Question on original Hebrew phrase in Bible

Post Reply New Topic

Do you have a particular Biblical passage in mind in support of your first statement? Exodus through Ruth talks about life in Israelite territory while the Israelites were doing what they were supposed to be doing. As long as they had strong leaders, things were great. Same for David to Solomon and late Rehoboam, even though the damage done throughout the most of Rehoboam's reign didn't really allow the Israelites much of a comeback. So saying that the Canaanites were "probably less so" sinful than the Israelites doesn't really work at THIS time. You'd be correct if you named a much later king, but that's not the same thing we're talking about here. I suspect your view of murder/genocide have to do with a current view of war that is generally unfavorable, not what was deemed necessary by God during the time frame we're discussing. You can't apply today's history retroactively. All you're really saying that you disagree with how God chose to handle it.

The Moses analogy doesn't really work, either, because you aren't distinguishing between the Midianite family that Moses had familial ties to and the Midianites that attacked Israel. First, Jethro virtually adopted Moses when he married Zipporah. Second, Moses had a lot of respect for Jethro, since when they met again he followed Jethro's advice on how to set up and effective and efficient justice system for interpreting the Law. Third, Moses persuaded his brother-in-law to join the Israelites. I think this was because even though ethnically they were outside Israel, they indeed believed in and worshiped the same God--or at the very least possessed some compatible idea of what true righteousness is. They weren't concerned about ethnic, national, or racial differences, but rather the proper relationship with God. These weren't the people who later attacked Israel.

Numbers 25:16-18--The Lord told Moses: "Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. For they attacked you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor incident. They did the same in the case involving their sister Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite leader who was killed the day the plague came at Peor."

There really isn't anything to suggest that the Canaanites were particularly sinful. They just happened to be living in a place that the Israelites coveted. That was really the only issue.


I don't think that mudering all of the Midianites was a sign of greatness.


I know that our species has become less murderous over time. Even among more primitive societies today (such as Indians in the remote Amazon), people are fairly likely to meet a violent death. Warfare in ancient times meant plundering, murdering and enslaving. Even Augustine recognized this. Still, I think that it is wrong to put the Israelites on a pedestal. They weren't morally superior to anyone else, and their God was no better than anyone else's God. Morally or otherwise.



The Midianites did not "attack the Israelites with treachery." All they did was invite some Hebrew boys over for supper, sex and Baal-worshipping (they didn't have movies in those days). And Cozbi was the Midianite woman who went into an Israelite's tent with him and who was murdered by Phinehas.

You seem to have some pretty powerful blinders on. The ancient Israelites can covet, murder and rob, and you consider them "good" and "righteous." The people whom they murder and rob you regard necessarily as "sinful" or "evil."

You accuse me of "applying today's history retroactively", but you're just looking at these people through rose-coloured glasses. You're glorifying murder and mayhem, and not trying to look at their situation in a way that is even remotely objective.

So you're perfectly ok with paganism and child sacrifice. As long as you don't covet someone's territory, anything else is ok.

The territory was promised to the Israelites in the first place. But covetousness doesn't really seem to be the issue. The Israelites "groaned" about their labor in Egypt, but they didn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything about it. God had to take the initiative through Moses for that to happen.


This is only the coloring of a modern-day perspective. But even so, proper worship of the Lord and obeying His commands as per Torah were all that was required. The Bible shows that as long as they were in obedience to the Lord times were good. Not so much when they turned to worshiping other gods.


No one is putting them on a pedestal. They WERE inconsistent in their worship of God, especially under weak and inconsistent leadership. As to God being better than any other god--well, you're simply free to believe whatever you want, even if you're wrong. We just happen to disagree on this point.


Actually, they did. Treachery/treason is turning away from some form of authority to which you owe fealty. The Israelites belonged to God and God alone, not to any other god. Leading the people away from the One they are devoted to is treachery. So while the attack may not have been a "physical" attack in some military sense, it was most certainly a spiritual attack.


I'm not accusing you of anything at all! That was merely an observation. And I am being as objective so far as my knowledge and understanding will allow. All I'm trying to do is look at the Bible from the perspective of an ancient Hebrew, trying to understand what they faced and how they related to God. You only need to read the Bible for that much. It's really quite simple: God gave orders; the people either obeyed or they didn't. If God says, "wipe out ___," you wipe them out. If you don't like that, then that's your problem to take up with God, not mine.

And...

