DEUTERONOMY: Chapter 25

Chapter 25
Summary:	Moses' speech continues: "If there is a dispute between two men, the judges are to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. If the wicked man is worthy of a beating, then the judge shall order him to lie down and to be beaten in his presence. The amount of lashes he receives is to be in proportion to the severity of his crime, and is not to exceed forty lashes - for if he is beaten more than forty times, the people would view that as excessive. "You are not to muzzle your ox when he treads in your cornfields. "If a man's brother dies without having children and leaves behind a widow, his widow is not to remarry outside of the family. Her husband's brother is instead to sleep with her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother. The first child she bears shall be counted as the son of his brother who has died, so that his name shall not be forgotten in the land of Israel. "If a man refuses to marry his brother's widow, the widow is to complain to the elders of the city. The elders of the city are then to speak to the man, but if he still refuses, then the widow is to take off one of the man's shoes and spit in his face, telling him that this is what happens to a man who refuses to build his brother's house. From that point on, the man's house shall be referred to as 'The house of him that had his shoe removed'. "If two men get into a physical altercation and the wife of one of the men tries to help her husband by grabbing the other man's testicles, then you must cut off her hand and shall not pity her. "You shall not have in your possessions mismatched weights and measures, but instead are to use perfect and just weights and measures, so that your days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord your God has given you. All that do such things are an abomination to the Lord your God. "Remember what the Amalekites did to you when you came forth from out of Egypt? How they met you by the way and smote those of you who were lagging behind, as well as the feeble, the faint, and the weary while not fearing God? Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from fighting your enemies around the land which the Lord your God has given you for an inheritance, you are to blot out all memory of the Amalekites under heaven. You shall not forget this."
Thoughts:	Moses begins the chapter by outlining how to administer corporal punishment. If a person is judged "worthy" of a beating, he is to lie down and is to be beaten in front of the judge who orders his beating. Moses adds that the amount of lashes the man receives is to be in proportion to the severity of his crime, and is not to exceed forty lashes - for that he reasons would "seem vile" to the people of Israel. Today most of the developed world has abolished judicial corporal punishment with only 32 countries still following this practice - the largest majority of which, by no surprise, are located in the Middle East. There are numerous reasons why this has fallen out of practice throughout the civilized world, but apparently God and Moses believe this punishment to be just. Moses follows this by telling the Israelites that when an ox is working in the cornfields, it is not to be muzzled. Next Moses gives a ridiculous law that seems more fitting in a Monty Python sketch than in a book alleged to be the "word of God". Moses states that when a man's brother leaves behind a widow and did not have any children, then the man is to marry his brother's widow, and the firstborn child is to be counted as if he were the son of the dead brother. Essentially this was the law that Onan broke when he refused to ejaculate inside of his dead brother's wife. It becomes sillier when Moses states what is to happen if the living brother refuses to play along. Unlike Onan who was killed by God, if the man refuses to marry his brother's widow, the widow has to complain against her dead husband's brother to the elders of the city, and they have to go down and try to talk him into marrying her. If he still won't play along then the widow gets to remove one of the man's shoes and spit in his face, and from that point on the man's house will be known as 'The house of him that had his shoe removed'. Moses then states that if two men get into a fight, and one of the men's wife tries to help her husband by grabbing the testicles of the man he's fighting, then the woman's hand must be cut off and she is to be shown no pity. Essentially, a man could be attacked, and his wife is not allowed to protect him by the one sure fire way to stop the attacker, by going for his testicles. Moses next states that all weights and measures must be accurate, and that one is not to cheat other people by using flawed weights and measures. Doing so is an "abomination" to God. Moses closes out the chapter by commanding that the Israelites are to commit genocide against the Amalekites as soon as they're done fighting the enemies tribes surrounding the "promised land". Moses justifies the genocide by reminding the people that the Amalekites attacked all of the slow, sick, weak, and injured and that they don't "fear God" either. However, Moses doesn't make it clear whether they'll be able to keep the virgin girls like they did with the slaughter of the Midianites.

