Is Purim still celebrated in Jewish culture, and, if so, what are the cultural implications of it?

The book of Esther details the heroic actions of Mordecai and Esther. By working together, these two characters are able to save the entire Jewish nation from basic genocide at the hands of Haman the Agagite. The plot against the Jews is ultimately foiled in an uprising that left over 75,000 of their enemies dead. The days on which the uprising took place became collectively known as Purim, after Pur (the name the “lots” used by the king to determine the day of the massacre). Esther 9:26-28 details the birth of the holiday: “ Therefore they called these days Purim, after the term Pur. There fore, because of all that was written in this letter, and of what they had faced in this matter, and of what had happened to them, the Jews firmly obligated themselves and their offspring and all who joined them, that without fail they would keep these two days according to what was written and at the time appointed every year, that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every clan, province, and city, and that these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews. nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants.” It is this passage that spurred the question for my blog. Is Purim still celebrated in Jewish culture, and, if so, what are the cultural implications of it?

The passage in Esther that introduces Purim as a holiday takes an adamant stance that the celebratory tradition should be passed down forever. Indeed, the tradition of celebrating Purim is still alive and well in Jewish culture. The holiday is considered to be one of the most festive holidays in the Jewish faith. Partakers in the celebration are expected to party hard. The revelry associated with Purim has caused other cultures to dub the holiday as the Jewish Mardi Gras. The good times to be had on Purim are reminiscent of the celebrations that erupted when the Jews overcame their enemies under the guidance of Mordecai and Esther. Revelers today now enjoy drinking, eating and dressing up in all sorts of costumes to celebrate the holiday. 

Noisemaker used to blot out the name of
Haman during the reading of the Megillah,
and traditional Purim cookies.

However, the holiday is not solely about fun and games; there are several more serious traditions that accompany the parties. On the day of Purim, people recognizing the holiday gather together in synagogues to hear the story of Esther. Those in attendance take part in the tradition of blotting out the name of Haman by making all sorts of noise when the name is spoken in the story. This specific tradition helps tie the story of Esther to the modern-day celebrations that take place during Purim. In another example of the importance of the holiday, “the Talmud tells us that ‘whoever reads the Megillah backwards does not fulfill his obligation.’” In this case, the word “backwards” means that the Megillah (or the book of Esther) should by no means be read merely as history. The book should be read in recognition of its relevance in the everyday lives of Jews. 

Perhaps the most interesting aspects of Purim are not illustrated by the way it is celebrated. Instead, it is the historical parallels to the events that took place on the original days of Purim that are so intriguing. “The Pesach (Passover) seder reminds us that in every generation, there are those who rise up to destroy us, but G-d saves us from their hand. In the time of the Book of Esther, Haman was the one who tried to destroy us.” There have been multiple instances in modern times of a nemesis rising up agains the Jewish people and being defeated that hold special connections to Purim. The first person that comes to mind is obviously Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. The party was obviously defeated, but not before it claimed the lives of millions of Jews. In 1946, during the Nuremberg war crime trials, 10 of Hitler’s top associates were hanged in punishment for their war crimes. This bears an obvious correlation with Haman’s 10 sons who were hanged at the hands of Esther and Mordecai. If nothing else, these similarities are most definitely eerie. However, this is by no means the only eerie connection made between the original days of Purim and enemies of the Jewish people in modern times. Joseph Stalin, who planned to deport all Jews from the Soviet Union, suffered a fatal stroke on March 1, 1953, the night after Purim. His plans to deport the Jewish people in the Soviet Union were never carried out as a result of his death. 

Without a doubt, these connections are interesting. But, according to many biblical scholars, an even more recognizable figure celebrated the feast of Purim. When Jesus Christ is present at an unnamed festival in John 5, many biblical scholars believe he was in town for Purim.  It is the only holiday that scholars believe could have fallen on the Sabbath during that time period, and the feast at which Jesus was in attendance just so happened to be during the Sabbath day. 

Between the historical connections and the modern revelry, Purim abounds in cultural implications for Jewish people. While it may not be the most important holiday on the Jewish calendar, it is definitely one that is alive and well. According to the Talmud, Purim will be the only Jewish holiday that will continue to be celebrated after the coming of the messiah. 

Can the arrangement of a classroom have an effect on the classroom experience?

Comfort is not always a quantifiable phenomenon. But we know that when people are uncomfortable, they are distracted. Temperature, lighting, and furnishings all play a role in a person being comfortable.

Comfort, both physically and psychologically, helps to promote interaction and critical thinking in the classroom. Of all the different ideas and plans to promote critical thinking, student engagement, and interactive classrooms, no plan covers all of these areas as well as creating a classroom that is physically comfortable for both the students and professors. Several aspects come into play when planning to create an ideal classroom. The learning space needs to be flexible, comfortable, and user friendly for all parties involved. 

Responses from Estrella Mountain Community College regarding traditional classrooms as opposed to learning studios (classrooms that provide more flexibility and comfort. 

Flexibility is vastly important when creating a classroom environment that is beneficial to both the professor and the student. Having a classroom designed so it can be quickly altered presents professors with more options to engage their students. Today’s students expect to be engaged and active in their learning. Passive listening is a learning style of the past. Students today are used to discovering answers on their own and retain information much better that way. By using a flexible style of seating in the classroom it will allow students to move seamlessly from group work, student instruction, or to an arrangement that promotes class-wide discussion. It will also allow students to have their laptops at hand if they can be near a power source and have whiteboards to use as their own in the classroom. All of these things will promote student engagement, which is the key to students performing well and retaining information. And since millennials have also been described as team-oriented people, the ability to work comfortably in groups will help facilitate their learning in a big way. 

