Category Archives: Daily Office readings

Background and color commentary on highlighted readings from the Daily Office Lectionary

On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part II

A 19th-century example of vigilante justice…

Welcome to DORScribe, a blog about reading the Bible with an open mind.

In other words, this blog is different. (For one thing it includes movie reviews like this to see how “old-timey” Biblical principles can apply to modern culture…)

But mostly this blog says you can get more out of the Bible by reading it with an open mind, and that it was written to liberate people, not shackle them in some kind of “spiritual straitjacket.”

Such ideas run contrary to some common perceptions these days. For example:

I don’t have a problem with God. I have a problem with religion. I’ve chosen to live my life without the certainties of religious faith.

See 10 Questions for Sting – TIME. (But here’s a news flash: “If your religion makes you ‘certain,’ you’re missing the point!” See for example, On a dame and a mystic.)

Sting’s comment gives one example of some common perceptions of Christians today: 1) that too many are close-minded; 2) that too many are way too negative; or 3) that too many Christians think The Faith of the Bible is all about getting you to follow their set of rules, on pain of you “going to hell.” (See my way or the highway – Wiktionary.)

For more on such thoughts see About this Blog, which talks instead about the Three Great Promises of Jesus, to all people, and about how through those promises we can live full, rich lives of spiritual abundance and do greater miracles than Jesus, if only we open our minds…

In the meantime:

We were talking about vigilante justice, as examined in the movie Gone Girl, and in the Biblical example of the Apostle Paul being nearly “lynched” by a group of rioters in Jerusalem. (See On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part I.)

As noted, the Daily Office Readings for Saturday, October 11, included Acts 25:13-27, where Paul made his defense before the Roman governor Festus, along with “Agrippa the king” (who ruled as a puppet of Rome). Again, this all started back when Paul arrived in Jerusalem after this third missionary journey, and got in trouble at the hands of certain “agitatators.”

That is – and as told back in Acts 21:27-32 – some members of the “powers that be” in Jerusalem saw Paul in the Temple accompanied by “infidels,” and totally misconstrued the situation:

They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who … has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place…” The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple… While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

Sound familiar? (I mean, except for the part about soldiers rescuing a person accused of a heinous crime from an angry mob?) And aside from that, there’s a BTW: Paul had followed the law and purified both himself and his “guests” before entering the holy Temple. So “the crowd” got it all wrong but didn’t let a trifling thing like the actual facts get in the way of a good riot.

The upshot was that Paul was arrested and made his defense in several tribunals, including the Sanhedrin, but when the Roman authorities learned that some of the rioters had hatched a plan to kill Paul, they had him taken to Caesarea, where – as noted – he eventually made his defense before Festus and King Agrippa, as told in Acts 25:13-2.

This was after Festus went to Jerusalem to consult Paul’s accusers, but as noted in Acts 25:3, “They requested Festus, as a favor to them, to have Paul transferred to Jerusalem, for they were preparing an ambush to kill him along the way.” But Festus – in a justified abundance of caution – had them come to Caesarea, where he (Festus) brought King Agrippa up to speed:

Festus discussed Paul’s case with the king. He said: “There is a man here whom [former Roman governor] Felix left as a prisoner. When I went to Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and asked that he be condemned. I told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges.”

(Acts 25:14-16, emphasis added) What a concept! Having a person accused of a heinous crime being able to actually face the person accusing him, and be able to present a defense. What will they think of next? (See Sarcasm – Wikipedia, and/or Irony – Wikipedia.)

But seriously, there is cause for concern these days, as explored by the movie Gone Girl. (And yes – in case I’m being too subtle – I am saying that such media frenzies and/or circuses are indeed a form of modern-day vigilantism…)

There’s a reason why we have things like the Sixth Amendment, which is supposed to guarantee that a person accused of a crime can only be convicted after a public trial “by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” See Bill of Rights Institute: Bill of Rights.

And by the way, these aren’t “new-fangled pointy-headed liberal” legal protections. They go back to the Bible times of Paul and beyond. And there’s one big reason for this Biblical protection: In way too many cases “the crowd” – or in today’s case the media – simply gets it all wrong, as shown in the image below. But there’s another big lesson here: the Bible was designed in large part to protect idiots from their own stupidity!

That is, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” But more importantly, He added this, in Matthew 7:2 (NIV): “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

So, if you’re prone to make snap judgments based on incomplete information from sources that aren’t always reliable – like today’s mass media – the chances are good that that’s the same method God will use in judging you. (See also Karma – Wikipedia.)

Now, getting back to the movie being reviewed, Gone Girl:

I don’t want to give away the ironic plot twist or the ending, but here’s a hint:

The upper image is courtesy of Vigilante – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption, “A lynching carried out by the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance of 1856.” The article added:

“Vigilante justice” is rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community… In a number of cases, vigilantism has involved targets with mistaken identities.

The lower image is courtesy Dewey Defeats Truman – Wikipedia: “‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ was a famously incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948, the day after incumbent United States President Harry S. Truman won an upset victory over Republican challenger and Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in the 1948 presidential election.” The full caption: “President-elect Truman holding the infamous issue of the Chicago Tribune, telling the press, ‘That ain’t the way I heard it!’”

As to the subtle difference between a media frenzy and a media circus, see also Media Frenzy Global, a company that apparently specializes in “frenzy manipulation:”

Whether you’re trying to pique interest, incite sales, stir the market, or fan the flames of controversy, one thing is certain – you need to cause a commotion. Of course, you want to remain cool and composed in the midst of the excitement… In other words, you want to harness the media frenzy… We harness the media frenzy by controlling, managing and exploiting the media platforms…

All of which provides an interesting commentary on modern life.

See also Court of public opinion – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; “It has been said that the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case attempted to try the case in the court of public opinion by making unsupported allegations to the media. In the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, it was alleged that parties were using court pleadings as press releases.”

“Gone Girl” movie review and Media Frenzy

Leave a reply

A still from Gone Girl. (Note the “askew”camera angle, symbolizing “media frenzy…”)

The movie Gone Girl explores the modern-day phenomenon of media frenzies, and how they can be manipulated by those apparently being manipulated…

As noted in On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part II, this blog is different for reasons including that it has movie reviews like this one, to see how “old-timey” Biblical principles can apply to modern culture. There’s more on that below, but first let’s begin with this note:

Harry Truman didn’t have much use for the reporters of his day.

