Hello everyone... it's been a while but I haven't forgot about my project to read through Exodus chapter by chapter and record my thoughts on this board. Last I posted was on chapter 14 so today I post on chapter 15. As always, my source is here.
Does ancient Hebrew scripture distinguish between justice and vengeance? This is not the only passage that talks about God's vengeance. What do Jews today think of this distinction?
This phrase is also repeated a lot in the Bible (or maybe just the Torah). What is the significance of mentioning that the "Lord" is God's name? It's especially curious because a "lord" is not a name but a title. I always assumed this was simply an analogy--as in, God is like a Lord who is master over the Israelites who are like serfs and his vassals. How is one to interpret this word in the context of the ancient Hebrew text? And why is it God's name? And is it connected in any way to "I am that I am" (however much that may be of butchering of the correct translation)?
Remind me again what is the significance of God's right hand? It is said that Jesus sits at God's right hand. And the "left hand path" is often used to describe the Satanic path. And we in Western culture have come to name the hand with which we usually write as the "right" hand (maybe even the reason why we pronounce "right" and "write" the same way) and the other hand as the "left" hand (as in, whatever's left). Historically, most parts of the world have punished students who wrote with their left hand, as though it were some kind of sin (my father, who grew up in the Middle East, would get his hand rapped for using his left hand to write). It seems that Western culture (and apparently Middle Eastern culture as well, and maybe other cultures) has associated the right hand with "good" and the left hand with "bad". So my question is: why did the ancient texts associate God's right hand with good and righteousness? Was it just arbitrary? As in, well, one of the hands has to be the "right" one, the one that is most powerful and crushes the foe; might as well be the right one as much as it might as well be the left one. And from there history more or less consistently associated the right hand with "good" (thus placing Jesus at God's right hand side and punishing poor left-handed students for writing with the wrong hand). Or was there a deeper reason for associating God's right hand with righteousness and good? Did the word "right" originally mean "right as opposed to left" or "right as opposed to wrong"? If the latter, then in this passage, God's "right hand" doesn't mean the hand that is on God's right side but the hand of God that is righteous and good (whatever side that happens to be) and we came to call it the "right side" because we (somehow) determined (perhaps because of the hand we usually write with) that God's "righteous and good" hand happened to be that on the right side.
What were the Israelites' reasons (or God's reasons) for regarding the inhabitant's of the Levant as the "enemy" (if that's a fair term to use)? I can see it from the Israelites' point of view having just been freed from the Egyptians and needing a land to settle in, and thus would probably have to conquer the inhabitants of whatever land that happens to be. So to regard them as "unworthy" of said land would come natural. There's also the fact that the inhabitants of the Levant (most of them, probably) worshipped different gods who would have been rivals to the Israelite god, and were thus seen as "wayward" if not all together "evil". Then there's God's promise passed down to the Israelites from Abraham onward that they would inherit a land of milk and honey, and I believe (if I remember correctly) the passages that elaborate on this mention (once or twice) the "unworthiness" of the current inhabitants of these lands, so it may have just been a common belief passed down to the Israelites at the current stage in the story.
I assume this is Moses speaking on behalf of God.
That being said, what exactly is the connection between the sweetening of the water and the test imposed on the Israelites? It sounds as if the wood contained some sort of chemical or substance that not only sweetened the water but could have a deleterious effect or a healing effect on the health of whosoever drank the water. So is the test that if you didn't observed God's statutes and commandments, the sickness would get to you (similar to the sickness visited upon the Egyptians), but if you did, you would be impervious to the sickness?
Or is it more like a parent admonishing his/her bratty children, after giving into their demands, "ok, I'll give you what you want this time, but if you complain again in the future (as opposed to following my statutes and commandments), I will afflict you with the same sickness that I afflicted on the Egyptians"? In other words, the sweetening of the water by the wood had no such poisoning effect at all, even to only some of the Israelites, but God recognized this as a sign that he would have to start raising the bar or exacting a bit more discipline in order to teach some gratitude and rid the Israelites of their thankless indignation, but only in the future. This interpretation would make more sense of the comparison to the plight of the Egyptians since "all the sickness that [God] visited upon the Egyptians" is quite a broad range of sicknesses and is unlikely to come from just one piece of wood (whatever chemical it might have contained). Then again, limiting it to sickness (as opposed to the full range of plagues which included non-health related afflictions like frogs and water turning to blood) seems to align with whatever (if any) sickness might come from the piece of wood. Perhaps the answer lies in Exodus 16.
Anyway, those are my initial thoughts upon reading Exodus 15. I may post more in this thread if my research yields answers or further insights into these questions (or I come up with more questions). Please feel free to add your own comments, questions, thoughts, etc..
Exodus 15:2 Wrote:The Eternal's strength and His vengeance were my salvation
Does ancient Hebrew scripture distinguish between justice and vengeance? This is not the only passage that talks about God's vengeance. What do Jews today think of this distinction?
Exodus 15:3 Wrote:The Lord is a Master of war; the Lord is His Name.
