text:
Deuteronomy 21-22: A surfeit of regulations
Marlowe	05. Deuteronomy, Bible, Old Testament	Bible, Deuteronomy, Moses, Old Testament	Leave a comment
The next few chapters just throw oodles of mini-rules at us, so I'll be combining these two chapters (which have more of a social focus), and then looking at Deut. 23-25 on Monday (since they have more of a cultic/humanitarian focus). I've also grouped them up a bit in a way that made sense to me, just because I find it easier to discussion them that way. The groupings are, of course, entirely artificial and would not have been intended by the original authors.
Social Order
The first rule regarding social order seems quite positive. If you see someone's livestock wandering about, you must take it back to its owner. If you don't know who it belongs to, you can keep it – but only until its owner comes looking for it.
The same applies to anything a person might lose, including a "garment" – which is a bit of a change from the Canadian method of propping the article of clothing up on the top of a snow bank or fence, but likely just as effective.
This is all a bit of a repeat of what we saw in Exodus 23:4-5, except, as my study Bible points out, it "is recast in terms of the Deuteronomic conception of brotherly love" (p.242).
The next rule forbids a woman from wearing "anything that pertains to a man" (Deut. 22:5), and vice versa. I've often heard this quoted in the context of telling women not to wear pants, but that's always struck me as a little strange given that the idea of pants being men's wear is culturally-determined. And if the little pictures of biblical patriarchs I coloured in Sunday School are any indication, the fashion was not in much prominence at the time the Bible was being written. In fact, if anything, I can clearly recall giggling because David was "wearing a dress."
All this is just to say that I think it's a little silly to think that this passage is only about the New Woman and her trouser-wearing scandalous behaviour. I do think that there's probably an argument to be made that this falls within the realm of priestly concern for clear categories – something we saw much of in Leviticus. But Kenneth C. Davis has a much more interesting explanation in Don't Know Much About the Bible:
The cross-dressing prohibition was apparently aimed at keeping Israelites from taking part in Canaanite practices where worshippers simulated a sex change, perhaps as a fertility rite.
Canaanite religion centered on worship of Baal, a fertility god responsible for rain, obviously a significant figure in an agricultural community that bordered the desert. The rains came, according to Canaanite belief, when Baal had sex, with his semen falling in the form of life-giving rain. Instead of a simple "rain dance," Canaanite priests imitated Baal by having sex, apparently coupling with men, women, and beasts. Many of the Mosaic Laws were specifically aimed at sexually charged Canaanite worship that must have held enormous appeal for many of the Children of Israel. (p.143)
"Sexually charged Canaanite worship" aside, my study Bible does seem to be thinking along the same lines: "The distinction between the sexes is based on God's creation and should not be violated in any way as, for instance, in the simulated changes of sex in pagan religions" (p.242).
In Deut. 21, there's a discussion of plural marriage – specifically, what happens if a man has a favourite wife. The first son born must be treated as the first-born son for inheritance purposes regardless of his father's feelings towards his mother. Even if she is "disliked," the first born son is entitled to the status of his birth order. The difference being that a first-born son is to receive "a double portion of all that he [the father] has" (Deut. 21:17).
What's interesting about this is that it curtails, to an extent, the patriarch's power. Despite being the head of the household, the father does not have absolute power over his family because, at least in some respects, they have inalienable rights of their own.
Of course, this goes directly against the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25 and Genesis 27), where Esau is born first but is tricked out of his inheritance twice: first by promising it away himself, and the second time when his father unknowingly blesses the wrong son. What's interesting about Jacob and Esau's birth story in Genesis 25 is that God foretells that "the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen. 25:23), and then Jacob is born grabbing Esau's heel. I wonder if these details were added to the story to make it clear that their inversion of inheritance laws was a one-time, special thing.
I've seen it argued that this reference to plural marriage merely attempts to regulate, not condone, the practice. God wants marriages styled after the "Adam and Eve" model, and that passages like these are merely God's acknowledgement of the practice of plural marriage within the cultural context of his audience. He doesn't approve, but since they'll be doing it anyway, he'll at least offer up some rules to regulate it.
The problem with this line of argument is that the Bible has made no qualms whatsoever in forbidding what must have been common cultural practices elsewhere. If the God of Deuteronomy disapproved of plural marriage, we would have been hearing all about it (as we have been with, say, local shrines). Far more likely, as far as I am concerned, is that the practice of plural marriage fell out of favour with Hellenisation, and that this shift is reflected in the assumptions made by the Bible's various authors.
The final portion I want to discuss under Social Order covers the treatment of women taken in war. When a hottie is taken captive during a "war against your enemies" (Deut. 21:10) and the man would like her as a wife, he can bring her to his house. Once there, she must shave her head and cut her nails, and be given a full month to mourn her parents. Only after the month is done may the man "go in to her" (Deut. 21:13), thus making her his wife.
If, after all that, the man decides that she really wasn't what he was expecting, he must set her free. He cannot sell her and he cannot treat her as a slave.
I'm no fan of the idea that a woman can be taken during war and forced to marry someone against her will – particularly when that someone was among those who killed her family. But if we make the cringe-y leap of accepting that as the default situation, it's at least nice that she's given some time to grieve before being raped, and that she must be treated as a wife rather than just a slave (for what little difference there is between the two given the compulsory nature of her marriage).
As Brant Clements says on Both Saint and Cynic: "The situation seems cruel, but the regulations actually provide the woman with some small measure of protection."
Moral Laws
A man is not to "take" his father's wife, nor "uncover her who is his father's" (which I assume refers to non-wedded concubines, or perhaps slaves). The context suggests that the father's wife is not necessarily the addressee's mother – so either another wife in a plural marriage, or a subsequent wife. Either way, this is something a repeat of the rules given in Leviticus 18:8 and Leviticus 20:11.
Moses, by Salvador Dali
If a man "takes a wife, and goes in to her" (Deut. 22:13 – possibly the absolute worst way to refer to a wedding and the night-of festivities) and then accuses her of having not been a virgin, then the woman's parents must "bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city" (Deut. 22:15). These tokens are later referred to as "garments", so I assume that it refers to the soiled bedsheets. Except that they are later described as being "found in the young woman" (Deut. 22:20), which is a little confusing since, if we're referring to the hymen, it would have been broken when her husband "discovered" that she wasn't a virgin (according to internal logic – more on that later).
If the parents produce these "tokens," the accuser is to be whipped and fined 100 shekels of silver (to be given to the woman's father, since he's caused her unjust shame). She will then remain his wife and "he may not put her away all his days" (Deut. 22:19). I'm sure that would have been a very pleasant situation for her – nothing like being completely dependent on someone who hates you and tried to have you sent off. Wouldn't it have been better for him to be fined an amount that would have supported her for her entire life, and then separated them?
If the parents can't produce the tokens, the woman is to be taken to her father's door and stoned to death. Because her having had sex is "evil [in] the midst of you," but a man trying to to ruin a woman's life by getting laid and then having her stoned to death is merely insulting the woman's father. What happened to the rule in Deut. 19:18-19, where someone who makes a false accusation must be given the punishment the accused would have gotten?
So even taken on its internal logic, this whole bit is problematic. But beyond that, the idea that blood on the sheets or a hymen is proof of virginity is rather dubious. Perhaps the correlation would have been stronger in a milieu where horseback or bike riding wasn't common and where girls might be kept home a bit more, but it's quite common for girls to break their hymen long before they become sexually active. Not to get too far into TMI-land, I personally broke my hymen when I was around 7-8 years old, after a classmate kicked me in the crotch.
A hymen also may not break. Depending on how it happens to be shaped and how relaxed and aroused the woman is, her hymen could simply stretch around the penis, never tearing or bleeding.
So this whole assumption that there can be "tokens of virginity" rests on two assumptions: 1) That girls are all kept indoors and largely immobile from birth to marriage, and 2) That a woman's groom is going to be rough and won't pay attention to her comfort or pleasure. Plus a bonus 3) That all girls are born with hymens that are shaped in a uniform, predictable way. That's a lot of assumptions.
There are those who would argue that virginity is an acceptable thing to demand from a woman, exemplified by Berend de Boer, author of Skeptic's Annotated Bible Answered:
So what kind of sexual diseases might she carry? She might even be pregnant! Why would a man support her or her child in this case as he has been deceived?
He goes on about how the verse is actually "unfriendly" towards men because it means that they can't just sleep around with virgins and then cast them off with impunity. Small comfort given the differences in standards of evidence and punishments.
But what about the diseases? Let's say she truly isn't a virgin and it is therefore conceivable that she may be carrying a sexually-transmitted disease, why is there no similar concern for her health? Where is it written that a woman who suspects that her husband may have been sexually active prior to their marriage can accuse her husband and have him stoned to death?
And what if he is tricked into raising another man's child, so what? A child born to his home and raised by him is his. Is it truly relevant, especially in an age before DNA tests?
Of course, no mention is made of the possibility, if she truly isn't a virgin, that her prior sexual encounters were non-consensual. If she was raped by her father, for example, she may have had no opportunity to present herself as anything other than a virgin to a potential suitor, but would still be stoned to death for the omission. And even that line of argument requires that we accept death as an acceptable punishment for sexual experience.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this passage.
(For anyone interested, there's a great discussion of virginity here.)
The last morality rule I want to talk about is, at least, a little more equitable, even if it is still rather on the barbaric side. If a man is found to be sleeping with a married woman, both are to be put to death. There is no penalty, apparently, for a married man who sleeps around, making it rather clear that the issue here is not extra-marital sex, per se, but rather the 'theft' of another man's 'property' – much like taking someone's car for a joyride.
Deut. 21 starts off with a bit of biblical CSI. If there's been a murder and the killer is unknown, the elders and judges are to measure the body's distance from the nearest cities to determine which has jurisdiction. The elders of the nearest city must take a heifer which has never been worked or pulled a yoke, then bring it to a valley with running water that is neither ploughed nor sown, and break the heifer's neck.
That done, all the elders of the nearest city must wash their hands over the heifer and testify that they had nothing to do with the murder.
While the given for this ritual is to "purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst" (Deut. 21:9), I was interested in the similarity to a superstition in Medieval Europe that the corpse of a murder victim will begin to bleed if touched by its killer (I believe I first heard of this in Pat McIntosh's Cunningham series, but here's a source to confirm it). Certainly, the act of laying out hands while swearing innocence suggests that, at least in its root, the ritual had to do with eliminating suspects.
If the murderer is known, or for any other of the millions of things given the death penalty in this book, the body is to be hanged on a tree. By context, I assume this to mean that the corpse, once stoned or whatever form the death penalty is supposed to take, is strung up.
The corpse is hanged, but then taken down for burial later that same day – it is not to stay up overnight.
Next, a "stubborn and rebellious son" (Deut. 21:18) is to be stoned to death by all the men of the city. There isn't really any specificity here about what it means to be stubborn and rebellious, except that it means that the son isn't obeying his parents. There's a bit further on when the parents accuse him before the city elders and they must accuse him of being "a glutton and a drunkard" (Deut. 21:20), which suggests that we're not talking about a toddler refusing his bed time. Still, though, it doesn't say specifically that this applies only to adult children who are drunkards and gluttons.
There's also no mention of mitigating factors, such as that the elders might decide if the demands made on the son are reasonable or not, or if the son might have written off his parents after years of abuse. Having many friends who grew up in very conservative religious families, I've heard far too much about how this passage (and ones like it, since not all of them are Jewish or Christian) has been/is being used to shame them for moving away from emotionally abusive and unhealthy relationships.
There's also no mention of the possibility of rebellious daughters. Quite an omission, if my own history is any indication.
The last bit of criminal law I want to talk about has to do with unmarried women having sex. There are two distinctions being made in this discussion: the first between betrothed and unbetrothed women, and the second between sexual encounters that take place in the city versus those that take place in the open country.
The discussion of betrothed virgins takes place first. If the sexual encounter takes place in the city, both man and woman are to be stoned to death. The woman is to be killed "because she did not cry for help" (Deut. 22:24), the man because the woman is betrothed and therefore totally already belongs to someone.
Obviously, this rule completely ignores the many occasions when a woman (or girl, since children can be raped too) might very reasonably not cry for help during an attack. Just as an example, we might consider a situation where she is being threatened with a weapon, or a case where she is being raped by a parent or brother and may be very young. Perhaps she was gagged, or knocked unconscious. Or perhaps she did cry out and was simply ignored. Trying to distinguish between "legitimate rape" and consensual sex based on whether or not the woman cried for help or sustained injuries trying to fend off her attacker(s) is hugely problematic.
If the betrothed virgin has her sexual encounter in the open country, the authors of the Bible acknowledge that perhaps she may have cried for help and not been heard by anyone. Therefore, if she claims rape, only the man is to be put to death and "in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death" (Deut. 22:26).
If the virgin is not betrothed, the location no longer matters. Either way, the man is to pay the woman's father 50 shekels of silver and take her as a wife, unable to ever divorce her. That's all well and good if the sex was consensual, but seems rather awful for the victim in a case of rape.
No mention is made of the possibility that a woman might rape a woman, or that a man might rape a man. Nor, even, that the woman might have been the aggressor in the "betrothed / open country" situation.
Victor Matthews has some interesting information about this passage in Manners & Customs of the Bible:
The Babylonian law states that a betrothed virgin who has been raped will be freed while her attacker is executed. The Deuteronomic law is more specific, making provision for the location of the crime, and using this as the basis for the punishment of the couple. If the crime took place within the city, both are to be executed, since the woman could have cried out for help. However, if the rape is committed in the "open country" where no one could hear her cries, she goes free, and only the man is executed.
The Middle Assyrian Law Code (ca. 1100 B.C.) also contains similarities to the biblical criminal code. MAL A.55 (ANET, 185) is concerned with the rape of an unbetrothed virgin, who is still living in her father's house. The rapist must pay a fine in silver to the father for the loss of his daughter's virginity, and the father has the option of forcing this man to marry his daughter, with no possibility of divorcing her later. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is almost an identical version of this law. Here, the rapist must pay a fine of fifty shekels of silver, and marry the girl without later recourse to divorce. (p.120-121)
Then comes the "miscellaneous other" category that no attempt at clean boxes is ever without (much as Levites might love their blemish-free).
Speaking of the desire for clean divisions, the people are not sow their vineyard with two kinds of seed, or plough with an ox and an ass together, or wear mingled garments (wool and linen together being the example provided). All of this is largely a repetition of Leviticus 19:19.
Then, from Numbers 15:38-40, the people are commanded to wear four tassels on their clothing – one for each corner of a cloak. Unlike the passage in Numbers, the command here is presented without justification, whereas in Numbers 15 the tassels are meant to serve as a reminder of God.
When harvesting eggs, the people are to take only the eggs, not the mother along with them. There's the obvious possible reason that leaving the mother alive means the possibility of more eggs later, but the resemblance to the rule about boiling a kid in its mother's milk makes me think that there's something more cultic going on.
Finally, the people are told that they must build a parapet on any new roof so that no one can be injured by falling from it. As my study Bible points out, this does indeed sound like a great idea when flat-roofed houses are the norm. And Brant, I don't know about product liability, but it does remind me of having to build a fence around my swimming pool as a teenager because doing so drastically reduced out liability insurance premiums!
Deuteronomy 20: War and Holy War
In this chapter, we hear about the different rules applicable to regular wars versus holy wars. But the preparation is common to both.
Moses assures his people that numbers and weaponry won't matter because God is on their side. So the people should not be afraid if they see larger armies, even if they have horses and chariots. This is reminiscent of the story in Numbers 13 and Numbers 14, where the scouts bring back reports of giants and the people are punished for being hesitant to run in guns blazing.
Before going into battle, the priest first must give his inspirational speech: "Hear, O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint; do not fear, or tremble, or be in dread of them; for the Lord your God is he that goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory" (v.3-4).
After this, the officers are to send home any man who has:
built a new house and not yet dedicated it
planted a vineyard and not yet enjoyed its fruit
betrothed a wife but not yet "taken her" (v.7)
Just in case they should die and some other dude get their stuff.
They should also be sent home if they are "fearful and fainthearted" (v.8). According to my study Bible, this is because the numbers don't matter, but faith does. Given God's track record when it comes to doubt or reticence, this seems rather rational.
When fighting cities "which are not cities of the nations here" (v.15) – in other words, outside of the Promised Land – they must first offer terms of peace. Of course, these terms of peace aren't exactly nice. If the city accepts the terms, they must open their gates and all become slaves.
If they refuse the terms, battle ensues. If ("when") the Hebrews win, they must kill all the men, but they can keep the women, children, cattle, and "everything else in the city" (v.14) as spoils.
When fighting against the current residents of the Promised Land, the terms are a little different. Here, nothing that breathes can be left, er… breathing. No terms of peace can be offered. The Hebrews are simply to attack and "utterly destroy" the people of the city.
The seizure of Edessa in Syria by the Byzantine army and the Arabic counterattack, from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes
The reason given in the narrative is concern that anyone left alive might then tempt Hebrews away from God – teaching them "their abominable practices" (v.18). Though I wonder how, say, a 2 month old baby would pose any such threat. The inclusion does make some distasteful sense, though, if written from the perspective of a scholar in King Josiah's court. Coming from a future vantage point, and having seen so many years of attempts to squash local, non-authorised religious practices, I imagine that it must have seemed to them desirable that the Hebrews had just tabula rasa'd the crap out of the country before settling down.
Regardless, it recalls the instructions in Deuteronomy 13 regarding cities that follow other gods. There, it's specified that all the inhabitants and their cattle must be killed, and all their possessions burned. When this chapter says that "nothing that breathes" (v.16) can be left alive, I imagine that this would include the cattle as well. And, certainly, the situations do seem like enough to each other.
While I thought that this requirement had to do with discouraging accusations of heresy as an excuse for pillaging, here my study Bible argues that it has to do with offering up the conquered city as a sacrifice to God.
Berend de Boer, over at SAB Answered, argues that the reason for this is that God was using the Hebrews as an instrument to punish the people being invaded. Of course, the big problem with this line of reasoning is that the text was written by the victors. If a war's winner tells you that they are guiltless because they were merely instruments of God in punishing evil, always be wary.
But there's a big difference between this chapter and Deuteronomy 13. Here, while besieging a city, the Hebrews are not to destroy any fruit-bearing trees (they can eat the fruit, but not use the wood to build siege weapons). Only non-food trees can be cut down. Given how long it can take for a fruit tree to start baring fruit, it certainly makes sense that an invading army would want to keep those resources that are pre-existing.
Deuteronomy 19: Judicial Miscellanea
Once installed in the Promised Land, three cities are to be set aside as cities of refuge, as opposed to the six mandated in Numbers 35. Why only three this time? My study Bible says that these are separate from "the three in Transjordan" (p.239). I suppose the logic would be that at this point in the story, the Hebrews have already taken the land to the east of the Jordan River and therefore already have those cities set up. In that case, Moses is giving instructions for the land to come.
But then, later in his speech, Moses says that the number of cities should be brought up to six once God expands their borders, "and gives you all the land which he promised to give your fathers" (v.8).
Maybe I am misunderstanding my study Bible notes, but it seems to me more likely that, in a divided kingdom, there might indeed be only three cities under Jerusalem's control, and that the scribes are describing their current reality with the hope for a future reunified country.
The other big difference from the instructions in Numbers 35 is that we actually get an example of the sort of person who might legitimately make use of a city of refuge:
If any one kills his neighbor unintentionally without having been at enmity with hi in time past – as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand swings the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies – he may flee to one of these cities and save his life. (v.4-5)
Of course, letting murderers decide if they deserve to be punished or not may not be the most effective judicial policy. So if a murderer guilty of intentionally killing someone runs to a city of refuge, the elders of his city should send for him. He is then to be handed over to the "avenger of blood" (v.12).
I do like that it is the city elders who must send for him and not, say, the family of the victim. It shows an attempt at getting a neutral third party to make the call. Unfortunately, there's no mention of the possibility that the city elders may themselves be in the victim's family, or that the victim's family may be powerful or wealthy enough to get the murderer summoned to them whether he really is guilty of intentional killing or not.
Still, I can appreciate the concept of the city of refuge for what it is – an attempt to rein in the disastrous blood feuds that can easily arise in these sorts of tribal societies. Even if the whole thing is put into the terms of the murder or the murderer "shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel" (v.13), nor is there any mention of why an intentional murder might have been committed, nor the way in which intentionality is even to be established.
Moses slips in a little note about not removing a neighbour's landmarks, "which the men of old have set" (v.14). According to my study Bible, this refers to boundary stones, so a prohibition against moving them makes a lot of sense.
To specify only that the boundary stones set by "the men of old" makes some sense as well, given what's been said before about land returning to its original owners at every Jubilee. I imagine that there would have been little respect for new arrangements and changes.
At least two or three witnesses are needed to prove any crime. Fine, I get it, you don't want people abusing the legal system by making false accusations, but there are just so many problems with this.
The first is that numbers are no guarantee of anything. As a kid, I was bullied quite a bit. I was the friendless loser, and the bullies had all the social power. When teachers tried to figure out the situation, what do you suppose happened? The bullies claimed innocence, sometimes even claiming that I had been the aggressor. Since they were many and I was one, I was punished more than a few times for things I hadn't done – or that had been done to me. Simply requiring more than one witness does not actually get around the "my word against his" situation. If anything, this requirement presented without qualifications only serves to ensure that those without social power have no access to justice.
The other issue, of course, is that many crimes do not have many witnesses. Child abusers and rapists, for example, aren't generally likely to attack their victims in crowded streets. Once again, the requirement that two or more witnesses come forward effectively puts justice out of reach for those members of the society who are the most vulnerable to abuse.
The requirement is only the more odious when compared to Numbers 5, where it is specifically stated that a man has only to have a vague suspicion that his wife may have been unfaithful for him to bring her before a judge.
We then move on to the issue of malicious witnesses. If a malicious witness makes an accusation, both parties must appear "before the Lord" (v.17) – that is to say, before a tribunal in Jerusalem. If the accuser is found to have provided false witness, then he must receive whatever punishment the accused would have gotten for the alleged crime.
Again, I can understand the rationale of this rule. Again, though, it has some rather glaring flaws. The first may just be a linguistic issue, but how can the witness be known to be malicious if he hasn't yet been found to have made a false testimony? Since he would only be brought to Jerusalem if he is malicious and would only have been found to have made a false testimony by the court in Jerusalem, I feel like we're missing a step.
As with the number of witnesses, this rule takes a lot of power out of the hands of the most vulnerable. Coming forth after a rape is difficult enough in a society where an unmarried non-virgin loses all her prospects. How much more difficult must it be if – unable to prove to the satisfaction of an unknown judge – she may then be punished for having come forward at all? This is the sort of argumentation that can easily lead to things like the treatment of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow. Or, closer to home, what happened in Steubenville.
Anyone lacking in social power, anyone making a claim that would rock the boat, would have no reason to come forward with such a threat attached to the justice system.
Perhaps the silliest and most naive claim comes near the end, when Moses says that when word of the punishment gets out, "the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you" (v.20).
The chapter closes with a repetition of the lex talionis: "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (v.21).
Deuteronomy 18: Of Priests and Prophets
Levites are to get a portion of the sacrificial offerings (the shoulder, two cheeks, and the stomach of an ox or sheep, the first fruit offering of grain, wine, and oil, and the first fleece from sheep). The context is a little unclear, but it seems to be saying that all priests are entitled to this whether they serve at the Temple or not, but it's unclear how that would actually work in practice.
In addition, all Levites have the option of packing up and serving in the Temple instead of in their local communities – though, again, the context is a little unclear. Previously, we've read that Levites can serve in the Temple but not the sanctuary. Is this now allowing any Levite (and not just the descendants of Aaron) to serve in the inner sanctuary?
Either way, I imagine that this would put additional strain on an already tenuous relationship. We've seen evidence throughout the books of Moses of the little put downs between the Levites and the Aaronide priests.
Still concerned about false prophets, Moses gets back to the subject.
When the people finally reach the Promised Land (whenever this marathon of a speech finally ends), Moses tells them not to follow any of the local practices. The resident cultures, he warns, practice all sorts of nasty things, such as burning their children in sacrifice, divination, soothsaying, auguring, sorcery, wizardry, and necromancy. "For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you" (v.12).
It's worth noting that "burn[ing] his son or his daughter as an offering" (v.10) may not actually refer to a "kill them dead" sort of sacrifice. My study Bible gives an alternate translation: "Makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire," and notes: "The meaning of the first practice is uncertain but probably refers to an ordeal of passing through the fire as a test of devotion of Molech, the god of Ammon" (p.238). In other words, it would be something more of a symbolic sacrifice, like circumcision. If that's the case, it casts some doubt on most (all?) of the strong anti-human sacrifice passages that we've read so far.
Moses promises that "the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren – him you shall heed" (v.15). It's unclear who Moses (or, you know, the future scribes writing as Moses) is referring to, or even what kind of timeline he has in mind. Does he mean Joshua? Does he mean Jesus? Does he mean someone in between?
Either way, it's a dangerous assertion for social order. Surely, the authors (even if we take that author to be God) would want the right prophet(s) to be recognized and acknowledged, but without leaving the population vulnerable to scam artists and missionaries from other religions. So they have to qualify it – how can the people know that someone claiming to be a prophet actually is one?
In Deuteronomy 13, we were told that anyone claiming to be a prophet for another God was a liar, and that making accurate predictions was just God's way of testing the faithful.
Here, we're told that the people can tell that a prophet is false if "the word does not come to pass or come true" (v.22).
It feels like God/Moses is trying to have it both ways. If a prediction comes true and person claims to be from God, it's a legitimate sign of God's power. If a prediction comes true but the person claims to be from a different god, that's totally not a sign of that god's power.
Unfortunately, there's no word on hit/miss ratios or how vague/specific the prediction needs to be. Try as they might, the authors left plenty of room for charlatans.
Deuteronomy 17: Of gods and rulers
This chapter begins with a prohibition against sacrificing either an ox or a sheep with a blemish.
Seeing other gods
Still very concerned about the possibility that his people might diddle around with other gods, God – via Moses – orders that if anyone is suspected of worshipping other gods, the matter is to be thoroughly investigated.
If the claims are found to be true, the person (and it's specified that it could be either a man or a woman) should be brought to the town gates and stoned to death.
While the demand that the claim be thoroughly investigated first, even this had some – I imagine – unintended consequences. Not to mention the morality of killing people for beliefs.
For evidence, two or three witnesses are necessary. A single witness is not enough. Furthermore, the witnesses have to be the ones to throw the first stones. I imagine that the purpose of this was to test their conviction.
Once the witnesses throw their stones, the whole community must join in. Making the killing separates prohibited murder from judicial killing, in a similar way to how exceptions are made for killing in battle. It also, in a way, turns the victim into a sort of sacrifice in order to "purge the evil from the midst of you" (v.7).
On difficult cases
In the next part of the chapter, Moses demonstrates that he is putting the use he received from his father-in-law, Jethro/Reuel/Hobab (even though he didn't give the poor guy any credit in Deuteronomy 1), and he covers much of the same advice he received in Exodus 18:21-22.
If a case arises that is too difficult for judgement, "you" must go to the Temple for a verdict. It's unclear whether Moses means that the entire community is to go, or just the local judge, or perhaps just the affected parties. In either case, "you" must go and subject yourself to the verdict of whomever happens to be "in office in those days" (v.9). The special mention of this is, I am sure, to safeguard against picking a judge that you might think sympathetic to your case.
Whatever verdict is given must be followed. Failure to do so gets the death penalty, "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and not act presumptuously again" (v.13).
Given the emphasis on this last part, I wonder how much of an issue it was that people would go all the way to Jerusalem for a verdict and then decide not to take it. It makes me wonder if, perhaps, people were having very negative experiences with the judges in Jerusalem, perhaps feeling that the cases weren't being properly heard, or that the sentences were too harsh or not adequate. Or, perhaps, the judges were breaking the rule about not taking bribes mentioned in the last chapter.
On kings
Once they arrive in the Promised Land, the people will eventually declare: "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me" (v.14). That has got to be the most singularly poor reason to have a king that I have ever heard. Though, according to me Study Bible, may not be historically inaccurate: "In the view of the Israelite tribal confederacy, presumably formed at Shechem (Jos. ch. 24), kingship was alien to the theocracy (Jg. 8:22-23). Israel's monarchy represented an attempt to be like all the nations, whose kings claimed absolute power (1 Sam. 8:4-22).
Once they decide that Bobby next door has one and therefore we should be allowed to have one too, however, God has a few restrictions for the kind of king that the Israelites may have. First, of course, he must be chosen by God. Of course, there's no instructions for how the people could tell who was chosen by God and who was not.
The king can't be a foreigner. Given Judah's recent history (assuming that Deuteronomy was composed in the time of King Josiah), this is a pretty obvious request. Israel – the Northern part of the Promised Land once it split into two kingdoms – was at that time ruled by the Assyrians. The threat of being deposed and replaced by foreign rulers would have been all too real.
The king may not have many wives, "lest his heart turn away" (v.17). In other words, there seems a concern that the more wives the king has, the more likely it might be that at least one of them worships other gods and might convince the king to leave the exclusive worship of God.
Next, the king may not have many horses, nor may he "greatly multiply for himself silver and gold" (v.17). Of this, Collins writes:
The most remarkable assertion of control, however, concerns the king, in 17:14-20. The king may not be a foreigner. He must not "acquire many horses," which would be necessary for building up an army, nor acquire many wives (as Solomon would do), nor acquire much gold and silver. Instead, he should have a copy of this book of the law and read it all the days of his life. The king must be subject to the law. Even though Josiah was very young when he began to reign and was presumably subject to his advisers for a time, it is difficult to believe that he would have promulgated such a restrictive law of the kingship. Most probably, this passage was added later to the book, after the kingship had definitively failed in the Babylonian crisis. (A Short Introduction, p.89)
To this, Brant Clemens of Both Saint and Cynic adds:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 says that when Israel selects a king, that king must be God's chosen. He must not not have too many horses or too many wives. Foreign wives will lead the king into idolatry. Since these rules seem to address so specifically the cases of King Saul, who was not God's chosen, and King Solomon who had many horses and many foreign wives, I have to suspect that Deuteronomy was written only after Israel's united monarchy had fallen apart.
The king also must not cause the people to return to Egypt. I imagine that this prohibition would have been written either to address kings selling people to foreigners as slaves, or would have been a response to the Assyrian exile – as the Assyrians were scattering many of the people in the Northern kingdom to foreign lands.
The last rule regarding kings specifies that he must write for himself in a book "this law" (v.18), and read it every day. At first, I thought that it was referring specifically the the laws regarding kings that we read in this chapter, but my internet readings seem to unanimously believe that it refers to the whole of Deuteronomy.
I can't say that I am much opposed to the idea that a king should focus on wisdom (let's, for a minute, accept theocratic law as a form of wisdom – at least insomuch as they are both being represented by a book) rather than the accumulation of wealth or armies.
Deuteronomy 16: The cultic calendar
Marlowe	05. Deuteronomy, Bible, Old Testament	Bible, Deuteronomy, Old Testament	2 Comments
Most Deuteronomy 16 is a repeat of the cultic calendar we've seen before several times. The main changes, of course, have to do with the location of the feasts. You guessed it, they are to take place at the Temple. Three times a year, everyone is supposed to gather in Jerusalem. It's hard to imagine that this was ever practicable.
Source: www.inplainsite.org
In the month of Abib, the people must keep the Passover. Everyone should offer a sacrifice (from the flock or the herd). This sacrifice can't be left out over night. It has to be fully eaten on the day of the sacrifice. The passage mentions twice that this sacrifice absolutely cannot be made locally – it can only be made at the Temple.
They also should not eat leavened bread for seven days, with the seventh day spend in "solemn assembly" (v.8).
Seven weeks "from the time you first put the sickle to the standing grain" (v.9), the people are to make a freewill offering. The worshipper is to "rejoice before the Lord your God" along with his relatives, servants, local Levite, sojourners, orphans, and widows.
The term "rejoice with" has been used a number of times in relation to making a sacrifice. I'm assume that it means that the sacrifice must be shared with those people.
Feast of booths (or tabernacles)
The feast of booths lasts seven days, taking place around the time that threshing and wine-making is done. Once again, the rejoicing of the feast must involve relatives, servants, the local Levite, the sojourner, the orphan, and the widow.
Commenter Abbie at The King and I points out that no mention is made of living in booths during the feast, despite the name. According to her, this is "keeping with the theory that that practice was a post-exilic novelty added late to Leviticus."
It's the attack of the killer choppy scribe again, because the last few verses go off on a completely different subject that would fit better in Deut. 17.
The first part talks about appointing judges to oversee each town. We've already seen the judges before, as well as the demand that they judge without partiality, and without taking bribes.
The next bit prohibits the planting of trees "as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make" (v.21). I doubt that they would mention this unless it had happened, in which case it seems that a second god was being worshipped in the Temple. That's pretty interesting. Even more interesting is the name, since Asherah is a mother goddess who is variously seen as consort to other gods. In other words, did God have a wife?
It's a fascinating topic and one that I'd like to do a little more research on. If anyone can recommend reading materials, that'd be fantastic!
And, lastly, Moses tells the people that they "shall not set up a pillar, which the Lord your God hates" (v.22). Odd that God should suddenly hate these pillars when the patriarchs spent a good deal of Genesis building them.
Deuteronomy 14-15: A barrage of rules
These two chapters cover several rules, all repeats of what we've heard before but with some rather significant changes.
When mourning, the people are not to cut into themselves or to "make any baldness on your forehead" (Deut. 14:1). This harkens back to the pronouncement in Leviticus 19:28, which forbade cutting into themselves or "print any marks upon you." A similar rule can be found in Leviticus 21:5, where the priests are told not to "make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh."
In both cases, the rules are presented around the rules for mourning, though the context is a little difficult. In Lev. 21, for example, it seems that the rules against shaving and cutting the flesh are general rules, separate from the rules around mourning that come before it. Similarly, only self-mutilation is mentioned as specifically being a part of mourning in Lev. 19:28, whereas the passage just before it talks about cutting the hair, as a rule separate from mourning.
Yet here, these two passages seem to have been conflated with their surroundings. If so, it could be a simple error of interpretation combined with the observation that some cultural/religious groups do shave their hair as a sign of mourning. Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding.
Dietary Laws
The dietary laws are much the same as they were in Leviticus 11:2-23. The only significant difference that I noticed was that Deut. 14:19 forbids the consumption of all winged insects, whereas Lev. 11:20-23, which allowed for the consumption of locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers.
The people are not allowed to eat anything that died itself. That's a fairly reasonable request given the possibility that what killed it could kill the people eating it. Plus, if you find a dead deer out in a field, it can be hard to know exactly when it died.
But then Moses says that it's okay to give or sell it to a non-Hebrew to eat. Well, okay, I guess giving consumers a choice isn't a bad thing, except that there's no requirement that the buyer be told how the animal died. It seems like a ripe situation for exploitation, and possibly poisoning.
Lastly, we get the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk that we saw in Exodus 23:19.
More taken from Leviticus, this one from Lev. 27. The deuteronomical twist is, of course, in the attempt to make tithing a little more manageable in a centralized cultic system. Specifically, firstlings can be sold for cash, and then the money is brought to Jerusalem (at which point it can be used to buy any foodstuff that the worshipper feels like eating).
It's interesting to note that there's no mention here of the priests' portion. The people are told merely to spend the money on "whatever your appetite craves and you shall eat it there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household" (v.26). As Bruce at The King and I points out, this is quite different from the version of tithing that I'm familiar with, where the entire portion goes to the church.
There is a reminder not to "forsake the Levite who is within your towns" (Deut. 14:27), but again it's unclear what this might look like. Are the Levites still to be given their portion of the offering? Or are they to be supported in addition to the usual tithing?
The section on tithing also adds that, every third year, the tithes are to be put into a communal pot from which the people on the social fringes – the Levites, sojourners, orphans, and widows – can take from it. There's no mention of a staggering, and without such a system it would mean that the poor widows and orphans may only eat every third year. Even so, it's a lovely idea.
Every 7 years, creditors must release all debts held by Hebrews. A neat idea, except that it applies only to Hebrews. Lenders are free to just send any non-Jewish debts over to collections.
If we assume that the Promised Land belongs exclusively to Hebrews, this sort of makes sense. It often makes for bad blood to be lending money to relatives, friends, or neighbours, and there's certainly a sense that the Hebrew community is to be one small community in which everyone knows each other by default (hence the language of "neighbour"). Yet at the same time, there's an acknowledgement that the same rules aren't necessarily followed by merchants from foreign lands.
Someone who is always borrowing from neighbours without ever paying back to the funds will quickly find himself suffering some social consequences. A foreign merchant, however, can avoid the social penalties by simple fact of living elsewhere. Therefore, an allowance for collections makes sense.
But all of this presumes a homogeneous society, something that has never been the case in Israel. The result of legislating based on this ideal is that a Hebrew living in Rome is treated as more of a member of the community than a Canaanite living next door.
Next, Moses tells the people that "there will be no poor" if they follow the rules (Deut. 15:4-5). Morf Morford uses the phrase to illustrate a much darker point that is well worth reading:
Jesus was correct; we don't want those poor people 'among us' – we want them far from us – or at least out of sight.
We want them to work for us, clean up after us, go to war for us, and fill our prisons, but we don't want to see them.
Click through to read the whole thing.
Knowing that the people will break the rules, and therefore there will be people in poverty (whether through prescience, reflection on the wilderness adventures, or benefiting from the composing scribe many centuries later), their existence is addressed. "For the poor will never cease out of the land" (Deut. 15:11).
If there are any poor, "you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but shall open your hand to him" (Deut. 15:7-8). Not only that, but you should lend him whatever he needs and forgive any remaining debt in the seventh year. You shouldn't withhold, lest "he cry to the Lord against you, and it be sin in you" (Deut. 15:9).
I love this. It's wonderful, and very refreshing to see such intense dwelling on morality (as opposed to cultic purity). It also makes me wonder how many Republicans have actually read the Bible so many of them spend such time thumping.
Rules regarding Hebrew slaves are fairly similar to what we've seen before, particularly in Exodus 21:2-11. Essentially, Hebrew slaves are only to serve for 6 years, and then go free in the seventh. If, at the end of his service, a slave declares that he'd rather stay, the master is to take an awl and put it through the slave's ear and into his front door. I think the symbolism there is rather obvious.
But there are some crucial differences. The first is that the slave isn't just to be set free in the seventh year, but is actually to be sent off with lots of stuff. The master is to "furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press; as the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him" (Deut. 15:14).
Another significant difference is that the distinction between men and women from Exodus 21:7 is gone. Throughout the passage, " a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman" is specified, and this includes the rule about granting freedom (whereas Exodus presumes that a female slave is in concubinage).
Moses also tells masters that they shouldn't begrudge their slaves choosing to leave or getting lots of stuff, "for at half the cost of a hired servant he has served you six years" (Deut. 15:18). I'm not sure if this means that slaves are actually to be paid, or if Moses is merely estimating the costs of food and housing.
Firstlings
Firstling animals aren't to be used for labour or shearing, they can only be eaten. A firstling entirely without blemish must be sent to Jerusalem, whereas blemished firstlings can just be eaten at home.
Deuteronomy 13: What to do with missionaries
A few years ago, I was speaking with a religious relative who was a Muslim Young Earth Creationist. I asked her how her faith handled evidence like dinosaur bones, and she explained that God had put fossils and bones into the ground as a means of testing believers' faith.
That's pretty much the theology at work at the beginning of Deuteronomy 13.
The whole chapter is about various types of people who might try to lure believers into the worship of other gods, and describes how to handle each type. The first being the false prophet.
