*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

April 22, 2026 – And no, it wasn’t Jethro Bodine from the TV show “Beverly Hillbillies” who invented the idea of a Supreme Court. And it wasn’t Jethro Tull either. (The British rock band formed in Blackpool, Lancashire in 1967.) Instead, it was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, as detailed in the Daily Office readings for last Monday, April 20. But first, a note.

The last post told how this Blog‘s name came from the Daily Office Readings. (The set of readings by which you can read the whole Bible in two years, and the Psalms and Gospels three to four times.) But that post also noted that in recent years I’ve written mostly about Feast Days, those days set aside to remember people and things “important in the life of the Church.” Then came the part, “Until yesterday.” Meaning the DOR Old Testament reading for Saturday, April 18, was Exodus 17, about Moses at the Battle of Rephidim. Which meant for the first time in a long time I did a post about a Daily Office reading, instead of a Feast Day.

Anyway, Exodus 17 details how Moses became the first guy in history to say, “It’s only weird if it doesn’t work.” So again, I broke the pattern and wrote about a “DOR” for the first time in years. Then it happened again on Monday, April 20. The DOR OT reading was Exodus 18:13-27, and it talked about how Jethro invent[ed] the supreme court. The link refers to a post I did back in May 2014, so figured it was time to revisit, and once again be a “DOR Scribe.”

But first a bit of background.

For starters, Moses had been a Prince of Egypt for the first 40 years of his life, before he killed the overseer who was beating an Israelite slave. Then he had to hightail it out of Egypt after: 1) learning that he was not a prince of Egypt, as he’d been led to believe all his life, 2) learning that he was actually a member of Hebrew people, who were then slaves in Egypt, and 3) after killing that Egyptian overlord. He ended up in Midian, somewhere in the deserts of the Sinai on the Arabian Peninsula. That’s where he met Jethro, a priest of Midian in his own right, and here Moses married Jethro’s daughter Zipporah.

But in the fullness of time Moses went back to Egypt after a ten-year exile. Then eventually – after persuasions including the Ten Plagues – he got the Pharaoh to “let my people go.” In Exodus 18, the Children of Israel are still wandering in wilderness before getting to The Promised Land. (After incidents of God providing water-from-the-rock at Massah and/or Meribah, and manna and quail to eat.) Then Moses – upon his return to the land of Midian – “told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardship that had beset them on the way, and how the Lord had delivered them.” In plain words, Jethro welcomed his son-in-law back to Midian with open arms.

Then, in last Monday’s reading, Jethro watched as Moses tried to settle all the disputes coming up as the Children of Israel were still wandering (near Midian, with tempers no doubt getting extremely short). And he could see that Moses was wearing himself out in the process. In today’s lingo, Moses was suffering burnout, referring to “someone who has become very physically and emotionally tired after doing a difficult job for a long time.” So, Jethro told Moses:

“What you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these people with you. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone.”

He advised Moses to appoint officers – in effect, lower-court judges – to settle the easier cases after teaching them the basic tenets of the law. (The law that was even then evolving in the wilderness, either as conditions dictated or as Moses had the law revealed to him by God, or perhaps a combination of both.) The passage continues: “Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you:”

“So Moses listened to his father-in-law and . . . chose able men from all Israel and appointed them as heads over the people, as officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.  And they judged the people at all times; hard cases they brought to Moses, but any minor case they decided themselves.”

In other words, Jethro advised Moses on the idea of delegating authority. And that is the basic idea behind the Supreme Court of the United States, as set out in Article III, section 1 of the Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court – like Moses – was designed to deal with “hard cases,” leaving minor cases for lower courts. Which brings up the question of judicial interpretation. How does our Supreme Court interpret the Constitution, and for that matter: “How do we as Christians interpret the Bible as we read it from day to day?”