“Newspapermen, and they’re all a bunch of lazy cusses, once one of them writes something, the others rewrite it and rewrite it, and they keep right on doing it without ever stopping to find out if the first fellow was telling the truth or not.”

Truman also spoke of plowing a field with a mule as being the “most peaceful thing in the world,” an activity that gave old-time farmers plenty of time for thought. (Guys like Thomas Jefferson…) But – Truman added – “there’s some danger that you may, like the fella said, get kicked in the head by a mule and end up believing everything you read in the papers.”

Some 20 years later the president’s feelings were mirrored by a brash young “AFL” quarterback named Joe Namath. Shortly after Joe signed with the Jets (for a record salary), a wise-guy New York reporter asked what he had majored in, down south at the University of Alabama; “Basket-weaving?” Joe answered, “No man, I majored in journalism. It was easier.”

Then in 2014 along came Gone Girl, a film that expresses pretty much the same feelings about “media frenzies” as Harry Truman and Joe Namath, only more so.

* * * *

Which brings up the point that I – the Scribe – did movie reviews for the student newspaper, back in mid-1970s when I was getting a Bachelor’s degree in Mass Communications. It seemed like a good way to go on and make a living, doing two things that I loved; watching movies and writing about them. But alas, God had other plans for me (that’s my story anyway), and you could say my life that followed had enough twists, turns and betrayals to be made into a movie like Gone Girl. But my point – if I’m being too subtle – is that in the fullness of time, here I am again, writing in a venue (the blog) that didn’t exist back then. Somehow it’s like “coming home.”

(Oh, and did I mention that I went on to get a Master’s degree in Journalism?)

* * * *

So anyway, Wikipedia said that the film Gone Girl “examines dishonesty, the media, the economy’s effects on marriage, and appearances:”

On the day of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick Dunne (Affleck) returns home to find that his wife Amy (Pike), is missing. In the ensuing media frenzy, suspicions arise that Nick murdered her, and his awkward behavior is interpreted as characteristic of a sociopath.

See Gone Girl (film) – Wikipedia (emphasis added). In other words, the character Nick Dunne was tried in and by the media, who found him guilty, as so often happens these days. But as it turned out, the process by which he was tried and convicted was “infected by the politicized, media-enabled ‘cult of victimhood.'” (See the Rothman note below.)

Which in turn brings up the topic of the modern-day media frenzy or media circus:

Media circus is a colloquial metaphor, or idiom, describing a news event where the media coverage is perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered, such as the number of reporters at the scene, the amount of news media published or broadcast, and the level of media hype. The term is meant to critique the media, usually negatively, by comparing it to a circus, and is considered an idiom as opposed to a literal observation. Usage of the term in this sense became common in the 1970s.

See Media circus – Wikipedia. All of which brings up the New Testament reading in the Daily Office for Saturday, October 11, Acts 25:13-27. To bring you up to speed, after Paul arrived in Jerusalem after his third missionary journey, he suffered a “media circus” of his own, as shown below in the work by Gustave Dore. He was arrested and later tried, first in Jerusalem and later in Caesarea, all of which makes for some interesting “compare and contrast.”

For more on that, see “On ‘Gone Girl’ and the Lazy Cusses – Part II.”

The upper image is courtesy of What “Gone Girl” Is Really About, a review in The New Yorker, dated October 8, by Joshua Rothman, which includes this telling tidbit:

[W]e’re fascinated with stories of victimhood – and … especially in tabloid, cable-news culture, we endow victims with specialness, sanctity, and celebrity. “Gone Girl” asks whether genuine expressions of sympathy or solidarity with victims can ever happen without being infected by the politicized, media-enabled “cult of victimhood.”

Rothman’s review compared the movie with “what I heard” about the book version, and concluded that what’s best about the movie is that it “gets at what is unsettling about coupledom [i.e., marriage or “serious relationships”] : our suspicion that, in some fundamental sense, it necessarily entails victimization.” See also Gone Girl (film) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. But as noted herein, Yours Truly thinks that the movie is really about the modern media and its role in contemporary “lynchings,” which to this point have generally been metaphoric.

For other reviews of the movie, see Gone Girl – Rotten Tomatoes.

The lower image is courtesy of Wikimedia and/or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Paul_Addresses_the_Crowd_After_His_Arrest_by_Gustave_Dor%C3%A9.jpg. See also Gustave Doré – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The first quote on reporters is courtesy of Plain Speaking[:] An oral biography of Harry S. Truman, by Merle Miller, Berkley Publishing NY (1973), at page 251. The “field-mule” quote is at page 258.

The Namath quote is courtesy of famous alabama football quotes – Angelfire. See also Joe Namath – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted that when Namath signed with the Jets, the NFL and AFL were separate leagues, engaged in a “bidding war” for college players.

On Hosea and the prostitute

Leave a reply

The prophet Hosea, whose wife Gomer was a prostitute…

Beginning on Sunday September 21, the Old Testament Daily Office Readings (DORs) have been from the book of Hosea. Those readings go on until Monday October 6, but the climax of the book came in the reading for Thursday October 2, with this message from God:

I don’t want your sacrifices – I want your love;
I don’t want your offerings – I want you to know me.

That’s the Living Bible translation of Hosea 6:6. The Good News translation – with the heading “The People’s Insincere Repentance” – reads like this, “I want your constant love, not your animal sacrifices. I would rather have my people know me than burn offerings to me.”

(Which is pretty much the theme of this blog; that and the idea that the best way to get to know Him is to use the brain that God gave you…)

On that note, think of the wife at home who keeps getting wonderful gifts from her husband, but without either his attention or his love. He may be rich, and likely is very busy, so whether he’s cheating on his wife or not, he’s too busy to give his partner the attention she wants.

In other words, he takes her for granted, which seems to be how some people treat God.

See also the Lesson of the widow’s mite – Wikipedia, where “Jesus explains to his disciples that the small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant, but proportionately lesser, donations of the rich.”

