#biblical analysis

[nyquil-guzzler-420]

‼️ SPOILERS ‼️

Y'all I just finished the bible- the ending was so camp I can't even- Justice for Jesus omg. I mean, I saw it coming from a mile away but it still wrapped everything up really nicely. The eight page long brutal gay sex scene between Judas Iscariot and Jesus of Nazareth was pretty jarring but still really well written! 9/10 would definitely recommend the book :)

[new-kit-on-the-block]

Me hanging out with Jesus because he was actually pretty chill

Me getting into a fist fight with God because that guy was a fucking asshole

[kitkat1128]

Moses and the Burning Bush Scene Movie VS Scripture Comparative Analysis (Part 1/2)

I will say right off the bat that I am not here to argue which one is better. As someone of the faith it’s obvious for me to say that the Scripture is better as God’s Word is inerrant however I do understand that the movie has a unique way of showing the character of God not in a perfect way but still in a respectable way. 

Some people may already have noticed these things to be said of the comparison or that some may not even agree with me. However, as somebody of the faith and somebody who is a very big fan of this movie, I do believe that firmly anybody of all backgrounds can truly appreciate this film for the respectable artistic and religious license that was taken into making this movie.

So, let’s get started!

I understand there are some cuts before Moses enters the cave but I want to start with the part when God speaks to Moses for the first time. As you watch the scene, everything that God says causes the wind to move. As He is the one who brings life in His breath of course, this was a nice consistency of His character and authority. Moses perceives God’s voice is mixed with the wind. More importantly, a whisper.

Most people of the faith describe God’s voice as a whisper, others call it a ‘little voice in their head,’ a conscience, a pit in your stomach, Jimney Cricket. Here, for POE (Prince of Egypt) Moses, God revealed Himself not only visually as the burning bush (which I will want to talk a little more about later) but as the wind. As it was Moses’ first encounter with God, the Lord was very gentle with him and talked to him lowly as a whisper. 

In the screenshot below, Moses replies back: “Here I am.” (So far, this conversation is faithful to the Scriptures). Then, I would like you to focus on how God’s voice changes. It’s still blending with the wind but not as a subtle whisper. It is now a low-talking voice. 

I believe that the reason that this happens is because POE Moses responds back. He acknowledges a presence, which makes him closer to the presence who is talking, although he is already physically. Responding back to your Creator is a sign of obedience, thus obedience creates closeness. Understandably, however, Moses does not know exactly who this voice is so he is naturally and rightfully scared. 

“Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:5 NKJV).

The movie understandably erases the first sentence but only because in the Bible, Moses' attention to the burning bush was something extraordinary that he couldn’t figure out, which had to do with the presence of the angel of the LORD in the bush. The movie doesn’t add this detail explicitly, but I have a hint that it might actually be true later. Moses, in the movie, was allowed to come close. He touched the fire with his staff, nothing happened. Then with his own hand, and nothing happened.

 So, why would the Lord in the Bible tell Moses to not come close? It was to show honor to the immediate presence of the LORD. As well as it was for him to take his shoes off. As some Asian countries recognize, once you enter someone’s home you take off your shoes. Well, now that Moses was in God’s ‘home’ he must also take off his shoes. Also, servants of that time would usually be barefoot. So, this was a sign of humility. Once again, a form of obedience. 

Either way, in the movie, God’s presence is still honored, but perhaps not completely. 

From here on, the conversation may have some of the same things said in the Bible, but in a different order with some things cut out or simplified. POE Moses asks God, “Who are You?” God responds with a slightly louder voice but still not a normal talking voice: “I AM THAT I AM.” (Hebrew: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, 'ehye 'ăšer 'ehye). This phrase is what could be the extended version of the name YHWH, Yahweh/Jehovah. The LORD’s personal name. As the Lord has no equal, He is who He is. That is why He answers this. In the Bible, God doesn’t reveal this until Exodus 3:14. Currently, the events happening are still in Exodus 3:5. Moses replies as most viewers would, “I don’t understand.” God’s voice now is at normal volume but still makes the ground ripple like water and wind blow gently at His every word. God replies with Exodus 3:6, Moreover, He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

So, here is my take on how much wonder and detail it came to the presence of God in this film. Even though the burning bush was of fire that doesn’t burn or exert heat of any kind, the light refracted off of it was not what a fire would do. The light refractions off the walls around the cave were like that of water. 

