storytime

I think you're mistaken in reading the story as a universal God instead of a tribal God. As the story has components of "the world" in borrowed form from diverse cultures, it would have been a natural and easy thing for the Hebrews to adopt and adapt those existing stories creating for themselves a God of their own.

You didn't answer my question about Esau and Jacob. Do you not see the creativity in Hebrew thought? Do you not see how the God of Abraham was not the God to all people in those days?

Why would the Hebrew God be concerned with other people and their gods? The Hebrew God was a jealous god, he was jealous for his own people Israel. He commanded the Israelites not to worship those other gods upon penalty of death. Herein the story doesn't promote a universal god as He is kept within the Hebrew image of how the Hebrew writers wanted their god to be. Theirs alone.

I think the story evolves as one poster noted a while back. The Hebrews designed their god as creator of the world and believed their god to be the most high god among all the other gods and they wrote their story about their god holding all nations of men accountable to Him. That was their ideology but just because they said so didn't make their story any more worthy than, lets say, the Canaanites story about their all powerful God who ruled over the whole world. Who was to argue in those days? All those middle eastern people in their tribes believed their own distinct and individual gods were the most high on the scale of gods being worshipped. All peoples in those days fought and died in the name of their gods. Come to think of it, people are still doing the same today.

Paul's condemnation for people with or without the law of Israel would have been understood as reward or consequence for man's behavior. Rome had it's laws for its own citizenry. Israel had its laws governing Jewish behavior. Paul was prostelyzing for converts to Judaism in Jesus name, so it is understandable that his belief held its surety in Jewish traditional precepts, thus Paul told the Athenians that their "unknown god" was indeed the one he worshipped and of which he promoted his Hebrew god. And Paul's Hebrew god was not universal, else recruiting people to Christ, the Jewish Jesus, would have been unecessary to his purpose.

The biblical God of Israel is exclusively Hebrew and belongs only to the Jews[Israel]. He has claimed no other people as his namesake. (OT).

I think the Gentiles in the NT story were expected to convert to Judaism, the way, truth and life-style of Jesus.

Joan of Bark

Your hypothesis is a hell of a stretch. For one thing, only the KJV interprets the word as 'sticks'. All the other Bibles I looked in translated it as 'wood' or 'firewood'. Secondly, is there any evidence that any other Hebrew thought they could do magic with sticks or anything else? Thirdly, with all the other specific laws in the Torah, I find it hard to believe that in this instance the authors would be so ambiguous.

sschlichter

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Here is the covenant God made with Abraham...

(Gen 12:1) The Obedience of Abram
Now the LORD said to Abram,
"Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father's household
to the land that I will show you.
(Gen 12:2) Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you,
and I will make your name great,
so that you will exemplify divine blessing.

for the purpose of ...

(Gen 12:3) I will bless those who bless you,
but the one who treats you lightly I must curse,
and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name."

This covenent went thru specific descendants, (Issac, Jacob, Judah...) it does not mean the other descendants were of no consequence to God.

it does not mean Ishmeal, Esau were of no consequence, they were just not the lineage of the covenant blessing.

Ishmeal

(Gen 17:20) As for Ishmael, I have heard you. I will indeed bless him, make him fruitful, and give him a multitude of descendants. He will become the father of twelve princes; I will make him into a great nation.

Esau

(Deut 2:5) Do not be hostile toward them, because I am not giving you any of their land, not even a footprint, for I have given Mount Seir as an inheritance for Esau.

God 'hating' Esau is referring to his not being selected even though he was the firstborn. How else do you explain God's specific promises to bless ALL nations thru Abraham and his specific concerns for other nations (such as the Assyrians in Jonah)

(Jon 4:11) Should I not be even more concerned about Nineveh, this enormous city? There are more than one hundred twenty thousand people in it who do not know right from wrong, as well as many animals!"

Habakkuk is another example.

In these instances, God betrayed tribal concerns. I am not saying that the Jews did not recruit God for the purpose of nationalism (as all people do) but their agenda and God's agenda was obviously different. This is one of the reasons that these prophets were killed by their own people. They would not recruit God behind the tribal agenda.



~Steve

storytime

You're right, it's a hell of a stretch. But, I am thinking about how "works" was prohibited on the sabbath. And if magic was considered a "work" in magic, and taking up serpents as performing magic, as in picking up sticks was an unlawful act in magic, then it was condemned on the Sabbath, the day of rest from "works". Would magic have been allowed during the rest of the week? Or was magic altogether prohibited.

Or it could have been as simple as this: The Israelites were expected to prepare ahead of time for the sabbath and this one man failed to prepare. So he was caught gathering firewood on the sabbath and someone reported him to Moses. What was the law? The death penalty.

storytime

The covenant made with Abraham was signified in the flesh and called circumcision. All who honored Abraham in this covenant process would be blessed and identified in the family of Abraham. Those who refused to honor the covenant of circumcision in Abraham would be "cut off" as the ritual of circumcision itself is signifying how those who refused circumcision would be separated from the claim to Abraham's house.

