Comment on Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! by saarnok

Parent Post: Angels and demons and spirits. Oh my! · In Reply To

saarnok · 6/15/2026, 2:45:27 PM · permalink

8 bumps

sonatime · 6/15/2026, 11:46:37 PM · permalink

*"You are prevaricating because you have no choice."*  
  
I don't prevaricate, I repeat the contextual and logical reasoning ad nauseam. My worldview doesn't depend on ignoring context, language comprehension, or translation to advance an idea that doesn't make sense. Forcing a bizarre interpretation just to hook a grand argument about "the consent of the governed" speaks more to your personal needs than to the text itself.  
  
Within mainstream, established theological commentary, virtually no serious scholar or theologian argues that the stick-gatherer was an outside stranger, or that the Sabbath law only started after entering the land. You are fighting for an interpretation that doesn't exist.  
  
The Sabbath was already active. It was instituted in the wilderness in Exodus 16 (with the manna) and legally codified in Exodus 20. The event in Numbers 15 happens well after those events.  
  
Look at the transition in Numbers 15. While verses 1–21 look ahead to future agricultural offerings ("When you come into the land..."), verse 22 deliberately shifts the timeframe back to the present wilderness context: "But if you unintentionally fail to observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses..." The Sabbath was indisputably part of "these" already-spoken commandments.  
   
*"You don't get to have these people aware of the law and yet find that one of them breaking it is a complete mystery."*  
  
It was never a mystery, it was a matter of due process.  
  
I have answered this more than once. The overarching law that Sabbath-breaking carried a death penalty was already well established \[Exodus 31:14-15\]. The community held the man in custody because they lacked two specific pieces of legal clarity \[Numbers 15:34\]:  
  
The Intent (Due Process): They needed to determine if this was a "high-handed," defiant sin or an accidental lapse in cognition, as the law treats these completely differently \[Numbers 15:27-30\].  
  
The Method: The text explicitly states "it had not been explained what should be done to him." God had not yet revealed the specific method of execution.  
  
The Israelites referred the case to Moses and Aaron because they respected the due process. Moses sought a direct ruling from God, who then adjudicated the intent and decreed the specific type of capital punishment (stoning). Following a legal procedure is not a narrative contradiction, it is how a society under the rule of law should operate.

7 bumps

saarnok · 6/17/2026, 4:16:02 AM · permalink

You're simply being dishonest. Prevaricating to support an idea which is not in the text, but which you wish was there.  
  
And, you're in good company. Christians have been prevaricating about this for quite some time, needing to interpret the Old Testament in light of the prevailing interpretation of the New Testament, or before that existed, making justifications for then current theology that could be strangled from the extant text or something similar enough that it passed muster.  
  
It's curious you'd make the argument that the context changed when it quite simply did not. The entire text of Numbers: 15 reads as a list of instructions, down to the last sentence, with this story jammed into the text out of context. If it were missing entirely there would be nothing strange about it. The continuity would flow from beginning to end. The only place in the chapter which isn't instructive, in any fashion, is this insertion.  
  
And that's not hyperbolic in the slightest. It simply does not belong there. It was clearly added in after the fact.  
  
And the entire nature of the story is one of ignorance, clearly. Unarguably. None of that instruction throughout Numbers 15 tells them they are to bring possible law breakers to face the judgement of God himself. Not any of it.  
  
And it is ALL quite clearly to do with the way things should be done AFTER they entered the promised land. With the exception of the random strange man that they simply FOUND gathering sticks in the wilderness, according to the text and which according to the text, they had no idea what to do with, and so they brought him to the elders and Moses and Aaron, who had no idea what to do.  
  
And, while the idea that they brought him to the elders and Moses and Aaron is consistent with your abjectly absurd claim, the fact that his fate couldn't have been adjudicated at that level makes an absolute mockery of the idea that it was just "due process".  
  
And, that when God himself supposedly tells Moses the fate of the man it is not delivered as a judgement. There is no claim that he's subject to the law, that he violated it, no consideration whatsoever that he did anything wrong. Moses doesn't even ask God anything. Not according to the text. And God never claims he did anything wrong either: "Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must be put to death! The whole community must stone him outside the camp.”"  
  
That's it. That's the totality of "law". Nothing. Not any single thing other than: Big Guy Says So. That's it. Nothing else.  
  
And, it's absolutely explicit. There is no "due process". God says stone him. That's it. That's the whole thing. According to Moses. Supposedly.  
  
