The Hand of God

 I must admit that this week it was difficult for me to hear about the David and Bathsheba story over and over again during my different podcasts.  It was more clear than ever to me that Bathsheba was not a willing participant in the experience in any way and was brutally victimized by David. You have to give her credit, though, for ensuring that her offspring, Solomon, inherited the thrown. The story of David and Bathsheba reinforces the ideas that I covered in last week's post about the Old Testament writers including each hero's fatal flaw. 

Instead of dwelling on that and the doctrinal problems surrounding it I want to talk about something I noticed about Hebrew idioms that use the word for hand.  Hand, in Hebrew is yad, יד, and, as in English, it occurs in a lot of idioms. The first occurrence of the word is in the book of Genesis 3:22 when Adam has partaken of the forbidden fruit and God must guard the way to the tree of life "Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever". In Hebrew hands usually represent power and agency. In this passage, Adam reaching to take the fruit with his hand, would represent his choice to defy the commandment of God. 

In the reading for this week there are eight references to hands in 1 Kings 8 which contains Solomon's dedicatory prayer on the temple: 

15: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which spake with his mouth unto David my father, and hath with his hand fulfilled it,

22 And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven:

24 thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day

38-39 That prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, 

42  For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house

53 For thou didst separate them from among all the people of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant

54 And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.

56 Blessed be the Lord, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

Things that are interesting from these passages:

1. If hands represent agency, the priest, by lifting his hands toward God, expresses that he is bending his agency to God's will.  

2.  In 15 and 22, God's will is spoken by his mouth, and fulfilled by his hand, but when Moses is involved as in 53, and 56, things are promised, not by the mouth, but by the hand of Moses. This reinforces the idea that when we say, "by the hand of _____" it is not literally something he is doing with his physical hand.  It is an act of will, i.e. because Moses bent his will to God, God was able to act through him. 

3. In v 42, God is said to have a "great name" and a "strong hand."  These clearly represent respect and power. 

So why is all this hand imagery important?  I find it important because of the crucifixion.  When the resurrected Lord wanted to prove to his disciples that he had accomplished the atonement, he showed them his wounded hands. The exact things that represent power and agency, he allowed to be pierced for our sakes. I think Jesus carefully selected the form of his physical death before it happened. He could have chosen to be drowned, or beheaded, or clubbed, or stoned. Instead he chose to be crucified, the only form of death I know of that focuses on the hands. By showing his disciples his wounded hands one by one, it is as if he is saying, "Look. I voluntarily gave up my power by becoming mortal, and my agency by submitting to the will of my father. I who was above all things, put myself below all things.  And I did it for you." 

How the Great Have Fallen

This week in Come Follow Me we read about David's reign as king of united Israel, and his ultimate fall from grace when he commits adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the murder of her husband. I have always hated the fact that Israel's greatest king and the ancestor of Jesus ended his reign in such an unrighteous way. His whole life David tried to be faithful to the Lord, and then at the end he fell to temptation.  

This year as I read the story I kept wondering why the writers of the Old Testament included it at all. Yes, Bathsheba was the mother of Solomon, so she was pretty important in Jewish history. For Christians, Jesus was a descendant of this unholy union. I just wondered why they wanted to air their dirty laundry.  They could have said, "David married the widow of his general Uriah who was killed in battle," which would have been entirely factually true, even if incomplete. If they had, we would have all felt better about King David.  

Then I began to think of other prominent Biblical leaders who were generally revered, but also have one story where they behaved badly. The list is pretty long.  It starts with Adam and Eve.  They were pretty righteous except for the forbidden fruit thing.  Then there was Noah, who made the awesome ark, but then was found drunken in his tent. Abraham was the originator of the covenant, but kept telling people that his wife was his sister. Jacob tricked his brother Esau out of his birthright. Moses was kept from entering the promised land because he smote the rock without giving the credit to God, and there are more.

I began to wonder if Jewish writers actually want their religious leaders to appear to be flawed in some way. These stories were passed down as oral traditions for generations before they were written down in the Tanakh. It's hard to believe, after all the retellings, that some of the "warts" would have been rubbed away by time if they hadn't specifically prevented that from happening. But why?

I don't know the answer for sure, but here are a few ideas.

1.  Flawed leaders are more relatable. By making their founding patriarchs flawed it shows all the people that they can hope, even in their flaws. You can imagine a elderly Rabi saying, "What you did was not so bad. Look at David, our greatest king. Even he had problems."  

2. They believe that there is wisdom to be gained by wrestling with the messiness. If in the stories everything is black and white, with some good people and some evil people, then our understanding of life is superficial. Real life is not like that.  There is much that is grey and there is good and evil in everyone. Avoiding that truth is not helpful. It is only by wrestling with the way things are that someone gains insight and wisdom.

3. There is one more idea that isn't as obvious as 1 and 2, but I think there might be something to it. When my husband's parents traveled in the middle east they visited a carpet weaver.  They learned from the artisan that whenever they made a carpet, they intentionally introduced a flaw into the pattern.  They did this out of respect for God. Only God is perfect and nothing man-made should aspire to be perfect like God. Maybe something like that is going on here.  Maybe there is an idea that it would be an affront to a perfect God for the Jews to portray their leaders as perfect. Not only is it not true (for no one is perfect) but it would be blasphemous. Remember when a follower of Jesus said, "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Matt 10: 17-18)  Even Jesus, who was the only perfect person, did not want to be called "good" out of respect for God. So maybe the writers of the Old Testament purposefully and carefully included at least one story about their revered leaders that showed their imperfections as a way to highlight the perfection of God.