Ishmael was sent away to his own inheritance and blessed. After the death of Sarah, Abraham took another wife called Kenturah and produced more children. These were also sent away to their own inheritance. A traditional form of succession to sons is seen in how these relatives and tribal kinsmen received their inheritance.

Why was the covenant made with Isaac and not Ishmael? Because Ishmael needed no covenant as he was the firstborn and blessed in promise before Isaac was born. Other than a traditional kinsman purpose for sending away Ishmael, just as Abraham was sent away from his kinsmen, there is no other explanation I can offer.

As for Esau, and why he was hated, I'll speculate that it has to do with Esau intermarrying with another tribe of people. Esau seemed to have married outside his family ties which were Syrian(?) from Abraham to Isaac and Jacob. Esau is credited with starting up a new people called Edomites.

sschlichter

[QUOTE=storytime;5532906]that is the sign of the covenant, not the terms. The covenant terms were that God would unconditionally bless all families thru Abraham thru a son.

(Gen 15:4) But look, the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but instead a son who comes from your own body will be your heir."
(Gen 15:5) The LORD took him outside and said, "Gaze into the sky and count the stars - if you are able to count them!" Then he said to him, "So will your descendants be."

Abraham was justified before God because he beleived God's promise of a son and fulfillment of his covenant. Before circumcision and long before the law.

(Gen 15:6) Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty.

storytime

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5532944]
Read it again. That is indeed the terms. (Genesis 17:13-14)

"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant."

Those who would honor Abraham in being circumcised would be blessed. "I will bless them that bless thee.."

Those people who did not honor Abraham in circumcision were cut off, not to be a people of God in the house of Abraham, because they had broken the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham. These were not blessed as a people of God in house of Abraham. So, the covenant was not unconditional allowing uncircumcised people to be blessed in the house of Abraham.

The first son out of Abraham's loins was Ishmael. Who was Eliezer of Damascus? Maybe a servant? At this time Sarah was said to be barren.

Birthright in firstborn makes Ishmael the heir. His blessing was a given and he received his rightful inheritance. Then came the birth of Isaac and the covenant process was instilled in that son also. Both were inheritors of the promise in their own nations as were the other firstborn sons of Abraham by his other wives.

Abraham had faith that God would deliver on his promise of making Abraham a great father of many nations[nationalities] and so Abraham circumcised himself and his sons. Both faith and works are shown in the process.

To show that the promise was fulfilled, are there many nationalities of Jewish people who still hold to the requirement of honoring Abraham through circumcision? These would be considered as blessed in the house of Abraham.

btw, the uncircumcised, Gentiles[christians] are not blessed in the house of Abraham for they are "cut-off" from that promised blessing of being called "a people of God".

sschlichter

(Gen 17:11) You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder of the covenant between me and you.

The terms of this covenant are spelled out earlier in chapter 17.

They are cut-off from being the instruments of that blessing. The effects of that blessing was to bless all nations thru Abrahams' decendant. this was ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

~Steve

storytime

They are cut-off, period. The instruments of that blessing were concluded in the one seed called Jacob-Israel.

Jesus did not change the covenant made with Abraham. The law of Moses which came 450 years after the covenant made with Abraham did not make void the ritual of circumcision. Both law and circumcision can be viewed as the two witnesses before the throne of God.

Paul didn't change law or circumcision. He merely made the attempt to pacify the Gentiles in a faith only doctrine which was false as evidenced by OT scripture which states that both circumcision of flesh and heart is the required protocol in order for anyone to be recognized as "a people" or person of God. "God does not change".

"A people" holds its definition in Israel. For there was only one people (one seed) that God recognized as his own in the sons of Jacob-Israel. The Hebrews captured their God in their ideal image, and so made no way for His escape. So, when Paul took his gospel to the Gentiles, he didn't offer them equality with the Jews. What he offered them was conversion to Christ, a Jew. And Jesus the Jew preached Judaism. Jesus expected all to follow him in his way, truth and life-style of Judaism. Which meant any uncircumcised Gentiles were expected to take up their cross and be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile convert to Judaism.

sschlichter

You have not addressed any of the references to foreign nations that I supplied in your theory.

also, you view of Paul's teaching of the importance of circumcision conflicts with the words of Paul. Please explain how you can harmonize these vberses with your theory.

(Rom 2:28) For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh,

(Rom 4:9) Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, " faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."
(Rom 4:10) How then was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised!
(Rom 4:11) And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them.
(Rom 4:12) And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised.
(Rom 4:13) For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

(I Cor 7:19) Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God's commandments is what counts.

(Gal 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight - the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

(Gal 6:15) For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation!