{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44754/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44754","id":"gutenberg_44754","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44754","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Teaching & Education","Jewish religious education of children -- United States"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nText enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n  A MANUAL\n\n  FOR TEACHING\n\n  BIBLICAL HISTORY\n\n  BY\n\n  EUGENE KOHN\n\n  _Rabbi of Congregation Chizzuk Emunah_\n\n  _Baltimore, Md._\n\n  NEW YORK\n\n  THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA\n\n  5677--1917\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1917\n\n  BY\n\n  THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n  _To the memory of_\n\n  _SOLOMON SCHECHTER_\n\n   \u05d6\u05f4\u05e6\u05f4\u05dc\n\n  _this book is reverently inscribed_\n\n\n\n\nACKNOWLEDGEMENT\n\n\nThe author cannot permit this book to go to press without\nacknowledging his indebtedness to the Education Committee of the\nUnited Synagogue for their encouragement and assistance. He is\nespecially grateful to Dr. Julius H. Greenstone for his many helpful\nsuggestions and his careful reading of the text, both in manuscript\nand in proof. To Dr. Cyrus Adler and Professor Mordecai M. Kaplan\nhis thanks are also due in large measure for their aid in removing\ncrudities and improving the form and content of the work.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY NOTE\n\n\nJewish pedagogic literature is still in its infancy. While\ntext-books for children, more or less satisfactory, have been\nproduced by many authors during the past century, the effort to\nprovide the teacher with proper material for his guidance in\ninstruction is of very recent origin and the supply has thus far\nbeen very slight. The students in our several normal schools, and\nespecially the large army of teachers, scattered throughout the\ncountry, who have not had the advantage of a normal school training,\nare often obliged to resort to works by Christian authors for\ninformation and guidance. While these may supply them with the facts\nand with the most approved method of presentation, they cannot give\nthem the Jewish point of view which is so essential to the Jewish\nteacher. As the late Dr. Schechter once remarked, \"We cannot have\nour love letters written for us. We must write them ourselves, even\nat the risk of bad grammar.\" We must place in the hands of our\nteachers books which will inspire them with loyalty and devotion to\nJudaism, which will give them the proper attitude to the Bible and\nto Jewish tradition, and which will provide them with an adequate\nunderstanding of Jewish strivings and ideals.\n\nIt is with this object in view that the Committee on Education\nof the United Synagogue requested Rabbi Eugene Kohn to prepare\nthe work which is now given to the Jewish public. The author has\nsucceeded admirably in his undertaking and has produced a work\nwhich contains valuable aids to the earnest teacher who is anxious\nto become more proficient in his calling. This volume, which is the\nresult of considerable class-room experience, intimate knowledge\nof the sources of Jewish history, and arduous labor, gives correct\nand adequate data of the lessons treated, stimulating suggestions\nas to the manner of imparting each individual lesson to the average\nchild, and, what is perhaps of greatest importance, an exalted\nattitude that the teacher should assume towards his work. While\nthe responsibility of the work rests entirely upon the author, the\nCommittee feels gratified in being able to present, as its first\npublication, a work that so fully responds to an urgent need. It is\nhoped that this book will be followed by many other volumes which\nmay help in the better equipment of the Jewish teaching profession.\n\n  JULIUS H. GREENSTONE, Chairman,\n  _Committee on Education of the\n  United Synagogue of America_.\n\n  PHILADELPHIA, June 11, 1917.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                       PAGE\n\n  Introduction                                           13\n\n\n  PART I\n\n  FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF JOSEPH\n\n  CHAPTER\n\n  I. Creation                                            35\n\n  II. Adam and Eve                                       38\n\n  III. Cain and Abel                                     41\n\n  IV. Noah                                               44\n\n  V. The Tower of Babel                                  47\n\n  VI. The Choice of Abram and the Choice of Canaan       49\n\n  VII. Beginning of Abram's Greatness                    53\n\n  VIII. Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael                   56\n\n  IX. Abraham Entertains the Angels                      62\n\n  X. The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah               67\n\n  XI. The Divorce of Hagar                               70\n\n  XII. The Sacrifice of Isaac                            73\n\n  XIII. The Death of Sarah and the Marriage of\n        Isaac and Rebekah                                78\n\n  XIV. The Sale of the Birthright                        80\n\n  XV. Jacob Secures the Blessing                         89\n\n  XVI. Jacob's Dream                                     93\n\n  XVII. Jacob in Aramea                                  96\n\n  XVIII. Jacob Returns to Canaan                         99\n\n  XIX. Joseph Sold into Slavery                         104\n\n  XX. From Slave to Viceroy                             109\n\n  XXI. Joseph Meets His Brothers                        113\n\n  XXII. Joseph Reveals Himself to His Brothers          117\n\n  XXIII. The Death of Jacob and of Joseph               120\n\n\n  PART II\n\n  ISRAEL UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MOSES\n\n  CHAPTER                                              PAGE\n\n  I. The Birth of Moses                                 127\n\n  II. Moses, the Friend of the Weak and the Oppressed   133\n\n  III. God Sends Moses to Save His People               135\n\n  IV. Moses' First Appearance before Pharaoh            140\n\n  V. The Plagues                                        145\n\n  VI. The Exodus                                        149\n\n  VII. Israel at the Red Sea                            156\n\n  VIII. From the Red Sea to Sinai                       160\n\n  IX. The Revelation                                    164\n\n  X. The Golden Calf                                    173\n\n  XI. The Tabernacle and its Service                    183\n\n  XII. Trials of Moses and Israel in the Wilderness     190\n\n  XIII. The Spies                                       197\n\n  XIV. More Trials of Moses                             201\n\n  XV. Israel Arrives at the Border of the Promised\n        Land                                            209\n\n  XVI. The Death of Moses                               216\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n=Purpose of Manual.= In recent years some attention has been\ngiven to the improvement of Jewish educational method so far as\ninstruction in the Hebrew language is concerned, but the teaching\nof Biblical history, although it holds an important place in the\ncurricula of our religious schools, has received relatively little\nattention from our educators, at least from those of orthodox and\nconservative tendencies. From the reform point of view some recent\npublications, though exhibiting the faults which all early efforts\nin any direction necessarily show, do mark a decided pedagogic\nadvance on the older unmethodical way in which the subject was\ntaught. But from the point of view of traditional Judaism they are\ninadequate, however helpful some of their pedagogic suggestions\nmay be, since they are guided by a different ideal. This manual\nattempts to assist the teacher of Biblical history from the point\nof view of Traditional Judaism. For whoever considers from this\npoint of view the way in which Biblical history is taught must come\nto the conclusion that not only are we not realizing to the full\nthe educational values which the study of Biblical history affords,\nbut we are often giving our children very false notions of the\nBible characters and of the lessons which the story of their lives\nis intended to teach Israel. To develop a good course of study in\nBiblical history cannot be the work of one man nor can it be done\nat one time. It is hoped however that the suggestions contained in\nthis book may assist the earnest teacher to make his instruction\nmore fruitful of good results for Judaism.\n\n=Three factors determining method of instruction.= Every discussion\nof pedagogic method as applied to a particular branch of study must\ntake three factors into consideration: the aim of instruction, the\nsubject to be taught, and the child--his mode of thought, interests\nand capacity.\n\nTHE AIM. The first thing that we must bear in mind is that the aim\nof all Jewish education must be a Jewish life; that the aim of each\nbranch of Jewish study must be formulated not primarily in terms\nof information to be conveyed, but of Jewish habits of thought and\naction to be cultivated. It follows that Biblical history as taught\nby a Jew who believes in the authority of the Torah and the mitzvoth\nover our lives must be very different from the same subject as\ntaught by one to whom Judaism is merely a number of moral maxims\nand the dogma of the unity. This book, attempting as it does to\ntreat the problem from the point of view of traditional Judaism,\nconsiders that the main object of instruction in Biblical history is\nto inspire the child with an appreciation of the religious ideals\nthat have moulded Israel's life in the past, with an understanding\nof how these same ideals express themselves in the religious\ninstitutions of the present day, and with the desire to further the\nhistoric aims of Israel's existence through identification with the\ninstitutional life of Israel, that is through the observance of the\nmitzvoth, affiliation with the synagogue, etc. Particularly must\nwe create in the child the sense of his personal identity with his\npeople, for this is the lever by which the events of the Biblical\nnarrative can move the Jew to active interest in Judaism. He must\nfeel that God's choice of Israel means that God has chosen him to\nlive a certain life, the life of the Torah, and that if he fails\nto live this life, he sins against God and betrays his people. He\nshould feel proud of the heroes of his nation and inspired with a\nsense of the obligations that his noble descent imposes. He must be\nmade to discover the spiritual kinship that links him with the rest\nof Israel in the past, present and future. Unless we can accomplish\nthis we have not succeeded in our teaching of Biblical history.\n\n=Wrong and right conception of aim illustrated.= A lack of\nappreciation of these aims has often led to the treatment of the\nBiblical narrative as if it were merely a series of moral stories\nor, at any rate, of stories into which a moral can be read.\nAccording to this method the connection of the Jewish people today\nwith the people of the Bible is almost wholly ignored and there is\nno appreciable difference in the way the events of the Biblical\nnarrative are taught and, let us say, the incidents of some highly\nmoral fairy tale or folk-lore of other peoples. To give an example I\nquote the following summary of a lesson on \"Moses' Return to Egypt\":\n\n\"So then we can learn these two noble things from our lesson;\nmodesty adorns everybody even the greatest people, yes very often\nthe greatest people are the most modest. And further, when we have\nbegun to do something, let us do it with all our might and stick\nto it till it is finished, no matter what it is, whether a school\nlesson or setting a people free; whatever is worth doing at all is\nworth doing well.\"\n\nOne could imagine the same moral attached to the story of George\nWashington or of Cincinnatus and brought home as effectively by it.\nThe difference between the right and the wrong method of treating\nthe Biblical narrative from the point of view of the aim of such\ninstruction can be seen if we contrast the above with the simple\nsummary of the same lesson in the Passover Haggadah:\n\n\"Slaves were we unto Pharaoh in Egypt and the Lord our God brought\nus forth thence with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm. And\nif the Holy One, Blessed be He, had not brought forth our fathers\nfrom Egypt behold we and our children and our children's children\nmight still be bondmen to Pharaoh in Egypt.\" And again: \"In every\ngeneration one is obliged to regard himself as if he in person had\ncome forth from Egypt, as it is said, 'And thou shalt tell thy son\nin that day saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me\nwhen I went forth from Egypt.' Not our fathers alone did the Holy\nOne, Blessed be He, redeem but us also did He redeem with them, as\nit is said, 'And us did He bring forth thence in order to bring us\nhither to give us the land which He had sworn to our fathers.'\"\n\nAccording to the method of the former quotation Biblical history is\nno more related to the child than the story of the Iliad, according\nto the latter it is his own history, the study of which helps him to\nself knowledge, to the knowledge of his Jewish self, the knowledge\nof the ties that bind him to his fellow Jews and the Jewish people\nto its God. Much more might be said of the effect upon the method\nof instruction of a clear conception of the aim of instruction in\nBiblical history when thus conceived in terms of Jewish life, but a\nstudy of the lessons given in this book will suffice to explain this\nwithout the need of further amplification, so we may pass to the\nconsideration of the subject-matter to be taught as a determining\nfactor in the method of instruction.\n\n=The subject-matter: Biblical history.= I have throughout referred\nto the subject-matter under the name not of Jewish history but of\nBiblical history and I have done so advisedly. For the term Jewish\nhistory does not commit one to that interpretation of the early\nhistory of our people which is to be found in the Bible. From the\nJewish point of view the Bible, in its narrative portions as well\nas in its laws, is Torah, that is authoritative teaching. It does\nnot merely recall the early events of Jewish history but it takes\na distinct attitude to these events, seeing in them the revelation\nof a divine purpose; it not only tells the deeds of Biblical\nheroes but it passes judgment upon them, here approving and there\ndisapproving; and it is precisely this attitude to Jewish history,\nthis interpretation of the significance of historic events, which\nmust be made an influence in the life of the child. If we were\nmerely teaching Jewish history as such and looked upon the Bible\nmerely as the source book of this history we might tell the story of\nthe Exodus somewhat in this fashion:\n\n\"The children of Israel who had at the beginning of their sojourn in\nEgypt been well treated by the Egyptian rulers, owing to a change\nof dynasty were subjected to oppression and forced to do servile\nlabor for the Pharaohs. They took advantage however of a series of\ncalamities that visited Egypt, which their leaders Moses and Aaron\ninterpreted to the Egyptians as signs of the divine wrath incurred\nby her because of her oppression of the Israelites, and so left\nEgypt in a body.\"\n\nThe above account is Jewish history but it is not Biblical history\nfor it has nothing to say about the significance of these events\nas the Bible regards them. It does not tell us that Moses was sent\nby God, it does not know anything of the covenant with Abraham of\nwhich these events are the fulfillment, it does not therefore see\nin the Exodus one link in a chain of events having its beginning in\nthe election of Abraham and its consummation in the revelation at\nSinai. In the Biblical narrative what is most conspicuous is the\n_E\u1e93ba' Elohim_, \"the finger of God,\" in the merely historic account\nthis may altogether be omitted.\n\n=Must give Biblical moral to Jewish history.= Very few teachers\nin our Jewish schools, if any, would make the mistake of teaching\nthe events narrated in the Bible merely as cold facts without any\nattempt at giving them religious significance, though frequent\nefforts at rationalization tend in this direction. For the most\npart, the aim in teaching the early history of our people is felt to\nbe a religious one and to call for a religious interpretation of the\nevents recorded. We are not loath to attach a moral to the stories\nwe tell our children, but where we fail is that we imagine any moral\nwhich we can read into the story is satisfactory. We have already\nshown how the consideration of the aim of instruction in Biblical\nhistory, from the point of view of traditional Judaism, opposes this\nmethod and limits the moral which should be taught in connection\nwith any given story, but the consideration of the subject-matter\nto be taught limits it still further. We must not only give a\nJewish moral to each episode in the Biblical narrative but we must\ngive the child the specific moral that the Bible itself attaches\nto that episode. If we take our Bible seriously, if we regard its\ninterpretation of the events of our history as essentially true,\nas indeed part of the Torah, a divine revelation, then it becomes\nour duty to give this interpretation of events and not another to\nour children. We sometimes excuse to ourselves the perversion of\nthe Biblical moral on the ground that because children are children\nthey frequently cannot grasp what is really the Biblical lesson. If\nin any given instance this is the case, it is better not to teach\nthat story at all to the child than to falsify it. But usually the\nideas of the Bible can be brought home to the child if we but take\nthe trouble to translate them into the language of childhood and\nillustrate them out of the child's own experience. It is largely\ndue to indolence on the part of the teacher that we so frequently\nsin against the Biblical sense of a story. I have heard the story\nof Abraham's divorce of Hagar told as if it were a mere family\nsquabble in which Sarah, by shrewish persistence finally prevails\nupon the meek and submissive Abraham somewhat reluctantly to send\naway Hagar, who had aroused her jealousy. Abraham was made a rather\ndoubtful hero who represented the virtue of loving peace--peace\nat any price as the narrative showed--and Sarah was regarded as\nacting in a mean and ungodly capacity. Had that teacher read her\nBible carefully and intelligently before coming to class she could\nnot have been guilty of such grotesque distortion of the Biblical\nstory, by which it is made not only trivial but ludicrous. She would\nthen have realized that Ishmael had to be separated from Isaac for\nthe same reason that Lot had to be separated from Abraham and Esau\nfrom Jacob, because they were not of the seed from which Israel was\ndestined to spring; that even before the birth of Ishmael we have\nthe prophecy told to Hagar, \"And he shall be a wild ass of a man;\nhis hand shall be against every man and every man's hand against\nhim\" (Genesis 16. 12). She would have observed that in the words\nof the Rabbis \"Abraham was subordinate to Sarah in prophecy\", that\njust as Isaac showed a mistaken preference for Esau so Abraham when\nthe birth of Isaac is predicted to him pleaded, \"Oh that Ishmael\nmight live before thee!\", and that the Bible recognizes the superior\nprophetic insight of Sarah by telling us that God commanded Abraham\nexplicitly, \"Let it not be grievous in thy eyes because of the\nlad and because of thy bond-woman; in all that Sarah may say unto\nthee, hearken to her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.\"\nSurely, though the story undoubtedly presents difficulties of a\npedagogic nature, it is not impossible to teach a child that God\nforesaw that Ishmael would be a \"_pere adam_\" (a wild ass of a man),\nthat he did not wish the chosen people, who were to inherit the\npromised land, to be possessed of such traits, and that therefore\nIshmael had to be sent away so that Isaac and his descendants might\nbecome the great people he had promised Abraham they would become.\nIn this way the Bible speaks for itself and tells a story that is\nquite as intelligible to the child as the one that the teacher I\nhave mentioned told, quite as intelligible and infinitely more\nedifying. I have given this instance at some length because it seems\nto me typical of the mischief that can be done by reading into the\nBiblical narrative any moral that may come to hand instead of the\nmoral that the Bible itself intended.\n\n=Need of Bible study for teacher.= This manual will endeavor in each\nlesson to point out to the best of its author's understanding what\nthe Biblical moral of the lesson is. But, as interpretations are\nalways subject to differences of opinion, a study of the suggestions\ncontained in its chapters cannot relieve the teacher of the\nresponsibility of a careful independent study, before entering the\nclass-room, of the Biblical passages whose story he wishes to teach.\n\n=The child as determining method.= And after he has mastered for\nhimself the meaning of the Biblical narrative, he must study how\nto impart this to the child in a way that shall make it not only\ncomprehensible but interesting, and all this without sacrifice\nof the aim of instruction. An adequate treatment of method in\nteaching Biblical history from the point of view of the interests\nand capacities of the Jewish child is at present impossible. We\nneed years of study and experimentation in this direction before\nwe can do it complete justice, but a few universally recognized\npedagogic principles may briefly be considered here in their bearing\nupon our subject. We have spoken of the need of effort on the part\nof the teacher to make the lesson comprehensible and interesting,\nand we shall therefore give some attention to two questions: (1)\nHow can the lesson be made comprehensible? (2) How can it be made\ninteresting? We shall treat the questions separately for the sake\nof convenience, though, as a matter of fact, they are inseparable;\nfor neither can a child be expected to interest himself in what\nhe cannot understand nor can he be made to understand anything\nthat involves the least difficulty without giving that sustained\nattention which only interest can elicit from him.\n\n=How to make lesson comprehensible. Proceed from known to unknown.=\nThe most important rule to bear in mind in order to make the\nteaching comprehensible is the familiar truism that one must\nproceed from the known to the unknown and keep constantly defining\nthe unknown in terms of what is already known to the child. As is\nthe case with most truisms, the truth of this statement is more\nfrequently recognized than applied. Take for instance the very first\nsentence in one of the Biblical histories intended for the use of\nchildren. It reads, \"In the beginning God created the heaven and\nthe earth, that is the whole visible world.\" Was there ever a human\nbeing who did not know what heaven and earth meant and yet knew what\nthe whole visible world meant? Contrast with this the following from\nanother text-book:\n\n\"Once a long, long time ago there was no one living on this earth\nthat is now so full of people.\n\n\"There were no living things at all here: no cattle, no wild beasts,\nno birds, no butterflies or insects of any kind and no fishes in the\nsea.\n\n\"Before that there were no green growing things here; no grass, no\ntrees, no flowers.\n\n\"In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.\n\n\"In the beginning was a time so long ago that no one knows when it\nwas.\"\n\nHow much better is this way of beginning the story of creation from\nwhat the child has experienced of created objects than to begin with\nnon existence and chaos. Few of us realize how many terms that are\ncommonplaces with us mean nothing to the child. Particularly is this\ntrue of terms used in the Bible and descriptive of things familiar\nin the primitive orient but little known in the modern occident,\nsuch as altar, sacrifice, tabernacle, caravan, to name but a few.\n\n=Avoid formal definition.= But at this point a word of caution is\nnecessary against a too pedantic application of this principle of\ndefining the terms that are used in the child's instruction. For\nexample one book of Bible stories for young children prefixes to\nthe story of creation a vocabulary which includes explanations of\nsuch words as ground, dark, light, sky, under, above, good, rest.\nBut it must be apparent that a child who cannot without previous\nexplanations understand such simple words as these is not in a\nposition to profit by instruction in Biblical history at all. It\nis possible so to overload a story with definitions that the whole\nthread of the narrative is lost. We must be cautious lest our pupils\nfail to see the forest by very reason of the trees. Ample allowance\nmust be made for the constructive imagination of the child, which\nbuilds up its own definitions out of the material of the narrative\nitself. Children have always had an understanding of fairy tales\nwithout ever having had the terms fairy, witch, king and princess\ndefined for them. When you tell a child that the king sat on a high\nthrone with his crown on his head, his sceptre in his hand, while\nall the people bowed down to him, the child, though he has never\nseen a throne, will recognize that it is something on which kings\nsit, that a crown is something that a king wears on his head, a\nsceptre something that a king holds in his hand, and that a king is\na man who is distinguished from other men and to whom they bow,\na very good working definition of a king which would make quite\nunnecessary any elaborate attempt to define for a child the concept\nof royalty. In fact, formal definition should be avoided wherever\npossible, and the skilful teacher will know how to make a story\ndefine its own terms in the same way as the sentence that we just\ngave as an instance defined for the child the four unknown terms:\nking, throne, crown, and sceptre. Indeed the most important idea of\nall, that we have to give to the child cannot be defined otherwise\neven to ourselves, namely the idea of God. The general rule to be\nfollowed may be laid down in these words: Never define for the child\nany term that the story itself can be made to define but do define\nevery necessary term that the story itself cannot be made to define.\nIt is worth while noting in this connection that the best definition\nfor a concrete object is the object itself or a picture of it.\n\n=How to make the lesson interesting. Oral instruction preferable.=\nSo much for the question how to make the lesson comprehensible to\nthe child. As has already been said, this in itself goes a great\nway toward answering as well our second question, how to make it\ninteresting, but other considerations must also be taken into\naccount. The art of teaching history is in great part the art of\nstory telling. Children love stories and particularly true stories\nif they are well told, but this love of a child for a good story is\nlimited, especially in earlier years, to a story that is told. The\nmere technical difficulties of reading, the physical inconvenience\nof the posture demanded, the absence of that commentary which voice\nand gesture supply to the story, the impossibility of asking\na book questions, and a number of other similar considerations\nmake it undesirable that the first acquaintance of a child with a\nlesson shall come from a text-book. Text-books have their uses,\nparticularly in the higher grades, for purposes of review, to aid\nthe memory in retaining what has already been taught by word of\nmouth, but the practice that obtains in some schools of expecting\nthe child to learn the lesson from the book before he comes to class\nis bad and should be avoided.\n\n=Some suggestions as to story telling.= If then the first\npresentation of a lesson must be given orally by the teacher, it\nfollows that the teacher has to perfect himself in the art of story\ntelling. Like all other arts, the art of story telling cannot be\nimparted by rule and particularly not within the small scope of\nthis introduction. A few suggestions however may be helpful. Lewis\nCarrol, whose Alice in Wonderland shows a rare insight into the\nchildish mind, makes his Alice express a preference for books with\nplenty of illustrations and conversation. There are two hints here\nthat are of value to the teacher of Biblical history, the first\nis to use pictures to illustrate a story and the second always to\nprefer direct discourse to indirect. To take up the second of these\nsuggestions first, compare the following accounts of the same event\nand ask yourself which appeals more to you:\n\n     1. Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that\n     stood by him and he ordered every man to leave him. And there\n     stood no man with him while Joseph made himself known to his\n     brethren. And he wept aloud and the Egyptians heard and the\n     house of Pharaoh heard. And Joseph told his brethren who he was\n     and asked whether his father was yet alive. And his brethren\n     could not answer him, for they were affrighted at his presence.\n     Joseph told them to come near, and they came near, and he told\n     them that he was Joseph whom they had sold into Egypt and that\n     they should not be grieved nor angry with themselves for having\n     sold him thither, for it was in order to preserve life that God\n     had sent him before them. For the famine had been in the land\n     for two years and there yet remained five years during which\n     there would be neither plowing nor harvest, and so God had sent\n     him before them to give them a remnant on the earth and to keep\n     them alive for a great deliverance.\n\n     2. Then could Joseph not refrain himself before all them that\n     stood by him; and he cried, \"Cause every man to go out from\n     me.\" And there stood no man with him when Joseph made himself\n     known unto his brethren. And he wept aloud, and the Egyptians\n     heard and the house of Pharaoh heard. And Joseph said unto\n     his brethren, \"I am Joseph; doth my father yet live?\" And his\n     brethren could not answer him for they were affrighted at his\n     presence. And Joseph said unto his brethren, \"Come near to me,\n     I pray you.\" And they came near. And he said: \"I am Joseph your\n     brother whom ye sold into Egypt. And now be not grieved, nor\n     angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send\n     me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the\n     famine been in the land; and there are yet five years in which\n     there shall be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me\n     before you to give you a remnant on the earth and to save you\n     alive for a great deliverance.\"\n\nThe reader will at once recognize in the second citation the exact\nlanguage of the Bible. The first is the same passage turned into\nindirect discourse with no other change in its wording, yet how much\nit loses in force even for us adults and even in print; for children\nand in actual narration the story would lose even more.\n\n=The advantage of using illustrations.= As for the advantage\nof using illustrations whether in the form of pictures that\nare distributed and passed around the class or in the form of\nstereoptican views, we have already suggested one advantage in\nthat they help define for the child the meaning of some of the\nconcrete terms not yet in his vocabulary, but they perform a still\nmore important function in helping him to visualize the narrative.\nFor what we see seems always a more intimate part of our experience\nthan what we have merely heard. When Job wants to express the deeper\nintimacy of his new knowledge of God after God had appeared to him\nhe declares, \"I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear, but now\nmine eye seeth Thee.\" (Job 42. 5.)\n\n=When to use illustrations and what illustrations to use.= Though\nthe use of illustrations, particularly of stereoptican views, which\nhave the advantage of focusing the attention of the class on one\nthing, are a decided help, they should be used only in reviewing the\nlesson. The reasons for this are: 1. that the picture distracts the\nattention of the class from what the teacher is saying, 2. that it\nprevents the smooth flow of narrative by the necessity of explaining\ndetails of the picture that are often irrelevant, 3. that the\ninterest in the dramatic dialogue of the characters which reveals\ntheir motives and, in most cases, the actual moral of the story is\nsacrificed to the interest in picturesque details of dress, scenery,\netc., 4. that the teacher is at the mercy of the artist's conception\nof the Biblical narrative which rarely does it justice from a\nJewish or from an artistic point of view, and often does violence\nto the nobler conception of the story that the unaided imagination,\nstimulated by the teacher's narrative, would have constructed.\nPictures that represent God in human form should of course not be\nallowed in a Jewish school. Nor should the school use such pictures\nas represent anything of a mystical character in images so definite\nand familiar that they dispel the whole mystical atmosphere. When,\nfor instance, the revelation on Mount Sinai is represented by two\ntablets of stone falling from heaven into the waiting hands of\nMoses, as in one familiar picture, it is hardly likely to instil\nthe highest form of reverence. Or when, as in another picture, the\nascension of Elijah is represented by a chariot drawn by horses of\na brilliant red, meant to suggest fire but too definite in outline\nto permit of such suggestion, the child will in all probability\nmerely be amused at the peculiar color of the horses and the picture\nwill not have illustrated the story for him at all. It is therefore\napparent that the teacher must exercise some sort of censorship over\nthe illustrations used in teaching.\n\n=Self activity of child.= We have several times referred to the\nactivity of the child's own imagination in working over in his mind\nthe material supplied by the teacher, and the recognition of the\nfact that the child's mind is not passive but active leads us to the\nacceptance of a principle of the most far reaching importance in all\neducation, namely, that the teacher cannot impart a lesson unless\nhe can get the child's mind of its own accord to seek that very\nknowledge that he wishes to impart. This is the wisdom of the homely\nproverb, \"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him\ndrink.\" We must stimulate an appetite for the mental food we wish to\ngive the pupil even before we give it. How can this be done?\n\n=Jewish symbols and ceremonies a stimulus to self activity.= When\ndiscussing the aim of instruction in Biblical history we took a\nhint from the Haggadah for Passover, the reading of which was\nmainly intended for pedagogic purpose since it is in fulfillment\nof the commandment, \"And thou shalt tell to thy son in that day\";\nwe may take another hint from it in this connection. The child\nat table on Passover eve sees before him a number of curious\nobjects and ceremonials to which he is not accustomed. He sees the\n_ma\u1e93\u1e93ot_, the _maror_, and other symbols, he also notices the\nreclining attitude instead of the usual erect posture, and so\nhe very naturally exclaims _mah nishtannah_! \"How different is\nthis night from other nights!\" Then when his own curiosity has\nbeen stimulated he is given the answer to his questions and the\nlesson has been impressed upon him. The symbols and ceremonies\nof Jewish life which have their origin or explanation in the\nBiblical narrative are excellently adapted for this stimulation\nof intellectual curiosity which should precede the telling of the\nstory. A reference to the Sabbath and how it is observed might\nwell precede the story of creation which explains its origin and\nsignificance; a reference to the Passover observances might well\nprecede an account of the Exodus; a reference to the synagogue might\nprecede an account of the construction of the tabernacle, etc. These\nserve the double function of interesting the child in the narrative\nand of interesting him in those things in Jewish life which the\nnarrative helps to explain. Where an object of Jewish ceremonial\nlife cannot be found with which to stimulate his curiosity, some\nother fact of his experience may be taken instead. Thus the story\nof Noah might well be introduced by reference to the rainbow, the\nmeaning of which the teacher will then undertake to explain to the\nchild by the story.\n\n=The teacher's question as a stimulus to self activity.= Inasmuch as\nthere are in every class those of the type mentioned in the Haggadah\n\"who know not how to question\", it often becomes advisable for the\nteacher himself to put to the class the question that he wishes to\nhave answered. And indeed an occasional question from the teacher\nin the very midst of the story may go a great way toward arousing\ninterest and securing a clearer comprehension. Thus it may be that\nthe teacher is telling the story of Joseph. He reaches the point\nwhere Joseph's brothers come to him to buy corn and explains how\nJoseph, having recognized them without their having recognized him,\nhad them wholly in his power. He then asks, \"Now what do you think\nyou would do if you were Joseph and your brothers had treated you so\ncruelly and then they come to you for food and you have them in your\npower?\" At once he has the class interested in the question of what\nJoseph actually did and their interest in the rest of the story as\nwell as their better comprehension of the motives that underlie it\nis secured.\n\n=The pupil's recitation.= So much for the teacher's original\npresentation of the lesson. This completed, the child must be\ncalled upon to recite it, not primarily, as most teachers seem to\nthink, in order to give the teacher a chance to find out whether\nthe child had learned the lesson, but because the necessity of\ntelling it over to the teacher forces the child to think about the\nsubject of the lesson and once more appeals to his self activity.\nThe questions asked by the teacher should not be merely such as\ncall for items of information but such as require the exercise of\nintelligence on the pupil's part and give evidence not only of his\nremembering the story but of his understanding it. If for example\nthe teacher wishes to question the child on the story of creation,\nsuch formal questions as \"In how many days did God make the world?\nWhat did he make on the first day? What did he make on the second\nday?\" etc., are not enough, as they test the memory only. He should\nask such questions as these: \"Why do we rest on the seventh day of\neach week? What was the last thing God made? Why did God make man\nlast?\" For these test not only the memory but the understanding as\nwell. The story that the children tell when thus asked to repeat the\nlesson will give the teacher an idea of what points have impressed\nthemselves on them and what have not, and on the basis of these he\nmust question further. In general there ought to be fewer questions\nbeginning with \"what\" and more beginning with \"why\".\n\n=Dramatization of lesson.= Beside the repetition of the lesson\nby the child in the form of a recitation and the answering of\nquestions, there are many stories, in which the interest centers\nchiefly in the dramatic dialogue, that children might be encouraged\nto dramatize in class. The dramatization must be made by the\nchildren themselves in the spirit of free play, the teacher merely\noffering general suggestions but the dialogue being the spontaneous\ncreation of the children. The natural imitative instinct of children\nwhich makes so much of their play the mimicry of the activities\nand occupations of their adult environment, takes very kindly to\nthis sort of make-believe. At the same time this exercise enables\nthem to enter into the motives of the Biblical characters and to\nunderstand and remember the incidents of the Biblical narrative\nas few exercises can. Nor need the teacher be discouraged by the\nlack of accessories to dramatization such as scenery and costume.\nThe child's imagination, which can convert a rocking chair into a\nboat or a table into a mountain, can easily dispense with those\naccessories which the sophisticated mind of the adult requires.\nStories that lend themselves to such treatment are Esau's sale of\nthe birthright, Isaac's blessing of Jacob and Esau and the various\nepisodes of the Joseph narrative.\n\n=The teacher's preparation.= It follows from the above discussion\nthat the teacher of Biblical history who wishes to do justice to\nhis subject must give careful preparation to each lesson, not only,\nas we have already suggested, with a view to understanding the\nsignificance of the Biblical passages that he wishes to teach, but\nalso with a view to teaching them effectively to the child. This\npreparation must include 1. inquiry as to object in teaching that\nparticular lesson to the child, 2. the effort to find some point of\ncontact between the theme of the lesson and the previous knowledge\nand experience of the child such as would appeal to his interest,\n3. the study of the subject from the point of view of literary and\noratorical effectiveness in the presentation, 4. the attempt to find\nthe best possible illustrations and applications of the lesson to\nthe life of the child, 5. preparation of questions and other devices\nby which the child is made to work over the lesson in his own mind\nand give proof of having assimilated it. In the chapters of this\nmanual the object of each lesson according to the author's opinion\nwill be pointed out and suggestions will, from time to time, be\ngiven as to the other points that have been here enumerated. This\nbook refrains, however, from giving a detailed plan of each lesson\nas it is deemed important not to put restraints on the originality\nand initiative of the teacher but on the contrary, to encourage\nfree and spontaneous expression of personality both on the part of\nteacher and of pupil.