NUMBERS: Chapter 22

Chapter 22
Summary:	The people of Israel traveled on, camping in the plains of Moab, east of the Jordan River by Jericho. King Balak, the son of Zippor and king of Moab, had seen what the people of Israel had done to the Amorites, and his kingdom became scared and distressed by the large amount of people in the Israeli army. Balak spoke with the elders of Midian, voicing his fears that the Israelites would "lick up all that are around" them, "as an ox licketh up the grass of the field". The king then sent messengers to Balaam, the son of Beor, living in the land of Pethor near the Euphrates River. He summoned Balaam explaining that these people who have come out from Egypt (the Israelites) are beginning to cover the face of the earth, and that they are against him. King Balak begged Balaam to come to Moab and curse the Israelites and drive them out of the land, as they were too mighty for his armies to repel. King Balak was aware of the blessings that fall upon all that Balaam has blessed, and the doom that falls all that Balaam has cursed. The messengers that delivered the message were amongst the elders of Moab and Midian, and came bearing a reward of money as they delivered King Balak's message to Balaam. Balaam told the messengers to stay for the night and that he would speak with them again after speaking with God. God came to Balaam and asked who these men were that were staying with him, to which Balaam replied that they were sent by King Balak of Moab. Balaam repeated to God what the king had said to him, about a horde of people who had come out of Egypt and that he had been asked to curse them in the hopes that it would drive them out of the land. God tells Balaam that he is not to go with these messengers, nor is he to curse the people, for they are blessed. Balaam awoke in the morning and told the messengers to return to their land, as God had refused to allow him to leave with them. The messengers returned to King Balak and told him that Balaam refused to come with them. King Balak sent another group of messengers consisting of even more noble leaders than the last, and they went to Balaam begging him to return to Moab with them. The messengers told Balaam that the king has promised to bestow a great honor upon him and whatever reward he chooses. Balaam answered the men stating that even if the king had offered his palace filled with silver and gold, that he would still be unable to to go against God's word. Balaam tells the men to stay the night and that he will again speak with God to see if he had anything further to say. God again came to Balaam that night and told him that if these men came to summon him, then he shall go with them, but tells Balaam that he is to only do what God tells him to do. Balaam awoke the next morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab. God became angry because Balaam went with the messengers (despite having commanded him to go with them the previous evening) and placed an angel in his way to stand as an adversary against him. Balaam was riding his donkey, along with his two servants, when the donkey saw the angel standing in the way with a sword drawn in its hand. The donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field, so Balaam beat her to get her back on the path. The angel stood in a path in the vineyards between two walls, and the donkey seeing the angel thrust herself against the wall crushing Balaam's foot against the wall, so Balaam beat her again. The angel then moved ahead further to a more narrow space where there would be no room for the donkey to turn right or left. When the donkey saw the angel, she fell down under Balaam. Balaam became angry and beat the donkey again with his staff. God then "opened the mouth" of the donkey, and the donkey said to Balaam, "What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?" Balaam replied to his donkey that he beat her because the donkey had mocked him. He added that if he was armed with a sword that he would have killed her. The donkey then asked Balaam if she had not served him well until this day, and had she ever done anything like this before, to which Balaam conceded that she had not. God "opened the eyes" of Balaam, and he then saw the angel standing in the way with its sword drawn. Balaam bowed down his head and "fell on his face". The angel asked Balaam why had he beaten the donkey three times and stated that it stood in Balaam's way because his actions were "perverse". The angel explained that the donkey had seen and turned from the angel three times, and that if she hadn't the angel surely would have slain Balaam while sparing the life of his donkey. Balaam then told the angel that he had "sinned" because he was unaware that the angel was standing in the way against him. He then tells the angel that he will turn around and head back if he has displeased the angel. The angel tells Balaam to go with Balak's messengers, but to only say what he is told to say by God. Balaam went with the messengers, and when King Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to greet him at a city in Moab, on the border of the Arnon River. King Balak then asked Balaam why he had delayed his coming, and why his offers of reward had not motivated him to come sooner. Balaam responds by saying that although he has came, he is no power to say anything except what God tells him to speak. Balaam then went with King Balak to Kirjathhuzoth, where the king sacrificed oxen and sheep, giving the animals to Balaam and the messengers that were with him. The following morning, King Balak brought Balaam to the top of Mount Baal, where he could see the people of Israel spread out before him.
Thoughts:	This chapter introduces us to the king of Moab, King Balak, who is fearing the growing army of the people of Israel after seeing what they had done to the Amorites. King Balaak sends some dignitaries down to a prophet named Balaam, who lived in the land of Pethor near the Euphrates River. The king tries to summoned Balaam, explaining his fear of his kingdom being conquered by the Israelites, and asks Balaam - who he knows has favor with God - to curse them, in order to drive them away from the land of Moab. Balaam tells the messengers to stay for the night and that he would speak with God that evening and give them an answer in the morning. That night God visits with Balaam and says something curious, he asks Balaam who these men are that are visiting. Most believers attribute omniscience and omnipresence as characteristics to Yahweh, but clearly here he is shown to be ignorant towards the identities of Balaam's visitors. If God is an omniscient being he would know who these men were, and if he was omnipresent, he would have seen King Balak send these men. Obviously, this chapter is yet another example that God is not quite as omniscient and omnipresent as he is commonly described as. Balaam then has to explain to God (in spite of God's alleged omniscience and omnipresence) who these men are, and repeats the message they delivered from King Balak. God tells Balaam that he is not to go with these messengers, nor is he to curse the Israelites, as he explains to Balaam that they are blessed people. In the morning Balaam tells the messengers that he cannot accompany them as God has refused it, and sends the messengers back home. Upon the messengers returning without Balaam, King Balak now sends a second group of messengers comprised of higher nobility to beg Balaam to come back and curse the Israelites promising Balaam whatever reward he wishes. When the second group of messengers arrive, Balaam tells them that even if the king gave him a palace filled with silver and gold, he would still be unable to go against God's orders. He has the men to spend the night and tells them that he will speak with God again and will see if God has anything further to say about the matter. Again, God speaks to Balaam that night and tells him that he's allowed to travel back with the men, but that he is only to say and do what God tells him to do. The next morning Balaam saddles his donkey and went with the messengers, and God gets angry with Balaam for leaving with them. This seems puzzling, considering that God gave Balaam permission the previous evening, but it is thought that Balaam's eagerness is what angers God, despite that the bible does not imply this at all. The way this chapter reads, it appears that God changes his mind about Balaam leaving with the men and gets angry with Balaam for leaving, which is not any fault on Balaam's part. So God places an angel armed with a sword along the path that Balaam is traveling. Balaam's donkey sees the angel armed with a sword and turns off of the path heading off into a field. Balaam angry at the donkey leaving the path beats the donkey until it returns back to the path. The angel then moves farther up the path between two walls in a vineyard. The donkey again sees the angel armed with a sword and tries to squeeze tightly against the wall to avoid the angel, in the process crushing Balaam's foot against the wall. Balaam once again beats the donkey to correct it's path. Once again the angel moved farther up the path to an area leaving no room for the donkey to maneuver around it. When the donkey saw the angel blocking the path, the donkey lay down. Balaam became furious and beat the donkey a third time with his staff. God then makes the donkey talk which for some reason doesn't seem to alarm Balaam at all. Now we've read a lot of crazy stuff so far, and while this isn't the first time we've encountered talking animals, I have to admit that this is probably one of the silliest and most far fetched things we've encountered thus far. I understand that the bible can be taken many different ways. More sensible people tend to interpret a lot of the sillier verses in the bible to be taken more along the lines of parables, and that the focus is to teach a story with exaggerated flourishes. However, there are also quite a few people who believe that the bible is "inerrable fact", (some even going so far as to suggest that the bible is somehow a "history book") including our tale here about Balaam's talking donkey. The mental gymnastics one would have to perform to justify the belief that Balaam's talking donkey was an actual historical event is just mind boggling to me. Why isn't Balaam showing any hint of shock or surprise that an animal he's presumably owned for quite some time is now suddenly talking to him? Do we presume that due to his lack of surprise that perhaps he's spoken with his donkey before? Anyways, the donkey asks an unshaken Balaam what she did to deserve getting beaten three times. Balaam gives a puzzling answer stating that he felt that he was being mocked by the donkey's disobedience, while adding that if he had a sword on him, he would have slain the donkey for this apparent "mockery". The donkey points out that she has never behaved like this or deliberately disobeyed her master in the past, to which Balaam concedes is true. At this point, God "opens the eyes" of Balaam allowing him to see the angel armed with a sword - as apparently we're left to surmise that only the donkey was able to see the angel previously. The angel turns the tables on Balaam and asks Balaam why he had beaten his donkey three times. Another bothersome contradiction within this story arises when we are faced with the angel condemning Balaam for beating his donkey. God has previously condoned beating slaves both in the story of Sarah beating a pregnant Hagar, as well as Exodus 21:20-21 allowing for slaves to be beaten - as long as they don't die within one or two days - as they are considered property. By all accounts, Balaam's donkey should be considered his property as well, so God's angel should have no problem with Balaam beating his donkey for disobedience either. Personally, I actually agree with the angel here, that Balaam's actions of beating a defenseless animal were actually "perverse" and deplorable, but again, this isn't consistent with God's accepting view of beating human slaves, who are deemed property to their masters, the same as an animal. Anyways, again the angel states that he would have slain Balaam with his sword because he found Balaam's actions "perverse", which basically gives Balaam a taste of his own medicine - threatening Balaam's life, the same as he had threatened the donkey's. Balaam sees the error of his ways, and admits to having "sinned", rationalizing that he had done so because he was unaware of the angel's presence. He then tells the angel that he will turn around and go back home if he has displeased the angel that much. The angel instead tells him to continue on his journey, but to only say what he is told to say by God. Meanwhile, upon hearing of Balaam's impending arrival, King Balak goes out to meet Balaam on the outskirts of Moab. When Balaam arrives, King Balak admonishes Balaam's hesitation and delay. Balaam responds by stating that although he has agreed to come, that he has no power to say anything except what God has told him to speak. The king then sacrifices some oxen and sheep, giving the animal remains to Balaam and the messengers who accompanied him. The next morning, the king takes Balaam up to the top of Mount Baal, where the people of Israel could be seen spread out before them.