Some think of the as Bible “frozen in time.” Others think of it as a living breathing document whose story continues “even to this day.” Put another way: Is the Bible “grand and eternal” because it provides us with an anchor in a sea of shifting values? Or is the Bible great because of its flexibility and ambiguity, which to some people attests to its ability to “grow and progress” along with society’s evolving sense of justice?

Put yet another way, does the Bible provide us with a set of “rock-ribbed rules” that must be followed every single day, on pain of suffering hellfire-and-damnation? Or does the Bible provide a set of general principles that provide guidance from the past, and which should be adapted to the challenges of the present? Or put simply, does the Bible inspire fear, or hope?

I asked those questions back in the original 2014 post but ended it with this: That’s a subject for future posts. So, this is a future post, and since 2014 I’ve added the “four main themes” paragraph above, which I suppose answers the question, at least partly. Then too I’ve re-discovered Romans 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” No ifs, ands or buts. Case closed. And if I took 11 years to resolve that issue, “I’m not the only one slow to answer those hard questions!”

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of biblepics … Bible AI Chat and Inspiring Images. Captions: “Exodus 18 Jethro Visits Moses in the Wilderness.” Also, “Moses‘ father-in-law Jethro visits him and advises him to appoint leaders to help him govern the Israelites.” See also Jethro (biblical figure) – Wikipedia, which includes a painting, “Detail from Jethro advising Moses by Jan Gerritsz van Bronckhorst, 1659.” (And just as an aside, the Bronckhorst link added that “Unlike his work for churches, his secular paintings show the influence of Caravaggio, and also show a striking appeal to sensuality.”) For the full painting see Jethro advising Moses – Artvee, and compare it with the “detail” in Wikipedia.

The Book of Common Prayer reference: The “corporate-mystical” prayer is on page 339, the post-communion prayer for Holy Eucharist, Rite I.

Feast days are designated days on the liturgical (church) calendar “set aside to commemorate events, saints, or doctrines that are important in the life of the Church. These can range from Solemnities, which are the highest-ranking feast days like Easter and Christmas, to optional memorials that celebrate lesser-known saints.” Feast Days … the Church’s Calendar. See also Wikipedia’s Calendar of saints. “The calendar of saints is the traditional Christian method of organizing a liturgical year by associating each day with one or more saints and referring to the day as the feast day or feast of said saint. The word ‘feast’ in this context does not mean ‘a large meal, typically a celebratory one,’ but instead ‘an annual religious celebration, a day dedicated to a particular saint.’”

The Book of Common Prayer, at page 934, explains that the Daily Office Lectionary is arranged in a two-year cycle, meaning that if you read the Daily Office on a daily basis you will cover the entire Bible in those two years, and the Psalms and Gospels three to four times. See also Daily Office (Anglican) – Wikipedia. See also Daily Office (Anglican) – Wikipedia.

The full Daily Office readings for Monday, April 20, 2026: “AM Psalm 25; PM Psalm 9, 15; Exod. 18:13-27; 1 Pet. 5:1-14;” and Matthew (1:1-17),3:1-6. See also The Lectionary – Satucket.

Re: Jethro inventing the supreme court, from May 2014. I went back and tried to correct it – dress it up a bit – but the interested reader can see the difference between posts then and now. Like those two “disappearing images” in the middle, one long and skinny as a bean pole. See also Life of Moses Timeline! – Bible Study, on his being 40 years oldwhen he whacked that Egyptian.

The lower image is courtesy of Images. “Judicial interpretation images.)

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

Sunday, April 19, 2026 – I came up with the name for this this blog by adding “scribe” to the acronym DOR. (It stands for Daily Office Readings.) But over the years I’ve focused mainly on Feast Days, those days “set aside to commemorate events, saints, or doctrines that are important in the life of the Church.” Until yesterday. That’s when I again came across Exodus 17.