\n\n=Summary.= Much more might be said about the method of teaching\nBiblical history, but this will have to suffice by way of\nintroduction to the more concrete suggestions that are to follow in\nthe chapters of this book. It may be well, however, before closing\nto summarize the more important conclusions reached:\n\n1. That the aim in instructing the child in Biblical history is not\nmerely to teach him a moral such as he might learn from any edifying\nstory but to influence his life through the consciousness of his\nspiritual identity with the Israel of the Bible;\n\n2. That the events narrated must be given the same significance that\nthe Bible itself gives them and not any convenient moral that we may\nwish to append to them;\n\n3. That teaching shall be so adapted to the child as to make the\nlesson (a) comprehensible, (b) interesting;\n\n(a) That in order to be comprehensible it must proceed from the\nknown to the unknown and must define the unknown in terms of the\nknown, avoiding however, so far as possible, all formal definition,\nand leaving large scope for the exercise of the child's imagination;\n\n(b) That in order to be interesting the lesson should first be\npresented by the teacher orally in a style made vivid by plenty of\nconversation quoted directly, and that this may well be followed up\nby illustrations such as the showing of pictures or stereoptican\nviews; that the teacher stimulate the curiosity of the child before\nbeginning the lesson preferably by the introduction of some relevant\nobject of Jewish ceremonial, but, in the absence of that, by some\nother appeal to the child's experience; and finally, that the\nteacher encourage self activity and self expression on the part of\nthe child by tactful questions both in the course of presenting the\nlesson and when the child is asked, as he should be, to recite the\nlesson he has learned.\n\nThese suggestions it is hoped may prove of some help to the\nearnest teacher of Biblical history. In the chapters which\nfollow, an attempt is made to give them more concrete and\ndefinite illustration. Each chapter will therefore contain 1.\nthe interpretation of the subject-matter of the lesson, 2. a\nbrief discussion of the aim in teaching it, and 3. miscellaneous\nsuggestions as to the way it can best be made to appeal to the\nchild.\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\nFROM CREATION TO THE DEATH OF JOSEPH\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nCREATION Genesis 1.1 to 2.3\n\n     Note.--The lessons in this book are necessarily divided somewhat\n     arbitrarily, that is without exact reference to the amount\n     that can be taught at a single session of the school. This is\n     unavoidable at present as periods vary in length in different\n     schools, and classes vary in age and in the mental development\n     of their pupils. The division therefore has been purely on the\n     basis of the subject-matter and not of the time to be spent in\n     instruction. Some lessons may require two or even three hours\n     for their complete presentation.\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The early narratives of Genesis serve as an\nintroduction to Biblical history by giving the Jewish view of the\norigin of the world in general and the human race in particular,\npreparatory to discussing the role that Israel was destined to play\nin the world. The following are some of the most significant ideas\nthat the narrative of the creation has to tell us with regard to the\nworld and man's place in it:\n\n1. That God is the creator and consequently supreme over matter,\nnature and the world;\n\n2. That man is the highest being in the order of creation by reason\nof his being possessed of the divine attributes of reason and\nconscience as intimated in the words \"in our image according to our\nlikeness\";\n\n3. That God loves His creatures \u05d4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05ea \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0 \"whom\nhe hath created in accordance with the attribute of mercy;\"\n\n4. That God in return desires man's love and his recognition in\nworship as is implied in the institution of the Sabbath.\n\n=Aim.= In teaching this lesson to the child the aim should be to\ninspire him with the sense of reverence and worship, particularly in\nconnection with Sabbath observance. The message of this as of all\nthe earlier chapters of Genesis is a universal one, but, like most\nother universal aspects of Judaism, it has found concrete expression\nin a specifically Jewish institution, namely the Sabbath, and, as\nour aim is to affect the Jewish life of the child it is through\nassociation of the ideas of the lesson with the institution of the\nSabbath that we must endeavor to make them effective.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= In accordance with the principle\nwhich demands that we proceed from what is known to what is not yet\nknown, it at once becomes apparent that we cannot begin this lesson\nwith an account of primal darkness out of which chaos and then the\nworld was formed. In the introduction (page 22) we quoted an account\nof creation which began by a reference to created objects in the\nchild's experience. In consideration however of the desirability\nof stimulating the child's intellectual curiosity before beginning\nthe lesson, it would be well to introduce the lesson with a few\nquestions regarding the distinction of the Sabbath from the other\ndays of the week, culminating in the question, \"Why do we act so\ndifferently on the Sabbath than on other days?\" Then proceed to\nanswer by telling the story of creation in the way suggested in the\nintroduction. When the narrative is completed, again discuss the\nSabbath and how it is to be observed, as in this way the moral of\nthe narrative can best be enforced.\n\nIt is a well known fact that children are attracted by the exact\nrepetition of certain phrases somewhat in the nature of a refrain.\nIt is well therefore to utilize the refrain, \"And there was evening\nand there was morning\" with each of the successive days of creation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nADAM AND EVE Genesis 2.4 to 3.24\n\n\n=Interpretation.= This is one of the narratives of the Bible whose\nreal meaning in its entirety it is impossible to teach the child. To\nunderstand it, would require an experience that in the very nature\nof the case the child cannot have had. A partial understanding of\nits moral can, however, be imparted to him and the significant facts\nof the story be so impressed on his mind that he will remember them\nand, in later years, perceive their deeper meaning in the light\nof acquired experience. The story of Adam and Eve is the story\nof man and woman as exemplified in the progenitors of the human\nrace. The Eden of blissful innocence is lost when there awakens in\nman the appetite for a forbidden knowledge, for an experience of\nevil as well as of good, an experience which in the end leaves him\nconscious of his nakedness, conscious of having sinned, and of being\ndisillusioned, conscious of being altogether in a worse plight than\nif he had never sought after the forbidden knowledge. Obviously this\ndeeper meaning cannot be realized by the child, but certain elements\nof it can be brought home to him; he can be made to feel that the\nenjoyment of the good things in life is dependent upon an implicit\nobedience to the laws that God has laid down as conditioning their\nenjoyment, so that disobedience means the loss of these joys.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of the story of Adam and Eve must then be, from\nthe point of view of the child, the recognition of the duty of\nimplicit, unquestioning obedience to legitimate authority. So far\nthe moral is universal and not specifically Jewish. Were we to rest\nhere, we would not be realizing to the full the aim of instruction\nin Biblical history that we had set before us in the introduction.\nBut, though the moral of the story of Adam and Eve is a universal\none, it can be associated, as was done in the case of the story of\ncreation, with certain aspects of Jewish life. Thus the legitimate\nauthority for which we claim implicit obedience from the child can\nand should be made the Torah, and particular emphasis should in this\nconnection be laid on the dietary laws because of their analogy to\nthe divine commandment in the lesson, \"of every tree of the garden\nthou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, thou shalt not eat of it.\" In this way the moral of the lesson\nis, so to speak, dramatized in the daily life of the child and is\nmade to increase his loyalty to Judaism as a whole.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= After what has been said with regard\nto the aim of this chapter, little remains to be noted by way of\nsuggestions regarding method, as the story in its Biblical form\nis already admirably adapted to satisfy the child's love of a\ngood story. The moral, as we have suggested it, while it should\nreceive due emphasis at the end of the story particularly when it\nis being repeated by the children and so has become the subject\nof class discussion, should not be made too obtrusive in telling\nthe story itself. The words of the serpent in tempting Eve and\nthe conversation in which God rebukes Adam, Eve and the serpent\nshould be quoted as nearly as possible in the Biblical language.\nIn pointing out the connection between the story and its moral as\ngiven above, do so by questioning the child rather than by simply\nstating it yourself. Questions that may be suggestive are the\nfollowing:\n\nWhen God gave Adam and Eve so many trees to eat from and everything\nelse that they needed, was it right that they should eat the fruit\nof the one tree that God had told them not to eat of, just because\nthey wanted to know how it tasted?\n\nIf your parents, who give you so many things, your food and your\nclothes and your toys, sometimes tell you to do this or that which\nat the time you don't feel like doing, how ought you to act?\n\nDo you know of any things that we Jews don't eat because God, who\nhas made everything we eat, told us not to eat them?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nCAIN AND ABEL\n\nGenesis 4.1 to 15\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The story of Cain and Abel is a study of sin,\nremorse and repentance. There is a suggestion in verse 7, of evil\npassions existing in Cain's heart even before the murder of his\nbrother, and, though the verse is obscure, it may be interpreted\nas giving a reason for God's not accepting Cain's offering. Not\nuntil after the deed is done is Cain made fully to realize the\nsignificance of his act and then he is stirred by remorse and fear\nuntil God reassures him of his protection. The sign that God gives\nCain is sometimes construed as part of his punishment but in the\nBible it is mentioned rather as evidence of God's acceptance of his\nrepentance.\n\n=Aim.= The teacher should endeavor through this lesson to impress\non the child the danger of yielding to envy and anger and the\ndesirability of repentance and of confession of our sins to God\nwhenever we have done wrong.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Sentimentalists sometimes object to\nteaching this story to young children because of the sordid crime\nthat it relates. This objection however is not valid, because the\nvery ignorance and innocence of childhood rob the story of most\nof its horror. Indeed, the teacher must rather guard against the\nchild's utterly losing the sense of the tragedy of the crime, the\nuniversal tragedy by which passion leads men to commit acts which\nthey would later gladly retrieve if they could. In order to impress\nthis on the child the teacher must describe what the narrative of\nthe Bible but barely suggests, the wayward character of Cain before\nthe sacrifice which made it unacceptable. Devote some time to\ncharacterizing Cain and Abel in such a way that the child pictures\nthe former as a sullen, discontented, envious man, who showed no\ntrue appreciation of God's goodness to him and whose offering\nwas therefore not acceptable to God, while that of Abel, who was\nsincerely grateful to God, was accepted. As this is the first time\nthat sacrifice is mentioned, explain the meaning of sacrifice as a\nway in which men long ago used to show God that they were thankful\nfor his goodness in giving them their food, by not using all that\nhe gave them but burning some on a heap of stones called an altar.\nUse some illustration from the child's life of how a gift is more\nor less acceptable according to the motive which prompts it. You\nmight ask the children, \"Which would please you more; if somebody\nwould give you a present on your birthday because he loves you, or,\nbecause he thinks that when his birthday will come you will give\nhim one also?\" and continue, \"Now when Cain and Abel brought their\noffering to God, God knew that Abel loved Him and always obeyed Him\nand gave his offering because he was really grateful to God in his\nheart, but Cain, who was always discontented and not very obedient,\nGod knew brought his offering only because he thought that if he did\nso God might be pleased and so send him the rain necessary to make\nhis corn grow, that he would have plenty to eat during the year.\nTherefore God accepted Abel's offering but did not accept Cain's\".\nLay stress on God's warning to Cain, \"Sin croucheth at the door\",\nwhich is to be explained as meaning that Cain must be very careful\nhow he acts and that if he feels like doing wrong to Abel, he must\nkeep back the feeling and not do it, or he might be doing something\nwhich he would later feel very sorry for, after he could no longer\nundo it. Remember that the very young child has no concept of death\nand so relate the climax of the story somewhat in this manner; \"Now\nwhen Cain saw that Abel lay on the ground bleeding and could not\nmove or speak to him he knew that he had committed a great sin and\nwas afraid\". The dialogue between God and Cain after Abel's death\nshould be quoted as nearly as possible in the language of the Bible,\nparticularly Cain's attempt at first to evade responsibility in the\nwords \"Am I my brother's keeper?\" followed later by his complete\nconfession, \"My guilt is greater than I can bear\". In enforcing the\naim of the lesson as we have given it, guard against merely making\ndidactic statements and rather bring out the point by questions,\nafter having concluded the narrative. The following are suggestive\nquestions:\n\nWhy did God accept Abel's offering and did not accept Cain's?\n\nHow did Cain feel when he saw that God did not accept his offering?\n\nWhat did God say to Cain to warn him not give way to anger?\n\nWhen Cain saw that he had killed Abel how did he feel?\n\nDid God forgive Cain? How did God show that He forgave him?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nNOAH\n\nGenesis 6.5 to 9.1\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The story of Noah is so simple as scarcely to need\ninterpretation. The world had become corrupt, and, as God cannot\nabide moral corruption, it seemed better to destroy what he had\ncreated. Out of the universal destruction, however, God's providence\nsingled out Noah, because of his moral superiority, to be saved\nand to start human life on a higher plane. He therefore bids Noah\ntake with him into the ark his family and enough of the animals to\nassure the preservation of the different species, taking more of the\nclean animals which are fit for food, and, when Noah finally leaves\nthe ark, He makes a covenant with him, the terms of which are that\nNoah, is to observe certain moral laws, including the prohibition\nof murder, and that God would never again destroy all life with a\ndeluge and would guarantee the orderly succession of the seasons as\nnecessary to man's existence. As a token of this covenant God shows\nNoah the rainbow.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in teaching this lesson to the child should be to\ngive him the idea of God's control over all the forces of nature and\nof His special providence exercised over each individual, rewarding\nthe good and punishing the evil. As it is our purpose, wherever\npossible, to find some distinctively Jewish way in which the child\ncan give expression to the ideals taught this lesson should be made\nthe occasion for teaching the child the _berakah_ (blessing) on\nseeing a rainbow which is associated with the Noah story.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= To connect this story with the child's\nown life begin with a reference to the rainbow. Let children tell\nwhat colors they have seen in the rainbow, call their attention to\nthe fact that it appears always after a storm, and then tell them\nthat you are going to relate a story which will explain to them why\nGod makes a rainbow in the heavens after it rains. And when you have\nfinished the story, again connect the moral of it with the rainbow\nsomewhat as follows:\n\n\"And so, children, whenever we see a rainbow it should remind us of this\nstory of how God saved Noah from the flood because of his goodness, and\nhow God promised never to destroy the whole world again by a terrible\nflood. And whenever we see a rainbow we should all of us say this little\nprayer or <i>berakah</i> which I will teach you, \u05de\u05b6\u05dc\u05b6\u05da\u05b0 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05b9\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05da\u05b0\n\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05de\u05b8\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d5\u05b0\u05e7\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05dd \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05b9 \u05d5\u05b1\u05e0\u05b6\u05d0\u05b6\u05de\u05b8\u05df \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea \u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u05db\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd, which means, \"Blessed be\nthou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who remembers His covenant and\nis faithful to His covenant and keeps his promise\".\n\nThe term covenant must be explained to the child in this chapter as\nan exchange of promises.\n\nThe story of Noah contains many appeals to the child's interest\nwhich the skillful teacher will know how to make the most of. A\nNoah's ark with all manner of queer little wooden animals that could\nbe put in and taken out again has been a favorite toy with many\na child now grown to manhood. A child is naturally interested in\nanimals and, when you tell of how the animals came into the ark,\nask the children to tell you the names of animals they have seen in\nthe zoo or circus.\n\nTo emphasize the moral of the story use the _haggadic_ elaboration\nof it according to which the period that the ark was in process of\nconstruction gave the sinners an opportunity to repent, of which\nhowever they did not avail themselves but instead merely mocked\nNoah for trusting in God and obeying him. This _haggada_ is in full\naccord with the spirit of the Biblical narrative and gives content\nto the statement: \"Noah was in his generation a righteous and\nwhole-hearted man; Noah walked with God.\"[1]\n\n  [1] whenever a _haggadah_ is useful as explaining a biblical\n  passage, it may be taught as part of the biblical lesson. but the\n  teacher should avoid teaching such legends as may misrepresent the\n  biblical meaning and even such as are merely extraneous to the\n  subject, as, for example, the legend of abraham's persecution by\n  nimrod, for we must be careful that these legends do not usurp the\n  unique place which the bible as torah must hold in jewish life and\n  thought. the _haggadah_ is not authoritative; the bible is.\n\nThe episode narrated in Genesis 9.21 to 29 had better be omitted as\nnot adapted for children.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE TOWER OF BABEL\n\nGenesis 11.1 to 9\n\n\n=Interpretation.= These verses tell how the descendants of Noah in\nthe pride of a new civilization and the acquisition of the new art\nof building with bricks endeavor to defeat the divine purpose of\nscattering them over the world and are frustrated in their plans\nthrough God's confusing their language. Its moral is the vanity of\nany attempt on the part of man to defeat God's purpose.\n\n=Aim.= This lesson is not one that yields a moral which the child\nis able to apply immediately in his own life. Its moral is rather\nfor society than for the individual in its exposure of the vanity\nof reliance on the mere material elements in civilization. Inasmuch\nhowever as it can be made interesting to the child and appealing to\nhis imagination it is well to teach it that it may become a part of\nhis store of Jewish information which will receive added meaning as\nhis experience grows.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= This lesson should be introduced by a\nreference to the different languages with which the child has come\nin contact. He can then have his attention called to the fact that,\nas all men are descended from Noah, they must all originally have\nspoken one language. This at once raises the question how it came\nabout that there are now many languages, and, when the child is\ninterested in this question, he has the proper mental attitude for\nhearing the story.\n\nThe motive for the building of the tower is not given very clearly\nin the Bible and, in the form in which it is given, is hardly\ncalculated to impress the story on a child's mind. It is well,\ntherefore, to amplify the story in accordance with the _haggadah_\nthat suggests as motive the attempt to avoid the consequences of\nanother such flood as at the time of Noah. The sin, therefore, of\nthe generation of the dispersion lies in the fact that instead of\ntrying to avoid God's displeasure they tried to render themselves\nimmune to its consequences, a moral that carries out the idea of the\nBiblical narrative only stating it in more explicit terms.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE CHOICE OF ABRAM AND THE CHOICE OF CANAAN\n\nGenesis 12.1 to 10 and 13.1 to 18\n\n\n=Interpretation.= With this lesson the history of our people\nbegins. The Bible wishes us to see in the separation of Abram and\nhis clan from the parent tribe, and their migration to Canaan, not\na fortuitous circumstance, but the fulfilment of a divine plan\naccording to which God was to make of the descendants of Abram the\nchosen people and of the land of Canaan the chosen land. Why Abram\nwas selected of all people is not clearly stated, but one trait of\nhis character is made very conspicuous here and in all subsequent\nchapters, his implicit faith and obedience. The Rabbis emphasize\nthat, in bidding him to leave his land, God tells him merely to go\n\"to the land that I will show unto thee\", without indicating what\nland was meant. Again He promises him, \"To thy seed will I give this\nland\", though Abram is childless. Nor was Abram permitted to believe\nthat his nephew Lot might have been intended by the promise, for,\nwhen Abram's herdsmen and Lot's herdsmen quarrel, Lot chooses the\nland of Sodom and not the promised land. In a word, God seems to\nhave selected Abram to be the father of the chosen people because\nof his faith, his unquestioning willingness to submit to divine\nguidance. A second trait of character that is made conspicuous is\nhis love of peace as illustrated in his relations with Lot.\n\n=Aim.= The primary aim in teaching this lesson to the child should\nbe to inspire him with the thought that he is one of God's chosen\npeople, a descendant of Abram, and should prove himself worthy\nof his descent by emulating Abram's obedience to God through his\nobedience to Jewish law. The whole point of this narrative is lost\nif the teacher fails to emphasize the fact that Abram is the father\nof the Jewish people.\n\nThe secondary aim may well be to stimulate interest in Palestine as\nthe chosen land.\n\nA third lesson that can be taught in this connection is the lesson\nof the desirability of peace.\n\nThe last two aims however must be brought in incidentally, the\nformer as an indication of God's love for Abram and his descendants,\nthe latter as showing wherein Abram was worthy of being chosen.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= As the whole point of the narrative is\nlost if the child is not made to feel the connection of the Jewish\npeople with Abram, take pains to explain what is meant by descent\nand how a whole people can be descended from one man, by showing how\na man's grandchildren are usually more numerous than his children,\netc. It might be of advantage to use the blackboard for a graphic\nillustration of this idea. Then, after having explained how God\nexpected to make a great nation of Abram's descendants, ask, \"Do\nany of you know what people today are the descendants of Abram?\nWell, I will tell you. You and I and all who call themselves Jews\nare descended from Abram. That is why we always speak of him as\nour father Abram. Now don't you want me to tell you more about our\nfather Abram and about the great people that came from him and to\nwhich we belong?\"\n\nHereafter always call Abram \"our father Abram\", as he is almost\ninvariably called in Jewish literature \u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc \u05d0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4\u05b8\u05dd. This will\nkeep the child conscious of his descent from Abram, increase his\ninterest in him and make him feel that Biblical history is the\nhistory of his own people.\n\nAs the motives for God's choice of Abram are but vaguely suggested\nin the Bible, the teacher must make them more explicit. Call\nattention to the fact that the world had again become corrupt, that\nidolatry prevailed--and here it becomes necessary to explain what\nidolatry means--in the House of Terah as elsewhere (see Joshua 24.\n2), but that there was one man, Abram, who always obeyed God and\nwho, God knew, would instruct his children to do so. And therefore\nGod told him to leave his family and his people because he wanted to\nmake of him a great people that would always do as he told them and\nnot a foolish and wicked people like those among whom he lived.\n\nThe various _haggadic_ tales of the persecutions to which Abram was\nsubjected by Nimrod and even by his own father, while beautiful in\nthemselves and interesting to children should not be taught as part\nof the lesson. (See foot-note to page 46.)\n\nIn order to make the narrative more vivid and impressive, God's call\nto Abram and his promise (Genesis 12. 1 to 3) should be quoted in\nthe language of the Bible, as also Abram's words to Lot (Genesis 13.\n9) and God's promise when Abram settled in Canaan (Genesis 13. 14 to\n18).\n\nWhen speaking of God's promise to give Abram the land of Canaan,\nthe teacher may digress somewhat to describe the main geographical\nfeatures of Palestine, showing children on the map where it is\nsituated and pointing out its main topographical characteristics, if\nthe children are of an age when they know how to interpret maps. The\ndescription of the land should be such as to create an attachment\nto it, dwelling on the variety of its climate, the beauty of its\nscenery, and its fertility. Pictures of Palestine particularly of\nthe places associated with the life of Abram, should be shown.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nBEGINNING OF ABRAM'S GREATNESS\n\nGenesis 14\n\n\n=Interpretation.= Abram's blessing begins to become manifest through\nhis military success in the campaign to rescue Lot and his family.\nHe is accorded recognition by Melchizedek, king of Salem (to be\nidentified with Jerusalem), and \"priest of God the Most High\", who\ngives him bread and wine and to whom he gives a tithe of the booty.\nThe king of Sodom also recognizes his greatness and the value of his\nservices, which he wishes to reward, but Abram rejects the proffered\nreward in order to be able to maintain his independence and assert\nhis reliance on the divine promise.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in teaching this lesson should be to awaken an\nappreciation of the heroic virtues of courage, loyalty and\nindependence, and, by associating them with the founder of the\nJewish people and the Jewish faith to arouse the Jewish self respect\nof the child.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= It is very important in telling such\nstories the moral of which is to be enforced through the child's\nimitation of the virtues of the characters whose deeds it narrates,\nnot to tag on a moral at the end of the tale. If the child is\nimpressed by the story, imitation is sure to result, and, by adding\na moral stated in abstract terms, one only gives the child the\nfeeling that the events of the story did not really happen but were\n\"made up\" to point the moral. But the child must be impressed by the\nstory, and the skillful teacher will know how to make the details\nof the story itself so impressive as to bring home their moral. For\ninstance, instead of saying at the end of the story, \"This teaches\nus what a brave man Abram was since he was willing to risk his life\nfor Lot and his family\", the teacher might begin the story somewhat\nas follows:\n\n\"Now when Abram was sitting one day at the door of his tent, a man\ncame running to him all out of breath and, as soon as he had gained\nbreath enough to speak, he said, 'There has been a terrible battle\nin Sodom. I and a few others have escaped but your nephew Lot and\nhis family have all been taken away captive and no one can say what\nwill be done to them.' Thereupon Abram called together his few\nfollowers to the number of 318 and, together with his friends and\nneighbors, Aner, and Eshcol and Mamre and their soldiers, followed\nafter the enemy, trusting that God would help him, though he knew\nthe enemy had many more men than he.\"\n\nThe interesting detail of how the enemy fell into the slime pits\nin the valley of Siddim should not be omitted as it gives greater\nvividness and reality to the narrative.\n\nThe child can be depended upon to respond to the appeal for his\nappreciation of Abram's martial virtues, but the full significance\nof Abram's refusal of a share of the spoils and his statement \"Thou\nshalt not say I have made Abram rich\" he will not grasp without\nthe teacher's help. Bring out his point by asking, \"Why did not\nAbram want to let the king of Sodom make him rich?\" and if, as will\nprobably be the case, the child will have no answer ready, explain\nas follows:\n\n\"The reason is this. Abram had joined the war not to get money or\nother riches from the enemy, for that would have been mere robbery.\nHe had fought to save Lot and his family, and, when they were safe,\nhe was satisfied. But the people of Sodom were, as you know from our\nlast lesson, very wicked and their kings were all the time making\nwar, even when there was no good reason, in order that they might\nbecome rich by what they took from the enemy. And Abram thought, if\nI take money now from the king of Sodom, some time later he may say,\n'Abram, it is I who made you a rich man; now you must help me fight\nagainst my enemies and rob them'. Therefore Abram would have nothing\nto do with him and would not even take a shoestring from him. He\nknew, moreover, that if he obeyed God, God would give him all that\nhe needed, and therefore he did not have to take presents from one\nwhom he could not respect and honor.\"\n\nBe sure to make clear that Melchizedek's tribute to Abram was\nin recognition of the fact that his victory was a sign of God's\nfavor, and that Abram's giving the tithe was an expression of his\nrecognition of God's help in the battle.\n\nThe lesson might be concluded by some such summary as the following:\n\nSo our father Abram became great and famous in the new land to which\nhe had come, because God blessed him in all that he did so that he\ncame to be called by the people about him a \"prince of God\".\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nHAGAR AND THE BIRTH OF ISHMAEL\n\nGenesis 15.16.17\n\n\n=Interpretation.= In chapter 15 the faith of Abram is once more\ngiven emphasis. God promises Abram great reward, but, being\nchildless, he is indifferent to a reward which must ultimately\npass to strangers, the descendants of Eliezer, but God explains to\nhim that he is to have a child of his own to whom the reward is to\ndescend, and he has faith in God's promise though for many years it\nremains unfulfilled.\n\nThe vision of Abram, recorded in verses 12 to 16 is significant as\nshowing the providential character of the Egyptian bondage. We need\nnot, however, discuss it here in detail, since its significance\nis only apparent in the light of later lessons and it is not\nintrinsically interesting to the child.\n\nFor the interpretation of the main theme of this lesson, the reader\nis referred to the introduction of this book, pages 19-20. It is to\nbe noted that in giving to Abram her servant Hagar as wife, Sarai\nis doing an unselfish act in the hope that she may thereby help\nrealize the promise made to Abram, and it is little wonder that she\nresents the arrogant attitude of Hagar, who is the chief beneficiary\nof her unselfish act and yet vaunts it over her as though Sarai's\nbarrenness were a mark of inferiority and perhaps even of the divine\ndisfavor.\n\nThe fact that, when Hagar flees from Sarai before the birth of\nIshmael, she is asked by the angel to return, and that after the\nbirth of Isaac, God not only sanctions but commands the separation,\nshows distinctly that the motive for the separation was that\nexpressed in the words, \"In Isaac shall seed be called to thee\", and\nthat, meanwhile, Abram was to have his faith put to the test through\nhis attachment to Ishmael, as later through his attachment to Isaac.\n\nIt is also to be noted, here as elsewhere, that the patriarchs and\ntheir wives themselves had only a dim and often incorrect idea of\nGod's purpose in his dealings with them. Thus Sarai, realizing\nthat she is barren, at first reasons that God's promise to Abram\nwas intended to apply to him alone and not to her and therefore\nnecessitated his taking another wife. When Ishmael is born, Abram\nthinks that he is to be the child of destiny and it is one of the\ntests to which his faith is put when, after the birth of Ishmael,\nGod tells him that not this son but another, who is to be born to\nSarai, is to be his heir. The point of all this is that the history\nof the patriarchs is not merely personal biography but that its\nreal significance is to be understood as showing the care that\nGod exercised in selecting the material out of which the chosen\npeople was to be moulded. Not all of Abram's descendants were to be\ndeemed fit for this election, but he was to become the \"father of a\nmultitude of nations\" of which only one was to be chosen.\n\nIn teaching of the covenant that is recorded in Genesis 17, the\nceremony of circumcision cannot for obvious reasons be dwelt on in\nclass, but the change of Abram's and Sarai's names should be, and\ntherefore its significance needs to be interpreted. To give a new\nname is a sign of ownership and interest. God shows his love for\nAbram and Sarai and his intention to enter into closer relations\nwith them by giving them new names. It is to be noted that God also\ngives Isaac his name (Genesis 18.21) and changes that of Jacob to\nIsrael after he shows himself worthy of the title.\n\n=Aim.= This lesson is one of a series of incidents which should\nimpress on the child faith in the truth of God's words, which in\nthe end are verified, though at first they often seem impossible of\nrealization and more particularly, faith in God's election of Israel.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= There are two main difficulties to\novercome in teaching this chapter; first, that the moral is such\nan abstract one, the whole story as we have interpreted it being\nconceived as a glimpse into the workings of providence in the\nhistory of Israel and the world, and second, that the incidents\nhinge upon family relations of a sort that a child with his\nignorance of the facts of sex cannot easily comprehend.\n\nThe first of these difficulties can be largely overcome by giving\nmuch more emphasis than is usually given to the human and personal\naspect of the story particularly to Abram's desire for a son and\nhis repeated disappointments before the final realization of God's\npromise to him; and a little tact can overcome the second difficulty\nas well. To show how these two difficulties may be met, it will be\nnecessary here to tell a great part of the story as it may be told\nto a class of children between the ages of seven and eight. After\ntelling of God's promise to Abram to make of his seed a great nation\nas numerous as the stars in heaven and of Abram's rejoicing that\nhe would have a son who would become after him the father of this\ngreat people, the teacher might continue somewhat as follows:\n\nBut year after year passed and Abram and Sarai were already growing\nold, and yet God had not fulfilled His promise to Abram to give him\na son out of whose children and children's children He would make\na great and good nation. And Oh! how Abram did want to have a son.\nWhen he would see the children of his neighbors at play with their\nbright eyes and laughing faces, he would think, \"_If only I had a\nlittle child like that how happy I should be and what delight it\nwould be to watch him grow big and strong! How I would thank God\nfor such a son and how I would teach my little boy to thank God and\nto love and obey Him and to be kind and good to all people as God\nwants us to be so that through him and his children and children's\nchildren all the nations of the earth would be blessed._\" And he\nwould often tell his wishes to Sarai and they would try to comfort\neach other and one would remind the other of God's promise and\nwould say, \"_We must be patient. God has promised us a son and in\nHis time He will send us one._\" But one day an idea came to Sarai.\nShe thought to herself, \"Maybe it is my fault that Abram has no\nchildren. God promised a son to Abram but he did not make any\npromise to me. Maybe if Abram married someone else, God would let\nAbram have a son from this other wife.\" Now Sarai had a servant\nwhose name was Hagar, and she told Abram to marry Hagar too, for in\nthose days men often had more than one wife. And Abram did as Sarai\nsuggested and, surely enough, not long after they were married it\nwas told to Hagar that in a few months she would bear a child to\nAbram. Now you would think children, would you not, that after\nSarai had been so kind to her servant Hagar and had let her marry\nAbram that Hagar would love Sarai for it and show kindness to her in\nreturn. But Hagar showed herself at this time very mean. She felt a\nfoolish pride because God was going to give her a son and had given\nnone to Sarai and she used to say to her, \"See, you are married to\nAbram these many years and yet God has not given him any children\nfrom you, but I have been but recently married to him and now I\nshall soon bear him a son. Doesn't this show that God loves me more\nthan you? Doesn't this show that I am better than you? Do you think\nI will be your servant any more? No indeed, I am not only as good\nas you but better.\" When Sarai heard these words day after day she\nwas deeply grieved and angry and she complained to Abram, and Abram\ntold Hagar that she must continue to serve Sarai as before. But when\nSarai wanted to make Hagar do her work, she ran away and fled into\nthe wilderness.\n\nThe above will suffice to show how the difficulties which we mention\ncan be overcome. The passages that have been italicized suggest how\nthe child can be given the feeling that the birth of Isaac was part\nof a divine plan for the good of the world. This can be still more\nclearly brought home by the latter part of the narrative in which\nGod rejects Ishmael as a \"Wild ass of a man.\" The teacher must make\nthis quite clear to the class by asking, \"Do you think that this boy\nIshmael of whom God knew that he would be wild and wicked was the\none whom God meant when He told Abram he would have a son who was\ngoing to be a blessing to all the world?\" He must also emphasize\nAbram's affection for Ishmael, which made him mistake him for the\nson of promise, for Abram presumably did not know of the prophecy\nwith regard to Ishmael's future. This will give the child the idea\ncontained in the narrative that \"There are many devices in a man's\nheart, but the counsel of the Lord that shall stand\".\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nABRAHAM ENTERTAINS THE ANGELS\n\nGenesis 18.1 to 16\n\n\n=Interpretation.= These verses have given no little difficulty\nto the ancient Hebrew commentators. The first verse contains a\nstatement of God's appearing to Abraham but does not give any\ncontent to this revelation, and then the three angels are introduced\ninto the narrative as if another revelation were here intended.\nMoreover the number of angels that appeared to Abraham when one\nmight have served the purpose as well also presented its difficulty,\nsince Christian theologians, connecting this verse with the\npreceding, tried to employ it as an argument for the trinity. There\nare furthermore in these verses frequent changes of number which\nare difficult to account for. Thus in verse 3, Abraham addresses\nthe angels in the singular, in verse 4 in the plural. In verse 9,\nwe read _va-yomeru_ \"And they said\" while verse 10 which seems a\ncontinuation of this conversation begins _va-yomar_ \"And he said\".