birth. Occasionally, sexual organs are not distinct. Yet, we all know that when small children are queried at school or the pediatricians office as to whether they are really a boy or a girl (as happened with a young mother in our congregation)—question that perhaps they were ‘assigned’ the wrong sex—something is seriously out of whack.

    As to the rededication of the day to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, good as it is, Jesus never said to celebrate it. Same with his birth. It’s a good thing, plainly, but Jesus never said to celebrate it. Churches celebrate both. The one event Christ did say to celebrate, the commemoration of his death, they do not do—at least not in the way we typical celebrate great events, as an annual occurrence. Instead, they attach a level of mystery to it and do it routinely so that nobody knows just what it is they are doing. I mean, the Lord’s evening meal, the first memorial of his death, was held on Passover night, Jesus giving it new significance. You would think that fact would dictate how often the Memorial was to be celebrated. “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” Paul says. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

     

    *******  The bookstore

     

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of March 17, 2024. Psalm 19 and the Origin of Simony

    Psalm 19 was the one to focus on this week. 20 and 21 were also included in the week’s assigned material. They’re fine, but 19 is where its at.

    You can almost divide the psalm into two parts: 1-6 is of Jehovah’s created works: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God.” 7-14 is how He turns his attention toward humans, putting those works at his disposal. It is almost like a ‘What is mortal man that you keep him in mind?’ (Psalm 8, also of David) scenario.

    For example, (vs 6) “It [the sun] emerges from one end of the heavens, And it circles to their other end; And nothing is concealed from its heat.” A pinhead sized piece of it—you’d still have to stand 90 miles away so as not to fry, the speaker said. And then, He uses that power, that nothing can be concealed from, to examine humans—don’t think you can keep any secrets from him. But his purpose is not to grill anyone—give them the third degree. It is to benefit with laws and reminders far beyond what they might come up with on their own—as though providing an owner’s manual for the product that is us:

    “The commandment of Jehovah is clean, making the eyes shine. The fear of Jehovah is pure, lasting forever. The judgments of Jehovah are true, altogether righteous. They are more desirable than gold, Than much fine gold, And sweeter than honey, the honey that drips from the combs. By them your servant has been warned; In keeping them, there is a large reward.” (8-11)

    Back up to 3-4 about the heavens which “night after night declare knowledge:’ “There is no speech, and there are no words; Their voice is not heard. But into all the earth their sound has gone out,” How can one not like the imagery of Psalm 19? “The skies above proclaim the work of his hands.”

    Speaking of imagery, get a load of this one, depicting the power of the rising sun: “It is like a bridegroom emerging from the bridal chamber.” Anyone recall how that guy feels?

    Then, there was the study from the Book of Acts. This week the focus was on Simon, the sorcerer who tried to buy the miraculous gifts that turned out to be free to people of right heart: 

    “Now when Simon saw that the spirit was given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money, saying: “Give me this authority also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive holy spirit.” But Peter said to him: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire the free gift of God with money. You have neither part nor share in this matter, for your heart is not straight in the sight of God. So repent of this badness of yours, and supplicate Jehovah that, if possible, the wicked intention of your heart may be forgiven you; for I see you are a bitter poison and a slave of unrighteousness.” In answer Simon said to them: “Make supplication for me to Jehovah that none of the things you have said may come upon me.” (Acts 8: 18-24)

    The conductor, a man of kindness and empathy, spoke of how sometimes you have to give counsel, “even when it is difficult.” I dunno—it doesn’t look like Peter found it all that difficult. He roasted the fellow!

    There was a paragraph that pointed out how Simon has become a word, simony, stemming from this account—trying to buy ecclesiastical things with money. My remark was that the account reminded me of the saying, ‘Don’t ever say a person is worthless. They can always be used as a bad example.’ Not that Simon was a worthless—he turned out okay, but there was a moment . . . I mean, his recovery wasn’t a slam dunk. Supplicate Jehovah that, if possible, this sin may be forgiven you, Peter said. 

    In a way, he got what he wanted. Had he succeeded in buying miraculous gifts, he would have been one one many and nobody would recall him today. But because he flirted with being ‘worthless,’ he got a word named after him and thus lives on forever!

    The conductor ended up saying how he wasn’t a bad man; his thinking just got screwy and had to be corrected. It happens today. There will be brothers who aren’t bad people, but their thinking gets askew over this point or that and must be readjusted.  The conductor is a good guy.

    Then, there was that 3-minute part assigned to me on inviting someone to the Memorial. This I already wrote about here.