LEVITICUS: Chapter 19

Chapter 19
Summary:	God speaks to Moses telling him to tell the people of Israel that they must be "holy", because God himself is "holy". The people must fear their mothers and fathers and keep and observe God's sabbath days. The people are reminded again that they are not to turn to or create idols, or "molten gods". When a person offers a "peace offering" animal sacrifice, they shall do so at their own accord but follow God's rules. It shall be eaten the same day it is offered, or the following day at the latest. If any remains on the third day it must be burned. If any of it is eaten on the third day, God considers it "abominable", and the sacrifice will not be accepted. Any one eating on the third day shall be guilty of "sin", as they have profaned the "holiness" of God, and the person will be excommunicated. When a person harvests their crops, they are not to reap the corners of their field, nor pick up any stray grains of wheat from the ground. The person is also not to glean all of the grapes from their vineyard, nor to gather any grapes that have fallen to the ground. These are to be left for the poor and those traveling through. God also instructs the people of Israel not to lie to, steal from, or defraud one another. The people must also not swear by God's name falsely, nor profane God's name. A person must not defraud, oppress, or rob anyone you they have hired of the wages the employee has earned, and they are to promptly pay them. A person is not to curse the deaf or trip up a blind man, or they shall fear the wrath of God for doing so. Judges should never do unrighteousness their judgment, and should have no regard to the defendant's wealth or lack thereof. Only in regards to righteousness shall one judge their neighbor. A person is not to earn a reputation as a talebearer or gossiper, nor shall a person falsely accuse their neighbor. A person shall not hate their brother in their heart, but shall rebuke their sins or they will suffer upon them as well. A person shall not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of their people, and shall love their neighbor as they do themselves. God says that the people shall keep his laws, and shall not breed their cattle with a different kind, they shall not sow their fields with mingled seeds, nor shall they wear garments mingled with both linen and wool. Whomever has sexual relations with a slave girl who is engaged to another but not yet married, she shall be scourged (whipped), but neither shall be put to death - because she was not a free woman. The man will have to bring a "guilt offering" of a ram to the door at the entrance to the tabernacle. The priest shall make atonement for him by slaughtering the ram for the "sin" he has committed, and the "sin" shall be forgiven. When the people have settled in the "promised land" and begin planting trees for their fruit, the first three years of fruit shall be considered "uncircumcised" and shall not be eaten. The fourth year all of the fruit is considered "holy" and must be sacrificed to God, as the fruit "belongs to him". Finally in the fifth year, the fruit the people have planted may finally be eaten. People may not eat anything with or containing blood; neither shall they use enchantment nor observe times. Men must not "round the corners of their heads" (meaning trimming off the hair on your temples) or mar the corners of their beards. People must also not make any cutting in their flesh in connections with funeral rights, nor print any mark upon their flesh. People are not to prostitute their daughters, lest the land become overrun with whoredom and wickedness. God reminds the people again to observe his sabbath days and to also have reverence for his sanctuary in the tabernacle. The people are not to regard other people who have "familiar spirits", nor to seek after wizards, lest they be defiled by them. People shall rise up and honor the elderly, fearing God if they do not. If you have a visitor to your land, you are not to wrong them, but to treat them as if they were born in the land themselves - remembering that you were strangers yourselves in the land of Egypt. People shall be honest in their judgment in the measurements of length, weight, and volume. Proper balances, weights, and such shall you use - reminding the people again that God himself is their god that had brought them out of the land of Egypt. Therefore the people should observe and obey all of God's laws.
Thoughts:	This chapter, although peppered with a few questionable rules in places, is actually generally one of the nicer chapters in the bible. I find this a little odd as it stands in stark contrast to most of the rest of the book of Leviticus which deals with vilifying the people of Israel as "sinful" people who need to sacrifice animals for a variety of trivial offenses such as a woman simply menstruating. There are actually many verses here in this chapter that are very positive and instill a sense of community spirit among the people of Israel that is still relevant to today's society. However, we start will off a little slow in that regard with God being a bit of his typical self for the first eight verses. God begins listing some more rules to Moses explaining that because God himself is "holy", that means that the people of Israel need to become "holy" as well. He begins by saying the people need to be "fearful" of their parents and to continue to observe God's sabbath days (something that is repeated ad-naseum throughout the chapter). They are not to turn to, or create idols, or "molten gods". When people sacrifice animals for a "peace offering", God restates his demands that the animal's meat is not to be eaten after the second day since it had been sacrificed. The third day the remains need to be burned, and those who eat any of the "peace offering" on the third day (or afterward, I'd assume) is guilty of a "sin", has profaned God, and will be excommunicated. God finally makes a very noble and generous law, stating that when a person harvests their crops that they are to leave a little for the poor and for anyone traveling through town. They are not to reap the crops on the corners of the field or pick up any stray grains, or grapes from their vineyards, that may have fallen to the ground. These surplus crops are to be left behind for the poor and for travelers. He continues on in this vein, stating that people are not to lie to, steal from, or defraud other people, before tacking on that the people must not ever swear falsely by God's name or "profane" it by any means. God has a bizarre arrogance about how his name is to be used in human speech and seems to get rather vindictive if his name isn't used properly for some reason. God continues on with another few honorable laws stating that people are not to defraud, oppress, or rob any employee of the wages they've earned, adding on that one should also pay their employees promptly. He also adds that people are not to curse or discriminate against the deaf or the blind, or they will face the wrath of God for doing so. God states that judgments must be impartial and fair, and they are not to be swayed by the wealth - or lack thereof - of a defendant. People are also not to gossip or falsely accuse other people. People also should not hate their neighbors if they "sin", but should rebuke their sin lest they be guilty themselves. Unfortunately, I feel a little torn about this law in itself. Even taking my problems with the notion of "sin" aside, I do agree that people should not hate other people - even if they have broken a law or made a mistake. We're all human, and even those with the best of intentions can occasionally do the wrong things or break laws. Regardless of intent, it is never right to persecute people. That isn't to say that people who have done wrong shouldn't be dealt justly with, however justice is not a set of rules set forth by a single solitary ruler - in this case God, but this applies equally as well for any human dictator as well. Justice is very conditional upon what is in the best interests for a group of people at large, and excessive punishments such as stoning people to death for working on a Saturday, is not dealing with a law "justly" by any means. By the wording of God's law here, someone sticking up for John Doe who is about to be brutally killed for having worked on a Saturday should not also be dragged out and stoned for not "rebuking" John's "sin". God continues on a much better track by stating that people are not to seek vengeance, or bear grudges, and that they are treat their fellow man as they would themselves. This may possibly be the best verse the bible has to offer, and something I am in complete agreement with. God however follows this up with a strange law insisting that people are not to cross breed either their cattle or their crops, and even stranger, that garments that are to be worn are not to be made out of both linen and wool. What purpose this law serves is completely lost on me, unless it is warning that the offspring of crossbred animals tend to be sterile - how this would extend to crops and clothing is even more puzzling. Unfortunately, God's "good laws" are pretty much done for this chapter and he follows things up with this gem about what to do about people having sex with female slaves. If a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged to another man, neither shall be put to death (God's usual punishment for adultery) because the slave girl is not a free person. However, the slave girl shall be flogged with a whip, while the man will have to bring a ram for an an animal sacrifice at the tabernacle and all we be forgiven. So, the woman gets her punishment commuted from a stoning to being scourged, yet the man can walk away after he gives a ram to a priest to be slaughtered - demonstrating yet another example of misogyny in the bible. God comes up with another strange law concerning fruit trees, stating that when the people of Israel are finally led to their "promised land", they are not to reap any of the fruit for the first three years, as apparently God considered the fruit "uncircumcised" during these first three years. On the fourth year, the fruit is fine, but God is claiming it for himself and demands that it be brought to the tabernacle for a "sacrifice". From the fifth year on, it's finally okay to eat the fruit from the trees you've planted. God now reminds people again that people are not to eat anything containing blood, possibly alluding to that all animals that are to be eaten need to be drained of their blood beforehand. He follows this up in the same sentence with banning the people from using "enchantment" and from "observing times". Most likely this is another xenophobic attack on staying away from other "pagan" religions, but can be construed many ways if the two parts of the sentence are taken separately. Most curious is God forbidding the "observing [of] time", which is commonly thought to mean "fortune telling", but is also vague enough to encompass possibly the usage of calendars, sundials, and clocks. God now dictates men's fashions by forbidding them from shaving the hair away from their temples (unless they contract and are "healed" of leprosy, where they must shave their entire head, eyebrows, and facial hair) or trimming the corners of their beards. In addition God bans any flesh cutting that is connected to funeral rights, and tattoos in general. Men are not allowed to prostitute their daughters because it will turn the land into a whoredom of wickedness. (However, nothing is mentioned about women who turn to prostitution on their own, which I'm sure that God probably frowns upon as well.) He follows this up with another reminder that he demands that his sabbath days are to be obeyed (over-stressing the importance of this law) and that the people must have reverence for his tabernacle that they built for him. God's next law states that people are not to "regard other people who have familiar spirits" (most commonly thought to mean the consultation of spiritual medium) nor to seek out wizards. Doing so will defile the person. God round out the rest of his laws with a few final "good laws". People are to respect and honor their elders (or face God's wrath if they do not), to treat visitors in their land the same as they do their neighbors (reminding them again that they themselves were "strangers" when they lived in Egypt), and to be honest in their treatment of measurements. He furthers that the people are to use proper measurement tools for lengths, weights, and volume - before yet again strangely reminding them that he's the same god who led them out of Egypt, so therefore everyone has to obey all of these laws. This last part is a bit troubling to me as it implies that being saved or rescued somehow means that the people being saved are somehow indebted to their rescuer without argument. Following this argument, would a person rescued by perhaps a criminal have to repay their debt by doing something that might go against their morals? If a woman has a flat tire and a creepy man stops to help her change her tire, if he asks for a sexual favor afterward is the woman indebted to oblige him? Of course not, it's ridiculous to place that kind of expectation upon someone after the fact, just because the woman happened to have been in need before he helped her. There is a difference between making your expectations known before and after the fact. If the creep above offered to change the woman's tire on the condition that she give him some sort of sexual favor, she could either turn the man down (perhaps calling the police afterward) and deal with her flat tire herself, or she can choose to accept the man's offer - at perhaps the expense of her morals or dignity - if she was desperate enough, or if she placed little value upon the sexual favor as harming her morals or dignity. While it may seem that I'm making a rather harsh comparison between the sexual pervert in my example and a god that most people view as "benevolent" and "loving" (despite that I tend to disagree with both of those descriptions) the point is that the people of Israel are being given these laws after the fact, and therefore it's not very ethical of God to keep rubbing in that line of "I'm the guy who got you out of your slavery in Egypt, so you need to follow my laws" every time he hands out his demands. Maybe some of the Israelis might not have went along with the "Exodus" if they might have known what they were getting into ahead of time. If God gave these laws to Moses before the "Exodus from Egypt" and told the Israelis, "Hey, God's going to rescue you guys from your slavery, but once we're out of here, he's got a couple of laws that he want you all to follow..." maybe not all of the Israelis would have agreed to go along with it.