\nIn verse 13 God himself suddenly breaks into the conversation. A\ncomparison with other parts of the Bible in which angels appear\nshows that they too exhibit similar peculiarities of style.[2]\n\n  [2] See for instance Genesis 19. 16, 17; 31. 11 to 13; 32. 25 to 31;\n  48. 15 to 16. Exodus 3. 2, etc.; 23. 20 to 22. Judges 2. 1 to 2; 4.\n  12 to 14; 13. 17 to 18, 21 to 22.\n\nThe study of these passages shows the following characteristic\nfeatures of the Biblical conception of angels which will help to\nclear up the difficulties of our text. The angel, as the name both\nin Hebrew and English implies, is the messenger of God. Inasmuch\nas he exists only to do God's bidding his words are the words\nof God and may be introduced by the words \"God said\" as well as\nby \"the angel (or angels) said\". This accounts for the apparent\ninconsistency in the use of singular and plural in our passage. The\nangel has no discretionary power, as appears from the statement in\nExodus 23. 21, that the angel cannot forgive sin. Inasmuch as he\nhas no individual personality or will of his own but is merely a\nmanifestation of God's will, he has no name of his own, the name\nbeing a mark of individuality, but bears the name of God, which\nbeing a mystery, he may not reveal.[3] (Genesis 32. 3. Exodus 23.\n21. Judges 13. 18.) This idea of the impersonality of the angels is\ncarried a step further by the Rabbis, who insist that no angel ever\nexecutes more than one message and account for the number of angels\nthat appeared to Abraham by assigning to each a separate mission;\none to predict to Abraham the birth of Isaac, another to rescue Lot,\nand a third to destroy Sodom. But such an explanation is scarcely\nnecessary as there are other passages in the Bible where a number of\nangels are mentioned for no clear reason, as for instance in Jacob's\ndream. As for the difficulty that we found in verses one and two, it\ncan now be made clear by understanding the appearance of the angels\nin verse two as the explanation of the revelation referred to in\nverse one.\n\n  [3] The significance of this cannot be gone into here. An\n  interesting treatment of it is to be found in Wiener's Essays in\n  Pentateuchal Criticism. Pages 47-53.\n\nRegarding the significance of angels in general, we may consider the\naccounts of their appearances as intended by the Biblical author to\nconvey his appreciation of the mystery of how God can communicate\nwith mortals without loss to His divine majesty. They certainly\ndo convey something of this appreciation to the child, for the\nimagination of children notwithstanding their natural tendency to\nconceive of God in anthropomorphic terms, is impressed by these\nmysterious heralds of an invisible kingdom with a sense of the\nmajesty of God's rule.\n\n=Aim.= This episode has always been made use of, and rightly so, to\nimpress the pupil with an appreciation of that courteous interest\nin the stranger and deferential attention to his wants and desires\nwhich constitute the true grace of hospitality, but an equally\nimportant educational value, perhaps from the point of view of the\nchild an even more important one, is its power of impressing him\nwith a sense of the mysterious possibilities of this world, in which\nany passing stranger that we entertain may turn out to be an angel\nin disguise, who will reveal himself to us and bless us if we do\nnot turn him from our door. The story should leave the child with\nthe feeling expressed in the exclamation, \"Is anything too hard for\nthe Lord\". The teacher must of course not lose sight nor permit the\nchild to lose sight of the story's connection with the main theme\nof the birth of Isaac, the significance of which we have already\npointed out in the previous lesson.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= This is a story whose educational\nvalue would only be lost by analyzing its moral as the beauty of a\nflower is destroyed by pulling it apart to show its structure. Tell\nthe story simply and, as nearly as possible, in the language of\nthe Bible itself. Be careful to give the story its characteristic\npicturesque setting, and begin therefore by contrasting modern\nconditions of housing and travel with those of Abraham's days, thus\nestablishing a point of contact with the child's present experience.\nThe following facts should be impressed on the child:\n\n1. That Abraham's nomadic life, which was also the life led by many\nof his contemporaries, necessitated his dwelling in a tent which\ncould be pitched wherever he wanted to make his home,\n\n2. That traveling was to a large extent on foot over hot sand or\nstones,\n\n3. That travelers were not sure of obtaining food at regular\nintervals, and\n\n4. That it was consequently a great kindness to offer them rest and\nrefreshment.\n\nAfter this introduction, tell the story of how Abraham one day saw\nthree tired travelers on the road approaching in the direction of\nhis tent and invited them to rest, refresh themselves and partake of\nfood. Then, in a manner which would suggest that you are confiding\nto the class a great secret, tell them that these men whom Abraham\nhad invited were not really men at all but angels of God.\n\nThe incident of Sarah's laughing when the angel delivers his message\nand then denying that she had laughed should not be omitted as it\naffords an interesting human touch to the story and still more as it\ngives the occasion for the angel's reply which contains the moral\nof the story, \"Can anything be too wonderful for God?\" There is no\nneed of glossing over Sarah's prevarication and certainly no need\nof giving it undue emphasis, but the incident should be told in\nsuch a way that her motive is made clear. Say, for instance; \"Now\nas you know, Sarah was very old, so old that she thought herself\ntoo old to have a little baby, and when she heard, from behind the\ncurtain of the tent, the angel telling Abraham that in a year's time\nshe should have a son she laughed, just as you would laugh if I told\nyou that a rose bush would have roses in mid-winter. But the angel\nsaid to Abraham, 'Why does Sarah laugh? Is there anything that God\ncannot do?' Then Sarah was ashamed and said, 'I did not laugh'. But\nthe angel said, 'Nay but thou didst laugh and Sarah was more ashamed\nthan ever, for she knew that she had not told the truth, and she\nsaid no more.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH\n\nGenesis 18.7 to 19.29\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The incident of the destruction of Sodom and\nGomorrah, like that of the destruction of the generation of the\ndeluge, is meant as an assertion of God's justice. The insistence on\nthe justice of God is made the more emphatic by the recognition of\nthe fact that His dispensations are such as may lead us at times to\ncall His justice into question. When, therefore, Abraham exclaims,\n\"Shall not the judge of all the world do justice?\" he is not rebuked\nfor his presumption, but, on the contrary, God seems to prefer his\nattitude to one that would accept apparent injustice with complacent\nresignation, and God does not disdain to justify Himself to Abraham\nin very much the same spirit as the Book of Job represents Him\nas preferring the blasphemous accusations of Job to the pious\napologetics of his friends. (Job 42. 7.)\n\nThe particular crime assigned as an instance of the wickedness\nof Sodom was a form of immorality of which strangers were the\nespecial victims. Lot's offer to surrender to the men of Sodom his\ndaughters instead of the strangers was not only prompted by a sense\nof the obligation of hospitality but by the consideration of the\ndifferent degree of immorality involved in the two acts. It goes\nwithout saying that the specific crime of the men of Sodom cannot\nbe explained to the children otherwise than as a disposition to\nabuse strangers, the antithesis to the attitude of Abraham and Lot\ntowards them, and, inasmuch as the nature of the crime cannot be\ntaught, Lot's offer to substitute his daughters for the strangers\ncannot be taught since this act would then appear as an attempt to\nremedy one injustice by perpetrating another.\n\n=Aim.= This lesson yields more than one moral for the child. The\nstyle of Abraham's plea for Sodom and Gomorrah is a very fine\nexample of devotion in prayer and should affect the child's attitude\nin prayer. The lesson of hospitality taught in the story that\npreceded is given further emphasis by the contrast between the\nreception of the strangers by Abraham and by Lot, who was reared in\nAbraham's household, on the one hand, and by the people of Sodom on\nthe other. This contrast between the character of Abraham and that\nof the people of Sodom should appeal to the Jewish pride of the\nchild as a descendant of Abraham, the value of which pride we have\nhad occasion to point out before. The transformation of Lot's wife\ninto a pillar of salt is an excellent lesson in the value of prompt\nobedience and the danger of hesitation and inordinate curiosity.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= In teaching of Abraham's plea for\nSodom and Gomorrah, do not merely give the substance of Abraham's\nprayer but thoroughly assimilate and impart the reverential spirit\ncontained in such introductory phrases as \"Behold now I have\ntaken upon me to speak unto the Lord, who am but dust and ashes,\nperadventure, etc.\" \"Oh, let not the Lord be angry and I will\nspeak\", and again, \"Let not the Lord be angry and I will speak but\nthis once\". In order that this part of the lesson shall affect the\nchild's attitude in prayer, speak of Abraham's plea as a prayer\nby saying \"Then Abraham prayed, etc.\", rather than simply \"Then\nAbraham said\", but do not, of course, go into a dissertation on\nprayer; let the child draw his own moral.\n\nIn telling of the reception of the angels in Sodom it is well to\nemphasize the contrast between the way the men of Sodom treated\nstrangers and the way that Abraham and Lot treated them. The\naccusation of the men of Sodom, \"This one fellow came in to sojourn\nand he will needs play the judge\" is a fine involuntary tribute to\nLot's moral superiority and should be quoted. The final picture in\nverse 28 should not be omitted as it emphasizes the connection of\nAbraham with these events and furnishes, so to speak, a concluding\ntableau to the story.\n\nA description of the Dead Sea region of Palestine, accompanied by a\ngood picture showing its present desolation, might furnish a good\nconclusion to the lesson. The following questions will test the\nchild's comprehension of the story's moral:\n\n1. How did our Father Abraham treat strangers? How did Lot? Where\ndid Lot learn always to be kind to strangers? How did the people of\nSodom treat strangers?\n\nWhy did God want to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? When God told\nAbraham that he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, was Abraham glad\nor sorry? What did he do? Can you repeat his prayer?\n\nWhat did the angels tell Lot and his family not to do? Did they all\nobey? Why did Lot's wife look back? What happened to her because she\ndid not obey?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE DIVORCE OF HAGAR\n\nGenesis 20 and 21\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The incident recorded in Chapter 20 is intended\nto show the care exercised by God in preserving the purity of the\nchosen seed, but it cannot be taught to children because of their\nignorance of the facts of sex. Chapter 21 verses 21 to the end of\nthe chapter may be omitted since they offer nothing of interest to\nthe child.\n\nFor the interpretation of the main theme of this chapter see\nintroduction pages 19-20 and Chapter VIII. It is to be noted that\nGod's choice of Isaac does not mean that His providence does not\nextend over Ishmael as well. Not only is Ishmael's life saved but\nGod's promise to Abraham regarding Ishmael is kept as well as His\npromise regarding Isaac.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in this lesson is practically the same as in Chapter\nVIII, to inspire faith in God's providential interest in human\naffairs in general and in Israel's destiny in particular. The child\nneed not understand all the implications of the narrative at the\ntime it is taught him but if it be taught properly the story will\nmake its impression and he will understand them more completely\nlater. God's hearing the voice of Ishmael should suggest to the\nchild the value of prayer and thus influence his immediate life.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before beginning the narrative of\nthis story recall to the children, by well directed questions,\nthe previous history of the relations of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and\nIshmael, as we have explained them in Chapter VIII. Then point out\nthe complications which the birth of Isaac introduced since God\nhad promised that Isaac was to be the son to inherit the blessing\nof Abraham together with the possession of the promised land, and\nIshmael, who was now beginning to grow up into the \"wild ass of a\nman\" according to the prophecy that had preceded his birth, would\ndispute this with him. It therefore became necessary for Hagar\nand Ishmael to be sent away after the birth of Isaac. Inasmuch\nas the idea of inheritance and the idea of national destiny are\ntoo abstract for children, the story must be adapted to their\ncomprehension by putting it on a more personal plane somewhat as\nfollows:\n\n\"Now when Hagar saw that God had given a son to Sarah also as the\nangel had promised and that this son Isaac and not her own Ishmael\nwas the one to whom God told Abraham he would give the land of\nCanaan and whose children would be the great Jewish people, she\nbecame jealous and hated Sarah very much and even Sarah's little\nbaby Isaac. And Ishmael too, who was now grown up into a big wild\nboy--you remember the angel had said he would be a wild man when\nhe grew up--also was jealous of Isaac. And Hagar tried to persuade\nAbraham to give her son part of this land of Canaan that God had\npromised to Isaac. Now Sarah saw all this and she knew that it would\nnot be good for Isaac to grow up together with this wild and wicked\nIshmael and so she told Abraham to send Hagar and her son away to\nsome other country where they could not do any mischief to Isaac\nwhom God had chosen to be the father of the Jewish people.\"[4]\n\n  [4] To speak of our race as the Jewish people at any time before\n  the exile of the ten tribes is, to be sure, an anachronism, but we\n  employ it because the child knows that he and his friends are Jews\n  before he knows that they are Israelites or Hebrews.\n\nIn concluding the story one might interest the child by telling\nhim that there are descendants of Ishmael alive today who like us\nfeel proud to be descended from Abraham, and describing some of the\nhabits of the Bedouin Arabs, their nomadic life, their pastoral\noccupation similar to that of the patriarchs and also their tribal\nfeuds and not infrequent raids for pillage which still would justify\nthe prophecy, \"His hand shall be against every man and every man's\nhand against him\", but one should in justice say that this is\nnot true of the large number of Arabs who have settled in more\ncivilized communities. A picture of Bedouins in modern times would\nbe of interest to the class and help give a sense of reality to the\nBiblical story.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC\n\nGenesis 22.1 to 19\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The story of the _'Akedah_, that is the intended\nsacrifice of Isaac, represents the supreme test to which Abraham's\nfaith was put. After Ishmael has been sent away and Isaac has been\ndefinitely declared to be the son of promise, Abraham is commanded\nby God to sacrifice Isaac. The test to Abraham's faith is not merely\nof the willingness to sacrifice sentiment and affection in obedience\nto God, but this latest command is a direct contradiction of God's\nprevious words to him and yet he obeys.\n\nThe story can only be understood fully in the light of the religious\ncustoms of Abraham's day, according to which human sacrifice was not\nuncommon. (See II Kings 3. 27, also 21. 6, 23. 10 and Jeremiah 32.\n35.) Viewed in this light God's asking Abraham to sacrifice his son\nmeant nothing which to a contemporary of Abraham would have seemed\nessentially inconsistent with the divine character. It is God's\nforbidding the consummation of this act which is the innovation, so\nthat this lesson teaches in a narrative form the same idea which\nlater received its legal formulation in Leviticus 18. 21 and 20.\n2-5. The chapter has therefore a twofold message; (1) that to be\nthe elect of God requires of us the willingness to sacrifice any\npersonal desire and even natural affection in obedience to him, and\n(2) that God's will, to which He claims obedience, is a benevolent\none and does not demand or desire human sacrifice.\n\nThe idea that God does not desire human sacrifice was a great moral\ndiscovery and this narrative in our Bible gives us an interesting\nillustration of how such new spiritual insights in general are born;\nnamely through the willingness to commit ourselves completely to\nwhatever vision of truth is ours at the time. It was because Abraham\nwas willing to sacrifice Isaac in accordance with his previous\nsense of what duty demanded of him, that this new revelation of\nGod's will as opposed to human sacrifice was granted him. Had he,\nwhile sharing with his contemporaries the belief in the legitimacy\nof human sacrifice, hesitated to live up to this idea when it\ninvolved suffering for himself, he would never have been given\nthe understanding that God does not desire human sacrifice. Our\nstandards of morality are at all times imperfect, but it is only\nthose who commit themselves without reservation to whatever standard\nthey really hold that are the discoverers of new moral truths.\n\nThe part that Isaac played in the incident is but vaguely suggested\nin the Biblical narrative. The _agadic_ elaborations of the story\nfrequently represent Isaac as knowing what fate was intended for\nhim and fully acquiescing in it. That Isaac probably had his\nmisgivings is suggested by the question, \"Behold the fire and the\nwood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?\" At all events\nhe must have known what Abraham's purpose with regard to him was\nwhen he was being bound to the altar and, as the narrative records\nno protest, the Rabbinic conception of the part Isaac played is\nnot contradictory to the Biblical story. The teacher is therefore\njustified in imparting the story in a way which would imply that\nIsaac lent himself willingly to Abraham's designs regarding him.\n\nIn the substitution of the ram for Isaac one gets a glimpse into the\nsignificance of animal sacrifice. It probably meant to the ancients\na symbolic expression of the recognition that God had the right\nto demand the sacrifice of human life in his service and that it\nwas a sign of his love and grace that no such demand was made. It\nsuggests the important role that animal sacrifice played in history\nin weaning mankind from the habit of human sacrifice.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to make the child feel that as a\nson of Abraham his love for God should be such that, like Abraham,\nhe should be willing to make any sacrifice that his religion may\ndemand of him. The traditional association of the _shofar_ on Rosh\nha-Shanah with the Ram of the Akedah suggests that this story may be\nused to give meaning to the New Year celebration.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The pathos of this narrative is so\ndeep and intense that many teachers, laboring under the notion so\ncommon in our day that children should be reared only on what is\ncheerful and bright and be kept far from a knowledge of any of the\nmore tragic aspects of life, would like to omit teaching it to\nchildren all together. When therefore the curriculum of the school\nrequires them to teach it, they tell the story in as matter of\nfact a manner as possible and seem anxious to get over it. This\nis a mistake however, for children have always had a fondness for\nstories containing something of the tragic, even of the weird and\nuncanny, as witness the popularity of Little Red Riding Hood, and\nthe story of the Akedah is one which can, by very reason of what\nto our modern mind appeals as weird, impress its lesson on the\nchild's imagination. To pass over it slightingly is to spoil what\nis undoubtedly the climax of the whole Abraham story and ignore one\nof the best opportunities of deeply impressing the child with the\nlesson of faith, obedience and self sacrifice.\n\nBegin the lesson by speaking of Abraham's love for Isaac, now\nthe only son that was left him and of the hopes he cherished of\nseeing him grow up to be a great man according to God's promise.\nThen tell how God resolved to test Abraham's obedience by seeing\nwhether he would be willing to give up that which he loved most if\nso commanded. Before telling of God's command to sacrifice Isaac\nremind the child of the prevalent custom of animal sacrifice which\nhe had heard of in connection with Cain and Noah. The fact of the\ngeneral prevalence of human sacrifice at that time should not be\ntaught the child as it will be impossible for him to comprehend\nsuch a practice and as the story only gains in force for him by\nmaking God's demand of Abraham appear extraordinary. We need not\nscruple that we are violating the Biblical moral in this instance,\nsince the Bible's denunciation of human sacrifice is not a moral\nthat the child has need of. A reference to animal sacrifice will\ntherefore suffice to make comprehensible the command to sacrifice\nIsaac. All the conversation in this story should be quoted in the\nlanguage of the Bible, not omitting Isaac's pathetic query, \"Behold\nthe fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?\"\nAnd Abraham's evasive answer, \"God will provide Himself the lamb\nfor a burnt-offering, my son\". In telling how Isaac was bound to\nthe altar emphasize the fact that he did not rebel although he knew\nnow that he was to be the sacrifice, because of his obedience to\nGod and his father and his confidence in them. When telling how the\nram was found caught by its horns in the bushes, ask, \"How many\nof you have ever seen a ram's horn?\" There will probably be no\nresponse. Then show the class a _shofar_ or a picture of one and\nask, \"What is this?\" The answer will be \"a _shofar_\". Then continue;\n\"Well, a _shofar_ is the horn of a ram. When we hear the _shofar_\nblown on Rosh ha-Shanah it should remind us of this ram and of how\nAbraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac and Isaac was willing to be\nsacrificed when God commanded, and we should think of how we, who\nare sons of Abraham and Isaac, must be willing also to obey God and\nour parents in everything even if it should be very hard to do so,\neven if it should cost us our life.\" In order to make sure that\nthe child has understood the motives of the story the following\nquestions may be asked in reviewing it: 1. When God asked Abraham\nto sacrifice Isaac, did he really want him to kill his son? 2. Why\ndid God ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? 3. When Abraham tied Isaac\nto the altar did Isaac rebel against his father? When we hear the\n_shofar_ blown on Rosh ha-Shanah what should we think of?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nDEATH OF SARAH AND THE MARRIAGE OF ISAAC AND REBEKAH\n\nGenesis 23 and 24\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The incident of the purchase of the Cave of\nMachpelah need be mentioned only casually in connection with\nthe death of Sarah as the political questions involved in the\ndialogue between the _Bene Heth_ and Abraham are beyond the child's\ncomprehension.[5]\n\n  [5] The teacher who is interested will find them discussed in\n  Sulzberger's Am Haaretz.\n\nThe care exercised in the selection of a wife for Isaac from his own\nkindred rather than from the daughters of Canaan emphasizes again\nthe interest of Providence in selecting the stock out of which the\nChosen People was to come. Abraham's servant--presumably Eliezer,\nwho is mentioned in Genesis 15.2--was not permitted to take Isaac\nout of Canaan as that would have been equivalent to a desertion of\nhis historic mission which was connected with the Promised Land.\nSignificant are the qualifications of the ideal wife for Isaac\nsuggested in the prayer of Eliezer--kindness and hospitality.\n\n=Aim.= The value of this lesson to the child, apart from its\nconnection with the more general theme of God's selection of the\nseed from which the Chosen People is to spring, lies in the example\nof faith in God and fidelity to his trust exhibited by Abraham's\nservant, and of the kindness and consideration shown by Rebekah,\nwhich the child's sympathy with the characters of the story would\nnaturally lead him to imitate.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= By following the Biblical narrative\nclosely, you will have little difficulty in imparting it to the\nchild. When telling of the death of Sarah, dwell on her virtues a\nwhile and then explain Abraham's concern that his son Isaac should\nhave just such a wife as Sarah had been, one that would be worthy\nto be the mother of the great nation God had promised would be\ndescended from Isaac. Then relate how, not finding such a wife among\nhis neighbors, Abraham sent to the land from which he and Sarah\nhad come. Explain Abraham's refusal to let Isaac go to Mesopotamia\nbecause God had told Abraham to leave that place and had promised\nthat in Canaan he would make of his seed a great nation. Emphasize\nthe length and difficulty of the journey, pointing out the route on\nthe map if the children are old enough to interpret a map.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTHE SALE OF THE BIRTHRIGHT\n\nGenesis 25.1 to 34\n\n\n=Interpretation.= (Chapter 25. 1 to 10 may be omitted as containing\nnothing of interest to children, except that Abraham's death and\nburial should be mentioned.)\n\nThe story of Jacob and Esau in their contention for the birthright\nand the blessing is one that is frequently misunderstood. The\ntendency to idealize the forefathers of the race has lead many\nteachers to attempt to justify the conduct of Jacob in his efforts\nto secure the birthright and the blessing, totally ignoring the fact\nthat all the wretched consequences which followed naturally upon\nhis attempt would seem to indicate that God did not approve. What\nthese consequences were will be discussed in subsequent chapters.\nOther teachers sin in the opposite direction and make out Esau to\nbe the innocent victim of Jacob's cunning and avarice. How they can\nreconcile this with the choice of Jacob to be the patriarch rather\nthan Esau, how they can conceive that God's will could confirm the\nact of Jacob and the hand of Providence be, so to speak, forced\ninto blessing Jacob though Esau was the more worthy of blessing, is\ndifficult to understand. The mistake common to both these versions\nof the Biblical meaning of the story is that they look at it mainly\nas a character study of two contrasting types, whereas the moral of\nthe story lies not so much in the characters as in the incidents,\nwhich, when given closer attention, reveal the fact that the motive\nunderlying the whole story is not the personal contest between\nJacob and Esau but the carrying out of God's plan, contained in\nhis promise to Abraham, the plan of bringing into existence the\npeople to whom He was to reveal Himself. And this idea is brought\nout, as in the story of Abraham's relation to Ishmael and Isaac,\nby contrasting the purposes of the human agents with God's purpose\nand showing how God's purpose is made to triumph by His so shaping\nthe incidents of Jacob's life that they correct Jacob's original\nmisconception of his mission.\n\nLet us see how the incidents in this chapter cast light on our\ntheme. Note in the first instance the prophecy contained in\nGenesis 25.23 which indicates in advance that Jacob and not Esau\nwas intended from the beginning to be the heir of the blessing of\nAbraham. Note also that the prophecy speaks of \"two nations\" and\n\"two peoples\", showing distinctly that the events of the narrative\nwere shaped by God with a view to subsequent history not merely to\nthe lives of Jacob and Esau as individuals. The very fact that \"the\nelder shall serve the younger\" is to give emphasis to the divine\nelection of Jacob, for, according to the law and custom of those\ndays, the elder was entitled to the obedience and service of the\nyounger. Had Jacob been the older of the two brothers his subsequent\npreeminence and that of his descendants would have seemed but part\nof the natural course of events and would not have argued divine\nelection, but with Esau the first born the subsequent elevation of\nJacob does so argue.\n\nThis, as well as much else in the story, becomes clearer to us if\nwe understand what was meant by the birthright. In patriarchal\ntimes, the father was absolute ruler over his descendants. At\nhis death, the oldest son took his place and inherited as even in\nlater times, twice as large a portion of the estate as any of his\nother sons. (See Deuteronomy 21.17.) But this is not all that was\ninvolved in the birthright. If it were all, Jacob's desire for it\nwould have been mere avarice and ambition and would have justified\nthat total condemnation which many a teacher has given him. But we\nmust remember that the first born was also the religious head of the\ntribe. (See Numbers 3.45.) It was therefore most natural for Jacob\nto assume that God's promise to Abraham, with all its spiritual\nimplications, naturally went with the birthright.\n\nNow let us examine the characters as they appear in this chapter.\nEsau is not the consummate villain that he is so frequently depicted\nas being in later Jewish _agada_. But on the other hand, he is not\nthe injured hero. The story characterizes him as a skilful hunter,\ninterested in his woodcraft, and caring little about either the\nprivileges or the responsibilities of his birthright. To Jacob\nhowever the inheritance of the blessing of Abraham was important,\nperhaps a knowledge of the prophecy that had preceded his birth\nmaking it even more so. Esau had forfeited his moral right to the\nblessing through his failure to appreciate it. Not too much stress\nmust be laid on Esau's words \"Behold I am at the point to die and\nwhat profit shall the birthright do to me?\" as these are to be\nregarded not as a statement of sober fact but as the exaggeration of\na hungry man, for the Bible takes pains to explain Esau's attitude\nin the words, \"And he did eat and drink and rose up and went his\nway. So Esau _despised his birthright_\", showing that he was at the\ntime perfectly satisfied with the bargain he had made. This takes\nfrom Jacob the stigma of having forced the bargain on Esau when the\nlatter could not help himself. He merely took advantage of Esau's\ncontempt for the birthright, which was sufficient evidence that he\nwas not worthy to possess it. At the same time, Jacob's employing\nthese means to secure the birthright does not seem, as will appear\nmore clearly in later chapters, to meet the divine approval, because\n(1) this attempt to wrest the birthright from Esau through taking\nadvantage of Esau's weakness in itself argues a lack of complete\nconfidence in the realization of God's promise, in other words, a\nlack of that quality of _temimut_, of naive acceptance of God's\nwill, which was so conspicuous a trait of Abraham's character, and\n(2) because he does not fully understand the spiritual character of\nhis mission inasmuch as he regards its realization as dependent upon\nthe legal status of the birthright, which he could, so he thought,\nsecure by purchase.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to teach the general truth that\na privilege which is not appreciated becomes forfeit, and the\nparticular truth that to be a Jew is to possess such a privilege,\nwhich we must learn to appreciate.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before beginning the narrative of this\nchapter itself, prepare the way by questions that will bring out the\nfact of the election of Abraham and his descendants and the choice\nthat God exercised in selecting from among his descendants only\nthose properly qualified. Such questions are the following; \"Do you\nremember, when we were learning about Abraham and about how God told\nhim to leave his land and go to the land that He would show him,\nthat God made Abraham a promise? What was that promise? (Note: The\nanswer must include the idea that his descendants would be a great\nnation, a blessing to all the world, and would inherit Canaan.) When\nour father Abraham died, did this blessing go to both his children,\nto Ishmael and to Isaac? To whom did the blessing belong?\"\n\nAfter having thus prepared the way proceed as follows:\n\n\"Now Isaac and Rebekah also had two children. The first born or\nolder was called Esau and the younger Jacob, and it was known that\nonly one of the two was to inherit the blessing, but for a long time\nit was not known which one.\"\n\nThen contrast the two characters emphasizing the physical prowess of\nEsau, which won him the more universal admiration and the preference\nof his father with the quiet thoughtfulness of Jacob. In order to\nimpress the child, the contrast must be given largely in terms of\ntheir physical appearance. We continue the narrative as a teacher\nmight tell it in class:\n\n\"These two sons, Esau and Jacob, were very different one from the\nother. Esau was a big strong man, rough and hairy in appearance, who\ndelighted in all sorts of sport and exercise, especially in hunting.\nPeople admired him for his great strength and skill and most of\nthem thought that surely this big, strong man was the one whom God\nhad chosen to be the father of His people. And Isaac himself loved\nEsau more than he did Jacob, because, now that Isaac was growing\nold, Esau used to hunt food for him in the forest and would tell him\nwonderful stories of his strength and skill in catching the deer and\nother game that he prepared for him for food. But Jacob was very\ndifferent. He was not above the average man in strength and he had\nno particular skill in hunting as had Esau. He was a quiet man, who\nused to sit for hours in his tent, while his flocks were pasturing\nnearby and think about the things he had learned from his father and\nmother and from his grandfather Abraham, about how God had made the\nworld, and about how he had told Abraham to leave his country and go\nto a new land, and, above all, about the promise that God had given\nto Abraham to make of his descendants a great people. Which of these\ntwo sons of Isaac and Rebekah had God chosen to become the father of\nthe Jewish people? Most people, no doubt, thought at the time that\nEsau was meant, because he was the stronger and more successful in\nthe hunt, but there was one person who thought differently, and that\nwas the mother of these two young men, Rebekah. For she remembered\na prophecy that God had told her before either of the two children\nwere born, and this prophecy said, 'Two nations will come from thee\nand two peoples will be born of thee and one will be stronger than\nthe other, but the elder will serve the younger'.\"\n\nThe prophecy is introduced here rather than at the beginning of the\nstory because it is well to stimulate the child's curiosity as to\nwhich of the two is to receive the blessing of Abraham before giving\nhim any hint as to the answer. By thus beginning with a statement\nof the question, the child's attention is at once directed to the\ncentral theme of the narrative without which the incident of the\nsale of the birthright is not comprehensible. But now one comes\nface to face with the subject of the birthright itself. Explain,\nthat beside Esau's strength and skill, there was another reason why\npeople thought that Esau was to be the chosen son, and that is\nbecause he was the older, for it was the custom in those days that\nthe oldest son enjoyed what was known as the birthright. The idea of\nthe birthright can be explained by saying that in the days of which\nwe are speaking the father used to be the king over all his children\nand their families and servants, that he used to lead them in war\nand judge all their disputes in time of peace, and that he was also\ntheir priest, who used to perform the sacrifices for them and lead\nthem in their prayers and hymns to God, but that, when the father\ndied, the oldest son got all these rights and this right of the\noldest son to become priest and king after the death of the father\nis known as the birthright.\n\nAfter the child has a clear idea of the meaning of the birthright,\ntell how Jacob thought that the one who had the birthright was he\nwhom God meant to make the head of the great nation he had told\nAbraham about, since whoever had the birthright would be king and\npriest over all the others after Isaac's death. I continue the\nnarrative as the teacher might tell it:\n\n\"So Jacob kept thinking to himself, 'If only I had the birthright!\nIf only I had the birthright!' but Esau, who had the birthright,\nseemed to care very little about it. So long as there was game\nenough in the forest to keep him busy hunting, he bothered his head\nvery little about what he would do when, on Isaac's death, he would\nhave to rule the people and lead them in the service of God, and the\npromise made to Abraham that some day his descendants would become\na great nation concerned him even less, for he thought only of the\naffairs of the day and to the future he gave no thought at all.\"\n\nThis brings us to the climax of the narrative, the actual sale\nof the birthright. It must be told in such a way that the child\nunderstands the point that Esau lost his birthright because he did\nnot know how to appreciate it, and that, as a universal proposition,\na privilege not appreciated is lost. This can best be done if,\nbefore telling the story of the sale of the birthright, one presents\na hypothetical case somewhat as follows:\n\n\"Suppose, children, that a man owned a very valuable book which he\nwanted to leave when he died to one of his two children, and suppose\nthat one of his children was a great lover of books and the other\ndid not care even to look at a book or to take the trouble to learn\nto read, which of the two children do you think ought to have had\nthe book after the father's death? Of course, the one who knew the\nvalue of the book and how to appreciate it, because we only deserve\nwhat we know how to appreciate. Now who do you think should have had\nthe birthright, Esau, who did not care about being the father of the\ngreat people God had promised to make of Abraham's descendants, or\nJacob who did care? (Answer: Jacob.) Well, Jacob thought so too and\nso he began planning how he might get Esau to give up the birthright\nto him.\"\n\nIn quoting the dialogue between Esau and Jacob, paraphrase Esau's\nwords in verse 32 so as to make it perfectly clear that they are an\nexpression of contempt for the birthright, \"I am so hungry I could\ndie. What do I care for the birthright!\"\n\nAfter having told the story question the children with a view to\nseeing whether they understand its leading ideas. The following are\nsuggestive questions:\n\nWhat promise did God make to Abraham and to Isaac?\n\nWas this promise meant for both of Isaac's children?\n\nWhich of Isaac's children do you think God wanted to have the\npromised blessing? Why? (Note: If the child gives the wrong answer,\nthe teacher must ask a number of leading questions until the right\nanswer is secured.)\n\nWhat does birthright mean? Who had the birthright at the beginning\nof our story? Did Esau care very much for the birthright? Did\nJacob want it? Why did Jacob want it? What did Jacob do to get the\nbirthright?\n\nThis lesson lends itself easily to dramatization by the children.\n(See Introduction, page 31.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nJACOB SECURES THE BLESSING\n\nGenesis 26.1 to 28.9\n\n\n=Interpretation.= In the first part of this lesson which deals\nwith the life of Isaac, Genesis 26.3 is significant as emphasizing\nthe idea of Palestine as a chosen land, an idea which is the more\nsignificant because it suggests that Jacob's flight from the land\nimplied that he had somehow forfeited God's favor and that his\nflight was in reality a form of exile imposed on him as a punishment\nand discipline. Verses 7 to 12 must necessarily be omitted. Their\ngeneral significance is the same as that of Genesis 20. Isaac's\npatience and forbearance in the matter of the wells suggests\ncomparison with Abraham in his relations to Lot.