Then, it came to me. God’s voice in the wind, the light of a fire, the refraction of water, and the holiness of the ground. Earth, wind, fire, and air. Of course, God is not limited to just the 4 elements, but He did make them and much more. I just thought it was a really beautiful thing to show how God created the elements that we know and He makes them obey Him to His will. 

Let’s continue. In the Bible, Moses hides his face in fear. While in the movie, he immediately removes his shoes after a momentary state of shock and awe. Personally, I find the reaction to be hilarious because if I was told God was right in front of me I would have that same face too. However, as you take into account what Moses’ relationship with the Lord could have been, presumably he has been taught the ways of the Lord by his father-in-law Jethro, the high priest of Midian. He was content and living a peaceful life in the desert with his newfound faith and new life. He was taught the glory and honor that God has and demands. He knows of the great things that the Lord has done for His people, the holy works of the Lord. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. He knew of Joseph who brought Israel to Egypt in the first place and why. Now, he was literally talking with the One who did it all.

POE Moses asks, “What do You want with me?” I would personally find this face to be of fear and uncertainty. Possibly expecting to be yelled at or scolded. Perhaps he is thinking of his past as an Egyptian prince and what he has done. 

What really intrigued me though was that as soon as God mentions Egypt the light turns from a white-bluish tone to a more yellow-orange. Why would God do this exactly? Nowhere in the Bible was there any sort of ‘color-change’ like a mood rock. 😂 However, it was intended to set the tone of the conversation. 

And the Lord said: “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. (Exodus 3:7 NKVJ)

For us the viewer and especially for Moses, it brings us back to Egypt even though we are not physically there. Even during the opening scene, we know of those color schemes. It was a nice visual touch. 

I would also like to argue that the other voices from Moses’ past may not be what God is making him hear but what Moses himself is hearing in his own head. God may be speaking audibly and the other memories are thoughts or recalling of moments. Perhaps, both are audible or both are thoughts in his head. Either way, it works. 

How I felt about it as a little young’n was that this was all audible and God was replaying other memories in his life relating to the conversation. From Moses’ reaction to the sound of a whip, one could argue that he was reminded of how God’s people were treated and the day he fled from Egypt, thus from his own mind. To cater to us the viewer, we have to hear everything that may be influencing a character's movements. So perhaps the memory in Moses’ mind was echoed audibly. 

However, later in the conversation, God reveals to him something of the future: “Let my people go!” God can also tell us what the future holds. Prophetic messages. Some are audible to others, some are not. I will say that I love how this can be interpreted freely and left to interpretation. There are many ways that God speaks to us so I truly respect this decision. 

Another visual touch was how the animators made the burning bush almost resemble human movement despite it being a supernatural presence. 

When God speaks of “a land flowing with milk and honey,” you could almost hear His voice say it and show the significance of abundance, like arms physically stretching out. 

 (Part 2)

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Will The Chosen get into what Jesus could have thought about gay people? Did gay people approach Jesus asking Him to perform marriage ceremonies? Did people suffering from gender dysphoria ask Jesus to use His power to change their gender?

I doubt that the Chosen will tackle topics like that, since because of how much attention is given to conversations about those subjects, it's likely that any attempt to touch on it would take the show's focus (and what people take from the show) away from what it should be: the Gospel, and Yeshua Himself.

