Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Old testament favorites

Do you have a favorite OT prophet? (I like Nathan, much needed nowadays.)

Do you have a favorite OT judge?

Do you have a favorite psalm?

(This may be too light-hearted for Kerygmania, but we shall see.)
«1

Comments

  • Can’t say I have a favorite OT judge, but I definitely have a favorite psalm: 122, followed pretty closely by 103 and 136. Honorable mention to Psalm 24.

    As for prophets, I like Nathan too. (Have you read Geraldine Brooks’ The Secret Chord?)

    And as my shipname and avatar might suggest, I also have a favorite story: the story of Moses at the burning bush.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Do you have a favorite psalm?

    The Old Testament has never held much literary or theological interest for me, except that its morality makes the New Testament's look absolutely bleeding-heart by comparison.

    But for psalms, I guess I'll say 122, because its opening line is the basis for I Was Full Of Joy, the best of the folk-mass tunes.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.
  • Telford wrote: »
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.
    And you’ve made me realize my fingers slipped upthread, and I didn’t catch it. I typed “I definitely have a favorite psalm: 122.” I meant to type: “I definitely have a favorite psalm: 121.”

  • DardaDarda Shipmate
    I've always liked Psalm 104 for its description of the natural world
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.
    And you’ve made me realize my fingers slipped upthread, and I didn’t catch it. I typed “I definitely have a favorite psalm: 122.” I meant to type: “I definitely have a favorite psalm: 121.”
    Good choice !!!

  • From Job 19:

    25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

    27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another...
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.

    "Levavi" means "I lifted". "I lift" is "Levo"; "I will lift" would be "Levabo".

    The choice of tense in the motto must be an intentional play on words "I lifted (my) eyes (to the hills and built this school)"
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Ezekiel 18
    The word of the Lord came to me: 2What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.

    5 If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right— 6if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbour’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period, 7does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8does not take advance or accrued interest, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between contending parties, 9follows my statutes, and is careful to observe my ordinances, acting faithfully—such a one is righteous; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.

    10 If he has a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, 11who does any of these things (though his fathera does none of them), who eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbour’s wife, 12oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13takes advance or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.

    14 But if this man has a son who sees all the sins that his father has done, considers, and does not do likewise, 15who does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbour’s wife, 16does not wrong anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17withholds his hand from iniquity,b takes no advance or accrued interest, observes my ordinances, and follows my statutes; he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. 18As for his father, because he practised extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, he dies for his iniquity.

    19 Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.

    21 But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. 22None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. 23Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? 24But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die.

    25 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is unfair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? 26When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. 27Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. 28Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die. 29Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is unfair.’ O house of Israel, are my ways unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair?

    30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; otherwise iniquity will be your ruin.c 31Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn, then, and live.
    aHeb he
    bGk: Heb the poor
    cOr so that they shall not be a stumbling-block of iniquity to you

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    From Job 19:

    25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

    26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

    27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another...

    In Original King James as well. Needs to be graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

  • Certainly immortalised by Mr Handel in that little musical work of his...
    :wink:
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.

    "Levavi" means "I lifted". "I lift" is "Levo"; "I will lift" would be "Levabo".

    The choice of tense in the motto must be an intentional play on words "I lifted (my) eyes (to the hills and built this school)"
    Levavi oculos is the incipit of Psalm 121 in the Vulgate (where it’s Psalm 120)—levavi oculos meos in montes unde veniet auxilium mihi, which the Douay-Rheims Bible translates as “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me.”

    The Vulgate, and hence the Douay-Rheims, are derived from the Septuagint, and my googling tells me that the Greek of the Septuagint also translates as “I lifted.” More than that as to why those sources have “I lifted/I have lifted” rather than the more common “I will lift/I lift” I cannot say.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    The Old Testament has never held much literary or theological interest for me..

    I mean, obviouly, the Creation And Fall are pretty central to subsequent art, literature, and pop-culture. Same with Cain And Abel(though I find brother vs. brother story arcs rather sappy, in a faux-macho sorta way). The whole premise of Noah's Ark seems really forced.

