Men of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division wade “into the jaws of death,” on D-Day, 72 years ago…

*   *   *   *

As of today – June 6, 2016 – it’s been 72 years since the Normandy landings.  (Otherwise known as “D-Day.”)  See 72nd Anniversary 2016 Events #DDay72, which noted celebrations in France:

World leaders and other dignitaries flew into Normandy to pay tribute to the real VIPs – the veterans themselves – whilst the global media descended on the region in huge numbers as they do every five years.

That article was affiliated with “the UK’s only museum” dedicated to the D-Day Landings,” near the “Southsea Castle in Portsmouth,” England.  It included the picture at right, of last year’s “Canopies Over Normandy (#DDay71).”  In that “jump:”

British airborne veteran Jock Hutton (89) and American veteran Jim “Pee Wee” Martin (93) both returned to the skies above Normandy.  At different ends of the invasion area, both veterans bravely made tandem parachute jumps into the countryside into which they dropped 70 years before.

Closer to home, see D-Day in the United States – Time and Date.  That site noted that throughout America, museums and war memorials “host exhibitions featuring photos and film as a tribute to soldiers who were part of the Normandy landings.  D-Day memorials and ceremonies are also held to remember these soldiers.”  The article also noted that the invasion of Normandy was “one of history’s most significant military attacks.”

I first wrote about the commemoration – and “covenant renewal” – in On D-Day and confession, in 2014.  That post compared the kind of “de-briefing” that American fliers got – after their missions – with the concepts of “sin” and “repentance.”  But the goal back then was not to make people feel guilty.  (As some seem to imply.)  Instead they were and are “tools to help us get closer to the target ‘next time out,’ even if we know we can never become ‘perfect.'”

Then came On the DORs for June 6, 2015.  (Which included the image at left.)  That post noted that June 6, 2015 was a “red letter day, and not just because it’s been 71 years since the best-known D-Day.”  And from the Daily Office Readings for that day, I came up with the idea that those 40 years of wandering in the wilderness were a kind of “boot camp.”

(Of the kind necessary for the armed forces to succeed in their mission, 72 years ago…)

That idea was based on Deuteronomy 29, which was both a commemoration – like our remembering D-Day – and a “renewal of the covenant.”

Which by the way, seems to be another function of such celebrations of such long-ago events.

We “renew the covenant” that led thousands upon thousands of perfectly sane men and women to risk their lives for a cause they believed in.  And in that effort, those people who fought those battles 72 years ago succeeded largely because they weren’t “rigid.”

Put another way, this is a day to remember that “independent judgment” – not rigid obedience to a pre-formed set of “rules” – is the key to success in life, and especially the spiritual life:

During World War II, German generals often complained that U.S. forces were unpredictable…  After the Normandy invasion in 1944, American troops found that their movements were constrained by the thick hedgerows…   In response, “Army soldiers invented a mechanism on the fly that they welded onto the front of a tank to cut through hedgerows…”   American troops are famous for this kind of individual initiative.  It’s a point of pride among officers that the American way of war emphasizes independent judgment in the fog and friction of battle, rather than obedience and rules.  (E.A.)

Which is precisely the kind of Bible study I believe in.  And that in turn is “just another way of saying that by reading the Bible with an open mind, you’ll be on your way to the creative judgment that overcomes ‘the fog and friction’ of everyday life.”

On a somewhat related subject, this upcoming June 11th will celebrate St. Barnabus.  For more on that, see On St. Barnabus’ Day, 2015.  That post spoke of Barnabus, the apostle who was open-minded enough to welcome Paul, formerly an enemy of the early Church.

if it hadn’t been for Barnabas and his willingness to give Paul a second chance – a second chance for the formerly zealous persecutor of the early Church – he might never have become Christianity’s most important early convert, if not the “Founder of Christianity.”

“So we might just call Barnabas ‘the Apostle of Second Chances.’”

 If it wasn’t for Barnabus, Paul’s experience “might have gone for naught…”

*   *   *   *

 The upper image is courtesy of Normandy landings – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The caption: “Men of the 16th Infantry Regiment, U.S. 1st Infantry Division wade ashore on Omaha Beach on the morning of 6 June 1944.”  Clicking on the picture in the Wikipedia article will lead to the attribution: “File: Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg.”

