The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eye for an Eye

Theology General Theology
#121

So why was Joshua making flint knives? Were they living in the stone age?
As Moses said in Deut. 30 “when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you and you return and obey His voice…” , “Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed , and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”

If you notice, often times when they assemble, and the word of the Lord is read in the hearing of the people, there is always weeping and mourning going on.

#122

Sometimes the old ways, are still much better. Like the ancient medical, healing methods and practices.

Actually, one can embrace both. It’s OK to consult a homeopath, an Eastern medicine practitioner…or a Native American, medicine man or woman…while at the same time, going to see traditional medical doctors and specialists.

Let’s look at an article and I’ll quote from:

https://www.artofishi.com/flint-knives-bible/

So here we have Stone-Age technology, which apparently enjoyed some degree of familiarity even in the Bronze Age. But in this situational context, God’s motive seems focused on the reality that flint blades will cut cleaner, thus resulting in less pain and more rapid healing for the patients. It’s almost startling that to think that God would point to old technology as being superior in this circumstance. How did He know that? Well, He’s God.

But wait. There is perhaps an even more compelling reason why God directed flint knives to be used. If you study bronze blades and flint blades under high magnification, you see a stark difference. The surface of a flint blade is quite smooth and homogeneous. A bronze blade is full of pits and grooves, great homes in which all kinds of harmful bacteria can thrive. A blade that is struck from, what would have been the interior of a chunk of flint, is comparatively sterile.

Now it’s doubtful that the Israelites had knowledge of bacteria and it’s ability to cause dangerous infections, but once again, God certainly did. So, is it probable that God commanded Joshua to use old technology because of its superiority in this case? Is it likely that His directive came out of His concern to mitigate pain, discomfort and risk of infection that resulted from doing delicate, non-anasthetical surgery, in a tent. It would seem so. Having said that, one might still assume that a collective “OOOOOOOOW”! rose from the Israelite camp one day in the Bronze Age.

Perhaps we need to substitute the word “technology” for “religion” and sing this song??? Actually, that’s not a bad song (with word substitution) to sing…when the tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse finally arrive!

1 Like
#123

But LLC is sure that the O.T. keeps having flint knives made for God to use in a bloodless spiritual surgery on Jewish hearts. I ache for all their poor boys who thought it meant actually parting with their foreskins! :slight_smile:

When Exodus 4:25 said, " But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said," it surely was obvious to Jews that talk of using a stone age knife cannot be about any messy removals. Otherwise, they could begin to think sacrificing bulls and goats might involve literal blood too!

#124

Flint knives are made of stone and are double edged. As I said, " The word of God is a double edged sword." “I wound and I heal.” Joshua was most likely laying down the Law (those written on stone by the finger of God). and executing justice. “For the Lord disciplines the one He loves and He chastens everyone He accepts as a son. No discipline seems pleasant at the time but painful. Later on it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who are trained by it,”

Sorry Bob, but circumcising mens’ genitals does not give you " a land flowing with milk and honey" (That just doesn’t cut it . :grinning:); however, a circumcised heart does.
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will keep My judgments and do them. THEN you shall dwell in the in the land that I gave to your fathers and you will be my people and I will be your God. I will call for the grain and multiply it and bring no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations.”( Ezek. 36:26-30).

Its’ funny how Joshua 5 talks about dry ground and the spirit no longer being in the people. Then suddenly after the circumcision occurs they’re eating grain, the produce of the land and the reproach of Egypt was rolled away.

It also states that all who came out of Egypt were circumcised. Nowhere does it speak of any surgical procedures taking place during the Exodus. However, all were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink as Cor. 10: 2-4 says.

As far as the mention of males goes, it’s not surprising since it was a male dominant world at the time.

#125

LLC,

I really see no evidence that God is portrayed as having people create and employ “flint knives” because a supposed double edged flint blade clarified to them what God’s Spirit needed to do bloodless internal surgeries on males’ hearts. Like it or not, these knives were often manifestly about piling up Philistine male foreskins.

#126

Which was a weird job that I would not have wanted to do, btw…

#127

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but yes a change of heart is needed for people to come together in peace and be productive. It’s ludicrous to suggest that physically circumcising the genitals makes this happen.

#128

Amen, we appear to agree that a change in hearts is far more needed than the O.T. practice of using a flint knife to pile up male foreskins, whether Philistine or Israelite.