    Sodom And Gomorrah is a hoot, in the manner of a tabloid-story wallowing in what it purports to condemn. Moses and his Commandments are forever lost to Hollywood, AFAIAC.

    Never got much into the Prophets, I think I've only ever read Jonah, just to see what everybody was talking about. Plus, it's short, so why not.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My favourite psalm is 121 which starts "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills". My school was built on a hill and our school motto was Levavi Oculos, which means 'I lift up my eyes'.

    It aslo has a lovely ending.

    "Levavi" means "I lifted". "I lift" is "Levo"; "I will lift" would be "Levabo".

    The choice of tense in the motto must be an intentional play on words "I lifted (my) eyes (to the hills and built this school)"

    It was very appropriate for my school. My Grammar school was originally in Old Hill, which is not a hill at all. It's in a valley. My old headmaster, would have been able to look up and see his new school being built on top of a hill in Rowley. His choice of motto was very appropriate.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    A modern version of Psalm 40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z_LBNF_-xI
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    Psalm/poetry wise I'd go for one of the acrostic lamentations. As a jucstaposition of primary school concepts and emotion.

    Either that or one of the modernly (written or preserved) metricised and tuned ones. Some of which I've probably not noticed.

    Prophet wise definitely Jonah (which would stand even if it were a parable). After that, probably Amos.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Levavi oculos is the incipit of Psalm 121 in the Vulgate (where it’s Psalm 120)—levavi oculos meos in montes unde veniet auxilium mihi, which the Douay-Rheims Bible translates as “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me.”

    The Vulgate, and hence the Douay-Rheims, are derived from the Septuagint, and my googling tells me that the Greek of the Septuagint also translates as “I lifted.” More than that as to why those sources have “I lifted/I have lifted” rather than the more common “I will lift/I lift” I cannot say.
    I don't think that's quite correct, but the reasons why would suggest that it's imprudent to draw any theological conclusion at all from which tense any translation into English, Greek or Latin has chosen.

    I'm no expert in this but I do know that Hebrew tenses work completely differently from tenses in English, Greek or Latin. All three of those are Indo-European languages, where the tenses tend to correspond to whether things happened in the past, present or future, which order they happened in, whether grammatical rules impose an element of conditionality, and in the case of English especially, whether something happens or continues to happen. So the tense of a verb in Hebrew tends to force on someone translating into an Indo-European language a choice which the Hebrew hasn't made. It also may omit something which was in the Hebrew, which may just have been forced on the original writer by the rules of Hebrew grammar or which may have been saying something that the writer really meant.

    Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, took his translation of the Old Testament where possible from Hebrew in preference to the LXX. The LXX, though, has the advantage that it was made at a time when Hebrew was still to some extent a spoken language, and in some cases from earlier versions of the Hebrew text which may have been more reliable.

    A similar issue, incidentally, arises with the Vulgate and the New Testament. Jerome made his translation at a time when Latin may not have been quite classical Latin but was still a spoken language, and spoken Greek was much closer to koiné Greek than spoken Greek was by the time the New Testament was being translated into modern languages.

    Levavi oculus is the headnote to Psalm 121 in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. I suspect that unless Telford's school was an RC foundation, that, rather than the Vulgate, is much more likely to be the source of the motto. The 1662 BCP uses a translation from the Vulgate from the reign of Edward VI. It's not that good a translation. The Authorised Version, two + generations later is usually a much better translation. Whatever the tense in the Vulgate, the BCP text is "I will lift up'. So, also, though, is the AV one.

    So whether 'I have lifted up', 'I will lift up', 'I lift up', or even the REB's 'If I lift up' is the most accurate rendering of what the original writer - not David in this case - was saying, or even whether it is significant at all, I don't think anyone can say.

    The one thing that can be said, with, I think, complete certainty, is that the psalmist was not expressing love for the hills, nor a belief that looking at them helped nor was inspiring in some way nor the 'I life my eyes to the quiet hills at the end of a busy day' of quite a popular chorus. The message is that help emphatically does not come from the hills, whether they look nice or whether it's one's friends or one's enemies that are hiding up there. Help comes from the LORD, and nowhere else.