The lower image is courtesy of Conversion of Paul the Apostle – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “The Conversion of Saint Paul, a 1600 painting by the Italian artist Caravaggio.”  See also What happened on the road to Damascus?  That site noted:  “The events that happened on the road to Damascus relate not only to the apostle Paul, whose dramatic conversion occurred there, but they also provide a clear picture of the conversion of all people.”  (E.A.)

“Moses doesn’t like this.  Moses doesn’t like this one bit…*“

*   *   *   *

Last (Holy) Saturday night, I stayed home and watched part of The Ten Commandments.  (Noted further below.) That’s where Moses – as seen in the image above – comes in. And by the way, the “quote” is pure illeism:  “the tendency in some individuals to refer to themselves in the third person.”  That’s where the imaginary quote – “Moses doesn’t like this. Moses doesn’t like this one bit“ – comes in.  (Moses wrote the First Five Books of the Bible in the third person.)

There’s more on that later, but first a note:  Many churches this year will celebrate the Annunciation on April 4, instead of the usual March 25.  (See e.g. The Lectionary Page.)  That is:

The Annunciation would normally fall on Friday, March 25, 2016.  That day, however, is Good Friday, and Annunciation is never celebrated during Holy Week.  It is transferred, therefore, to Monday, April 4, 2016, the first open day after Easter Sunday.

See also An Annunciation-Good Friday anamoly.  Then there’s Easter Season – AND BEYOND, which noted that Easter isn’t just one day, it’s an entire season.  (Aka Eastertide.)  In turn, Eastertide is defined as that long period – of 50 days – from Easter Sunday to Pentecost.  (For more on Pentecost, see Pentecost – “Happy Birthday, Church!”)  But before we get into that, I wanted to make a few comments on watching part of The Ten Commandments, the Saturday night before Easter Sunday.

(The real version, the one with Charlton Heston.  You know, the one God watches?)

I happened on the movie while channel surfing the night of Holy Saturday.   I came in just as Moses was about to learn he wasn’t really a Prince of Egypt, as he’d been taught “since birth.” As the faithful reader will know, that was pretty much the topic of my Lenten meditation.

(Briefly, What did Moses know, and when did he know it?)  

As for watching the movie:  Some time and a lot of commercials after I started watching, I realized this Hollywood version was a whole lot longer than the original.  So I pulled out my trusty Bible and checked.  Sure enough, in a short time I found Exodus 2:11-14, telling what made Moses to flee to Midian (seen at right):

One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor.  He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people.  Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.  The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting.  He asked the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?”  The man said, “Who made you ruler and judge over us?  Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?”  Then Moses was afraid and thought, “What I did must have become known.”  (Emphasis added.)

That’s it.   That’s all there was to the Bible version.  But Cecil B. DeMille turned those four short verses into what seemed like hours of viewing time.  (Including commercials of course.)  He also added a host of complicated sub-plots that simply aren’t anywhere to be found in the Bible.

From which – I figured – there had to be some kind of object lesson.

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t give any clue about how Moses knew those two fighting Hebrews were “his own people.”  (That passage follows right after Exodus 2:10, describing how Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter:  “When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son.  She named him Moses, saying,  ‘I drew him out of the water.'”)

The point of all this being:  The 1956 Hollywood-DeMille version of this passage featured a great deal of artistic license, used to fill in a whole lot of blanks in Exodus 2:11-14.

If you don’t believe me, read the Wikipedia plot summary of the movie yourself.  You’ll see that the mere summary alone is much longer than the Bible account.  For another thing, you’ll see that the movie included a whole lot of drama that the Bible doesn’t even infer.

You’ll see things like Moses growing up to be a winning Egyptian diplomat, and general.  (As in “winning a war with Ethiopia.”)  Then too there’s the torrid love affair between Moses and Nefretiri. (Played by a very hot Anne Baxter.)

The movie also had Moses meeting “the stone-cutter Joshua.”