\n\nWith regard to the incident of Jacob's securing the blessing, we\nhave already in the last chapter discussed the significance of the\nmain theme of this story. A few new elements, however, enter into\nit here. One of these is the blindness of Isaac, which, by making\nhim more dependent upon Esau, keeps him from realizing Jacob's\nsuperior qualifications for becoming heir to the blessing of\nAbraham. Another new element that enters into the story is Esau's\nmarrying the two Hittite women \"who were a bitterness of spirit to\nIsaac and Rebekah\". This gives an additional motive for Rebekah's\naction in trying to secure the birthright to Jacob, since Rebekah\nwould otherwise, at the death of Isaac, become subject to Esau and\nhis wives. It moreover gives emphasis to the fact that Esau was\nnot to be the father of the chosen seed, since, in the case of all\nof the patriarchs care is exercised that their wives shall likewise\nbe of chosen seed, of the same stock which produced the patriarchs\nthemselves. Genesis 27.33 is significant, particularly the words,\n\"yea, and he shall be blessed\", as implying Isaac's recognition\nthat, though the blessing was secured to Jacob by a deception, it\nwas still an indication of God's purpose, and that he had hitherto\nbeen mistaken in wanting to confer the blessing on Esau. The same\nthought is implied in his assenting to Rebekah's suggestion that\nJacob seek a wife from her kindred and in his repeating on that\noccasion the blessing, \"May he give thee the blessing of Abraham\",\netc. As we have already explained, this does not mean that the Bible\napproves of the deception practiced by Rebekah and Jacob. Quite\nthe contrary. The one immediate effect is that Rebekah has to lose\nJacob; that Jacob, instead of entering immediately into possession\nof the land and the birthright, is a fugitive and an exile; that,\nas we shall see in subsequent chapters, Rebekah's hope for Jacob's\nspeedy return is not fulfilled; and that as will likewise appear\nlater, there is great danger of Jacob's remaining in Aramea and\ntotally forgetting his destiny until Providence forces him to\nremember.\n\nThe circumstances related in this narrative as we have explained\nthem are significant by reason of what they have to teach us with\nregard to Israel's mission as the chosen people. In the first place,\nthere is implied the idea, which we have frequently pointed out\nbefore, that God's purpose with regard to his people is not fully\nrealized by them. This is shown in our lesson by the fact that the\npatriarchs are represented as acting in a way which would tend to\ndefeat God's purpose regarding them, as, for instance, when Isaac\nalmost gives the blessing to Esau and when Jacob, through the means\nhe chooses to secure the blessing, is compelled to flee from the\nPromised Land which he was to inherit. This is a very important\ncorrective to that arrogance which faith in divine election is\nlikely to bring with it, for it contradicts the assumption that\nthe Jewish people is infallible. There is, moreover, implied in\nthis story the idea that when Israel does not rightly conceive\nits mission, it must be taught through the discipline of hardship\nand suffering, as in the case of Jacob, that election does not\nmean immunity from punishment but, on the contrary, stricter\naccountability, as expressed by Amos, \"You only have I known of all\nthe families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your\niniquities\". (Amos 3.2.)\n\n=Aim.= The child will not be expected to grasp all the implications\nof this narrative, but neither will they all escape him, and if the\nstory is well told, without any undue idealization of the characters\nor distortion of the narrative for the sake of reading a moral\ninto it, the story will impress itself on him sufficiently to gain\nadded meaning as he reverts to it in later years. It is a mistake\nto imagine that a moral which is not formulated is of necessity not\nlearned.\n\nFor the child's immediate benefit, however, it is well to emphasize\nthe punishment of Jacob's deception in order to inculcate the ideal\nof truthfulness. But great care must be exercised in order not\nto make Jacob so unsympathetic that Esau becomes the hero of the\nstory, for this would distort the Biblical moral and give rise to a\nmisunderstanding of it which the pupil is not likely to correct in\nlater life. It must always be made plain that Jacob had a right to\nwant and expect the blessing, but that he should have trusted God to\ngive it to him and should not have tried to get it through deception.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Inasmuch as the moral of this story is\ndependent on an understanding of the motives on which the characters\nact, take particular pains to make your dramatic impersonation\nof the characters as realistic as possible and not to delay the\nmovement of the plot by lengthy moralizing. This story, like the\npreceding one of the sale of the birthright, lends itself very well\nto dramatization by the class, and the success of the children in\nassuming the roles of the different characters will be an excellent\ntest of your success in imparting the story.\n\nThough one should avoid moralizing in such a way as would interrupt\nthe thread of the narrative, the very complexity of the motives of\nthe characters gives a good opportunity to ask such questions as\nwould necessitate the exercise of moral judgment on the part of\nthe class, as for instance: Was Jacob right in trying to get the\nblessing from his father by taking advantage of his blindness? Was\nJacob punished for having deceived his father? How? etc. But though\nthe teacher may raise these questions, they must not be left open\nquestions. The Biblical moral must be kept clearly in mind and\nconvincingly presented; otherwise such questions merely develop a\ncasuistical attitude on the part of the class, which is morally bad.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nJACOB'S DREAM\n\nGenesis 28.10-22\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The story of Jacob's dream, in order to be clearly\nunderstood, should be considered in connection with the rest of\nJacob's life. His life may be divided into three periods. During the\nfirst period, spent in his father's home, he endeavors by his own\nefforts, partly through unscrupulous means, to secure the birthright\nand blessing, with the result that instead of having the preeminence\nover Esau he must flee before him, instead of inheriting the\nPromised Land he is an exile from it, and instead of becoming the\nfather of a great people he becomes subject to the tribe which his\ngrandfather Abraham had been commanded to leave.\n\nThe second period of Jacob's life embraces his abode in Aramea.\nDuring this period, his early ambitions become more and more\nremote and unreal. First love, then the raising of his family and\nhard labor in the service of Laban draw his mind from his earlier\nambitions, and it is with reference to this period that we are told,\n\"A wandering Aramean was my father\". (Deuteronomy 26.5.) But just\nwhen it would seem that the hope with regard to his future, which he\nhad tried at first in vain to realize and had then almost abandoned,\nwas wholly lost, God intervenes to send him once more to his land.\n\nThe third period of his life finds him in undisputed possession of\nthe land, the prophecy of his youth fulfilled, though in a way very\ndifferent from his youthful anticipations of its fulfillment.\n\nNow Jacob's dream at Beth El is significant by reason of its\nposition at the beginning of the second period in his life, during\nwhich he increasingly forgets his mission. It is intended to inform\nthe reader that, though Jacob might forget, God would not and\nthat, though Jacob's blundering devices could not secure him the\nbirthright and blessing, God could secure them to him even when he\ndespaired of them.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this story should be to impress the child with a\nsense of the watchful providence of God over our forefathers and\nus, and with the desire to express appreciation of this divine\nguardianship in worship. This story affords an excellent occasion\nfor urging upon children the saying of a prayer on going to bed\nand on rising, in this way showing an opportunity for the child's\napplication of the lesson in his daily life.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Begin by contrasting the comfortable\nfeeling of the child when he goes to bed in his own room, in his\nown bed, with his mother to pull the blanket over him and all the\nfamily nearby, with the way he would feel if night overtook him in a\nlonely wilderness with no one near except perhaps wild beasts, and\nhe had to lie down on the ground with a stone for a pillow. After\nthis description, give the point of the story you wish to teach,\nas follows: \"And yet even if you would have to sleep alone in the\nwilderness, you would not be really alone, for God is always with us\nand sees us even though we do not see Him, and takes care of us, as\nthe story I am going to tell you will show.\"\n\nThen proceed with the story of Jacob, emphasizing his despairing\nmood when he leaves Beer Sheba, his fear of Esau, his grief at\nparting from his parents and home, his disappointment at having to\nleave the land God had promised to Abraham and Isaac and the sense\nof having failed after all to secure the birthright, together with\nthe physical dangers and terrors of the wilderness. Then tell how\nJacob lay down in the wilderness to sleep, and how God, who had been\nwatching him all the time and took pity on him, sent him a beautiful\ndream to comfort him. God's promise in verses 13, 14, 15 should be\nquoted in Biblical language, as should also Jacob's exclamation\n\"Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not ... this is\nnone other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven\".\nJacob's conduct in setting the place aside for worship and his vow\nshould also receive notice. The significance of the name Beth El\nshould be taught the children and its location pointed out on the\nmap.\n\nWhen the story has been told and repeated by the class, ask, \"How\nmany of you, when you go to bed or when you get up in the morning\nthink of how, while you are asleep, God watches over you and takes\ncare that nothing bad should happen to you? Do you say any prayer to\nGod when you go to bed or when you get up to show that you know He\ntakes care of you and thank Him for it? What do you say when you go\nto bed? When you get up?\" Several children should be questioned on\nthis as each child who does say his prayers will want to be given\na hearing and should be encouraged. The children might be asked to\nmemorize in Hebrew and English the verse \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05de\u05b5\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05df \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b8\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d4\u05b4\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\n\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \"Behold, He that keepeth Israel doth neither slumber nor\nsleep\" and be asked to make it a part of their night prayer.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nJACOB IN ARAMEA\n\nGenesis 29.1 to 31.54\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The general significance of this period in Jacob's\nlife has already been discussed. Note that when, after completing\nhis term of service for Leah and Rachel, he thinks of returning to\nhis home, the suggestion of a new contract with Laban satisfies him\nand he remains, so remote is now the thought of the birthright to\nhim. And yet through persistent, persevering labor he does attain to\na certain measure of power and influence and to patriarchal dignity.\nIt is interesting to note the poetic justice which makes him during\nthis period of his life the victim of just that sort of deceit\nwhich he had himself practised. Nevertheless in spite of the deceit\npractised upon him by Laban, Jacob remains scrupulously true to\nhis side of the contract and serves the additional seven years for\nRachel although he might have been tempted to shirk, as he had been\npaid in advance. (See Genesis 29.27 to 30.) To be sure he has no\nscruples about taking the full advantage of his superior mastery of\nthe shepherd's art in his dealings with Laban, but he was certainly\nunder no obligations to him after the treatment he had received\nfrom him. One naturally omits in teaching this lesson to children,\nGenesis 29.31 to 30.24, except that the pupils should be taught the\nnames of Jacob's children because of their significance as heads of\nthe tribes. The incident of the theft of the _teraphim_ may also be\nomitted because the absence of positive knowledge as to what the\n_teraphim_ were and what part they played in the religious life of\nour ancestors prevents us from doing justice to this episode.\n\n=Aim.= This lesson, together with the ones that precede and follow\nit, is well calculated to impress on the child the superior\nadvantage of honest, faithful labor over craftiness and deceit. This\nwas already taught negatively in the preceding lessons through the\nfailure of Jacob to attain his ends by deception. It is taught in\nthis lesson both negatively and positively; negatively by Jacob's\nbeing made to feel what it means to be deceived, and positively\nby the fact that when Jacob, notwithstanding the deceit practiced\non him, continues to render faithful service, he is finally given\nthe opportunity to return and claim the birthright. The idea of\ntruthfulness is further enforced by God's example in redeeming His\npromise to Jacob at Beth El.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before beginning this lesson review\nbriefly the preceding, emphasizing the change in Jacob's attitude\nsince his dream at Beth El, particularly his resolution not to\nattempt to secure the birthright through his own cunning but to\nrely on God's promise and to try to live aright in the present,\ntrusting God as to the future. The incident of Jacob's lifting the\nstone from the well to assist Rachel in watering the flock should\nbe given due emphasis as children of this age are interested in\nfeats of strength. The romantic aspect of Jacob's love for Rachel\nneed not be emphasized as this is lost on the child. In telling of\nJacob's service as shepherd to Laban, attempt to give the child an\nidea of what a shepherd's work actually was, how it exposed him to\nall kinds of weather, how he had to protect his sheep against wild\nbeasts, how he had to draw water for them, to shear them, etc.,\nso that Jacob's serving Laban for all these years shall have some\nmeaning to them. As children have very peculiar ideas of the length\nof time, try to give some conception of how long a time seven years\nis by asking one of the children how old he is and then explaining\nthat seven years is probably longer than all the time that he can\nremember. Explain also how the time seemed shorter to Jacob because\nof his happiness in being with Rachel by a reference to the child's\nown experience of how quickly time flies when he is enjoying\nhimself at play. To emphasize Jacob's perseverance tell of Laban's\ndeception, then ask, \"Now if you had worked hard for a thing for\nseven long years and then were cheated out of it, how would you feel\nabout it?\" Then point out the moral somewhat as follows:\n\n\"Jacob too felt very angry and did not at all like to work seven\nmore years for what should rightly have been given him then. But\nno doubt the thought came to him, after all, was I any better than\nLaban? Did I not deceive my father Isaac into giving me the blessing\nwhen he wanted to give it to Esau, just as Laban has deceived me?\nMaybe this is God's way of punishing me. I must be patient and work\nanother seven years as I have promised Laban even though it will be\nhard and unpleasant, and then maybe God will let me go back home and\nbless me as He has promised.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nJACOB RETURNS TO CANAAN\n\nGenesis 32 to 35\n\n\n=Interpretation.= Note the significant contrast between Jacob's\nleaving Canaan and his return. When he left, he was nominally and\nin his own esteem the possessor of the birthright and the blessing,\nwhich he had secured through his own effort and which he thought\nentitled him to possession of Canaan and the preeminence over\nEsau. Actually, however, he had gained nothing, and was a fugitive\nbefore Esau and an exile from the land. On his return, he makes no\ndemands whatever, acknowledges Esau as sovereign, is ready to pay\nhim tribute and to placate him with gifts, and prays to God only for\ndeliverance from Esau's vengeance. And yet we find him at the end of\nthis episode, by reason of his victory over Shechem and of Esau's\ndeparture to Seir, in actual possession of the Promised Land and a\nrecognized ruler of a now important clan.\n\nBefore entering on his more illustrious destiny, however, he must\nbe put to the test and atone for the desertion of his mission in\nhis flight from the land in consequence of his efforts to wrest\nthe birthright and the blessing from Esau. This test is indicated\nby his struggle with the angel on the very border of the Promised\nLand, a struggle from which he does not escape unscathed. Just what\nthe Biblical author wished to express by this struggle of Jacob\nwith the angel it is difficult to say. It is sometimes interpreted\nby teachers and preachers as an allegorical representation of a\npurely subjective struggle in Jacob's heart, but such an explanation\nis extremely far-fetched. The episode suggests comparison with\nthe incident recorded in Exodus 4. 24-26 and seems to imply that\nconsecration to any high task involves exposing oneself to danger,\nif, in any way, one is not thoroughly qualified for the task.\nSo long as Moses has not taken upon himself the task of leading\nthe children of Israel from Egypt his failure to circumcize his\nchildren can be overlooked, but once he has assumed that task, he\nis threatened with death for his failure to do so. Similarly, when\nJacob is about to enter into the land promised in his father's\nblessing and confirmed in the vision at Beth El, he too finds\nhimself face to face with a divinely commissioned opponent. His\nvictory over the angel is symbolic of his success in finally\nqualifying for his mission as is implied in the change of his name\nto Israel with the explanation of its significance, \"For thou\nhast striven with God and with men and hast prevailed\". Inasmuch\nas there is not mentioned here any struggle with \"men\", the\nthought is suggested that this victory is an omen of the future\nsuccess of the chosen people, while the shrinking of Jacob's\nthigh sinew suggests that this success is not to be won without\nsuffering and sacrifice, an interpretation frequently found in\nthe Midrash. This representation of the experience of a nation\nin terms of that of an individual who is the nation's founder is\nmuch more in keeping with the spirit of Biblical literature than\nthe allegorical representation of abstract truths in terms of\nhistoric or biographical events. Note in this connection Hosea\n12. 3-5; \"The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will\npunish Jacob according to his ways, according to his doings will\nHe recompense him. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and\nby his strength he strove with a god-like being; so he strove with\nan angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him:\nAt Beth El he would find him and there he would speak with us\".\nThe meaning of these verses is obscure but it is evident that the\nprophet makes Jacob's experience typical of Israel's as a people.\n\n=Aim.= There is in this lesson, as in almost all those that deal\nwith the patriarchs, a remote aim and an immediate one. The remote\naim is the impression which the incidents recorded will make upon\nthe pupil when they are brought back to his mind in later years.\nThe moral of the story in this connection is that the election of\nIsrael is not determined by the inherent superiority of our people,\nbut by God's purpose with regard to them and mankind, which purpose\nHe accomplishes by so shaping their history that it instructs and\ndisciplines them through struggle and achievement and reveals His\nwill with regard to them and their place in the world. But this\nmoral is too abstract and complex for the child and must only be\nkept in mind by the teacher in order that he should not teach the\nlesson in such a way as would later becloud the true meaning of\nthe story, as, for example, would be the case if he made Jacob\nthroughout his whole life the ideal religious hero. The immediate\nlesson that the child can be taught to derive from the story is that\nhumble trust in God and obedience to His will can achieve for us\nwhat a cunning that does not scruple at deceit cannot achieve.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Begin this lesson by reminding the\nclass of the promise God had made to Jacob at Beth El. Then announce\nthat you are going to tell how God kept this promise. But before\ndoing so, question the children further as to why Jacob had to flee\nfrom Canaan if God wanted him to return and rule over it. Question\nuntil you bring out the point that Jacob had not used the proper\nmeans to get the birthright and blessing. Illustrate by analogy\nwith the child's own experience the idea that, because Jacob had\nattempted to secure the birthright and blessing by wrong means,\nhe had to be deprived of them until he finally learned the proper\nmeans on which to rely, namely faith in God. This thought might be\nillustrated as follows:\n\nSuppose a teacher promised a reward to a child if he would write a\ncomposition about something the class had been taught in its lesson,\nand this child copied his composition from a book, thinking that in\nthis way he would get the reward without having to work for it. What\nwould the teacher do, accept the composition? No, she would make him\nwrite it again in his own words, and then, perhaps, if he had done\nit _in the right way_, the teacher might give the reward to him. So\nGod had indeed promised that Isaac's son would one day become the\nfather of a great people in the land of Canaan, and he meant Jacob\nto become such, but because Jacob tried to bring this about _in the\nwrong way_, by deceiving his father and Esau, he could not at once\nbe made the head of this people in Canaan. So Jacob had to leave the\nland that had been promised to him and work hard those twenty years\nthat he was with Laban, and suffer from Laban's meanness to him in\norder that he might learn that if he wanted God's blessing he must\nbe patient and obedient and work honestly and then God would give\nhim His blessing.\n\nThen tell the story, emphasizing Jacob's submission to Esau and the\nhumility of his prayer to God. The latter can best be brought out by\nquoting the prayer in the language of the Bible. (Genesis 32. 10 to\n13.) In describing Jacob's wrestling with the angel do not read a\nfar-fetched moral into it. Merely explain that God sent an angel to\nwrestle with Jacob and that if Jacob could make the angel bless him\nthat would be the sign that he was strong enough and great enough\nand good enough to be the father of the Jewish people. The blessing\nof the angel should be given in direct discourse. In teaching the\nchange of name from Jacob to Israel, call attention to the fact\nthat we Jews are sometimes called Children of Israel or Israelites\nbecause we are all descended from Israel.\n\nDo not fail to record Esau's departure to Mount Seir, leaving Jacob\nin possession of the promised land, and Jacob's fulfillment of his\nvow at Beth El. Whenever recalling anything from a previous lesson\nas in this instance Jacob's vow, try to get the children to tell it\nto you rather than tell it yourself. Say for example, \"So we have\nseen how God kept His promise to Jacob to be with him when he was\naway from his land, and to bring him back home in safety, and to\ngive to him and to his descendants the land of Canaan, but do any of\nyou remember the promise that Jacob made when he awoke after that\nwonderful dream?\" etc.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nJOSEPH SOLD INTO SLAVERY\n\nGenesis 37\n\n\n=Interpretation.= In the narratives dealing with the history of the\npatriarchs, we have constantly emphasized that the point of view\nof the Biblical author regarded their lives as significant not so\nmuch as personal history, but rather as a preparation for Israel's\nnational existence. In the story of Joseph this point of view is\nstill discernible, though the chief interest has been transferred to\nthe personal history of Joseph. It is discernible in that Joseph's\nbeing sold into Egypt and the settling of his father and brothers\nin Goshen are conceived not as fortuitous circumstances but as\npart of a divine plan which had already been revealed to Abraham.\n(Genesis 15. 13.) Still the main interest is, as we have said, in\nthe personal career of Joseph. This narrative is preeminently a\nstory. It is not a story with a moral, but a story abounding in\nmorals. Perhaps the most important from the point of view of the\nchild is that which might be summed up in the words of the psalmist,\n\"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell\ntogether in unity!\" (Psalms 133. 1.) This is taught negatively in\nthe first part of the story and affirmatively in the last. But such\nideas as the danger of unjust discrimination on the part of parents,\nthe evil of tale-bearing and boastfulness, the value of honest,\nfaithful service, the nobility of resistance to temptation under\nthe most trying circumstances, and the beauty of forgiveness and\nreconciliation are only a few of the many other morals taught by\nthis story. The portion of Joseph's life that is covered by this\nchapter shows how Jacob's partiality to Joseph created hostility\nbetween him and his brothers by arousing in them envy and in him\na certain vanity and sense of superiority. These characteristics\nof Joseph at this period of his life are not given any attention\nby most Jewish school teachers because of the tendency to idealize\nall Biblical heroes, thus overlooking the obvious significance of\nGenesis 37. 2, but the story only gains in meaning when we see at\nthe end how completely Joseph had outlived all such pettiness as is\nhere ascribed to him.\n\nThere is some ambiguity in the Hebrew text as to one essential point\nof the story, namely as to who sold Joseph. The verses in question\nread:\n\n25. And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their\neyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from\nGilead....\n\n26. And Judah said unto his brethren: What profit is it if we slay\nour brother....\n\n27. Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.... And his brethren\nhearkened unto him.\n\n28. And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and\nlifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites\nfor twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt....\n\n36. And the Midianites[6] sold him to Egypt.\n\n  [6] The Hebrew has Medanites.\n\nFrom verse 28, taken by itself, it would seem that not Joseph's\nbrothers but the Midianites drew Joseph from the pit and sold him\nto the Ishmaelites, and this theory is actually maintained by some,\nwho point out that not only would the traditional interpretation\nrequire a change of subject in the middle of the verse, which is\nnot otherwise indicated, but it would imply the identification of\nIshmaelites and Midianites, which is untenable inasmuch as Midian\nwas a son of Abraham and Keturah and Ishmael the son of Abraham and\nHagar. (Genesis 25. 1 and 2.)\n\nBut this view is also not without its difficulties, and, in my\nopinion, the traditional interpretation of the verses is to be\npreferred. For verses 26 to 27 indicate clearly that Judah's plan\nto sell Joseph met with the approval of his brothers and we should\nsurely expect some expression of disappointment on their part if\nin the end their plan had miscarried. The change of subject in\nverse 28 which the traditional interpretation would require need\nnot trouble us as such change of subject is not very unusual in the\nBible. (See for instance Genesis 14. 19 to 20, 15. 13, 22. 7.) As\nfor the identification of Midianites with Ishmaelites the fact is\nthat racial names sometimes are extended to include other related\nraces whom history has brought into close contact. The descendants\nof Hagar and Keturah are thus classed together in Genesis 25.6. Ibn\nEzra, in his commentary to our passage, calls attention furthermore\nto the fact that this same identification of Midianites and\nIshmaelites is made in Judges 8.24 where Gideon, after a victory\nover the Midianites, says, \"'I would make a request of you, that ye\nwould give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil.' For they had\nhad golden ear-rings, _because they were Ishmaelites_.\" The reading\nMedanites in verse 36 may be a scribal error for Midianites or vice\nversa, as the only difference is in the omission or insertion of a\n_ od_.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in teaching this lesson should be to create in the\nchild, through his sympathetic understanding of the motives that\nunderly the action of the story, an appreciation of those moral\nideals which we have shown to be contained in it.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The story of Joseph is one which no\nteacher ought have any great difficulty in imparting to children,\nfor it is a natural favorite with them. They like it because its\nideas are simple and come, for the most part, within the range of\na child's experience. The attitude of Joseph's brothers to him\nis not dissimilar to the resentment that children display at any\nindication of favoritism on the part of a teacher, a resentment\nwhich is invariably visited on \"teacher's pet\". The story appeals\nto them also because of the rapidity of its movement, the constant\nshifting of scenes and incidents, each making a new bid for their\nattention, and the heroic nature of the action, in which the motives\nof the characters whether good or evil reveal themselves not in mere\nthoughts and words but in deeds.\n\nThere could be no greater mistake, therefore, than to deprive\nthe story of all its force through interrupting the flow of the\nnarrative by tedious moralizing. The Biblical story does not stop\nto moralize, yet the moral is clear enough, and so it will be to\nthe class if the teacher tells his tale with the proper feeling and\nspirit.\n\nBut the teacher must be cautioned, on the other hand, not to take\nfor granted the child's comprehension unaided of even so simple a\nstory as this. Any addition of details inserted into the narrative\nwith a view to helping the child visualize the incidents told is\nalways in order. In telling of how Joseph was lowered into the pit,\nspeak of his ineffectual cries and struggles to escape, for, though\nchildren have good imaginations, they have not had enough experience\nout of which their imagination could reconstruct the whole situation\nfrom a mere hint or two. Similarly such words as pit or caravan need\ndescriptive epithets or phrases to bring them before the child's\neye. Moreover, the motives of the characters must be made clear by\na casual reference to analogous experiences of the child, as for\ninstance:\n\n\"Now, when his brothers saw that Joseph was better loved by his\nfather than the rest of them they became very angry at him and\ninstead of trying to win their father's love for themselves also,\nthey tried to get even with Joseph, just as I have sometimes seen\nboys at school get angry at a classmate of theirs and do all sorts\nof mischief to him just because the teacher gave him higher marks\nthan the others who were not so successful with their lessons.\"\n\nBut all such comparisons must be made only in a casual way and in as\nfew words as possible lest they divert the mind of the child from\nthe main trend of the narrative. One should not forget for this\nlesson the usefulness of pictures as helping to visualize the story,\nand there are many good illustrations of this story to be had. A\nstill greater assistance in impressing this lesson is that obtained\nby permitting the children to dramatize it and act it, for this\nnecessitates their comprehension of the motives of the characters.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nFROM SLAVE TO VICEROY\n\nGenesis 39.1 to 41.46\n\n\n=Interpretation.= There are no surer tests of character than\ntransplantation to a strange country without hope of return and\ndegradation to a lower social stratum without hope of rising. For a\ngreat part of our moral strength comes from the consciousness that\nthe eyes of others interested in our life are on us, that we dare\nnot disappoint their expectations of us, and that our acts affect\ntheir happiness and honor. The person who finds himself alone in\na strange land from which he does not expect to return and from\nwhich he does not expect rumors of his deeds to reach his former\nassociates must have an iron character to maintain his loyalty to\nthe moral standards of his earlier environment in the face of new\ntemptations. And particularly is this true if, at the same time as\nhe is transplanted into a strange land, he finds his social status\nalso reduced. For the ambition to rise in his new environment,\nto achieve success and recognition there, might be sufficient\nincentive for some \"to scorn delights and live laborious days\",\nbut for the enslaved in a new land this incentive also is lacking.\nBoth these tests of character Joseph had to meet and he met them\nsuccessfully. Arrived in Egypt, he wastes no time brooding over his\nwrongs but sets to work diligently at his tasks in such a way as\nto win him the confidence of his master. This confidence he will\nnot abuse even under the most seductive of temptations and even\nthough his fidelity to principle results in the very loss of his\nmaster's confidence in him and in his consequent confinement in\nthe royal prison. Note that what keeps Joseph pure is the sense of\nresponsibility not only to Potiphar, but, in the first instance, to\nGod, so that the very fact which might lead others to sin, namely\nthe fact that Potiphar could not know of his misdeeds, fortifies him\nagainst sin. \"He refused and said unto his master's wife, 'Behold,\nmy master, having me, knoweth not what is in the house and he hath\nput all that he hath into my hand; he is not greater in this house\nthan I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee,\nbecause thou art his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness,\n_and sin against God_?'\" In prison he shows the same qualities with\nthe same result of winning the confidence of people.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to inspire the child with the\nexample of Joseph's patience, cheerfulness and faithfulness under\ndifficulties, all of which qualities were influenced by his trust in\nGod.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The suggestions made in the preceding\nchapter apply to this one as well. Help the child to visualize the\nnarrative and to make more explicit the feelings and motives of the\ncharacters. Discuss, for instance, the loneliness of Joseph in this\nstrange land, far from his home and all that he loved, and contrast\nwith his early dreams of rulership his present status as a slave.\nTry to give the child some idea of what slavery means, not by a\ndefinition but by telling the different kinds of work that Joseph\nhad to do for his master in field and home without any pay or fixed\nhours of rest and labor, and subject to unreasonable demands of\ntask masters, etc. Then point out that, though many people under\nsuch circumstances would waste their time grumbling, Joseph trusted\nthat God would help him and made up his mind to do the best work\nthat he could.\n\nThe incident of Joseph's temptation by Potiphar's wife can, of\ncourse, be told only in general terms, the teacher relating how\nPotiphar's wife, who was a very wicked woman, wanted Joseph to\nhelp her do something that was wrong, and he refused. His refusal\nshould be given in direct discourse and follow the general line\nof thought of Genesis 39.8 to 9, keeping as much of the Biblical\nlanguage as possible. When Joseph is cast into prison the teacher\nmust again help the child realize emotionally what it meant for\nJoseph, after all his faithful service of Potiphar, to be thrown\ninto prison as the very result of his fidelity and teach the pupil\nto admire Joseph's resolution to make the best of this situation\ntoo by patient and cheerful bearing and sympathetic interest in\nthe other prisoners. It is also well to make the child realize the\nsharp contrasts of which there are so many in this story and which\ngreatly enhance its interest. When the king's butler, released from\nprison, also forgets Joseph and Joseph's one hope of escape seems\ndoomed to complete disappointment, God provides the opportunity\nnot only for his escape but for his elevation to the vice-royalty.\nThis can be further emphasized by suggesting something of the pomp\nand circumstance of Pharaoh's court. I say suggesting, because the\nteacher should never indulge in pure description, which is always\na bore to children. An occasional descriptive adjective or phrase\ncan do the work quite as well. The narration of such incidents as\nthe removal of Joseph's prison clothes and his being attired in\nfine linen before gaining admittance into the royal presence goes\nfar to emphasize the desired contrast between prison and palace.\nSo too the new dignity conferred on Joseph is made clearer to the\nchild by telling him how the king gave Joseph his ring and necklace\nand made him ride in the chariot next his own while all the people\nbowed before him than by the description of his new official duties.\nThe story might be summarized and the moral pointed out in a brief\nstatement such as \"So the Hebrew slave boy, through his faithfulness\nand trust in God, became the highest in rank of all of Pharaoh's\nsubjects\".\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nJOSEPH MEETS HIS BROTHERS\n\nGenesis 41.47 to 42.38\n\n\n=Interpretation.= In this chapter of the Joseph narrative we find\nthat Providence has put Joseph's brothers completely in his hand;\ntheir physical sustenance is dependent on his providing them with\ncorn, they are strangers in Egypt while he is the prime minister\nof Pharaoh's court, and, moreover, by reason of his Egyptian dress\nand speech and the change which the twenty years have made in his\nappearance--he was but seventeen when he was sold--they cannot\nrecognize him and are therefore thrown altogether off their guard\nas to any designs of vengeance that he may cherish. The interest\ntherefore centers on the attitude that Joseph would assume toward\nthem.\n\nAs the Bible merely tells us what Joseph said or did but not what\nhe thought, we are left to construe his motives from his deeds\nand words. Accordingly, it would seem that Joseph is at first in\ndoubt, so he plans to detain his brothers in prison for a time on\nthe charge of being spies, feeling that their actions under such an\naccusation might give some clue as to how he should treat them, and\nhoping perhaps that the evil of their lot might possibly suggest\nthe evil that they had done him. His first proposition is that one\nof them go back and bring Benjamin, whom he is particularly anxious\nto see, but he finally decides to let all but one return. He is not\ndisappointed in the thought that their affliction might suggest\ntheir sin, as is seen from the dialogue in Genesis 42.21,22, which\nalso gives him the information that Reuben had espoused his cause.\nHe therefore selects as his hostage not Reuben the eldest but\nSimeon the next eldest. Meanwhile, he shows his real benevolent\nintent by giving them the corn and secretly returning the money. But\neven this gives alarm to Jacob and his other sons as seeming to be\nbut a pretext for further charges.\n\n=Aim.= The main object of this lesson is to prepare a way for the\nnext with its moral of the beauty of forgiveness. It contains\nhowever also a fine study of conscience in that the misfortune of\nJoseph's brothers revives at once the memory of their sin and brings\nit to their minds in its proper colors.\n\n=Suggestions.= Begin by recalling Joseph's dreams to see whether the\nclass remembers them and their significance. Then call attention\nto the thought of Joseph's brothers that they were putting an end\nto his dreams in selling him to the Ishmaelites. \"And yet\", you\ncontinue, \"today's lesson will show how God really brought about\nthe realization of Joseph's dreams.\" This will excite the curiosity\nof the children and you can then proceed with the story of the\nfamine and its effect. Make the famine appear as a providential\ncircumstance and explain its meaning by saying that God, after the\nseven years of plenty did not let enough rain fall to water the\ncorn and wheat, which shriveled up so that the people had no flour\nto bake bread, and there was not enough grass to feed the cattle so\nthat they had not enough meat, etc. The term famine will then not be\na mere abstraction to the child.\n\nAt the point where Joseph meets his brothers and they do not\nrecognize him but he recognizes them, show how the dream has been\nalready in part fulfilled although Joseph's brothers did not realize\nit. The chief difficulty of the teacher will be to make the children\nclearly understand the motives of Joseph's conduct towards his\nbrothers, which is the most important thing in the lesson. This\ncan be facilitated by questioning the children in a way that would\nnecessitate their imagining themselves in Joseph's situation. For\ninstance, one might speak to them as follows:\n\n\"Now when Joseph saw his brothers bowing down before him, he\nremembered how cruel they had been to him, and he thought of how\nwonderfully God had brought about the fulfillment of his dreams so\nthat now he had his brothers in his power and could punish them\nin whatever way he would, for no one would question the acts of a\nviceroy of Pharaoh toward a band of strangers whom nobody in Egypt\ncared about. If he wanted to, he could have ordered them all to be\nkilled, as they had thought of doing to him; or he could have sold\nthem all as slaves, as they had actually sold him; or he could have\nput them all in prison, as he had been kept in prison in Egypt for\nso long a time; or he could have simply refused to sell them grain\nand they would have died of starvation. Now what do you think you\nwould have done, had you been in Joseph's place?