Student comfort is a vastly overlooked aspect of the classroom. Students in today’s world thrive on having some sort of control over their classroom experience. Giving students different seating options or control over a personal light source will make them feel more in-control over their time in the classroom. College-aged individuals today are used to personalizing everything. So, giving students the opportunity to personalize the area in which they learn seems like a common-sense approach to the classroom design. All the research being done about this sort of thing seems to point out one key point: today’s students need options and control. If a student, or professor for that matter, is presented with options to carry out in in the classroom, he/she will feel like they have some sort of control over the environment. This will help them learn in a way that they would normally want to learn in. The more option that become available in the classroom, the more control a student can have over his/her learning experience. 

The combination of comfortable and flexible classroom design helps to achieve a learning environment that is user friendly. If the physical components of a classroom can become more flexible, it will open more windows of opportunity to engage students in a  meaningful manner. Likewise, if comfort is achieved alongside the flexibility, students will not feel as if they are trapped in a confined place for an hour. This would mean less time would be spent thinking about what the student is going to eat after class, and more time would be spent learning the material being presented in class. Overall, the three most important components of a classroom being presented in research are comfort, flexibility, and user-friendliness. If this can be accomplished, students will have clearer minds and will be able to think critically and effectively about the material being covered in class. 

*As a bonus, I think one aspect that deserves some attention would be the possibility of sit-to-stand desks. Having desks that allow students to sit or stand provides more flexibility and comfort, and there are definite health benefits that follow along with this option. Here is an article that talks about some of those benefits. Also, one more. 

Biblical allusions found in Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Douglas Adams' book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is the wildly popular first installment of the series carrying the same name. If you have read the book or seen the movie, you probably recognized the dominate theme of a hedonistic view on life. The book's many adventures, sticky situations, wacky characters, and strange places all meld together to form one answer to THE question, "the answer to life, the universe, and everything": 42.... just kidding, a little closer look at the book and the reader can fairly easily come to the realization that Adams is saying there IS no answer to "THE" question. Adams is conveying an obvious hedonistic viewpoint on life; there is no great purpose for us on Earth, so have fun. That being said, it might seem a bit surprising that the book does contain many direct, as well as some not-so direct, allusions to the bible.

The introduction alone carries a few references to the bible, one to the main character, and one to the book itself. Adams sets the time period of his story by writing, "And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Richmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time." This passing statement carries a blatant allusion to Jesus Christ, the main character of the New Testament, who was crucified for claiming to be the son of God and spreading his message of faith and redemption throughout the Middle East. The next allusion that appears in the introduction refers to the bible as a book itself. Adams says his story is on about "a book, a book called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." He then goes on to describe it as a very important, and popular, piece of literature:
"Not only is it a wholly remarkable book, it is also a highly successful one -- more popular than the Celestial Home Care Omnibus, better selling than Fifty-three More things to Do in Zero Gravity, and more controversial than Oolan Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters, Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway?"
The guide is supposed to contain everything a person needs to know in order to navigate through life in a successful and meaningful manner. Sound familiar? The hitchhiker's guide is to the people of Douglas Adams' book as the bible is to Christians around the world. Furthermore, I don't think it is a coincidence that Adams juxtaposed the guide with three books questioning the motives and existence of God.

Douglas Adams continuously makes references to religion in general, not limited to Christianity. While presenting his view on life bearing no great meaning, Adams maintains a predominately satirical view on all religious references made in his book. However, there are several noteworthy biblical allusions and symbols to be found throughout the novel. For instance, there is an extended allusion to the Sadducees of the bible found in the book. The Vogons, the antagonists of the book, share many similarities with Sadducees. Douglas Adams describes them:
"They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy-not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters."
The Vogons are, in essence, the gatekeepers, rulemakers, and rule enforcers of the universe. In much the same way, the Sadducees represent the state, carry out priestly duties, set forth rules for worship and everyday life, and enforce the rules they set in place. Both people groups are sticklers for the rules and are not exactly admired by common people. Coincidentally, both races hold a very high opinion of themselves.

The Vogons are the subject for another allusion found in the book. When they are first introduced, they are described as having a "highly domed nose" and "a small piggy forehead". In fact, pig references appear frequently in regards to Vogons. When Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect, two of the main characters, find themselves stuck on a Vogon ship, Ford offers Arthur advice on how to deal with the Vogons. He tells Arthur to choose his words carefully because Vogons are known for twisting words around and using them to "trample" the individual who first spoke them. This immediately brings to mind the words of Jesus found in Matthew 7:6: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you". The Vogons, in this case, take the role of pigs, and the pearls are any words spoken by another race to the Vogons.

Perhaps the most interestingly utilized biblical allusion found in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes in the form of a fish, a Babel fish to be exact. The Babel fish obviously borrows its name from the Tower of Babel erected in the Old Testament. The fish plays a key role in the book and is used in relation to languages; however, interestingly enough, it completely reverses the intended purpose of the Tower of Babel. In the story of the tower, the whole Earth spoke the same language; everybody was able to communicate with each other. Because of this, the people were able to erect a tower that very nearly put them face-to-face with Yahweh. God didn't like this very much. So, to keep the people from becoming to powerful, God scattered them all across the planet and confused their languages. Genesis 11:9 states, "That is why it [the tower] was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth." However, the Babel fish in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy serves an opposing purpose. The fish is inserted into the ear where it unscrambles ANY language, allowing the user to understand everyone and everything he meets. The complete role reversal of this symbolic object is a good example of Adams use of religious themes throughout the book. He constantly turns the tables on the motifs of religion and uses them to support his theme of a meaningless world.