Contrast that with the punishment of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24. God also declares a verdict, which again, would be completely unnecessary for a people who'd been instructed in the law and it's application. But, God says, according to Moses, supposedly exactly why the blasphemer must be put to death with special instruction to everyone who personally witnessed his blasphemy.  
  
In the case of the oddball they chanced upon gathering sticks, there's nothing. Just, "Go kill him." . Also, in this case, which is likewise simply crammed into the otherwise instructive chapter it's made plain how he falls under their jurisdiction, and also demonstrates the generic contempt they had for anyone not of their particular heritage.  
  
This generic contempt is reflected in Israeli writing to this very day and exemplified by Moses Maimonides declaration that it is unlawful to save the life of a gentile. Every vague injunction against treating others the same as themselves is revealed to be an abject lie by the examples they provide, obviously jammed in however hamfisted they could manage to display that everyone else was lesser than and condemned by God himself.  
  
And, again, as is blatantly obvious, you can't have consent to whatever the hell is made up after "consent" is given.  
  
And, let's just examine what they "consented" to in that abjectly stupid lie you made about them agreeing to the law. Again. not the fantasy you present, but the actual text you prevaricate about because... well, because you just can't believe your sensibilities are different than theirs:  
  
"“Give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians. You know how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you will obey me and keep my covenant, you will be my own special treasure from among all the peoples on earth; for all the earth belongs to me. And you will be my kingdom of priests, my holy nation.’ This is the message you must give to the people of Israel.”  
  
That's what they supposedly agreed to. Not "the law" as you so deceptively presented. First the obvious threat. "You see what I did to the Egyptians." Could happen to you. Then the soft-soap: "I delivered you". Now you be my cult.  
  
And that is precisely what they agreed to. According to the text. Which you want to turn into unicorns and rainbows.  
  
This isn't exactly complex stuff. You just need to read the text instead of constantly inserting your modern sensibilities into it.  
  
At every turn you've prevaricated. Not just now and then.  
  
You've accused me of a "narrow reading" with no justification for that claim or why it should be disqualifying. You want context, but context is always worse for you.  
  
In Malachi it specifies that Jacob was loved and Esaus despised. Much, much later, someone writing as Paul adds to your problem with more context in Romans chapter 9 when he makes it plain that God just does what God does. and to hell with your consent or individuation.  
  
Context is never your friend. It's mine.

5 bumps

sonatime · 6/19/2026, 9:06:01 AM · permalink

*"You're simply being dishonest. Prevaricating to support an idea which is not in the text, but which you wish was there"*  
  
I’m not being dishonest. My biblical worldview doesn’t fall apart when I read these verses or the entire Old Testament in context.  
  
Your view, on the other hand, depends on ripping one verse out of context and forcing it to undermine human consent and due process. It looks like you’ve built (or were sold) a very fragile foundation.  
  
Again, see Numbers 15.  
  
Verses 1–21: These are new supplementary instructions about offerings that the Israelites are to observe once they enter the Promised Land.   
It covers grain/drink offerings that accompany animal sacrifices.  
Then the “firstfruits” offering from the dough/bread of the land.  
These are forward-looking laws tied to settled agricultural life in Canaan.  
  
Verses 22 onward: The chapter shifts to the topic of sin offerings - specifically unintentional sins (sins of ignorance or omission).  
Verse 22 says:  **“If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the LORD has spoken to Moses…”**  
This refers back to the commandments already given through Moses (primarily from Exodus, Leviticus, and earlier parts of Numbers). It’s not introducing brand-new moral laws here, but providing the procedure for atonement when the people (either the whole congregation or an individual) unintentionally fail to keep the existing ones.  
  
Verses 22–29 explicitly lay out the law for unintentional sins and how they can be atoned for. Verses 30–31 immediately shift to define a defiant sin—someone who sins "with a high hand" and "despises the word of the Lord." The text states this person must be cut off.   
  
Verses 32–36 (the stick-gatherer) follow immediately after. This is not a coincidence or a mistake. The narrative is a demonstration of what a "high-handed," defiant violation of an established law looks like. It serves as the legal precedent for the abstract law just given.   
  
Your claim that the laws didn't apply in the wilderness is textually impossible. While verses 1–21 look forward to future agricultural offerings in the land (since you cannot harvest grain in a desert), verse 22 explicitly shifts back to the present, covering "all these commandments which the Lord has spoken." The Sabbath was already active and binding \[Exodus 16, Exodus 20\]. Claiming they didn't have to keep the Sabbath in the desert completely contradicts the entire narrative.  
  