LEVITICUS: An Apologist Rebuttal

In Leviticus: Chapter 10 we read about an utterly violent, brutal, and savage death by immolation dealt out by God to Aaron's two sons Nadab and Abihu. I mentioned in my "thoughts" section, that I was curious as to what the traditional apologist standpoint was on this issue, and I consulted the Christian apologist website GotQuestions.org to see what their stance on the matter was. I wasn't very surprised to see that they favor the old "times were different back then" line, but I can't justify this stance at all. Due to the scope of their explanation, I have chosen to address it in its own post rather than to have written a lengthy rebuttal in the midst of my thoughts on Leviticus: Chapter 10.

I will address the entire argument as presented here at: http://www.gotquestions.org/SAB/SAB-CS-Leviticus.html, point by point:

Leviticus is a popular book for skeptics to quote when attacking the Bible.

Already GotQuestions.org is resorting to weasel words defining skepticism as an "attack". Skepticism in it's ordinary meaning refers to:

• an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
• the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
• the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

You can assert that something is true, for example, that every house on your street had an igloo in its back yard last July. The skeptical response that the temperature in July would make it unlikely to maintain an igloo is not an "attack" it is an observation, as it does not rule out the possibility of a counter explanation - like perhaps, that everyone in the neighborhood had installed refrigeration units in their back yards.

The use of the word "attack" is to bait the reader into feeling that questioning a claim in the bible is an "attack".

The lengthy lists of rules and regulations are much easier to misrepresent than other sections of Biblical text, especially when separated from scriptural and historical context.

