“When men strive together with one another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

The God of the Old Testament was no slumbering slouch, hanging lazily about heaven without deigning to dip a hand into human affairs. This was a Lord who, hand in hand with his favorites among the Jews, performed miracles, bringing them fortune when they obeyed him, and disaster when they failed. Indeed, this system of reward and punishment for faithfulness to the Lord exists as a lingering undercurrent running throughout the Old Testament, as God proves time and again the generosity of his bounty and the power of his wrath in response to the behavior of his chosen people. In fact, He leaves little room for doubt over how the Israelites will be rewarded if they adhere to his will:

“And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 28:1-2)

More specifically, no male, female, or cattle among the people will be barren (Deuteronomy 7:14), they will suffer no sickness (Deuteronomy 7:15), and they will consume the peoples delivered unto them (Deuteronomy 7:16). Furthermore, they shall enjoy an international kind of superpower status:

“Thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.” (Deuteronomy 15:6)

In addition, the Lord promises that the people will be blessed in both the city and field, in the fruits of their bodies, their land, their cattle, kine, and sheep, their baskets and stores, when they are coming in and also when they are going out; that they will be given rain and their enemies will be smitten before them. (Deuteronomy 28:3-13)

“Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers.” (Deuteronomy 6:5)

However, as always, there’s a flip side:

“But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.” (Deuteronomy 28:15)

“The Lord shall set upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. (Deuteronomy 28:20)

Failing to adhere to the Lord’s will or to worship Him sufficiently brings down a rain of curses that will make the Israelites envy the plagues the Egyptians endured. Disobedience means you will be cursed in the city and field, in the fruits of your body, land, cattle, kine and sheep, basket and store, and when coming in or when going out. (Deuteronomy 28:16-19) You will receive no rain, be smitten by your enemies, and your carcass shall be meat unto fowl and beasts. On top of which the Lord promises to smite everyone with the botch of Egypt, with emerods, scab, and itch, “whereof thou canst not be healed.” (Deuteronomy 28:27)

But wait, it gets worse. You will also be smitten with madness, blindness, and astonishment of heart. Another man will lay with your betrothed, you won’t get to live in the house you built, or gather grapes from vineyard you planted. Your ox will be slain and your ass taken away, and your sheep will be given to your enemies. You’ll be smitten in the knees and legs, and perhaps even from head to foot, with a sore botch that cannot be healed. Locusts will eat your crops, worms will eat your grapes, and your olive trees shall cast off their fruit. The Lord will bring you to a foreign nation to worship gods of wood and stone, strangers will rise above you, and your enemy from afar will come to destroy you. Your children, however, will fare worst of all, being given over to one’s enemies, taken into captivity, or even eaten in the sieges of enemy nations. (Deuteronomy 28:28-57)

And finally, the Lord will send pestilence, consumption, fever, inflammation, extreme burning, swords, blasting, and mildew (mildew?!), “And they shall pursue thee until thou perish.” Deuteronomy (28:21-22)

“And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude, because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.” (Deuteronomy 28:62)

Seems to me that the punishments far outweigh the blessings, don’t they? But of course, fear of punishment is a vital disciplinary tool. Any kid understands that getting grounded for the weekend for not doing his homework has a much greater effect on his current happiness than maybe, sometime in the distant future, being rewarded for studying hard with a sound financial future.

And at the last God does remind us that it is up to us to choose the life we lead:

“I have set before you life and earth, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

But even the Old Testament God isn’t a total hard-ass, promising that if you genuinely repent of the sins which brought down his wrath, that He will have compassion and put things back the way they were. (Deuteronomy 30:1-10) Sin and repentance; it frankly foreshadows the New Testament in a way that the judgments of the Old Testament generally do not. Because by the time of the New Testament, of course, it must have been apparent to the Jews that the quality of their condition was not really dependent upon whether they obeyed the Lord or not, just as it is today. How many righteous men are respected and rewarded and how many criminals caught and punished? How many innocents are plagued with disease and death and drought? In modern society it is unbelievably and rather unfortunately obvious that people, whether good or bad, don’t generally get what they deserve; they get what they get. And perhaps this is why the New Testament focuses so much more on the treasures awaiting in heaven than on those which might be enjoyed here on earth. It must have been comforting to the poor and lame and suffering of the ancient world to believe that one day their time, too, would come, as long as they were good, as long as they believed and behaved. As comforting as it is to believe that the wicked who walk among us today in style will one day be cast into a lake of everlasting fire.

