Whom are We Goring?

In Exo. 21:28-32, the Israelite law gives some stipulations about what to do when an ox "gores" a human being to death. According to the text, if it is a first time occurrence, then only the ox is to be put to death. However, if the ox has a habit of attacking people that the owner is aware of, then the owner is also to be killed if that ox gores a person to death.

It is interesting that the law codes of Hammurabi also contain passages about ox gorings. Apparently people must have enjoyed taunting oxen or something for this to be a common enough problem to write laws about it. But, nonetheless, when we compare the Exodus text with Hammurabi's laws, it is interesting that the cost to the owner differs. With the Mesopotamian texts, all that is required of an owner is a payment of money to the family of the victim. However, in Exodus, the cost is heightened as it will cost the owner his very life if he acts with negligence. Thus, it might be reasonable to argue here, given the Israelites were probably familiar with other ancient law codes and ethics, that they are also stating something about the character of YHWH. In particular, YHWH very much takes the issue of human life seriously. It is no small matter when a person gets killed. Thus, if the guilty party had prior knowledge that could have prevented the death, it is not something that a payment of money will sufficiently cover. The guilty person's life is required. Thus, God establishes the importance of human life even through a seemingly ordinary rule.

However, as we look at our own lives, I wonder if we face some of the same issues as Israel here. In particular, do we have the same high view of human life, or are we willing to throw away lives when it is convenient for us? In other words, what "oxen" do we use and employ that have a tendency to "gore" others? For example, when we use certain products, such as coffee, do we end up using and supporting "ox" companies that abuse and "gore" employees, particularly those in less fortunate situations. And while perhaps we can be excused based on ignorance like the ox owner whose ox kills a person for the first time, what does it say about us when we do have knowledge of "gorings" and still choose not to act to defend those who are injured in the process? Do we choose our own comfort and convenience over even human life? Do we put up with sweatshops and corruption when it makes our life easier or cheaper? It seems to me that if we worship  the God who places great value on human life and dignity that we cannot make such a choice in good conscience.

Plagues and Cattle

It has long been recognized that the plagues against Egypt seem to work as a polemic against "all the gods of Egypt." For example, YHWH demonstrates his authority over the river and thus over the river gods and goddesses (Hapi, Isis, Khnum, and others). The darkness for 3 days is a clear challenge to Re and Horus. We could keep going through all the plagues and list different gods that YHWH takes on. However, upon reading through the plagues, it was interesting to me how many times cattle seemed to appear in the story:

Ex. 9:3-6: livestock, including cattle, are killed
Ex. 9:19-25- Both livestock and people are struck by hailstones
Ex. 11:5- God promises to kill the firstborn of every household AND "of their cattle as well."

This attention to the Egyptians' cattle is interesting. Perhaps, given the polemical nature of the plagues, this attention is because of the continuing religious climate Israel faced. Within the context of the Exodus, perhaps the writer is trying to draw a clear distinction between Israel and Egypt. Since many of Egypt's gods deal with cattle or bulls in some form (Apis-bull god, Hathor- goddess with cow head, Mnevis-bull god) it makes sense for YHWH to make sure the point that He is greater is communicated. It is the author's way of saying that clearly YHWH is greater than any of these cattle gods, and that is what separates us from Egypt.

Furthermore, throughout the entire ancient near east, bulls were seen as a symbol of fertility and strength. Hence, even outside Egypt there were many such cattle gods and goddesses. In Canaan, both El and Ba'al were sometimes described as a bull. Likewise, in Babylon, the bull was a symbol for their god of fertility and of storms. Thus, this would remain a challenge to YHWH even after the people left Egypt. Indeed, it seems that this was one of the continuing struggles for Israel as they keep trying to mix their religion with these cattle, fertility religions. In fact, even before the book of Exodus if over, they have created a golden calf. Likewise, later in their history the creation of calf idols at Dan and Bethel during Jeroboam I's reign only continues the problem (1 Kgs. 12). Thus, perhaps the continuing judgment against the cattle in the first half is no accident, but is the author's desperate attempt to point out that YHWH, not these other gods of fertility and strength, is the one to be served.

The story of Joseph or of Jacob's sons?

We typically read Genesis 37-50 as the story of Joseph, and for good reason. The majority of these stories deal with the trials Joseph faces as he is sold by his brothers into slavery, goes to Egypt, and eventually becomes 2nd in command in Egypt and is able to save his family. We've heard these stories so many times that we just assume that the focus is on Joseph's life. However, then we read stories like Gen. 38 about Judah and Tamar and wonder why the author/editor would place such an unseemly interruption in the middle of the Joseph narrative. Although there are certainly several reasons for the placement of Gen. 38 (it is interesting that clothing plays a prominent role in the three stories of Gen. 37-39), perhaps the placement is due to the fact that this is not simply the story of Joseph.

