Inherent Charater: Round Two. Or is that Rolaid Two? They're Round - Inherently.
But there is more….
There can always be a little more. What we think is inherent is often simply belief. We are great at following our constellational understandings. In fact, we are so expert at it, it’s hard for us to even see the skies and stars in some places of our constructs.
For instance, the bible is like any other series of writings - it is cultural and contains cultural perceptions about flora and fauna and other humans. Under that nitty gritty reality is a murky awareness of how creation was viewed. For instance, Milligan writes, “The bible never speaks well of dogs, unless you commend them for eating Jezebel (see 1 Kings 21:23)” [143].[1] While Milligan contends that God calls its creation good, he also contends that same God, in some kind of weird dissonance, uses that creation to represent evil [130, 132]. Personally, I don’t think you get it both ways. But Milligan does and that is always an easy work of convenience. It begs the question though - If God can call its creation very good and then decide to use wholesale parts of it to represent evil, at what point is God more or less misrepresenting its own creation? And what are the potential and real outcomes of speaking out of both sides of your deity - er- mouth? Species are species.
When using the bible and its words for symbol meaning, one does have to consider that these texts where written not hundreds of years ago, but thousands of years ago. Animals have been domesticated for centuries for human use - and human exploitation. So when Milligan quotes Isaiah a bit later in his writing -
“His watchers are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber (Isaiah 56:10)” [143].
- it’s rather important to think about the relationships with nature, and dogs in particular, that may be rather important contextually. I know this is prophecy, but this metaphor only works under principles of domestication of wild dogs/wolves - and their exploitation and use by humans for human purposes. Making things more complicated, the word “dog” is going to conjure up fido in many people’s minds. But the word “dog” here is going to conjure another image to the writer and early hearers of the text. Sometimes, “dog” means “wild dog.” But here, it appears to represent a dog much closer to home.
Humans have altered domesticated dogs so thoroughly for obedience and temperament it’s pretty amazing. In fact, domesticated dogs sleep alot. My little Sullivan sleeps a lot of the day - almost cat like. He isn’t stupid either but he’s no wolf. Comparing humans to a dumb dog is pretty pathetic on “god’s” part. The statement contextually is negative and meant to be offensive. His creation is good but then it’s dumb. Is that how it goes? Well it’s dumb when it doesn’t serve its master - now isn’t it? Isn’t that the picture? Domesticated dumb dogs not serving their master by watching and guarding [e.g. the NET Bible notes claim this represents prophets]? And yet wolves, where we get our canines from, where not made by that same God for that purpose - convenient - oh so convenient. Oh, and terribly human! Guard dogs are stupid - whose fault is that to even make the metaphor work? Why not just say humans are blind and dumb and asleep at the wheel. That IS perfectly human for our species.
Like all typing and projecting, Milligan’s interpretation method with animals as they point to humans is ulcer inducing. It’s definitely not my universe of existence. I can’t help but wonder how Milligan actually feels about creation and how he manages to get his apples in the right basket instead of confusing them with the oranges. I mean, they’re both sorta round. But what honestly bothers me is how creation is some kind of human play thing that we can just make up shit about in order to create weird lessons.
Take the dietary laws found in the bible. Things get real weird here when it comes to his animal chapter. He wonders why these animals were tagged by God to be unclean at the Jewish buffet table. He has an answer and it’s tied to how he sees the world - through a lens of domination; hierarchy and layers of authority. It’s imperial style. He writes:
“The answer is that although most creatures are covered with something —scales, feathers, hair, or even clothes in the case of people — catfish are as naked as the day there [sic] were born (or hatched, I should say). Catfish are uncovered, they were declared unclean under Moses’ Law. This reveals that we are also unclean when uncovered” [128].
Milligan runs right to Jesus here claiming that this man’s death renders humans “covered” [by blood by the way. For humans with a brain, that’s a text of terror) [128]. As Milligan works his way down, he continues to discuss this dietary/animal/human connection in the Law of Moses.
“There are quite a few more unclean creatures on God’s list of ‘Thou shalt not eat….,’ but usually it’s not difficult to see why He made each one. The individual characteristics of each one reflect some aspect of humanity. Creatures that Moses listed as unclean portray a host of evil things” [130].
He then cites Galatians 5:19-21. You know the lines - the works of the flesh list. Then he cites Colossians 3:5, 8-9. You know, another list of baddies. And while I’m at it, get a load of “its not difficult to see why…” simplification.
He keeps going stating, “God probably made a specific creature to represent each and every one of these unclean things. Or it is the other way around” [130]. He then shells out a metaphor list that uses animals to represent human behavior….[130]. Because clearly a loan shark and a shark have something in common -inherently?
But what do I do with the whole notion that God created animals to represent human evil in the dietary laws which are spiritual laws to Mr. Milligan? Wait. God sat up on his throne deciding that he’d make bald birds to convey that if you’re not covered by authority you’re unclean? Yet, they’re very good but they were made - literally - to represent evil. Are you experiencing some raven/crow symbology here - you know - confusion, chaos, and desolation? This is playing fast and loose with a sacred text if you ask me. It’s also so with nature - fast and loose. Humans are good at making up shit.
And let’s just briefly go back to the whole, all these animals are uncovered bit [128]. How can we be sure that Milligan’s interpretation is even remotely correct? Technically, all animals are covered by skin. To say that animals wear feathers, fur, or scales like clothes is nonsensical. Under all of that is a layer of skin to which such parts rest upon. We wear clothes but don’t need too in the right conditions.