Good Lord, how I hate this part. I just know I’m going to forget someone and next time I’m in Rome they’re going to give me crap over it. Okay, okay, the most important ones first. “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrae: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you.” Hey, that’s pretty good. Maybe she’ll get off my back now about writing her a letter of recommendation. I can’t forget Aquila, but shoot, what’s that other girl’s name? I never remember if it’s Prisca or Priscilla. Priscilla, I think. “Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.” Boy, I really hope it is Priscilla.

And then I’d better greet Epaenetus, the first convert from Achaia – what a stroke that was! – and I ought to thank Mary for all of her hard work, too. What about all the rest? Well, let’s see, I’ll call Amplias my beloved… no, my beloved in the Lord, that sounds more faithful; and then Urbane can be our helper in Christ, and then there are my kinsmen and fellowprisoners Andronicus and Junia; I guess I’d better salute them, too. Geez, this letter’s already twenty pages and the salutations alone are going to be another page at least…how do I even know so many Romans? Better cut to the chase. Let’s just salute Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus and his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Herman, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and don’t forget Olympas. “Salute one another with a holy kiss.” There, that sounds nice. Darn it, I forgot that I promised to say hello on behalf of – well, all those guys. Timotheus, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater. Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, and Quartus salute you. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

Here we go, closing out these letters to the Corinthians will be easier – I hardly know any of them personally. I’ll keep it simple; no names this time. “All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.” Oh, I should probably thank them for sending those guys, too. “I am glad of the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatas and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.” Wait, does that sound too snarky? Screw it; I’ve already been there twice and Titus once – they should have sent helpers sooner.

I’m not even going to bother saluting those Galatians, who have already strayed from the path. “Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.” Should I even bother scheduling another trip there? Maybe Tychicus can go after he’s done with the Ephesians and Colossians. Now the Philippians I need to thank for their present. Delicately, though. “Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account… I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.”

Boy, it’s getting late. I can make it quick with the Thessalonians and Hebrews – greet the brethren with a kiss, salute the saints, etc. Heck, it’s not as if they’re going to know I’m repeating myself. They’re not going to be sharing my letters, after all, are they?

Still a lot of writing, though. Hey, I’ve got an idea. What if I take this short one to the Colossians and have it do double-duty? “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans.” Ha! No epistle to the Laodiceans; that’ll save some time.

Okay, cool. Finally I can finish off these letters to my sons. The two good ones, anyway. So, let’s invite Titus to spend the winter in Nicopolis with me, and ask him to bring along my lawyer Zenas when he comes; I could really use a consult. Timothy might not be so easily convinced, though; he seems to like wandering around. “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me.” That’ll get my point across. I hope he takes my hint and brings Mark along; I’m kind of sick of having just Luke around. I’d better remind him to bring my stuff, too; well-intentioned kid, but a bit of a flake sometimes. “The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” No way Carpus gets to keep that cloak another winter, and I’ve used up pretty much all of my parchments on these epistles. Was there something else I was going to ask him about? Oh! I remember; I wanted to warn him about that jerk metalworker. “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works. Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.” That’ll teach Alexander.

But what on earth am I going to do about Onesimus? That kid is such a… well, let’s just say he’s not the greatest of the Lord’s disciples. Useless is more like it. But what else can I do? He’s got to learn his father’s trade, hasn’t he? I wonder if he’s doing better with the Colossians, but since Tychicus hasn’t written…well, I hope he’s getting the hang of it. Maybe if I just soften his path a bit, they’ll forget about last time. Tug on the ol’ heartstrings, too. He’s my kid, isn’t he? And I’m Paul! “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels.”