As to the historical aspect, it's pretty certain that no gay person would have asked Yeshua to perform a marriage ceremony. Homosexuality was a capital offense at the time (along with a host of other things, such as adultery--more on that later), so it would have been incredibly dangerous to admit to openly practicing it. Additionally, because ancient Jewish marriage was a much larger endeavor than marriage today, this would have been practically impossible: the first stage of the marriage ceremony began a year prior to the final feast and consummation, and the families of both parties were deeply involved. Basically, it would have taken much more than just Yeshua's approval to facilitate any marriage! (As an aside, many of the rich traditions in these ancient ceremonies are carried on in modern Jewish weddings. Some really cool stuff!)

That being said, what we do know is that Yeshua sought out the lowly, the outcasts, and those who suffered; it's quite possible, then, that He did meet someone struggling with their gender or sexuality and the way those things affected their life, and perhaps some of them did seek Him out for advice or help.

As to how He would have responded or what He thought about these people: while I won't speculate as to what He would have said or done, I know Yeshua always spoke and acted with the perfect balance of grace and truth. Probably the best example of his approach to difficult matters like this is found in John 8:2-11:

At daybreak, He appeared again in the Temple Court, where all the people gathered around Him, and He sat down to teach them. The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim [Pharisees] brought in a woman who had been caught committing adultery and made her stand in the center of the group. Then they said to him, “Rabbi, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in our Torah, Moshe commanded that such a woman be stoned to death. What do you say about it?” They said this to trap him, so that they might have ground for bringing charges against him; but Yeshua bent down and began writing in the dust with his finger. When they kept questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “The one of you who is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then he bent down and wrote in the dust again. On hearing this, they began to leave, one by one, the older ones first, until he was left alone, with the woman still there. Standing up, Yeshua said to her, “Where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” Yeshua said, “Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don’t sin any more.” - John 8:2-11

There's a lot we can learn from this passage, but most of all we are shown that our God is a loving and merciful God who cares for us when others, or even society as a whole, do not, and He will guide us to the right path to enable us to live a life honoring to Him. That love that He showed to the woman in the passage above is the same love He showed to everyone--and can show to us today! You and I can personally experience His love, and your own interaction with God will be much more valuable than anything I can hypothesize about :)

[ironwoman359]

This is probably not the best place to ask, but you’re also a Christian woman too. I was wondering what you thought about what the Bible says about women and how we must submit to husbands and some other stuff that has me (a potential ace) Christain woman kind of terrified. I would go to my church but social anxiety and my church is pretty conservative. I don’t want to think that we’re just second rate citizens with this. Um…that’s all. You don’t have to answer. Love your Tumblr. It’s one of the main ones I look at. Thanks for countless enjoyment!

— — —

(I’m responding on the submission and not the ask because the ask refused to post properly, I think it was too long for Tumblr’s fancy)

So I know you just asked for my thoughts and not a biblical interpretation lesson, but I didn’t spend 3 months writing an exegesis in college for me to never use those skills again, so buckle up for something of a long answer! (literally, this is almost 3 thousand words, so....sorry about that) *rubs hands together* The thing we need to take into consideration when reading the bible is Interpretation; any truly honest biblical scholar would tell you it is a mistake to take every word in the bible at its literal face value, ESPECIALLY since most of us are reading translations of scripture, not the original ancient hebrew/greek/aramaic/whatever else. So when interpreting scripture, we must consider these things:

Author (Who wrote it?)

Audience (Who was it written for?)

Context (What is written around it?)