But maybe it wasn’t the fact that the poor widow “gave all that she had” that mattered to God. Maybe it was the fact that the poor widow paid more attention to God.

Which brings us back to Hosea and his wife, Gomer. The prophet “married the prostitute Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, at God‘s command.” (Hosea 1:2-3.)

Hosea used his own experience as a symbolic representation of God and Israel: God the husband, Israel the wife. Hosea’s wife left him to go with other men; Israel left the Lord to go with false gods. Hosea searched for his wife, found her and brought her back; God would not abandon Israel and brought them back even though they had forsaken him.

See Hosea – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and also Book of Hosea – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which put it this way: God told Hosea to “marry a promiscuous woman of ill-repute, and he did so.” So Hosea’s marriage to this unfaithful woman came to symbolize the “marriage” between God and Israel. But Israel was unfaithful, “symbolized by a harlot who violates the obligations of marriage.”

Incidentally, Hosea 8:7 is also known for Reap the whirlwind (phrase), a term “derived from the proverbial phrase ‘They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.'” An example of the phrase “used in a sentence” comes from World War II: “It was famously used by Bomber Harris in response to the Blitz of 1940 when he said:

‘The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind.'”

Some other tidbits: In English his name would be “Joseph,” and his name is related to “Joshua,” which like the name Hosea translates as “salvation.” Also:

[F]eminist interpretation regards the story of Hosea and his relations with his wife Gomer as a metaphor for the conflict between a Covenant Theology (Israel violating the covenant relationship with YHWH) and a Creation Theology (YHWH will undo the fertility of the earth in response to Israel following other fertility gods).

See Gomer (wife of Hosea) – Wikipedia. There was another Gomer in or related to the Bible, “the eldest son of Japheth (and of the Japhetic line), and father of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah, according to the ‘Table of Nations’ in the Hebrew Bible.” See Gomer – Wikipedia.

(Japheth is one of three sons of Noah, “listed in the order ‘Shem, Ham, and Japheth’ in Genesis 5:32, 9:18 and 10:1, but treated in the reverse order in the remainder of chapter 10.”

And finally, “gomer” has a different meaning in the medical field. See Urban Dictionary: gomer:

Medical slang for a patient who “has lost – often through age – what goes into being a human being” (quote from Samuel Shem’s “The House Of God”). Typically an old demented noncommunicative patient. Stands for “Get Out Of My Emergency Room” [as in:] I wish that gomer in room 3820 would stop moaning.

So who knew there were so many gomers in the world?

Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. - The Complete First Season

“But no, not that Gomer…”

The upper image is courtesy of Hosea – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. See also the blog But Not Yet, and/or www.butnotyet.com/2012/10/being-a-prophet-isnt-all-its-cracked…, the name of which apparently comes from a quote attributed to St. Augustine, “As a youth I prayed, ‘Give me chastity and continence, but not yet…’”

The post with the upper image – Being a Prophet Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be – included a review of a speech given by Rick Santorum, in which he asked if there was “such a thing as a sincere liberal Christian?” The blogger noted that the gist of the speech was that “unless you believe exactly as he does, you’re not a Christian.” See above, “too many think The Faith is about following their rules.”

The lower image is courtesy of Amazon.com, Gomer Pyle, USMC – The Complete First Season.

For further information on the prophet Hosea, see Hosea Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com …, and/or Overview of Hosea: The Prophet and the Prostitute.

On the psalms up to September 28

Leave a reply

“A woman playing a psalterion,” an instrument used to accompany psalms…

This feature focuses on the psalm for the upcoming Sunday and on highlights from the psalms in the Daily Office (DORs) in the week leading up to that upcoming Sunday. The general idea is to review the next Sunday’s readings on the prior Wednesday, and review the psalms from the Daily Office Readings for the week ending on the Tuesday just before that “prior Wednesday.”

For example, The Lectionary Page psalm for Sunday, September 28 is Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16. In turn, the DOR psalms highlighted in this post will be from the readings for Wednesday, September 18 (“more or less”), up to the readings for Tuesday, September 23.

Psalm 78 will be discussed below, but first here are some highlights from last week’s DORs.

Going back to Thursday, September 18, the DORs for that day included Psalm 71:18:

And now that I am old and gray-headed, O God, do not forsake me, *
till I make known your strength to this generation
and your power to all who are to come.

Which pretty much sums up how this blog got started. (Incidentally, some translations label this psalm “The Prayer of an Elderly Person,” but I wouldn’t go that far…)

Which is being interpreted: If the person who wrote Psalm 78 – or any other psalm – were alive today, he’d probably “get the word out” through a blog like this.

The DORs for Friday, September 19, included Psalm 69, verses 10 and 23. Psalm 69:10 reads, “Zeal for your house has eaten me up…” That passage was quoted by the Gospel writer in John 2:17, in the King James Version (the one God uses), “And his disciples remembered that it was written, ‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.'” This was right after the Wedding at Cana, when Jesus went into the Temple in Jerusalem, and proceeded to clean out the place with a whip of cords, driving out money-changers, publicans and the like. (See also Romans 15:3.)

Psalm 69:23 reads, “They gave me gall to eat, and when I was thirsty, they gave me vinegar to drink,” which foreshadowed Jesus on the cross. See Matthew 27:34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed …, and also Sour Wine and Gall: Was it a Merciful Gesture or Mockery? – …, which noted in part, “Offering sour wine combined with gall … may have been a medicinal and merciful gesture to dull the intense pain; but St. Luke in his Holy Gospel implies that the drink offered to our Lord Jesus at His crucifixion was part of the torture.”

The DORs for Sunday, September 21 included Psalm 96:1, “Sing to the Lord a new song,” about which much has been written herein. For examples, type “sing Lord new song” in the search box above right and you’ll get links like On “what a drag it is. . .” (alluding to the Rolling Stones song, Mother’s Little Helper). That post noted in part, “now that I’m ‘old and full of years’ – I [was] 62 – I can clearly see that ‘getting o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld’ beats the heck out of the alternative.” (Which could also qualify as the “prayer of an elderly person.”)