I wonder if he ever paid off those gambling debts. Oh, who am I kidding? And Philemon isn’t one to forget that kind of thing. I mean, I’ve seen his account-books. If it weren’t for that whole prohibition against usury, Onesimus would owe him a fortune by now. Well, I guess there’s nothing else for it. Hard to help the kid from here, but where is he going to go if Philemon turns him away? I’ll just have to accept the responsibility is all. “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it.” I sure hope that kid grows up soon. Boy, fatherhood’s tough. I almost wish I’d adopted abstinence before I sired that one.

But at least the letters are done. My scribe Tertius thinks they could use revising but I say forget it. They’re not literature. It’s not as if they’re going to survive posterity, after all. I mean, future generations surely won’t be reading about my travel plans or my problems with my sons. No one is going to care if I forgot to greet one of the Thessalonian brethren or if I got Priscilla’s name right. Darn it, you know, I think maybe it was Prisca after all…
     
     
     

It’s obvious that in the Biblical world, adultery was a big no-no; it even made it into the top ten commandments, twice if you count both the prohibition itself and the admonishment not to covet thy neighbor’s wife. Logically, this is actually somewhat surprising, because marriage in the Bible seems to be a pretty simple affair. Consider, for example, the story of Jacob (Genesis 29, 30), who is given to wife both Leah and her sister Rachel, which may be the source of the later prohibition against marrying sisters, for it led to considerable drama. When Rachel stops conceiving, she gives Jacob her maid to wife so that she may “bear upon her knees,” and then when Leah stops conceiving, she gives Jacob her maid to wife, too. All with little more fanfare than:

“And she gave him…her handmaid to wife; and Jacob went in unto her.” (Genesis 30:4)

In other words, “take a wife” often seems to be merely a euphemistic way of saying “had sex with,” except that said intercourse tended to create a permanent bond between the parties involved. That is, sex was what joined two people in marriage. This concept, of course, has carried down to the present day, as failure to consummate is still considered acceptable grounds for annulment. However, the very lack of formality involved in entering into wedlock might be viewed as actually encouraging future adultery, because it’s much more difficult not to stray when you acquire your lifelong mate through a single dalliance.

Unless, of course, you were a man, in which case, subject to certain stipulations, you were encouraged to have multiple wives and/or concubines, the possession of which was not deemed unfaithfulness to either your original or any of your subsequent spouses. A man was therefore not generally considered adulterous unless he engaged in sexual relations with another man’s wife or betrothed, for which he could be punished as severely as the straying woman:
 
“Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her.” (Leviticus 18:20)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die.” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones until they die: the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife.” (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

Notice, however, that the woman and man are punished for entirely different reasons: the woman for being unfaithful to her husband or fiancé, and the man for sleeping with a woman who belongs to another. In other words, you can take as many wives as you want, as long as you don’t take someone else’s.

Interestingly, though, the rape of an unwilling woman is still considered a capital offence:

“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
For her found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

This latter scenario offers a presumption of innocence which contrasts sharply with the situation in which the pair are caught in the city. If they were in the city it is assumed that she must not have cried, or someone would have heard her; and if in the country that she would surely have cried although there was no one there to hear. The smart woman, therefore, would always be certain to conduct her affairs in the country.

If the faithfulness of a woman was suspect, various methods could be employed for proving her virtue or lack thereof. For example, if a husband had reason to believe that his wife was fooling around, he could have her subjected to the bitter-water test:

“And when [the priest] hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.” (Numbers 5:26)

Now I have no idea what kind of poison they were feeding these women suspected of adultery, or how many of them were deformed or even killed thereby, but it does remind me an awful lot of that test they used to perform on suspected witches, of throwing them into the water and then sanctifying those who sank and burning those who swam.