So the verses you’re referencing are Ephesians 5:22-23, and in the NIV, they read as follows:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Isolated from author, audience, and context, they sound pretty sexist, don’t they? And male authority figures have used these verses as justification for the oppression of women for centuries, just as white men used the passage only a few verses away, Ephesians 6:5, as justification for the oppression and ownership of black people (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ). So let’s look at each of the points above in regards to Ephesians 5 and 6. First, who wrote it? Sometimes that can be a tricky question to answer, but in this case, it’s actually very easy (though there is still a bit of fuzziness/debate). Traditionally, Ephesians is one of the Apostle Paul’s letters to the early church. Specifically, to the body of believers in Ephesus, a Greek city that was a part of the Roman Empire at the time. According to two different study bibles I have, the letter of Ephesians was not addressing any particular problem that the church in Ephesus had (as was often the case with Paul’s letters), but was meant as an encouragement of faith and to increase his readers’ understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Christ. So now what about the Context? Why are the verses at the end of chapter 5 and beginning of chapter 6 so damning to our modern sensibilities? To answer that, we must look at the passages both in context to the verses around them, and in historical and cultural context (which is where 1 & 2 come into play again). Going back to the beginning of chapter 4, which is subtitled “Unity in the Body of Christ” (and remember, these subtitles and groupings were come up with LONG after they were written; we grouped sections together in a way we thought was most logical, which honestly for a book as short as Ephesians I would argue is barely even necessary), we can see that the letter from chapter 4 onward is about living a Holy and Godly life. Chapter 4 urges us to be “completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love” and warns us against living “as the Gentiles* do, in the futility of their thinking.” *Gentiles in this case meaning not neccesarily all non-Jews, but non-believers. AKA, we should live like Jesus lived, WWJD and all that jazz. If the Holy Spirit is in our hearts and our relationship with God is at the forefront of our lives, then that should show clearly in our actions. The very first verse of chapter 5 reads “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Chapters 5 and 6 especially are meant to act as a sort of guide for how a follower of Christ should act. There’s some stuff about obscenity, greed, sexual impurity, 5:15 sums it up pretty well basically, “Be very careful, then, how you live- not as unwise but as wise,” and then we reach the all important verse. Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” That’s a full sentence, just that there. Submit to one another. The following three sections are all subsections of this point: one for Wives submitting to Husbands, one for Children submitting to Parents, and one for Slaves submitting to Masters. But when looking at all of these, bad shepherds (ie, racist, sexist assholes) like to ignore that first bit, submit to one another, just as they like to ignore 5:28, which says “husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself;” or they ignore 6:4 which says “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord;” and they ignore 6:9, “Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” I do highly encourage you to read chapters 4, 5, and 6 in full, or at least start at 4:17, which is where Paul starts talking about “Living as Children of Light,” because it makes the intent of these apparently damning verses much more clear. Paul is stating that as Christians, we should treat everyone around us with honor and respect. According to one of my study bibles, the grammar of the original Greek suggests that the “submission” involved in all three sections is intended to be mutual submission, and is to come from a filling of the Holy Spirit. However, to be quite frank, Paul still Lived In A Society. A highly structured, patriarchal society, in which all members of a household (women, children, slaves) were expected to submit to the patriarchal head of that household. Male children until they reached adulthood, Slaves until they were freed (remember that, while by no means a purely morally good thing, the system of Roman Slavery was VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Atlantic Slave Trade that men later used this passage to justify existing), and women, unfortunately, for their whole lives. In another one of his letters, what is now the book of Galatians, Paul says in chapter 3 verse 27-29 that “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” This would have been radical at the time. Paul is promising all people of all genders and classes that, in the eyes of God, they are Equal, One, and all “sons,” meaning that they all have a right to the Inheritance of the Father (remember, at this time and in this culture women did not get any inheritance, and younger sons got significantly less than the firstborn. Paul assures the believers that they ALL are equal receivers of the Promises of God). But this equality that Paul speaks of was, in his eyes, a spiritual equality. He was not particularly concerned with overthrowing the earthly patriarchal society that subjugated women and lower classes, but rather instructed all members of that society who also were Believers to submit equally to one another out of love and respect, for they were all Equal in God’s eyes and would be Equal in heaven. This is why he both tells women to submit to and obey their husbands, but also husbands to love, cherish, and care for their wives. Children, obey your parents, but Fathers, don’t be dicks to your kids. Slaves should obey their masters (slavery was much more like a job that you weren’t allowed to quit until your boss said so) but Masters shouldn’t abuse their slaves. There are Societal Authorities, and Paul is telling his readers “look you can’t just go around not respecting those Authorities, but also hey, if you’re the Authority? That’s not a free pass to be an asshole.” As one of my study bibles puts it, “Paul counseled all believers to submit to one another by choice…this kind of mutual submission preserves order and harmony in the family while it increases love and respect among family members.” Paul is basically saying “it’s better for everyone if we all get along, and remember that Christ had a servant’s heart, and intentionally lowered himself for us, so we should do the same for each other.” And while a patriarchal class system is still super sucky for like 80% of the people involved, at least it’s a whole lot more bearable if everyone involved is being a Nice, Good Member of that Society. You mentioned being worried about being treated like a “second rate citizen.” The fact of the matter is that when this was written, women were second rate citizens; that is the context in which Paul is writing. And while I firmly believe that that was wrong, in every sense of the word, Paul wasn’t especially concerned about challenging that aspect of society. Priority one was “Spread the Gospel” and Priority two was “Don’t Get Killed while Spreading the Gospel.” Speaking of Paul, let’s talk a little more about Saul of Tarsus, shall we? In all literary analysis, it is important to examine the author’s beliefs and what biases may have made their way into the work. And while we believe the bible to be a Holy Book, it can and should be subject to the same rules of literary analysis as non-religious texts. First, you must ask yourself, what do you believe about the bible? There are four general ways of looking at it (which are called Theories of Inspiration).