    Slightly ranty rant over.

    Unlike a lot of people, I really like the Old Testament, and I couldn't choose a favourite bit. There are so many and I agree, that's a good psalm. However, I'd commend a story people don't often notice, David, Abigail and Nabal, 1 Sam 25. It would make a cracking Western.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Levavi oculos is the incipit of Psalm 121 in the Vulgate (where it’s Psalm 120)—levavi oculos meos in montes unde veniet auxilium mihi, which the Douay-Rheims Bible translates as “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me.”

    The Vulgate, and hence the Douay-Rheims, are derived from the Septuagint, and my googling tells me that the Greek of the Septuagint also translates as “I lifted.” More than that as to why those sources have “I lifted/I have lifted” rather than the more common “I will lift/I lift” I cannot say.
    Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, took his translation of the Old Testament where possible from Hebrew in preference to the LXX.
    Oops! Thanks for that correction.

    Levavi oculus is the headnote to Psalm 121 in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. I suspect that unless Telford's school was an RC foundation, that, rather than the Vulgate, is much more likely to be the source of the motto.
    Yes, I would agree that the direct source is likely the BCP. But I think the headings/incipits in the 1662 BCP (which also appear in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 BCP) are simply the Latin titles/incipits, which are, I think, taken from the Vulgate and related versions of the psalms.

    In any event, my point was simply that there is extensive historical precedent for Levavi oculos as the Latin for the first words of Psalm 121, rather than it being an innovation of Telford’s school.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »

    Levavi oculus is the headnote to Psalm 121 in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. I suspect that unless Telford's school was an RC foundation, that, rather than the Vulgate, is much more likely to be the source of the motto. The 1662 BCP uses a translation from the Vulgate from the reign of Edward VI. It's not that good a translation. The Authorised Version, two + generations later is usually a much better translation. Whatever the tense in the Vulgate, the BCP text is "I will lift up'. So, also, though, is the AV one.
    My school was the grammar school for Rowley Regis. It was a protestant school. My headmaster was was very well qualified as well as being a lay preacher. It was one of many grammar schools abolished by Labour councils in the 70s

  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Another favorite of mine:

    "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit."

    (And oh boy, were they better off!)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    If you read judges chapter 17 (where that quotation first occurs) through to the end of judges 21 brackets where that quotation is repeated) you will find it hard to describe the people as “better off“ given the level of general violent lawlessness that existed.

    The old Testament is not univocal on the subject of kingship. There are both positive and negative strands in its account of the kings of Israel and Judah.
  • Judges 3:12-28, the story of Ehud the Left-Handed and Eglon the Fat. Ehud is one of the Judges of Israel, and Eglon is a foreign overlord guy. Eglon doesn't realize Ehud has a sword since it's on the wrong side of his body. Ehud stabs Eglon until the "filth" comes out, then locks the door behind him. The servants hear Eglon groaning, and think he's taking a dump. By the time they realize what's going on and break the door open, he's dead. Subterfuge, revenge, and potty humor. What more could you want?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    Judges 3:12-28, the story of Ehud the Left-Handed and Eglon the Fat. Ehud is one of the Judges of Israel, and Eglon is a foreign overlord guy. Eglon doesn't realize Ehud has a sword since it's on the wrong side of his body. Ehud stabs Eglon until the "filth" comes out, then locks the door behind him. The servants hear Eglon groaning, and think he's taking a dump. By the time they realize what's going on and break the door open, he's dead. Subterfuge, revenge, and potty humor. What more could you want?

    I remember doing this with one of my favourite teachers at school aged about 9. We all then had to draw a picture of it, with particular attention being paid to the fat closing over the sword. Very popular exercise.
  • HarryCH wrote: »
    Another favorite of mine:

    "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit."

    (And oh boy, were they better off!)
    The more literal translation there is “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” Reference in the OT to what is good or right or pleasing in one’s eyes is usually a link back to the Garden of Eden: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.”