1 Like
#129

Yes, and the people of the Old Testament understood this as well.
Lev. 26:41 plainly states “If their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt then I will remember My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham.”
Notice that it does NOT say, “If your genitals are circumcised then I will remember My covenant.”
This is why I believe that Joshua raised up the sons of Israel with the double edged sword of judgment and truth, giving them spiritual food ( the bread of life) and teaching them the way. They were taking the place of their fathers who were previously raised but had gone their own way and were consumed.
I think it’s the people who came after who mistook the words and incorporated the practice of literal circumcision into the law. That’s why it was done away with because it never was the Law of God in the first place.

#130

I do not believe that every single rule and ritual supposedly commanded by God in the Old Testament was actually of God. (Trying to distinguishing exactly which ones were and weren’t is not the focus of this comment.)

But I do believe that every single violent consequence for disobedience to those rules and rituals was never from God, but from that legalistic murderer, Satan, who was (and still is) sometimes confused with God.

For example, in the following passage I would argue that the Lord [God] speaks to Moses, but then the “Lord” [Satan] attempts to KILL Moses for failing to obey a rule (circumcision):

Exodus 4:22-26 NIV.

22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

(And note regarding verse 23: I believe the Lord had only told Moses to warn Pharaoh, not threaten him. Evil consequences to ignoring warnings are from the devil, not God.)

Thankfully, the devil was disarmed at the cross, when God nailed his weapon of dogma (“the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment”) to it:

Colossians 2:14-15 (NIV)

14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness [Greek: dogma], which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Please consider this invaluable essay, which makes the case that even in the Bible, the devil was sometimes confused with God:

SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?

#131

I agree that some O.T. passages recognize that circumcision of the heart matters most, but see no evidence that other texts we’ve discussed are not describing literal circumcision. Thus it’s not surprising to me that those in the religion devoted to the O.T. were unanimous that male Jews should be circumcised on the 8th day.

#132

Bob, It’s not just some passages that recognize that the heart matters most, it’s hundreds. And if the Pharisees and Sadducees were so devoted to the O.T. as they claimed to be, then what about the other laws of Moses-the circumcision of the heart, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule? They seemed to have conveniently forgotten these.

#133

LLC, you wonderfully read the O.T. through eyes familiar with the N.T., but I think that leaves you too harshly unsympathetic with sincere Jews. The reality is that it’s not just physically setting apart Jewish boys by circumcising them on the 8th day that has little to do with the importance of the heart. The vast majority of O.T. law is not about the heart mattering most. I think that’s why Paul says he felt blameless according to the law, until it was the tenth commandment that killed him. For the call not to covet was so especially pointed toward our inward condition and thus not so easy to obey. And it’s no wonder that the faith devoted to the Hebrew Scriptures sees itself as a religion of observing Torah.

In truth, it’s not just Pharisees and Sadducees who read O.T. law as focused on externals. Most sincere Jews see that as obvious. You condemn them for not emphasizing the Golden Rule. The reality is that this call in Leviticus to love only fellow Jews as neighbors is set amid a bunch of legalistic external rules, and only stands out to us because the O.T. is almost devoid of using the word, love, as applied to outsiders, enemies or neighbors.

Indeed, the contrast with the N.T. on the call to love is graphic! Jesus and every very apostle use hyperbolic language to press horizontal love on a par with the Shema’s love for God, and as a supreme call on our lives. This focus makes me enormously grateful for Jesus and how he lead us in how to read the Old Testament and find what is essential in it.

#134

Deut. 10:17-19 says this: 'For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords , the great God, mighty and awesome , who shows no partiality or takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

What is obvious to me is that the first five books of Moses were written solely by Moses. They are conglomeration of different writers giving different accounts.

#135

Did you mean that “the books were NOT written solely by Moses”? I am sympathetic to the perception that a conglomeration of O.T. writers have “different” presentations of views. My own sense e.g. is that this canon has wonderful expressions of love for the foreigner, mixed with many harsh expressions of hatred and endorsement of exterminating foreign enemies. And I see Jesus and the apostles pick up on the better strands, as well as selectively quoting the parts of texts that fit what they have seen revealed in Christ and him crucified.

I.e. it’s not that I find you are mistaken that many N.T. ideas can be found in the O.T. I only object to the impression that the opposite ideas are not there as well, and that it was a challenge for Biblicists in the pre-Christian era not to read the O.T. in the literal way that Judaism tended to read it.