Any way you look at it, the conquest of Canaan and subsequent Davidic wars were limited and targeted to ONLY those people-groups. Those wars were not fought to expand territory they were already entitled to or to kill/enslave the rest of the known world. Wars external to Israel that are recorded in the Bible seem to be for the purpose of national defense, as would be expected in any nation at any historical period of time. NOT for the purpose of converting surrounding nations to the Hebrew religion. The apostles and disciples were instructed to "make disciples of the nations," not "make disciples of the nations or wipe them out."

I do not condone child sacrifice. I suspect that child sacrifice happened during ancient times. When Yahweh told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham didn't act as if this request were out of the ordinary. He just said, "Yeah, okay, whatever", and would have done it if Yahweh hadn't shown up at the last moment and said "Just Kidding!" There was no mention of child sacrifice at Baal of Peor.

As for paganism, and ritual prostitution accompanied by a barbecue: I don't have a problem with it at all. Modern Christians could really learn a thing or two from the ancient Baal worshippers.



The promise was issued some four centuries previously. If the Israelites really didn't want to leave Egypt, then they really didn't need to. Why should they really go to Canaan and slaughter everyone there, anyway?


You really believe that? What is the sense of following all of the hundreds of commands in the Torah? It is much better to live a little. Maybe enjoy a bit of an orgy now and then, and worship a golden calf.


Oh really?


But, they were a gang of murderous cut-throats, once they enjoyed the pleasure of proper and consistent leadership.


So, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Yahweh is any better than any other God?


Sorry, it was the Israelites who, in this instance, behaved quite treacherously.


And that is where your religion is screwy. If God calls upon you to sin in such a horrendous and barbaric manner, it would be better to stick to superior principles and walk away from this God.


Maybe so, but that doesn't make it nice.


The Israelites may have been motivated by a profound sense of entitlement, but they were not entitled to the land nor to murder or enslave anybody.


They did convert the Edomites to Judaism.

I thought you might mention that. Here is the problem with Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac:



Now, child sacrifice was later explicitly condemned in the law of Moses. It makes no sense that if God prohibited child sacrifice to Him that it would be acceptable for Abraham; it would have made Abraham no more or less like one of the child-killing Molech worshipers. And we know from the Bible Abraham did not participate in these kinds of practices. Abraham would not at all have even entertained the thought if there was any reason, any reason at all to doubt that God was behind this.

Second, God consistently makes good on His promises. So think about it--how could God promise "kings of peoples will come from her," "his offspring after him," and "your offspring will be traced through Isaac" if Isaac was dead?

If you go back and read up on Abram/Abraham's background, you'll know he was good at maintaining livestock and that he trained and commanded his own personal militia, not to mention he received prophetic words from God and led his men in observing his religion. So he was a pretty smart guy. He may not have known with any certainty what God was up to, but he probably had a good idea that Isaac would not have ended up dead. He was willing to wait on God to stop the sacrifice. And if God DIDN'T stop the sacrifice, he trusted God to know that because God promised what He promised--"kings of peoples," "his offspring," and "traced through Isaac"--God could and would certainly bring Isaac back from the dead to fulfill God's covenant with Abraham.

It also points to the promise of the Messiah. Isaac was, for all practical purposes, Abraham's only son (Ishmael was shown to not be part of the original plan). When Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, God provided a substitute. By providing a substitutionary atonement to pay the redemption cost of Abraham's firstborn (God's promise was through Sarah, not Hagar, and Isaac was the only legitimate heir Abraham could have), God painted a picture of His plan for all of humanity. In the law of Moses, all the firstborn, including animals, must be redeemed or killed. Obviously you aren't allowed to kill your own children, so redemption was REQUIRED. Jesus' own sacrifice was such that He was the sacrifice itself and the high priest of the sacrifice, paying the redemption price for all of humanity and atoning for all willing to accept God's grace through Jesus.

The Hebrew is clear: Mashtayn ba keer. = Who pisses against the wall. Which is a colorful way of saying a male. Only males can pee against a wall standing up.

ruveyn

Amen! This is one man who knows what he's talking about.

You may find it educational to do a Google search for photographs by Becky Flanders.

The Good News Translation does pass the Isaiah 7:14 litmus test (i.e., does NOT use the term "virgin"). However, it fails the "piss against the wall" litmus test. Are there any translations that pass both litmus tests?

Again, it does seem that the expression is used as an epithet only when someone feels motivated to murder all of the male members of an extended family. Do speakers of modern Hebrew also use this phraseology?