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Judges 3:12-28, the story of Ehud the Left-Handed and Eglon the Fat. Ehud is one of the Judges of Israel, and Eglon is a foreign overlord guy. Eglon doesn't realize Ehud has a sword since it's on the wrong side of his body. Ehud stabs Eglon until the "filth" comes out, then locks the door behind him. The servants hear Eglon groaning, and think he's taking a dump. By the time they realize what's going on and break the door open, he's dead. Subterfuge, revenge, and potty humor. What more could you want?

    I remember doing this with one of my favourite teachers at school aged about 9.

    :scream: :scream: :scream:

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    Judges 3:12-28, the story of Ehud the Left-Handed and Eglon the Fat. Ehud is one of the Judges of Israel, and Eglon is a foreign overlord guy. Eglon doesn't realize Ehud has a sword since it's on the wrong side of his body. Ehud stabs Eglon until the "filth" comes out, then locks the door behind him. The servants hear Eglon groaning, and think he's taking a dump. By the time they realize what's going on and break the door open, he's dead. Subterfuge, revenge, and potty humor. What more could you want?

    I remember doing this with one of my favourite teachers at school aged about 9.

    :scream: :scream: :scream:

    erm, yes, I mean I remember covering this story with...
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited April 2023
    My favourite prophet is definitely Isaiah. I can't quite say why exactly but reading Isaiah as compared to most other prophets I always get a sense of "this is just better". Perhaps quite unjustified and merely a matter of taste but that is how I feel.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    My favourite prophet is definitely Isaiah. I can't quite say why exactly but reading Isaiah as compared to most other prophets I always get a sense of "this is just better". Perhaps quite unjustified and merely a matter of taste but that is how I feel.

    Nietzsche, in a passage ftom The Antichrist analyzing the Old Testament, describes Isaiah as "the satirist of the hour".

    Never read Isaiah myself, so no idea about the suitability of that phrasing. I gather the prophet denounces anything and everything in society?
  • stetson wrote: »
    Nietzsche, in a passage ftom The Antichrist analyzing the Old Testament, describes Isaiah as "the satirist of the hour".

    Never read Isaiah myself, so no idea about the suitability of that phrasing. I gather the prophet denounces anything and everything in society?
    That’s not at all how I’d describe Isaiah. Of all the prophets, Isaiah might be the one with whom I least associate such denunciations.

    FWIW, looking up the passage you cite, it looks me like Nietzsche is equating prophets generally with “satirist of the hour,” not specifically calling Isaiah the satirist of the hour—“But the people retained as its supreme desideratum that vision of a king who is a good soldier and an upright judge: as did above all the typical prophet (that is to say critic and satirist of the hour) Isaiah.” But then, I’m very quickly out of my depth when it comes to Nietzsche.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Okay, so all prophets are critics and satirists, and Isaiah is the most typical of them. That seems to be what the text means, yes. Thanks.

    (As you might have guessed, I didn't remember much of that quote besides "satirist of the hour". Having betrayed my own lacuna, I nevertheless recommend The Antichrist as a breezy yet engaging read, pretty accessible for anyone with a basic knowledge of the Bible, church-history, Kant, and the major world religions. Not to mention pretty funny, as well.

    Wikipedia lists H.L. Mencken as the translator, so I guess he was the first, which is just wild.)
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    edited April 2023
    He also (not uniquely) uses a lot of satirical techniques.

    It's Isaiah who has the description focusing of all the mundane work that goes into making an idol, and then contrasting it with it's person (etc cp 44, but like any writer there's loads of attempts at the theme, Jeremiah, Hoshea and Habakkuk has something similar but doesn't run with the absurdity).


    A good portion of the prophets is also focused heavily on social justice. The sort of thing Radical writers would resonate with (I'm not sure Nietzsche would count, but he'd recognise it)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Nietzsche would probably support social justice, or something resembling it, for the reasons that an Old Testament prophet would, but not for the reasons Jesus would.

