Irrational, or: Four Bible Stories I Don't Get
I was going to hold off on this until I could summon enough content to make an appropriately-sized list, but decided I didn't have the time or interest to go further than I already scraped together, so this is what you get. Don't like it? Tough on you.
Alright, enough of that intro stuff. No one really cares anyway, right? Right. So, without further ado, here's my list of top four stories in the Bible that I just plain don't understand. I'll operate under the premise you're not intimately familiar with each story, and try to provide some sort of synopsis.
Giving Away Your Unborn Kid
Plot synopsis: Woman named Hannah for some reason can't have a kid. (sorry… that should read “the LORD closed her womb.” Because, you know, it was His fault.) She prays to God for a kid and makes a promise if He comes through.
10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the LORD, weeping bitterly. 11 And she made a vow, saying, “LORD Almighty, if you will only look on your servant's misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the LORD for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.”
…
27 I prayed for this child, and the LORD has granted me what I asked of him. 28 So now I give him to the LORD. For his whole life he will be given over to the LORD.” And he worshiped the LORD there.
- I Samuel 1:10-11,27-28
I understand that she was upset because she couldn't have any kids. In that era, you were basically a failure if you hadn't churned out about a dozen kids by the time you were 14. Kinda rough time to be a woman, I guess. In any case, I can understand that she prayed to God for a child. What I don't get is her promise to turn him over to the church in return. That seems unfair to the kid, and he hasn't even been born yet.
“Welcome to the world! Oh by the way I hope you'll like the church, because you're going to be serving there for the rest of your life. Enjoy!” Something to that effect? Let me know if I'm getting warm here. I just can't get behind a story like this, when it's basically selling an unborn child into slavery. Sure, it's the church, it's for God, it's not really slavery, is it Tom?
Except it really is. The child, whose name turned out to be Samuel by the way, was sworn to be a servant of the church long before he had any choice in the matter. Does God really want a servant who didn't choose that life? I can't imagine that's the way it's supposed to be.
Lot's Wife
Plot synopsis: Abraham's nephew Lot has gone to live in a faraway city named Sodom. (of Sodom and Gomorrah fame) God comes to Abraham and tells him that He's planning on wiping these two cities off the map, because the people that live there are so evil he has no choice. Abraham manages to haggle with The Big Guy, and gets Him to agree not to do the whole fire and brimstone thing if there are just ten people (read: ten men) in the whole city who God finds righteous.
So… God does his audit, and go figure, no ten such people are found. So He sends angels to get Lot and his family out of the city before things start to heat up. The family is warned not to look back at the city once God has started to destroy it, and sent running into the hills.
17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
…
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
- Genesis 19:17,23-26
So that's the story. What I don't understand is that last bit, verse 26. His wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she stopped to look back at the city burning. That seems a bit harsh, no?
I understand that God's command was to not look back, but… c'mon. She wanted to see fire and brimstone raining down from the sky annihilating the city. That's not something you get to see every day. Most sermons I've heard about this say she turned around because she wanted to go back to the cities and resume her life of sin, but… I don't know if I buy that entirely. If it were me, and there was literally fire pouring out of the sky onto the city behind me, I think I'd need to see that.
Just seems a bit over-the-top to make her into a salt statue for the local deer.
Bury My Father
Plot synopsis: Jesus is walking along, and like any good groupies, people come up alongside and profess their love for him and his teachings, and want to follow him wherever he goes. He tells them there are apparently some ground rules for getting into this particular club.
59 He said to another man, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” 60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.” 62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
- Luke 9:59-62
Wow. Where to begin with this one. These two guys come up and tell Jesus that they want to follow him, and he blatantly tells them, “Nope! Denied.” Why? Were they evil misfits unsuited for the rewards to be reaped by following him? No such thing. One wanted to go bury his late father, and one wanted to say goodbye to his family before embarking on a trip to Jesus-knew-where.
Apparently that's sufficient reason to be denied access to the fan club. My pastor claims this was symbolic for wanting to go back to their old lives and resume their old habits instead, or something to that effect. I think it's exactly what it says. I think these guys wanted to go tie up their old lives and finish things off first.
You know, the little things. Like burying your deceased father and saying au revoir to the rest of the fam. You know, who would want to do that? Be respectful to your earthly family? Noooooooooooo. Certainly that's not allowed.