Verses 1-7 talk about the “Water from the Rock” episode. It came right after Moses said, “they are almost ready to stone me.” (The Israelites, just freed from slavery, were very thirsty.) So, at God’s command Moses struck the Rock and water came miraculously flowing out. But verses 8-16 talk about an event – Amalekites Defeated – that most Bible-readers don’t know about. The part about how Moses was the first to ever say, “it’s only weird if it doesn’t work.”

There’s more on that later, but first a word about the next major Feast Day, for St. Mark coming up next Saturday, April 25. It offers a classic “Cinderella story,” a tale of overcoming a flood of disrespect and on to eventual exoneration and triumph. For one thing, early Church Fathers put Matthew before Mark, assuming his account was first. For another, St. Augustine called Mark “the drudge and condenser” of Matthew, a view that prevailed until scholars finally noticed something. Other Gospels all quoted Mark, but “he does not do the same for them.” As a result – and explained later this week – Mark became “the most studied and influential Gospel.”)

Back to Moses and the Battle of Rephidim. The gist of it – at Exodus 17:8-16 – was how Moses “helped his team win.” The trouble started when the Amalekites launched a sneak attack – not unlike Pearl Harbor – on the Israelites. (They’d just arrived at Rephidim near Mount Sinai.) While Joshua commanded the army, Moses and two buddies went up to the top of a hill to watch:

Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Am′alek prevailed. But Moses’ hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Put bluntly, Moses and his “team” started winning when he held his arms up but losing when he let his arms down. (Which sounds a bit like a sports fan today.) But suppose as he did this his wife Zipporah came up the mountain and said, “Moses, you look ridiculous. Do you honestly think holding your hands up like that is going to change the outcome of the battle?”

Short answer? The world as we know it would be much different. If nothing else, if the Amalekites had won, world history would be “worse, much worse.” Moses might never have had the chance to write – or at least finish – the first five books of the Bible, that “most influential, most published, most widely read book in the history of the world.” All of which brings up that famous – or infamous, to some – Bud Light commercial, shown in the image below.

“It’s only weird if it doesn’t work.” And notwithstanding what Zipporah might have said, Moses holding his arms up during the Battle of Rephidim did in fact “work.” But of course, there are opposing views, exemplified by True American Stories: It’s Weird Even If It Works:

Beer companies are notorious for using logical fallacy in their commercials, and Bud Light tried to exploit the superstition… The commercial focuses on football fans doing outlandish rituals that supposedly help their teams win. [It] takes advantage of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which falsely attributes a result to an action after the fact… Bud Light ends their commercial with the line, “It’s only weird if it doesn’t work.” This sentence is a strong example of the post hoc fallacy.

Of course, a devout Christian might say, “Hey pal, tell that to Moses!” Or, “Okay, granted, it was weird. But it did work.” Then there’s the early Christian author Tertullian, who once famously said – of the Christian faith in general – Credo quia absurdum, “I believe because it is absurd.”

Sometimes you just have to go with your heart – and believe.

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Battle of Refidim – Wikipedia. The caption: “John Everett Millais, ‘Victory O Lord!‘ (1871).”

The Book of Common Prayer reference: The “corporate-mystical” prayer is on page 339, the post-communion prayer for Holy Eucharist, Rite I.

Feast days are designated days on the liturgical (church) calendar “set aside to commemorate events, saints, or doctrines that are important in the life of the Church. These can range from Solemnities, which are the highest-ranking feast days like Easter and Christmas, to optional memorials that celebrate lesser-known saints.” Feast Days … the Church’s Calendar. See also Wikipedia’s Calendar of saints. “The calendar of saints is the traditional Christian method of organizing a liturgical year by associating each day with one or more saints and referring to the day as the feast day or feast of said saint. The word ‘feast’ in this context does not mean ‘a large meal, typically a celebratory one,’ but instead ‘an annual religious celebration, a day dedicated to a particular saint.’”

The Book of Common Prayer, at page 934, explains that the Daily Office Lectionary is arranged in a two-year cycle, meaning that if you read the Daily Office on a daily basis you will cover the entire Bible in those two years, and the Psalms and Gospels three to four times. See also Daily Office (Anglican) – Wikipedia. See also Daily Office (Anglican) – Wikipedia.

