Moses at Rephidim:  “If I let my arms down, the other team will win!“

Talk about timely!   The Bible readings for Sunday, September 28, include Exodus 17:1-7, which serves as a prelude to Exodus 17:8-16, which in turn tells of Israel pulling off their “first upset of the season.”   They beat their hated arch-rival, the dreaded Amelikites, thanks to Moses:

Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. ¹¹ Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Am′alek prevailed. ¹² 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.

As noted in On the readings for September 28, that sounds “a lot like a modern-day football fan, watching his favorite team on TV; moving around the room, sometimes standing, sometimes sitting,” sometimes muting the sound, sometimes telling his wife to leave the room, but “always trying to ‘help his team win.’”  (See also  On “God’s Favorite Team” – Part I.)

So imagine Moses – today – watching the “battle” from a stadium seat, or on his TV back at home.   For some reason he holds his arms up, and his team scores a touchdown.  But then his arms get tired and he lets them down, and – lo and behold! – the other team scores a touchdown.   So, in order to help his team win – or in the alternative, to avoid “jinxing” his team – Moses got his buddies Aaron and Hur to hold his arms up “for the rest of the game.”

That makes Moses the prototype of the modern-day football fan who does all kinds of strange things to help his team win.  And that is a basic theme of the Scribe’s new novel, God’s Favorite Team.   The book is all about finding spiritual growth by and through reading the Bible on a regular basis, and offering up the appropriate, “ritually efficacious” sacrifice to God.

Here’s how one “skeptic” explained the phenomenon, as shown by Moses at Rephidim and by the modern-day football fan trying to help his team win:

It’s a natural tendency for people to make connections between events.  “When I do this, that happens…”  Primitive people [and perhaps even modern-day football fans] developed superstitions in similar ways.  One year, the crops were bad.  The next year, they put a basket of dead birds in the middle of the field, and everything turned out great.  Therefore, placing a basket of dead birds in the field ensures a good crop…   Like the primitive farmers, we continue to make assumptions of causation [which] leads us to think that [for example] prayer works (you pray for your sports team to win…)   [I]t’s important that we not jump to conclusions.  We should make multiple observations.  We should try different sequences in various combinations…  Even with all that, we might never be sure about the real causes.  But we can rule some out, and we can increase our confidence in others.

See Faulty logic: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc « Gotham Skeptic.   All of which is another way of saying that many times those fan superstitions just don’t work out, as in reference to The Pueblo Chieftain | Broncos fans hope superstitions pay …., which told of the rituals used by Denver Bronco fans before last January’s Super Bowl.  (And we know how that turned out.)

On a happier note, that also brings up the subject of “Touchdown Jesus,” a feature of the stadium at Notre Dame, and in which the pose of Jesus – seen further below – looks a lot like the pose of Moses at Rephidim, with his arms held over his head. (And who knows?  Maybe today’s signal for a touchdown somehow came from “the original,” Moses at the Battle of Rephidim.)

Beyond that, many “Irish” fans believe TDJ brings the team good luck, and/or “helps them win.”  See for example Touchdown Jesus: Does Notre Dame have God on its side, posted on January 5, 2013, the Saturday before the national championship game:

The upper image is courtesy of Rephidim – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the full caption:  “Moses holding up his arms during the Battle of Rephidim, assisted by Hur and Aaron, in John Everett Millais‘ Victory O Lord! (1871).”

The lower image is courtesy of Touchdown Jesus at Notre Dame – College Football – About.com, with caption:  “‘Touchdown Jesus’ is seen here towering over Notre Dame Stadium.   (Tom Hauck/Getty Images).”   Here’s a closer view courtesy of Word of Life Mural // Hesburgh Libraries … Notre Dame.

For further information on TDJ, see Notre Dame Stadium – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Touchdown Jesus – A Notre Dame Campus Landmark | UHND.com, and/or Word of Life Mural // Hesburgh Libraries // University of ….

Stott’s “Understanding the Bible…”

*   *   *   *

About that “reading the Bible with an open mind.” In a word – or six – this Bible-reading blog is different. It says not only that the Bible should be read with an open mind, but also that it was specifically designed to help liberate the human mind and spirit, not shackle them.