    Thanks for the info on Isaiah. I might give it a read this weekend.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    Stating the obvious it will be a compare and contrast.
    I'd imagine someone like Voltaire seeing it as a missed opportunity, lost because it was held back by superstition (or something).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    jay_emm wrote: »
    It's Isaiah who has the description focusing of all the mundane work that goes into making an idol, and then contrasting it with it's person (etc cp 44

    Just gave 44 a read. Okay, so Isaiah is trying to discredit idolatry by pointing out that the same materials and actions that go into making an idol also go into mundane activities like cooking?

    I guess I could see that argument working for his target readership, but it seems to have somewhat problematic implications for Christians. You could similarly lampoon the eucharist by saying that the same batch of wheat that gets used for hosts might also get used for the hamburger buns at McDonalds.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    Isn't that what the enlightenment satirists went on to do?

    I think Isaiah is trying to discredit idolators, but that's a distinction with little difference.
    And I'm sure he'd say his case is totally different, but not be altogether convincing to the unconverted.

    However I'm not altogether sure modern day Isaiah wouldn't be on board with some modern ecclesiastical practice mocking* when it's associated with hypocrisy.

    *Other parts provide different balances.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I guess I could see that argument working for his target readership, but it seems to have somewhat problematic implications for Christians. You could similarly lampoon the eucharist by saying that the same batch of wheat that gets used for hosts might also get used for the hamburger buns at McDonalds.
    Well, I’d say two things. First, reading one chapter of Isaiah may well be reading that chapter out of context. And second, there’s also what Paul has to say about meat offered to idols.

  • stetson wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    It's Isaiah who has the description focusing of all the mundane work that goes into making an idol, and then contrasting it with it's person (etc cp 44

    Just gave 44 a read. Okay, so Isaiah is trying to discredit idolatry by pointing out that the same materials and actions that go into making an idol also go into mundane activities like cooking?

    I guess I could see that argument working for his target readership, but it seems to have somewhat problematic implications for Christians. You could similarly lampoon the eucharist by saying that the same batch of wheat that gets used for hosts might also get used for the hamburger buns at McDonalds.

    Not quite. Isaiah isn't talking about all idolmakers in any context around the world. He's specifically addressing people who belong to Israel, and already the command and testimony of the Lord concerning avoiding idols. These are the ones he's holding up to scorn, because they already know better, they've been told. The bit about using the same log for worship and cooking is just the ludicrous cherry on the top of it all.

    In the context of the Eucharist, then, you'd have to have similar clear testimony from the Lord himself saying that this bread and wine is nothing, is mere food; and THEN have the baker making wafers from the same flour as the morning bagels. But we don't have that.




  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    jay_emm wrote: »
    It's Isaiah who has the description focusing of all the mundane work that goes into making an idol, and then contrasting it with it's person (etc cp 44

    Just gave 44 a read. Okay, so Isaiah is trying to discredit idolatry by pointing out that the same materials and actions that go into making an idol also go into mundane activities like cooking?

    I guess I could see that argument working for his target readership, but it seems to have somewhat problematic implications for Christians. You could similarly lampoon the eucharist by saying that the same batch of wheat that gets used for hosts might also get used for the hamburger buns at McDonalds.

    Not quite. Isaiah isn't talking about all idolmakers in any context around the world. He's specifically addressing people who belong to Israel, and already the command and testimony of the Lord concerning avoiding idols. These are the ones he's holding up to scorn, because they already know better, they've been told. The bit about using the same log for worship and cooking is just the ludicrous cherry on the top of it all.

    In the context of the Eucharist, then, you'd have to have similar clear testimony from the Lord himself saying that this bread and wine is nothing, is mere food; and THEN have the baker making wafers from the same flour as the morning bagels. But we don't have that.

    Okay, so sorta like this election ad I saw in Canada in the late 1970s. A Liberal candidate challenging the Conservative incumbent in my constituency(aka a "riding"), after outlining the reasons to vote Liberal and not Conservative, ended his spiel with "The man who currently represents this riding doesn't even live here", delivered in a tone of sad outrage.

    Obviously not meant to set any sort of moral precedent that no one should ever vote for a non-resident, since the Liberals run them too, sometimes. But just something that might seem absurd or ridiculous in the moment, to a certain segment of the audience.
  • If I understand you correctly, yes.