The bible is the Divine Word of God, dictated word for word across centuries directly to its human authors by God Himself.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. While they are writing in their own words, this Inspiration means that the bible is Wholly Perfect with no errors.

The bible is the Divine Word of God, written across centuries by men Inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, because they are imperfect, fallible men, there is a possibility of errors in the text, both in the account of events that happened and in the teaching therein.

The bible is a collection of accounts written by men, with no Divine Intervention from God. It is not Holy, God’s Word, or Infallible.

I was raised to believe theory 2, but now I personally believe theory 3. And since I’m the author of this analysis, it is through the lens and bias of theory 3 that I now present my next point: Paul was sexist. I don’t think he was maliciously so (see again, Galatians 3, and the statement in Ephesians 5 that men should honor, cherish, and care for their wives), but he was a product of his time who had ingrained ideas about women and their place in society. This does not A) mean he was right about how women should act OR B) mean that we should toss out everything he had to say, about women or otherwise, because he was Problematic. Most biblical authors were, in fact, Problematic. Either by our modern standards, due to the time in which they lived, OR by the standards of their own time, because God liked to use Imperfect People (we’re all imperfect, but He liked particularly imperfect people) in His plans. David was an adulterer and murderer. Paul happily sent dozens of Christians to their deaths. Peter was hotheaded and super prejudiced against Gentiles and Samaritans. And most of them were, in one way or another, sexist, racist, and homophobic. These biases then found their way, intentionally or not, into their writings, and then other racist, sexist, homophobic men used those writings to justify systemic oppression of anyone who was not like them. Oppression that is not Christlike. So where does that leave us, in our 21st century application of scripture to our daily lives? We must examine how it was to be read at the time (which we have done), and then see what we can apply from it to our own lives. For myself in my marriage, I look again to the original grammar of Ephesians 5, that indicates the submission is to be mutual. I “submit” to my husband, and he “submits” to me. In other words, our relationship is built on Trust, Clear Communication, and Respect for one another. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I have to put aside my own desires for his sake, or he must set aside his own desires for my sake. It is a willingness to listen to one another, to approach conflicts with an open mind, to consider each other’s feelings before we speak. It is an equal, mutual submission based on love for each other, which doesn’t contradict what Paul says at all. God created all people to be equal. Humans are stupid sometimes and try to insist that we know better, try to create hierarchies and use the bible to try and justify that, but that doesn’t mean those humans are right. If your church is trying to make you feel less than because of your gender, or if you date somebody who pushes TradWife rhetoric and tries to use Ephesians as their justification, then you Run, and feel justified in doing so. (Especially if they also try to use Paul’s words to tell you why you owe your partner sex; see again, Paul was not only sexist but also lived in a patriarchal time when women were second class citizens that had very specific expectations placed on them AND he wasn’t even in a relationship himself, forgive me if I take his advice on my sex life with a grain of salt. Without doing this whole process again, a good modern reading of “don’t deprive one another” is “don’t use sex as a weapon in your relationship/withhold it for bs reasons when you’re mad at each other, etc. Like all other relationship things, sex (or a lack thereof) with your spouse should be based on mutual trust, communication, and love, not petty arguments or the standards of others.)

