I gotta say this too: we're currently laying in bed and watching "Chopped". It's a cooking challenge show on Food Network. Now the commonality between all these cooking challenge shows is the "food critics". I don't know where these people get their attitude, but they come off as the worst people in America. They have no personality and are just plain mean to these people. Especially that Alex lady. If you've seen it, you know who I'm talking about.
Enough chit chat. Bible time.
Reading for March 9
Numbers 11:24-13:33
The meat man cometh
So God does make good on his promise to give the Israelites as much meat as they can eat, but in a very backhanded way. It says that a wind blew thousands of quail into the Israelites camp. It says that the quails all fell to the ground, presumably dead, and that the pile of dead quails was three feet high for a day's walk in any direction, which would be about 20 miles I suppose.
So there was by far enough meat for a month, and probably more. However, before the first people even swallowed their first bite of quail, God strikes them with a plague:
3 But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague. 34 Therefore the place was named Kibroth Hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved other food.Kibroth Hattaavah means "graves of craving". I think White Castle has it's new name. I mean check this out: "Kibroth Hattaavah: What You Crave." Or how about this take on the McDonald's jingle: "Ba da ba ba ba...Kibroth Hattaavah" Or maybe the Quiznos tagline: "Mmmmm...Kibroth Hattaavah". OK I'm done.
The next chapter focuses on the beginnings of the people's long trek into Canaan - the promised land. It begins with a scouting mission to see what the land and people are like. The scouts come back with a bad report saying that the people in the land they are to inhabit are too large and will surely defeat the Israelites in battle. Not to play teachers pet here, but weren't they just surrounded by a 26 mile diameter circle of quails three feet deep? And they don't think they can win a war against a tribe of people because they are bigger than they are - sad, sad Israelites.
Mark 14:22-52
Wow...Mark really does get right to the point. This section of text covers the last supper, the garden of Gastheneme and the arrest of Jesus. Two interesting things here:
1) There is a lot of talk about the scene were one of the disciples cuts off the ear of one of Jesus' captors. My question is - was it totally normal for everyone to carry around a sword all the time? Like there is a constant threat of duelling all the time. I just thought that was interesting...
2) What the heck is up with this:
51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.Uh...what? I know I'm not supposed to take things out of context, but this is so darn weird and really out of place in the narrative that it's just funny.
Psalm 52:1-9
A beaut
9 I will praise you forever for what you have done;
in your name I will hope, for your name is good.
Sorry for the brevity, I am once again falling asleep...
Proverbs 11:1-3
So far, I think this is the most widely applicable proverb:
2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace,Ever hear the expression, "pride comes before a fall"? That's what verse 9 is, but much prettier.
but with humility comes wisdom.
So tired. Goodnight.
I am really enjoying your blog. Regarding your comments on Mark- It was definitely not common to walk around with a sword at that time. The province of Judea was not a "civitas liberae" or a "free state" in the Roman Empire. This meant that the inhabitants were forbidden from carrying arms and to do so was a dangerous offense. There would be a long history of Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire eventually brutally dealt with by emperors Domitian and Hadrian (check out the history of rome podcast on Itunes for much much more). I think it is really striking that Mark includes such a dangerous remark in his gospel. If this gospel was read by a Roman official, it would lend credence to rumors that the new cult (as Christianity was known at the time) was a military threat to the Empire. Personally, I think that such details lend credence to the historical accuracy of the gospels. Why else mention such a fact unless it happened? Mark was probably just telling the story as it was. If someone were to make up a story, there is little chance that person would make up a detail like that. I also think that is why there is the tidbit about the naked dude.
ReplyDelete-andy