And finally, the DORs for Tuesday, September 23, included Psalm 78:2, “I will open my mouth in a parable; I will declare the mysteries of ancient times.” On that note, Jesus specialized in the parabolic method of teaching – of teaching through the use of parables – a method discussed in On three suitors (a parable). That included a discussion of the problems inherent in trying to “strictly” or “conservatively” interpret a parable, as some try to do.

Turning to the psalm for Sunday, September 28, Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16, the first part – including Psalm 78:2, noted above – begins with a note of praise, and of our duty to future generations:

We will recount to generations to come
the praiseworthy deeds and the power of the LORD, *
and the wonderful works he has done.

Which means of course that it is in God’s best interest to have His followers succeed in life, but oh does God love His drama, as noted in Psalm 50:15, “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall honor me.” (The “honor” seems to be the flip side of the “trouble.”)

The International Bible Commentary (IBC) said that Psalm 78 was about “the lessons of history,” and despite how short this Sunday’s reading is, “78” is one of those psalms that is so long that it got divided in two. It has 72 verses, and verses 12 through 16 are about “Grace abounding,” according to the IBC. Specifically, these five verses recite “the plagues in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, guidance through the wilderness by cloud and fire, and the provision of water at Rephidim (Exod. 17:6) and Kadesh (Num. 2010 f.).”

Which leads to the valuable lesson: There’s a big difference between “arguing with God” – see On arguing with God – and “deliberately challenging God,” or defying Him, or being too skeptical about His ability to “deliver us from evil,” as detailed in Psalm 78.

The upper image is courtesy of Psaltery – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption: “A woman playing a psalterion. Ancient Greek red-figured pelike from Anzi, Apulia, circa 320–310 BCE.”

The lower image is courtesy of Psalms – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption: “David Playing the Harp by Jan de Bray, 1670.”

As to David playing the harp, see David – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted the account of First Samuel, Chapter 16, which told of Saul, the first-ever king of Israel, being tormented by an evil spirit. In turn it was suggested that “he send for David, a young warrior famed for bravery and his lyre playing. Saul did so, and made David one of his armor-bearers. From then on, whenever ‘the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him,’” as illustrated above.

My way or the highway – Wiktionary defined the term as “suggesting an ultimatum which indicates the listener(s) will either conform to the desires of the speaker or else be excluded.”

As to “get the word out,” see Get the word out – Idiom Definition – UsingEnglish.com, “If you get the word out, you inform or let people or the public know about something.”

As to deliver us from evil: The Lord’s Prayer “concludes with ‘deliver us from evil‘ in Matthew, and with ‘lead us not into temptation’ in Luke.” See Lord’s Prayer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

* * * *

As to Book of Psalms generally, it is “commonly referred to simply as Psalms or ‘the Psalms’ … the first book of the Ketuvim (‘Writings’), the third section of the Hebrew Bible. The English title is from the Greek [word] meaning ‘instrumental music’ and, by extension, ‘the words accompanying the music.’ There are 150 psalms in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition.” Psalms – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia… The book is “divided into five sections, each closing with a doxology (i.e., a benediction) … probably introduced by the final editors to imitate the five-fold division of the Torah.”

Wikipedia added that the “version of the Psalter in the American Book of Common Prayer prior to the 1979 edition is a sixteenth-century Coverdale Psalter. The Psalter in the American Book of Common Prayer of 1979 is a new translation, with some attempt to keep the rhythms of the Coverdale Psalter.”

For another take on the psalms in general, type “Thomas Merton” in the Search Box above right.

On the psalms up to September 14

Leave a reply

“A woman playing a psalterion,” an instrument used to accompany psalms…

Welcome to DORScribe, a blog on reading the Bible with an open mind.

In other words, this Bible-blog is different.

It says not only that the Bible should be read with an open mind, but also that it was designed to liberate the human spirit, not shackle it. That runs contrary to a prevailing perception these days, that way too many Christians are way too negative, close-minded, or both. For more on that, see About this Blog, which also talks about how we can live fuller, richer lives of great spiritual abundance, and do greater miracles than even Jesus did, if only we open our minds…

In the meantime:

This is the second installment of a new feature. The focus here is both on the psalm for the Sunday coming up, and also on highlights from the psalms in the Daily Office Readings (DORs) leading up to that upcoming Sunday. The plan here is to review upcoming Sunday-readings on the prior Wednesday, and to review the psalms from the Daily Office Readings for the week ending on the Tuesday just before that “prior Wednesday.”

For example, The Lectionary Page psalm for Sunday, September 14 is Psalm 114. In turn, the DOR psalms highlighted in this post will be from the readings for Wednesday, September 3, up to the readings for Tuesday, September 9. As an example, the DORs for Sunday, September 7 included Psalm 63, sometimes referred to as Patton’s psalm, that is, the psalm – both “humble and defiant” – that General Patton turned to for comfort when he was on the verge of being sent home in disgrace during World War II. (See On “Patton,” Sunday School teacher.)

The International Bible Commentary (IBC) said of Psalm 114 that it was the second of the so-called “Hallel psalms;” psalms, hymns and/or songs “sung regularly at all the great Israelite festivals.” See Hallel – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted:

Hallel consists of six Psalms (113–118), which are recited as a unit, on joyous occasions… Hallel (Hebrew: הלל‎, “Praise”) is a Jewish prayer – a verbatim recitation from Psalms 113-118, which is used for praise and thanksgiving that is recited by observant Jews on Jewish holidays.

See also Hallel – Jewish Virtual Library, which added, “These psalms are essentially expressions of thanksgiving and joy for divine redemption.”

Note also that the English word “Hallelujah” derives from the Hebrew word “Hallel,” with the word added for God – “Yah” (or “Jah”). See Hallelujah – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, defining the term as an exhortation to praise God, deriving from “two Hebrew words, generally rendered as ‘Praise (ye)’ + ‘the LORD,’ [with] the second word is given as ‘Yah.'” See also Yahweh – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, describing “the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah,” but we digress… (Or do we?)