Trust me, as an ace woman myself, I totally get the fear. I’ve felt it myself, in the past. But God’s intentions for you are not that you become a doormat or servant to a man. If a romantic relationship (or any other partnership) is part of His plan for you, then the bible clearly states, both in Ephesians and elsewhere, that it should be one built on Love and Trust, not Subjugation and Servitude.

I hope this helped you, and again, sorry it was so long XD. Have an amazing day! <3

[theflikchic]

Look, I'm not saying that Hannibal killing Chilton was the right way to handle his abuse buuuut if you look at it biblically, all sin is the same so technically- technically- Chilton is just as bad as Hannibal and we can root for Hannibal no problem.

[thebaudrillardeanwife]

𝙸𝚝 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚞𝚎𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚋𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚔𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚜 𝚞𝚜 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚜𝚎𝚎𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚝𝚛𝚞𝚝𝚑 𝚘𝚏 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎. 𝙿𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚎 𝚒𝚝𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏 𝚋𝚕𝚒𝚗𝚍𝚜 𝚞𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚞𝚛 𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚎. 𝙿𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚎, 𝚊𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏𝚒𝚜𝚑𝚗𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚎𝚍𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚏𝚕𝚘𝚠𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚎 𝚛𝚘𝚘𝚝 𝚘𝚏 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕. 𝙴𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚒𝚏𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚊𝚖𝚎, 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚝𝚘𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚖𝚘𝚗 𝚑𝚞𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗; 𝚊 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚊𝚏𝚏𝚕𝚒𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚋𝚘𝚝𝚑 𝚊𝚗𝚐𝚎𝚕𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚠𝚊𝚝𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚊𝚕𝚒𝚔𝚎.

"𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚎𝚊𝚛 𝚘𝚏 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙻𝚘𝚛𝚍 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚝𝚎 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕: 𝚙𝚛𝚒𝚍𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚊𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚐𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚠𝚊𝚢, 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚠𝚊𝚛𝚍 𝚖𝚘𝚞𝚝𝚑, 𝚍𝚘 𝙸 𝚑𝚊𝚝𝚎." 𝙿𝚛𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚋𝚜 8:13.

𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚘𝚘𝚝 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚊𝚞𝚜𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕 𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚎 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚊 𝚜𝚎𝚕𝚏-𝚌𝚎𝚗𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚍 𝚟𝚒𝚎𝚠𝚙𝚘𝚒𝚗𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚝𝚊𝚔𝚎𝚜 𝚗𝚘 𝚘𝚗𝚎 𝚎𝚕𝚜𝚎 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚒𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗. 𝙸𝚝 𝚒𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚍𝚛𝚒𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚘 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚝𝚛𝚘𝚕, 𝚍𝚘𝚖𝚒𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚎, 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚞𝚖𝚎. 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚌𝚘𝚖𝚎𝚜 𝚏𝚛𝚘𝚖 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚝𝚞𝚗𝚗𝚎𝚕 𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚜𝚘 𝚗𝚊𝚛𝚛𝚘𝚠 𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚘 𝚘𝚗𝚕𝚢 𝚒𝚗𝚌𝚕𝚞𝚍𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚘𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚜. 𝚃𝚑𝚒𝚜 𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚜 𝚒𝚗𝚝𝚘 𝚚𝚞𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚗𝚊𝚝𝚞𝚛𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚕.