The full Daily Office readings for Saturday, April 18, 2026, are Psalm 16, 17; PM Psalm 134, 135 Exodus 16:23-36; 1 Peter 3:13-4:6, and John 16:1-15.

Re: “I again came across Exodus 17.” I learned about the Battle of Rephidim from a separate source. But before Saturday, April 18, I don’t remember coming across it in the Daily Office.

Re: Moses striking the Rock. The link – Moses Strikes the Rock in Exodus and Numbers: One Story or Two? – said his doing so was “described in the Torah twice: first soon after the splitting of the Sea (Exod 17:1–7), and again at the end of the forty years of wandering in the wilderness (Num 20:1–13).”

For this post I reviewed 2017’s Moses at Rephidim: “What if?” Also, from 2020’s An unintended consequence – and ‘Victory O Lord!” I also reviewed various links contained in those posts.

See Post hoc ergo propter hoc – Wikipedia, on the “logical error that assumes causation based on temporal succession.”

The lower image is courtesy of Bud Light It’s Only Weird If It Doesn’t Work Image – Image Results. See also Superstitions (advertising campaign) – Wikipedia.

*   *   *   *

 

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

Welcome to “read the Bible – expand your mind:”

The Book of Common Prayer says that by taking part in Holy Communion, Christians become “very members incorporate in the mystical body” of Jesus. The words “corporate” and “mystical” are key. They show that a healthy church has two sides, with the often-overlooked “mystic” side asking the question, “How do I experience God?” This blog tries to answer that.

It has four main themes. The first is that God will accept anyone. (John 6:37.) The second is that God wants us to live lives of abundance.(John 10:10.) The third is that Jesus wants us to read the Bible with an open mind. (As Luke 24:45 says: “Then He [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”) The fourth theme – another one often overlooked – is that Jesus wants us to do even greater miracles than He did. (John 14:12.) 

And this thought ties them together:

The best way to live abundantly and do greater miracles than Jesus is: Read, study and apply the Bible with an open mind. For more see the notes or – to expand your mind – see the Intro.

In the meantime:

March 12, 2026 – The last post talked about contemplation as a Lenten discipline. (As opposed to giving up things like rye whisky and two-dollar cigars.) In a religious context, contemplation “seeks a direct awareness of the divine which transcends the intellect, often in accordance with religious practices such as meditation or prayer.” And over the past week or so I’ve been contemplating some unexpected things, based on recent readings from the Daily Office.

For example, the Daily Office New Testament reading for Thursday, March 5, was 1st Corinthians 6:12-20. It included verse 19. That’s where Paul warned, “Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.” Which brought back a memory from my early teen years.

Specifically, a memory from a church youth-group weekend when I was 14, in 1965. One of the adults was giving a lecture to us boys and cited that passage.

We all knew what he meant.

It was pretty much the same message set out in the 1986 Georgia Satellites song, “No huggee no kissee, keep yo’ hands to yourself.” Though that song came much later, I got the same message again in 1968 when I was 17. In a different setting, at the Forest Home Christian Camp. I was there for a three-week Youth Corps session, headed by Coach Ben. And he cited a similar passage, imaginary but telling, Hezekiak 3:19: “Keep it in your knickers.”

Which I suppose old folk have been telling teen boys since the beginning of time. (Talk about raging hormonal influence.) So, what the heck was I contemplating when I started?

For one thing, the meaning of the word. In Christianity it means having a “content-free mind directed towards the awareness of God as a living reality.” Other definitions include reflection, thoughtful observation, or “long hard thinking about something.” Turning to Islam, the prophet Muhammed was said to climb a mountain, there to “contemplate life and its meaning.”

Which I suppose could include: “Is it wise to return to your youth, to go back in time and maybe get a chance to fix past mistakes – and even make better choices?” In other words, a do over?