While the book is anything but religious, Adams masterfully uses these themes, as well as many other themes, to bolster the hedonistic nature of the story. Most of the religious references found in the book are ambiguous and satirical in nature. However, as you can now see, there are several allusions directly originating in the biblical text.

**Easter egg allusion from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the movie**

In the opening credits of the movie, a song is playing. The song is being delivered from the point-of-view of dolphins, who take on the role an all-knowing race (i.e. God). The dolphins, aware of the imminent destruction faced by Earth, have decided to leave their home world and are singing this farewell song to the human inhabitants of the planet. In the song, the dolphins explain to the humans that they have been trying to warn them of what is to come. However, being substantially less intelligent than the dolphins, the humans have missed all the signs and cues. This bears striking resemblance to the later stage of Deuteronomistic history, when God is absent for hundreds of years. The parting words of the dolphins reminisce on the many warnings they delivered and their frustration with the humans for not listening to them or heeding their warnings:

So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all that you're dead

You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you



In very similar fashion, a large portion of the strife between God and man found in the bible comes as a direct result of man's refusal to listen to God and heed his many warnings about various things. An added layer to this allusion could be the thanks being given by the dolphins for the fish the humans fed them. The Israelites constantly offer animal sacrifices to God in the Old Testament. I'm sure he appreciates that. So long, and thanks for all the oxen, and sheep, and doves, and goats, etc.

Psalm 57, and some more stuff towards the end..

Psalm 57 

1  Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me,

    for in you my soul takes refuge;

in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge,

    till the storms of destruction pass by.

2  I cry out to God Most High,

    to God who fulfills his purpose for me.

3  He will send from heaven and save me;

    he will put to shame him who tramples on me. Selah

God will send out his steadfast love and his faithfulness!

4  My soul is in the midst of lions;

    I lie down amid fiery beasts—

the children of man, whose teeth are spears and arrows,

    whose tongues are sharp swords.

5  Be exalted, O God, above the heavens!

    Let your glory be over all the earth!

6  They set a net for my steps;

    my soul was bowed down.

They dug a pit in my way,

    but they have fallen into it themselves. Selah

7  My heart is steadfast, O God,

    my heart is steadfast!

I will sing and make melody!

   8  Awake, my glory!

Awake, O harp and lyre!

    I will awake the dawn!

9  I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;

    I will sing praises to you among the nations.

10  For your steadfast love is great to the heavens,

    your faithfulness to the clouds.

11  Be exalted, O God, above the heavens!

    Let your glory be over all the earth!

David realizes Saul means business

Determining the origin of this particular psalm is no ample task. The story behind the song comes from Saul’s continuous attempts on David’s life. David is no doubt fearful for his own safety as Saul seeks him out. The exact moment of strife noted in this poem happens when Saul wanders into the cave where David is hiding; however, Saul does not realize David is there. David is presented with the perfect opportunity to kill the man who is hell bent on killing him. Instead, David seizes this moment to show mercy to the King in the same way the Lord has continuously shown mercy and offered protection to David. 

1 Samuel 24: “When Saul returned from following the Philistines, he was told, “Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi.” 2 Then Saul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel and went to seek David and his men in front of the Wildgoats' Rocks. 3 And he came to the sheepfolds by the way, where there was a cave, and Saul went in to relieve himself. Now David and his men were sitting in the innermost parts of the cave. 4 And the men of David said to him, “Here is the day of which theLord said to you, ‘Behold, I will give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it shall seem good to you.’” Then David arose and stealthily cut off a corner of Saul's robe. 5 And afterwardDavid's heart struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul's robe. 6 He said to his men, “TheLord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord's anointed, to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's anointed.” 7 So David persuaded his men with these words and did not permit them to attack Saul. And Saul rose up and left the cave and went on his way.

8 Afterward David also arose and went out of the cave, and called after Saul, “My lord the king!” And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the earth and paid homage. 9 And David said to Saul, “Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks your harm’? 10 Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.’ 11 See, my father, see the corner of your robe in my hand. For by the fact that I cut off the corner of your robe and did not kill you, you may know and see that there is no wrong or treason in my hands. I have not sinned against you, though you hunt my life to take it. 12 May the Lordjudge between me and you, may the Lord avenge me against you, but my hand shall not be against you. 13 As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes wickedness.’ But my hand shall not be against you. 14 After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea! 15 May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand.”

Throughout 1 Samuel, readers see David constantly fleeing in order to keep his life. Saul seeks him out relentlessly because he feels that David is a threat to his throne. With Joshua, Saul’s son, helping him, Davide is able to narrowly escape death on several different occasions. 

David gives Yahweh the puppy dog eyes

Psalm 57 shows the wide ranges of emotions and thoughts David is experiencing at this point in his life. This lament poem begins with David pleading with God to be merciful towards him; seemingly, this would be something that many people would do if their lives were immediately threatened. In verses 1-3 David expresses his feeling that the merciful hand of Yahweh is the only thing that will deliver him from Saul. This particular passage is separated by the anacrusis, “selah.” while there are many interpretations of what purpose this anacrusis holds, many scholars believe it was a sign that the audience, reader, or whoever is experiencing the psalm, should stop to reflect. David proceeds to explain his problem to the Lord in verses 4-6. He is in need of serious help, and he knows that Yahweh alone can provide that help. However, at the end of verse 6,  there is a sudden swing in mood in progression: “They set a net for my steps; my soul was bowed down. They dug a pit in my way, but they have fallen into it themselves” (emphasis is my own). This verse shows that David’s supplication to Yahweh has paid off, and it ends with the same anacrusis, “selah.” The remainder of the poem goes on to describe David’s praise to the Lord for delivering from the evil he seemed so destined to encounter. 