     

    ****  The bookstore

  • My Meeting Notes: Week of 3/10/24–Psalm 18

    Just one psalm for the weekly Bible reading this week. 18. It is longer than most. Following are a few aspects commented on: 

    First, the visual: “flash floods of worthless men” (Psalm 18:4) Imagine getting caught up in one of them! David, the psalmist, was, and it “terrified” him. It would me, too.

    He was also worried about “the faultfinding of the people.” (vs 43) He had to be rescued from it.   They are bad news, always with ‘You didn’t do this right! You didn’t do that right! Why isn’t this such-and-such? What about . .  Sheesh.

    Then there is that long visual of Jehovah “bending the heavens” to descend and save the day, with “thick gloom was beneath his feet.” (vs 9) You science brothers can be forgiven for thinking of Einstein, who also bends heavens.

    Those “flash floods of worthless men” have been encircling the loyal ones with whom God himself will act loyally (vs 25), to deliver from “ropes of death, (vs 4) “ropes of the Grave,” and “snares of death.” They call to Jehovah and he heeds them.

    It’s all but target practice then. Thick gloom is beneath his feet as he descends, but he lights it up with “his lightning” to throw “them into confusion.” (vs 14) Things covered are uncovered: “The streambeds became visible; The foundations of the land were exposed by your rebuke. (vs 15) Things (like the psalmist) in danger of being covered over are uncovered: “He reached down from on high; He took hold of me and pulled me from deep waters,” like pulling a Floridian from Hurricane Ian. (the storm that destroyed Ft Myers Beach, where my relatives had a time share and we used to visit from time to time.)

    Upon which, the psalmist is thankful. Would you not be too? “[Jehovah] rescues me from my angry enemies; You lift me high above those who attack me; You save me from the man of violence. That is why I will glorify you among the nations, O Jehovah, And to your name I will sing praises.” (48-49)

    Only a minority of translations render Psalm 18:4 as “flash floods of worthless men.” Most don’t add any human element at all—a common rendering is “torrents of destruction.” But the fact that some do suggests to me that the ones that don’t are chickening out. Maybe they succumb to the modern trend that it’s okay to judge actions but not people, like the psalmist seems to do—so they soften it. “Rivers of wickedness” is a common choice, as though rivers themselves can be wicked.

    Floods “of ungodliness” or of “ungodly men” is the better choice of some. It’s like the Watchtower’s explanation that “the knowledge of Jehovah” being widespread throughout the earth is something that does not affect zebras and bears. Rather, it is a reference of humans who once lived as animals. While the Isaiah 11 prophesy of “the lion shall lay down with the lamb” may well find fulfillment in animals getting along, the real fulfillment lies in how persons who once ripped and devoured each other like wild beasts will no longer do so.

    Similarly, waves don’t get ungodly all by themselves, but waves “of the worthless” (YLT) do.

    ***five of the Biblegateway translations had significantly different readings. NABRE is an example, which renders 18:4 as: ”Praised be the Lord, I exclaim! I have been delivered from my enemies.” There’s a note somewhere that it is a Masoritic correction. I have to research it further. It does have in common with the others that the trouble is with humans—enemies—and not just with some vague ‘forces of destruction,’ or ‘perdition’ as some translations say. 

    ***

    Then there was the Watchtower Study article, “Conquer fear by trusting in Jehovah.” (January 2024 issue) At first glance, it doesn’t look like much. It’s like a recipe, that doesn’t look like much just to see it in print. But when you cook it, that is a different thing. The study itself at the Kingdom Hall amounts to “cooking it.” Most study articles are not designed to stand alone—they must be “cooked” with audience participation. 

    Reference was made (paragraph 14) to a 2014 regional convention  which “depicted how we might meditate on our hope. A father discussed with his family how 2 Timothy 3:1-5 might be worded differently if those verses foretold what it would be like in Paradise: “In the new world the happiest of times will be here. For men will be lovers of others, lovers of spiritual treasures, modest, humble, praisers of God, obedient to parents, thankful, loyal, having great affection for their families, open to agreement, always speaking well of others, self-controlled, mild, lovers of goodness, trustworthy, yielding, lowly in mind, lovers of God rather than lovers of pleasures, motivated by genuine godly devotion; and to these people stick closely.” 

    Reversing the 19 negative attributes of 2 Timothy 3:1-5. I had not thought of that. But I raised my hand to comment that, for the most part, that reversal characterized the brotherhood today. It’s not flawless, people fall short, are imperfect, but in the main it is that way. That’s why they call it a “spiritual paradise.”

     

    ******  The bookstore