There was a time in the past when I really wanted to do just that. Dark days when I felt abandoned by God and wanted desperately to wake up the next morning, ready to go to school at Largo Junior High. I’d be so smart. I’d be able to predict the future. That is, I’d only want to go back in time if I could know then what I know now. But would it work that way?

That led me to contemplate what I would say back then if I knew – at 14 or 17 – what I know now. More on that later, but the raging hormone link addressed an age-old question: “In every generation, it seems, the same lament goes forth from the parents of adolescents: ‘What’s the matter with kids today?’ Why are they so often confused, annoying, demanding, moody, defiant, reckless?” For one thing – for us guys – the “production of testosterone increases 10 times in adolescent boys.” One result? “The hormonally regulated 24-hour clocks change their settings during adolescence, keeping high school and college students awake far into the night and making it difficult to rise for morning classes.” So, first question: If I could go back to age 14 would that mean I’d have 10 times the testosterone I have now?

Actually, right now I’m pretty laid-back and mellow, and I like it that way. And I’m happy with the life I have now. (At least three times a day, starting with when I’m driving up to get my morning iced coffee, I blurt out, “Thank you Jesus!”) Heck, I’m even thinking I might make it to 120 like Moses, with “eye undimmed and vigor unabated.” Why would I want to risk screwing that up?

But back to what led me to contemplate what I would say back in 1965 about 1st Corinthians 6, verse 19. If I knew then what I know now, I might answer, “Well, yeah, but isn’t a temple specifically designed to be worshiped and adored? And eventually entered?” That question would have gotten me into a world of trouble. If nothing else the lecturing adult would have passed on my smart-ass remark his boss, and in turn to my parents, not to mention the priest at my church. And I would no doubt have been the talk of the town, but not in the good way.

Then there was that coach at the 1968 Youth Corps camp, the one who cited Hezekiah 3:19, “Keep it in your knickers.” (Or Keep It in Your Pants – Slang Meaning & Examples – FastSlang.) Back then I didn’t know Hezekiah from Adam, but now – through a quick online search – I can see that while there was a Hezekiah in the Bible, he didn’t write a book. (Back then I couldn’t quick-cite Is Hezekiah a book in the Bible? – Answers.)

So, all things considered, this Lenten contemplation has taught me – once and for all – that I definitely don’t want to go back in time and ask a lot of smart-alecky questions. (At the same time, it’s given me some empathy for young folk today asking those smart-alecky questions. It’s all those hormones!) As for me, I’d get into a world of trouble, asking things like “Isn’t a temple supposed to be entered?” And with telling my classmates about the future: Things like that one day they wouldn’t carry cash. They’d pay for groceries with little plastic things smaller than an index card. And maybe about all those assassinations, and 9/11, and that one day we’d elect an actor – Ronald Reagan – as president? (And that years later it would get worse?) I probably would have been burned at the stake when those things started coming true. No thanks!

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Hezekiah – Wikipedia

The Book of Common Prayer reference: The “corporate-mystical” prayer is on page 339, the post-communion prayer for Holy Eucharist, Rite I.

Feast days are designated days on the liturgical (church) calendar “set aside to commemorate events, saints, or doctrines that are important in the life of the Church. These can range from Solemnities, which are the highest-ranking feast days like Easter and Christmas, to optional memorials that celebrate lesser-known saints.” Feast Days: Celebrating the Church’s Calendar.

Re: Live to120. See the post, From two years ago – “Will I live to 141?”

For an interesting take, see 2014’s On Jesus as a teenager, and 2016’s Jesus as a teenager – REDUX. And for my own benefit, a nod back to what George Will said about writing a column, or a blog post? Basically, he said – as I recall – that a columnist needs three seductive skills: “be pleasurable, be concise, and be gifted at changing the subject frequently.”

The lower image is courtesy of Back To The Future Ronald Reagan President – Image Results.