Even if an English translator does not want to use the phrase "everyone who pisses against the wall", it does seem like the translator should use at least some roughly equivalent modern English epithet, to capture the rage and anger. "I will kill every male" doesn't quite do it. Maybe something like "I'm gonna kill all those sons of b*****s!", and there can be a footnote to explain that the original Hebrew said "I'm gonna kill all those jerks who wee-wee against a wall!"

I didn't happen to come across any other instances of child sacrifice in Genesis. The laws of Moses were several hundred years later. Still, Child sacrifices probably went on at the time of Abraham, so he probably didn't find God's request to be particularly bizzare. After all, Abraham didn't flinch at the idea of circumcising himself and all of his male slaves.



That certainly would have been a fly in the ointment.



I didn't see anything about a "personal militia." He had a lot of slaves, but I don't see him fighting any battles anywhere. As far as I can tell, he didn't even start the slaughter of the Canaanites. Abraham did force his slaves to be circumcised, which they must have found to be rather strange, not to mention painful.



You're doing a lot of second-guessing about what was on Abraham's mind. It turned out that God was only testing him. The whole episode seems rather silly. God tells you to do something stupid, and you're just supposed to do it. There was no previous example of anyone coming back from the dead--not until Lazarus.



God did not promise that a Messiah would be among Abraham's descendents--only that Abraham would be the ancestor of many nations, and have many descendents, of whom some would be kings. There was no promise of a Messiah.


In this way, Abraham was a typical slave-holder. Not unlike Southern White Gentleman, even into the 20th century. Strom Thurmond was a big segregationist, even though he fathered a half-black illegitimate daughter whom he never acknowledged during his entire life.



God was just testing Abraham. That's all it was. There was really no "redemption cost" of anyone's first born. Ishmael could also have been a legitimate heir. Sons of Jacob's concubines were regarded as "legitimate heirs" who were just as legitimate as the sons of Jacob's wives.


Which was a rather senseless plan.


Exodus 13. It seems rather silly. But, okay, you kill an animal and have a barbecue when your first son is born. Or when an animal of your flock has its first born male. If you don't want to kill your first-born male donkey, then you can kill a sheep instead. But, on the other hand, you don't need as many males as females to maintain a flock, so barbecuing the first-born male sheep isn't such a big deal, especially after you've fattened him for a year.

So, if you're Jewish, and you have a cat who has kittens for the first time, then you have to figure out which one of the kittens is the first-born male, and then either sacrifice it or redeem it?



It's purpose was to serve to "remind us that the Lord brought us out of Egypt by his great power" (Genesis 13:16). It was more of a nice celebration than an out-and-out REQUIREMENT, like circumcision.



This wouldn't have applied to first-born male livestock. One would still be required either to kill or redeem them. And, for humans, the redemption barbecue was solely to celebrate one's first son. Redemption was not required for other children.

But by the time of the Exodus, child or infant sacrifice was already a known facet of Canaanite idol worship.


Genesis 14:14--When Abram heard that his relative had been taken prisoner, he assembled his 318 trained men, born in his household, and they went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Circumcision was not unique to the Hebrews. All God did in giving His instruction to Abraham to practice this within his family was institute it as part of keeping the covenant "in the flesh." Abraham's servants would have found it painful, but they wouldn't have thought it strange.


Seeming silly is a matter of opinion. The extent of Abraham's faith was such that God would still give him progeny through Isaac, even if Isaac had been killed. God also commanded that the firstborn belongs to God, so this basically institutes the redemption of the firstborn pointing to the future Passover rituals--because in Egypt God slew all the firstborn. The firstborn (heir) of all creation, Jesus, was slain to redeem the world and resurrected on the third day. If Abraham had been able to trust in God completely, then he knew that God would do SOMETHING, even if he was unsure as to what that something was.


Genesis 22:18--"And all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring because you have obeyed My command."

I'd say the atonement Jesus, a descendant of Abraham, provided for all people has certainly blessed "all the nations of the earth." God's grace will not be withheld from those who believe.


Not really. Abraham loved Ishmael and preferred initially that Ishmael receive his inheritance. Sarah thought otherwise, and she'd already been told by the Lord that it would be Isaac that received an inheritance from Abraham. Abraham did not part with Ishmael willingly except only after it had been made clear to him that's what the Lord wanted.


Just testing? Yet it forms a part of a recurring pattern throughout scripture.