False prophets, Moses warns, may give a "sign or a wonder" that "comes to pass" (v.1-2), but that shouldn't be counter as an argument in favour of his gods (even though it's totally sufficient to give God credibility).
Still from the movie The Life of Brian.
But how do we explain those signs and wonders coming to pass? In previous books, God's right to exclusive worship came from his greater power. When he had Moses and Aaron battle the Egyptian magicians in Exodus 7, for example, their magic existed independently of God, and God showed himself to be stronger than their gods.
This seems rather different by the time of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 4, for the first time (as far as I can tell), God's ordinances are praised as worthy independently from God simply wanting them followed and having the power to enforce his demands. In Deuteronomy 6, he prohibits the people from testing his power, whereas he had previously been very quick to use demonstrations to give himself credibility.
I think this shows a shift in how God is conceived, something toward monotheism. Here, the prophets of other gods can give "signs and wonders" only because "the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (v.3).
No matter how impressive the prophet may be, if he tells people to worship another god, the people must "purge the evil from [their] midst" (v.5).
It may be that a loved one tries to persuade you to worship a different god – a brother, a "son of your mother," a son, a daughter, a wife, or even a friend "who is as your own soul" (v.6).
If this happens, a member of the people should not "yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him" (v.8). Even more, when they are stoned to death – as they must be – "your hand shall be first against him to put him to death" (v.9).
This sort of attitude is, unfortunately, still alive and well.
Over at Skeptic's Annotated Bible Answered, the author tries to defend these passages:
The Israelites had to kill a murderer of the body. Surely, if someone who kills the body is punishable by death, how should someone be punished who wants to murder someone's eternal soul? To lead a person from the good path unto the path that leads to eternal damnation. So serious is this sin that it was punishable by death in old Israel.
Which is a good answer, though a decidedly Christian one (and, thankfully, he does say that "this law was applicable only for a specific location and a specific time"). I think that within a deuteronomical context, the danger posed by people suggesting other gods to worship would be to the social order of the whole community, rather than to the salvation status of the individual.
If a member of the faithful hears that some people in another city have started worshipping other gods, they are to investigate "diligently" (v.14). If it turns out to be true, they must "surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword" (v.15).
Do all the inhabitants have to be worshipping other gods? Or is there a percentage that tips it from the stoning of the individual to the razing of the city?
Once all the inhabitants and their cattle are killed, all their stuff is to be piled up in the city square and burned along with the city itself. Even the land is "destroyed" in the sense that the attackers can't build over the burned town.
This sounds extreme and rather distasteful, but I think I can see the reasoning behind it. If it were just a matter of finding a handful of worshippers in a city, what would stop bandits from finding religious justification in going around the countryside sacking and pillaging nearly at will? Want some extra cattle, or land, or stuff? Find yourself a couple heretics and it's yours!
So while I obviously don't like the "raze it to the ground and salt the fields" mentality, I think I understand what it's supposed to prevent. I suppose it's the lesser of two evils.
Deuteronomy 12: Reining in the cult
Marlowe	05. Deuteronomy, Bible, Old Testament	Bible, Deuteronomy, Levite, Moses, Old Testament	Leave a comment
I've mentioned King Josiah a few times already (for example), but to summarize, Deuteronomy is characterised by a need to bring the people back into the fold, to "remind them" of Moses' laws after they've been conquered, intermarried, and generally done what normal populations do and shifted in their beliefs from the "pure" religion of the priesthood. A big concern for the authors of Deuteronomy is to centralize worship in Jerusalem, and therefore keep cultic power under focused control. King Josiah is relevant as having "found" this supposedly authentic text that reveals Moses' will (which just so happens to align perfectly with Josiah's interests). The story of his having found a lost book can be read in 2 Kings 22.
I bring this up again because it's a fairly prominent feature of Deuteronomy 12. In this chapter, Moses continues with the rules the people are to follow once they settle in the Promised Land.
Tear down their altars
The first rule of Deuteronomy 12 tells the people that they "shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods" (v.2).
While I get that these other symbols of worship present a challenge to the power of the Jerusalem Temple, this sort of stuff just makes me feel sad. Imagine how different the work of archeologists would be if they weren't always being hindered by the intolerances and penchant for destruction of our ancestors…
The place God will choose
The second rule involves the centralization of worship. The people are only to give their offerings in "the place which the Lord your God will choose" (v.11).
King Josiah, by Anna Edelman
Of course, while this would certainly benefit the Temple priests, it would have some pretty dire side effects. The first issue is dietary. In Leviticus 17:3-5, we read that all butchering had to be done cultically. If you wanted some steak for dinner, you had to take your cow to the local altar and have the priests slaughter it. That's all well and good when there's a priest/butcher in every village, but it would be absolutely awful for a non-vegetarian nation to have to go all the way to Jerusalem for every lamb stew.
In concession, Deuteronomy gives permission to slaughter animals for food outside of the cultic context. And, since God is out of the equation, ritual cleanliness is no longer mandatory for eating the meat (v.15).
The rules relating to blood still stand, however. Rather than eat the blood, the people must "pour it out upon the earth like water" (v.16).
With such an enmeshed aspect of cultic life removed, the deuteronomical revision would significantly change the expression of religion. Or, as Collins puts it: "Some sacral activities were now treated as profane, and cultic rituals would henceforth play a much smaller role in the lives of most of the people" (A Short Introduction, p.88).
Centralization would also essentially starve all non-Temple Levites. As we found in our reading of Numbers 35, Levites cannot inherit land. In a mostly-agrarian society, this poses a problem – a problem Numbers solved by paying the Levites a cut of all offerings. If offerings are now only to be made at the Temple, all the rural Levites will starve.
I'm not entirely certain what the deuteronomical arrangement is supposed to be (can anyone enlighten me in the comments?), but the people are told to "rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your sons and your daughters, your menservants and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your towns, since he has no portion or inheritance with you" (v.12). Then, later, Moses adds: "Take heed that you do not forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land" (v.19).
So is the hint here that the people are to support the Levites as they would support their dependants (servants and children)?
No praying around
Moses, ever fearful with all those coquette deities around, reminds the people not to go be "ensnared" by the gods of the nations that they are about to dispossess (v.30).
As part of the warning, he tells the people that "ever abominable thing which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods" (v.31).
It's worth noting that God isn't against child sacrifice, per se. In fact, he requires that all first born be consecrated to him (Exodus 13:2). The difference is that he allows a substitution for his own ritualistic sacrifices, whereas the other gods – supposedly – are still literal-minded.
Deuteronomy 10-11: Circumcised Hearts
Marlowe	05. Deuteronomy, Bible, Old Testament	Abiram, Arabah, Beeroth Bene-jaakan, Bible, Canaanite, Dathan, Deuteronomy, Eleazar, Eliab, Gilgal, Gudgodah, Jordan, Jotbathah, Levi, Moreh, Moserah, Moses, Mount Ebal, Mount Gerizim, Old Testament, Reuben	4 Comments
The scribe who makes poor partitioning decisions strikes again, and Deuteronomy 10 opens in the middle of the Golden Calf story from the last chapter. In this version of the story, Moses takes the credit for making the stone tables (blank, for God to write on) and the ark (Deut. 10:3). I'm sure that, if he were still alive, Bezazel would have loved to hear that.
Moses then talks about going to Moserah, where he says that Aaron died. He may be losing his memory a mite in his old age, though, since Num. 20:27-28 and Num. 33:38 are quite clear that Aaron died on mount Hor.
There's some issues with the itinerary, as well. Deut. 10:6-7 has the journey going Beeroth Bene-jaakan > Moserah > Gudgodah > Jotbathah. Numbers 33:31-33, on the other hand, had the journey go Moseroth > Benejaakan > Horhagidgad > Jotbathah. Moses may be a fine prophet, but he'd be a terrible travel agent. I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere about this explaining the whole '40 years in the desert' thing, too, but I think that dead horse has been well-flogged.
According to Moses, it's at Jotbathah that God "set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to him and to bless in his name" (Deut. 10:8). Of course, he'd done this way back in Numbers 3 (and arguably as early as Exodus 32:28-29), long before Aaron died and the people arrived at Jotbathah.
Flaws aside, the historical review we've just gotten is Moses's way of setting the stage. He is explaining, in essence, why his listeners should care about what follows.
Now that his listeners know why they should care about this God character and what he has to say, Moses moves on to give them some of God's rules.
I was somewhat shocked that Moses begins his recitation of the rules by saying: "And if you will obey my commandments which I command you this day" (Deut. 11:13). Am I reading too much into this? Because it looks an awful lot like Moses is conflating himself (and his authority) with God – the same hubris that may or may not have spelled his death in Numbers 20 (depending on variation and interpretation, of course).
Moses and the Burning Bush, Bréviaire de Paris dit Bréviaire dit de Charles V [Breviarium Parisiense]
Moses next gives the reasons why the people should pay attention to and follow God's/his rules. Firstly, because it's "for your good" (Deut. 10:13). Of course, this brings to mind a twist of the Euthyphro dilemma – are the rules good for the people in their own right, or because of the punishment/reward system that God himself has created? Of course, that question is largely answered in Deut. 11, when we hear about all the nice things that the people will get in return for following the rules (v.8-12), and the punishments for failing to do so (v.16-17).
The easy rebuttal would be, I am sure, that if God has created the universe, then the natural consequences of an action would be every bit as much his imposition as an active reward/punishment. For example, stealing would only victimise someone because God has created a universe in which this is so. So I suppose that you have to have at least one foot in the naturalist philosophies before this discussion is even remotely interesting.
The actual rules that Moses felt were worthy of getting another mention include the hilarious: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of you heart" (Deut. 10:16). Even more hilarious is that my Study Bible, which has allowed so many weird passages to go unaddressed, felt that this needed an explanation: "[It] means to open the mind, to direct the will toward God" (p.228). Yes, thank you, that was rather obvious. Or, as I interpreted it, it means that the outward expressions of worship aren't enough. They must be accompanied by an internal devotion.
But I can just imagine the Study Bible planning committee meeting when they got to this line and someone said "Yeah, people are going to notice this one…"
Another rule that gets a mention is to: "Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:19). As I've argued before, this is a lovely sentiment – really awesome! – but what it looks like in practice is more complicated. I discussed the problem at greater length when looking at Numbers 15.
Moses also gives the rule: "by his [God's] name you shall swear" (Deut. 10:20). I may be wrong, but I think that this may be the first positive mention of swearing in God's name. People are described as swearing or having to swear elsewhere, such as in Numbers 5 where women suspected of adultery must swear that they will suffer physical ills if they have been adulterous, but looking strictly at the mentions of swearing in God's name, other mentions have always been proscriptive (such as the ordinance against swearing falsely in God's name, found in Leviticus 19).
As far as I can think of, this is the only instance where people are told that they must swear, if they are to swear, in God's name.
At the end of Deut. 10, Moses tells the people: "Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons; and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven for multitude" (v.22). It seems that Moses considers the promise to Abraham to be fulfilled at this point, either as the people sit on the border looking into the Promised Land, or at least once they've taken hold of it.
Dathan & Abiram
It wouldn't be the Bible without a bit of gloating over fallen enemies. In Deut. 11, Moses reminds his audience of what happened to Dathan and Abiram, two of the men who rebelled way back in Numbers 16.
What's really interesting about this passage is that the Numbers 16 version begins to tell a story about three rebels, Dathan, Abiram, and Korah. About midway through, Dathan and Abiram just disappear, and the rest of the chapter is all about Korah and Korah's followers getting their comeuppance.
Here, however, Dathan and Abiram are the only rebels mentioned, with Korah nowhere in sight.
It's a good reminder that, while I've been thinking of Deuteronomy as the latest of the Pentateuch books, the Bible is just not quite that simple. While the history recaps of the last few chapters have made clear that the authors of Deuteronomy had access to many of the same stories that we've covered in previous books, the errors make it clear that they did not have the texts as we have them now.
Abby, a commenter posting on the King and I project, brings this back around to the documentary hypothesis:
"You know what he did for you in the wilderness as you journeyed to this place, and what he did to Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, son of Reuben, when the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them in the sight of all Israel, together with their households and the tents and every living thing in their company."
YEP thats a retelling of the J story, absent ANY detail from P's.
In other words, the authors of Deuteronomy had a proto-Numbers, or perhaps just an isolated story, that hadn't yet received a Korah injection.
I find it fascinating to think of the Bible as a living culture composed of many living units, each going through their lives, changing, growing, and coming together to form the whole that we've (some of us, at least) come to believe is a fossilized whole – written in stone, sometimes literally.
System of Magic
In Deut. 11, Moses compares Egypt to the Promised Land. While Egypt required irrigation – which involved watering crops through some amount of manual labour – God will take charge of crop watering in the Promised Land. Suddenly, God is wearing the mantle of a fertility/rain deity, promising a land that "drinks water by the rain from heaven, a land which the Lord your God cares for" (v.11-12). If God is displeased, he will "shut up the heavens, so that there be no rain, and the land yield no fruit" (v.17).
It makes God look an awful lot like other sorts of sky gods, like Hadad (who, according to wikipedia, could also be referred to as Ba'al).
There's another interesting bit later on where Moses says that he "set before you this day a blessing and a curse" (Deut. 11:26). The blessing, of course, is all the good stuff that will happen for following the rules. The curse is the opposite. But then Moses starts talking about taking the blessing and setting it on one mountain, and setting the curse on another mountain, as through they were physical objects that would be carried around by the people.
We've seen similar ways of imagining blessings/curses before, such as in Genesis 27. In that story, Isaac confuses his two sons and accidentally gives his blessing to the wrong one. Even once the error is exposed, the blessing has been unleashed and therefore can't be recalled.
Older Entries Newer Entries