#136

Bob, thanks for the correction, I did mean to say that the books were NOT solely written by Moses.
It is not surprising to me that these books mention war, swords, destruction, etc. This was the birth of a new nation declaring their sovereignty and inalienable rights under the Laws of the Great I AM. This is the moral code that was instilled within the heart of man upon creation. They were setting up the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule as the Law of the land. I believe the vision of these founding fathers was the same as what the founding fathers of America had in mind for themselves and their children, “a land flowing with milk and honey”, with freedom and justice for all. These people joining in were commanded to put away their false gods, idols, and ritual harlotries and cling to the Laws of their Maker, keeping them in their hearts and teaching and teaching them to their children. I see it as their Revolutionary War, and yes old enemies often do rise up again. From what I understand, the Jewish law was not there in the beginning, but eventually entered in and took over, becoming oppressive in their ways. As Jeremiah says, they went backward and not forward.

This is why I don’t see the word of God as progressive. It goes in cycles as the writers of the Bible believed. For example,the Catholic Church grew from the humble teachings of Jesus into a state religion with all it’s rituals, laws and persecutions. How does this happen? I thought we were to leave all that behind. However, as they say," a dog returns to it’s own vomit, so a fool to his folly." So, what you have is the same “beast” rising up behind the shining face of Jesus; pretending to be the good shepherd but inside they were ravenous wolves, just as they did with Moses and Abraham. And such things will happen over and over again because sin STILL exists, and men STILL seek power, glory and wealth for themselves. You teach your children, but many don’t believe what you say because of course, they know better. So, they walk the same broad path. But, for all of this, as Moses said, “when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind and return to your God and obey His voice with all your heart, then He will restore you.”

#137

Well, since I’m from Anglo-Orthodoxy. Let me address that. What the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches state, is that there is Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And Sacred Tradition also has its place, in the Anglican and Methodist churches. The same is true with Native American spirituality, from the Amazon and Red Road traditions. It just what is passed down, by oral tradition. In the case of Native Americans and Eastern Orthodoxy, these oral traditions have remained - relatively unchanged. They could also look on those NOT following oral tradition, as

" a dog returns to it’s own vomit, so a fool to his folly."

But I don’t like to use, those harsh words. Especially since I also follow the tradition of Holy Foolery.

By following oral tradition, the Native Americans have no “new age, fuzzy wuzzy”. And the Eastern Orthodox have no “ball of confusion”, like you find in Protestant churches - with sola scriptura.

A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it, is committing another mistake. – Confucius

#138

LLC, You state, “I don’t see the word of God as progressive.”

I perceive the New Testament to insist that Jesus is superior, and huge progress, compared to all that came before. E.g. Hebrews 3: “Fix your thoughts on Jesus… Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses.” Or Matthew 17’s scene with Jesus, Moses and Elijah, which chides the disciples for honoring them on the same level, and ends with “no one except Jesus.”

Do you see the apostles apparent consensus that Jesus is vastly superior to what came before as an error?

#139

To me, Hebrews 3 is not suggesting that Jesus was superior to all that came before. It says that Jesus was faithful to Him( the Spirit of God) who appointed Him, as Moses was also faithful in all His house. For this One( the Spirit of God) has been counted more worthy than Moses insomuch as He (God) who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone , but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward by Christ as a Son over His own household.

Hebrews 4:2 goes on to say: "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them."
Jesus and Moses were preaching the SAME words. However, there were some who didn’t believe and they rebelled.

As for Matthew 17’s scene with Jesus, Moses and Elijah on the Mount, what they heard were the voices of Moses and Elijah ( the fathers of the faith) speaking through Jesus, as they were all of the SAME Spirit of the One true God whose word does not change.

#140

Well, LLC. I don’t see any different between following the theology of LLC. And being a member of Judaism, Sikhism or the Bahá’í Faith. Which all honor the one true God. Without the “superiority” of Christianity or the radical elements or Sharia law of Islam. Can you enlighten me on why one should embrace, the theology of LLC. Over just belonging to one of the monotheistic faith traditions I’ve mentioned?

“The things that make me different are the things that make me.”-- A. A. Milne

And in keeping with this discussion’s “seriousness”, I present a joke - from today’s Sunil Bali newsletter:

Fed up of having no money and being in trouble, a teenager decided to walk around his neighborhood, to find any odd jobs that needed doing.

He was just about to give up after having been refused what seemed like a hundred times, when one man said he that he could paint his porch. The man gave him a bucket of white paint and told him that he would give him £40 when he finished.

The man walked into his house laughing and told his wife what a great deal he had got. “You’re so mean Steve, our porch covers over half of the house!” his wife replied.

90 minutes later, the teenager knocked on the door, and gave the bucket of white paint back to the man. The astonished man handed him £40 and asked him how he had finished painting the porch so quickly? “There were one or two tricky bits, but it was pretty easy,” he replied. “Oh, and by the way, it’s a Ferrari not a Porsche.”