I’m considering the third occurrence of yirʼâh (ויראתך) in the Bible, the word I’d hoped would distinguish the fear of the Lord from ordinary fear: This very day, y^ehôvâh (יהוה) said to Moses, I will begin to fill all the people of the earth with dread and to terrify them when they hear about you.  They will shiver and shake in anticipation of your approach.^[1]  I want to consider it in context, not only for Moses and Israel but for us as well (Deuteronomy 2:16-19 NET).

So it was that after all the military men had been eliminated from the community, the Lord (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) said to me, “Today you are going to cross the border of Moab, that is, of Ar.  But when you come close to the Ammonites, do not harass or provoke them because I am not giving you any of the Ammonites’ land as your possession; I have already given it to Lot’s descendants as their possession.”

I am not giving you any of the Ammonites’ land as your possession, y^ehôvâh said to Moses.  As a lapsed atheist who has read Nietzsche I assume that isn’t true.  What probably happened was that Israel attempted to take the Ammonites’ land but failed.  So leaders like Moses made up this conversation with God after the fact to keep the peoples’ spirits (and taste for battle) up.  The word for this assumption is unbelief.

If anyone wants to become my follower, Jesus said, he must deny (ἀπαρνησάσθω, a form of ἀπαρνέομαι) himself…^[2]  I tell you the truth, Jesus said to Peter, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny (ἀπαρνήσῃ, another form of ἀπαρνέομαι) me three times.^[3]  I do not know the man!^[4] Peter said.  I do not know the lapsed atheist who has read Nietzsche and assumes that the Bible is false.

The first thing that happens is I hear y^ehôvâh’s next statement differently than I might have heard it before: I have already given it to Lot’s descendants as their possession.  It prompts a question.  If y^ehôvâh gave land to the Ammonites’ and y^ehôvâh is giving land to Israel, does y^ehôvâh give land to all people?  Frankly, I don’t plan to pursue that question at the moment.  My point is that even an imitation of faith as simple as denying my native unbelief changes my approach to Scripture.  Moses continued with what seems at first like a nonessential aside^[5] (Deuteronomy 2:20-23 NET):

(That also is considered to be a land of the Rephaites.  The Rephaites lived there originally; the Ammonites call them Zamzummites.  They are a people as powerful, numerous, and tall as the Anakites.  But the Lord (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) destroyed the Rephaites in advance of the Ammonites, so they dispossessed them and settled down in their place.  This is exactly what he did for the descendants of Esau who lived in Seir when he destroyed the Horites before them so that they could dispossess them and settle in their area to this very day.  As for the Avvites who lived in settlements as far west as Gaza, Caphtorites who came from Crete destroyed them and settled down in their place.)

This becomes a bit clearer if I skip ahead to another “nonessential aside” (Deuteronomy 3:11 NET):

Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaites.  (It is noteworthy that his sarcophagus was made of iron.  Does it not, indeed, still remain in Rabbath of the Ammonites?  It is thirteen and a half feet long and six feet wide according to standard measure.)

All the people we saw there are of great stature, those who spied out the promised land had said to discourage Israel.  We even saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim), and we seemed liked grasshoppers both to ourselves and to them.^[6]  So the knowledge—that y^ehôvâh destroyed the Rephaites in advance, a people as tall as the Anakites, so the Ammonites (a people presumably more Israel’s stature) could displace them—was presented to encourage Israel and give them confidence in y^ehôvâh.  Here, I think, Moses may have spoken more than the Lord (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) had instructed him to do,^[7] but I can hear the man’s heart for his people.

Moses would not be among them when they entered the promised land.  Why?  Because you did not trust me enough to show me as holy before the Israelites, y^ehôvâh had said to Moses and Aaron.^[8]  The Hebrew word translated you did…trust me enough was ʼâman.^[9]  Moses had already diagnosed Israel’s problem: However, through all this you did not have confidence (ʼâman, מאמינם) in the Lord your God, the one who was constantly going before you to find places for you to set up camp.  He appeared by fire at night and cloud by day, to show you the way you ought to go.^[10]

Moses didn’t originate this diagnosis, he had heard it from y^ehôvâh (Numbers 14:11 NET Table):

The Lord (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me, and how long will they not believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) in me, in spite of the signs that I have done among them?”