In the Gospels, Jesus also has some interesting things to say about adultery, most famous of which is probably:

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

Remarks of this nature distinctly convey the Christian conception of sin existing in thought as well as in deed, which makes it much more difficult to avoid. However, Jesus is also quite adamant on the permanence and sanctity of marriage; indeed, his teachings may have been almost solely responsible for Christian prohibitions against divorce. In fact, one would be safe in arguing that “until death do us part” is an entirely New Testament concept, which certainly did not apply in the time of Moses, and which ultimately led Jesus’ disciples to a very modern-day conclusion:

“The Pharisees also came unto [Jesus], tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” (Matthew 19:3-10)

Among the many strict and well-detailed rules the Old Testament lays down on sexual iniquities, the most complex of which are arguably the incest prohibitions.

“None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:6)

But once again, a seemingly simple subject proves not to be so straightforward, for naturally, “near of kin” must be defined, an argument which, if the Jerry Springer Show is any indication, continues to this very day. In the Bible, incestuous relations are forbidden between a person and their father, mother, father’s wife, sister or half-sister, grandchild, aunt or uncle, daughter-in-law or sister-in-law. (Leviticus 18:6-18)

It is interesting to note that there appears to be no prohibition against sleeping with one’s brother’s daughter (niece), and cousins, of course, appear also to be passable, as they are, if somewhat marginally, even to this day. It is also rather interesting that the incest rules appear to be addressed to men rather than women, although, of course, if one is not permitted to have intercourse with one’s sister, then logically having relations with one’s brother is also forbidden. But consider this intriguing little story in Genesis about what happens when Noah gets drunk and goes uncovered to his tent:

“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japeth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” (Genesis 9:22-25)

Shem and Japeth really go to great lengths to avoid the mere sight of their father’s genitals, which seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it? And is the son really cursed for merely seeing his father naked – which, by the way, appears to have been Noah’s own fault – or are we supposed to assume there’s more to the story? In any case, it certainly suggests that even the admonishment against uncovering one’s father’s nakedness is intended to be directed towards men, not women, which implies that the writers of the Bible believed that men were far more likely to be guilty than women where incest was concerned.

There are certainly scientific reasons why incest between humans should be avoided. As we now know through genetics, children born of closely-related parents run a higher risk of expressing otherwise recessive and often harmful genes, which means that apart from the “icky” aspect of indulging in sexual congress with family members, there are solid biological grounds for shunning intimate relations with those with whom you share a certain level of genealogy.

The Bible, however, seems more greatly concerned with the familial rather than biological aspects of incest. A man is not in any way related by blood to his daughter-in-law or sister-in-law, and prohibiting intercourse between them could only have been intended to preserve the peace and integrity of the family unit. Likewise with the prohibition against having sexual relations with both a woman and her near relations:

“Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.” (Leviticus 18:17-18)

Mind you, this was in a time when having multiple wives was acceptable, even encouraged, and the possibility of taking both a woman and her sister or daughter to wife a very real one. Similarly, a man who takes his uncle’s or brother’s wife shall be punished with childlessness (Leviticus 19:20-21). Interestingly, though, it was expected that if a man died leaving no heir that his brothers should take his widow as wife:

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)

The idea here is that a brother has an obligation to build up his brother’s house after his death. If a brother refuses, the wife can complain to the elders and then loose his shoe and spit in his face (Deuteronomy 25:6), but God might take a much worse revenge, as in the story of Onan:

“And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.” (Genesis 38:9-10)

In any case, the regulation against having relations with one’s sister-in-law apparently ends with the death of her husband, which lends credence to the idea that the point of that particular prohibition was to preserve family harmony. This is quite different from the purpose of not engaging in incest with a blood relation even if he or she is not part of the family unit; for example, one must not uncover the nakedness of a sister “whether she be born at home, or born abroad.” (Leviticus 18:9)

Such concerns were hardly unique to the culture of the Jews and the later Christians; other ancient societies seem to have been far more focused on incestuous relations than is true of the world today. The Greeks, of course, had famous tales of mortal as well as immortal incest, including not only Oedipus, but also the lesser-known story of Myrrha, who in Ovid’s rendition conceives such a desire for her father that she engages in a tryst with him in darkness and later gives birth to Adonis in the form of a tree. Hailing from classical Roman times, the Emperor Caligula’s sexual relationship with his sister Drusilla is perhaps the best-known example of ancient incest and was a great scandal even in its day, which is particularly fascinating given that both Greek and Roman theology were founded upon gods who were intimately related, even as, if the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, their offspring would have been. Indeed, even with all of the so-and-so begat so-and-sos, the Bible is conspicuously silent on where the sons of Adam and Eve found wives; either they had to marry their own sisters or the story is inconsistent in itself.