That runs contrary to a prevailing perception these days, that way too many Christians are way too negative and/or close-minded.   For more on those ideas see About this Blog, which also talks at length about how we as a people 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:

 As noted in Part I, John R. W. Stott was an Anglican cleric whom Time magazine ranked among the 100 most influential people in the world.  He wrote a book, Understanding the Bible, and on pages 140-143, he made three key points.

Stott’s first point was that the process of Bible inspiration “was not a mechanical one.  God did not treat the human authors of Scripture as dictating machines or tape recorders.”

He said God spoke to the authors in different ways, sometimes through dreams and visions, “sometimes by audible voice, sometimes by angels.”  He said however God spoke to them, the writers’ “literary style and vocabulary were [still] their own…   God made full use of the personality, temperament, background and experience of the biblical authors.”  Thus there was a “dual authorship.”  The Bible was equally the word of God, and the word of men and women;  “This is, indeed, how it describes itself,” with citations. (Id, at 140-41.)

Stott next disputed the notion that “every word of the Bible is literally true.”

He said instead that the words of the Bible were true “only in context,” and cited the book of Job as an example.  He said the first 37 chapters of Job consisted of dialogue, usually between Job and his ostensible comforters, while the truth of the book was contained only in the last five chapters.  “The book as a whole is God’s word, but the first thirty-seven chapters can be understood only in the light of the last five.” (Id, at 141, emphasis added.)

Thus a key principle for Stott is that Scripture is without error “in all that it affirms.”

That principle (he said) was not always apparent “in the so-called ‘inerrancy debate.’”  Stott said (for example) that much of the Bible is written in a figurative manner, including many “‘anthropomorphic’ descriptions of God.”  He said the Bible often described God in human terms, as for example His having eyes and ears, or an “outstretched arm” or a “mighty hand.”  (On the other hand, Jesus Himself said that “God is spirit,” in John 4:24.)

Thus when we read of people hiding under God’s wings, we understand the Bible writer was passing on the truth that God “protects those who take refuge in him.” (Id, 141-42, emphasis added.  For more on the “inerrancy debate,” see Biblical inerrancy – Wikipedia, of which more in later posts.  See also Fundamentalism – Wikipedia, which noted that the first of the Five Fundamentals set out at the Niagara Bible Conference 1910 was “the doctrine that the Bible ‘is without error or fault in all its teaching.’”)

Then too, this business of “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.  In the “Easy-to-Read” translation, Jesus said in pertinent part that such Scribes and Pharisees “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.”

Of course the choice is yours. As Jesus said in John 6:37, He would never turn away anyone who comes to Him, and if “coming to Him” means – to you – having boatloads of kids or handling snakes, He may well end up accepting you as He promised, stumpy-arm and all.  On the other hand, don’t take the words of the first 37 chapters of Job too literally, or you might end up committing suicide.  See On Job, the not-so-patient, which included this complaint:

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…  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?”

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Understanding the Bible by John R.W. Stott — Reviews, ….  See also John Stott – Wikipedia, which added – as noted – that Stott was an Anglican cleric whom Time magazine ranked among the 100 most influential people in the world.

The lower image is courtesy of Job and His Friends – Ilya Repin – WikiArt.org.

A snake-handler – who may answer to the name “Stumpy” – ostensibly following Mark 16…

*   *   *   *

A small minority of rural Christians practice “snake handling” as part of their religious ritual.  They do this based on a passage from Mark 16:16-18, part of Jesus’ “Great Commission:”

 And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation…    And these signs will accompany those who believe:  in my name they will cast out demons;  they will speak in new tongues;  they will pick up serpents with their hands;  and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;  they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (E.A.)

On the other hand, see for example Snake-Handling Pentecostal Pastor Dies From Snake Bite – ABC …, which arguably shows that such a practice may not be such a good idea.