First off, I find this a bit coincidental that many religious people also heatedly debate the "rules and regulations" from the book of Leviticus (as well as Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers) to defend their stances on issues such as homosexuality, slavery, and misogyny. Secondly there is very little historical evidence or reference for the book of Leviticus outside of the bible itself.

There is no question that some of what is described in Leviticus would be considered harsh by the standards of modern society. There is, however, a proper perspective with which to examine these descriptions.

I have always had a problem with these kinds of arguments to defend the wrongs of the past. Most often this argument comes up in the defense of human injustices such as slavery. Quite often an apologist will say something to the effect of that slavery was condonable back in biblical times because it was somehow different than the more modern slavery of African Americans in the American south 150 years ago. However, the bible makes it very clear that only the "slavery" of Hebrew males - as a payment of debt - was looked at differently (Exodus: Chapter 22) than the injustices we think of when dealing with African American slavery. The bible condones beating slaves - as long as they don't die for a couple of days - stating that slaves are considered "property", and that any spouse a slave takes while serving as a slave themselves is doomed to a lifetime of slavery.

No matter how you try to justify it, dehumanizing and oppressing other people has never been humane by any stretch. Beating another person for whatever reason besides reasonable self defense is also inexcusable no matter what justification you try to apply. Just because these activities were viewed as acceptable in the past does not mean they were right by any means.

A biblically-based, historically informed approach to understanding the book of Leviticus provides insights on the meaning and purpose behind it.

The skepticism in question - of analyzing particular quotes - is also "biblically based", and furthermore a differing of opinion on meaning does not change the basis. Again, "historically" there is no evidence to support the claim of millions of Hebrew slaves escaping from Egypt and wandering the desert for forty years outside of biblical texts, so the "history" angle is rather moot in this regard. Most biblical scholars view the books of Leviticus and Exodus as either non-historical or greatly exaggerated, and more of a collection of parables and metaphorical lessons.

It is important to remember that much of Leviticus is God’s response to sin. God has the sovereign authority to impose laws, as well as consequences for those who violate them.

As for the book of Leviticus, I am not arguing what exactly God is punishing, but the cruel and over excessive methods he chooses to punish people with. Setting two young men on fire for making a simple mistake of using the wrong flame to light incense with is beyond excessive - it's cruel, sadistic, and unnecessary. Even if God feels he must kill someone for making a very human error, why couldn't he spare the two young men with less excruciating deaths? Why must he threaten the surviving family members with death themselves if they even dare to show any grief or mourn?

There is no argument to defend the sadistic death of immolation when God is allegedly endowed with the powers to kill people in far more humane methods - even a quick, yet massive, fatal heart attack would surely be far less traumatic than immolation.

One cannot reject this out of hand without rejecting the entire idea of law and order.

GotQuestions.org completely misses the entire point here and tries to insinuate that someone who opposes condemning someone to die in the electric chair is opposing the death penalty outright. This is a typical apologist tactic of trying to paint the only options as being only either black or white.

Just as modern laws prohibit certain actions, and assign penalties to violators, so did the laws described in Leviticus.

However "modern laws" take into account the circumstances surrounding the violation. Two people can break the same law and get served vastly different penalties. A shoplifter without a criminal record probably won't serve any jail time and might not even be arrested, whereas a first time shoplifter that does have a criminal record is more likely to get a more severe punishment. Police officers often get much lighter punishments if they commit a crime versus a regular citizen.

God’s overall purpose in creating these laws was to set the Israelites apart from the other nations around them.

So God is trying to prove that one group of people are superior to the rest? Placing a value upon people by birthright sounds akin to me like what the nations of Germany and Italy tried to assert in the 1930's.

God made it clear that He expected obedience to His authority; those who violated the laws had every reason to expect a strong response.

Actually, according to Leviticus: Chapter 4 not everyone who violates a law might realize what they have done. Chapter 4 is all about unintentional and accidental "sins", and Leviticus: Chapter 5 even makes it clear that someone is still guilty even if they don't realize it.

Historical perspective is especially important when reading Leviticus. Modern society enjoys a level of technological and social stability that ancient peoples did not. Actions that have little effect on modern society might have been dangerously harmful in millennia past.

This doesn't justify setting two young men on fire for using the wrong flame to ignite incense, and further threatening their surviving family not to mourn lest they be killed themselves.

In the days of the ancient Israelites, the survival of your family depended on all of the families around you working towards the same goals, by the same rules, and without undermining the system.

When you have a magical being that provides you with food and water in the desert, protects you from invading armies by raising magical staffs, and threatens you with death for a myriad of trivial "crimes", your survival would be more apt to depend on not angering him by something like using the wrong flame to light his incense than it really had to do with the actual laws themselves.

Adultery was not merely a moral problem in that day. Undermining the family threatened the safety and welfare of the entire culture.

How does adultery - as it is defined in the book of Exodus - threaten the safety and welfare of the entire culture? Men of these days were polygamists, had slave girls in their concubines, and were expected to take their brothers wives as their own if they died without bearing children? Why is death the appropriate punishment and not perhaps being exiled?

Modern critics would do well to note the concept of martial law. When the stability of modern life is interrupted by disaster, it is necessary to take a much harsher stance towards lesser offenses, for the sake of preserving the society.

Such as setting people on fire for using the wrong flame to light incense, stoning people for working on Saturdays, and having to slaughter a bunch of animals if you accidentally touched an insect.

Once again, GotQuestions.org is missing the point.

Ancient peoples lived under these conditions almost constantly.

The Israelis in the book of Leviticus had more to fear from angering their deity and getting set on fire than from actually endangering their society by breaking one of God's laws.

The laws of Leviticus were not especially cruel for their time;

Setting two young men on fire and forcing their father and brothers not to grieve under the threat of their own deaths is "not especially cruel"? Perhaps we must have very strong disagreements on what constitutes cruelty.

Even barring the punishment of death itself as a factor, there are far less cruel ways to execute people - even in ancient times - than by immolation and stoning.

in fact, the emphasis on truth, order, and evidence set the Israelites ahead of their more volatile neighbors.

Evidence? Obviously, we must have missed the section of Exodus: Chapter 22 where a man who defends his home against a burglar in the daytime is automatically presumed to be a murderer; or Exodus: Chapter 21 where a person who's innocent of the accusation of murder will have to rely on God to hide him in order to avoid a stoning. Evidence plays no role in either of those laws.

In a general sense, objections to capital punishment are objections to the death penalty itself.

Again, this is complete nonsense. One can be opposed to capital punishment via the electric chair and still be in favor for the death penalty by other means.

God, being the author and creator of life, has the sovereign right to determine what happens to that life.

Not necessarily. If you or I create something, we are not automatically entitled to destroy it by any means that we see fit. I can build my own house, but that doesn't mean that I'm legally entitled to set it on fire - that is arson.