I own a load of Boat Neck tees. Add a fun graphic tee vibe to them, even better.
Being at home with my family in the evening or the weekends gets busy. Sometimes it can be just as busy as going to work. So, I want to be comfortable without feeling sloppy. This Old Navy Boat Neck tee has my usual, stripes, and a graphic. I like that it's comfy. It can be worn out or tucked in. I am wearing a size Large and it goes for $9.
As for my jeans, I got on Old Navy's Mid-Rise Rockstar. Love these! I am wearing a size 16 and these go for $30.


text:
Home Headlines Total value of building permits issued in May drops 14.5%: Statistics Canada
Total value of building permits issued in May drops 14.5%: Statistics Canada
Ottawa: The total value of building permits issued by Canadian municipalities in May fell 14.5 per cent to $6.7 billion, following two months of double-digit gains, Statistics Canada said Tuesday.
Economists had expected a drop of five per cent, according to Thomson Reuters.
Statistics Canada said the value of residential permits issued in May dropped 13.5 per cent to $3.9 billion after three consecutive monthly increases.
The value of multi-family home permits fell 22.9 per cent to $1.6 billion in May due to a drop in every province and territory, except British Columbia, New Brunswick and Nunavut.
Contractors took out $2.3 billion worth of building permits for single-family homes in May, down 5.5 per cent.
Meanwhile, municipalities issued non-residential building permits worth $2.8 billion in May, down 16.0 per cent from April.
The value of permits for institutional buildings fell 34.0 per cent to $867 million in May, while plans for industrial buildings dropped 15.6 per cent to $408 million.
Commercial building permit values slipped 0.4 per cent to $1.5 billion.
The value of permits issued were down in five provinces, led by Ontario and followed by British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
The drop in Ontario came mostly as a result of lower construction intentions for institutional buildings, multi-family dwellings and single-family houses.
Previous article3 canoeists rescued after plunge over waterfall near US Canada border; 1 was trapped under log
Next articleModi visit: India, Kazakhstan ink deals on uranium supply, defence
Kurdish advance forces IS withdrawal from part of Kobani
Safe handling of flour: Health Canada