Bald Man's Revenge
Plot synopsis: Elisha (he's a guy, contrary to the misleading name) is the protégé of über prophet Elijah. He's just received a double-scoop portion of whatever power Elijah had, since Elijah just got swept up into heaven on a flaming chariot. Way to make an exit! In any case, Elisha is walking back into town, when he has an encounter (cue dramatic music):
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
- II Kings 2:23-25
So let's get this straight. He just had this amazingly powerful encounter where he got a double-dip into the Almighty power, and then he's walking along and gets harassed by some kids. Now, I'm sure it was more than just some name-calling like they make it sound, but still. Unless they were stoning him, I can't see why he would need to curse them with bears. Bears? C'mon now. Why not killer bees or flying horses? That's scary stuff. So they called him 'baldy' and he had them killed. I can't imagine what this guy would have been like in middle school.
Maybe it's just me, but… sounds like someone could use some anger management classes. Preferably not the sort led by Jack Nicholson, but still. Might be a good investment, or a good court order.
Photo by tlianza. License: Creative Commons Attribution.
I ran out of headings.
Yeah, that's all the stories I had. Maybe it's a good thing I didn't go for the full seven, seeing as this turned out to be fairly lengthy. But… I just don't get these. I'm sure there were more stories I've read over the years that just made no sense whatsoever to me, but these were the ones that popped out specifically. Anyone want to share their immense wisdom with me and explain any of these to me?
Barbara (Xerraire) said,
August 6, 2007, 11:30 am
In the Bible story of Hannah and Samuel, you leave out that after that, the Lord blessed her with 3 more sons and 2 daughters.
Such was her heartache before she had children that she did indeed make this vow. She didn't ignore Samuel, the Bible also mentions her visiting him, making him a coat each new year. She was a woman of vision and great faith, her prayers really show this true.
Samuel I suppose always has a choice to run from God and this purpose (don't we all?) but he ended up being a judge, a priest, and a prophet. He also proved to be an important one in Judah and Israel for centuries to come, he was never King, but had the PRIVIDLIDGE (not the enslavement) to be used by God. Perhaps he was thinking about an eternal life more than his temporary life? (as we should)
**************************
Lot's wife.
This is such a remarkable happening and the Bible mentions it in a rather matter-of-fact way, so there is no suggestion then that it is a special miracle or divine judgement, but the warning of God was clear, “don't look back.” (and then there was a warning if they did, “lest thou be consumed.”
I think God means what he says and the story clearly illustrates that.
Lot's wife surely liked her luxurious life in Sodom, and her daring to look back in spite of God's warning, just might indicate that.
Never the less, the demand was clear and so was the warning attached to it.
Interestingly enough there are a lot of salt deposits in that region today.
****************************
The story of the two men who wish to follow Jesus needs more than those verses you mentioned to make sense, also this same story is told in Matthew 8: 18-22
“Permit me to go bury my father” had a different meaning back then. To investigate more it was a common figure of speech to mean, “Let me wait until I receive my inheritance.”
Besides, this is Jesus, he knew the men's hearts better than we ever could, he knew if they were completely meaningful when they said they wished to follow him.
*******************************
Elisha.
These were not children but infidels and idolatrous young men . These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord's prophet. Well, I don't think you really want to mess with someone the Lord himself appoints and these verses clearly ilustrate not to.
“They so despised this prophet they used a disgrace way to go about taunting him, baldness was already considered a disgrace in that time, it was an epithet of scorn and contempt, he wasn't literally bald.
Elisha then called upon the Lord to deal with them, (Elisha couldn't make two bears appear, so it was the work of the Lord dealing with them).
This appalling judgement was God's warning to any and all who attempted to interfere with this newly invested prophet's ministry.” (From the John McArthur Study Bible).
Tigerblade, you ask good questions, but one worthy of a Bible student, have you thought to take some Bible courses?
Tigerblade said,
August 6, 2007, 11:46 am
Samuel -
I understand that Hannah went to visit him, and brought him a new coat each year, but that doesn't change the fact that she committed him before he was even born to a life he didn't choose. I know this practice went on for hundreds of years, even into Victorian England, but that doesn't make it right.
If she wanted a son so badly, a more appropriate prayer should have been promising something of herself instead of committing her yet-unborn child, no?