One’s opinion about the death penalty will determine whether or not these punishments are considered “cruel” or not. “Cruel” is a subjective term that, in reality, has nothing to do with whether or not these punishments were “justified” or not.

While the concept of cruelty is indeed subjective, we can reasonably consider an action cruel when the one committing the act has other less painful methods at their disposal and/or has the ability to minimize the suffering of the offender, or in the case of Aaron and his surviving sons - innocent bystanders. God clearly has other execution methods he could have doled out rather than immolation, and denying grief to the immediate family is a sure sign of a lack of compassion.

The ancient Israelites would probably react to these claims of “cruelty” in the same way modern Americans would if someone claimed that placing thieves in a cage (jail) was “cruel.”

There is a lot less permanent consequences from jailing someone than setting people on fire or stoning them. I think even the "Ancient Israelis" would choose "life in a cage" rather than to die by stoning or immolation.

Leviticus 8:24; 14:14; 14:17; 14:25 - "Use of blood, animal sacrifice in rituals"

This is an example of how cultural changes affect our opinion of cruelty. In our modern society, many people feel that it is “cruel” to even keep animals as pets, use them for food, or for clothing. The luxuries of modern farming, synthetic fibers, and so forth were not available to the ancient Israelites. The use of animals for food and as sacrificial offerings was a common and unremarkable part of ancient society. One might as well expect a culture two thousand years from now to think of us as cruel for ever eating an animal in the first place. The “cruelty” of these passages is entirely a question of subjective preference.

The problem with this argument is that the animals in question are not being slaughtered primarily for food and clothing, they were being used as "substitute" scapegoats for the mistakes of people. Most of the parts of the animals that are brutally slaughtered in Leviticus are simply burned on the altar because God finds it "pleasing". The animal skins and meat are not being given to the poor, most of it is burned and discarded, and what little God allows to be used for food or clothing, is strictly for priests. Commoners get a stoning if they consume any of these animal sacrifices, and even the priests themselves will be excommunicated if they eat in the wrong location.

Leviticus 10:1-2 - "Nadab and Abihu"

The event described here is straightforward: two men did something explicitly forbidden by God, and were punished by God for it. See above regarding the rule of law.

Once again, GotQuestions.org completely misses the point. It is unclear whether Nadab and Abihu's "crime" was an honest mistake, carelessness, or intentional. Regardless of that setting them on fire is far too excessive, as is forbidding their immediate family to grieve over their losses.

Leviticus 20:9 - "Death penalty for cursing one’s father and mother"

The Hebrew word qalal is translated here as “curses”. In context, it implies a severe hatred accompanied by an insult to someone’s reputation. The word is similar in meaning, therefore, to “blasphemy”. God had given a clear and direct commandment to honor parents, not to curse them. As with other offenses, this extreme level of rebellion represented a direct threat to the stability of Israelite culture. The harsh response was in response to the harshness of the offense and its potential social harm.

Completely left out of context is what the parent may have done to cause the child's scorn. Parents who abuse their children physically, mentally, sexually, or emotionally don't deserve a mandatory respect from their children simply by their biological linkage.

Leviticus 20:12-16 - "Death penalty for sins of incest, sodomy, bestiality"

See above about cultural stability and God’s purpose for the law. These kinds of actions were allowed, and even encouraged, by some surrounding nations. Much of this was because of their worship of false gods.

Once again, GotQuestions.org stoops to "weasel wording". "By some surrounding nations"? Which surrounding nations? What did they "encourage"? Incest? Bestiality? Sodomy? Aside from the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (which no evidence for their existence exists outside of biblical texts) I'm not aware of any religions in the bronze age that encouraged bestiality or sodomy, nor any that encouraged incest to a significant degree aside from what was acceptable to the Israelis (Abraham and Sarah were half siblings; Jacob and his wives Leah and Rachel were first cousins; Lot's daughters who had sex and were impregnated by their father; etc.)

The assertion of "false gods" is also laughable as deities are not a provable concept, and thus there's no way of determining which gods are "real", "false", or "imagined" outside of personal faith.

God made it clear that these actions were not only immoral, but abhorrent. There was to be no mixing of immoral pagan practices with God’s commandments.

Much of the bible is borrowed from earlier pagan religions, numerology, and astrology. Even our modern Christian holidays - including Christmas and Easter - are clearly littered with pagan practices: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, fertility (Easter), and winter solstice (Christmas) amongst them.

These kinds of sins also created the kind of dangerous instability that threatened Israelite culture.

I fail to see the "danger" this poses, and again this sounds more like elitism and fascism in its wording here.

Leviticus 20:27 - "Death penalty for 'mediums' and 'wizards'"

See above about the purpose for the law. Such actions were a form of idolatry, specifically prohibited by God’s law.

Again, refer to my answer above as well.

Leviticus 21:9 - "Death penalty for daughters of priests engaging in prostitution"

See above about the purpose for the law. Temple prostitution was a common element in false religions.

Weasel wording again. Please state sources to back up your claim if prostitution being a "common element" of "false" religions.

Prostitution was already prohibited; this law made it clear that the families of religious leaders could not expect special exemptions. They would be held to the same or higher standards than the people, helping to prevent the kind of abuse of power common in ancient theocracies.

Except for Judah's story in Genesis: Chapter 38 where Tamar escapes being set on fire from prostitution simply because she's carrying her father-in-law's baby.

Leviticus 24:14, 16, 23 - "Death penalty for blasphemy"

See above about the purpose for the law.

See above to why this is ridiculous.

Leviticus 26:16, 22 - "Punishments from God for disobedience"

See above about the purpose for the law. This part of Leviticus extends the responsibility for obedience to the entire nation, as well as the individual person. As with other aspects of the law, God has given his commandments, and is now giving the penalties for violating them. As with many of the points above, one has to objectively examine the text; part of this is recognition that severe punishments are not necessarily wrong.

Again, severe punishments are wrong when there are more humane ways to go about it. Even if we stick with capital punishment, there is a major difference between the methodology of lethal injection verses setting someone on fire.

Concluding thoughts about Leviticus:

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible considers all of the above “cruel”. Christians should be willing to admit that much of what appears above is harsh and restrictive. However, the basic concept of law is one that even the skeptic has to accept. If societies have the right to determine laws and punishments, then so does God. It is also important to remember the context of these laws. They were given specifically to the Israelites, during the “Old Covenant”, not to modern believers, who live under the “New Covenant”. Once Christ accomplished His work on the cross, He fulfilled the law and most of what is listed above ceased to be in force.

God was teaching and molding His people with these laws. He wanted to send a clear message that He would punish sin. He expected His people to be separate from the wicked cultures they were surrounded by. Many laws of Leviticus also taught lessons about God’s charity, love, and justness. The fact that the punishments for violating these laws are severe is uncomfortable to modern readers; still, God is well within His authority to set down both rules and consequences for violating them.