Incidentally, Joshua did go on to become “the leader of the Israelite tribes after the death of Moses.”  (He also went on to write the sixth book of the Bible, after Moses wrote his “First Five.”)  But the movie had Moses meeting Joshua way too early, while the Israelites were still slaves in Egypt.  (And it was this Joshua who – in the movie – tells Moses “of the Hebrew God.”)

But in the Bible, Joshua isn’t mentioned until Exodus 17:9.  That was way after the Israelites had left Egypt, crossed the Red Sea and wandered around the wilderness a good long while.

For more examples of such artistic license – again – check out the Wiki-plot summary yourself.  But here are a few more highlights.

For one thing, while Moses is still an Egyptian general and overlord, he saves an old woman from being crushed to death.  That woman – in the movie – turns out to be “his natural mother, Yoshebel.” (Or Jochebed.)  Then there’s the matter of the beautiful Hebrew virgin “Lilia.”

In the movie – but not mentioned in the Bible – Lilia is engaged to Joshua.  But various bad guys lust after her, like the evil Egyptian “master builder Baka” – played to perfection by Vincent Price – and the “ambitious Hebrew chief overseer Dathan.”  (Ditto, by Edward G. Robinson.)  Then too, in the movie – but not in the Bible – Moses kills Baka, but only to save Joshua.  (In the movie, Joshua attacked Baka to keep him from raping Lilia, and he in turn is rescued by Moses.) 

Further, when Moses “confesses” to Joshua that he too is a Hebrew, the ever-sneaky Dathan overhears the confession.  In turn Dathan tells Pharoah – Yul Brynner – and in turn is rewarded with his freedom, various “riches” – and his own shot at Lilia.

But in a strange turn of events, when Pharaoh tells Moses to take His People and leave Egypt,  Dathan gets turned out with them.  From that point on – throughout the film – Dathan remains a “thorn in the flesh” to Moses.  (As the Apostle Paul might put it.  See 2d Corinthians 12:7.)

There are other examples of such whole cloth and/or artistic license episodes drawn from those four short verses in Exodus 2:11-14.  They include but aren’t limited to: 1) A Hebrew woman named Memnet telling Nefretiri that Moses is the son of Hebrew slaves, then being murdered – pushed off a high balcony – by Nefretiri.  2) Moses voluntarily becoming a slave himself – after he wangles the truth from Nefertiri – “to learn more of their lives.”  And 3)  Moses brought in chains to Pharaoh – played by Yul Brynner – and then “banished to the desert.”  (All because Nefertiri is still madly in love with him – Moses – and because Yul Brynner doesn’t want Moses as a martyr to his new queen.)

These then are the few comments I wanted to make, “on watching parts of The Ten Commandments on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday. ”

Which brings up the topic of rabbit trails.  Some people say running down a rabbit trail is an “exercise in futility.  It means wasting time and energy pursuing leads that go nowhere – or everywhere.”  (Obviously, if a rabbit trail “leads everywhere,” it doesn’t waste your time.)

Others take a more broad view, like Today’s Idiom Is … Rabbit Trail.  That fellow-blogger noted that while going down rabbit trails in “discussions can be fun and interesting,” they can also “interfere with resolving the topic at hand.”  But the blogger noted this distinction:

You would never use that phrase to describe a leisurely trip when you explored a side path and had an interesting adventure.  That’s more like taking the road less traveled[,] which is a literary reference to a poem by Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken.” (E.A.)

So “we” may have ended up going down a rabbit trail here.  Or we may have “taken the road less traveled.”  Either way, it was fun for me, and I hope for the reader as well.  

In the meantime, back to the subject of Easter being “not just one day, but an entire season.”  (Also called Eastertide.)  I’ll be writing more about Eastertide in the near future.  But for now we can look forward to Pentecost – as the Birthday of the Church!

*   *   *   *

An artist’s depiction of Pentecost – the “birthday of the Church…”

*   *   *   *

I borrowed the idea of the upper image from On Moses and “illeism,” a post I did on May 20, 2014.  But to get a larger version of the image I went to pinterest.com/pin/131237776614965931.