I wrote in my early post that Milligan uses an allegorical method. I also wrote he was in some ancient company. Well good news, I found the article! Professor Rabbi Joshua Garroway wrote a piece titled The Earliest Explanation for Kosher on thetorah.com. Rabbi Garroway writes:
“And yet, when it comes to the dietary restrictions in Shemini the question of “why?” lingers. Indeed, Jewish curiosity over God’s apparently arbitrary distinctions between clean and unclean meats extends back at least as far as the 2nd century BCE, when Jewish scholars in Alexandria not only acknowledged the question, but did their best to answer it as well.”
In other words, the arbitrariness of the dietary rules and wondering about them goes back pretty far - you know - because the meaning is ClEaR and oBvIoUs like Mr. Milligan states. But what is rather interesting in the article, is the notation that it came into vogue among the Greeks to allegoricalize their sacred writings. By doing so, they could deal with the rather ugly nature of the gods. The Jews followed along.
“Faced with an apparently arbitrary God who inexplicably preferred cows to pigs, pigeons to eagles, and grasshoppers to caterpillars, Jews like the author of the Letter of Aristeas explained that the dietary distinctions, when construed allegorically, could be seen as divine instructions for upright living. Thus, the High Priest responds to the embassy’s questions with a protracted discourse on the symbolic meaning of the dietary laws in Shemini…” [Garroway thetorah.com].
Garroway summarizes the answer:
“God’s dietary laws are thus hardly arbitrary. Each is designed to point Jews toward “amendment of life for the sake of righteousness.” The distinctions among birds teach Jews to be self-sufficient and to refrain from meeting their own needs at the expense of others. Animals with cloven hooves remind Jews to discriminate between right and wrong in their conduct. The ruminants that chew their cud alert Jews to the importance of remembering, or “chewing on,” the mighty deeds of God. The ban on weasels, which conceive in their ears and deliver through their mouths (at least on the ancient Alexandrian reckoning), warns Jews against gossipers and stool pigeons [2] who threaten the well-being of others by giving voice to what they hear” [thetorah.com].
Now, why not put the High Priest’s interpretation in his book? Cause Milligan is spiritually soaring without a covering, you know. How about the early Christian text the Epistle of Barnabas? In fact, Milligan tracks the contours and edges of this epistle well - not in the meaning of the animals as far as a moral lesson, but that the allegorical method is a better way of understanding the passages. And for the record, I have no issue with observing animals and plants and learning from them. Not at all. But let’s not make up shit out of our navels.
For the last bit on my bob, also from thetorah.com website is another article about the dietary laws and what they are all about - because they are so clear to everyone. Written by Dr. Rabbi David M. Freidenreich the article titled Are Biblical Dietary Laws Meant to Keep Israelites Separate? makes an interesting statement at the end of the article. He writes:
“It seems more likely that the laws in Leviticus seek to ensure that Israelites eat meat in a God-like manner, consuming animals similar to those fit for sacrifice. To return to the text of Leviticus 20:24–25: “I, YHWH, am your God who has set you apart from other peoples, so you shall set apart the pure beast from the impure…” God alone is responsible for setting the People of Israel apart; the dietary laws are not understood as furthering that goal at all. Rather, adherence to these laws renders Israelites like God, since both make distinctions among different types of animals/peoples. Precisely by avoiding impure foods, moreover, Israelites maintain themselves in a state conducive to holiness” [thetorah.com].
Freidenreich summarizes:
“Read through the lens of the dietary laws, to “be holy” means to obey God’s instructions and to behave in a God-like manner. Keeping kosher, then, is a reminder to follow and emulate God” [thetorah.com].[3]
Yep, it’s entirely clear what those laws mean. InTeRpreTaTiOn NaTioN. Are we having fun yet? Note, Milligan’s interpretation is merely one out of several possibilities right down to the specifics. And that’s built into the theology and dictionary. Pick your cherries and have fun but make sure when you spiritually fly, you’ve got feathers on your head. In the meantime, I’m eating a Rolaid wearing an umbrella hat walking in the rain. I’m covered.
Notations
[1] Just for the record, his notion of “commending” dogs for eating Jezebel is pretty terrible. That is a text of terror that has been so distorted by this Christian variance it’s literally twisted serpent. Talk about merciless but then many people believe that the bible’s biography of Jezebel as being incredibly literal and accurate. Even so, as a reader of the story, I find the whole scene disturbing, not something to get up and pat some dogs on the head telling them they should be commended for eating a human corpse. Seriously. That’s straight up sick and well, merciless. Go figure. At any rate, the dogs referred to here are probably wild dogs - not your golden retriever mix laying at your feet chewing pig hide.
[2] Look, this author is doing the same thing. He’s linking gossipers and stool pigeons. WTF? What does a stool pigeon have to do with any of that!?
[3] In some ways, Milligan lines up well here - Holiness, purity, distinction, and who is sPeCiAl [utter bullshit in and of itself].
Bibliography
Garroway, Joshua. “The Earliest Explanation for Kosher.” TheTorah.Com, 2016, www.thetorah.com/article/the-earliest-explanation-for-kosher.
Milligan, Ira L. The Ultimate Guide to Understanding The Dreams You Dream: Biblical Keys for Hearing God’s Voice in The Night. Destiny Image, 2012.
NET Bible. Thomas Nelson, 2019.