Once again, GotQuestions.org completely misses the point and tries to excuse God's extreme methods - that even Moses himself questioned as evil in Exodus: Chapter 32.

In western society we cringe and condemn the Islamic world for their brutal versions of capital punishment, more on the grounds of the methodology of stoning and decapitations, sometimes more than the crime that was committed. In many ways these lame apologetic excuses for condoning setting people on fire and stoning them for working on Saturdays are no more or less any different than what countries in the Middle East are doing to people nowadays for being gay, for women not covering their faces in public, or having sex out of wedlock and therefore "shaming" their families.

Regardless of the time period or the conditions of "ancient Israel" you simply cannot condone needless suffering and pain for trivial offenses such as using the wrong flame to light incense.

EXODUS: Chapter 21

Chapter 21
Summary:	The chapter basically outlines more of God's rules: If you buy* a Hebrew slave, he shall serve only six years and be freed in the seventh, and need pay nothing to regain his freedom. If a Hebrew slave sells himself into slavery and marries during his term as a slave, then only he himself will be freed; but if was married before slavery then both himself and his wife will be freed at the same time together. If a master gives a slave a wife, then only the slave will go free, the wife and any children will remain property of the master. If a Hebrew slave wishes to remain with his wife and children that will belong to his master after his freedom, his master is to bring him before the judges, who will publicly bore his ear with an awl - branding him as a slave forever. If a man sells his daughter into slavery: She will not be freed after six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, then he shall let her be bought back again. However, he has no power to sell her to foreigners since he has wronged her by no longer wanting her after having "married" her. If he arranges an engagement between a Hebrew slave-girl and his son, then he must no longer treat her as a slave, but as a daughter instead. If he himself marries a Hebrew slave-girl and then takes on another wife, he is not allowed to reduce her clothing or food, or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails at any of those three things, she may leave freely without any payment Anyone who hits a man so hard that he dies will be put to death. If the act is accidental, then God will appoint a place where he can run and get protection. However, if a man deliberately attacks another man with the intention of killing him, he is to be dragged - even from a holy altar - to be killed. Anyone who strikes his mother or father will be put to death. Kidnappers must be killed, whether he is caught in possession of his victim or has already sold them into slavery. Anyone who reviles or curses his mother or father shall be put to death. If two men are fighting and one hits the other injuring him enough to confine him to bed - but not killing him - who is able to walk again, the man who hit him will be innocent, except that he must pay for the lost wages and expenses of the man he hit. If a man beats his slave to death, then he will be punished. However if the slave lives for a day or two after the beating, the master will not be punished, as the slave is his property. If men hurt a pregnant woman causing her to miscarriage* (or "give birth prematurely", see footnote) but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman's husband will demand, as approved by a judge. However, if any harm comes to the woman and she dies, he shall be executed. If one knocks out or injures the eye of another, his eye shall be inured or knocked out as well. Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth; hand for a hand; foot for a foot; burn for burn; wound for wound; lash for lash. If a man hits his slave in the eye and thereby blinds him, the slave shall go free. If a man knocks out his slave's tooth, he shall let him go free to pay for the tooth. If an ox gores a person to death, then the ox shall be stoned, but not eaten. The owner will not be held responsible unless the ox has been known to gore people in the past and was not kept under control. In that case both the ox and the owner shall be killed. However, the dead man's relatives may accept a fine instead, if they wish, determined by a judge. If an ox gores a slave however, the slave's master will be given thirty pieces of silver and the ox shall be stoned. If a man digs a well and doesn't cover it, and another's ox or donkey falls into it, the owner of the well shall pay full damages to the animal's owner, and the dead animal shall belong to him. If a man's ox mortally injures another man's ox, then the two owners shall sell the live ox and divide the price between them, and each will own half of the dead ox. But if the ox was known to gore others, and its owner had failed to keep it under control, then the owner of the live ox shall pay in full for the dead ox, and the dead ox shall belong to him.
Notes:	1.) "Buying" in this sense means that if someone owes you money and defaults on the payment, they will become your slave. 2.) There is obviously strong debate over the translation of this specific word for miscarriage. The Hebrew word used in this verse literally means "comes forth" which some take to mean a premature birth rather than a miscarriage or an abortion, noting that there are other Hebrew words that are used in other verses that describe still-birth miscarriages.
Thoughts:	This chapter contains a lot of interesting little gems into the insights of justice and God's view points on the matters of human civilization. God obviously condones slavery, but wants to limit the term that a Hebrew will serve in slavery to six years - foreign slaves probably don't have to be released after the six years of service. If the slave marries either by his own volition or if his slave master gives him a wife, then he can kiss his wife and kids goodbye at the end of his six year term - his family now belongs to his slave master. If he truly wants to keep his family, then he'll have to resign to becoming branded as a slave forever. However, dads, if you'd like to sell your daughters into slavery, there's no need to worry about them coming back in six years - freedom doesn't apply to women in this case. Strangely here, is the blurred line between slavery and marriage, as we can probably assume that both women and slaves are to be considered property - despite both having slightly different statuses. Furthering this point, it is mentioned is that if a slave master "marries" his slave-girl and then takes on a second wife, then the husband is obliged to treat her as a "full wife" - meaning that he's not to reduce her food and clothing provisions, and that he still has to sleep with her, otherwise she regains her freedom. Next up we deal with how to deal with a man hitting another, and if he intentionally causes his death, he shall be put to death; however, if it's "an accident" then he's got to hope God comes through on his promise to "hide him", otherwise he'll probably be stoned to death anyways. Striking, cursing, or reviling your either of your parents is an instant death sentence. Kidnappers are also on the top of God's list of people who must be executed, regardless of whether their victim has been recovered or not. Back to slavery, if a man kills his slave outright - that's a stoning. However, if the slave manages to survive the beating for a couple of days and then drop dead, then God sees it as no harm done, as the slave was just "property" anyways. I have a hard time finding any justification for this stance at all. Not only do we realize here that God condones slavery, but that beating a slave is also okay, as long as the slave survives the initial day of the beating. We've seen already that God had no issues with Hagar, our pregnant concubine of Abraham, getting a "well deserved" beating herself in Genesis: Chapter 16. Pregnancy leads into our next rule which may be one of the most controversial lines in the book of Exodus. The King James Version of the bible translates verse 22 as follows: 22: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. Many feel that this verse implies that the life of a fetus is not as valuable as the life of the mother, and to this I agree. However, I also do agree partially with this argument that I found on the website "Stand to Reason" at www.str.org. The argument this site makes starts out very solid explaining that the Hebrew word for "miscarriage" being translated here in Exodus 21:22 literally means "coming forth" or "to come forth", and the same word is used in various chapters (one specifically that relates here and that we have covered already is Genesis Chapter 25 which describes the births of Esau and Jacob) that describe "living" births, as opposed to different Hebrew words being used to describe "stillborn" or "miscarried" births (such as used in verse coming up in Exodus: 23:26, that we'll be covering shortly). To this end, I can agree with the point being made, however, if we still consider the nature of a premature birth induced by "men fighting", along with the conditions of the bronze age, we can't conclude that we're simply having the men responsible paying for "medical care" or for compensation for "complications" from premature birth. Premature living birth induced by "men fighting" doesn't seem to be the natural or most likely outcome of what is being described here. Chances are greater that the expelling of a child from the womb will be a miscarriage, rather than a premature birth. Even a living premature birth from these conditions would most likely result in a slim survival due to the circumstances and the lack of medical knowledge back in these days. In this regard "miscarriage" probably is the more apt term, and causing a woman to expel her child from her womb by the force of men fighting is far more likely to result in the child's death than survival. It is certainly debatable the perceptions we can have with the bible not being very specific, and loosely translated, but I find even the notion of a live premature birth probably not having a high rate of survival implies that God tends not to place as high of a value - as with this not being worthy of a stoning - even in the case of a living premature birth. Obviously women, concubines, male slaves, and female slaves all seem to have different worth and values to God's punishments. Almost immediately we verify that, by stating that knocking out the eyes and teeth of normal free Hebrew men and women carries a different price than if administered to a slave. Knocking out a free man or woman's eye means that you'll lose your own eye, knocking a slave's eye out means only that the slave regains his or her freedom. The last few verses deal with deaths caused by (and to) animals and the "appropriate" punishments to dole out. An ox who is known to gore, and and gores a human calls for a stoning to both the ox and his owner, however, if the goring was not predictable, only the ox will be stoned. However, if an ox gores a slave, the owner can simply pay a fine of thirty pieces of silver along with the life of his ox - by stoning. Clearly the bible shows that not all human life is to be considered equal.