In this, y^ehôvâh spoke in a way that was very near to Moses’ own heart, for Moses himself had asked (Exodus 4:1-9 NET):

“And if they do not believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) me or pay attention to me, but say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you’?”  The Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”  He said, “A staff.”  The Lord said, “Throw it to the ground.”  So he threw it to the ground, and it became a snake, and Moses ran from it.  But the Lord said to Moses, “Put out your hand and grab it by the tail” – so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand – “that they may believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) that the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”

The Lord also said to him, “Put your hand into your robe.”  So he put his hand into his robe, and when he brought it out – there was his hand, leprous like snow!  He said, “Put your hand back into your robe.”  So he put his hand back into his robe, and when he brought it out from his robe – there it was, restored like the rest of his skin!  “If they do not believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) you or pay attention to the former sign, then they may believe (ʼâman, והאמינו) the latter sign.  And if they do not believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) even these two signs or listen to you, then take some water from the Nile and pour it out on the dry ground.  The water you take out of the Nile will become blood on the dry ground.”

Aaron^[11] spoke all the words that the Lord had spoken to Moses and did the signs in the sight of the people, and the people believed (ʼâman, ויאמן).  When they heard that the Lord had attended to the Israelites and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed down close to the ground.^[12]  Moses wrote about the impact crossing the Red Sea (Exodus 14) had upon Israel: So the Lord saved Israel on that day from the power of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea.  When Israel saw the great power that the Lord had exercised over the Egyptians, they feared (yârêʼ, וייראו) the Lord, and they believed (ʼâman, ויאמינו) in the Lord and in his servant Moses.^[13]  I have a hunch that combination of yârêʼ and ʼâman may prove to be important.

Finally, The Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and so that they will always believe (ʼâman, יאמינו) in you.”^[14]  And so I think what I’m seeing in these “nonessential asides” was Moses’ attempt to return the favor, to transfer the faith in Moses y^ehôvâh had given Israel back to y^ehôvâh Himself.  Moses couldn’t do this with signs he was incapable of performing apart from y^ehôvâh’s spirit.  He did it with recent history and an artifact with which the people were already familiar.

I, of course, am not familiar with giants, though I’ve heard it’s a bit intimidating to get on an elevator with a pro basketball team. The NET was unique in translating ʽereś (repeated twice, ערשׁ וערשׁ) sarcophagus.  Their reason, offered in a footnote (19), has nothing to do with Hebrew grammar or syntax but an article from the Biblical Archaeology Society (which is not available for free online).  I’ve included a few free articles from different perspectives, followed by a table of the translation of ʽereś in the NET at the end of this essay.

Herodotus recorded the following story of a smith who set out to dig a well: “I came upon a coffin seven cubits long.  I had never believed that men were taller in the olden times than they are now, so I opened the coffin.  The body inside was of the same length: I measured it, and filled up the hole again.”^[15]   I’m not going to solve the issue of giants here.  I do think it’s important to keep an open mind on the subject.  But what I will pursue a bit is The Book of King Og recently partially published online.

First, The Book of King Og online is fiction: “I let them know that when King Og of Bashan is being quoted, that those are my words,” Peter Demmon wrote on his blog.  Though I haven’t found confirmation I assume Father Martin, the Vatican translator of The Book of King Og, is also a literary creation of Mr. Demmon’s, a talented writer.  But I didn’t know any of this when I stumbled across it.  The introduction read:

THE BOOK OF KING OG is referenced by association throughout (relatively) recent history, perhaps most notably in the NEW HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS published in 1693. In this reference book, the BOOK OF KING OG is described as, “Forged by Jews and Hereticks both Fabulous and Erroneous.” What I have come to conclude is that this has been a mistaken suppression of key Biblical knowledge by the Catholic Church.