All throughout Genesis there have been competitions between siblings for blessing and birthright (Ishmael/Isaac, Jacob/Esau, Cain/Abel). The stories at the end of Genesis are no different. Indeed, perhaps it is better to recognize the ending set of narratives as extending back into Gen. 34 and describe the end of Genesis as a tale about the sons of Jacob. With 12 sons, the competition for the blessing/birthright becomes very complicated and interesting given that the reader is expecting a younger sibling to receive it by this point. And, corresponding with expectations, the three oldest sons quickly disqualify themselves in chapters 34 and 35. The process has begun. Then, the oldest son of Rachel is sold into slavery, leaving only the younger at home. It is good to note that the fourth son, Judah, was instrumental in selling Joseph. He should now be out as well.

However, the author then catches us off guard by returning to Judah. Although we should be moving on to the next sons, the story tells the tale of Judah and Tamar. This story seems to function as a lesson for Judah as he recognizes his own faults and repents, claiming that Tamar is more righteous. We then return to Joseph, and then, again we find Judah in the foreground of the story. When attempting to take Benjamin to Egypt, it is Judah who is willing to make a personal sacrifice for the sake of his father and brother. It seems that Judah's heart has done a 180. It is also interesting that this is the second time that Reuben attempts to preserve the family (saving Joseph and protecting Benjamin) and is foiled. It becomes clear that Reuben is still out.

The climax comes when Jacob blesses his sons. Although he gives the birthright to the sons of Joseph, there is still a blessing to be dealt with. So, Jacob proceeds down the line and is begins as expected. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are out because of their sins. But then comes the surprise, Judah receives the blessing and a promise that he will rule over his brothers. Thus, the story of Israel begins--a story that will continue throughout the rest of the Bible. Therefore, perhaps we need to reexamine the end of Genesis and look at the story of all of Israel and not simply at the story of a single tribe.

The Hubris of Gen. 11

When we read the story of the Tower of Babel, we often speak about the pride that people exhibited in attempting to build a tower "that reaches to heaven." The story is often viewed as an attempt of humanity to storm the gates of heaven and to once again become like God. Indeed, the chiastic structure of the story would seem to support this:

11:1-4- Humanity gathers to build a tower to heaven
11:5- God "comes down" to see the city and the tower
11:6-9- The building up of the humans is ended

This is certainly one way to interpret the hubris exhibited in the story. However, there is also another way of reading the story. In this other interpretation, the hubris is not so much based on a vertical dimension, but rather on a horizontal dimension. In particular, we see in this story a denial of God's verdict to "fill the earth" (1:28; 8:17). In both stories of "creation" (the flood/Noah acts like a recreation story in many respects), God begins the new world with a command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.

In the Babel story, though, people "found a plain in Shinar and settled there" (v. 1), built a city (v. 4), all with the intent that they would "not be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (v. 4). It is particularly interesting, especially given the chiastic structure, that the last claim humans make before God comes down is that they will avoid being scattered. Similarly, it is intriguing that God's solution really does not center around the tower. The closest we come to dealing with the tower in the second half of the story is God's statement that "nothing they plan will be impossible for them." Otherwise, God seems to be dealing with the problem of the people gathering instead of scattering and filling the earth. Indeed, twice, in verses 8 and 9, God's solution is to "scatter them over all the earth."

Given this interpretation, the story is not simply a tale about humanity's sinful desire to become like God. Rather, it highlights the sinful desire to reject God's commands when it proves more comfortable to do so. To the people of Babel, building a city made perfect sense. It could provide security and a better life, allowing them to "make a name" for themselves. Meanwhile, God's command to "fill the earth" was risky and forced them to face the unknown (similar to the call of Abram to go to an undefined land). Nonetheless, this story also stresses God's sovereignty. Despite human rejection of God's command, God's will shall be accomplished one way or another, in this case by the confusing of languages that forced humans to scatter and separate.

Posts for Scriptures I

Hey everyone,

This post is mainly just to signal that the posts after this one (until December) will be for a class (Scriptures I). If you're not in the class, feel free to read them and join the discussion. If you are in the class, just be aware that all the posts before this one do not relate to class material (although you are free to read them as well). Thanks. Hope that helps. Grace and peace!