Also, as to the asterisk (*), I cut-and-pasted the caption quote for the upper image from Moses and “illeism.”  As in: “Moses doesn’t like this.  Moses doesn’t like this one bit…“

The map of Moses’ path to Midian is courtesy of treasureboxmy.blogspot.com/2013/12/exodus-moses-flees-to-midian.

Re:  “Yoshebel” or Jochebed.  Wikipedia noted that the “story of Jochebed is thought to be described in the Book of Exodus (2:1–10) – although she is not explicitly named here.”  The article further noted that according to the Torah, she was “a daughter of Levi and mother of Aaron, Miriam and Moses.” Also, she is “praised for her faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews.”

Re: Joshua’s first mention in the Bible.  See When is Joshua first mentioned in the Bible – Answers.com.

Re: Rabbit trails.  Today’s Idiom also noted this:  “If you’ve ever seen a dog follow a real rabbit trail in a field or someone’s back yard, you’ll see where this idiom comes from.  The dog will endlessly sniff around in circles, never getting anywhere.  And it certainly never finds the rabbit!” 

Other links about the “road less traveled” – or more precisely “the road not taken” – include:  The road less travelled – meaning and origin, The Road Less Traveled – New York University, The Road Not Taken – Wikipedia, and How to Take the Road Less Traveled: 14 Steps – wikiHow.

The lower image is courtesy of Pentecost – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the caption:  “A Western depiction of the Pentecost, painted by Jean II Restout, 1732.” 

*   *   *   *

The teachings of Jesus: The Parable of the Talents, as etched by Jan Luyken.

*   *   *   *

December 21, 2015 – This post continues the theme of Bible study to open your mind and develop your talents. On that note, the Daily Readings for Friday, December 18, with Zechariah 7:13: “Since they refused to listen when I called to them, I would not listen when they called to me, says the Lord.” Which makes sense. If you don’t pay attention to God, chances are “He” won’t  pay attention to you! And it’s a pretty good summary of the theme of this blog.

The goal here is to help you – and me – get a better feel for communicating with the Force that Created the Universe. On that note, the Gospel for that Friday, December 18, was Matthew 25:14-30. It told the Parable of the talents, shown above. In that parable, a master gave some “talents” to three servants. (Taken literally, a “talent” was worth 50 or 60 shekels, and so was a good chunk of change.) Then the master went off on a long journey. When he got back home, he took stock of his “investment.” The servant with 10 talents gave back the 10 “invested,” plus 10 talents more. (A return of 100%.)  The servant who got five talents did the same. (Returned the original five and another five more, another 100% return.)  

Then came the “wicked and slothful” servant.

That servant didn’t develop his talents. He just buried the money in a hole. (Metaphorically, he – the slothful servant – fit his talents into a pre-formed, pre-shaped cubby-hole.)  So what the master got back on his investment was nothing more than the original talent he’d given out.

So here’s the moral of the story. (Per Aesop – at left – giving the parable its “plain meaning.”) Develop your talents! That’s the point: That you can’t be a “good and faithful servant” unless you give back to God more than what He originally gave you. And you can’t do that by being too literal, too focused on “avoiding sin.”

Doing that just makes you another carbon copy Christian.

Put another way, many Christians seem to think their whole job here on earth is: Avoid sin. And that is important. It’s certainly important to avoid really stupid mistakes, which tend to have really bad consequences. But is that the main job of a Christian?

Isn’t the main job of a Christian to “develop his talents.” Which in turn means a real Christian is bound to make mistakes. Which could be a good thing, keeping him or her from developing a “holier than thou” complex. On that note see Sin and cybernetics: “Maybe the concepts of sin, repentance and confession are simply tools to help us realize the purpose Jesus had for us, to wit:  to ‘live life in all its abundance.'” (John 10:10; the second part.)

On the matter of carbon copy Christians, see “Another brick in the wall” and Reflections on Volume 3. And since we’re looking back on posts from this past year, here are some more:

The Bible and mysticism said Christianity is about “obtaining unity with God, through Christ.” And that fits in with the original meaning of mystic. (One “who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute.”) Also this:

The terms “mystic” or “mysticism” seem to throw Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians into apoplexy.  (Try it sometime!!!)