This phrase is also repeated a lot in the Bible (or maybe just the Torah). What is the significance of mentioning that the "Lord" is God's name? It's especially curious because a "lord" is not a name but a title. I always assumed this was simply an analogy--as in, God is like a Lord who is master over the Israelites who are like serfs and his vassals. How is one to interpret this word in the context of the ancient Hebrew text? And why is it God's name? And is it connected in any way to "I am that I am" (however much that may be of butchering of the correct translation)?
Exodus 15:6 Wrote:Your right hand, O Lord, is most powerful; Your right hand, O Lord, crushes the foe.
Exodus 15:12 Wrote:You inclined Your right hand; the earth swallowed them up.
Remind me again what is the significance of God's right hand? It is said that Jesus sits at God's right hand. And the "left hand path" is often used to describe the Satanic path. And we in Western culture have come to name the hand with which we usually write as the "right" hand (maybe even the reason why we pronounce "right" and "write" the same way) and the other hand as the "left" hand (as in, whatever's left). Historically, most parts of the world have punished students who wrote with their left hand, as though it were some kind of sin (my father, who grew up in the Middle East, would get his hand rapped for using his left hand to write). It seems that Western culture (and apparently Middle Eastern culture as well, and maybe other cultures) has associated the right hand with "good" and the left hand with "bad". So my question is: why did the ancient texts associate God's right hand with good and righteousness? Was it just arbitrary? As in, well, one of the hands has to be the "right" one, the one that is most powerful and crushes the foe; might as well be the right one as much as it might as well be the left one. And from there history more or less consistently associated the right hand with "good" (thus placing Jesus at God's right hand side and punishing poor left-handed students for writing with the wrong hand). Or was there a deeper reason for associating God's right hand with righteousness and good? Did the word "right" originally mean "right as opposed to left" or "right as opposed to wrong"? If the latter, then in this passage, God's "right hand" doesn't mean the hand that is on God's right side but the hand of God that is righteous and good (whatever side that happens to be) and we came to call it the "right side" because we (somehow) determined (perhaps because of the hand we usually write with) that God's "righteous and good" hand happened to be that on the right side.
Exodus 15:16 Wrote:May dread and fright fall upon them; with the arm of Your greatness may they become as still as a stone, until Your people cross over, O Lord, until this nation that You have acquired crosses over.
What were the Israelites' reasons (or God's reasons) for regarding the inhabitant's of the Levant as the "enemy" (if that's a fair term to use)? I can see it from the Israelites' point of view having just been freed from the Egyptians and needing a land to settle in, and thus would probably have to conquer the inhabitants of whatever land that happens to be. So to regard them as "unworthy" of said land would come natural. There's also the fact that the inhabitants of the Levant (most of them, probably) worshipped different gods who would have been rivals to the Israelite god, and were thus seen as "wayward" if not all together "evil". Then there's God's promise passed down to the Israelites from Abraham onward that they would inherit a land of milk and honey, and I believe (if I remember correctly) the passages that elaborate on this mention (once or twice) the "unworthiness" of the current inhabitants of these lands, so it may have just been a common belief passed down to the Israelites at the current stage in the story.
Exodus 15:25-26 Wrote:25 So he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord instructed him concerning a piece of wood, which he cast into the water, and the water became sweet. There He gave them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them. 26 And He said, If you hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and you do what is proper in His eyes, and you listen closely to His commandments and observe all His statutes, all the sicknesses that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you, for I, the Lord, heal you.
I assume this is Moses speaking on behalf of God.
That being said, what exactly is the connection between the sweetening of the water and the test imposed on the Israelites? It sounds as if the wood contained some sort of chemical or substance that not only sweetened the water but could have a deleterious effect or a healing effect on the health of whosoever drank the water. So is the test that if you didn't observed God's statutes and commandments, the sickness would get to you (similar to the sickness visited upon the Egyptians), but if you did, you would be impervious to the sickness?
Or is it more like a parent admonishing his/her bratty children, after giving into their demands, "ok, I'll give you what you want this time, but if you complain again in the future (as opposed to following my statutes and commandments), I will afflict you with the same sickness that I afflicted on the Egyptians"? In other words, the sweetening of the water by the wood had no such poisoning effect at all, even to only some of the Israelites, but God recognized this as a sign that he would have to start raising the bar or exacting a bit more discipline in order to teach some gratitude and rid the Israelites of their thankless indignation, but only in the future. This interpretation would make more sense of the comparison to the plight of the Egyptians since "all the sickness that [God] visited upon the Egyptians" is quite a broad range of sicknesses and is unlikely to come from just one piece of wood (whatever chemical it might have contained). Then again, limiting it to sickness (as opposed to the full range of plagues which included non-health related afflictions like frogs and water turning to blood) seems to align with whatever (if any) sickness might come from the piece of wood. Perhaps the answer lies in Exodus 16.
Anyway, those are my initial thoughts upon reading Exodus 15. I may post more in this thread if my research yields answers or further insights into these questions (or I come up with more questions). Please feel free to add your own comments, questions, thoughts, etc..