David wins

This psalm is alive with literary elements to help it achieve the desired effect of the poet. The psalm itself follows the basic order of a lament poem: invocation and supplication (verses 1-3), lamentation (verses 4-6), confession of faith (verse 7), and praise (verses 8-11). Interestingly enough, the shift in mood comes in verse 6, near the exact middle of the poem. 

Verses 1-3: The poem begins with exact parallelism to help show the drastic implications concerning the event being described. Parallelism is used to describe God’s mercy in line 1, and in lines 2-3 it is used again to detail the refuge the Lord has to offer. Imagery comes into the picture (hilarious, right? so punny) to help illustrate the safety to be found in Yahweh’s “wings”: “in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by.”

Verses 4-6: The imagery found in verse 1 pales in comparison to that found in this segment. The poet allots animalistic characteristics to those who are pursuing David, describing them as “lions” and “fiery beasts” who have “spears and arrows” for teeth and “sharp swords” for tongues. This is followed up with more synonymous parallelism that places Yahweh in a position of power: “Be exalted, O God, above the heavens! Let your glory be over all the earth!”. The climax of the poem to this point is marked by the reversal of roles that have seemingly been assigned so far. David becomes the animal who is in danger of falling into the net or pit that have been presented to him by his pursuers. However, David’s enemies are the ones who fall victim to their trap, thus furthering the animalistic qualities already ascribed to them. 

Verse 7: David faith has been strengthened due to the deliverance he experienced at the hand of Yahweh. Parallelism is used in an immensely important way. Verse 7, “My heart is steadfast, O God, my heart is steadfast!”, very closely echoes verse 1, “Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me”. The similarity of these two verses highlight the fact David’s supplication was answered. This verse brings the psalm full circle.

Verses 8-11: Since the psalm has come full circle, there are not many new directions for the poet to take while remaining on the same idea. So, in a sense, it starts over. However, instead of an outpouring of fearful emotion, pure happiness and thankfulness is decanted before the Lord. Parallelism (yes, again) and anaphora are used excellently

to accentuate the joy of David. Verse 8 contains imagery in two parallel lines: “Awake, my glory! Awake, O harp and lyre!”. After commanding his own soul to rouse, David expresses his intention to awake more things on the Lord’s behalf by saying, “I will awake the dawn! I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the nations; I will sing praises to you among the nations.” The last two verses once again use parallelism to drive home their respective points. The idea of wakefulness found in verse 8 should have its own explication, in my opinion. David describes a process, or a cycle, that his spirit goes through in regards to this psalm and the story behind it. First, his soul is awakened: "Awake, my glory [soul]!" Then, he rouses his praise: "Awake, O harp and lyre!" Lastly, He starts a new season of his life, no longer as fearful of Saul as before: "I will awake the dawn!" This unique passage seems almost meta-theatrical in nature; it is a nested story that colors David's response to the original story from start to finish. 

It is surprising to me the amount of repetition of both ideas and words appear in this psalm. The use of parallelism, along with many other literary devices, translate quite well. It’s almost ironic to think that Hebrew poetry may be the most versatile of all poetic styles (or should I say adaptive), and it just so happens to be the style used in the most scrutinized, analyzed, and marginalized  book in the history of mankind. The Hebrew poetry found in Psalms carries beauty, elegance, and understanding with it wherever it goes. 

Like everything else in the Bible, this specific Psalm has survived (and even thrived) in today's world, and in this case, you don't have to look for an obscure reference to it in a song you've never heard, movie you've never watched, or book you've never read. No, I'm not talking about Pirates of the Caribbean (even though the evidence is totally there), but these words penned (presumably) by David are the driving force behind Mumford & Sons' greatest hits, "Awake My Soul." The Americana/Folk Rock staple band often quotes the Bible, along with other staples of classic literature, so it isn't surprising to find this illusion. The song's chorus continually echoes David's cry for the awakening of his soul found in verse 8 (the English Standard Version uses "glory"). 

What gives Samuel the right to serve as a priest?

Throughout the entirety of the Old Testament, readers become keenly aware that Yahweh is a stickler for the rules. When he commands his people to do something in a certain way, he expects them to do it exactly that way. Despite the many shortcomings and outright rebellion of the Israelites depicted in the Old Testament, Yahweh never falters from the way he expects things to be done. This is why it surprised me when Samuel is seen ministering before the Lord in the clothes donned by priests in 1 Samuel 2:18. After all, Samuel isn’t mentioned to be a descendant of the tribe of Levi in the surrounding text, and the priestly duties carried out in ancient Israel are strictly reserved for the Levites . So, what exactly gives Samuel the right to carry out priestly duties in the temple?

A linen ephod would be similar to the ephod worn by the high priests, minus the adornments

In 1 Samuel 1:1, it seems apparent that Samuel belongs to the tribe of Ephraim, a half tribe of Joseph. This seemingly eliminates any possibility of Samuel becoming a priest before the Lord. However, a closer look at the verse reveals something rather intriguing. The text describes Elkanah, Samuel’s father, as being a man “of the hill country of Ephraim.” This does not necessarily mean Elkanah belongs to the tribe of Ephraim, it only implies he lives there. According to the law concerning Levitical priesthood at the time, the tribe of Levi was never given an inheritance of land; rather, the priests of the tribe of Levi are dispersed throughout the entire nation of Israel. Therefore, it is very possible that Elkanah could be a Levite who simply lives among the tribe of Ephraim. To further bolster this possibility, it is important to note that during the time in which the Old Testament was written, sojourners and traveling priests often identified themselves with the name of the dominant tribe of the land in which they resided. Further digging into scripture reveals this to very likely be the case with Elkanah. 1 Chronicles 6:33-38, while a little dry for my taste, reveals a pretty interesting detail regarding the lineage of Samuel and his father, Elkanah: 

“33 These are the men who served and their sons. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman the singer the son of Joel, son of Samuel, 34 son of Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Eliel, son of Toah, 35 son of Zuph, son of Elkanah, son of Mahath, son of Amasai, 36 son of Elkanah, son of Joel, son of Azariah, son of Zephaniah, 37 son of Tahath, son of Assir, son of Ebiasaph, son of Korah, 38 son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, son of Israel”.