Of course, even God seems to accept that incest might occasionally be permissible or even necessary. Consider what happens when Lot and his daughters flee to a cave in the wilderness following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

“And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth;
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.” (Genesis 19:31-32)

Which they do, on two consecutive nights, apparently without Lot’s knowledge or consent, thus preserving his innocence and righteousness:

“And he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.” (Genesis 19:35)

They must have had some truly magical wine back then, to put a man into such a stupor that he wouldn’t notice his own daughters having sex with him, yet still leave him able to perform.

But his daughters do become impregnated, and produce heirs who become the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites. Which suggests that even in Holy Writ incest might be considered acceptable in a real emergency. I suppose it’s like what happened to the Donner Party. If there’s nothing else available, you take whatever meat you can get.

From the Holy Bible:

“And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could we not cast him out?
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” (Matthew 17:14-20)

“With God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

“Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.” (Mark 9:23)

“And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.” (Matthew 11:22-23)

From The Empire Strikes Back:

“We’ll never get it out now…”
“So certain are you? Always with you what cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say?”
“Master, moving stones around is one thing, this is…totally different.”
“No! No different. Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned.”
“All right… I’ll give it a try.”
“No! Try not. Do… or do not. There is no try.”

“I can’t. It’s too big.”
“Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you, hm? And well you should not. For my ally is the force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the force around you, here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere… yes, even between the land and the ship.”
“You want the impossible.”

“I don’t believe it.”
“That… is why you fail.”

Many Jews are of the opinion that Christians still hold a grudge against them for being responsible for the death of Christ. Not so. If Christians have a biblical cause for disliking the Jews, it has to be because, as portrayed in the Old Testament, the ancient Israelites were a bunch of whiners.

We all know that God came along and instructed Moses on how to deal with Pharaoh, sent down the plagues, and so on, and ultimately freed the Jews from slavery in Egypt. So now they’re on the run, in the wilderness, being pursued by Pharaoh’s men, and are understandably perturbed by their current condition, having fallen, so to speak, out of the frying pan and into the fire.

“Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?” (Exodus 14:11). “For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness,” (Exodus 14:12) they cry, unaware that the Lord is on the verge of parting the Red Sea and thus ensuring their escape.

However, this is merely an escape from Pharaoh, not from the harshness of the wilderness, which is woefully incapable of providing bread for the multitude. Being even more of a slave to his belly than to any human master, a man naturally becomes ungrateful when he is hungry, ungrateful even for being rescued from bondage:

“Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” (Exodus 16:3)

God’s a good sport, and understanding, and sends down manna from heaven, enough to feed the entire people. Pretty sweet, but still not enough, because now they’re out of water:

“Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?” (Exodus 17:3)

Again God heeds the cries of the people, directing Moses to strike a rock to bring forth water, which finally satisfies them:

“All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be obedient.” (Exodus 24:7)

That is, they remain satisfied until we get to the book of Numbers. Now they’re sick of manna; they remember fondly the variety of dishes they enjoyed in Egypt, and now they want meat to eat, too. (Numbers 11:4-6)

At this point, God is starting to get a little testy. He provides the meat, but hits those who eat it with a plague while the flesh is yet between their teeth. (Number 11:33)

Finally the Israelites reach the promised land, and wouldn’t you know? It’s occupied. The heavens again resound with their groaning:

“And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? Were it not better for us to return into Egypt?” (Numbers 14:2-3)

Now God is no fool; he’s put a lot of work into this project, and he’s getting pissed.