*   *   *   *

As noted in the opening blurb, this blog has four main themes. The first is that God will accept anyone. (See John 6:37, with the added, “Anyone who comes to Him.”) This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. From the Old Testament, Psalm 9:10, “You never forsake those who seek you, O Lord.” (In the Book of Common Prayer version.) The second is that God wants us to live abundantly.  (John 10:10.) The third is that we should do greater miracles than Jesus. (John 14:12). A fourth theme: The only way to do all that is read the Bible with an open mind:

…closed-mindedness, or an unwillingness to consider new ideas, can result from the brain’s natural dislike for ambiguity. According to this view, the brain has a “search and destroy” relationship with ambiguity and evidence contradictory to people’s current beliefs tends to make them uncomfortable… Research confirms that belief-discrepant-closed-minded persons have less tolerance for cognitive inconsistency…

So in plain words, I take issue with what I call “Christian first graders.” Those who choose to stay in a kind of elementary-school first grade. See John the Baptist, ’24 – and “Christian First Graders,” for more. But the key point: “The Bible was designed to expand your mind,” not make it narrow. Also, there’s the idea that “Jesus was anything but negative. His goal was for you to grow and develop into all that you can be.” (For more on that see ABOUT THE BLOG, above.)

I’ve written on boot-camp Christians, the Literalists who never go “beyond the fundamentals.” But the Bible offers so much more than a narrow reading gives… (Unless you want to stay a buck private all your life…) Now, about “Boot-camp Christians” see Conservative Christian – “Career buck private?” The gist of that post: Starting the Bible is like Army Basic Training. You begin by“learning the fundamentals.” But after boot camp, you move on to Advanced Individual Training.” 

And as noted in “Buck private,” one of this blog’s themes is that if you want to be all that you can be, you need to go on and explore the “mystical side of Bible reading.*” In other words, exploring the mystical side of the Bible helps you “be all that you can be.” See Slogans of the U.S. Army – Wikipedia, re: the recruiting slogan from 1980 to 2001. The related image at left is courtesy of: “toywonders.com/productcart/pc/catalog/aw30.jpg.”

Re: “mystical.” Originally the “liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity.” Mysticism – Wikipedia, and the post On originalism.  (“What the Bible was originally about!”) See also Christian mysticism – Wikipedia, “In early Christianity the term ‘mystikos’ referred to three dimensions, which soon became intertwined, namely the biblical, the liturgical and the spiritual or contemplative… The third dimension is the contemplative or experiential knowledge of God.” As to that “experiential” aspect, see also Wesleyan Quadrilateral – Wikipedia, on the theological reflection method using four sources of spiritual development: scripture, tradition, reason, and “Christian experience.”

For an explanation of the Daily Office – where “Dorscribe” came from – see What’s a DOR?

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The best way to live abundantly and do greater miracles than Jesus is: To read, study and apply the Bible with an open mind. For more see the notes or – to expand your mind – see the Intro.

In the meantime:

Here’s a short version. The Book of Jonah “ain’t about no stinkin’ whale!” The Moral of the Story is that God loves everyone. (“Even – gasp – liberals?”) In other words, it’s about how God’s love is universal. Or to repeat the lesson of John 6:37, God will accept anyone. (Who turns to Him…)

I mention this because starting last Tuesday – October 13, 2020 – the Daily Office Old Testament readings came from the Book of Jonah. (The readings ended – appropriately – three days later on Thursday, October 15.) Briefly, the book “tells of a Hebrew prophet named Jonah … sent by God to prophesy the destruction of Nineveh but tries to escape the divine mission.”

Which leads to the whale.