Then there are the Christians who seek to have “quiverfulls” of children, based on another, more obscure Bible passage, to wit: Psalm 127:3-5:

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward.   Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth.   How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them…

All of which comes under the heading of taking the Bible too literally, not to mention “out of context.”  That can be a definite problem if you think the way to get into heaven is either handling snakes (“Stumpy”), or having quiverfulls of children.  On the other hand, if you’re focusing solely on the end result and not the instructive “journey,” you may have “already missed the point.”  See for example On three suitors (a parable), which included this prayer:

O God, if I worship Thee in fear of hell, burn me in hell;  if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise;  but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting beauty.

So the point – in case I’m being too subtle – is not to focus on getting into heaven as the “be-all and end-all.”   The point of your Christian life is to focus on the journey, and all the valuable lessons you can learn while you’re in your present incarnation, but we digress…

But that does bring up the difference between focusing too exclusively on the “plain meaning” of the Bible – treating it as a set of definite statutes or rules to be followed, on pain of being excluded from heaven – as opposed to treating it as a Book of Wisdom, from which valuable life lessons might be gleaned (and the pathway to heaven paved, metaphorically).

In other words, you could say that the Bible message is both simple enough for a child to understand, yet so full of subtle mysteries that a lifetime can be spent on its study, yet still leave myriads of lessons yet to be learned.  (See 1st Corinthians 4:1, “This is how you should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”)

But there is both another way, and an inherent danger in taking its “plain meaning” too literally.

For example, John R. W. Stott was an Anglican cleric whom Time magazine ranked among the 100 most influential people in the world.  He wrote a book, Understanding the Bible, and on pages 140-143, he made three key points, as discussed in Part II.

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

The upper image is courtesy of Snake handling – Wikipedia.  The caption reads, “Snake handling at Pentecostal Church of God, Lejunior, Harlan County, Kentucky September 15, 1946 (National Archives and Records Administration). Photo by Russell Lee.”

As to the validity of such practices as a method of proving one’s faith, see Does MARK 16:17-18 mean that Christians should handle deadly …:

This passage can be understood two ways.  One way is to assume that Jesus followers are expected to handle deadly snakes…   Another way to understand this passage is to be reassured that when Christians accidentally come in contact with poisonous snakes, God will miraculously protect them…   Such an experience happened to the apostle Paul.  After being shipwrecked and escaping to the island of Malta, Paul was bitten by a deadly snake. [Acts:28:1-6].  Additionally, the Bible tells us that we should not tempt God by deliberately placing ourselves in potential danger [Matthew 4:5-7]. (E.A.)

Further information on the “Quiverfull Movement” can be found at sites including Quiverfull – Wikipedia; What Is Quiverfull? – Patheos, part of “No longer quivering,” an ostensible “gathering place for women escaping and healing from spiritual abuse;”  5 Insane Lessons from My Christian Fundamentalist Childhood …;  and/or QuiverFull .com :: Psalm 127:3-5.

(Please note that these were the first four entries listed under the “Google search,” and are not intended to be interpreted as any sort of personal “ranking” by the Scribe.”)

The lower image is courtesy of Understanding the Bible by John R.W. Stott — Reviews.  See also John Stott – Wikipedia. 

El Greco’s Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple, which may have led an onlooker or two to say, “Geez!  That guy’s got a lot of chutzpah!”

The word for today  is Chutzpah.   It’s from the original Hebrew so it’s Bible-related.  And it’s modern for reasons including the chutzpah displayed these days, especially in political circles.  In 2011 the word – as used in a sentence – was the center of a hubbub when Michelle Bachman pronounced it “choot-spa.”  (See Michele Bachmann can’t pronounce “chutzpah” – Salon.com.)  Another example:  Legal scholars say chutzpah was used “231 times in American legal opinions, 220 of those after 1980.”  See Chutzpah – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia said it’s a Yiddish word referring to “the quality of audacity, for good or for bad,” as noted.  It comes “from the Hebrew word ḥutspâ (חֻצְפָּה), meaning ‘insolence’ or ‘audacity,'” which makes it even more Bible related.  (For that matter it may also refer to the kind of nerve it takes to argue with The Force That Created The Universe, a subject of prior blog-posts; On the Bible readings for August 3 and On arguing with God.)