“And the Lord said unto Moses. How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?” (Numbers 14:11)

It’s up to Moses now to talk him down. He convinces the Lord not to smite the Israelites on the grounds that the Egyptians will hear about it and poo-poo God’s abilities and power:

“Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.” (Numbers 14:16)

In the end, the Lord heeds Moses’ eloquent plea:

“Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” (Numbers 14:19)

But matters worsen even further when their travels lead them into the desert of Zin. Again Moses is forced to strike a rock to bring forth water, and again the Israelites begin cursing him for ever even leading them out of Egypt.

“Would God that we had had died when our brethren died before the Lord!
And why have ye brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?
And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us into this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.” (Numbers 20:3-5)

Chosen people or no, now God has had enough. The next time the Israelites start complaining, he lets loose his temper.

“And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water: and our soul loatheth this light bread.
And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.” (Numbers 21:5-6)

The Israelites finally learn their lesson, admitting their sin in questioning the ways of the Lord and asking Moses to pray for them. Back on God’s good side, they begin taking possession of the lands which were promised them. Which is potent proof that, in spite of the holy wrath which runs as an undercurrent throughout the Old Testament, that the God of the Hebrews was in fact merciful, patient, and forgiving; a parent with a wayward child who somehow cannot cease to love, even when the little brat sasses and disobeys him at every turn.

In Biblical times, much like today, murder was an offense punishable by death. But also much like today, there were certain exceptions. In the Old Testament, the Lord directs the designation of cities of refuge for those who have committed justifiable or unintentional homicides. Qualifying offenders who are not legally subject to the death penalty may flee to these cities in order to escape the blood-vengeance of their victim’s families (Numbers 35:15).

Take, for example, the case of accidental homicide or manslaughter:

“And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worth of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.” (Deuteronomy 19:4-6)

The presence of malice aforethought is therefore key in determining the defendant’s guilt. Accidents may happen, and one whose temper flares suddenly and without warning is not held to the same level of culpability as one who plans a murder:

“But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood, and . . . restore him to the city of his refuge.” (Numbers 35:22-25)

Interestingly, the Old Testament also provides for extradition from the cities of refuge in the case of murder in the first degree:

“But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:
Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.” (Deuteronomy 19:10-12)

The Bible also advises caution when judging capital offenses, requiring the confirmation of multiple witnesses before a defendant may be condemned to death:

“One witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.” (Numbers 35:30)

“At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.” (Deuteronomy 17:6)

As we know, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is the Ninth Commandment, which I believe has its roots in the politics of its time. According to Claudius, in ancient Rome, persons accused of certain offenses could have their property confiscated by the state. Less honorable and more extravagant Emperors (Caligula, for example) were suspected of hiring witnesses to make false accusations against more prosperous citizens, thus boosting their coffers at the expense of the heirs. Of considerably less relevance today, this historical practice is likely the reason why that particular commandment was included among the original ten.

In the case of merely attempted manslaughter, the guilty party must recompense the other for his lost wages and medical bills:

“And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only shall he pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.” (Exodus 21:18-19)

However, in accordance with popular legend, you are permitted to kill someone caught breaking and entering:

“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” (Exodus 22:2)

In other words, even in Holy Writ, not all murders or murderers are alike. It’s not purely eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life; extenuating circumstances can and must be taken into account. Thus even the simplest system of justice must expand beyond mere right and wrong, sin and good; even an omnipotent God requires a myriad of rules to govern adequately the countless subtle nuances of human behavior. 

“When thou comest into thy neighbor’s vineyard, and thou mayest eats grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.” (Deuteronomy 23:24-25)

This finally explains it: why my Mom never thought it was stealing to eat grapes from the bin while at the grocery store.

This is my personal favorite. In general, if an ox kills a person, the owner is absolved of responsibility and only the ox is stoned. Except in the following circumstance:

“But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)

Maybe reviving that clause would get people to keep better control over their attack dogs, eh?