Indeed, Psalm 114 begins like this: “Hallelujah! When Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange speech, Judah became God’s sanctuary and Israel his dominion.” Then too, the IBC describes the psalm as “Exodus set to music:”

Israel hought of herself as essentially a liberated, redeemed people. They recalled with gratitude the time when the burden of foreign oppression rolled away and they became free – not free in the anarchical sense, but free to enter God’s service. By the Exodus they became a holy people who worshipped Yahweh as their God and a vassal people who owned Him as their King.

On the other hand, the IBC noted that in Psalm 114, the writer handled this “sacred theme unusually, with a whimsical sense of humor.” (A reference I need to keep in mind for possible future defense of the “delightfully quirky” vision I’m pursuing in this blog…)

Among other events, the psalm celebrates the crossing of the Red Sea, but with a sense that You Are There; “By faith the years roll away and the worshippers feel themselves at the very scene as if it had all just happened.” (Which is also pretty much what this blog tries to do.)

* * * *

Turning to the psalms from the Daily Office readings; the DORs for Thursday, September 4 included Psalm 37:14, “The Lord laughs at the wicked, because he sees that their day will come.” Also 37:17, “The little that the righteous has is better than the great riches of the wicked.”

The Daily Office readings for Friday, September 5 included Psalm 31:5, “Into your hands I commend my spirit, for you have redeemed me, O Lord, O God of truth.” (See also Acts 7:59.)

The Daily Office readings for Saturday, September 6, included Acts 13:26-43, where the Apostle Paul quoted extensively from the Book of Psalms. He was in the synagogue in Antioch during his first missionary journey, arguing that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah:

“Barnabas and I are here to bring you this Good News … that God brought Jesus back to life again. This is what the second Psalm is talking about when it says concerning Jesus, ‘Today I have honored you as my Son…’ In another Psalm [16:10] he explained more fully, saying, ‘God will not let his Holy One decay.’ ³⁶This was not a reference to David, for after David had served his generation according to the will of God, he died and was buried, and his body decayed. ³⁷No, it was a reference to another – someone God brought back to life, whose body was not touched at all by the ravages of death.”

The Daily Office readings for Sunday, September 7, included “Patton’s psalm,” discussed above, and Psalm 98:1, one of many exhortations to “Sing to the Lord a new song,” that is, a song unique to your personal pilgrimage. (And not to devote your life to “singing” a mere rehash of what other people have done in the past, as some seem to imply).

And finally, the DORs for Monday, September 8, included a reminder from Psalm 41:1, “Happy are they who consider the poor and needy; the Lord will deliver them in the time of trouble.”

– The Scribe

The lower image is courtesy of Psalms – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption: “David Playing the Harp by Jan de Bray, 1670.”

Another note: You Are There was an “American historical educational television and radio series broadcast over the CBS Radio and CBS Television networks.” The series began on radio on July 7, 1947, then made the transition to television on February 1, 1953, after a three-year hiatus and/or “retooling.” The final TV broadcast came on October 13, 1957. The series “blended history with modern technology, taking an entire network newsroom on a figurative time warp each week reporting the great events of the past.” See You Are There (series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As to Paul’s “missionary journeys,” see e.g. Chronology of Apostle Paul’s Journeys and Epistles.

* * * *

For another take on the psalms in general, type “Thomas Merton” in the Search Box above right.

On the Psalms up to September 7

Leave a reply

“A woman playing a psalterion,” an instrument used to accompany psalms…

This is a new feature, focusing not only on the psalm for a given, upcoming Sunday, but also on some highlights from the psalms in the Daily Office Readings (DORs) leading up to that “any given Sunday.” Since I’ll be trying to publish the review of an upcoming Sunday’s readings on the prior Wednesday, the DOR psalms will be taken from the readings for the week ending on the Tuesday before that “prior Wednesday.”

For example, the Psalm for Sunday, September 7 is Psalm 149. In turn, the DOR psalms highlighted in this post will be from the readings for Wednesday, August 26, and going on to the readings for Tuesday, September 2. As an example, the DORs for Monday, September 1 included Psalm 9:10, “you never forsake those who seek you, O LORD,” which goes along with and supports what Jesus said in John 6:37: “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.”

Turning back to Psalm 149, the International Bible Commentary used the sub-head “firstfruits of victory,” and noted that the psalm was “evidently inspired by a national victory. As the people praise God for it, they look forward to the future, final triumph of His purposes.”

But first note that the psalm begins, “Hallelujah! Sing to the LORD a new song…” On that note see the post On the DORs for July 20, which asked the musical question:

How can we do greater works than Jesus if we interpret the Bible in a cramped, narrow, strict and/or limiting manner? For that matter, why does the Bible so often tell us to “sing to the Lord a new song?” (For example, Isaiah 42:10 and Psalms 96:1, 98:1, and 144:9.)

Or for more, in the “Search” box above right you could just type in “sing Lord new song.”

Getting back to Psalm 149, the IBC noted that it was God who had “made a rabble of slaves into a cohesive nation,” and further that “Yesterday’s victory, celebrated in today’s praise, was a steppingstone to the promised triumph of the end time.”

Which is something to keep in mind these days when all the world seems to be roiling against us as a nation. Thus the mandate of verse 3: “Let them praise his Name in the dance; let them sing praise to him with timbrel and harp,” as David did in the painting below.

Getting back to the psalms in the last week’s Daily Office Readings, Saturday’s readings included Psalm 110, verses 1 and 6: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool,” and also, “The Lord has sworn and he will not recant; ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 in Mark 12:35-36, saying “‘How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?’ And the great throng heard him gladly.”

And Paul quoted Psalm 110:4 in Hebrews, Chapter 7, speaking of Jesus:

The matter becomes even plainer; a different priest has appeared, who is like Melchizedek. ¹⁶He was made a priest, not by human rules and regulations, but through the power of a life which has no end. ¹⁷For the scripture says, “You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.”

And note that Psalm 149:1, one of the DORs for Sunday, August 31, keeps up the theme of singing to the Lord a new song, while Psalm 39:14, one of the DORs for Tuesday, September 2, serves as a reminder that – bottom line – we all came here from somewhere else:

“For I am but a wayfarer with you, a wayfarer, as all my forebears were.”

– The Scribe

The lower image is courtesy of Psalms – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption: “David Playing the Harp by Jan de Bray, 1670.”