But of course I was only joking… (About the apoplexy.) On a related note, see The True Test of Faith. It imagined two Christians who both learned at the end of their lives that The Faith was a hoax. The guy who spent his life “avoiding sin” was really mad. But the guy who used the Bible to develop his talents said, “You know, I wouldn’t change a thing.” (Thus “True Test of Faith…”) And finally, see Shadrach and the Fiery Furnace on three other “good and faithful servants.” They were about to be thrown into a burning fiery furnace. And they knew that God could save them if He wanted. But they also knew that that might not fit in with His purpose.

Thus the “real kicker in the story” came in Daniel 3 (16-18). There the three men – on the cusp of being thrown into the fiery furnace – gave their answer to King Nebuchadnezzer:

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar…  If our God …  is able to deliver us, he will deliver us…  But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.”

Note the emphasized “But if not…”  So the three men were really saying something like this:  “O Nebuchadnezzar, it’s up to God Himself to decide if He’ll deliver us…  God certainly has the power to save us, but even if He decides not to, we will still believe in and follow Him…”

Now that is a true test(ament) of faith…

*   *   *   *

Another guy – Daniel – who gave a “true test(ament) of faith…”

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, Parable of the talents.

Re:  God as “He.”  See Anthropomorphism, an “innate tendency of human psychology.”  (Wikipedia.) In other words, human thought tends to limit “God” to its ability to comprehend “Him.”

Re: “To help you – and me – get better…” See Why teachers learn as much as their students. (Which may also apply to bloggers and their readers.)

Re” investment.” See Amount Considered a Good Rate of Return on Investments: “Burying cash in coffee cans in your yard is a terrible long-term investing plan.  If it manages to survive the elements, it will still be worthless given enough time.” See also What rate of return should you expect … on your investments, indicating that as of 2014, a return between 10 and 15% was extremely good.

Re: cubby hole. See Cubby-hole – Wikipedia, on a “small, snug place, which may be considered and used as a place of safety for children.” But see also 1st Corinthians 3:2: “I had to feed you with milk, not with solid food, because you weren’t ready for anything stronger. And you still aren’t ready…” Thus you might say this blog is designed for people who are ready for “something stronger,” to wit: exploring the mystical side of the Bible. See also 1st Peter 2:2.

Re: making mistakes. See The Bible as “transcendent” meditation, on “so-called Christians who seem … to focus on sin – usually somebody else’s – rather than all the positive aspects that the discipline of regular Bible-reading can provide.” On that note, one writer said of meditating – which I thought like the Christian path – that the “would-be meditator might want to give himself permission to make mistakes. ‘You will make them anyway and will be much more comfortable – and get along better with this exercise – if you give yourself permission in advance.’”

The Aesop image is courtesy of Wikipedia. And in case you were wondering, Aesop is the one on the left. The cute babe on the right is “the beautiful Rhodope.” (The complete caption is “The beautiful Rhodope, in love with Aesop; engraving by Bartolozzi, 1782, after Kauffman‘s original.”)  

The point being that Aesop’s ability to have “the beautiful Rhodope” find him attractive offers hope to those gents physically “lacking,” but with an ability “give good story.” (Aesop was said to be not just old, but extremely ugly and a hunchback.)  

 Re: “carbon copy Christians.” See How to Break the Cookie-Cutter, Carbon Copy Christian Cycle, and The Carbon Paper/ Carbon Copy Christian | JUGGERNAUT.

Re: making mistakes. See also Make Mistakes—The Importance Of Failure – Vanseo Design.

The lower image is courtesy of Daniel and the Lions Den – Hebrew Bible and Art. The painting itself is by Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937), “the first African-American painter to gain international acclaim. He moved to Paris in 1891 to study, and decided to stay there, being readily accepted in French artistic circles. His painting entitled Daniel in the Lions’ Den was accepted into the 1896 Salon.” The painting itself “uses light to symbolize God’s presence. It is simple and there is not a lot of detail but it gets the point across.” See also Wikipedia.

*   *   *   *