Leo Rosten – who wrote The Joys of Yiddish – defined it as “that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.”  He further defined it as “gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts,’ presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to” (referring of course to the ancient Hebrew from which much of the Bible sprang).

Which makes it clear that our Church forebears seemed to have quite a bit of that personality trait;  people like Abraham, Moses and Jesus (seen above “cleansing the Temple”).

I mean, think about it.  Here’s this “Jesus religion” saying that little ol’ you can make a spiritual connection with the Force Which Created the Universe.  Beyond that, this religion says if you ask “Him” (anthropomorphism) to help you out, “He” will take time out from “His” busy schedule to personally intervene and straighten out the mess you’ve made out of your life.

How audacious is that?  The nerve of some people!

On that note, try Googling the term “personal relationship with God.”  I did that and got 50,400,00 results.  (That fifty million, four hundred thousand.)

One website had this comment on the type of Bible faith in which…

…the primary expression is between God and the individual.  Yet how often does the phrase “personal relationship with God” refer to faith/spirituality practiced in privacy?  Lots!  In a culture where everything in our lives is private – finances, sex, ethics, to name a few – religion and spirituality [are] expected to be private as well.

Which could lead to a thought that this personal relationship is tantamount to “being intimate” with The Force That Created The Universe, the Prime Mover, the Source of All Creativity.  Beyond that, you might even say that to begin or maintain this relationship you don’t need a formal church or specific set of rules to follow – for example – to “get into heaven.”  (But see On three suitors (a parable), as to the best type of personal prayer to achieve that end.)

So again, let’s get this straight.  This “Jesus religion” says you – as an individual – can have a personal relationship with the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Source of All Being, and that if you play your cards right, this Ultimate Being will intervene to help you in your personal life. . .

Now that’s chutzpah!

The upper image is courtesy of Cleansing of the Temple – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  And incidentally, the recessional hymn at The Scribe’s church for Sunday, July 27, was 616, “The Kingdom of God,” with a middle passage of the first verse saying “He” – meaning Jesus – “comes to break oppression, to set the captive free.”  Apparently you can’t do that without a little chutzpah, which may have been why Jesus so upset the orthodox of His day. 

(Which leads to another question:  Is “orthodox Christianity” a contradiction in terms?)

For references on the perception that Christians are negative, see On the Bible readings for August 3.

As to chutzpah as “the word used in a sentence,” the phrase was popularized recently by another  hubbub, in the 2014 National Spelling Bee.  A judge – asked to use the word “milkshake” in a sentence – referred to a 2003 song by the “American recording artist Kelis.”  Since this blog is ostensibly family-oriented, let’s just say that in the song milkshake was  “used as a metaphor for [that which] makes women special.'”  See Milkshake (song) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(To which the Scribe has two comments.  First, “That judge showed a lot of chutzpah.”  Second, “It’s amazing what you can learn doing research for a blog,  if only you open your mind.)

Also as to the reference “used in a sentence,” see Spelling Bee Judge Quoted Kelis’ ‘Milkshake’ In Example …  and A Spelling Bee judge quoted Kelis’ ‘Milkshake’ to use a word …

See also the Contest Rules of the 2014 Scripps National Spelling Bee | …, which provide in part:

The speller may ask the pronouncer to say the word again, define it, use it in a sentence, provide the part of speech, provide the language(s) of origin and/or provide an alternate pronunciation or pronunciations.

 

As to the quoted portion referring to “where the primary expression is between God and the individual,” see davidwarkentin.blogspot.com/2010/09/last-thing-in-world-id-wan…..   

The lower image is courtesy of the Anthropomorphism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which included the caption, “In this illustration by Milo Winter of Aesop‘s fable, ‘The North Wind and the Sun,” an anthropomorphic North Wind tries to strip a traveler of his cloak.”

Other sources as to anthropomorphism, Prime Mover, etc., include: Prime mover – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, first cause (philosophy) — Encyclopedia Britannica, Cosmological argument – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Unmoved mover – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and/or Personal god – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.