Holding a suspect in custody because the explicit execution method or exact categorization is unclear, and then seeking a formal ruling is the literal definition of due process. It is the exact same judicial procedure found in Leviticus 24 and Numbers 27. It is a structured legal inquiry, not an arbitrary whim. When God renders judgment, it is clear the stick-gatherer committed a defiant act, and the specific type of execution is clarified. That is all God needed to communicate to be understood.   
  
*"And the entire nature of the story is one of ignorance, clearly. Unarguably. None of that instruction throughout Numbers 15 tells them they are to bring possible law breakers to face the judgement of God himself. Not any of it"*  
  
Claiming that appealing to God shows "ignorance" because Numbers 15 didn't explicitly tell them to do so. This completely misses how the biblical legal system was instructed to operate.  
  
The framework for this exact situation was already established in Exodus 18:22, which legally organized the courts: "And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves.  
"When Moses acting as the supreme human judge hit a procedural gap in a "great matter," he took it to the ultimate legal authority.  
  
Far from "ignorance," holding the suspect in custody and appealing to God because they had the unique ability to do so sets a perfect example of due process. It proves they refused to act as a lynch mob. They waited for an official, binding ruling from the highest authority to ensure the law was executed exactly as intended.  
  
*"And, again, as is blatantly obvious, you can't have consent to whatever the hell is made up after "consent" is given."*
  
Your argument about "consent to whatever is made up after" fails textually. The wilderness generation ratified the specific laws in Exodus 24:3–7 ("All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do"), the agricultural laws were simply paused until they had the physical means to fulfill them, and the next generation actively renewed their own consent in Deuteronomy 29–30 before entering the land.  
  
You are forced to claim the text is "jammed in" because the actual, unified structure of the chapter completely contradicts your argument. Your argument doesn't rely on the text; it relies on slicing it into pieces to fit a preconceived narrative of raw tyranny.  
  
*"And, let's just examine what they "consented" to in that abjectly stupid lie you made about them agreeing to the law. Again. not the fantasy you present, but the actual text you prevaricate about because... well, because you just can't believe your sensibilities are different than theirs"*  
  
 I have covered this already earlier. Your take relies on cutting the story off early. In Exodus 24:3–7, Moses writes down all the actual laws, reads them aloud to the entire population, and the people explicitly consent a second time, saying, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do." You are ignoring the actual contract signing.  
  
*"That's what they supposedly agreed to. Not "the law" as you so deceptively presented. First the obvious threat. "You see what I did to the Egyptians." Could happen to you. Then the soft-soap: "I delivered you". Now you be my cult."*
  
You are forcing modern biases onto an ancient text; these are not psychological manipulation tactics. Reminding them of Egypt is not a threat. It is God inspiring confidence in the Israelites by highlighting their liberation and guaranteeing their future protection. You are projecting your own biases onto the text simply to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.  
  
*"In Malachi it specifies that Jacob was loved and Esaus despised. Much, much later, someone writing as Paul adds to your problem with more context in Romans chapter 9 when he makes it plain that God just does what God does. and to hell with your consent or individuation"*

Malachi 1:2-3 (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) is not about God arbitrarily loving one individual and damning the other. It’s about two nations centuries later: Israel (descendants of Jacob) and Edom (descendants of Esau). God is saying He chose Jacob’s line for His covenant purposes and brought judgment on Edom for their hostility toward Israel. “Love/hate” here is covenant language meaning “chosen vs. not chosen for this role”, not personal eternal hatred.  
  
Paul in Romans 9 quotes Malachi for the same reason: to show God’s sovereign right to choose the line of promise (through Isaac → Jacob → Israel → Messiah) according to His purpose, not based on human merit. The chapter is about God’s plan for redemptive history and the inclusion of Gentiles, not a declaration that God randomly sends people to hell without regard for their response.  
  
Nowhere does Paul say “to hell with your consent or individuation.” He repeatedly affirms human responsibility, calls people to repent and believe, and says God desires all to be saved (Romans 2, 10, 1 Timothy 2:4).  
   
You are heavily invested in a position that the text simply does not support. Many people here rely on "gotcha" biblical takes and repeat them ignorantly without interest, while many Christians view scripture through a narrow denominational lens. I have no personal motive here other than looking at the text honestly. The message of the Bible is uplifting, but it is also grounded in worldly reality and consequences. It presents a God of justice, but ultimately a God "who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

3 bumps

Signature