    Though in most places in the States, not living in the place you represent would get you in trouble. It's often a straight-out legal requirement.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    there’s also what Paul has to say about meat offered to idols.

    Just read up on that. Gotta say, I have never in my life stopped doing something I considered morally okay, on the grounds that someone who considers it morally wrong might be tempted to do it. ("Don't order a beer! What if a Mormon at the next table sees you and decides to break his faith's rules!")

    I think Paul just realized it was causing arguments in that church, but couldn't come up with a reason why it was wrong, so just came down on the side of "Don't do it", because it woulda been harder for the old-schoolers to adjust to the liberal position than vice versa.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    there’s also what Paul has to say about meat offered to idols.
    Just read up on that. Gotta say, I have never in my life stopped doing something I considered morally okay, on the grounds that someone who considers it morally wrong might be tempted to do it. ("Don't order a beer! What if a Mormon at the next table sees you and decides to break his faith's rules!")
    Yeah, but I don’t think that’s really what Paul is saying at all. To start with, he’s talking within the context of fellow Christians in the church, not random strangers. He’s talking about being thoughtful and not doing something that may be morally neutral but that may, for some reason, be a stumbling block for the person you call “brother” or “sister,” rather than insisting that because it’s morally neutral, you can do whatever you damn well please.

    What Paul is talking about is living together in community.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    So, I guess a better example would be...

    Two denominations, let's call 'em A and B, merge, and they basically agree on most things, but one thing they differ on is that A thinks wearing neckties to church is wrong, whereas B thinks it's fine. The head moderator says he can't find any reason why wearing neckties to is wrong, but since alot of the A people hate it, the moderator allows the ban on neckties to stand, ostensibly so the As won't fall into temptation to break their rules.

    Still think the real reason would be to prevent fights among the congregants, rather than out of concern for possible lapsing among the A Team. But that might be a distinction without a difference, since there will prob'ly be both fighting AND lapsing.
  • Except I think the idea of a “ban” is misplaced. Paul isn’t talking about banning anything. He’s talking about individuals making choices that are mindful of others.

    It’s more like “Yeah, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wearing neckties. You’re free to wear one. But you don’t have to wear one, and if wearing one is going to be a problem for someone you claim is your brother or sister, then don’t be a jerk.”

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Fair enough. I wasn't clear if Paul was making an enforcable ruling, or just giving advice.

    (Though I would assume that Paul hoped for his counsel to have the same effect as a ban, ie. no one in that church would eat sacrificed meat.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    I tend to think that if that’s what Paul wanted, he would have no hesitation saying it straight up, nor would he have said there’s nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. The key to me is early in the chapter, when Paul says “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” One may know that there’s nothing wrong with eating food offered to idols, but one should ask whether it’s the loving thing to do with regard to others in the community.

    But I fear we’re drifting from the Old Testament.

  • Before leaving this-

    It affects me on a routine basis, since the majority of Christians and Christian-exposed non-Christians among the Vietnamese feel that Christians ought not drink or gamble. We are Lutherans and don't believe those things are innately sinful, but avoid them publicly anyway to avoid scandalizing our community and/or starting family fights (because you must know some of the young people will cite our example as a reason to do what their parents have taught them not to do, and there goes peace in the community). It's better for the community if we avoid pushing the envelope unless we're certain we'll have sufficient opportunity to go into the reason for our stance with everyone likely to be affected. And since the issues are pretty minor compared to the much more life- and- death stuff we deal with commonly (abuse, addiction, crime, health initiatives), the time has never felt right to start a major campaign on those subjects, if you know what i mean.
  • Not a judge or a prophet but how about the lady business entrepreneur at the end of Proverbs. Was she a real person I wonder.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    Not a judge or a prophet but how about the lady business entrepreneur at the end of Proverbs. Was she a real person I wonder.

    May I ask chapter and verse on that?
  • I assume the reference is to the Ode to a Capable Wife, Proverbs 31:10–31.

Sign In or Register to comment.