On Job, the not-so-patient

Leave a reply

Ilya Repin: Job and his Friends

Job and his friends, by Ilya Repin (1869). . .

The Old Testament Daily Office Readings – the DORs – started with the Book of Job on Thursday, August 21, and those readings continue until Thursday, September 18. (It’s a really long book, mostly filled with whining and complaining, by Job and his friends as seen above.)

But first a word about the patience of Job. Wiktionary says that phrase indicates a person who has a great amount of patience, and refers to this book of the Bible, “where Job demonstrated faith and patience with God while suffering many severe trials.” See patience of Job – Wiktionary, which added the expression seems to have started in James 5:11:

As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

(New International Version.) But according to Isaac Asimov, Job really wasn’t all that patient.

Asimov first indicated that when the book was first written, Job was known as the hero of a well-known legend, about a wealthy sheik who lived east of Canaan, on the border of a desert. This legendary Job was a “good man of superhuman patience” who suffered great misfortune without ever losing his faith in God. Asimov also noted the appearance of Satan – indicating a “Persian influence” – and added that in the story Satan had (and has) the important role of testing human beings, to see if their faith in God was “staunch, or merely superficial.”

Be that as it may, Asimov indicated the “meat of the book” came in the series of question-and-answer speeches involving ethical and theological questions, many outside the realm of Bible study (including some interesting “astronomical references”). He then noted:

In these speeches, Job is anything but patient and uncomplaining, and seriously questions the justice of God. Nevertheless, this has not, for some reason, altered the common conception of Job as a patient, uncomplaining man. (E.A.)

Then too, Job is a good example of a Bible book that should be both approached with great caution and not be taken too literally. For example, consider the following excerpts from Job 3:1-26, from the Daily Office Reading for Saturday, August 23:

Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth… “Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb..? For now I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest… Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day? There the wicked cease from turmoil, and there the weary are at rest. Captives also enjoy their ease; they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout. The small and the great are there, and the slaves are freed from their owners… Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure, who are filled with gladness and rejoice when they reach the grave?”

To say the least, such sentiments could definitely be “taken out of context.”

First Job cursed the day he was born and asked God why he didn’t die at birth, “as I came from the womb” or like a stillborn child. He added that had he died, “I would be lying down in peace,” in a better place where “the wicked cease from turmoil” and the weary are at rest. He then asked God why He gives life to those who long for death and who are “filled with gladness and rejoice when they reach the grave?”

For just that reason, guys like John R. W. Stott took issue with literalists who say the Bible should viewed as “inerrant per se.” Instead – he said – the Bible should be viewed as inerrant “in all that it affirms.” As applied to this case, Stott would say that the “plain meaning” of the text of Job should not be seen as affirming suicide, as would appear at first glance.

But since we’re running out of space and time, Stott’s views will be explored in a future post.

989766
The upper image is courtesy of Job and His Friends – Ilya Repin – WikiArt.org. See also Ilya Repin – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, on “the most renowned Russian artist of the 19th century, when his position in the world of art was comparable to that of Leo Tolstoy in literature. . . His method was the reverse of impressionism. He produced works slowly and carefully. They were the result of close and detailed study. With some of his paintings, he made one hundred or more preliminary sketches. He was never satisfied with his works, and often painted multiple versions, years apart.”

As to Isaac Asimov on Job, see Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (Two Volumes in One), Avenel Books (1981), beginning on page 474, up to the “not-so-patient” quote on page 480. The “interesting astronomical references” include “Arcturas, Orion, and Pleiades.” (Job 9:9)

For other references on the role of Satan – as Accuser or Slanderer – in the “great scheme of things,” see On “St. Michael and All Angels” and/or On the readings for May 25.

James is the book of the Bible right after the Letter to the Hebrews and right before First Peter, “traditionally attributed to James the Just.” See Epistle of James – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The full Daily Office Readings can be seen at The Lectionary – Satucket.com.

The lower image is courtesy of Understanding the Bible by John R.W. Stott — Reviews, …. See also John Stott – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which added that Stott was an Anglican cleric whom Time magazine ranked among the 100 most influential people in the world. To view some of Stott’s 126 available books, see Amazon.com: John R. W. Stott: Books, Biography, Blog, ….

Then too, “requiring every word of the Bible to be inerrant” brings to mind what Jesus said in Matthew 23:4, as He chastised the scribes and Pharisees. The Easy-to-Read translation says in pertinent part that such people “make strict rules that are hard for people to obey. They try to force others to obey all their rules. But they themselves will not try to follow any of those rules.”

On the “Gospel of Marx”

Leave a reply

148751 600 Gospel According to Marx cartoons

Conservative Michael Ramirez did the May 18 cartoon above, which led to responses like this:

Ramirez’s May 18 cartoon of Pope Francis and the so-called gospel of Marx is evidence that [he] is ignorant of the difference between Christ’s love of the poor and Marxist communism’s philosophy, which espouses not only atheism but oppression of all, poor and wealthy. Another very important point is that Christ invites us, does not force us – as communism would do – to share our goods with the poor and treat them with love and respect. (E.A.)

See Drawing wrong conclusion – Spokesman Mobile – May 27, 2014. (See also Another view of Jesus feeding the 5,000, on getting “normally-greedy people to share what they had.”)

But sometimes the best response comes right from the Bible; in this case, as found in the Daily Office Readings (DORs) for last Saturday, August 9, at The Lectionary – Satucket.com.

The New Testament reading was Acts of the Apostles, 4:32-5:11. The New Century Translation included the headings “The Believers Share” and “Ananias and Sapphira Die:”

The group of believers were united in their hearts and spirit. All those in the group acted as though their private property belonged to everyone in the group. In fact, they shared everything. . . And God blessed all the believers very much. There were no needy people among them. From time to time those who owned fields or houses sold them, brought the money, and gave it to the apostles. Then the money was given to anyone who needed it. (E.A.)

This happened right after Pentecost, when the number of Believers in the new Church jumped from about 120 to over 3,000. (See Pentecost – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

So anyway, the 8/9 reading went on about Joseph, “a Levite from Cyprus,” who sold his property and gave the money to the Apostles. In contrast, Chapter 5 had Ananias and his wife Sapphira trying to snooker the Apostles (and by extension God – which by the way is never a good idea).