*****
Lot's wife -
There's no way to be certain why she looked back. I'll grant that doing so was in violation of God's command, but I don't see a valid reason for that command. Yes, perhaps it's beyond my comprehension to question a command from a Supreme Being, but… still. Turning a woman into a salt block because she looked back to see fire and brimstone pouring out of Heaven… that's akin to “don't look down!”
*****
I think a big part of my problem with a lot of the stories in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament) is that God (and his representatives) is extremely violent and punitive. Bringing out two bears to maul and kill a couple dozen youths because they were mocking a prophet? What happened to turning the other cheek? (yes I'm aware that command was given hundreds of years later) Throughout the OT, anytime there's a problem, the response is invariably death and destruction.
I have a hard time accepting the justifications for so much needless death. For example, and I should have included this in the list, the story of the man who reaches out to keep the Ark of the Covenant from tipping over. I know that no one was allowed to touch the Ark, and that they were disobeying by even carrying it on a cart instead of by the poles as intended, but was it really necessary to strike down the guy who was trying to protect it?
Meh. Just too much contradiction for me between the God of Love and the God Who Kills Everyone Who Doesn't Like Him.
Barbara (Xerraire) said,
August 9, 2007, 11:16 am
So, your point is? Reject this God?
Tigerblade said,
August 9, 2007, 12:42 pm
No, my point is that I think somewhere between the actual events and the stories we get to read there's a massive disconnect. I think (as I've said in previous posts) we're not getting the whole story, or we're not getting the real story.
I can't imagine how the God who loves us all and sent his son to die for us and all that is the same God that opened up a hole in the ground and killed scores of men, or directed the tribe of Israel to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents (there was at least one battle where they were instructed to leave no one alive), or bring out bears to maul a group of men for taunting a prophet. Then a few hundred years later his response is to turn the other cheek?
I don't buy that. Especially when He's so often described as being “unchanging.”
Sam said,
August 11, 2007, 4:48 am
Okay I'm not really in the state of mind to talk theory here…but let me just say this:
Tom…have I told you how much I love you today? Because if I haven't, I love you more than a fat kid loves cake.
Seriously. /Thank you/ for actually saying what I've been pointing out (less pointedly and your manner was much more convincing with examples) for years.
Course it just doesn't sound the same coming from me. *shrug*
MUAH!
Tigerblade said,
August 11, 2007, 8:58 am
Heh, anything to please my adoring fans.
On Facebook, my “religious views” info is currently, “I believe in God but organized religion reminds me of a cult.” I think that sums it up pretty well.
In related news, God has recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so that might explain a few things.
chikoos said,
August 13, 2007, 5:27 am
hi tigerblade,
'”I believe in God but organized religion reminds me of a cult.” I think that sums it up pretty well.'
if u cannot comprehend stories, theories, sermons, books etc. there's just one person u can connect to for an answer.
if u think u really believe in god why dont u talk to Him. He would have all the answers.
regards
Tigerblade said,
August 13, 2007, 4:23 pm
Hmm, it seems that just one day after posting this to Newsvine, it's become the most active story there:
generaldecay said,
August 16, 2007, 1:38 am
Well done for reaching the top news box - no easy feat on the Vine. I haven't had a chance to read all of that discussion but I might get around to it.
(I seeded a 'bible' piece too - it got some, erm, interesting feedback!)
Nottrendy said,
November 9, 2007, 3:15 pm
I would like to congratulate you on your honesty. This certainly makes for an interesting conversation however, true belief in God in the pure sense of the word 'Belief' would ultimately allow you to ask him in a personal heartfelt one on one prayer / dialogue and I guarantee you he will reveal to you answers.
The comment or link to the page about God being diagnosed as bipolar is really when you look at their explanations for this diagnosis is a mockery to The Almighty Creator. When one listens to the Genius of say Chopin or Bethovan or looks at the artistry of Picasso or the equations of Eistein we call these people Genius. Just because we cannot understand The Genius we do not revert back to name calling just because we cannot process or understand their patterns of thought. I think that God is simply Genius actually that would be an understatement because even the smartest Genuis spends a lifetime in one isolated study of his particular field ….
bottomline….we should always be careful of that fineline between questions about the creator vs questioning the creator. I personally experience that after one question is answered another one pops up. Thats why I like conversations with people but I love getting the answer straight from the source. Almighty God.