This lineage includes Samuel and winds all the way back to Levi, son of Israel. Therefore Samuel is indeed a descendant of Levi, and as such, he maintains the right, if not the duty, to serve as a priest for the people of Israel. 

Even with all the evidence compounding to offer proof of Samuel’s Levite bloodline, I like to explore all the possibilities. Might as well have a backup plan, after all. While the evidence presented above offers limited room for doubt of Samuel being a Levite, there is absolutely no doubt that Samuel is a Nazarite:

“9 After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the Lord. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the Lordand wept bitterly. 11 And she vowed a vow and said, ‘O Lord of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.’” (1 Samuel 1:9-11)

A Nazarite, in simple terms, is a person who makes a vow (or is vowed for, in the case of Samuel) to set themselves apart to the Lord. The notable characteristics of a Nazarite include abstaining from any sort of wine or strong drink, never cutting their hair, and refraining from coming in contact with corpse. Granted, that last characteristic is ignored in many of the Nazarite vows depicted in the Old Testament. The important aspect of a Nazarite, pertaining to this particular train of thought, is their ability to act as priests in the nation of Israel. Nazarites are set apart (consecrated, if you will) from an early age to serve the Lord only. This is a physical embodiment of the quintessential goal of Yahweh to have his people be set apart from the surrounding nations. While Nazarites are not considered Levitical priests in general, they do serve the Lord in surprisingly priestly ways. They are consecrated to minister before Yahweh in a variety of different capacities. Many Nazarites found in the Old Testament carry out their duties in the temple, much like Samuel. So, while the Nazarite priesthood resulting from a Nazarite vow is not synonymous with the Levitical priesthood, it does entail priestly duties being fulfilled. 

Whether the reader would like to view Samuel as a Levite or simply as a Nazarite, there is no question that he had the right and obligation to minister before the Lord. His presence in the temple may come as a surprise to readers at first, but upon further investigation, it becomes the only logical place for Samuel to be. If anything, considering his lineage and consecration as a Nazarite, it should be more surprising that Samuel ever set foot outside of the temple. He apparently had a double dose of the priesthood. 

Notable Biblical Allusions of Inglourious Basterds

The world of the arts is profoundly interconnected; authors, screenwriters, poets, and playwrights have been alluding to other works for as long as they have been producing works of their own. Perhaps nothing is more rewarding than coming across an allusion in a work and actually understanding what it is referring to and why. While some of these references are results of the artist’s own saturation in another work, most allusions are constructed with an intended purpose. The Bible is the most-widely read book in history, and as such, it has been alluded to more than any other piece of literature ever penned. Nearly every movie you watch, book you read, or song you listen to will be interspersed with allusions to the Bible. With this in mind, I want to spotlight a few significant allusions to the Bible found in Quentin Tarantino’s film, Inglourious Basterds. 

Quentin Tarantino has been hailed as one of the greatest directors and screenwriters of our time. He operates under his own extraordinarily unique style and has written and directed some of the most recognizable films in recent memory: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds, to name a few. To me, it is no coincidence that this highly-decorated director and screenwriter is able to connect his movies to important works in history. 

Inglorious Basterds depicts an alternate version of events surrounding World War II. Being a work of historical fiction focusing on the events surrounding the most recognizable act of genocide ever committed, the Holocaust, many questions surrounding religion beg to be asked and answered. The first allusion I want to focus on addresses the question that has been asked for centuries about Adolf Hitler’s genocide of the Jewish people: where was God while all of this happened? That being said, the movie does not explain where God was or what he was doing, but Tarantino does offer an alternative form of retribution and justice. The Basterds, a group of Jewish-American special forces soldiers, dish out justice in the place of God. They never take prisoners. When the group encounters Nazi soldiers, those soldiers either die or are allowed to live to spread the legend of the Basterds. If a Nazi soldier is allowed to live, he is always given something to remember the occasion by. The Basterds cut a Swastika into the forehead of every Nazi soldier they set free, a la the mark of Cain in Genesis 4. Like Cain, the Nazis have committed an unforgivable act, and an act such as this deserves punishment. The Basterds take the place of Yahweh in the film, and the mark they cut into foreheads of Nazi soldiers is their form of justice. The mark of Cain was meant to deter other people from killing him; this way, he can experience the full extent of the curse placed on him by Yahweh. Likewise, the Swastika carved into the flesh of a Nazi soldier was meant to forever label him as a Nazi. So, when the soldier went back home after the war and put his uniform up, everyone would be able to recognize him for what he was. The leader of the Jewish-American militant group puts it this way: “We like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot 'em just like that. We're gonna give you a little something you can’t take off.” Thus, this mark serves a very similar purpose to the mark placed on Cain in Genesis; both serve to identify the bearer and are given to ensure that justice is served for the remainder of the bearer’s time on Earth. 