Ananias sold some property and gave some money to the Apostles, but held some back with his wife’s approval. (They may have been conservatives “but I’m just guessin’ you understand.”) Somehow Peter figured it out and asked Ananias, “How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” At that point Ananias literally dropped dead.

They had just carried his body out when his wife Sapphira came in, and Peter confronted her:

Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

All of which supports my theory that it’s never a good idea to snooker God, and – come to think of it – maybe it’s not such a great idea to call the Pope a Marxist either.

On a related note the Gospel had Jesus cleansing the Temple with a whip of cords, as illustrated in On “chutzpah”. Which leads me to wonder if it was all Jewish People or just the conservatives who were so dead set against Jesus. (See also On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist?) So just for laughs let’s substitute “conservatives” for “Jews” in this portion of the August 9 Gospel:

And he [Jesus] told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade. . .” The Conservatives then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Conservatives then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body. . .

(Hmmm. We may be on to something.) And by the way, the point of Liberal or Fundamentalist was that Jesus was neither conservative nor liberal, but “right there ‘in the middle of the road.’”

Which leads to the point of this post: It seems some Conservatives are still opposing the message of Jesus.

The upper image is courtesy of Gospel According to Marx by Political Cartoonist Michael … For more on this cartoonist see Michael Ramirez – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The lower image – just to show how fair and balanced this blog is – is included in the web article Drawing wrong conclusion – Spokesman Mobile – May 27, 2014, which had a number of interesting comments on the Conservative/Christian dichotomy. See also On Thomas Merton, which asked the musical question, “If Jesus was ‘orthodox’ why aren’t we all still Jewish?”

For purposes of clarity, as defined here a conservative is simply a person with a predetermined set of “one size fits all” answers for all life’s questions. A liberal is different only in having a different set of predetermined “one size fits all” answers. But what such people up doing – metaphorically – is keep pounding square pegs into round holes, but we digress. . .

Another point of this blog is that in contrast to having such a predetermined set of answers, the better approach is: “Mind like parachute; work best when open.” See Some Bible basics from Vince Lombardi and Charlie Chan. In turn, as defined herein someone with an open mind can’t be either a true conservative or true liberal, but rather an conservative-leaning moderate (for example).

The reader may also be interested in Was Jesus a Jewish Liberal or a Liberal Jew? – Patheos.

On the DORs for July 20

Leave a reply

* * * *

First a note: This blog’s focus is the real Good News* – the positive parts of the Bible – and especially the Three Great Promises of Jesus. As noted elsewhere, the “DOR” in the blog-name stands for Daily Office Reading. The Daily Office is a set of Bible readings in a two-year cycle, so every two years you will have gone through the Bible at least one time. (I’m on my 16th trip through since 1992.) Which brings up the Daily Office readings for Sunday, July 20, 2014.

Those readings included Psalm 63:1-8(9-11), 98; and the evening Psalm 103. The others are Joshua 6:15-27; Acts 22:30-23:11; Mark 2:1-12. As for Psalm 63, I talked about it in a prior post, On “Patton,” Sunday School teacher. It noted the movie about him starring George C. Scott:

Patton was at a low point in his career during World War II, after the “slapping incident” in Sicily. He was almost sent home in disgrace, but he found comfort in Psalm 63. . . The film showed Patton praying, then going out to apologize to the troops. As he went, he recited Psalm 63, “humble and defiant.” As abbreviated . . . the psalm went like this: “O God, Thou art my God, early will I seek Thee. My soul thirsteth for Thee… But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth. They shall fall by the sword, they shall be a portion for foxes… Everyone that sweareth by Him shall glory. But the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.”

Also on the note of irony, the post pointed out that aside from believing in reincarnation, Patton read the Bible on a daily basis. For example, during a tour of his private quarters an Army chaplain noted a Bible on a desk. Later “the chaplain asked if Patton actually had time to read that Bible. Patton said, ‘I sure do. Every Goddamn day.’”

And finally, Psalm 98:1 was also covered by prior post including On the Gospel for May 18, and About this Blog. The former post asked the musical question:

How can we do greater works than Jesus if we interpret the Bible in a cramped, narrow, strict and/or limiting manner? For that matter, why does the Bible so often tell us to “sing to the Lord a new song?” (For example, Isaiah 42:10 and Psalms 96:1, 98:1, and 144:9.)

Isaiah 42:10 says, “Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the end of the earth!” Psalm 96 and 98 say pretty much the same thing, while Psalm 144:9 adds, “I will sing you a new song, O God, with a ten-stringed harp.” (The Revised Standard and Living Bible versions, emphasis added.) As to Psalm 144:9, if taken literally it seems to be a direct command that you can only sing a new song to God using a ten-stringed harp. (Which would seem to be an absurd result, contrary to the intent of the person who drafted the directive.)

On the other hand, if interpreted metaphorically Psalm 144:9 could indicate that while God wants you to sing a new song to Him now, your best “song” will result from your unique experiences, as shaped and arranged according to lessons learned from other people who have sung songs that were new then, back when the Bible was originally written. (Hmmmm.)

Okay, this is going to take a whole lot more thought. . .

* * * *

As always, you can see the full readings at The Lectionary – Satucket.com.

As to “guilt trips,” see The Psychology and Management of Guilt Trips | Psychology Today: “Guilt trips are a form of verbal or nonverbal communication in which a guilt inducer tries to induce guilty feelings in a target in an effort to control their behavior.” .

The “Thinker” image is courtesy of foliovision.com/images/2012/10/Rodin-the-Thinker.jpg. “The Thinker (French: Le Penseur) is a bronze sculpture by Auguste Rodin . . . a nude male figure of over life-size sitting on a rock with his chin resting on one hand as though deep in thought, and is often used as an image to represent philosophy. There are about 28 full size castings. . . Originally named The Poet (French: Le Poète), the Thinker was initially a figure in a large commission, begun in 1880, for a doorway surround called The Gates of Hell.” See The Thinker – Wikipedia.