With an introduction like that I read it as apocryphal—looking for the reasons it wasn’t included in the Bible—rather than as Scripture—looking for the reasons it was included in the Bible.  The most obvious reasons for rejecting its authenticity are the many twisted quotes from Scriptures that were written after King Og’s death.  An example from the prophecy of King Og follows:

My conclusion that the writing of Revelation preceded the writing of The Book of Og took little more than a childlike faith that the resurrected Jesus didn’t twist the prophecy of King Og of Bashan.  Since I’ve been looking at texts translated from Hebrew and Greek it also seemed that King Og’s quotes had been lifted directly from contemporary English rather than translated from an ancient language.  That prompted me to search out more about Peter Demmon and Father Martin.

The website timetobelieve.com posted a portion of The Book of King Og last year, realized “it may indeed be a hoax” and added the following disclaimer: “We strongly suggest you study the actual biblical writings…”  I agree wholeheartedly.  Ultimately, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.^[16]  Still, Moses attempted to encourage Israel’s faith recalling how y^ehôvâh destroyed the Rephaites in advance for the Ammonites and the Horites for the descendants of Esau.  Perhaps he even appealed to Israel’s vanity that Avvites who lived in settlements as far west as Gaza were destroyed by Caphtorites^[17] without any mention of y^ehôvâh.

I confess that I’ve needed to look outside of the Bible to overcome my objections to the Bible at times, too.  I am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves,^[18] Jesus told his disciples.  I think we can heed this when studying outside of the Bible as well.  Too often we critique the Bible endlessly and then turn around and accept the oracular pronouncements of historians or scientists completely uncritically.

An argument from “The Bed of Og” why the “iron bed” could not have been made of iron (barzel, ברזל) is a case in point: “Because of the very high melting point of iron, the casting of molten iron was impossible using the technology of the ancient world.”  This logic is fatally flawed and must be restated: Because of the very high melting point of iron, the casting of molten iron was impossible using [any known] technology of the ancient world.  This gives one a much better grasp of the actual situation.  It is tentative, provisional knowledge practically begging to be overturned by a future discovery.  Stating it as positivist dogma doesn’t alter that fact.  It’s a kind of faith—faith that all that can be known about ancient technology is already known—that runs counter to researchers’ experience in any field.

If one accepts the oracle that “the casting of molten iron was impossible using the technology of the ancient world” then one must also consider that the comparison of Egypt to an iron-smelting furnace was added much later than the time of Moses.  At the same time it’s important to remember that the word written in the Bible is barzel not iron.  Whether what we know as iron is a legitimate translation of barzel may be arguable.  (A table of the NET translations of barzel to this point in Deuteronomy follows at the end of this essay.)  I’ll consider a recent example from an article in New Scientist for comparison.

“Long-lost continent found submerged deep under Indian Ocean,” the headline reads.  I might suppose that geologists in a submarine found a long lost continent, swam out in scuba gear and planted their flag.  There are two actual discoveries listed in the article: 1) “some parts of the Indian Ocean were found to have stronger gravitational fields than others” and 2) “Although Mauritius is only 8 million years old, some zircon crystals on the island’s beaches are almost 2 billion years old…Ashwal and his team have found zircon crystals in Mauritius that are up to 3 billion years old.”

One way to view these discoveries is as evidence that contradicts current knowledge.  Continental crust tends to be thicker and denser than oceanic crust, hence “stronger gravitational fields.”  If radiometric dating is an accurate measure of time, then the discovery of 3 billion-year-old crystals on an 8 million-year-old island requires some explanation.  And the rest of the article is composed of stories to explain these discoveries in the light of current knowledge, created largely out of a faith in current knowledge.

I suggested earlier my own practice—denying myself—when I have objections to the content of Scripture.  But this self-denial is not faith as Paul described it (perhaps it qualifies as my faith).  It is a stopgap that keeps me immersed in God’s word (sometimes I go to bed with a headache), where I have an opportunity to hear, until the faith that is an aspect of the fruit of his Spirit fills me.  And so often that faith comes when I’m digging into the details (or sleeping off a headache from digging into the details).

This may be entirely personal, but I’ll share it anyway: I find that when I’m relying on my faith I react to objections angrily or defensively.  When I’m relying on the faith that is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit I react to objections with a smile or a chuckle.  I’ll  continue with the context of this third occurrence of yirʼâh in another essay.