Heroes come in all manner of different packages, and every heroic story carries with it a unique set of circumstances and motivation. The other noteworthy allusion to the Bible present in this movie deals with a heroic event straight from the book of Judges. Shosanna Dreyfus is a Jewish girl who manages to escape the red hands that so easily subdued so many like her. She fled to Paris, France and became the owner of a cinema under an alias. With the image of her family’s blood-spattered bodies still fresh in her mind, she jumps at the first opportunity for revenge on the Nazi party. The Third Reich throws a grandiose movie premiere that sees the most high-ranking Nazi officials in attendance. The venue? None other than Shosanna Dreyfus’ cinema. Feeling the grasp of enemy suspicions slowly tightening around her, her carefully laid out plan to end the lives of the people attending the premiere soon becomes a plunge into martyrdom. Like Samson, who kills his captors in Judges by toppling the building from the inside out (Judges 16:30), Shosanna sets her beloved cinema on fire while still in the building with those whom she intends to kill. Therefore, she does more for her fellow Jews in death than she could ever accomplish in life. Among those who were in the cinema as it burned to the ground? Adolph Hitler himself. Shosanna sacrificed her own life in order to take the life of the man responsible for her people’s persecution. This event obviously echoes the story of Samson. 

These allusions were not made by accident, and I do not think it is a small matter that they were made to the book upon which the Jewish people base their beliefs. While Inglourious Basterds is not a foray into religion, it does retrospectively provide justice in a way that echoes Old Testament values. These allusions help probe into the age-old questions surrounding the God of the Jewish people and his apparent absence when they needed him most. 

Who exactly were the Rephaim?

From the Nephilim to Goliath, giants are mentioned frequently in biblical texts. Giants conquered and were conquered, killed and were killed, lived and died. The mention of the humongous beings is so matter-of-fact that a modern reader can almost be whisked away into a fantastical land. It’s easy to forget the possibility that these people could have actually existed. The Rephaim, in particular, is a group of apparent giants mentioned several times throughout the Bible, and they always seem to be in opposition to the people of Israel. Having Yahweh on your side would most definitely come in handy if you were across the battlefield from people at least twice your size. But who exactly were the Rephaim, and where did they come from? 

Perhaps it will be easiest to start with the last in this case. Og, the king of Bashan, is mentioned as the last “remnant of the Rephaim” by Moses. It is no wonder that Moses’ saw fit to recollect his military victory over Og in his last words to the people of Israel. According to Deuteronomy 3:11, “his bed was a bed of iron...nine cubits was its lenth, and four cubits its breadth.” Now, in modern measurements, this means that Og’s bed was about 13.5 feet long and over 6 feet wide. As I look over at my bed right now, only one thought is running through my mind: this guy was BIG. Not to mention that his bed was made of iron. I mean, what sort of person requires a bed made of extremely dense metal to hold them up? I don’t blame Moses for recounting this story; personally, I would have found a way to interject this tidbit of information at least 13 more times before I quit talking. 

The Rephaim came to be equated with the kingdom of Bashan. They, and several other people groups known to be great in stature, inhabited the region just east of the Jordan River. This means that the Israelites had to make it through a land literally filled with giants in order to reach the land promised to them by Yahweh. Deuteronomy 3:3-4 states that the Israelites captured 60 cities from the Rephaim in the region Argob. So, at one point, thousands of giants stood in the way of the Israelites’ inheritance.

Even though Moses was convinced Og was the last remaining Rephaim, other stories in the Bible place descendants of Rephaim in the land of Canaan itself. All the way up to David’s war against the Phillistines, there are accounts of the Rephaim:

“And after this there arose war with the Philistines at Gezer. Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Sippai, who was one of the descendants of the giants, and the Philistines were subdued. And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants. And when he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea, David's brother, struck him down. These were descended from the giants in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” (1 Chronicles 20:4-8)

So, apparently Moses had not quite rid the Earth of the giant Rephaim. One source in particular suggests that Moses’ claim could have been referring only to the Rephaim living in the land Argob. Since the Israelites destroyed all 60 cities in the region, Moses would have had good reason to consider the giants a problem of the past. 

There are many theories of where the Rephaim actually came from, but most theories fall back to one starting point. The Rephaim, along other groups of giants mention in the  Bible, most likely descended from the Nephilim found in the book of Genesis. Deuteronomy establishes a connection between the Anakim and the Rephaim, and in earlier parts of scripture, the Anakim were called descendants of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33). So, it makes sense that the Rephaim descended from the Nephilim found in Genesis. 

I suppose this is one way to imagine the Nephilim

In a nutshell, the Rephaim were huge, and they most likely descended from the infamous Nephilim found in the book of Genesis. The Israelites most likely got their money’s worth when fighting through an entire nation of these gargantuan men to reach the Promised Land. 

What sort of guy was Balaam, anyway?

I believe it is a safe assumption that everyone has known at least one person who just has a bad reputation in general. That person is always associated with bad things and bad places. Whether that reputation was justly garnered varies from case to case. While reading through Numbers, I found particular interest in Balaam, the prophet. I decided to do a little research to see if I could find out a little bit more about him, and by all accounts, this guy gets a pretty bad rap. However, I did not really see anything in Numbers that would have caused this bad reputation. Sure, he hit his donkey a few times, but who hasn’t done that, right? So, in lieu of this newfound “bad guy,” I decided to find out exactly what kind of guy he was. 