\"\n\nGet a number of different answers from the class. In all likelihood,\nthe answers will propose some severe punishment. Then give a number\nof reasons why Joseph rejected these severer penalties, such as, 1.\nbecause his brothers were, after all, his brothers and we should\nlove our brothers, 2. because their punishment would hurt his father\nJacob and his younger brother Benjamin who were innocent, 3. because\nit would affect the families of his brothers as well as themselves,\n4. because they might have changed since then and become better and\nfelt sorry for their treatment of him, 5. because, if he could find\nsome way of showing them how wickedly they had acted and how good\nhe nevertheless was to them, it might make them feel ashamed and\nresolve to be better. \"But,\" continue your narrative, \"though Joseph\ndid not want to hurt his brothers, he did want them to feel sorry\nfor what they had done to him, so that they would never do such a\nthing again. So he thought 'I am not going to tell them at once that\nI am Joseph their brother and that I forgive them, but, without\ndoing them any harm, I am going to frighten them with threats and\nsee whether, when they themselves are in trouble, they won't think\nof the sin they did and feel sorry for it'\". It is necessary to\nexplain the motive for Simeon's detention as being to insure the\nreturn of the brothers with Benjamin.\n\nIn questioning the class about the lesson, try to find out whether\nthe children understand its underlying ideas by such questions as\nthese: How was it that Joseph recognized his brothers and they could\nnot recognize him? Why did not Joseph at once make himself known to\nhis brothers? Why did Joseph speak harshly to them and accuse them\nof being spies? Did Joseph's brothers know that he understood them\nwhen they spoke to each other? Why not? What is a spy? When Joseph's\nbrothers thought that they would be treated as spies, for what\ndeed did they think this a punishment? Why did Joseph keep Simeon\nprisoner? Why did Joseph return the money of his brothers? What did\nhis brothers think was his reason for returning it? Why did not\nJacob want to let Benjamin go with his brothers to Egypt? It goes\nwithout saying that one must tell the story in such a way that it\nshall contain a clear answer to each of the above questions.\n\nThis episode has a great dramatic interest and should be acted by\nthe children.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nJOSEPH REVEALS HIMSELF TO HIS BROTHERS\n\nGenesis 43.1 to 45.28\n\n\n=Interpretation.= Little need be said in interpretation of this\nstory. Its lesson of the beauty of forgiveness and reconciliation\nis brought out so clearly as to need no further comment. In the\nattitude of his brothers to Benjamin, Joseph is able to put to the\ntest any possible change of heart toward himself. The favor which\nhe shows Benjamin at the meal that he had prepared for them may\nbe considered as a test of whether the spirit of envy is still\nrife among them, and, inasmuch as they do not seem to manifest any\njealousy on this occasion, they may be considered to have passed\nthis first test. But the real test came when Joseph proposed to\nretain Benjamin as his slave. On this occasion Judah, the very one\nwho had proposed selling Joseph, makes his eloquent plea in behalf\nof Benjamin, a speech which reveals his deep sympathy with his\nfather's grief, and appreciation of what the loss of Joseph meant\nto his father, and the willingness to sacrifice his own liberty for\nJoseph's brother Benjamin, who had, as the son of Rachel, taken\nJoseph's place in the heart of Jacob. Joseph could wish no further\nevidence of his brothers' change of heart and it is no wonder that\nhe \"could not refrain himself\" any longer.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to provide a noble example of the\nmagnanimity of forgiveness and the beauty of filial and fraternal\nlove.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The story of Joseph as told in the\nBible is so wonderfully impressive in its simplicity for the child\nas well as for the adult that the only advice one feels inclined\nto give to the teacher of this story is that he should model his\nnarrative as closely as possible upon the lines of the Biblical\nstory itself. Read and reread these chapters of the Bible and try to\ndiscover the means by which the Biblical author produces his effects\non the reader's emotions. Do not permit to escape you the pathos\nof such situations as when Jacob reproaches his sons for having\ntold of their brother Benjamin's existence as though they could\nhave foreseen what would follow this disclosure; or when Joseph,\nbrought face to face with Benjamin, cannot control his feelings and\nwithdraws to another room to weep; or when his brothers, conscious\nof their innocence, offer to give their lives if the divining cup\nbe found in their sacks and then to their consternation find it\nin the sack of Benjamin; or when Judah, in pleading with Joseph,\nmentions the effect of the loss of Joseph upon Jacob; or when the\nbrothers bring the news to Jacob of Joseph's glory and he refuses to\nbelieve it until he is given incontrovertible proof; and a number of\nsimilar situations to which it might be possible to call attention.\nAfter the preparation for this climax which the preceding lessons\nafforded, the teacher who has made himself fully at home with his\nsubject will have no difficulty in impressing the child. In this\nstory, it is particularly important to report all conversation in\ndirect discourse.\n\nSuggestive questions to ask the children are the following: Why did\nnot Jacob want to let Benjamin go with his brothers? Why did they\nrefuse to go without him? Why did Jacob finally let them go? Why\ndid Joseph give Benjamin a larger portion than the others at the\nbanquet? Why did Joseph put his cup in the sack of Benjamin? Why\nwas it Judah in particular of all Joseph's brothers who pleaded for\nBenjamin? Why do you think Joseph sent all the Egyptians from the\nroom when he made himself known to his brothers? When his brothers\nwere afraid that Joseph would punish them for their sin against\nhim and were ashamed of what they had done, what did Joseph say to\nconsole them? What did Jacob say when they told him that Joseph was\nalive and ruler of all Egypt under Pharaoh?\n\nThis story too lends itself to dramatization by the children.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE DEATH OF JACOB AND OF JOSEPH\n\nGenesis 46.1 to 50.26\n\n\n=Interpretation.= In these chapters the center of interest once\nmore shifts from personal biography to the destiny of Israel as a\npeople. One is conscious throughout that his attention is being\ncalled to the close of one period and the beginning of another. The\npatriarchal period now draws to an end and the period of national\nexistence commences. God's purpose is no more to be shown in the\nchoice of individuals, but in his dealings with the people as a\nwhole. It is not accident that Israel's national life is to begin in\nEgypt rather than in its own land; for just as Abraham, the father\nof the race, was tested by his willingness to leave his home in\nobedience to God, so the nation as a whole was to have a similar\nexperience. It had to be made to realize its election by being\ntaken as \"a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by\nsigns and by wonders and by war and by a mighty hand, and by an\noutstretched arm and by great terrors\". (Deuteronomy 4. 34.) In\nthese chapters we see the beginning of the fulfillment of Abraham's\nprophetic vision recorded in Genesis 15. 12-16.\n\nLet us see how the ideas stated in the above paragraph are conveyed\nin the chapters under our consideration. Observe first Jacob's\napprehensive reluctance about going to Egypt, which needs the\nassurance from God, \"Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will\nthere make of thee a great nation. I will go down with thee into\nEgypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again.\" (Genesis\n46.3, 4.) Jacob before he dies reminds Joseph of God's promise\ngiven to him at Beth El in anticipation of the exodus from Egypt,\n\"God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and\nblessed me, and said unto me: Behold, I will make thee fruitful,\nand multiply thee, and I will make of thee a company of peoples;\nand will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting\npossession.\" (Genesis 48.3,4.) We may regard Jacob's insistence on\nbeing buried in Canaan as implying the same idea. His blessing to\nhis children and grandchildren further bears out this thought and\nJoseph's instructions with regard to the disposal of his own body\nshow most clearly that the sojourn in Egypt was not intended to be\npermanent, though, as is seen from Joseph's words to his brothers\n(Genesis 50.19, 20), it was divinely appointed.\n\nBut though, as we have just shown, the main interest of these\nchapters is from the point of view of Israel's destiny, they are not\nlacking in the personal interest as well. There is a sublime pathos\nin Jacob's humble acceptance of the divine decree which makes him,\nafter life long struggle, end his days in a strange land, with those\nambitions that he had cherished throughout life still depending\non a remote future after his death for their realization. In his\nmeeting with Pharaoh, he maintains well his patriarchal dignity.\nBut he shows no sense of triumph in the honors accorded him and his\nretrospective glance over his life reveals to him little that is\nnot disappointing; \"Few and evil have been the days of the years of\nmy life and they have not attained unto the days of the years of\nthe life of my fathers in the days of their sojournings.\" (Genesis\n47.9.) Pathetic also is the reference of Jacob, when about to bless\nthe sons of Joseph, to the death of Rachel, which had taken place so\nmany years ago, as if the thought of Joseph's prosperity awakened\nanew his grief that Rachel had not lived to see it: \"And as for me,\nwhen I came from Paddan, Rachel died unto me in the land of Canaan\nin the way when there was still some way to come unto Ephrath; and\nI buried her there in the way to Ephrath--the same is Beth-lehem.\"\n(Genesis 48.7.) Yet he preserves his patriarchal authority over\nhis children and grandchildren to the last, blessing Ephraim above\nMenassah, and not failing in his blessings to his children to\nrecall their past sins as warnings for the future. The devotion\nof his children to him and the renewed relations of affection\nbetween Joseph and his brothers complete the picture of the ideal\npatriarchal family where love and reverence and a common faith are\nthe ties that bind the units together.\n\nGenesis 47.13 to 26 is interesting in the light of what we know of\nEgyptian history from other sources than the Bible. The Pharaoh at\nthe time of Joseph was, it is generally agreed, one of the Hyksos\ndynasty, which belonged to a Semitic tribe that had conquered\nEgypt. The land before that time had been held in a sort of\nfeudal tenure by some of the old nobility. These gave constant\ntrouble, particularly in the south, to the Hyksos rulers. Joseph's\npolicy therefore was aimed at securing a centralization of power\nin the hands of Pharaoh through his obtaining all the land and\nreducing all others except the priests to the status of tenants.\nThis concentration of power in the hands of a single monarch,\nintolerable as it would be in a modern state, was often in ancient\ntimes the very best means of securing that measure of peace from\nconstant strife between petty principalities which was an absolute\nprerequisite of progress and civilization. Of course the child is\nnot interested in such problems and this whole incident should be\nomitted, but it is well for the teacher to bear these truths in\nmind lest his modern political and economic theories prejudice him\nagainst the character of Joseph.\n\n=Aim.= There are two aims which the teacher should bear in mind in\nthis lesson, one relating to the historic interest we have shown\nit to contain and the other to the personal interest. In accord\nwith the former the teacher must give to the child those historical\nand religious ideas contained in this chapter which summarize the\nsignificance of the patriarchal period and prepare the way for their\nnext year's work, namely the idea of how God was making a great\nnation of Jews in accordance with his promise to the patriarchs by\npermitting them to multiply in Egypt, at the same time reminding\nthem that they were not to become Egyptians but would one day be\nbrought back to their land. But the aspect of the lesson that can\nimpress itself most readily on the children is the more personal one\nwith its picture of the ideal family life as a sort of final tableau\nto the drama of Joseph that they have been learning. Of particular\nvalue is the example of reverence for parents which it holds before\nthem.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The most valuable help that the\nteacher can get in teaching this lesson also comes from the study\nof the Biblical story itself. Note that in the Bible although it\nis made clear that the settlement in Egypt was brought about in\naccordance with a divine plan for the development of the chosen\npeople, this is nowhere stated in abstract terms but we are allowed\nto infer it from the words and acts of the characters and the events\nas they shape themselves. In teaching children, who have no power\nof forming abstract notions, no other method is possible. It is\nnecessary, however, for this very reason to take more pains to make\nthe meaning of the words and acts of the characters clear to the\nchild. Thus in speaking of God's appearing to Jacob at Beer-sheba\nwith his reassuring message, one must first state what the Bible\nleaves to our own power of inference, Jacob's reluctance to go to\nEgypt and the reason for his reluctance. One might say for example:\n\n\"So Jacob made ready to leave Canaan and go to meet his son Joseph,\nwhom he so longed to see once more. And yet, in spite of his anxiety\nto meet Joseph, he felt sorry to leave this land of Canaan where\nhe was born, where his father and mother and his dear wife Rachel\nwere buried, and where God had promised him that his children\nwould become a great nation. Perhaps he also felt sorry because\nhe remembered hearing of a prophecy that God had told to Abraham,\nsaying that his descendants would become slaves to a strange people\nin a strange land, and he thought \"Maybe now my children will be\nmade slaves in Egypt.\" But that night as he slept God sent a dream\nto cheer him. He dreamt he heard God speak to him and say \"--etc.\n\nAgain, when telling of Joseph's going to meet his father, emphasize\nthe love that made him hasten to welcome the patriarch and the pride\nwith which he introduced his aged father to King Pharaoh, as well\nas the solicitude for his father's and brothers' comfort implied in\nthe preparations for their reception in Goshen, the most fertile\npart of Egypt, in the delta of the Nile.\n\nIn speaking of the desire of Jacob and Joseph to be buried in\nCanaan, explain the reason to be their wanting to remind their\ndescendants of God's promise to bring them out of Egypt to their\nown land, Canaan. In telling of Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and\nMenassah, it is not necessary to touch upon the preference given to\nEphraim as this is only significant in the light of the subsequent\nhistory of the tribes and, by the time the child gets to that part\nof the history, he will have forgotten this incident since there\nis nothing in it intrinsically interesting to children, but do\nnot ignore Genesis 48.20, \"And he blessed them that day saying:\n'By thee shall Israel bless, saying: God make thee as Ephraim and\nas Menassah.'\" In this way it is possible to establish a point of\ncontact between the child's home life and the lesson by pointing out\nto him that these very words are part of the blessing with which\nhis parents bless him on the Sabbath. This will serve to make him\nrealize that he is one of the people whose history he is learning.\nIt would also be well to ask how many children say _Ha-mal'ak\nha-go'el_ in their night prayers and to explain that this is part of\nJacob's blessing to Ephraim and Menassah. (Genesis 48.16.)\n\nHelp the children visualize the imposing funeral rights in\nconnection with the burial of Jacob as showing the honor paid to\nhim by the Egyptians as well as by his own children. They should be\ngiven some idea from the map of the length of the journey and the\nroute taken. Do not take for granted the children's comprehension\nof the renewal of the fear of Joseph's brothers after their father's\ndeath, but explain that they thought perhaps Joseph had failed to\npunish them until then merely in order to spare his father, but\nthat after his father's burial he would have no more scruples, just\nas Esau refrained from killing Jacob while his father lived but\nthreatened to do so after his death.\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nISRAEL UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MOSES\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE BIRTH OF MOSES\n\nExodus 1.1 to 2.10\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The children of Israel, settled in the rich\npasture land of Goshen, had become a numerous people. At first\nthey prospered, but then there came a change with the accession\nto the throne of the \"Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.\" This Pharaoh\nwas, in all probability, not only of a different dynasty, but also\nof a different race from the Pharaoh of Joseph's day. The Pharaoh\nof Joseph's day was probably a descendant of the Hyksos invaders\nof Egypt, a Semitic tribe of shepherds like the Israelites. The\ntrue Egyptians, however, who were an agricultural people, and held\nshepherds in abomination, perhaps because many of their practices\nconflicted with the religious notions of the Egyptians, which\nincluded the worship of sacred cattle (see Exodus 8.22), finally\noverthrew this Semitic dynasty. As a consequence, the Israelites\nwere looked upon with suspicion and hatred as a dangerous element\nin the state. The very services that they had rendered to the old\ndynasty would now be held against them by the new, and instead\nof being a favored race, they came to be looked upon, in spite\nof their long sojourn in Egypt, as alien and hostile, and were\nsubjected to persecution and oppression. Persecution, at first took\nthe form of enforced labor in the erection of the public works of\nthe Pharaohs but when the Israelites seemed to thrive in spite of\nthis, resort was had to the drastic measure of murdering every male\ninfant. At this point, the Biblical story shows us how Providence\nprepared redemption for Israel by sparing the life of the infant\nwho was destined to become the liberator. Of the general religious\nsignificance of the Egyptian bondage, as interpreted in the Bible,\nwe have already spoken in preceding chapters.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is three-fold, first, to inculcate in\nthe child the ideal expressed in the words, \"And a stranger shalt\nthou not wrong neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers\nin the land of Egypt;\" (Exodus 22.20); second, to encourage him to\nmaintain his national Jewish aspirations in the diaspora, as did his\nfathers in Egypt, and, finally, to inspire him with faith in God's\nprovidence, as illustrated by the way in which God saved the infant\nMoses.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Begin by recalling the story of Joseph\nto the class; how the Israelites who settled in Goshen--point out\nits location on the map--became a numerous people, and enjoyed, for\na long time, the favor of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, in gratitude\nfor all that Joseph had done for Egypt at the time of the famine.\nThen dwell on what the children of Israel, who were, for the most\npart, simple shepherds, learned from the Egyptians, who were not\nonly skillful farmers, but great builders as well. This can best\nbe done by showing pictures of the Egyptian monuments and pointing\nto the skill required in order to erect them in an age before the\nuse of steam and electricity was known. \"But\", the teacher should\nemphasize, \"although the children of Israel learned much from the\nEgyptians, they did not copy them in everything. In one respect,\nthey were far in advance of the Egyptians,--in their religion. They\nknew that there was one God, whom they could not see, who made the\nheavens and the earth, and all that is in them, but the Egyptians\nworshipped many gods. They had sacred bulls and sacred cows and\nsacred cats, and even a sacred bug--a kind of beetle. The Israelites\nin Egypt understood that they were not to become Egyptians, but\nthat God would some day lead them out of Egypt to their own land of\nPalestine, as He had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So they\ncontinued to speak their own language, Hebrew, and to maintain their\nreligion.\"\n\nExplain how the insistence on keeping up their own religious\npractices and their own language, and the refusal to join in the\nworship of the Egyptian gods, aroused the hatred of many of the\nEgyptians, and paved the way for the edicts of the \"new Pharaoh\",\nthat \"knew not Joseph\". This can best be done by reference to modern\ninstances of similar antagonism, which may have come within the\nrange of the child's experience or observation. Speak, for instance,\nas follows:\n\n\"When the Egyptians saw that the children of Israel would not become\nlike them, but kept up their own religion and language, many of them\ncame to dislike the Jews, for there are some people who never like\nanybody who is very different from themselves. Some of you may know\nboys who like to tease and annoy Chinese, because of their strange\nappearance, dress and language, or who are unkind to negroes,\nmerely because they are black, or who like to torment foreign\nchildren that cannot speak the English language. You well know that\nthere are some people that are unkind to Jews for no better reason.\nIn this free country nobody would think of doing us any real harm,\nnor would our laws permit it, but there are some countries where\nthe very laws of the land try to make the life of the Jew unhappy,\nmerely because he is a Jew. Many of you may have heard something\nabout how Jews used to be treated in Russia not so long ago. And\nthat is exactly the way the Egyptians began to feel towards our\nforefathers, when they saw that they would not worship the gods of\nthe Egyptians, and that they kept up their own religious practices\nand spoke their own language; and when a new Pharaoh arose who had\nforgotten all about Joseph and the good he had done to Egypt, a man\nfrom an altogether different family than the Pharaoh of Joseph's\ntime and from a different part of the country, the Egyptians began\nmaking laws against the Jews. Pharaoh, who particularly hated the\nJews, made a law that they should all have to work as slaves in the\nbuilding of his great treasure cities\", etc.\n\nThe rest of the story is simple and offers no difficulties to the\nteacher. The only thing that needs to be emphasized is that, in\ntelling of the birth and rescue of the infant, Moses, the teacher\nmust remember that he is preparing the way for the story of the\nExodus and must emphasize that Moses was saved because God meant\nhim to redeem His people, not that his rescue was a lucky accident.\nHe can do this by speaking of God as suggesting the ideas upon\nwhich the characters act. For instance, in telling how Miriam saw\nPharaoh's daughter take up the basket, one might say, \"Then God put\na wise thought into the heart of Miriam and she ran up to Pharaoh's\ndaughter and asked\", etc. Again, one might say, \"Now when Pharaoh's\ndaughter saw the little crying baby God filled her heart with pity\nfor the helpless little infant,\" and one might conclude the lesson\nby saying, \"In this way God saved the baby, who, when he was grown\nup into a man, was to deliver his people from the oppression of\nPharaoh.\"\n\nSo much for the presentation of the lesson. In discussing it with\nthe class afterwards, do not fail to suggest by suitable questions\nthe duty of maintaining our Jewish practices even in the face of\nthe ridicule and opposition that they sometimes call forth. The\napplication of the story's moral should be given in terms of the\nchild's own experience. For instance, one might say: \"When our\nfathers in Egypt sacrificed to their God and would not sacrifice\nto the Egyptian animal gods, did the Egyptians like this? Did the\nIsraelites, when they saw that the Egyptians hated them, because\nthey were different in race, language and religion, give up their\nlanguage and religion in order to appear like the Egyptians? Do you\nthink the Jewish child today ought to feel ashamed and give up his\nJewish religious practices, because his Christian friends may think\nthem strange or may not like them, or may not treat him with as\nmuch kindness if he shows that he is a Jew? Sometimes Jewish boys\ngo to school on Jewish holidays, because their Christian friends do\nnot stay at home. Do you think this right? Do you think it right to\nsing Christian songs in school, because you are afraid not to do\nso? No teacher will ever force you to sing a song that is Christian\nif you explain politely that you do not want to do so because your\nreligion forbids it. If you were asked to take part in a Christmas\ncelebration at school, what would you do? If a Christian boy offered\nyou some of his luncheon to eat and you were not sure that what he\ngave you was _kosher_, what would you do? In those countries where\nthe Jews are treated badly today, merely because they are Jews,\nas their fathers were treated in Egypt, have they given up their\nJudaism on that account, or do they still keep it up? What would you\ndo if you lived in one of those countries?\"\n\nDo not, however, dwell too much on anti-Semitism, as it is not\nmorally helpful to the child to feel resentment too keenly. It\nwould be producing the very opposite effect to the one desired if\nwe were to arouse in our pupils a feeling of animosity towards the\nGentile. The emphasis must be put wholly on the positive virtue of\nmaintaining religious loyalty in spite of the hostility which it\nmay, at times, arouse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nMOSES, THE FRIEND OF THE WEAK AND OPPRESSED\n\nExodus 2.11 to 23\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The chief interest in the narrative contained in\nthese verses lies in the light they cast on the character of Moses\nand the traits that made him the ideal emancipator, leader and\nlegislator of his people. The first of these is his sympathy with\ntheir suffering and his sense of kinship with them, which leads him,\nthough a prince of Egypt by rank and education, to go out among his\nbrethren and look upon their burdens. The second, is his indignation\nat anything in the nature of injustice, whether perpetrated by\nan Egyptian or an Israelite; and, finally, there is shown his\nchivalrous zeal in the service of the weak and oppressed, which\nsends him on a mission like that of the ideal knight-errant, \"to\nride abroad redressing human wrongs\", and which even in a strange\nland, leads him to interfere in the cause of the shepherdesses of\nMidian against the rude shepherds.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to cultivate in the child, through\nhis admiration of Moses, those traits in Moses' character which we\nhave shown the narrative in these chapters to illustrate.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Try to bring out the nobility of the\ncourse of action that Moses took by calling the attention of the\nchildren to other possible courses that he might have taken. Moses,\nhaving had wealth and luxury at his disposal, might have given up\nhis life to enjoyment; because of his superior education, he might\nhave looked down with contempt upon his more ignorant brethren and\nheld aloof from associating with them; fearing the reproach of his\nHebrew origin, he might have avoided such association for prudential\nreasons. But he did none of these things. He felt that if he had\nbeen so wonderfully saved, and he alone been given advantages that\nthe rest had not received, it was because God intended him to use\nthese for the good of all his people. It is well, in pointing out\nthe courses of conduct open to Moses, to use illustrations from\nmodern life, thus:\n\n\"How many children who receive all they need from their parents\nand spending-money in addition, think only of spending it on sport\nand amusement, and never stop to consider the needs of the poor\nchildren who have not even food or clothing or a warm room and to\nshare their money with them. But Moses was not like that; although,\nbeing brought up as the son of Pharaoh, he might have lived a life\nof ease, idleness and pleasure, he preferred to go about among his\npoor brethren and help them with their burdens. Moreover, though\nMoses had received the best education that an Egyptian could receive\nin those days, he did not let that make him conceited. No matter\nhow educated or how noble one may be by birth, one should not keep\naloof from the lowly and common people. So Moses, though a learned\nprince, was never too proud to associate with the ignorant slaves,\nhis people.\"\n\nIn teaching of how Moses slew the Egyptian, do not fail to bring\nout the heroic character of the action by emphasis on the motive of\nMoses, namely, his violated sense of justice, and on the perils to\nwhich he must have known in advance that this act would expose him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nGOD SENDS MOSES TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE\n\nExodus 3.1-4.31\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The time now being ripe for God's fulfilling\nHis covenant to redeem Israel from the bondage of Egypt, He makes\nHis purpose known to Moses and entrusts him with the mission of\nannouncing the redemption to the elders of Israel and demanding\nit of Pharaoh. But Moses hesitates. He doubts his qualifications\nfor the task, asking, \"Who am I that I should go unto Pharaoh and\nthat I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?\"\nAnd God's answer is, \"Certainly I will be with thee.\" But this\ndoes not yet satisfy Moses, he wants a guarantee of Divine aid in\nGod's statement, \"I am \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4.\" For in asking God for his name, Moses\nwas not merely seeking information. There is no space in this\nbook to take up a discussion of the critical questions raised by\nthese verses. The interpretation given by Wiener[7] seems the most\nreasonable. He calls attention to the fact that among primitive\npeople--and the narratives of the Pentateuch had to be made\ncomprehensible to a primitive people--the name of a person, and,\nmore especially, of a god, was regarded as having certain powers\nwhich were conferred upon anyone to whom he revealed his name.\nWhen Moses asked for the name of God, it was, therefore, as a sort\nof positive irrevocable guarantee of success, but God, at this\njuncture, refuses to say directly, \"I am \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4\" and gives the evasive\nreply, \"I am that I am.\" Then Moses, dissatisfied, declares that\nthe people will not believe him, and God replies by showing him\nthe miracle of the staff turning into a serpent, etc. Still Moses\nhesitates, pleading lack of eloquence as an excuse for not going,\nand God promises to inspire his utterances and to commission, also,\nhis brother Aaron, who was eloquent, to assist as his spokesman. The\nsignificance of this dialogue of Moses with God is usually explained\nas contained in what it reveals to us of the characteristic meekness\nof Moses. It does, indeed, illustrate this conspicuous trait of his\ncharacter, but if it were the chief aim of the Biblical author to\ncommend the meekness of Moses we should scarcely be prepared for\nthe statement (Exodus 4.14), \"And the anger of the Lord was kindled\nagainst Moses.\" The main purpose of the Biblical author seems rather\nto be to emphasize the apparent impossibility of the task which\nMoses was asked to accomplish in order that the miraculous character\nof the deliverance be the more evident. It is significant that\nbefore Moses goes to speak to Pharaoh, God refuses the revelation of\nHis name, but after he has gone on his mission God does reveal it\n(Exodus 6.2). It would seem that He resented Moses' refusal to go\nwithout a special guarantee. The moral of the narrative is perhaps\nmost clearly brought out in God's rejoinder to Moses, \"Who maketh a\nman dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? is it not I, the Lord?\" Exodus\n4.11.\n\n  [7] Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism pages 47-53.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to inculcate in the child\nfaith in God's power and providence as revealed in Jewish history.\nThe teacher should endeavor to make the child, through admiration\nof the heroism of Moses in attempting the apparently impossible in\nthe service of God, feel with deep conviction that in His service,\nthere can be no failure. He should try to get not only the child's\nintellectual assent to the idea that God can accomplish anything\nthat He purposes, but he should arouse an emotional appreciation of\nthat heroism begotten of faith which leads great men to undertake\nwhat would, to others, seem impossible.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Inasmuch as we wish to inspire in\nthe child by means of this lesson, a faith in divine providence,\nwe must guard against any attempt at rationalizing the miracles\nrecorded in this and subsequent chapters. It is faith in God's\npower over nature and His use of this power in the interests of\njustice and righteousness that this lesson should teach, and no\nphilosophic explanation can bring home this truth to the child so\nwell as the simple, impressive narration of the miracle. A belief\nin the supernatural and transcendent power of God is essential in\nJudaism, and the miracle tale is the best means for emphasizing\nthis doctrine. To be sure, it may be necessary at an older age, to\nmodify and deepen one's conception of the miraculous, but the only\nmeans by which the child can conceive of God's transcendent power,\nprovidentially exercised, is through the simple, straight-forward\nnarrative of miracles He performed. No attempt, for instance, should\nbe made to identify the voice that addressed Moses from the burning\nbush with the voice of conscience. It must remain an objective\nvoice. God's reply to Moses' inquiry as to His name, \"I am that I\nam,\" is sometimes made the occasion for the teacher to indulge in an\nattempt at a philosophical discussion of the nature of God. We have\nalready suggested in our interpretation of the passage that these\nwords were probably never intended to convey such meaning. They are\nnot an answer to the question, \"What is Thy name?\" but a refusal to\nanswer it, and, therefore, it is not in place to interpret their\nsignificance as revealing anything of the nature of God. Apart from\nthis consideration, however, such abstract theological discussion is\nabove the mental power of the child and should always be avoided. It\nis, therefore, best to teach the verse without any comment, as this\nby itself tends to preserve the atmosphere of mystery and awe which\nenvelopes the whole episode.\n\nIn telling of the dialogue of God and Moses, the Biblical language\ncan be used almost throughout, and, at any rate, the speeches should\nbe given in direct discourse. Be careful to aid the child to an\nappreciation of the reason for Moses' hesitation, both because this\nis necessary to a proper understanding of the character of Moses,\nand because it prepares the way for a better appreciation of the\nmiracle of the Exodus. For instance, in telling of the call of God\nto Moses, one might continue somewhat in this wise: \"When Moses\nheard God say, 'Go and I will send thee to Pharaoh, and do thou\nbring my people, the children of Israel out of Egypt', his heart\nsank. How could he, one man, and a stranger, go before this cruel\nand powerful king of a mighty nation, surrounded by courtiers,\nguards and soldiers, and say to him, 'Let these thousands of slaves\nwho are building your cities go free?' Would Pharaoh pay any\nattention to him? So Moses said to God, 'Who am I that I should\ngo to Pharaoh, that I should bring forth the children of Israel\nout of Egypt?'\" The teacher can also make the emphasis of the\nnarrative clearer by the questions he asks after the presentation\nof the lesson, as, for instance: \"What did God ask Moses to say to\nPharaoh? Do you think Pharaoh would let Israel go just because Moses\nasked it? Why not? (Draw out the idea that Pharaoh was used to being\nobeyed, not commanded, and that the slavery of Israel was profitable\nto him.) Did Moses think that Pharaoh would obey him? What did Moses\nsay to God when God told him to go to Pharaoh? Why did not Moses\nwant to go? How did God answer Moses when Moses said that he was not\na good enough speaker?\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nMOSES' FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE PHARAOH Exodus 4.29 to 6.8\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The first step that Moses takes seems to contain a\npromise of success. He and Aaron succeed in interesting the elders\nof Israel in the prospect of deliverance, but the hope which this\ninitial success raised in the heart of Moses was soon destined to\nbe disappointed, for Pharaoh not only refuses the moderate request\nof a three days' journey into the wilderness, but also imposes\nnew and impossible burdens upon the Israelites. This has the\nimmediate effect of discrediting Moses and Aaron in the eyes of\nthe people, even in the eyes of the Israelite overseers, who had\nsought to intercede for their brethren with Pharaoh, and who now\nreproach Moses and Aaron as the enemies of the people. In utter\ndespair he lays his complaint before God, and at this juncture God\nvouchsafes to him that revelation of His name, which He had at first\nwithheld, and assures him of the fulfillment of the covenant with\nthe patriarchs. Moses was not to be discouraged by the hardness of\nPharaoh's heart, for even this was but to emphasize the miraculous\ncharacter of Israel's escape. This is the significance of the verses\nin Exodus 6.1 and 7.3-5.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this chapter is the same as that of the preceding.\nIn addition, it should be utilized to teach reverence for the name\nof God.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before beginning this lesson recall\nby a few questions the main points of the previous lesson, laying\nespecial emphasis on the difficulties of the task Moses was called\nupon to perform. Then tell how the hopes of Moses were raised by\nhis meeting Aaron, and still more by the reception accorded him\nby the elders of Israel, who remembered hearing of the prophecy\nthat Israel was to be led out of Egypt and go to the land promised\nto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The conversation between Moses and\nPharaoh must be given in direct discourse, and in the language of\nthe Bible. The children must be made to realize the dilemma in\nwhich the Jewish overseers of the work found themselves, in that\nthey were held accountable for the impossible tasks that they were\nrequired to exact from the people. Their petition to Pharaoh and\nPharaoh's retort must also be given in direct discourse and in\nlanguage approaching that of the Bible, but somewhat more explicit,\nso that the motives are clear to the children, thus: \"Now, when\nthe Hebrew overseers of the work saw that they were being brutally\nbeaten because the children of Israel could not do the impossible\nand make bricks without straw, they thought that they would come\nbefore Pharaoh and reason with him; so they came and said: 'Oh king,\nwherefore dost thou do so to thy servants, no straw is given to thy\nservants, yet thou sayest to us, see that they make bricks, and when\nthey do not make the number of bricks thou dost require--for they\ncannot make the same number if they must take the time to gather the\nstraw themselves--the blame is put on us, their overseers, and we\nare unjustly punished.' Pharaoh would not listen to reason, but grew\nred in the face with anger and said in a blustering voice, 'You are\nidle fellows, idle! that is why you look for excuses not to work,\nsaying: Come, let us sacrifice to the Lord! And now, go to your work\nand straw shall not be given to you and you shall furnish the same\nnumber of bricks as before, when the straw was given'.\"\n\nThis prepares the way for the explanation of the change in the\npeople's attitude to Moses, as shown in Genesis 5. 21. The words of\nthe overseers to Moses should be paraphrased somewhat, because the\nchildren might not understand the figurative language, thus: \"May\nthe Lord appear and judge you, for you have given us a bad name with\nPharaoh, and instead of keeping your promise to free us from Egypt\nyou have given Pharaoh an excuse to treat us worse than we have ever\nbeen treated before.\" Then proceed to describe the feelings of Moses\nwhen he heard these words, how it must have seemed at the time that\nthe goal for which he was striving seemed farther away than ever.\nNot only had Pharaoh not granted his petition, but the one effect of\nhis pleading was to add to the burdens of the people, which he had\nsought to relieve, so that his own people now turned against him.