𝙹𝚘𝚜𝚎𝚙𝚑 𝙻𝚞𝚖𝚙𝚔𝚒𝚗 // 𝙵𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚎𝚗 𝙰𝚗𝚐𝚎𝚕𝚜, 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝚆𝚊𝚝𝚌𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜 𝚊𝚗𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝙾𝚛𝚒𝚐𝚒𝚗𝚜 𝙾𝚏 𝙴𝚟𝚒𝚕: 𝙰 𝙿𝚛𝚘𝚋𝚕𝚎𝚖 𝙾𝚏 𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (2𝚗𝚍 𝙴𝚍𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗 - 𝚁𝚎𝚟𝚒𝚜𝚎𝚍 & 𝙴𝚡𝚙𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚍) (2006)

[galadrieljones]

Re: bethyl... Are you working a ‘seven years for Rachel to get Leah instead’ angle? 👀 (Trying to figure out from your semi-cryptic message on your other blog)

 Anon!

When I saw the name I went into hyperdrive. I love all the Old Testament allusions in The Walking Dead. Sometimes they’re overt, sometimes they’re implied. This one feels like both. And now I’m just going to go into it:

Season 10 Spoilers Ahead

Reading Daryl and Beth Through a Biblical Lens: Who is Leah?

FIRST: Who is Jacob? Jacob and his brother Esau are important characters in the book of Genesis. I have thought of Daryl as a Jacob character before. Jacob was one of the three Biblical Patriarchs of the Israelites, born in Canaan. He’s a patriarch for his people at the beginning of a new world, a younger brother, “the good son,” cunning, brave, but more a lover, a traveler, not a fighter like his older brother Esau. He sleeps alone on the riverbanks, has visions, wrestles an angel all night long and never gives up. When Jacob’s mother, Rebecca, was pregnant, she asked God why she felt so unwell. God told her that she was carrying fraternal twins, and that they were fighting in the womb, and that they would fight forever. He told her that one day, “the elder would serve the younger.” Esau was born first, then Jacob, holding onto his heel. Jacob means “heeled” or “supplanted,” superseded, undermined. Like Daryl, living in the shadow of his brutish older brother who will hamper him for much of his young life, but who he is destined to overtake. 

Jacob and Esau. Merle, like Esau, is a big, mean brute. He is even described as being covered in red hair. Esau itself means “red” in Hebrew, echoed by Merle’s “redneck” past. By far the less intelligent, the less compassionate, a hawk where his younger brother is a dove. They are patriarchs for separate nations (in the Bible: the Israelites and the Edomites). In the Bible, Jacob flees Canaan after his brother threatens to kill him for usurping his birthright (which Esau “sold” to him, btw, for a simple bowl of stew). Similarly, Daryl must beat or outrun or escape his older brother’s abuse, sometimes directly, sometimes metaphorically, and eventually Merle is at his mercy and “serves” him in the end--re: “the elder will serve the younger”--by sacrificing his life to save Daryl and his people from the Governor.

Jacob’s Ladder. There are two episodes of TWD with big Jacob’s Ladder themes, in which Daryl is directly involved: “Chupacabra” (2.5) and “Chokepoint” (9.13). Jacob’s Ladder refers to a vision that Jacob has of a tall staircase leading up to heaven, with angels climbing up and falling down. The angels that fall represent the coming, various exiles of the Israelites, falling down to signal that the Jews will overcome; however, one angel, representative of the Edomites, or Esau’s descendants, gets very close to the top, signaling Jacob’s fear that he/his people will never be able to overcome his older brother’s power. God promises Jacob from the top of the ladder that Esau, too, will eventually fall. 

The season 2 episode “Chupacabra" shows Daryl falling down and then climbing up a steep hillside, injured, to a bright light at the top, while battling visions of his angry big brother, who he ultimately vanquishes. In “Chokepoint,” Daryl fights Beta (also a total David and Goliath allusion) at the top of a high tower, and he pushes Beta down a steep elevator shaft. Jacob and his people, the Israelites, like Daryl and his group, must overcome numerous trials and exiles, escaping their captors, again and again. 

Meanwhile it is interesting, though perhaps purely in my own self-interest to note that the little house on the way to Haran where Jacob slept and had his vision of the ladder, he named Bethel, aka “House of God.” 