Balaam is introduced in Numbers 22-24. Balak, the king of Moab, request Balaam to come and curse the Israelites so he could defeat them. Balak even offered to pay the prophet. However, Balaam refuses these offers twice, but upon seeking God’s a will a third time, he heard the Lord say it was ok for him to go. The Lord’s only stipulation being found in Numbers 22:20; the Lord said to Balaam, “If the men  have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only do what I tell you.” So, Balaam went to the king of Moab. On his journey, he is met with an angel of the Lord blocking his path. At first, I thought Balaam would be forced to turn back, but the Lord gives him permission to continue while reiterating his stipulation. Once Balaam reaches his destination, Balak asks him to curse the Israelites on three separate occasions. Each time, Balaam seeks the voice of the Lord, and in turn, blessed the Israelites instead. As a last act, the prophet tells the Moabite king that Israel will soon overthrow him. Balak, furious, sends Balaam back to his own land. *SIDE NOTE* This is an extremely short summary of Balaam’s story, I recommend you read it for yourself as it is very interesting and suspenseful. 

From my reading of Balaam’s story, I could not possibly fathom how he has garnered such a bad reputation. 2 Peter 2:15-16, Jude 11, and Revelation 2:14 all attribute the prophet with some nasty qualities and group him with other despicable names. A particular passage that caught my eye was this: “Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness” (2 Peter 2:15-16 ESV). 

This suggests that Balaam was told not to journey to Balak, but in Numbers 22:35, the angel of the Lord clearly tells Balaam to continue with the men. Many sources label Balaam as soothsayer (a glorified fortune teller). However, I do not think this is a fair label. Balaam is blatantly seen seeking the voice of the Lord, and each time, he follows through with what he hears. Smith’s Bible Dictionary says “He yielded to the temptations of riches and honor which Balak set before him; but God’s anger was kindled at this manifestation of determined self-will, and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him.” Yet again, I think it is important to point out that Balaam was given full permission to go after the angel appeared to him. Further still, Jewish literature paints Balaam as “one of seven heathen prophets,” and as being absolutely intent on cursing the Israelites. However, Balaam consistently tells Balak that he will only speak what he hears from the Lord. 

Other sources blame Balaam for the sinfulness of the Israelites described in Numbers 25. The Israelites “took Moabite and Midianite women and worshipped the Moabite god, Baal-peor.” Once again, there is no direct information found in Numbers 25 to link Balaam to the incident. The only thing that immediately causes me to question the truth of this accusation is the similarities in name between Balaam and Baal of Peor. But, upon further research, I found nothing that would cause me to believe Balaam was serving Baal. 

In my opinion, there is not sufficient information found in the text to justify the awful reputation bestowed upon Balaam. Perhaps it was common knowledge in the days of Moses that Balaam was a bad guy who was manipulating the gift of prophecy. However, the account of this tale in Numbers does not offer any proof of this accusation. I can’t help but feel sorry for Balaam. With the information provided in Numbers, it seems that he was paying much more attention to the Lord than many of the Israelites. 

I found this video that is a good example of stories in the bible being taken out of context, or in this case, blatantly told the wrong way. 

What effect did consecration have on the firstborn sons of the Israelites?

Sibling rivalry is prevalent in the western world, and it has fueled many fights among families. Personally, I grew up with a brother who is three years older than me. In my eyes, he was always my parents’ favorite child, but in his eyes our parents treated me much better. I suppose that is what made the consecration of every firstborn son stand out to me. With all the emphasis placed on equality and fairness among siblings in our time, anything that sets a certain son apart from his siblings is certain to raise our proverbial eyebrows. So, what exactly did it mean for a son to be consecrated to Yahweh, and what sort of effect did it have on his life? I wonder if he always got better Christmas presents like my brother did..

Immediately following the exodus of his people from Egypt, Yahweh commands his people to “consecrate to me all the firstborn. Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast is mine” (Exodus 13:2). Now, as well versed as I am in ancient Hebrew culture, I thought it might be best to research what exactly consecration is. “Consecration is the solemn dedication to a special purpose or service.” Yahweh commanded all the people of Israel to dedicate their firstborn sons and animals to be used for his service. In my mind, that makes them pretty special. I mean, wouldn’t Yahweh want all of his people to be dedicated to him? However, he had a reason for specifically choosing the firstborn males for this person. Remember those devastating plagues he darn near destroyed Egypt with? Well, the very last once (the one that finally scared Pharaoh enough to let the Israelites leave) just so happened to kill every single firstborn Egyptian male. Yahweh’s justification for having each firstborn Israelite consecrated is to remind his people of what he did for them in Egypt. Think Hunger Games as a reminder of the uprising against Panem.. except with less death (maybe). 

Shortly after the Lord commands his people to consecrate the firstborn of man and animal, he delves a little more deeply into what this means:

You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the Lord’s. Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if yo will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem (Exodus 13:12-13).

So, the reader learns that the firstborn males of every clean animal are effectively sacrificed to the Lord, and the unclean animals are redeemed with the sacrifice of a lamb. But Yahweh wouldn’t be saying that the firstborn sons of the Israelites have to be redeemed in order to live, would he? Remember that Isaac was set to be sacrificed to the Lord by his father, Abraham, until he was redeemed by a ram found at the altar (Genesis 22:11-13). In effect, Yahweh has done the same thing with the Israelites. He has made it clear the firstborn sons are not to be withheld from him. However, once again, he gives the Israelites the option of redeeming their sons. Whether that redemption must be paid for with a sacrificial offering of a lamb or was already paid for by the deaths of the firstborn Egyptians is often speculated about, and there is even some evidence available to testify to a monetary redemption. A transaction had to be made in order for the Israelites to keep their eldest sons. Despite the cloudiness that surrounds the “price” of a firstborn son, it is clear that Yahweh is telling the people of Israel their sons belong to him, that he is the reason they are where they are. God’s people were immediately indebted to him the moment they were born. The consecration and subsequent redemption of firstborn males was meant to serve as a constant reminder of this fact (Exodus 13:16). This could also serve as a foreshadowing of the ultimate redemption to take place later, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The writer effectively uses a symbol as a reminder of past events and to foreshadow future events. 