\n\nThis brings the teacher to the narrative of God's revelation of\nhis name to Moses, the significance of which I explained in the\npreceding chapter. In teaching it to the child, the chief aim, as\nalready indicated, should be to inspire reverence for the name of\nGod. A second aim should be to impress the child with the greatness\nof Moses. This can be very easily done by presenting this lesson\nsomewhat as follows: \"Then God told Moses His name, His name which\nhe had not told before to any other man, not even to Abraham, Isaac\nand Jacob. He had made himself known to them as God Almighty, and\nby many different names, but His real name he had not told them.\nThis name, children, you have never heard, though you have probably\nall seen it.\" (The teacher then lets them open their prayer-books at\nthe \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc, or, if they have no books with them, he has a book\nready which he opens at that place. He lets one of the children read\nthe first verse of the \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2.) \"Now you all know that we read the third\nword in this verse 'adonoy', but that is not what the four letters of\nthat word \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 spell, is it? You would expect the word to be spelt\n\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 wouldn't you? Well, those four letters that make this third word\nof the \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2 spell the name that God told Moses, but we, none of us,\nsay that name. Instead, we say 'adonoy', which means 'The Lord',\nbecause it is not respectful to call God by His name.\"[8] The\nteacher then asks one of the children what his father's name is, his\nmother's. \"When you speak to your father and mother, do you call\nthem by name? What do you call them? When people speak to a king\nthey never call him by name, but they call him, 'Your Majesty.' A\njudge in a law court is never called by name, he is called, 'Your\nHonor.' The President of the United States is not addressed by name,\nhe is addressed as 'Mr. President.' This is all done as a mark of\nhonor and respect, and for the same reason we do not call God by His\nname but speak of Him as the Lord, God, the Eternal, and so forth,\nin order to show our respect and reverence for God. But when God saw\nhow faithfully Moses had obeyed Him, even though this obedience had\nbrought him nothing but sorrow, He loved Moses so much that He told\nhim His name, to show that He treated Moses as a friend who might\ncall Him by name as friends are used to call each other. He wanted\nto let Moses feel that it made no difference even if Pharaoh was his\nenemy, and if the Israelites themselves turned against him, because\nMoses still had one Friend who would always stand by him, God\nhimself. He told him, therefore, His name, and gave him permission\nto use it in speaking to the children of Israel that they might all\nknow that God was with him and would help him, and He said, 'I am\nthe Lord; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob, as\nGod Almighty, but by My name I made Me not known to them',\" etc.,\nto the end of verse 9. In discussing the lesson with the children,\npoint out the sinfulness of taking God's name in vain, even as\napplied to the other names of God beside the tetragrammaton (\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4).\n\n  [8] Do not illustrate this on the blackboard, as Jewish sentiment\n  considers it irreverent to write the name of God on anything from\n  which it will be subsequently erased, or which will be cast aside\n  and destroyed. Instead, illustrate from printed books. If children\n  are required to write the name of God on the blackboard they should\n  be taught to write simply the initial \"G\" in English or \u05d4  or \u05d3 in\n  Hebrew.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE PLAGUES\n\nExodus 6.9 to 10.29\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The meaning of these chapters is plain. They\ncontain the narrative of that contest between Pharaoh and his court\nwith all their magic devices on the one hand and Moses, armed with\nthe name of God, on the other. The reader should not fail to note\nthe dramatic portrayal of the impotence of blind, tyrannical rage\nwhich vacillates between half-hearted concessions that cannot\nsatisfy opposition and blind fury that merely invites opposition.\nWith the second plague Pharaoh is ready to satisfy Moses' demand,\nbut he remains of this intent only until the plague is removed,\nthen in his apparent security, the habit of tyranny immediately\nreasserts itself, and he again refuses to let Israel go. With the\nfourth plague, Pharaoh offers as a compromise that the Israelites\nmay sacrifice to their God in Egypt. This compromise Moses rejects,\nstating boldly as his reason that such a course would involve\nslaying the \"abomination\", _i. e._, the gods, of the Egyptians, a\nthing which the Egyptian people would not suffer. Thereupon Pharaoh\nconsents to let the Israelites go, \"Only do not go afar off,\" but\nwith the removal of the plague this concession is again withdrawn.\nAfter the seventh plague, Pharaoh, in accordance with the insistent\ndemand of his court, is ready for further concessions. He is\nready to permit the men to go, provided they leave the women and\nchildren as hostages biding their return. When this concession is\nrejected, his fury leads him again into a mad defiance. The ninth\nplague makes him seek once more to appease Moses and Aaron. He is\nready now even to let the women and children go, only the cattle\nmust remain in Egypt. But Moses is firm; the cattle were needed for\nsacrifice. Nothing less than a complete exodus of all the people\nwith their possessions for a three days' journey into the wilderness\nto worship God on His holy mountain would satisfy Moses. Indeed,\nhe even suggests that the king himself provide animals for the\nsacrifice. Then Pharaoh in a rage commits his final indiscretion,\ndeclaring to Moses and Aaron, \"Get thee from me, take heed to\nthyself, see my face no more; for in the day thou seest my face\nthou shalt die.\" This closes all negotiations between them. Moses\naccepts his ultimatum. \"Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face\nagain no more.\" Henceforth, not even a three days' journey into the\nwilderness will suffice. Pharaoh had pronounced his own sentence, a\nsentence which the arbitrary and tyrannical always pronounce upon\nthemselves when opposed by the protagonists of reason and justice.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this chapter, as of all those leading to the\nevent of the Exodus, is to inspire the child with faith in God's\nprovidence as exercised over Israel in particular, and over mankind\nin general, in the interests of liberty and justice.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= It is sometimes suggested in books on\nthe teaching of Biblical history that the story of the plagues be\npassed over lightly, without much attention to detail. This would\nbe a mistake. The story of the plagues has a great fascination for\nyoung children, the same sort of fascination which the works of\nfairies and witches in their favorite fairy tales exercise over\nthem. The skillful teacher will make the most of the native interest\nin the marvelous by employing it to increase the spirit of reverent\nawe which he must endeavor to associate with the thought of God. In\ntelling each of these plagues, it is not enough to describe what\nhappened, but the teacher must assist in making the child realize\nwhat the plagues meant to Egypt. Thus, in teaching the first plague,\ndwell on how indispensable water is and what distress results if\npeople are deprived of water for any length of time.\n\nThe interest of the children in the plagues must not, however, be\nmerely due to their interest in the marvelous. Endeavor to interest\nthem primarily in the contest between God and Pharaoh. All the\nconversations between Pharaoh and Moses must be told as nearly as\npossible in the language of the Bible, so that the child is made to\nfeel the strength of the firm insistence of Moses and the weakness\nof Pharaoh's vacillating and temporizing attitude. Unless at the\nend of the lesson the child is filled with admiration for Moses and\ncontempt for Pharaoh, the teacher has not taught the lesson well.\n\nInasmuch as there are so many allusions to the ten plagues in Jewish\nand general literature, the child should be taught to remember them\nin their proper order. This can be done best by naming each plague\nin a single word or brief phrase, as in the Passover Haggadah, and\nwriting them on the blackboard thus:\n\n  1. Blood.                     6. Boils.\n  2. Frogs.                     7. Hail.\n  3. Gnats.                     8. Locusts.\n  4. Flies.                     9. Darkness.\n  5. Pestilence among cattle.  10. Death of first-born.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE EXODUS\n\nExodus 11.1 to 13.16\n\n\n=Interpretation.= These chapters relate the climax toward which the\nnarrative from the birth of Moses until this point has been leading,\nthe exodus from Egypt. They also contain the laws associated with\nthe commemoration of this event. The narrative begins by telling\nof God's promise that the next plague would be the last, and His\ncommand to the people to prepare for the exodus. Before they\nwere permitted to leave, some expression of their faith in God's\ndeliverance and their readiness to follow His guidance was required;\ntherefore, we have the command to take a lamb on the tenth day of\nthe month, which was to begin their new era, and sacrifice it on\nthe 14th, and eat the flesh of it in family groups on that night,\ntogether with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, which thereafter\nwere to serve as symbols of the bondage and of the liberation from\nit. The blood of this sacrifice, they were to sprinkle on the\ndoorposts of their houses in order to testify by this ritual to\ntheir desire to be included in the \"Army of the Lord\" that was to\ndepart on the morrow, and all who did not testify thus to their\nadherence to Israel's cause were to meet with the same fate as the\nEgyptians with whom they had chosen to identify themselves. The\nIsraelites were to eat the lamb while standing with their loins girt\nand staves in their hands, in readiness for the signal to depart.\nThe rabbis call attention to the fact that the sacrifice of the\nPaschal lamb in Egypt by the Israelites was a very bold expression\nof their faith, inasmuch as the sheep was among the sacred animals\nof Egypt. When Pharaoh suggests to Moses that the Israelites could\nsacrifice to their God in Egypt, he replies, \"Lo, if we sacrifice\nthe abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not\nstone us?\" (Exodus 8. 22.) But by this time Pharaoh and Egypt\nhad been so humiliated by the plagues which did not even spare\ntheir sacred river Nile, that the Egyptians feared to attack the\nIsraelites, while the children of Israel had recovered their lost\nconfidence in Moses, and in the God in whose name he spoke to them.\n\nAmong the laws and observances associated with the events of this\nchapter are: 1. The law ordaining the first of Nisan, as the \"New\nYear for months\", in commemoration of the inauguration of the new\nera in Israel's history; 2. the annual sacrifice of the Paschal\nlamb which was eaten in the family circle together with bitter\nherbs and unleavened bread to recall the similar observances of the\nIsraelites before leaving Egypt;[9] 3. the celebration for seven\ndays[10] of the festival of Passover by the previous removal of\nall leaven and abstention from it during the festival and by the\neating of unleavened bread in commemoration of the haste of Israel's\ndeparture that did not allow them to make other provision; 4. the\nduty of narrating these events to one's children, which gave rise\nto the recital of the Haggadah on the night of Passover; 5. the\nsanctification of the first-born of cattle and of men in recognition\nof the providential character of the tenth plague, the latter custom\nsurviving in the practice of \"pidyon ha-ben\", \"the redemption of\nthe first-born\", and, 6. the injunction to make of this command \"a\nsign upon thy hand and frontlets between thine eyes\" which led to\nthe inclusion of the passage containing these words, and the command\nto sanctify the first-born among those enclosed in the _tephillin_,\nthus making them a theme for daily reflection. In addition to these\npractices, it is noteworthy that the Sabbath and holidays, even\nthose having other historic associations, are characterized in\nour liturgy as \u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b7\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e6\u05b4\u05d5\u05d0\u05b7\u05ea \u05d6\u05b5\u05db\u05b6\u05e8 \"memorials of the Exodus from\nEgypt.\" The multitude of observances that are thus designed to keep\nus mindful of the Exodus testify to the importance of the leading\nidea associated with this event for the Jewish people at all times,\nnamely, the identification of the cause of Israel with the cause of\nGod, \"And I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a\nGod, and ye shall know that I am the Lord, your God, who brought you\nout from under the burdens of the Egyptians.\" (Exodus 6. 7.)\n\n  [9] Since the sacrifices have ceased with the destruction of\n  the Temple, the eating of the meal as part of the Seder service\n  answers this purpose. At this meal the Paschal lamb is symbolically\n  represented by the roasted bone, and the _ma\u1e93\u1e93ot_ and _maror_ are\n  eaten.\n\n  [10] In modern times eight days in the diaspora.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to make the child conscious\nof his identity with Israel and of the debt of gratitude and loyalty\nthat this imposes upon him in view of God's redemption of Israel.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The association of the Exodus with\nthe observance of Passover is the obvious method of establishing\na contact between the subject to be taught in this lesson and the\nJewish child of today. Nevertheless, it is better not to employ the\nobservances of the Passover as the technical \"point of contact\"\nwith which to introduce the original presentation of the lesson, as\nthat would delay too long the actual narration, but to use them to\nintroduce the discussion of the topic by the class after the teacher\nhas told his story.\n\nTo introduce the narrative itself a reference to previous lessons\nis sufficient, as the last few lessons have all anticipated the\nevents told in these chapters. This the teacher can best do by a\nfew introductory questions, as, for instance; \"Why did God send the\nplagues of which we learned in our last lesson against Egypt?\" (Draw\nout the answer that it was not merely to punish the Egyptians but\nto compel Pharaoh to free the Israelites.) When, after the ninth\nplague, Moses refused Pharaoh's offer to let the Israelites go on\ncondition that they left their cattle and possessions behind, what\ndid Pharaoh say? How did Moses answer? The teacher then continues:\n\n     \"When Pharaoh had driven Moses and Aaron from him and told them\n     never to come before him again or he would have them put to\n     death, it was plain that there was no use arguing with him any\n     more. God had given him many chances to change his attitude and\n     let the Israelites go in peace, to serve Him in the wilderness,\n     but Pharaoh would not listen and now God decided to send one\n     more plague upon Egypt, so terrible that Pharaoh would be forced\n     to let the Israelites go.\"\n\nIn telling of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb and the sprinkling\nof the blood on the doorposts, guard against leaving the child with\nthe notion that God really required a sign in order to distinguish\nthe Hebrew from the Egyptian house. This can be done by explaining\nthat God wanted to test the faith of the Israelites in the expected\nexodus by their readiness to make these preparations. The sprinkling\nof the blood on the doorposts was to be a sign that the inmates of\nthe house wanted it to be considered a Hebrew house, but if they\nwere willing to remain in Egypt and would not trust God to lead them\nout, they would naturally not make these preparations, and would\ndeserve to be treated like all the other Egyptians.\n\nCall attention to the change in the attitude of the people to Moses\nand Aaron since God had shown His power in the plagues, for at first\nthey would not listen to them \"for impatience of spirit and for\ncruel bondage\", and now they obeyed the minutest prescriptions of\nMoses in anticipation of the exodus.\n\nAfter completing the narrative try to bring home its moral\nin connection with the celebration of Passover, so that this\ncelebration in its annual recurrence may, by association of ideas,\nreinforce the lesson you are teaching. Speak to the class somewhat\nas follows: \"Can you imagine how happy our forefathers felt when\nthey received the signal to leave Egypt? Think of what a change\nit meant to them. No longer would they have to rise up early in\nthe morning, work, work, work all day for Pharaoh, and receive\nnothing for their labor. No longer would they have a taskmaster\nstanding over them with a whip ready to beat them cruelly if they\ndid not finish the required number of bricks, although they may\nhave been too old or too sick to do so. No longer would they have\nto do whatever the Egyptians commanded them and have to fear even\nto sacrifice to their God, lest the Egyptian idol-worshipper might\nstone them. To be sure, in the wilderness into which they were\ngoing, and even in the Promised Land to which God was leading them,\nthey would have to work hard as shepherds and farmers, but they\nwould be tending their own flocks and herds and working on their own\nfarms. Nobody now could order them about, for his selfish purpose,\nand they could obey and serve their God without interference, could\nrest on His holy days and could sacrifice when and where they would.\nDo you not think that if you had lived in Egypt in those days, you\nwould have felt happy and thankful to God and ready always to do His\nwishes for having brought you forth from slavery to freedom? Would\nyou not feel every year, when the fifteenth of Nisan came, that you\nwould want to celebrate it as a great joyous holiday on which you\nwould thank God for the happy change He brought into your life, and\ndo you not think that if you had children, you would never tire of\ntelling them the story, particularly on the anniversary of the great\nevent so that they, too, should thank God for the freedom that they\nare permitted to enjoy? Well, that is what our forefathers did.\nEvery year they celebrated the going out of Egypt and they told\nthe story of the departure from Egypt to their children and taught\nthem to celebrate it, and so the observance of this day has been\nkept up to our own time, and I hope you will one day teach your\nchildren to observe it. Can any of you tell me the name of this\nfestival? When our fathers told the story of God's deliverance of\nIsrael from Egypt they tried to have everything at hand that would\nremind them of all that had occurred on that great day. In order\nto remind them of the lamb that they had slaughtered, they used in\nolden times to sacrifice a lamb, and they ate it in their family\ngroups just as they had done in Egypt; and later, when sacrifices\nwere no longer offered, they had, as we have today, as a reminder\nof the same, a roasted bone of a lamb on their table the first two\nnights of Passover. To remind them of the haste in which they left\nEgypt without being able to leaven their bread (the teacher must\nexplain the meaning of the word leaven), they made it a law to eat\n_ma\u1e93\u1e93ot_ during that festival. Can you tell me of some of the other\nthings on the Seder table on Pesah? (As they are mentioned, let the\nteacher explain their significance.) When you saw all these things\nat the Seder table, didn't you always feel like asking what they all\nmeant? How many of you have ever said the \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05b7\u05d4 on Seder\nnight? Well, that contains a number of such questions. When you were\nthrough reading them your father began to read from the Haggadah,\ndid he not? He read the answer, which explains why we celebrate\nPesah, and this is the way it begins: 'Slaves were we in the land of\nEgypt, and the Lord, our God, brought us forth from thence with a\nmighty hand, and an outstretched arm, and if the Holy One, blessed\nbe He, had not brought forth our ancestors from Egypt, we and our\nchildren and our children's children might still have continued in\nbondage to the Pharaohs in Egypt. Therefore, even if we were all\ngreat scholars, all men of understanding, all learned in the Torah,\nit would, nevertheless, be our duty to tell about the departure from\nEgypt, and the more one tells about the departure from Egypt, the\nmore one is to be praised.'\"\n\nThe children should be encouraged to discuss very freely the\ncelebration of the Passover, as observed in their own homes, as this\nis an excellent opportunity of correlating their school instruction\nwith their home life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nISRAEL AT THE RED SEA\n\nExodus 13.17 to 15.21\n\n\n=Interpretation.= With this chapter a new period in Jewish history\nbegins, the formative period, during which the unorganized horde of\nrefugees from Egyptian bondage is given the character of a great\nnation through the providential circumstances of its history and the\ninspired genius of its leader. The period is one that is replete\nwith miracles. Modern rationalism may attempt to explain them away,\nand it is quite possible that events which, had we experienced\nthem, we might have ascribed to the operation of natural laws,\nwere felt by our ancestors with their more limited knowledge of\nnature to be miracles, and were regarded as such. But, however we\nmay represent to our minds the incidents that took place, we must\nrecognize in them the hand of Providence and not merely a historic\nchance. We may, if we wish, regard the parting of the Red Sea as a\ntidal phenomenon, the pillar of cloud and flame as a volcanic cloud,\nbut we must, in that case, believe that this tidal phenomenon and\nthis volcanic cloud were designed for the guidance of our people.\nNo teacher who lacks the faith that the various vicissitudes of\nour people in the wilderness were intended to preserve them and to\nprepare them for their historic career, as the standard-bearers\nof the Torah, can fittingly teach this period of our history for,\nwithout such a conception, a majority of the events recorded would\nbe meaningless.\n\nThe chapters of this lesson contain experiences and reflections\nthat are typical of the whole period of the wilderness. Note at the\noutset the explanation for the roundabout route of the Israelites,\nwhich states the fundamental reason for this whole period of trial\nand vicissitudes. They were not to go to the Promised Land by way of\nPhilistia, because that way was too short, and they might have been\ntempted, at the first rebuff, to return to Egypt, since only that\nwhich has been won at the cost of effort and sacrifice can be fully\nappreciated. The importance of taking this psychological factor into\nconsideration is evident from the conduct of Israel at the Red Sea,\nwhen the first obstacle that comes in their way leads them to murmur\nagainst the leadership of Moses, and to compare disparagingly their\npresent situation with what had been their lot in Egypt. This is a\nstate of affairs which we find again and again in the history of\nthis period, and it emphasizes the providential character of those\nevents, which could convert this horde of slaves with the stamp of\nslavery on their hearts into a conquering nation conscious of a\ngreat historic mission.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to inspire the child with the\nbelief in God's providence exercised over His people, Israel.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Begin the lesson by pointing out that\nGod had fulfilled His promise to free the Israelites from Egypt. But\nwhere were they to go now? Recall by questions, God's promise to the\npatriarchs to give Canaan to the Israelites. Recall also Jacob's\ndesire to be buried in Palestine and Joseph's similar request.\nThen locate Palestine and Egypt on the map, and show by the scale\nof miles how far apart they are. Observe that if the Israelites\ncould cover twenty miles a day in their journey, it would take them\na little more than two weeks to complete the journey. \"But,\" you\ncontinue, \"God did not lead them directly to the land of Canaan,\nbecause the people were not prepared to keep a land of their own.\"\nOne may use the following illustration to make the reason clear:\n\n\"If one opens the cage of a canary bird that has been born and\nraised in a cage it will not immediately fly out and away; for some\ntime it will stay in the cage afraid to leave it, then it will\ntimidly go out a little way and if anything frightens it, will hurry\nback into its cage. Now, the Israelites had been in Egypt like a\ncaged bird. They were not free to go where they would and do what\nthey would. Then all of a sudden they were free. But they were so\nused always to being told by the Egyptians what they should do, that\nthey were afraid to do things for themselves, and, indeed, did not\nknow how. God knew that if they came to Canaan, and they saw there\nan army of the Canaanites coming against them to battle, they would\nbe so frightened, that, instead of fighting them boldly and bravely,\nthey would at once go back to Egypt and become slaves to Pharaoh,\njust as the bird goes back to the cage when it is frightened. God,\ntherefore, decided not to take them at once to their own land, but\nto lead them in a roundabout way with many turnings and twistings,\nso that they would not know how to return to Egypt if they wanted to\ndo so.\" (Show on the map the direct route possible to the Israelites\nand the actual route that they took.) \"And now I am going to tell\nyou something that happened which will show you how, at the very\nfirst difficulty, many of the Israelites wanted to go back to Egypt\nand how God saved them from their troubles.\"\n\nThen tell the story of their wanderings, guided by the pillar of\ncloud and fire, Pharaoh's pursuit and the crossing of the Red Sea.\nLay emphasis on the dilemma which faced the Israelites at the Red\nSea, and on their consequent state of mind, which is revealed in\nExodus 14.10-12. These complaints should be quoted in the language\nof the Bible. The children might be required to memorize Moses'\nreply, which sums up the message of the lesson, \"Stand still and see\nthe salvation of the Lord.\" Read to the class the song of Moses and\nencourage the memorizing of favorite verses from the song.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nFROM THE RED SEA TO SINAI\n\nExodus 15.22 to 18.27\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The significance of the events which took place\nat Marah, in the wilderness of Sin, and at Rephidim is the same\nas of those recorded in the preceding chapter. The antagonism\nfelt towards Amalek, which made him the arch-type of all Israel's\nhistoric foes, is to be explained by the fact that he was the first\nto go out of his way to oppose Israel, attacking it where it was\nweak at a time and in a manner which, because of the lack of any\nobvious provocation, impressed the Israelites as a direct attempt\nto defeat God's purpose in having brought them from Egypt. This\nis suggested by the words, \"The hand upon the throne of the Lord;\nthe Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.\"\n(Exodus 17. 16.) Thus, Ibn Ezra says in his commentary to Exodus\n17. 14, \"The reason for God's saying, 41 will utterly blot out the\nremembrance of Amalek', is because he provoked the Lord, for the\ndukes of Edom had been terrified with the dread of Him on account\nof the miracles which He had performed in Egypt and at the Red Sea,\nand so, too were Moab and Philistia, and behold this Amalek, hearing\nof the mighty deeds of the Lord in behalf of His people, Israel,\ncame from a distant region to fight with Israel, and dreaded not\nthe Lord, as it is written (Deuteronomy 25. 18), 'and he feared not\nthe Lord'.\" The incident of the Israelites being victorious, so\nlong as Moses' hands were raised, is to be explained as the rabbis\nexplain it in the Mishnah (Rosh ha-Shanah III. 8). \"Could the hands\nof Moses in any wise make or break a victory that we are told, 'And\nit came to pass when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed'?\nThis can only mean to tell us that so long as the Israelites looked\nupward and subjected their hearts to their Father in heaven, they\nprevailed, and when not, they fell.\"\n\nThe visit of Jethro is recorded as a contrast to the preceding\nepisode. Jethro is the type of the \"righteous proselyte\" who, seeing\nGod's purpose in exalting Israel, seeks to identify himself with\nIsrael's cause.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is the same as of the preceding.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The teaching of this lesson presents\nno great difficulties, the events narrated being in themselves\ninteresting to children. Try to aid the child in realizing the\nhardships of wandering through the wilderness by a description of\nthe geographical features of the wilderness, the lack of roads, of\nwater, of food for man and cattle, the fear of wild beasts, and\nof marauding tribes like Amalek, the lack of housing facilities,\netc. Endeavor to make the child realize how the Israelites felt,\nwhen contrasting these conditions with those that existed in\nthe fertile Nile valley. This will help them to understand the\nmurmurings against Moses, and what a thankless task it was that\nMoses had assumed in leading the Israelites. Do not fail to appeal\nto their hero worship by pointing out the unselfishness of Moses\nin continuing to lead the people in spite of their ingratitude. In\nteaching of the double portion of Manna, which they gathered on\nthe eve of the Sabbath, one may associate it with the two loaves\nof bread used at the Sabbath meal in the child's home. In telling\nthe story of Amalek's attack, it is well to mitigate the harshness\nof the Biblical injunction to remember what Amalek did to us, by\nassociating with it the moral taught by the following Midrash:\n\n\"To what may the children of Israel (at this juncture) be compared?\nTo a child, who was being carried on his father's shoulders through\nthe street and whenever he saw any object he desired he would say to\nhis father, 'Buy it for me', and his father would buy it for him.\nThis happened once, twice, thrice. While they were proceeding thus,\nthe child saw his father's friend and asked him, 'Have you seen\nanything of my father?' Thereupon, the father offended, said, 'Fool!\nyou are riding on my shoulders, and whatever you want I provide\nfor you and yet you dare ask this man, \"Have you seen anything of\nmy father?\"' So what did the father do? He put the child down and\nrefused to carry him any further. Just then a dog came and bit the\nchild. Even such was the conduct of Israel. When they went forth\nfrom Egypt, God at once surrounded them with clouds of glory. They\ndesired Manna; the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it them. They\ndesired quail; He gave it them. Whatever they needed, He gave them.\nNevertheless, they began to doubt and said, 'Is the Lord among us or\nnot?' (Exodus 17. 7.) Thereupon, the Holy One, be He blessed, said\nto them, 'As ye live, I shall make it known to you. Behold the dog\nis coming and will bite you.' And who is the dog? Amalek, as it is\nsaid, 'And Amalek came',\" etc.\n\nIn teaching this and similar lessons, it is important to locate all\nplaces on the map, as this gives greater reality to the stories. The\nassociation of a legend with a particular place has always had the\neffect on simple minds of making it appear more worthy of credence,\nand it is well to utilize this psychological fact in order to give\na sense of reliability and reality to the Biblical narrative. To\nshow pictures of the places mentioned, is even more valuable an aid,\nwhich should also be applied wherever possible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE REVELATION\n\nExodus 19.1 to 20.18\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The event which is the subject of this lesson is\nwithout exception the most important event in Jewish history, and\nfrom the point of view of Judaism, in the history of the world.\nAll previous Jewish history leads up to it; all subsequent Jewish\nhistory harks back to it. In the story of the Patriarchs, the\ncentral theme is the choice of the material out of which that nation\nis to spring, which will accept the Torah, and commit itself to live\nfor and by it. The central theme of the story of the exodus is the\npreparation of the people for this event, God's purchasing Israel,\nto use the Biblical phrase, from his masters, that he might serve\nGod alone. And the central theme of all subsequent Jewish history\nis the struggle to make the principles of this Torah dominant over\nIsrael and to guard its ideals, and the institutions to which it\ngave rise against foreign aggression on the one hand, and foreign\nseduction on the other. The event of the great Revelation is\ntherefore of the utmost significance.\n\nWhat took place at Mt. Sinai? Something of the awe which set\nbounds about the mountain that the people dared not break through,\nmust be ours, as we approach this subject. We must realize that\nan event such as this cannot be recorded in the terms of our\ndaily experience. We can only guess and guess feebly at what the\nexperience meant for our forefathers from the records that they\nhave left us, clothed in all the poetic imagery of our Bible\nnarrative. At Sinai, in the midst of most impressive natural\nsurroundings, thunder, lightning, earthquake, fire and smoke, the\npeople became conscious of God's presence, as they had never been\nconscious of His presence before. And while thus impressed with\nthe infinite power of the God who had led them out of Egypt that\nthey might worship Him there in the wilderness, they entered into\na covenant with Him. Under the inspired guidance of the greatest\nof all prophets, they were made to realize that this God demanded\nobedience to law, as the condition of His continuing to be their God\nand to lead them as His people, whom He had redeemed from Egypt.\n\nAnd the content of this revealed covenant is the Decalogue, the most\nsignificant moral code in the world's history, which has exercised\nan influence upon mankind more profound and beneficent than any\nother. After insisting upon the recognition of the God who redeemed\nIsrael from Egypt as the sole source of all authority and the sole\nobject of worship, and endeavoring to secure the acknowledgment\nof these claims by enjoining reverence for God's name, this code\nlays down laws governing all the most important human relations.\nIt insists on the sanctity of the home, both in the tie between\nhusband and wife, and between parent and child. It insists on the\nsacredness of human life, and guarantees the right of property,\nwhich is essential to human development. It demands truth and\njustice in the administration of law. It concerns itself little with\nceremonial forms, but it insists, nevertheless, on the observance of\nthe Sabbath, without which man cannot attain to full human dignity\nand to the consecration of life but sinks to the level of a beast\nof burden or an automaton, mechanically securing the means of life\nwith no leisure to contemplate its ends. Nor is the Decalogue merely\nconcerned with man's overt acts, but demands purity of motive, for\nit condemns covetousness equally with theft and adultery.\n\nThe revelation on Mt. Sinai, meant to the soul of Israel, what the\nexperience of the prophetic call meant to the prophet, when he first\nheard the voice of God appointing him to a mission of which he had\nnot dreamed before. Israel left Egypt a fugitive horde, it came to\nSinai and was there transformed into a great nation, conscious of\na historic mission that distinguished it from and exalted it above\nother peoples, to become \"a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\"\n(Exodus 19. 6.) Israel has not always been true to this mission, has\nperhaps never lived up fully to all its implications, but from that\ntime to this Israel has never quite forgotten it, has never lost\nfaith in it.\n\nIn emphasizing the significance of the Decalogue, one must, however,\nnot lose sight of the fact that the Ten Commandments were not\nthe only laws that were revealed to Moses on Sinai, and that the\nSinaitic covenant involved not merely obedience to the Decalogue,\nbut obedience to all other laws to which Judaism attributes a divine\norigin. According to tradition many of the oral laws, which are\nnot contained in the Bible, were _halakah lemosheh misinai_, \"Laws\nrevealed to Moses on Sinai\". Historic criticism may suggest a later\norigin to most of these and even to many laws in the Pentateuch, but\nthere is nothing in the Biblical narrative that limits revelation to\nthe Decalogue, and, according to Jewish belief, all of the Torah is\nrevealed.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to inspire the child with\nreverence for the Law, and faith in its divine origin and authority\nover him.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The teacher may well begin the lesson\nby calling the child's attention to the reading of the Sefer Torah\nin the synagogue. Ask whether the Sefer Torah is, in appearance,\nlike any other book, and let the children tell the obvious\ndifferences. Inform them of differences of which they are not aware,\nas for example, that it is always written by hand and on parchment,\nwith ink especially prepared for the purpose, etc. Then continue\nsomewhat as follows:\n\n\"Now, do you know why we always treat this book differently from\nother books, why we take such pains in writing it, why we write\nit always on strong parchment rather than paper which can tear\neasily? Why we dress it, so to speak, in velvet or other beautiful\ncoverings? Why we decorate it with silver or gold ornaments? Why\nwe keep it in the most beautiful part of the synagogue? It is\nbecause this book is different from all other books. This book\ncontains the word of God, which God himself taught to the people of\nIsrael in ancient times, and which was handed down from father to\nson until the present time. It contains the history that we have\nbeen learning, but it contains much more. It contains laws and\ncommandments that God wants us to keep, and whoever obeys all these\nlaws and commandments is a good Jew. In the lesson that we shall\ntake up today, we shall learn how God began teaching these laws to\nour fathers, and we shall learn some of the most important of these\nlaws of God, which are so important that all the civilized nations\nhave made them a part of their law.\"\n\nThe great task of the teacher in this lesson is to create that\natmosphere of awe and reverence, with which the Biblical narrative\ninvests the episode of the Revelation. The mere explanation of\nthe meaning of the Ten Commandments is not enough to effect this,\nbecause the significance of their content is in large part beyond\nthe child's comprehension, and their form is too abstract to appeal\nto him emotionally. The point of contact that we have suggested will\naid somewhat by associating with the Revelation the reverence that\nthe child sees paid to the Sefer Torah in the synagogue.[11] A close\nfollowing of the Biblical narrative suggests other devices. The\npeople of Israel were to prepare themselves for three days, and the\nnecessity for this preparation kept them in an attitude of conscious\nsuspense and attention. The narrative of these preparations will\nhave a similar effect. Attempt to arouse the children's curiosity as\nto what God was going to tell Israel before you begin to tell them\nthe Ten Commandments. Exodus 19. 3-6 should be quoted and explained.\nThe fact that Moses and Aaron were required to set bounds about the\nmountain beyond which none but he whom God called could pass, also\nadds to the impressiveness of the occasion, which will not be lost\nupon the children. Finally, the concomitant disturbances of nature,\nthe thunders, lightnings, quakings, and flame, and thick darkness,\nand the voice of the Shofar waxing louder and louder, together\nwith the picture of the trembling people at the foot of the mount\nand Moses going up alone into the \"thick darkness where God was\"\nmust be told in such graphic terms as to impress them deeply on\nthe imagination of the child. Instead of telling the children the\nTen Commandments in the usual conversational tone that you would\nnaturally employ when addressing children, it would be well in this\ninstance to read them the Biblical account from Exodus 19.16 to\n20.21, and require that when you come to the actual reading of the\nDecalogue, the class rise as the congregation does when it is read\nin the synagogue and remain standing until the reading of the Ten\nCommandments is completed.\n\n  [11] Of course, such a method of approach is only possible where\n  the child attends services, but it is exceedingly important that\n  provision for attendance at a regular service be made by every\n  religious school.\n\nThe children will, of course, understand very little of the meaning\nof the Ten Commandments from the reading, but they will understand\nand absorb the reverential attitude of the teacher towards them.