GENESIS: Chapters 16 & 17

Chapter 16
Summary:	Sarai and Abram were still having trouble conceiving a child*, so Sarai took her maid - an Egyptian girl named Hagar - and gave her to Abram as a second wife. Sarai explains that since God has not given her any children, Abram may sleep with Hagar and Sarai will take the resulting children as her own. Abrahm (not-surprisingly) agrees*. Abram sleeps with Hagar and when she realized she was pregnant, she became arrogant towards Sarai. 16:2 "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai." Sarai complains to Abram that Hagar's arrogance is his fault* and curses Abram hoping that God will judge him for this. Abram tells Sarai that she can punish Hagar as she sees fit, so she gives Hagar a good beating, and as a result Hagar runs away. An angel of God finds her besides a desert spring along the road to Shur and demands that she return to Sarai and to act as she should. The angel tells her that the child she is carrying will be a son and that Hagar is to name him Ishmael (meaning "God hears", explaining that God hears her woes). The angel further explains that Ishmael will be rebellious and will be against everyone, just as everyone will be against him, yet he will live near the rest of his kin. Thereafter Hagar spoke directly to God and was astonished to have seen God and live to tell it. Later the well was named "The Well of the Living One Who Sees Me" (it lies between Kadesh and Bered). So Hagar gave Abram a son, and Abram named him Ishmael. Abram was 86 years old at the time.
Notes:	1.) Moreover, a male child - as girls are not considered true heirs. 2.) The bible notes that this takes place 10 years after Abram first arrived in Canaan. 3.) Despite the fact that this was Sarai's idea in the first place.
Thoughts:	It's difficult not to look at this chapter as disturbing for a number of reasons: we have Abram having sex with his wife's maid (probably a slave), we have Abram's wife beating the tar out of a pregnant woman - carrying her husband's child, and we have an angel condemning Hagar for running off even though she just got beaten by her mistress (regardless of whether her arrogance justified punishment, it's hard to justify beating a pregnant woman). It's also a bit unclear as to why God tells Hagar directly to name the child Ishmael, yet it states that Abram give the child that name. Do we assume God told Abram also to name the child Ishmael, or did Abram take Hagar's word that she spoke to God and that's the name God chose?
Chapter 17
Summary:	When Abram was 99 years old, God appeared to him and told him to obey him and live as he should, and also that he had prepared a contract between them guaranteeing to make Abram's descendants into a mighty nation - and not just one nation, but a multitude of nations. Abram fell face downward to the ground as God talked with him. He continues on to tell Abram that he is also changing his name from Abram (meaning 'Exalted Father') to Abraham (meaning 'Father of Nations'). He continues to tell Abram/Abraham that he will continue this agreement forever amongst Abram's/Abraham's descendants. 17:11 "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." Abram's/Abraham's part of the contract is to obey God's will, and have every male amongst him circumcised on the eighth day after being born, and that this will be proof that Abram/Abraham and his people accept the covenant. God clarifies that this also applies to every foreign born slave as well as anyone born in Abram's/Abraham's household, and that anyone who refuses will be cut off from his people. God also renames Sarai to Sarah (meaning 'Princess') and proclaims that he will bless her to provide Abram/Abraham with many children*. Abraham throws himself down in worship, but was having doubts in his thoughts thinking about how ludicrous it sounded for him to become a father at age 100* and for Sarai/Sarah to give birth at 90, so he instead says to God, "Yes, do bless Ishmael!" God corrects Abraham and clarifies that Sarah will provide him with a son, and that son is to be named Isaac (meaning 'Laughter'), but decides that he will bless Ishmael also - adding that Ishmael will become a great nation and that 12 princes will be among his posterity - before stressing that God's contract is with Isaac and not Ishmael. Abraham then went home and proceeded to circumcise every male in his household - including himself and every male slave.
Notes:	1.) Which didn't seem so ridiculous when his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Shem had a child at the age of 100(?) 2.) Although chapter 11 states that Sarai was barren and therefore did not provide Abram any children, we can still consider that chapter correct when taking into account that God changed both Sarai and Abram's names at this point to Sarah and Abraham respectively. In that sense, Sarai and Abram didn't have any children, whereas Sarah and Abraham did.
Thoughts:	It's unclear what circumcision has to do with upholding a contract with God, and why he wants men to be circumcised in the first place. It's pretty nonsensical and seems very awkward that God is concerned with the way his people's penises look. What is to stop other tribes from circumcising their male population as well? Wouldn't the covenant be meaningless at that point? Would God strike men dead outside of Abraham's tribe for circumcising themselves? Also strange is Abraham's amusement at becoming a father at the age of 100, when the average age of the people of his time is still mentioned to be roughly around 200(!) if which taken into context with the average modern human living to be about 85, doesn't seem so strange for a man of 43 to have a child.