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Bringing together both ends of the adidas Originals' technology spectrum, the I-5923 is the latest addition to the Boost family. Channeling aspects of past icons, the upper of the I-5923 brings back memories of shoes gone by, using signature design features exclusive to the brand and updating them for the modern day.
Taking its name from one of the many vintage articles within adidas' extensive archive, the I-5923 is a hybrid shoe that features characteristics from classic 70's runners, fused together with the latest contemporary technologies. Following on from the first size? Exclusive 'Hawaiian Thunderstorm' release back in March, we're pleased to present part two of the pack, aptly named 'Manchester Showers'.
The serrated stripe insignia has graced the uppers of classic football styles such as Samba, Dragon and Gazelle, as well as runners such as the SL72 and certain members of the ZX family. The use of suede and neoprene also harks back to a heralded era in adi footwear, with new styles being born every year.
In the present day, Boost has gone on to become one of the brands signature technologies, featuring heavily within it's running output, as well as dabbling in both basketball and skateboarding categories as experiments to explore the potential of the cushioning. This marriage of both era's results in a product that's fully representative of where adidas Originals are at as a brand right now; Using their strong heritage of product to inform their current direction and innovative product range.
In contrast to the vibrant colours found on the previous release, the Manchester themed rendition includes three shades of grey to signify the doom and gloom of traditional northern weather. Adding a touch of colour, hits of lightning bolt yellow are featured on the branding, stripes and heeltab.
The size? Exclusive adidas Originals I-5923 'Manchester Showers' will be available online at 8am and in all size? stores on Friday 18th May, priced at £100.