\nAfter the reading, however, it devolves upon the teacher to explain\ntheir significance as far as this can be done to children. Avoid,\nhowever, too lengthy and discursive treatment, as the child will\nbe impatient to go on with the story. A more detailed treatment\nof them should be taken up later in the course, either when the\nchildren are taught to translate the Decalogue in their Hebrew work,\nor in connection with the instruction about the significance of\nShabuot, or as part of the work of a Bar Mitzvah, or Confirmation\nClass, or on several or all of these occasions, but not as a lengthy\ninterruption to the \"story\" of the Bible in which children in their\nearly years of school are most interested.\n\nThe First Commandment can be explained, however, very easily as\nimplying the grateful worship of God by Israel and obedience to all\nHis laws as the first duty of the Jew in view of what God had done\nfor his people in Egypt.\n\nThe Second Commandment need not present any difficulty as the sin\nand folly of idolatry, the worship of the creature instead of the\ncreator, is easily grasped by children. As the child will not be\ntempted to idolatry this need not be given much time.\n\nThe Third Commandment, however, should receive more attention\nthan it usually does. Nothing is more conducive to that spirit of\nreverence, which it is the aim of this lesson to cultivate than\nthe conscious avoidance of God's name, except in association with\na truly religious thought. Profanity is a common vice of children,\nas well as of adults. Children, especially during the habit-forming\nage, should be made to feel that it is a sin and should be\navoided.[12]\n\n  [12] For other suggestions in this connection see Part II, Chapter\n  IV, of this book.\n\nThe Fourth Commandment is also of the utmost importance to\nchildhood. As this is not the first time that reference to the\nSabbath has been made, the teacher may take a knowledge of the\ngeneral significance of the Sabbath for granted, and should mainly\ndwell on the significance of the phrase \"to keep it holy\" by asking\nthe children what we do to keep the Sabbath holy, i. e., different\nfrom other days and devoted to Jewish thoughts. Take occasion to\nadmonish the children not to attend theatres, moving picture shows,\netc., on the Sabbath, and urge their attendance at services.\n\nThe Fifth Commandment is, of course, the first law of childhood. In\ndiscussing it with the children, try to get from them suggestions as\nto how to honor parents. Encourage such rules of family etiquette\nas never to contradict father or mother, never to sit in father's\nor mother's seat at table, always to rise and give either of them a\nseat if the other chairs in the room are occupied when they come in,\nand the like.\n\nThe Sixth Commandment needs no prolonged discussion.\n\nThe Seventh Commandment must be explained to mean that husband and\nwife must always be faithful and kind to each other.\n\nThe Eighth Commandment needs some discussion, because children are\noften prone to petty thieving. In the moral code of many children\nstealing means taking money or objects of great value, but the\nappropriation of small objects, such as pens, pencils, chalk,\netc., does not come under the same category. Moreover, stealing\nonly means taking something from somebody's hand or pocket, and\ndoes not include the appropriation of an object which the owner\nhas carelessly left where another might claim it under the law of\n\"Finding's keeping\", which, according to the code of childhood,\nis often held to apply even when the finder knows to whom the\nobject found belongs. The teacher's duty is, therefore, to take\nthis opportunity of enlarging the child's concept of theft and\ndeveloping his property sense, a sense which is naturally defective\nin children, since they neither earn nor hold property in their own\nright. Avoid, however, abstract and purely theoretic discussion and\nmake your point by presenting concrete hypothetical examples for\nthe exercise of their moral judgment, as, for instance:\n\n\"I am sure that none of you would take from anybody money or\nanything else that you thought of great value, but suppose you saw\na little stump of a pencil that a boy had left on his desk, and you\njust wanted it, or a piece of chalk from the blackboard, or some\nfruit or candy that you saw in your neighbor's desk, would it be\nright for you to take it? If you saw some money on the street and\nyou did not know how it came there, would you take it? If you saw\nsome money fall from a man's pocket on the street, would you take\nit? If you found a pocketbook and when you opened it, saw that it\nhad a card with the owner's name and address on it, what would you\ndo? If you found a pocketbook or some money, or some pencils or\nbooks in this school, what would you do, etc.?\"\n\nThe meaning of the Ninth Commandment must be extended to enjoin\ntruthfulness in general. By methods similar to those used in\nexplaining the Eighth, the teacher must extend the child's concept\nof lying to include any kind of conscious deception, the silent lie\nequally with the spoken one.\n\nThe Tenth Commandment is a little too subtle and refined for the\nchild's grasp and need not be dwelt on at length. The teacher need\nonly explain that to want to steal, even if we are kept back from\nstealing because we are afraid of the police, or afraid of our\nteachers, or of any punishment, is just as wrong as to steal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE GOLDEN CALF\n\nExodus 32.1 to 34.35\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The people of Israel could not at once rise to\nthe height of that conception of God, which had been revealed to\nthem at Sinai. So long as Moses was with them to tell them the word\nof the Lord, they found it possible to believe in God, though they\ndid not see Him, for He spoke to them daily through the mouth of\nHis appointed servant, Moses. But Moses had vanished into the thick\ndarkness, and days and weeks had passed without his return. This\nmade it increasingly difficult for them to experience the reality of\nthe invisible God, who had led them from Egypt. They, consequently,\ndemanded some image to which they might look and which might keep\nthem in mind of the object of their adoration. Their intention was\nnot so much to exchange the God who had led them from Egypt for\nanother as to image Him forth as an aid to their devotion. They, no\ndoubt, spoke in good faith when they declared, \"This is thy god, O\nIsrael\". That they should worship Him in the form of a bull (for the\ncalf must be understood to be the small image of a bull, small by\nreason of the precious metal employed) is not surprising in view of\nthe common conception of the divinity in that form, both in Egypt\nand in Canaan. Aaron reluctantly yields to their importunities, and\nthe people rejoice in having a God who can go before them.\n\nBut Moses could not yield. To have done so would have meant to\nhave surrendered all that had been gained in a spiritual way by\nthe Exodus and the Revelation. The apostasy of the whole people,\nwhich this act threatened, would have rendered his entire mission\nfruitless. His sense of despair is well conveyed by the Biblical\nnarrative in the incident of the breaking of the tables of stone on\nwhich the words of the Decalogue were inscribed. A radical remedy\nwas needed and Moses did not hesitate to apply it. The support which\nhe received from the tribe of Levi was a justification for its claim\nto be the priestly tribe.\n\nIt is in connection with this event that the character of Moses is\nshown in its most sublime aspect as the perfect intercessor. His\nzeal did not hesitate to apply the utmost rigor in punishing the\noffenders who would not rally to his call, but once the necessary\npunishment had been administered, his one thought is of his people,\nhow they might still be enabled to fulfill the mission to which they\nhad committed themselves on the day of the Revelation. God suggests\ndestroying the people who had forfeited their claims to redemption\nand making of the descendants of Moses a chosen people, but Moses,\nthe ideal leader, to whom his charge is dearer than himself, is not\nsatisfied. Rather would he share in the punishment of his guilty\npeople than enjoy a selfish salvation and glory from which they are\nto be excluded. (Exodus 32.32.) Then God yields to his plea and\nagrees to let the people return to the land of their fathers and\nto drive out their enemies from before them in accordance with the\nterms of the covenant He had made with Israel after the Revelation.\nThere it is said (Exodus 23.20 to 22) \"Behold, I send an angel\nbefore thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the\nplace which I have prepared. Take heed of him and hearken unto his\nvoice, be not rebellious against him; for he will not pardon your\ntransgression, for My name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed\nhearken unto his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an\nenemy unto thine enemies and an adversary unto thine adversaries.\"\nGod's reply to Moses, therefore, is (Exodus 32. 33) \"Whosoever hath\nsinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book. And now go, lead\nthe people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee; behold,\nMine angel shall go before thee; nevertheless in the day when I\nvisit I will visit their sin upon them.\"... And the Lord spoke unto\nMoses: \"Depart, go up hence, thou and the people that thou hast\nbrought up out of the land of Egypt unto the land of which I swore\nunto Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, saying: 'Unto thy seed will\nI give it', and I will send an angel before thee and I will drive\nout the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, and the Perizzite,\nthe Hivite, and the Jebusite, unto a land flowing with milk and\nhoney; for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a\nstiff-necked people; lest I consume thee in the way.\" (Exodus 33.\n1-3.)\n\nThe general significance of angels has been discussed in a previous\nchapter.[13] It is to be noted, however, that the notion prevailed\nthat various nations were presided over by special angels delegated\nfor that purpose. Thus Israel was conceived as having been led\nout of Egypt through the agency of an angel, who was furthermore\nentrusted with the task of leading the people to the land of\nCanaan. But angels, as we have previously shown, were conceived\nof as not having any discretionary power, and this angel of the\ncovenant was only entrusted with leading Israel to the Land of\nPromise if the people would be faithful to the covenant. In the\ncase of any infidelity they had been specifically warned \"He will\nnot pardon your transgression.\" With the sin of the golden calf,\ntherefore, Moses at first fears that Israel is totally doomed, but\nhe is reassured by God's statement that the punishment which must\ncome will be meted out to each individual sinner on the \"day when I\nvisit\" and will not involve the immediate destruction of the whole\npeople; that on the contrary, the angel would continue to lead them\nto their land. But this no longer satisfies Moses. The sin of the\ngolden calf had convinced him that the people were too weak to live\nup to the covenant that they had accepted at Sinai, and that if\ntheir destiny was to be presided over, as that of other peoples, by\nan angel, who could not forgive any breach of the covenant, they\nwere sure to be destroyed. He, therefore, pleads for a more intimate\nrelation with God, which would exempt Israel from the operations\nof the natural law of retribution, by providing for the people's\nforgiveness in view of the higher tasks that it undertook to perform\nwithout apparently possessing higher qualifications. If Israel is\nmerely to be led to the realization of its secular destiny through\nthe conquest of Canaan, but is not to be more closely identified\nwith God's cause, by God's going in their midst, Moses prefers to\nstay in the wilderness. (Exodus 33. 15.) God's declaring, \"I will\nnot go up in the midst of thee\", (Exodus 33. 3) although it comes\nimmediately after God's renewal of the promise to send His angel to\nlead Israel to the land of Canaan, is made the occasion of mourning\nand repentance. Moses removes his tent, in which he was wont to\ncommune with God, and which was consequently known as the Ohel Moed,\n\"The Tent of Meeting,\" (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.), from the\ncamp, upon the principle, according to Rashi, that \u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05bb\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b8\u05e8\u05b7\u05d1\n\u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05bb\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b7\u05ea\u05b7\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05d3 \"The disciple must have no dealings with one\nwho is under the ban of the master.\" God's refusal to enter the camp\nof Israel, Moses construes as obligating also his own withdrawal\nfrom the camp. Here he pleads with God for a clearer knowledge of\nHis ways that he may be able to lead the people as God had charged\nhim to do. He wants God to make known to him the angel whom He\nhad determined to send with him. It is then that he receives the\nassurance that he had sought, \"My presence shall go with thee and\nI will give thee rest.\" (Exodus 33. 14.) He is further vouchsafed\na revelation of God's attributes, which assures him of God's\nreadiness to forgive sin, though not to condone it, (Exodus 34. 6,\n7), and is instructed to hew out new tablets for the Decalogue in\nplace of those he had broken. Exodus 33. 22, 23 presents difficulty\nbecause of the anthropomorphic terms used with reference to God.\nThe general thought it wishes to express, however, seems to be that\nnobody can grasp the true personality of God, but can only realize\nby reflection and, as it were, retrospectively, that he had been in\nGod's presence, can, as the Bible expresses it, only catch a glimpse\nof His retreating form.\n\n  [13] See Part I, Chapter IX.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in teaching this chapter should be to arouse in the\nchild an appreciation of the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness,\na lesson which is taught negatively by Israel's disloyalty in\nworshipping the golden calf, and positively by Moses' loyalty in\ninterceding for his people rather than in remaining satisfied with\nhis individual enjoyment of God's favor.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= There are many lessons with regard to\nsin and repentance and the attributes of God and other theological\ntopics, which are taught in these chapters, but they are all beyond\nthe comprehension of children. They have, therefore, been excluded\nfrom our formulation of the aim in teaching this lesson, and the\nteacher should omit details of the narrative that do hot emphasize\nthe aim of the lesson, however interesting they may be from the\nadult point of view. Thus the narrative of Exodus 33. 12 to 23\nshould be omitted, and much of the dialogue between God and Moses as\nwell. Moreover, the whole discussion of the part played by the angel\nof the covenant and Moses' plea that not an angel but God himself\nlead the people, though we have dwelt on it at considerable length\nin our foregoing remarks for the benefit of the teacher, need not be\ntaught to the child.\n\nTo connect the lesson with the previous one, begin by asking one of\nthe children to repeat the Second Commandment. Then explain how,\nin the absence of Moses, the people began to find it difficult to\nbelieve in a God whom they could not see, and, recalling the images\nof the gods they had known, demanded an image of their own God in\nviolation of their pledge to obey the Decalogue. The conduct of\nAaron in yielding to their pleas need not be condoned or explained\naway, as the only extenuation the Bible suggests is the importunity\nof the popular demand. This, however, the teacher should endeavor to\nmake his pupils realize by telling them how every day the people\nwould come to Aaron and would say to him, \"Where is Moses and where\nis the God who spoke to us, and who, Moses said, would lead us to\nthe land of our forefathers? We want to see Him. Make an image of\nHim for us.\" And though Aaron would refuse them, they would come\nagain the next day and the day after, and insist that he make them\nan image of their God like the idols, to which they were used, until\none day Aaron became weary of their demands and told them that if\nthey wanted an image of God, they should bring all their gold and\njewels, their ear-rings, bracelets and rings, out of which he would\nmake them an image.\n\nAttempt to make the child realize the heinousness of the offense\ninvolved in the making of the golden calf, as idolatry is so\nremote from the child's experience, that he is not likely to be\nmuch impressed by the significance of it. Emphasize not merely the\ndisobedience involved in violation of the Second Commandment, but\nthe blasphemy involved in conceiving of God in animal form. The\nemotional attitude which the teacher should endeavor to create\nshould be that which led our forefathers always to speak of the gods\nof other nations as the \"abominations\" of the heathen. This can be\ndone by describing, as it were, God's feelings at witnessing the\nbehavior of Israel, as, for instance:\n\n\"When God saw what the people were doing, how they danced and sang\nabout the golden calf, and shouted, 'This is thy god, O Israel,\nwhich brought thee up out of the land of Egypt', He was very angry.\nOnly forty days before they had heard His voice telling them, 'Thou\nshalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thyself\nany graven image', and they had promised, 'All that the Lord hath\nspoken we will do', and there they were worshipping a molten god\nthat they had made with their own hands, an image of a calf; as if\na calf or anything like it could have sent the ten plagues against\nEgypt, could have divided the waters of the Red Sea, could have\nspoken to them the words of the Ten Commandments from the midst\nof the flaming mountain. So God wanted at first to destroy them\naltogether, and He said to Moses, who was still with Him on the\nmountain to learn His law, 'Go; get thee down, for thy people that\nthou broughtest up out of the land of Egypt have dealt corruptly;\nthey have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded\nthem; they have made them a molten calf and have worshipped it and\nhave sacrificed unto it and have said, \"This is thy god, O Israel,\nwhich brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.\" Behold they are a\nstiff-necked people and my anger is kindled against them, and I will\ndestroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation.'\"\n\nGive the children to understand the cause of Moses' breaking the\ntablets of the law by making them feel with the despair of Moses,\nwhen, descending from the mount with the tablets in his hand, he saw\nthe people in the very act of violating the laws written upon them.\nOf what use were the tablets of the law if the law itself was not\nheld sacred?\n\nMoses' motive for ordering the death of the offenders must be\nexplained as not being due to hatred, but to his realizing that\nif such a measure were not taken, the rest of the people would\nbe led into further sin, which would necessitate the destruction\nof the whole people as punishment for their wickedness, just as\na surgeon may amputate a limb to save a life. Call attention to\nthe fact that Moses first gives the people a chance to rally about\nhim if they repented of their participation in the worship of the\ngolden calf, a chance of which Aaron and the whole tribe of Levi\navailed themselves. The purity of Moses' motives is seen from his\nwillingness to accept the same punishment as his people, if God is\nindisposed to forgive them, rather than enjoy a reward and honor in\nwhich they do not share.\n\nWhile endeavoring to impress the child with the sublimity of Moses'\ncharacter, be careful not to attempt abstract characterization,\nbut tell the story in such a way that the child appreciates the\nsignificance of Moses' acts and words. Do not say, for example, \"Now\nMoses, though he was zealous, in punishing those Israelites who had\nproved disloyal, was utterly unselfish in his love for Israel.\" Say\nrather, \"Now, when Moses had put to death those who had persisted in\nworshipping the golden calf, he prayed to God to forgive the sins of\nthe rest and not to destroy the whole people. For, though God had\noffered to spare Moses, who had not sinned, and even to make of his\ndescendants a great nation instead of the Israelites, who deserved\nto be destroyed, do you think that this made Moses happy? No, for\nMoses, although he had not hesitated to punish his people according\nto God's command, loved them as a father loves his children, even\nwhen they do wrong, and it hurt him to think that God was angry with\nthem, even though he himself enjoyed God's favor. So he said, 'O\nLord, if thou canst forgive this people, forgive them, but if not,\ndo not make of me and my descendants a great nation, but blot me out\nof thy book', that is to say, 'Let me die and be forgotten like the\nrest of these people whom I have led, and whom I love so dearly.' So\nGod, moved by his loyalty to his people, promised to forgive them\nand to continue to lead them to their land.\"\n\nDo not fail to mention the fact that when Moses came down from the\nmountain his face shone, as such a circumstance adds to the child's\nreverence for his hero.\n\nThe following are some suggestive questions which may help to bring\nout the point of the lesson for the children:\n\nWhy did the children of Israel want Aaron to make them a golden calf?\n\nIn doing so, what commandment did they disobey?\n\nWhy did Moses break the tablets of stone?\n\nHow were the Israelites punished for their sin?\n\nWhat did God threaten to do to Israel for this sin? and what did he\nwant to do to Moses because he had not sinned?\n\nDid this please Moses? Why not? What did Moses pray God to do?\n\nDid God grant this prayer? How did God show that he had forgiven\nIsrael?\n\nHow did He show that He was pleased with Moses?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE TABERNACLE AND ITS SERVICE\n\nExodus 25.1 to 31.11 and 35.4 to 40.33\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The Biblical passages dealing with the\nconstruction of the Tabernacle and the nature of its appointments\nand the services conducted therein are scattered through a number\nof chapters of our Bible, but for pedagogic purposes it is best\nto consider them together. Before discussing any details we must\nrealize the significance of the Tabernacle in general. We are to see\nin it the parent of the temple and the synagogue and understand its\nsignificance in the light of the importance of these institutions to\nlater Judaism. \"Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among\nthem\". (Exodus 25. 8.) Our rabbis paraphrase this by the words,\n\"that I may cause My _Shekinah_ to dwell among them.\" Inasmuch as\nthe _Shekinah_ meant the Divine Presence made manifest, we may\nrender their meaning in more modern terms by declaring that the\nfunction of tabernacle, temple and synagogue is to make us realize\nthe presence of God, for though we may theoretically admit His\nexistence without such institutions, we should not feel the reality\nof His presence were it not brought home to us by the organized\nworship that they cultivated. But even if it is possible to realize\nthe presence of God merely by the direct communion of the individual\nwithout any organized communal worship in a community sanctuary, the\nGod we should then worship would not be the God of Israel and our\nreligion would not consecrate life to the service of His Torah. And\njust as the Tabernacle, to which every animal that was to be eaten\nhad to be brought for sacrifice, weaned the people from the habit of\nsacrificing \"to the satyrs,\" (Leviticus 17. 7) so in later times the\nTemple was the center of the national worship as against the rival\ncult of Baal and Astarte associated with the \"high places\", and so\ntoday the synagogue is the institution upon which we must depend to\nguard the purity of Jewish religious thought from the influences\nof our non-Jewish environment. In view of the significance of the\nTabernacle and its daughter institutions, we cannot begrudge the\nspace that our Bible gives to its construction and its ritual.\n\nIt is impossible for us to understand the precise symbolic\nsignificance of all the ceremonial objects and decorations of the\nTabernacle, but the very attention that is given to these details is\nexpressive of an appreciation of the aid to devotion which is to be\nfound in an appeal to the aesthetic sense of the worshipper. Some of\nthe symbolism is, however, quite obvious. Thus it is evident that\nthe placing of the Two Tables of the Law in the Ark which was kept\nin the Holy of Holies, and was made of choice wood covered within\nand without with gold and guarded by the figures of cherubim wishes\nto testify to the sanctity of the Law as the very center and soul\nof Judaism. The prohibition to any but the high priest to enter the\nHoly of Holies, and the insistence on ritual purity and provisions\nfor the washing of hands and feet in the brass laver served to\nremove the worship from the plane of the commonplace and profane\nand aided in creating that atmosphere of reverence and awe which\nis indispensible to true worship. The clouds of smoke from the\nincense suggested something of the mystery of God as is seen from\nits association in rabbinic tradition with the \"cloud of glory\".\n\u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05e4\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e2\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05df \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \"For I appear in the cloud upon\nthe ark-cover\" is construed by the Rabbis to mean the cloud of\nincense.\n\nWith regard to the garments of the priests, the appearance on the\nbreast plate of the names of the tribes of Israel emphasizes the\nrepresentative capacity of the high priest as \u05e6\u05b4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7 or\nagent of the congregation, whereas the diadem with the inscription\n\u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05b2\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05e7\u05b9\u05d3\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 \"Holy unto God\" was the symbol of his consecration to\nGod.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to interest the child in the\nsynagogue and public worship and more especially to develop in him\nthe sentiment for beauty, dignity and decorum in the service of God.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The obvious point of contact between\nthe lesson and the child is the child's experience of synagogue\nworship, an experience which it is the duty of every Jewish school\nto provide. Begin the lesson by calling attention to the fact that\nJews everywhere gather together on Sabbaths and holidays and even\non week days to pray to God in houses called synagogues set aside\nfor that purpose. Then question the children as to the appearance of\nthe synagogue that they attend, particularly as to how it differs\nfrom other buildings designed to hold large numbers of people,\nso as to interest them in the distinctive features of synagogue\narchitecture and adornment, such as the Ark, the Reading Desk and\nthe Perpetual Lamp. The children's answers may call attention to\ncertain features peculiar to their own synagogue which they imagine\nto be characteristic of synagogues in general. Their errors can\nbe corrected in an interesting way by showing them pictures of a\nvariety of synagogues in different lands and different architectural\nstyles.\n\nThis done, call attention to the fact that our fathers in the\nwilderness needed a house of worship just as much as we do and\ntherefore when Moses was on the mountain speaking to God, God said\nto him, \"Let the children of Israel make me a sanctuary that I may\ndwell among them.\" Explain the word \"sanctuary\" as meaning a holy\nplace, \"like our synagogues.\" \"But how\" you continue, \"were the\nchildren of Israel to build a house of worship in the wilderness\nwhen they were wandering from place to place and the pillar of cloud\nmight any day move on and they would have to follow? They could not\ntake with them on the march a building of wood and stone and they\ncould not build a new one at every place where they stopped for a\nfew days. But God gave Moses the idea of a sanctuary that suited\ntheir purpose admirably, because they could take it with them. Have\nyou any idea what sort of a building that was that they could carry\nwith them wherever they went?\" If there is no response, continue.\n\"When an army is on the march, the soldiers cannot build houses\nover night for themselves to sleep in; what have they for shelter?\"\n(The children will probably know that soldiers encamped live in\ntents.) \"Well, the children of Israel when they were wandering in\nthe wilderness had to live in tents and in huts that they could\ntake apart and put together again and carry with them from place to\nplace, and so their sanctuary had also to be a sort of tent that\nthey could take apart and put together again. But it was not an\nordinary tent. Its curtains were made of the finest cloths, with\nbeautiful colored designs woven on them by the most famous artists\nof the day. The wood that was used for the poles on which the\ncurtains rested was the very finest wood that could be obtained, and\neverything that was in the tabernacle was to be as beautiful as the\nhand of man could make it.\"\n\nDwell on the enthusiasm with which the Israelites responded to the\ncall for the material and labor needed in the construction of the\ntabernacle, and on the praise that the Bible bestows on its artists,\nBezalel and Aholiab, whom God filled \"with the spirit of God in\nwisdom, in understanding and in knowledge and in all manner of\nworkmanship\". (Exodus 35. 31.)\n\nAfter this general introduction, it is well for the teacher to show\na picture of the tabernacle to help the class visualize it.[14] But\nthis will show only the exterior. Draw on the blackboard the plan\nof the tabernacle showing not only the division into fore-court,\nsanctuary and holy of holies, but also the location of the brass\naltar, the laver, the altar of incense, the table of show-bread, the\nmenorah, and the ark of the covenant.\n\n  [14] Good illustrations of the tabernacle and its appointments, as\n  also of the priestly garments, are to be found among Tissot's Bible\n  Illustrations.\n\nThen proceed: \"I have shown you a picture of the outside of the\ntabernacle, now let us walk in here where the curtains are drawn\naside to admit us. We find ourselves in a large open court. It is\nnot at all like the synagogues we are used to. It has walls to be\nsure, but they are of curtains, and as for a ceiling it has none\nat all, except the blue sky above. Nor are there any seats, but\neverybody stands during the service, which consists for the most\npart of the sacrifice of an animal on the altar, accompanied by the\nplaying of musical instruments, and the singing of hymns by the\nLevites,[15] (men of the tribe of Levi) to whom the care of the\nsanctuary was entrusted. After the sacrifice, which is performed\nby Aaron or one of his sons, the _cohanim_ or priests bless the\ncongregation with outstretched hands in words which are still part\nof the service and which your parents say when they bless you on\nSabbath and holidays, 'The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord\nmake His face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee, the Lord\nlift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace,' (Numbers 6.\n22-27.) But this part of the tabernacle is not the holy part called\nthe sanctuary or holy place. Into this holy place which is separated\nfrom the outer court by curtained walls, and which had a sort of\nroof, not of wood, but of ram's skins dyed red and of badger skins,\nonly the priests, who are themselves holy, because their whole life\nis given up to the service of God, may come. But we know from what\nthe Bible tells us exactly what it contained.\" Then describe the\nfurnishings of the sanctuary and continue. \"The most holy part of\nall, however, only Aaron, or, after his death, the chief priest\nof his time, called high priest, was permitted to enter, and that\nonly once a year on the great Day of Atonement, or else when God\nwould call him. And the Holy of Holies, as it was called, contained\nnothing but a beautiful ark or box, of which I shall show you\na picture, and in this beautiful gold covered, and artistically\ndecorated ark there were placed the two tables of stone that God had\ngiven Moses, with the ten commandments engraved on them.\"\n\n  [15] There is no direct evidence of this being part of the worship\n  of the tabernacle, but we know it to have been part of the Temple\n  worship and as hymns are common in ancient rituals our statement is\n  probably correct.\n\nDo not depend too much on description which easily grows tiresome,\nbut show pictures of all the important objects in the sanctuary and\nof the priestly garments.\n\nIn the discussion which follows the presentation of the lesson,\nagain associate the tabernacle with the synagogue, this time\nemphasizing points of similarity rather than of difference. Thus the\nposition of the _sefer torah_ in the _aron_ which occupies the most\nconspicuous place in the synagogue is analogous to the position of\nthe Tables of the Law in the ark in the tabernacle. Similarly the\n_ner tamid_ is the analogue of the _menorah_, etc.\n\nBut just as the presentation of the lesson was not merely by the\nspoken word, so the reproduction of it should not be in words only,\nbut the class should be encouraged to draw pictures of the sanctuary\nand its objects, and the best drawings should be hung about the\nroom. In this way the impulse to bring art into the service of\nreligion may at once be utilized by enabling the children to employ\nart in embellishing the religious school which should also be made\nto appeal to them as a _mi\u1e33dash me'a\u1e6d_ \"a minor sanctuary.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTRIALS OF MOSES AND ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS\n\nLeviticus 10.1-7. Numbers 9.15-23, also 11.1 to 12.16\n\n\n=Interpretation.= We have grouped in this chapter a number of\nepisodes in the wandering of the children of Israel, because any\none of them is too small to occupy a single lesson and because\nall deal with the same general theme, though with significant\nvariations--rebellion and its punishment.\n\nWith regard to the episode of the death of Nadab and Abihu, recorded\nin Leviticus 10. 1 to 3, the Bible describes their offense as the\nbringing of \"strange fire\" into the sanctuary. This offense in\nitself seems disproportionate to the punishment, consequently, the\nrabbis in commenting on the passage try, on the one hand, to ascribe\nthe punishment of the sons of Aaron to sins not expressly recorded\nin the text, as for instance the sin of being intoxicated during the\nservice, which they derived from the fact that the prohibition of\ndrinking before the performance of a sacrifice immediately follows\nthe narrative of this incident, or, on the other, to regard Nadab\nand Abihu as martyrs, who died by the divine decree to exhibit the\nsanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual without really having\nincurred the divine displeasure. This interpretation is based on\nLeviticus 10. 3, \"Then Moses said unto Aaron, 'This is it that the\nLord spoke, saying: 'Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be\nsanctified and before all the people I will be glorified,'' And\nAaron held his peace.\" To be sure this verse may be construed to\nmean that Nadab and Abihu had been punished for their failure to\nsanctify God, but in view of the fact that the Hebrew term for\nmartyrdom is \"_\u1e33iddush ha-shem_\" \"the sanctification of God's name\"\nand in view of the fact, furthermore, that it would be expected of\nMoses under the circumstances to say something consoling to Aaron,\nwho was himself innocent, rather than to emphasize the wickedness of\nhis sons this view of the incident must not be lightly dismissed.\nIn fact, the simple reading of the text suggests a combination of\nthese two interpretations. In taking \"strange fire\", i.e., fire\nthat had not been taken from the divinely kindled flame on the\naltar (Leviticus 9. 24.), Nadab and Abihu had abused their priestly\nprerogative, making themselves the masters of the ritual of the\nsanctuary instead of its servants. But such a ritual transgression\nmight have been forgiven were it not for the importance of the\noccasion, the consecration of the tabernacle, and for the dignity of\ntheir office which demanded that they be exceptionally circumspect\nin their conduct. Their punishment was, therefore, more severe\nthan the offense would warrant in the case of any other than a\nconsecrated person. Its severity was in proportion to the holiness\nof the sanctuary that had been violated and of the priestly office\nthat had been profaned rather than to the heinousness of the offense\nin itself, and it expressed God's desire to impress upon the people\nthe sanctity of the tabernacle and its ritual. In dealing with Nadab\nand Abihu God was acting in accordance with the rabbinic statement\nto the effect that \"with the righteous God is exacting even to a\nhair's breadth,\" and the rabbis could, therefore, view the death of\nthe Sons of Aaron somewhat in the light of martyrdom.\n\nThe remaining incidents, with the exception of the prophesying of\nEldad and Medad are, as we have already said, examples of rebellion\nand its punishment. They are interesting instances of the trials of\nMoses in his leadership of the people. Their moral is the duty of\nloyalty to legitimate authority. The punishment of the people at\nKibroth-hattaavah is an excellent example of how inordinate desire\nbrings its own punishment, and suggests, as one of the grounds\nfor loyalty, submission and discipline, the fact that what we\nmost desire is not always what is most beneficial for us, a very\nimportant moral for children.\n\nThe sin of Miriam is described by the Rabbis as _lashon ha-ra_'\n\"slander,\" Its lesson is that it is wrong not merely to rebel\nagainst righteous leadership, but even to detract from the honor\nthat is due to noble characters. The charge that Aaron and Miriam\nbrought against Moses was not the charge of any moral offense\nor offense against the Law, for the Torah expressly prohibits\nintermarriage only with the people of Canaan, the construction of\nthe law to make it applicable to all intermarriage only dating from\nabout the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. According to a Jewish tradition\nthe Cushite woman whom Moses had married is identical with Zipporah,\nthe daughter of Jethro. This would, of course, be untenable if\nCush necessarily meant Ethiopia, as it is usually rendered, but\nit is generally thought that there was an Arabian Cush as well,\nin which case the identification is possible. Miriam's resentment\nwas, therefore, not on religious grounds. The incident is probably\nrecorded in the Bible because of the opportunity it gives of\nrevealing the patient and forgiving character of Moses.\n\nThe same is illustrated even more strikingly by Moses' reply to his\noverzealous disciple Joshua, when he was told that Eldad and Medad\nhad been prophesying in the camp. His only reply is \"Would that\nall the Lord's people were prophets\". Inasmuch as prophecy was a\ngift bestowed upon the council of seventy elders (Numbers 11. 25),\nwhom Moses had been commanded to appoint, the fact that Eldad and\nMedad, who were not among the seventy, nevertheless \"prophesied\"\nmight very well have been construed as indicating a presumptuous and\nrebellious attitude. According to a tradition which has considerable\nsupport from Numbers 11. 26, the number of men originally chosen\nwere seventy-two, six from each tribe, but of these two were to be\neliminated by lot and Eldad and Medad, rather than put anyone else\nto possible embarrassment, refused to go to the tabernacle when\nthe lot was taken. This much of the _haggadah_ is at least implied\nin the verse, that Eldad and Medad had originally been designated\nfor this assembly of elders for they were _ba-ketubim_ among those\n\"recorded\" but did not join the rest, for they had not gone out\n\"unto the Tent and they prophesied in the camp.\" If we assume that\ntheir not going to the tabernacle was a voluntary refusal to hold\noffice their conduct stands in striking contrast to the conduct of\nKorah and his followers.\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to teach children the duty of\nobedience, discipline and self-control. The contrast between the\nattitude of Nadab and Abihu and that of Moses points out the\ndesirability of a humble and modest attitude, especially on the\npart of those in authority, whereas the punishment of the rebellion\nof the people at Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah and of Miriam for her\nunjust criticism of Moses teach the need of submission to righteous\nauthority and loyalty to disinterested leadership.