Does this mean that the consecration of the firstborn son serves as nothing more than a reminder of Yahweh’s glory and the decimation of the Egyptians? Not necessarily. There are several instances in the text that point to eldest sons being awarded unique privileges (besides being the heir of the household). While Moses is seen as the leader of the Israelites, it was Aaron, Moses’ older brother and the firstborn Amram, who “had the distinctive privilege of being Moses’ close associate and also the one selected as the first high priest of God’s people”. In Exodus 28 and 29 the reader learns of the extensive consecration of Aaron to God, and thus he became the first high priest of Israel. The entire priesthood was given to the Levite tribe of Israel (of which Aaron was a descendant). Furthermore, only Aaron and his sons were given the role of priests, and only the firstborn sons of Aaron’s lineage could hold the position of high priest. Other Levites involved with the priesthood would serve underneath Aaron and his descendants. It’s obvious that Aaron was attributed a special role in the nation of God’s people, and I don’t think it is a coincidence that he was the eldest son of his family. Special privileges like these are bestowed upon the eldest sons of families in many instances throughout the old testament. To be first was to be the best in that particular culture, so it is natural that the Hebrew writers recorded occurrences like this. 

While the consecration and redemption of firstborn sons served mainly as a reminder of Yahweh’s power and ownership of Israel, I think that it is obvious certain perks were attached to the title. These perks may not have come in the form of better Christmas presents like my ooohhhh so wonderful older brother got, but being consecrated as the high priest of God’s people is nothing to roll your eyes at. So, in effect, being the firstborn son of a family in the nation of Israel definitely had an impact on a man’s life. For the most part, it was a very positive impact. Go figure.. the oldest always have it better, don’t they?

Why was Lot not considered the heir of Abraham before the birth of Ishmael and Isaac?

For several chapters, Abraham is seen obviously fretting over the fact that he does not have a son of his own to inherit his worldly possessions (not to mention everything Yahweh was promising through the covenant). In fact, he blatantly complains to Yahweh about the heir apparent: “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Genesis 15:2). It seems to me that Lot should have been the first in line to inherit Abraham’s household before any sons entered the picture. Since this obviously was not the case, I decided to find out why, and it did not take long to find an answer. Every single piece of information I came across noted that, no matter the circumstance, only sons could be the heir of a household. This probed a much more cloudy question: how was Eliezer of Damascus in the position to be Abraham’s heir since he is never mentioned as Abraham’s son?

There are many theories floating around this exact question, so I decided to probe into the ones that I found most plausible. One theory I found very interesting made the case that Eliezer could have been Abraham’s adopted son. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, it was a common practice in the culture of this time period for childless couples to adopt a son to bury and mourn them when they died, and in return for his services, he would be named the family’s heir (providing no natural-born son enters the picture, of course). These adopted sons were often former slaves, and since Abraham later says in Genesis 15:3 that Eliezer is a member of his household (meaning one of his possessions), the adopted slave theory would make sense in this situation. Also, interestingly enough, Abraham and Sarah were at advanced ages before Yahweh promised them a child of their own, so it makes sense that they could have been worried enough to adopt a member of the household as a sort of backup plan. In his essay, Dr. Robert Paulissian explains that these adopted sons sometimes came from complete strangers looking for a better life for their children; so, it is also plausible that Abraham adopted Eliezer while passing through Damascus on the road to Canaan. In fact, Abraham would have passed through Damascus at a fairly advanced age, and he could have already been worrying about the future of his household (perhaps enough to even adopt a son). 

Indeed, the thought of Abraham and Sarah adopting a son to take care of their affairs when they die makes sense, but there is another theory that sticks out as the most sensible, in my opinion. In her blog, Alice Linsley attributes Eliezer’s position as heir to him being conceived by one of Abraham’s concubines. This makes sense on many different levels. First of all, readers know that Abraham kept the company of concubines thanks to Genesis 25:5-6 when he gives gifts to the sons of his concubines. It was not uncommon in ancient Mesopotamia for the children of concubines to be treated as legal offspring, and in other cases, the children of concubines assumed the role of slave in the house to which they were born. As a result, the argument could be made that Eliezer was the oldest son of Abraham’s concubines; if this was the case, he would have been both heir and property to Abraham. To even further bolster the argument of Eliezer being the son of a concubine, it would explain why Abraham was not very happy that Eliezer would inherit his household if he died without a legitimate son. Concubines were treated as property; they did not have the social status to actually marry the ruler they served. Therefore, any sons born to them would subsequently bear a considerably lower social standing than any sons born to a legal wife. It would not have been ideal for a man of Abraham’s stature to leave his household in the name of someone of a lower social class.

These concubines were kept in a part of the household known as a harem (pictured above). As a general rule, more wealth = more concubines. It is obvious to readers that Abraham was a very wealthy man, and it is hard to imagine a room like the one pictured above not resulting in a few children, am I right?

Reading Abraham’s story today, it may seem logical that Abraham would leave his possessions to Lot, his beloved nephew. However, thanks to the social and legal practices of the time period, the reader gains insight to the tangled web of lineage weaved by Abraham. In my opinion, the writer used this tangled lineage as a tool to highlight the exactness of the protagonist’s plan. In order for events to unfold like they did, the protagonist had to untangle a gigantic ball of problematic circumstances.