"Just as legitimate?" No, not really. Look at the division of Canaan when Israel returned. Manasseh had an inheritance on both sides of the Jordan. Ephraim controlled the hill country. Reuben, the firstborn, declined an inheritance in Canaan and settled in the Transjordan. Simeon was absorbed into Judah. Levi lost his inheritance entirely. Bilhah's sons: Dan got a tiny part by the sea, Naphtali and Asher were in the north where they were more open to attack from the outside. Gad also stayed in the Transjordan. In the end, it was Joseph from Rachel and Judah from Leah that comprised most of Israelite territory.


Good question. I think it had to do more with animals that were considered for sacrifice. Other than that, I have no idea. I'm not Jewish.


Exodus 34:20--...You must redeem all the firstborn of your sons...



Exodus 34:19--"The firstborn male from every womb belongs to Me, including all your male livestock, the firstborn of cattle or sheep."

Vs. 20 (the part I cut)--"You must redeem the firstborn of a donkey with a sheep, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck."

The firstborn of Israel pre-Exodus were redeemed by the killing of all the firstborn of Egypt. So, yes, this requirement does have ties to Egypt and the Exodus. It is also in part prophetic of what God would do for us by sending Jesus. Since ONE dies, the firstborn/the heir, the rest are spared God's wrath.

No he wouldn't.


That wasn't commanded until Exodus.



My translation reads: "All the nations will ask me to bless them as I have blessed your descendants, all because you obeyed my command." Big difference there. The Canaanites and Midianites certainly weren't blessed by Abraham's descendents.



None of Jacob's sons were kicked out the way that Ishmael was. All of them had something. And, all of the descendents of Jacob did eventually lose their territories, whether descended from one of Jacob's wives or concubines.


No they weren't.


The redemption of the first born males had nothing to do with "God's wrath" for Heaven's sake. Maybe God gets a bit wrathful if he doesn't get a barbecue for the first born male. But, very few people are involved in animal husbandry any more anyway. A lot of male dairy calves are turned into veal. But I don't know if anyone is really keeping up with this any more. Maybe some of the kibutzim in Israel. Still, for most people, this really isn't relevant any more.

And you know this how? It was already revealed to Abraham and Sarah by God that Isaac would be the one to continue the family line. If God had always been faithful to Abraham before, such as the promise He gave that Abraham would have children through Sarah in the first place, which was a miraculous event in itself, why would God suddenly take back the promise if Abraham had done nothing wrong that was deserving of the death of Isaac? Abraham already knew what God was going to do. He just didn't know HOW.


That doesn't mean that God couldn't have set a precedent for it earlier.



OK... Could POSSIBLY be a translation error, then. I also have "will bless themselves" or "will find blessing." And even if your version is a correct one, it's plausible to connect "ask me to bless them" with the believer asking for God's grace and mercy through the giving of His Son. The difference is really not that significant.


They weren't kicked out because God's promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob extended through all of Jacob's sons, which were to become the 12 tribes. And don't forget that Ishmael also received a promised blessing from God; he, too, became 12 tribes in his own right.


I wasn't referring to contemporary practices. I'm just talking about activities as they are recorded in the Bible. Whether or not it's relevant today is irrelevant to this discussion.

But, since you brought it up...

What makes it somewhat relevant is that it sheds light on where we come from as Christians. Why were the sacrifices important? What does God demand from us morally? Things like that. The impossibility of following all 613 commandments perfectly. The fallen nature of mankind and the world. Why there's even a need for atonement in the first place.

As to keeping it up anymore, my understanding is that it's not possible to worship in that way anymore, anyway. The Temple for the Lord's Name was destroyed and God hasn't seen fit to let the Jews bring it back just yet. The ceremonies practiced in the early first century centered around temple activities, and thus "the rules" had to largely be rewritten. Christians don't see a need for the ceremonies in any such way that would apply to them. As ruveyn is fond of saying, the Tanakh was written "for the Jews by the Jews."

If God wishes to take back a promise, he can.


If it wasn't previously mentioned, then there was no earlier precedent. Or, the precedent might have been set by Ba'al rather than Yahweh.


Yes it is. There is a big difference between "asking" to be blessed and actually being blessed.


Ishmael still wasn't treated very nicely.


Does the need for atonement derive from the ancient practice of killing first-born male animals? Maybe atonement really isn't necessary any more. Especially since most of us aren't in the business of raising animals.


But it does make for fascinating reading nonetheless. And, you are still trying to make connections between the Tanakh and Christianity--connections that don't necessarily exist.