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= A brief review, by question and\nanswer, of the previous lesson, will serve as a point of contact\nfor the story of the sin of the sons of Aaron. Tell how, after\nthe tabernacle had been completed, there was a great celebration\ncontinuing for eight days, during which time Moses taught Aaron and\nhis sons, who, as priests, were to perform the sacrifices for the\npeople and in general to lead in the service, exactly what they were\nto do, when, where and how to kill the animals that were sacrificed,\nhow to make the incense that had to be burnt, how to arrange the\nshew-bread and prepare the cakes of the meal-offering, etc. On the\neighth day God himself, with fire from heaven, lit the wood that\nhad been piled on the altar and thus started the fire there, which\nthe priests were commanded never to let die out, but always to keep\nburning. Be careful to impress the children with the sinfulness of\nNadab and Abihu's conduct, which the bare narrative of the facts\nas recorded in the Bible will not accomplish. This can be done by\nsuggesting something of the solemnity of the occasion and of the\nfrivolity of their attitude in this wise:\n\n\"Now Aaron and two of his sons, Eliezer and Ithamar, listened very\nattentively to all the instructions they had received from Moses\nand were determined to carry them out exactly. They felt that as\npriests, chosen from among all the people to lead in the worship\nof God, it was for them to set an example of faithful obedience to\nall He said, the small things as well as the great. But the two\nother sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, felt differently. They, too,\nwere proud of their new office as priests, but instead of feeling\nthat they must lead the people in obedience to God's laws as taught\nby Moses, they felt that they as priests could do as they pleased\nwith the service and did not have to follow the directions of Moses.\nSo when they were told to burn the incense with fire lit at the\nflame of the altar that God had kindled, they said to themselves,\n'What difference whether we burn the incense with this holy fire\nor with any other', so they took 'strange fire', that is fire that\nthey themselves had kindled, and brought it into the sanctuary to\nshow that they as priests could perform the service in whatever way\nthey pleased. At this God was very angry. Had an ordinary Israelite\ndisobeyed in some small particular it would not have been as great\nan offense, but Nadab and Abihu were priests whom God expected to\nlead the people in obedience and who now had set an example of\ndisobedience on the very day of the dedication of the tabernacle\nto God's service. It was just as if a teacher had left her class\nfor a time in charge of a monitor whom she trusted, and then found\nout later that this monitor had himself disobeyed her and had set\nan example of disobedience to the class in her absence. Do you not\nthink the teacher would be more angry at her monitor than if he\nhad never been appointed to that office? That is why God was now\nso angry at Nadab and Abihu and resolved that as they had set an\nexample of rebellion and disobedience He would make their punishment\nan example so that others should be duly warned not to do as they\nhad done.\" Then follows the story of the death of Nadab and Abihu.\nDo not fail to dwell on Aaron's resignation in recognition of God's\njustice.\n\nIn discussing the incident that gave its name to Kibroth-hattaavah\nit is well to give other examples to show that what we most desire\nis not always best for us and to have the children give examples, as\nthis is a moral of particular importance to childhood, suggesting\nas it does a reason for that deference to elders upon which the\ntraining of children is dependent. The case of the glutton who\ncraves foods that are not good for him, of the drunkard who craves\ndrink that proves his ruin, of the child who prefers truancy or the\npursuits of pleasure to diligence in study, etc., may all serve as\nexamples of sins, the very indulgence in which effects their own\npunishment. But dwell particularly on the fact of the child's not\nknowing what is for his own good as well as his parents know, and\nthe consequent duty of the child to defer to their judgment.\n\nThe narrative of Moses' relations to Eldad and Medad presents no\ndifficulty. In telling Miriam's sin and punishment the emphasis\nshould be rather on the forgiving and magnanimous spirit of Moses\nthan on the pettiness of Miriam's attitude. Point out how hurt\nMoses must have felt at Miriam's unjust accusation, which implied\nthat Moses was trying to arrogate authority to himself but how,\nnevertheless, he felt no satisfaction when God punished Miriam but\nprayed that she be healed and forgiven. God's vindication of Moses\n(Numbers 12. 6-8) should be quoted in Biblical language.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE SPIES\n\nNumbers 13.1 to 14.45. Deuteronomy 1.20-46\n\n\n=Interpretation.= Little need be said by way of interpretation\nof this episode, as the Biblical narrative makes its point very\nclear. It shows us the consequences of a lack of faith and of a\nlack of that courage which faith inspires. As a substitute for this\ncourage born of faith, not even the fury of despair can avail. This\nis illustrated by the disastrous defeat of the Israelites when,\nspurred on by their fear of facing the punishment for their previous\ncowardice, they finally do rush to the attack contrary to the advice\nof Moses, leaving the ark of the covenant behind them. The story\nis, moreover, significant as showing the providential purpose of\nthe forty years of wandering through the wilderness--namely, the\nrearing of a new generation inured to hardship and imbued with the\nhope of future triumph. The faults of this slave people that needed\ncorrection are graphically illustrated in the picture the Bible\ndraws of the reception with which the words of the ten spies and\nof Joshua and Caleb respectively met: the panic and rebellion, the\nineffectual wailing, the clamor for a new leader to lead them back\nto Egypt and the threats to stone their present leaders. The sublime\ndevotion of Moses is again pictured to us in his pleas for the\npeople and his refusal of a glorious future for himself and his seed\nin which Israel should have no share.\n\n=Aim.= The aim in teaching this lesson is to thrill the child's\nheart with admiration for the virtues of faith and courage. It\nshould help to establish in his mind the association of his religion\nwith all the heroic virtues that are dear to the heart of boyhood.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= Before telling this story, read over\nthe Biblical account in Numbers and Deuteronomy carefully in order\nto get the spirit of the Biblical narrative. The Bible does not\nstop to moralize, but tells its tale graphically and dramatically,\nand so should the teacher. The words of the ten spies on the one\nhand, and of Joshuah and Caleb on the other, should be given in\ndirect discourse and in Biblical language. Attempt to help the child\npicture in his mind the scene in the camp when the spies returned\nand rendered their report. Aid him to realize the psychology of\nthe people by bringing to his attention what it meant for them, a\npeople untrained in warfare, to fight against the Canaanites, secure\nin their fortified cities. It will be more difficult to enable the\npupils to grasp the motive for the rash assault which the people\ndid finally undertake. This one must do by bringing before their\neyes pictures of the hardships of the prospective wanderings of the\nIsraelites in the wilderness, which made them unable to face further\nwandering as an alternative to a possible defeat by the Canaanites.\nTry to make the class view the situation through the eyes of the\nIsraelites at that time. This can be done by speaking to them\nsomewhat as follows:\n\n\"When Moses had told the people that they would be punished by\nhaving to wander forty years in the wilderness until all of them had\ndied and a new generation had grown up to take their places, they\nwere more terrified than ever. Frightened as they had been at the\nthought of making war against the giant Canaanites in their walled\ncities, they were even more frightened at the thought of having to\nwander forty long years more in the wilderness, all the rest of\ntheir lives in fact, and never even seeing the land which God had\npromised to their fathers where, all this time, they had thought\nthat they would at least find rest from their hardships and toils.\nThey thought of all they had endured until then on the journey. The\nscorching heat of the desert sun by day, the biting cold of the\ndesert winds by night, the hunger and the thirst, the long marches\nover treeless rocky hills and valleys. But all that time they had\nbeen cheered by the thought that some day the end would come and\nthey would be able to find rest in their new land, the Land of\nPromise. But even this hope was now taken away from them and they\nfelt that anything would be better than to wander in the wilderness\nuntil they died. Even to be killed in fighting the Canaanites seemed\nbetter now. So they said, 'Lo, we are here and will go up unto the\nplace which the Lord hath promised; for we have sinned'.\"\n\nIt may also prove difficult to help the child understand why this\nchange of front was not acceptable to God. The child does not\nnaturally analyze motive and would not see, unless it is called\nto his attention, why, since as a matter of fact the Israelites\ndid go up to attack the enemy, they were punished by being driven\nback. This can best be done by suggesting analogies with situations\nwithin the range of a child's experience. One may in discussing\nthis topic, after having completed one's narrative, raise this very\nquestion. \"Why did God say he would not be with them if they went\nup to attack the enemy after they had changed their mind?\" and, not\nreceiving a satisfactory answer, one may explain in some such manner:\n\n\"If the Israelites had decided to attack the enemy immediately when\nthey had heard Joshua's and Caleb's words, God would have been with\nthem and helped them to win the victory. But, at that time, when God\nwanted them to go they were unwilling. They did not believe that He\nwould help them. Later when they wanted to go, because they were\nafraid to wander forty years in the wilderness, it was too late. God\nwas not then willing. The time to obey a command is when it is given\nand not after one is threatened with punishment for disobedience. If\na teacher were to give a boy some school work to do and he refused,\nuntil she told him to stay in after school to do it and only then he\nagreed to do the work rather than stay in, do you think the teacher\nwould be satisfied with that? No, she would say justly, 'You had\nyour chance to obey when the other children had, now if you are\nsorry show it by taking the punishment you deserve'.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nMORE TRIALS OF MOSES\n\nNumbers 16.1 to 17.26, also 20.1 to 13 and 21.5 to 9\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The central idea that runs through all the\nimportant episodes of these chapters is the immensity of the problem\nof leadership that confronted Moses, and the contrast between the\nselfish and fickle passions of the people, passions that were\nconstantly menacing the very existence of Israel, and the sublime\npatience and constancy of Moses, although on one occasion his sorely\ntried patience can stand the strain no longer and he commits the sin\nby which he forfeits his right to enter the Promised Land.\n\nThe difficulties against which Moses had to contend before the event\nnarrated in the preceding lesson, were multiplied after that event.\nIf the people before that time had been restive and discontented\nwhenever confronted with a difficulty, though they could always\nconsole themselves by looking forward to their journey's end in\nthe Land of Promise, it was but natural that thereafter their\ndissatisfaction would be greatly intensified. They had threatened\nto appoint another head to lead them back to Egypt, and though\nat the time this may have been nothing but an idle threat, the\nopposition to Moses soon found a leader in the person of Korah,\nthe son of Izhar. Though he was himself a Levite, he coveted the\nhigher office of the priesthood to which Aaron and his family had\nbeen appointed, but, with the instinct of the true demagogue,\nposed as the champion of the people against the arbitrary authority\nof the Levitical priesthood, and of Moses in appointing Aaron and\nhis sons as priests. He said to Moses and Aaron, \"Ye take too much\nupon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them\nand the Lord is among them; wherefore then do ye lift up yourselves\nabove the assembly of the Lord \"? (Numbers 16. 3.) Moses' reply to\nKorah shows that he saw through this pretentious championship of\nthe people to the envy and ambition of Korah, which were his real\nmotives. \"Hear now, ye sons of Levi; is it but a small thing unto\nyou that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation\nof Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the\ntabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to\nminister unto them; and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy\nbrethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood\nalso? Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together\nagainst the Lord--and as to Aaron, what is he that ye murmur against\nhim?\" (Numbers 16. 8 to 11.) But Korah's championship of the claims\nof all Israel to the priesthood won him a large following among the\nother tribes, particularly among their ambitious leaders. Dathan and\nAbiram, sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, all of the tribe\nof Reuben, are his particular henchmen, and he had also succeeded\nin winning over to his cause two hundred and fifty of \"the princes\nof the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown.\"\nThe sedition had spread so far that nothing could have prevented the\nreversion to a complete state of anarchy, save the destruction of\nall those that took part, in a way so striking that it would reveal\nclearly the divine purpose. This was provided for by the ordeal that\nis narrated in the text. But the disaffection had spread so far that\nmany of the people resented the death of Korah and his followers and\nwere inclined to hold Moses responsible for it, until the miracle\nof the blossoming of Aaron's staff convinced them. It is necessary\nfor the student of the Bible to understand the extent and purport of\nKorah's rebellion lest he conceive of the punishment of Korah and\nhis followers as visited upon them merely because of an offense of\n\"l\u00e8se majest\u00e9\", and, consequently, as utterly disproportionate to\nthe offense.\n\nThe narrative of the sin of Moses and Aaron for which they were\nprohibited from entering the Promised Land does not make very clear\nto the modern reader precisely what the Bible views as constituting\ntheir sin. One possible interpretation, however, is that Moses by\nhis words, \"Hear now, ye rebels, are we to bring you forth water out\nof this rock?\" (Numbers 20. 10) which were followed by his striking\nthe rock and his failure to speak to it as God had commanded\nprevented the providential character of the water's flowing from\nbeing apparent. The incident might have been interpreted by the\npopular mind as if Moses, by the magic of his staff, had himself\ncaused the water to flow, as is suggested by his use of the first\nperson, \"Are we to bring you forth water,\" and by his failure\nto comply literally with God's command. He, thus permitted an\nopportunity of sanctifying God's name to pass by yielding to passion\nand thinking at the time of his personal grievance more than of his\nservice to God. Inasmuch as this partook of the nature of the sins\nof that generation of Israel, he and Aaron were to take their share\nalso in the punishment of Israel and were not to enter the Promised\nLand.\n\nThe thought suggested by the punishment of Nadab and Abihu recurs\nagain in this connection, viz: that the greater the man and his\nresponsibilities, the more circumspect must he be in his conduct.\n\nThe incident of the brass serpent must be interpreted in the light\nof the rabbinic comment on that subject to which we have called\nattention in connection with the holding up of Moses' hands during\nthe battle with the Amalekites.\n\n\"Is it then in the power of a serpent to slay or to bring to life?\nBut so long as the Israelites gazed heavenward and subjected their\nhearts to their Father in heaven they were healed, and, if not,\nthey were destroyed.\" (Rosh ha-Shanah III, 8.) By looking up to the\nbrass serpent that Moses had been instructed to make, the people\ntestified, as it were, to their faith in God's power to heal them\nfrom the serpent's bites. It is interesting to note that when, at a\nlater time in the history of the people the serpent itself became\nthe object of reverence and of idolatrous worship, it was destroyed\nby order of King Hezekiah, in accordance with the teaching of the\nprophets (2 Kings 18. 4).\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson is to develop an appreciation\nof disinterested loyalty, steadfast faith and even temper,\nand a contempt for selfish ambition, uncontrolled passion and\nfaithlessness.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= The method to be used in accomplishing\nthis aim is not that of drawing an abstract moral from the events\nof the narrative, but one must tell one's story with feeling for\nits hero, Moses, in such a way that the pupil identifies himself\nwith his hero and feels toward the enemies of Moses an almost\npersonal hostility. Before the child reaches adolescence, analysis\nof character is not natural to him, and the discussion of men's\nvirtues and vices fruitless, but imitation of character is natural,\nand hero-worship is the lever by which he may be moved to acquire a\nlove for virtue and a disgust with vice.\n\nIn order to put the character of Moses in a heroic light make the\nclass appreciate the depth of the ingratitude and treachery against\nwhich Moses had constantly to contend, and how difficult this made\nhis task of leadership. Begin by calling on a child to tell the\nstory of the preceding lesson. Then call attention to how sad Moses\nmust have felt when after all he had done for the people they were\nready in the face of every difficulty to disobey and rebel, and how\nmuch Moses must have loved and pitied them to have prayed to God for\ntheir forgiveness rather than simply accept from God the promise\nof a happy future for himself and his descendants. Call attention\nto the fact that this was not the first time that the people had\ndisobeyed Moses and rebelled or murmured against him, and ask the\nchildren to tell other instances. Draw from them as many instances\nas possible since this not only helps in an interesting way to\nrefresh the children's memory of what they had already learnt, but\nalso to understand what is to follow. Then continue:\n\n\"Just as the murmuring of the people against Moses, when they heard\nthe report of the ten spies was not the first instance of their\nrebellion against their patient leader, so it was not the last. In\nfact, it became harder for Moses to lead the people now than ever.\"\n\nThe reason for this can best be explained by an analogy drawn from\nthe experience of children, as for example:\n\n\"You know that when a baseball team wins one game after the other\neverybody praises the captain and all the members of the team are\nready to obey him, but if he loses one game after the other, they\nall begin to criticise and find fault and everybody feels that he\nhimself would have made a better captain than the one who had been\nchosen, although it may not at all have been the captain's fault\nthat the team was unsuccessful. So it was with the Israelites. So\nlong as they still hoped that Moses was going to lead them to a\nland flowing with milk and honey, they were ready in the main to\nobey him, except when they were afraid on account of some special\nhardship and feared that he would never get them there after all;\nbut when Moses himself told them that they would have to wander\nabout for forty years in the wilderness until all the grown men\nof that day should have died, they were very bitter against him.\nInstead of blaming themselves, and their own cowardice and lack of\nfaith in God, they blamed Moses, like the losing team that blames\nits captain instead of its own poor playing. And so they thought of\nappointing a new captain, another man than Moses, to act as their\nleader.\"\n\nAt this point introduce the character of Korah to the class and tell\nthem of his envy of Moses, of his coveting the position of Aaron,\nand of his subtle attempts to secure the leadership by telling the\npeople that they were all everyone as good as Moses and Aaron, for\nthey were all members of a \"kingdom of priests and a holy nation.\"\n\nAfter describing success of Korah's propaganda, and pointing out\nthe helplessness of Moses and the extreme danger of his position,\ntell of Moses' decision to entrust his vindication to God. If Korah\nand his followers wished to claim the priesthood, let them act as\npriests, each burning incense in the censer that he held in his\nhand, and God would show whether he wanted to accept them as priests\nor not.\n\nThe judgment that was pronounced upon Korah and his followers will\nthen mean for the child the just punishment of disloyalty and will\nreinforce his detestation of the qualities displayed by Korah and\nhis like, but if the teacher fails to prepare the way by enlisting\nthe child's interest in the situation as it developed between Moses\nand the people, by some such method as we have suggested, the story\nwill mean little more to him than the account of an earthquake.\nFrom the point of view of religious education, a knowledge of the\nmanner of Korah's punishment is not of so much consequence as an\nunderstanding of the sin for which he was punished.\n\nIn telling the story of the sin of Moses and Aaron, guard against\nappearing to detract from the character of Moses. If the previous\nlessons have been properly taught the child should by this time have\ndeveloped an intense admiration for Moses and would be inclined to\nresent any disparagement of his hero, even to the point of secretly\nfeeling that the sin of Moses was no real sin and that his teacher's\ntreatment of him was quite unfair and was merely an attempt to\napologize for God's not letting him enter Canaan. The rabbis say\nthat the reason for God's mentioning the sin of Nadab and Abihu\nwas to keep us from inferring that their death was a punishment\nfor other and more grievous sins. One cannot help feeling that\nthe narrative of the sin of Moses had a similar purpose, the very\nfact that Moses was so severely punished for so apparently slight\nan offense, being meant to show the esteem in which he was held and\nhow much God expected of him, in consequence. At any rate, this\nis the spirit in which it were best to approach this subject. The\nemphasis should be on the provocation to sin and on Moses' pious\nacceptance of his punishment and his readiness to continue leading\nthe people to the Promised Land even after he could not expect to\nshare in their final triumph. The liturgy for Simhath Torah contains\nthe words, \"Moses died. Who shall not die?\" The sentiment that the\nteacher should seek to arouse by this lesson is somewhat similar.\n\"Moses sinned, who can be sinless?\" If Moses, who is described as\nthe meekest of men, could sin in a moment of passion, how much more\nshould we guard ourselves against sin and especially when under the\ninfluence of passion.\n\nIn telling of how the people who had been bitten by the serpents\nwere healed when they looked up to the brass serpent that Moses\nhad made, guard against letting the child attribute any magic to\nthe image of the serpent itself. This can best be done by telling\nthem the explanation of this episode suggested above in our\ninterpretation. One might also associate the incident with what they\nhad learnt of the influence of the hands of Moses in the battle with\nthe Amalekites. Moreover, it might be well to tell them of how the\npeople's false conception of its significance in later times led to\nits destruction by a pious king of Judah.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nISRAEL ARRIVES AT THE BORDER OF THE PROMISED LAND\n\nNumbers 21.1 to 3 and 21 to 35, also 22.1 to 24.25, also 31.1 to 54\nand 32.1 to 42\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The wandering through the wilderness, which\nin this chapter draws to a close, has had its desired effect in\nproducing a race capable of giving battle. Its powers are put to the\ntest by the necessity of pushing its conquests through the territory\nof Sihon, King of the Amorites, and of Og, King of Bashan.\n\nThe command to conquer these nations and the Promised Land itself\nmay present religious difficulties to some. Indeed, such wars of\nconquest are responsible for the charge frequently brought against\nreligion in general, that it brought bloodshed and persecution into\nthe world. This would, however, be an entirely wrong conception\nof the significance of this _mil\u1e25emet mi\u1e93wah_. We must bear in mind\nthat warfare was the normal state of the ancient world. If we ask\nwhy God so ordained, we can give no answer any more than we can\nto the general question of why God suffers evil to exist and then\ndesires man to contend against it. But no religious person really\nbelieves that God desires the evil. Similarly we must not construe\nthese chapters to assume that God desires or ever desired war but\nmerely that, warfare between the nations being inevitable in an\nage when there were no peaceful methods of settling national and\ntribal disputes, God desired Israel to be victorious because her\ncivilization was superior to that of Canaan. Even the command to\nexterminate the inhabitants must be construed in the light of the\nfact that otherwise the only alternative was perpetual warfare\nbetween the races on the land or an assimilation of Israel to the\nnative races with the loss of the hope that Israel's victory held\nout to the world. Again and again are we told in the Torah that the\nsole justification for Israel's conquest is the sinfulness of the\nnations of Canaan, and that Israel's sinfulness would subject it\nto the same treatment as was meted out to the Canaanites. In the\nvery chapters that we are considering now it is to be noted that\nthe command to conquer the land applied originally only to Canaan,\nto which the people laid claim by virtue of inheritance from the\npatriarchs who had dwelt there, and that, therefore, all that was\noriginally demanded of the trans-Jordanic lands is the right to pass\nthrough without doing any injury in transit. It is only when this is\ndefinitely refused that the Israelites are permitted to resort to\narms.\n\nThe story of Balaam and Balak is significant as a poetic expression\nof the invincibility of Israel. Balaam is sent for by Balak to curse\nIsrael because of the reputation that this heathen prophet and\nsorcerer enjoyed. Though tempted by the bribes offered by Balak he\nknows that God will not suffer him to pronounce an effective curse\nupon Israel and at first refuses to go. He is, however, finally\npermitted to go, after due warning, both before he sets out and\nagain when the angel opposes him on the way, not to speak anything\nsave what God puts into his mouth. The final result is that he\nblesses Israel and curses Moab.\n\nThe reader should not be troubled by the apparent admission that a magic\npower attaches to a formula of curse or blessing, as the point of the\nstory is not to teach that curses are or are not effective, but that,\nwhether they are or not \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05e7\u05b6\u05e1\u05b6\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d9\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e7\u05b9\u05d1 \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1  \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 which, though\nusually translated otherwise, may fittingly be rendered, \"There is no\nenchantment against Jacob and no divination against Israel.\" (Numbers\n23.23.) In rabbinic tradition the story of Balaam's dialogue with his\nass is the classical text for the preaching of humane treatment to\nanimals. It is still capable of yielding that moral.\n\nThe incident of the oath taken by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and\nManasseh has a very obvious moral in its insistance on Jewish\nunity and cooperation. \"We will not return unto our houses until\nthe children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance\".\n(Numbers 32. 18.) The fear of Moses that the premature settlement\nof the trans-Jordanic tribes might lead to division in Israel\nwas certainly well-founded in view of subsequent events when the\ndevelopment of local tribal jurisdictions almost threatened the\nexistence of the nation in the days of the Judges.\n\n=Aim.= To strengthen the child's faith in God's choice of Israel.\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= In telling of the wars of Israel all\nharrowing details would naturally be omitted and the emphasis put\nnot on the fight, but on the victory which Israel won by the help\nof God. A good point of contact for beginning the story could be\nobtained by recalling the narrative of the report of the ten spies\nand of the punishment to which Israel was sentenced by reason of its\nacceptance of this report.\n\nThen show how God's punishment was adapted to the offense in that\nit gave Israel the opportunity to rear a generation of brave men\nin the free atmosphere of the wilderness. Be sure that the child\nunderstands the advantage of the training in the wilderness for the\nnew generation, over the experience of their fathers in Egypt. It\nwill not suffice to state the thing abstractly, but make your point\nclear by repeated illustration as follows:\n\n\"Many years had now passed since the children of Israel had sent\nthe ten spies and had been told that they could not enter the\nPromised Land until all the full grown men of that day should have\ndied. During these years almost all of that generation who had been\nafraid to go up into the land had died and their sons and daughters,\nwho, at that time, had been children, or had not yet even been\nborn, had now grown up to manhood. And they were a very different\ngeneration from what their fathers had been. In the first place they\nwere different in appearance. Their fathers, who in youth had been\nslaves to Pharaoh, had grown up with backs bent by the burdens they\nhad to carry. Many of them had been permanently weakened and even\ndeformed by the hard treatment they had received in Egypt. But their\nchildren, who had grown up in the wilderness and had lived all their\nlives out of doors, with plenty of fresh air and healthful exercise,\nand with no one to make them work at labor that was too hard for\nthem, grew up straight and sturdy, broad-shouldered and muscular,\nlike well-trained athletes. They were as different in appearance as\na poor peddler whom you may see carrying his pack on his shoulders\nis from the strong and vigorous farm hand.\n\n\"Nor did they differ in appearance only, but also in character.\nSlavery had made cowards of their fathers. The slightest act of\ndisobedience to the task-masters bringing instant punishment, they\nhad learned to fear every enemy. No doubt their fathers had been\nwarned in childhood never to attack an Egyptian no matter what he\ndid, because they would in the end have to suffer for it. And so\ntheir fathers had become accustomed to thinking of themselves as too\nweak to fight and when they saw the Canaanite warriors they said,\n'We are like grasshoppers compared to them.' But their sons who had\ngrown up in the wilderness did not know the meaning of fear. They\nwere used to hardship and dangers, for the wilderness was beset by\nall manner of wild beasts and wild men also, and this had trained\nthem to be brave. Moreover they saw from childhood up how God at\nevery step helped His people, how He helped them at the Red Sea, how\nHe fed them on Manna, etc., and they said to themselves, 'Since God\nis with us, we need not fear, what can man do unto us.'\"\n\nYou are now in a position to tell of the campaigns against Sihon\nand Og, stressing the overtures of peace, the rejection of which\njustified the invasion, and enlarging on the Israelites' sense of\ntriumph which resulted from their victories, in which they saw the\nbeginning of the realization of God's promise to give them the land\nof Canaan.\n\nThis is a good point in the narrative at which to trace the route of\nIsrael's marches through the wilderness and to locate the important\nplaces on the map.\n\nIn telling the story of Balak and Balaam be careful not to leave\nthe child with a superstitious belief in the efficacy of a curse,\nnot only because superstition is in itself evil, but because the\nassociation of religion with superstition becomes very dangerous to\nthe former when the child reaches an age at which he will in all\nprobability see the unreasonableness of the superstition. Make it\nplain that Balak's sending for Balaam to curse Israel does not mean\nthat Balaam actually possessed this power, but merely that Balak\nbelieved him to possess it in accordance with the superstition of\nhis day. The point of the narrative should lie in the discomfiture\nof Balak, which teaches that when God is bent on blessing, no human\nbeing can effectively curse, and that God had destined Israel for\nblessing. Do not make this explanation as a digression from the\nstory, but weave it into the narrative itself by suggestion as\nfollows:\n\n\"Now Balak, the king of Moab, had heard that there lived in\nMesopotamia, a famous sorcerer named Balaam, and that whomever this\nBalaam blessed would be sure to have good luck, and whomever he\ncursed, bad luck, and, being very superstitious, as were most of the\npeople in his day, he believed that Balaam really had this power,\nand so he sent presents to him to persuade him to come to Moab and\ncurse Israel for him so that the Israelites should be defeated in\nbattle.\"\n\nDo not attempt to rationalize the miracle of the ass's speaking to\nBalaam. If the child wants to know how it was possible for the ass\nto speak, answer that it is no harder for God to give an animal\npower to speak than a man. No baby is born with the ability to\nspeak and we only learn to speak when God gives us the power and\nintelligence. By answering the question in this manner one attaches\nto the commonplace the mystery associated with the supernatural. By\nattempting to rationalize, one would reduce everything to the level\nof the commonplace. At a later age, when the pupil has developed a\nconcept of natural law, this answer may not prove satisfactory, but\nit would be absurd to attempt a philosophic reconciliation of the\nnatural and supernatural for children at an age when they lack the\nconcept of either.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nTHE DEATH OF MOSES\n\nNumbers 27.12 to 23. Deuteronomy 31.14 to 34.12\n\n\n=Interpretation.= The Biblical account of the death of Moses in its\nimpressive simplicity scarcely needs comment. It brings to a fitting\nend the story of the life-struggle of the greatest of the prophets.\nThere is an infinite pathos in the thought of his never having set\nfoot on the soil toward which he had been leading his people for\nforty years in the face of ingratitude, calumny and rebellion. But\nthere is also a peculiar fitness in this fate for it lifts all his\nefforts in behalf of his people beyond the reach of any detraction\nbased on a charge of self-interest. After he knows his destiny never\nto be permitted to enter the Promised Land, he continues with the\nsame steadfastness to devote himself to his people. He rehearses\ntheir history and in words of passionate appeal admonishes them in\nsong and prophecy to be faithful to the covenant, as the very life\nof the nation depended thereon. And he provides during his lifetime\nfor a successor to his labors and secures for him the popular\nallegiance. Then, with his life-work completed but with all earthly\nreward for it withheld, he ascends the mountain to behold the Land\nof Promise and dies content with seeing in prophetic vision the\nconsummation which a less divinely meek man would have demanded to\nsee in realization. \"No man knoweth of his sepulcher\". As in life\nhe was content to live for God and to give God the glory, so in\nhis death he left no token which might attract to him the reverence\ndue to the God whom he served, thereby saving Judaism from that\nman-worship to which other religions have fallen a prey by reason of\ntheir identification of their religion with the personality of its\nfounder. \"Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that\nwere upon the face of the earth\", (Numbers 12. 3) and, therefore,\n\"There hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,\nwhom the Lord knew face to face; in all the signs and the wonders,\nwhich the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and\nto all his servants, and to all his land; and in all the mighty\nhand, and all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of\nall Israel.\" (Deuteronomy 34. 10 to 12.)\n\n=Aim.= The aim of this lesson should be to cultivate in the child a\nreverent appreciation of the personality of Moses which would result\nnot merely in the attempt to emulate his virtues, but in the desire\nto be faithful to his law in accordance with the sentiment expressed\nin the verse, \"Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance of the\ncongregation of Jacob.\" (Deuteronomy 33. 4.)\n\n=Suggestions to the teacher.= There is comparatively little\nnarrative in this lesson and what there is will present no\ndifficulty. When telling of how Moses addressed the people before\nhis death, read well selected extracts from the Book of Deuteronomy.\nIf the class has learned in its Hebrew work the translation of the\n\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e2 (Deuteronomy 6. 4 to 9) and \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b8\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b4\u05dd \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7 (Deuteronomy\n11. 13 to 21) or if the pupils have been taught to say them at home,\ninclude these portions among those selected and call the attention\nof the children to the fact that these words which they say daily\nare among the last words of Moses, which he wanted the people to\nremember after his death and to teach to their children, and that\nif we say them and live according to them we are carrying out the\nwill of the great law-giver of our nation. This should serve to\ngive an added meaning and value to the child's prayers and connect\nthe history lesson with his daily life. Other passages adapted for\nreading to children are, Deuteronomy 3. 23 to 4. 10, also 4. 32-40\nand 28. 1-4, 30. 15-20 and 32. 7-18.\n\nIn the discussion of the lesson with the class after its first\npresentation take occasion to review the life of Moses as a means\nof bringing out the salient traits of his character. Call for\ninstances illustrating Moses' stern sense of justice, his courage,\nhis modesty, his readiness to forgive, etc., and seek to get as many\nexamples as possible so that the result will be in effect a review\nof the life of Moses. Be very careful not to make your questions\ntoo vague. Thus it would not do merely to say, \"Who can tell me an\nincident in the life of Moses that shows his modesty?\" inasmuch as\nthe abstract noun \"modesty\" has little meaning to the child of the\nage at which this story is usually taught. It would be much better\nto say, \"One reason that Moses was so great was because he was\nmodest, that is to say, he never thought about the honor that others\nowed to him as leader, or felt boastful in his heart because of all\nthe great things he had done, and was always ready to see the good\nin others and to admit whenever he was wrong. Can any of you give\nme any instance in the life of Moses to show that he did not think\nhimself a great man? Can you give me an example to show that he was\nnot anxious for honors? to show that he was ready to take the advice\nof others, or to admit that he was wrong when such was the case?\"\nAfter having a sufficient number of answers illustrative of the\nmodesty of Moses put them down on the blackboard thus:\n\nMoses was modest,\n\n1. He hesitated about leading the people from Egypt.\n\n2. He would not rebuke Eldad and Medad for prophesying.\n\n3. He veiled his face when it shone.\n\n4. He accepted the punishment for his sin without complaint.\n\nThen do the same with other traits of Moses' character, until every\nincident in the career of Moses is classified thus on the basis of\nits moral significance. The value of this drill is that it serves at\nthe same time as a review not merely of the events of the life of\nMoses, but of their significance, and, moreover, provides exercise\nfor the moral judgment of the pupils. The success of this exercise\nwill depend very largely on the skill of the teacher in making his\nquestions simple and brief and in putting them to the class in an\nanimated manner, such as would make them fell that to find the\ncorrect answers was a sort of game that they were playing.\n\nAfter the main incidents in the life of Moses are thus classified\non the blackboard in accordance with the traits of character\nthey exhibit, another helpful exercise would be to let the class\nrearrange them in their chronological order and assign them to the\nthree periods of Moses' life,\n\n1. His life before receiving the call to save his people,\n\n2. His opposition to Pharaoh,\n\n3. His leadership of the people in the wilderness.\n\nThis second classification might serve as the outline of an essay on\nthe life of Moses which the children might be requested to submit at\nthe end of the term as summarizing their year's work.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nMinor typographical errors have been corrected without note.\nIrregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as\nprinted.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.","title":"A Manual for Teaching Biblical History","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":57911}