As noted in previous posts, the real message of Jonah is this:  “God’s love is universal… It ain’t about no ^%$## whale!!!” I wrote that in the January 2015 post, Jonah and the bra-burners. The “bra burner” part referred to the 1968 Miss America protest. That’s where some feminist protesters allegedly “burned their bras” as a way of getting attention for their cause. But see also Feminism Has a Bra-Burning Myth Problem:

The way we remember the Miss America Pageant protest in 1968 in Atlantic City, New Jersey is a good example.* There is no statue on the Atlantic City Boardwalk to commemorate an important protest about standards of beauty for women and a contest tied into capitalism, war, and race.  Instead, our cultural touchstone from that day is the negative and trite association of feminists as “bra-burners.”

In other words, before the event one of the organizers thought that such a form of protest “might be a good way to launch the movement into the public consciousness.” The effort succeeded, but the success turned out to be a “blessing and a curse.” 

First, organizers asked police officials for a permit to burn such items as bras – and also girdles, cookware and Playboy magazines. City officials refused the request, so the protesters threw the offending items into a garbage can. But a New York Post report “included a reference to bra burning as a way to link the movement to war protesters burning draft cards.” As one organizer later noted, “The media picked up on the bra part.” (That darned Liberal Media!)

Which is pretty much what happened to the story of Jonah:

My point was that the “attention-getter” in Jonah – the whale – got in the way of the real message. So the Book of Jonah was just like the “bra-burners” at the 1968 Miss America pageant, where that real message got lost too.  The real message of Jonah is:  God’s love is universal…   (It ain’t about no ^%$## whale!!!)

That’s the problem with an attention-getter. Like burning bras, or using a whale as a minor but memorable detail in a parable. Sometimes the attention-getter gets in the way of the real message. In the case of the Book of Jonah, ever since it came out too many Bible-readers have “picked up on the whale part.” And ended up ignoring the real message behind the book. 

The real message came in Jonah 4:11, after Jonah finally did what God wanted: Go to Nineveh and “prophesy its destruction.” It was the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Israel’s long-time arch-enemy and greatest tormenter. So Jonah went and proclaimed God’s message, but to his dismay, city residents from the king on down “repented their sins.”

And as a result of that, God repented of His plan to destroy the city.

Which made Jonah very angry, “angry enough to die.” He left the city and watched from afar, hoping God would still destroy it. But he got even madder, “enough to die.” Not only did God not destroy Nineveh; He killed a plant that shaded Jonah from fierce sun and burning wind.

That’s when God chastised him, saying, “You feel sorry about the plant, though you did nothing to put it there. It came quickly and died quickly. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” On which note see also Was “Abraham” a pimp?

In that post I pointed out the error of reading the Bible too literally. That’s because the Bible is about real people, facing real problems, not a bunch of superheroes who are so much better than us. Like Abraham, who “was not some ‘goody two-shoes’ bent on preserving his ‘virtue.’” And notice how God changed the names of both Abraham (Abram) and his wife Sarah (Sarai). The point of that metaphor is that “with a true Christian – a real Christian, not a too-conservative ‘Pharisee’ – God changes people.” 

It’s all about change, and being transformed. And you won’t be able to go through that “life-changing” – like Jacob into Israel – if you’re too conservative. In Jonah’s case he was not only “conservative” but also pretty vindictive. (Like most of us are from time to time.) Or maybe he was just an example of “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

In the meantime, go ahead and “preach to the Ninevites.” They might just listen…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy Wikipedia on the Book of Jonah, as is the lower image. The upper caption: “‘Jonah and the Whale’ (1621) by Pieter Lastman.”

The full readings for Tuesday, October 13, were: Psalm 5, 6; and Psalm 10, 11, Jonah 1:1-17a; Acts 26:24-27:8; and Luke 8:40-56. The readings from Jonah, from the following Wednesday and Thursday, were Jonah 1:17-2:10 and Jonah 3:1-4:11.

The “stinking whale” quote came from Was “Abraham” a pimp? In that January 2019 post I paraphrased the point of Jonah and the bra-burners.

The “good example” part referred to “our conflicted feelings about women as major players in American history.” The full sentence in the Myth Problem article: “I think our failure to honor the movement is rooted in our conflicted feelings about women as major players in American history.”