Rachel vs. Leah. And then there are Jacob’s two wives: Rachel and Leah. This is where my Jacob comparison starts to come together on a new level. This Jacob character gets paired with a Leah? Like, no. In Genesis, after leaving Canaan, while on the run from Esau, Jacob goes to his uncle Laban’s farm in Haran. Laban has two daughters: Leah the eldest and Rachel the youngest. Rachel is described as a fair and beautiful shepherdess who Jacob falls in love with. Jacob promises Rachel’s father that for seven years he will work for him, and in return, he will be allowed to marry Rachel.

BUT

After seven years, on their wedding night, Jacob is tricked into marrying Leah instead. Leah is older and described as having sad or “soft” eyes. She appears to him in a veil with her true identity concealed. After the wedding, Jacob is obviously upset. He is in love with Rachel. He waited seven years to marry Rachel. But her father thought he should marry the older girl instead. Laban agrees to then let Jacob marry Rachel as well, if he works on his farm for seven more years. Jacob agrees. 

The story goes on. Leah has many children with Jacob, but Rachel struggles to conceive. Still and always, Jacob favors Rachel, his first love. Eventually, Rachel has a son with Jacob--Joseph, who, as Jacob’s favorite son, Jacob would later gift with the “technicolor dream coat.” Even after Rachel’s death, Jacob does not favor Leah. He takes up with Rachel’s handmaiden instead. 

In this story, Beth will represent the Rachel character: A fair and beautiful shepherdess, younger sister, and farmer’s daughter. Like Beth, Rachel is also characterized as outspoken and brave, having questioned God’s treatment of the Israelites, and questioning with such force, that God responded to say that basically, he was sorry, and they would eventually make it back to their homeland. Rachel is a classically maternal character who famously cries for and defends her children. 

Timeline. The timeline is suspicious. Seven years Jacob waited for Rachel, only to, as you put it “get Leah instead.” If we look at the approximate timeline for The Walking Dead, we can deduce that, at the time of season 10c, and our very convenient Leah spoilers, roughly 7-8 years have passed since the prison's fall and the subsequent events of “Still” and “Alone.” If we apply this to the Daryl/Jacob and Beth/Rachel lens, we can deduce that Daryl has waited for Beth for ~seven years and is now being served, in a surprise twist, someone named Leah. Someone we have never met before, who, up until now, has been “in disguise.” 

Biblical Allegory. It’s worth mentioning that The Walking Dead uses a lot of Biblical imagery and allegory in its storytelling. Whether it’s Rick as Abraham to Carl’s Isaac, or smaller examples such as with characters like Samuel (prophecy kid) or Aaron (Moses’s spokesman). There are many more. The trials and tribulations of Rick’s people can also be looked at through the same lens as the trials and tribulations of the Israelites in Exodus. I mean, think frogs and pestilence, contaminated rivers, diseased livestock, massive storms. Daryl is not a character in the comic books, and neither is Beth. Their characters and character arcs would make sense as extensions of the showrunners’ obvious love for Old Testament storytelling and symbolism. Jacob’s deception and love for Rachel is a good story, and tbh, it kind of makes sense here? 

Conclusion. This is a Biblical analysis of a character arc. I’m not trying to argue that this is foreshadowing Beth’s return. Please don’t quote me on that. BUT: it can be read that way, if you want to use this as meta-analysis of how the show sets patterns for its storytelling. I do recall hearing things about how the showrunners possibly “cancelled’ Bethyl at the last minute, due to backlash over the age difference. If they wanted to make her into Rachel instead, bring her back seven years later, so that she’s no longer nineteen and has lived a little in the world, without Daryl, and to double down on the Daryl/Jacob allusions, while also solving the “Beth is too young” conundrum, I think that would be.....interesting, to say the least. If it is intentional, and I’m not saying it is, but if it is, it’s possible it was planned farther in advance as well? Who knows.