* * * *

Abraham and Isaac – Where God CHANGED some “traditional values and attitudes…”

Leave a reply

“The ‘Sacrifice of Isaac,’ where God finally said “Stop! Let’s change some ‘traditional values…'”

* * * *

The readings for June 29, 2014, are Genesis 22:1-14, Psalm 13, Romans 6:12-23, and Matthew 10:40-42. The Genesis story tells of God apparently asking Abraham to kill his son.

That is, In Genesis 22:1-14, “God tested Abraham,” by appearing to ask him to kill his first-born son Isaac. That was the son – Isaac – that Abraham and his wife Sarah had been waiting and praying for “lo these many years.” (As noted in On “Call me Ishmael” – June 22 Part I, “Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, and Sarah was past 90” when Isaac was born.)

The story bothers a lot of people. That’s because it apparently shows God ordering a father to kill his own son. And that’s the view you would take if you took the lesson literally.

But if you look at some other “prevailing wisdom,” you might get a wholly different take. (See On “originalism,” noting that originalism is the view that interpretation “should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time . . . would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.”) In that view you would ask: What would a reasonable man – under the “community standards” at the time – have thought of Abraham killing his son as a “sacrifice?”

Apparently it wouldn’t have bothered that “reasonable man” at all. That’s because at that time and place, child sacrifice was quite common. See Binding of Isaac – Wikipedia – illustrated at right – and citing “Hertz:”

“[C]hild sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples. . . [I]n that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent.

A note: Akedah is Hebrew short-hand for the Abraham-Isaac story, and translates “The Binding.” So to a reasonable Semite at the time – when the story occurred, or when Moses wrote it down, if not both – a father offering his son as a “sacrifice to the gods” was so common that the Akedah proved the noteworthy exception.

So at the time of Abraham, routine child sacrifice was a prevailing “traditional value.”

Which means this story would be something like today’s “man bites dog” journalism. That is, a story about “an unusual, infrequent event is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence.” See Man bites dog (journalism) – Wikipedia.

(Did the Scribe mention that he got a Master’s Degree in Journalism?)

So the Good News is not that God is as cruel as a literal reading of the story would indicate. (I.e., from from a “plain reading.”) The point God wanted to make was just the opposite of what a plain or “literal reading” would show. God wanted to change some of the “prevailing practices” at the time. On that note, the general definition of conservative is of a “person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes.”

But in this case, God felt a prevailing practice needed to be changed.

* * * *

Moving on, in Psalm 13, the writer first asked, “How long, O LORD? Will you forget me for ever?” But he ended on a note of hope, “I will sing to the LORD, for he has dealt with me richly; I will praise the Name of the Lord Most High.” (Maybe because God didn’t require child sacrifice.)

In Romans 6:12-23, Paul wrote about the wages of sin; “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And the post D-Day and confession addressed this whole business of sin, a “business” that seems to turn off a whole lot of non-Christians. (For example, the search “Christians hung up on sin” led to offerings including Advocatus Atheist: Why are Christians Hung Up on Sin?) Anyway, here’s what “D-Day” said:

When we “sin” we simply fall short of our goals; we “miss the target.” When we “confess,” we simply admit to ourselves how far short of the target we were. And maybe the purpose of all this is not to make people feel guilty all the time, as some seem to imply.

Note also Paul’s saying, in Romans 6:19, “I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations.” In other words Paul – like Moses and indeed God Himself – is not limited by his (or His) ability to teach, but only by our ability to comprehend.

So Moses couldn’t tell “the truth” about such things as the earth revolving around the sun, because he had to tell the story of Creation “using language and concepts that his relatively-pea-brained contemporary audience could understand.” See On the readings for June 15 – Part I. So also Paul – like God – had to keep in mind the “natural limitations” of his (His) audience.

And finally, in Matthew 10:40-42, Jesus spoke of the “reward of the righteous.” That especially concerned the children who used to be so routinely offered as a sacrifice to the “old gods” in the time of Abraham. As Jesus said, “Whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple – truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”

Note the difference – and the improvement – over some “traditional values and attitudes.”

* * * *

“Christ with children by Carl Heinrich Bloch.”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Binding of Isaac – Wikipedia. The full caption reads: “‘The Sacrifice of Isaac’ by Caravaggio, in the Baroque tenebrist manner.” As to the wording of the caption, see “Or words to that effect” – Wiktionary, and also “Or Words to that Effect” – Adoremus Bulletin, quoting the character Richard Rich in the plan “A Man for All Seasons.”

Re: Abraham – Wikipedia. The caption for the image to the left of the lead paragraph is captioned: “Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac. From a 14th-century missal.”

Note also this post was originally published on June 23, 2014, titled, “On the readings for June 29.” I upgraded it, changed the title, added some images and otherwise upgraded it on October 16, 2018.

As to reasonable, see Reasonable person – Wikipedia: “The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is one of many tools for explaining the law to a jury.”

As to the Hertz reference, “Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz, CH (September 25, 1872 – January 14, 1946) was a Jewish Hungarian-born rabbi and Bible scholar. He is most notable for holding the position of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom from 1913 until his death in 1946, in a period encompassing both world wars and the Holocaust.”

The lower image – and note the contrast between the upper and lower images – is courtesy of The Little Children – Wikipedia.

DOR Scribe

Expand your horizons – Read the Bible with an open mind

Category Archives: Daily Office readings

On “Gone Girl” and Lazy Cusses – Part II

Welcome to DORScribe, a blog about reading the Bible with an open mind.

I don’t want to give away the ironic plot twist or the ending, but here’s a hint:

“Gone Girl” movie review and Media Frenzy

On Hosea and the prostitute

So who knew there were so many gomers in the world?

On the psalms up to September 28

On the psalms up to September 14

Welcome to DORScribe, a blog on reading the Bible with an open mind.

– The Scribe

On the Psalms up to September 7

– The Scribe

On Job, the not-so-patient

On the “Gospel of Marx”

Which leads to the point of this post: It seems some Conservatives are still opposing the message of Jesus.

On the DORs for July 20

Okay, this is going to take a whole lot more thought. . .

Abraham and Isaac – Where God CHANGED some “traditional values and attitudes…”

(Did the Scribe mention that he got a Master’s Degree in Journalism?)