text:
A full-boarding school for boys aged 13 to 18,
founded in 1572 under a Royal Charter granted by Elizabeth I
Home Support Us The Estate Master Plan
Transformative construction projects, throughout Harrow's history, have provided a margin of excellence which helps to distinguish a Harrow education.
Today, we continue to look ahead with an innovative Estate Master Plan. Phase One will transform the eastern side of the Hill with state-of-the-art new centres for Biology and Chemistry and a superb new Sports building. An associated landscaping scheme will provide safer, more direct thoroughfares across the east side of the Hill and some vital parking provision. We hope to achieve the necessary planning consents shortly. Later phases will include expansion of residential, Music and Drama facilities.
Fundraising plays a crucial role in ensuring the success of these projects. £70 million will soon have been raised and £85 million is the target.
To find out more read our Estate Master Plan FAQs.
To support this major project contact the Harrow Development Trust or Make a Gift today.


5 Steps to Happier, More Successful Life with special guest, Melonie Taylor!
If you're building a business, one thing we can all agree on is that it takes a lot of time and effort. It also takes sacrifices. In this episode of Coach's Corner, we'll talk about 5 powerful things you can do right now to get things back in balance.


text:
Washington raises liquor license fees, considers higher video gambling fees
Steve Stein of the Journal Star @SpartanSteve
Mar 18, 2019 at 9:59 PM Mar 18, 2019 at 11:45 PM
WASHINGTON — Liquor license fees in Washington will be going up. And it appears fees for video gambling machines are next.
The City Council on Monday unanimously approved new liquor license fees and introduced a measure that raises video gambling license fees.
The new liquor license fees take effect May 1, the start of the city's fiscal year. If approved at a future meeting, the same would be true for the proposed video gambling fees.
Mayor Gary Manier said in an interview Monday the fees could help raise revenue in the face of state funding cuts.
Liquor and video gambling license fees were targeted in part "because we need to catch up," Manier said.
Washington's liquor license fees haven't increased since 1995. The video gambling fees haven't increased since 2012, when the council first allowed video gambling machines.
"We looked at what neighboring communities charge for video gambling licenses, and we listened to what people in our city who have video gambling machines had to say before we made our proposals for new fees," Manier said.
The mayor said there are two important considerations regarding video gambling in Washington, and they came into play in the city's decisions on new fees.
"First, some of our residents don't think we should have video gambling in Washington," he said. "And last fiscal year, nearly $900,000 from video gambling machines in our city left our city and went to the state and the machine owners, in accordance with state law. We need to recoup some of that money."
There are 14 license classes. Here are some examples of city liquor license fee increases:
* Class A licenses, which allow the sale of alcohol for consumption on or off the premises, will increase from $900 to $1,150 and $1,000 to $1,250, depending upon sale hours.
* A Class E license, for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises for a club or organization, will increase from $100 to $250.
* A Class F license, which permits the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises, will increase from $1,000 to $1,250.
* A Class G license, which permits the sale of alcohol at a private party or meeting for consumption on the premises, will increase from $700 to $1,000.
In Washington, one must have either a Class A or a Class E liquor license to obtain video gambling machines. Under current ordinances, there is an additional fee of $500 and $100 respectively for class A and E liquor license owners. The proposed changes would increase the fee the city charges for each machine. The amount is different depending up on the type of liquor license. For a class A license, the fee goes from $25 to $150. For a class E license, it goes from $25 to $100.
Steve Stein can be reached at (248) 224-2616 or stevestein21@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @SpartanSteve.


Check out this spacious single family home that is UNDER $250, 000! This house checks all the boxes. With four bedrooms and two bathrooms, this home would be perfect for a first home buyer, investor or someone looking to make their own cosmetic repairs. On a large interior corner lot, this home has a pool, 2 car garage, and spacious inside laundry room & pantry with lots of storage. All of this and NO HOA!!! Make this home yours today.


The Waldorf-Astoria will reportedly be closed for up to three years while up to three-quarters of its rooms are converted to luxury condos.
China's Anbang Insurance Group, which bought the Waldorf from Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. in 2014 for $1.95 billion, will close the hotel starting next spring, the Wall Street Journal reported.
When the 85-year-old city landmark on Park Avenue in Midtown reopens, it will have just 300 to 500 guest rooms, the Journal reported, down from the current 1,413.
The redevelopment is expected to cost more than $1 billion and will lead to the elimination of many of the current 1,500 jobs, as the need for room service, housekeeping and other hospitality staff will be dramatically decreased, the Journal reported.
Anbang and Hilton Worldwide, which will continue to manage the property when it reopens, have already reached severance agreements with hundreds of the employees at a cost of $100 million or more, sources told the Journal.
A condo conversion could help raise up to $4 billion in sales, hotel industry analysts have estimated.
Still, Manhattan's high-end condo market has seen falling prices over the past year.
"There's just too much inventory that's overpriced," luxury broker Donna Olshan told the Journal.


text:
Our Vision Statement & Mission
Martha Guild
Sunshine Committee
Cornerstone Concert Series
Tidings – Newsletter
webmaster@firstevlutheran.org
Sunday Morning Worship: In Church & Online 9 a.m.
Wednesday Bible Study - Facebook Live 10 a.m.
Office Hrs
Monday: Office Closed
Tuesday-Thursday: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Friday: 9 a.m. to noon
Other office hours by appointment.
© 2022 All rights reserved, First Evangelical Lutheran Church, Brockton MA


text:
Q: How to send array of arrays in Query string parameters? I need to send array of arrays by GET api to server.
By this I get array of 2 objs.

someurl?{"select":["floor", "shop"}

I need something like this:
floor,
shop:
{ brand }

I tried this structure. but it doesn't work

someurl?{"select":["floor", {"shop":["brand"]}]}

A: Maybe like this:

var my_obj={"select":["floor", "shop"]};
var str = encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify(my_obj));
console.log(str);
var dec_obj = JSON.parse(decodeURIComponent(str));
console.log(dec_obj);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Commentary :: War and Militarism
The International Criminal Court: An Imperial Tool
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net	 18 May 2011
The International Criminal Court: An Imperial Tool - by Stephen Lendman
Established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 1, 2002, it's mandated to prosecute individuals for genocide and aggression, as well as crimes or war and against humanity.
Much earlier, the UN Charter was created "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life time has brought untold sorrow to mankind." Its Chapter I states:
"To maintain international peace and security, (member states shall respect the) principle of the sovereign equality (of other members), settle their international disputes by peaceful means, (and) refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
In fact, since established in October 1945, its leadership did nothing to deter war, human rights abuses, or other high crimes of powerful member states, notably Western ones and Israel, repeatedly committing crimes of war and against humanity with impunity.
Neither has the ICC, functioning solely as an imperial tool, targeting outlier states Western powers designate, notably America whose leaders commit the worst of high crimes, acting lawlessly with impunity because no international body or court holds them accountable.
Like accusations against Yugoslavia/Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Liberia's Charles Taylor, Sudan's Omar Hassan al-Bashir, Saddam Hussein (by Washington's Iraqi Special Tribunal) and others, Muammar Gaddafi now faces similar charges.
On May 16, New York Times writer Marlise Simons headlined, "International Court Seeks Warrant for Qaddafi," saying:
ICC chief prosecutor Jose Luis Moreno-Ocampo "sought arrest warrants" for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and brother-in-law intelligence chief, Abdullah Al-Sanous, on "charges of orchestrating systematic attacks against civilians (amounting to) crimes against humanity."
Calling Saif his "de facto prime minister" and Al-Sanousi his "right-hand man, his executioner," Moreno-Campo's announced evidence was alleged intelligence from other governments and "a lot of phone calls from (outside and) inside Libya."
True or false, he claimed:
Gaddafi's "forces attacked Libyan civilians in their homes and in public spaces, shot demonstrators with live ammunition, used heavy weaponry against participants in funeral processions, and placed snipers to kill those leaving mosques after prayers."
"The (alleged) evidence shows that such persecution is still ongoing as I speak today in the areas under Gaddafi's control. (His) forces have prepared a list with the names of alleged dissidents, and they are being arrested, put into prisons in Tripoli, tortured and made to disappear."
As a result, he claimed enough alleged evidence for trial, sounding more like witch-hunt than legitimate justice. Notably, Washington pressured the Security Council last February to investigate "widespread and systematic attacks" against Libyans it instigated by enlisting, arming and funding insurgent fighters.
They, not Gaddafi, incited violence. Justifiably, he responded to stop it. Victimized by imperial intervention, he's now targeted for doing his job.
Moreover, Libya isn't a Rome Statute signatory. As a result, the ICC has no jurisdiction to act. Nonetheless, a three-judge panel will decide whether to issue warrants, no matter the obvious political motive behind doing so.
Moreno-Ocampo is an imperial tool, following orders. Claiming ample evidence shows Gaddafi "personally ordered attacks on unarmed Libyan civilians" is gross hypocrisy with no credibility whatever. He's regurgitating lines given him to read.
In fact, no humanitarian crisis existed until America and its imperial partners showed up lawlessly. Planned many months, perhaps years, in advance, their grand scheme includes:
-- replacing one despot with another;
-- preventing any democratic spark from emerging;
-- colonizing Libya;
-- balkanizing the country;
-- establishing new Pentagon bases;
-- using them to intimidate neighboring states;
-- dominating the Mediterranean Basin and entire African continent; and
-- carving up Libya for profit by stealing its wealth, controlling its money and resources, exploiting its people, turning workers into serfs, and privatizing its state enterprises under Western control, no matter how many corpses and mass destruction it takes to do it.
In his new book, Michael Parenti defined "The Face of Imperialism" as:
"the process whereby the dominant investor interests in one country bring to bear military and financial power upon another country in order to expropriate the land, labor, capital, natural resources, commerce, and markets of that other country....There are real material interests at stake, fortunes to be made many times over.(Intervening) is intended to enrich the investors and keep the world safe for them."
Moreover, whether democrats or despots, blaming victims facilitates the process, claiming intervention for humanitarian reasons, the last refuge of scandalous liars.
As a result, Gaddafi, his son Saif, intelligence chief Al-Sanous, and perhaps other top officials are being victimized to advance Western planned plunder and dominance.
Moreno-Ocampo's complicit, a Western favorite because earlier he assured Washington they'd be no Iraq or other US war crimes prosecutions. In fact, a July 2003 WikiLeaks-released State Department cable said:
"Privately, Ocampo has said that he wishes to dispose of Iraq issues (i.e., not investigate them)." By implication, he meant all US war crimes everywhere.
In fact, since appointed on June 16, 2003, he abstained from any imperial prosecutions, exposing himself as complicit with horrific Western crimes of war and against humanity, leaving America, Israel, and other culpable states unaccountable.
Instead, he chose soft targets, Western designated ones, including outlier officials in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Kenya, and Libya, absolving the most culpable big fish, notably Bush II, Cheney, Obama, key people under them, and top Pentagon commanders.
Moreover, he avoids prosecuting rogue Western-allied MENA country (Middle East/North Africa) allies, including:
-- Egypt's military junta;
-- Iraq's puppet leaders;
-- Afghan ones;
-- Bahrain;
-- Saudi Arabia;
-- other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states;
-- Yemen;
-- Morocco;
-- Algeria;
-- Tunisia; and
-- most notably of all, Israel, by far the region's most culpable state for over six decades, responsible for horrendous crimes of war and against humanity.
Absolving Israel, America and its complicit partners mocks the notion of a legitimate tribunal. Worse still is targeting their victims, making them pay for imperial crimes.
A Final Comment
Thomas Mountain is an independent Eritrea-based journalist, providing firsthand reports on regional events. On May 16, he headlined, "Libya Charges NATO Massacre of Religious Leaders," saying:
On May 14, ahead of Moreno-Ocampo's accusations, Libyan "spokesperson Moussa Ibrahim presented strong evidence" that NATO massacred Libyan religious leaders at Brega.
On May 13, "over 150 of Libya's most senior Imams" assembled there for a peace conference. "Brega was chosen....because it is the closest government held town to the rebel held stronghold of Benghazi, and the Imams planned to send a delegation (there) following the conference."
However, early on May 13, NATO bombed their site, killing at least 10, injuring over 40 others severely enough to require hospitalization. "Libyan television showed the site, which was clearly demolished."
Two Imans traveled to Tripoli, held a press conference and condemned the attack. NATO confirmed it, claiming it targeted a "command and control center," a deliberate lie. The structure was a "temporary residential complex or guest quarters," unrelated to Libya's military.
Mountain believes NATO forces are "desperate," despite calling "the present military situation (a) 'stalemate.' " In fact, government forces "continue to tighten their control over most of the south and are regaining control of the eastern oil producing region, effectively" preventing rebels from exporting significant amounts of oil.
They also regained control of Libya's Great Man Made River (GMMR) system, its ocean-sized aquifer pipeline project.
Killing Imams at Brega shows how peace threatens NATO, potentially disrupting their imperial plans. Moreover, Benghazi-based western journalists report rebel factions squabbling over leadership control.
As a result, Moreno-Ocampo's announcement was strategically timed to justify war by accusing government victims of crimes, portraying NATO lawlessness as a noble initiative to deter them.
In fact, Gaddafi officials are right saying:
"It is the rebels who took up arms in the middle of our peaceful cities and caused the death of many people (by recruiting foreign mercenary) fighters from several nationalities."
Of course, Western media airbrush that notion from regurgitated managed news, reporting everything but the truth.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com


text:
Help Support Breast Cancer Awareness Month
By Bay Nigro
In Give
Supporting Breast Cancer Since Day One
More likely than not, each of us knows a friend, sister, aunt, mother, daughter, or grandmother who has been affected by breast cancer. The sad reality is that 1 in 8 women in the United States will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. In 2021 alone, it's estimated there will be 281,550 new cases of invasive breast cancer among women in the U.S.
That's why it's imperative that we continue to fund trials and research and move forward in our fight to find a cure. While October is known as Breast Cancer Awareness Month, ONEHOPE is proud to support this meaningful cause 365 days a year through our hosted fundraising events. To date, we have donated over $600,000 to breast cancer nonprofits. Additionally, this October, ONEHOPE is donating a minimum of $25,000 to Susan G. Komen® to help save lives from Breast Cancer.
Susan G. Komen® was the first nonprofit organization we ever wrote a donation check to when ONEHOPE was first started. (Pictured: ONEHOPE founders with Susan G. Komen® in January 2008).
There are plenty of ways that you can support breast cancer research with ONEHOPE. Here's how you can get involved:
Host: Sign up to host a virtual or in-person event and select a breast cancer 501(c)3 nonprofit where 10% of event proceeds will go back to supporting the cause.
Shop: Purchase your favorite products or send someone a curated gift during the month of October. ONEHOPE is donating a minimum of $25,000 of October sales to Susan G. Komen® to help save lives from breast cancer.
Join: Become a Cause Entrepreneur where you can share wine, give hope, and earn an income while fundraising for meaningful causes 365 days a year!
From all of us at ONEHOPE, thank you for making an impact!
PrevPreviousGrazia Grapefruit Rosé Spritzer Recipe
NextHarvest with MariNext
Bay Nigro
Bay is the Content Director at ONEHOPE, where she dabbles in everything from bottle copy and print material to videos and blogs. She has her MA in English and creative writing and is also a published cookbook author. She lives in Portland, Oregon with her husband and spends her spare time exploring forests, restaurants, and vineyards.
4 Delicious Recipes for Spring Brunch
2023 Valentine's Day Gift Guide
ONEHOPE's 2022 Year in Review
An Afternoon with Bright Horizons School in Jamaica
8 Holiday Movie & Wine Pairings
Link to display lightbox
Estate 8
Host a Tasting
CE Back Office
©ONEHOPE Privacy Policy


A lot of free bonuses that are even more valuable than this product itself.
This product is available worldwide, but members area is only in english language.
If you want to enhance your relationships, this the way to go. You will not regret it.
When one considers a conversation or an interaction, it is often difficult to analyze how topics are chosen and continue. There are a number of elements at play, but the primary element is how comfortable one feels while they are having a conversation. There is no single thing that is great to say during conversation, but there are a number of methods and philosophies that one must follow if they want to be happy with their discussions. In this What to Say review, we will help you to understand what types of things are the best to say and how it might impact your life.
One of the most important aspects of knowing what to say is understanding what your subconscious mind thinks about a particular topic or person. For those times when you speak with an attractive woman, your thoughts will be racing and you will find it difficult to speak to them. When you think too much and your "mind gets in the way," this is an indication that you are not able to fully speak properly.
Therefore it is important to understand why you start to feel that tension, which makes it hard to know what to say. The tension is often some type of fear or embarrassment, which is not only silly, but also very harmful. Typically what you are feeling will be communicated with the person you are speaking to. If you are totally confident and happy, you will most likely have little worry.
In understanding what to say, you must make sure that you are understanding yourself. The What to Say product is one of the best that can help you to psychologically work through the problems that might stifle you from saying whatever it is that you want. With that, you will be able to get on with saying whatever it is that you want.
What to Say Review – Whatever you Want!
Most people think there is something specific that you need to learn in order to be successful with conversation. Of course, there are many tips and tricks that you can use in order to have all of the advantages that you want, but the point is not to actually have things prepared, but instead have your own mind prepared.
Many times you wonder what to way and you just do not have your own psychology prepared for the world in front of you. This is where the What to Say review comes in particularly handy – you will find this product to help correct problems that are far more important than the basic conversations.
For the most part, understanding the nuances of speech and the aspects of life that are important for you is going to be the hardest and most important task. The implementation that you can find by using the What to Say product will help to really blow your mind away completely. There are many things you can do with this course!