In the Western culture we are raised on fairy tales.  In most of them there are clear heroes and villains.  In modern times we have stories of superheroes and supervillains.  Even when they have complicated personalities and backstories (think Batman) it is always clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.  Not so in the Old Testament and that makes Western readers uncomfortable. Sometimes we just have to sit in the discomfort and try to see if there is any wisdom to be found there.

How can we look at God's commandments to commit genocide?

 This week in Come Follow Me we read about the rise and downfall of Saul in the book of Samuel.  One of the most famous scriptures of this week's reading is from Samuel 15:22 "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifice, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." On the surface this looks like a great moral of the story.  Saul should have obeyed the Lord instead of disobeying him in order to make more sacrifices. 

One of the podcasters this week, however, pointed out how this simplistic view is problematic. We read the verse, but forget the commandment that Saul was disobeying. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (15:3)  So the thing that Saul was disobedient to was the command to commit genocide, including killing women, children and babies. It seems from the text that Saul did kill all the women and children, but was being chastised by the Lord for not killing all the animals. 

Of course you can see all the red flags here.  Could the same God who gave the Ten Commandments including "Thou shalt not kill," turn around and command someone to slaughter women and children?  My husband made the observation that after the Ten Commandments are given in Exodus the whole rest of the Old Testament seems to ignore them. 

So how can we wrestle with what seems to be the Lord's command to break his own commandment? Different podcasters I listened to this week had different approaches that I will try to outline here.

1. Literal approach: Yes, God did command them to utterly wipe out their enemies.

    Those who take this approach within the LDS faith try to justify this by saying that the society was so corrupt that it would be unjust of God to let it continue.  Any babies born to that society were doomed to be raised in wickedness. It was better to send all the inhabitants back to God where they might have a chance to change their ways, than to leave them on earth where they would doom themselves and infect others with their wickedness. We need to take the "eternal" perspective instead of just looking at the mortal experience.

2. Historical Hindsight: No, God didn't command them to utterly wipe out their enemies, but when they looked back years later, they imagined that he did and that their failure to do so caused the moral decline of their society that lead to the Babylonian Captivity.

    Those who take this approach say that this history was written during the Babylonian Captivity when the people of Israel where looking back and trying to figure out what went wrong. They see their main sin as turning to idols.  They think, "If only we had utterly destroyed the people of the land, we would not have been tempted to worship their gods and depart from the true worship of Jehovah." Because they believe that would have worked, they project that belief on the past.  They imagine that God did tell them to destroy the other nations, and their failure to do so was their downfall.

3. Historical Hyperbole: God told them to take other lands, but the strength of the command was intensified in accordance to local history-keeping customs.

    I have heard the scholarly opinion that the text of Samuel, (and Kings and Judges) follows the style of other ancient texts from that time period.  It was the style of historians in that era to exaggerate the nature of their conquests.  Not only was a town "conquered," but it was "utterly wiped out."  We use similar ways of talking in English.  When one sports team thoroughly defeats a rival, they might claim "We totally destroyed them" when in reality, no one was destroyed, just defeated. In this opinions the command to destroy women and children is not really what happened, but is told that way to reflect the weightiness of the event.

4. These stories are not histories, but parables.

Believers in this approach don't believe that these narratives represent any real historical event, but are merely symbolic parables constructed by the captive Jews to explain both their own origins and their sad decline into captivity. Saul is not a historical personage, but a character type: someone who started out strong but was corrupted by his own pride. The whole story is a cautionary tale, full of symbolism.  God's command to kill all men, women, children, and animals represents our need to purify ourselves of all our sins, both big and small. We must kill our imperfections no matter how animalistic or innocent they might appear. 

I don't know what the real answer is but I will give my opinion.  I am not a believer in #1.  I can't bring myself to believe God commanded a righteous nation to commit such terrible acts of violence.  Not only would innocents be lost, but the attacking armies would have suffered huge mental consequences of such an act. I don't think anyone can stab a baby and come through emotionally and spiritually intact.  Would God destroy the souls of his servants by making them destroy the bodies of their innocent victims?

I am also not a really going for #4 either.  I do think there must have been some historical basis for the stories in the history books of the Bible. The stories are to complicated and messy to be entirely made up. There is some (though not a huge amount) of archaeological evidence that support the Biblical accounts. Some place names have been found and some names used in the Bible have been found on a few inscriptions. 

So that leaves me considering #2 and #3.  I personally believe that a combination of these two are the most likely answer.  I think there is a literary tradition here that needs to be taken into account.  The stories of the Old Testament really do resemble in tone and language other stories of the same period. They had a culture and morality that wasn't the same as ours and they reflected that culture. I also think that the writer(s) of Samuel were trying to look back and figure out what went wrong so that they could make better decisions in the future. They project their ideas onto the story and claim that commandments came from God. Why else would have Saul failed, unless he disobeyed God?

The final question then, is if these records do not accurately reflect God's real dealings with his people, are they of any value?  That's another hard questions.  I guess my answer is that as I read the Old Testament I do feel inspired by some of the stories and thematic elements. I feel inspired by Joseph's persistent faithfulness.  I feel compassion and kinship with characters who sometimes are righteous and sometimes fall short. I see the good examples and the cautionary tales and examine my own life. This year, especially, I have been encouraged by God's patience with Israel and his unflagging attempts to help and save them despite their wickedness and hope the same efforts will be made for my own imperfect soul.

I think one of the Old Testament's biggest strengths is that it forces us to struggle with the messiness of mortality. No one is perfect. No civilization is completely righteous. Some good people do bad things, and some bad people do good things. It is the way people are. It is complicated and there are lots of grey areas, and there are lots of things we don't understand. Why pretend there isn't? So we wrestle and try to find our own way of hope in belief and faith.

Ruth and Hannah as Types

 I didn't post anything about the book of Judges last week since I did a pretty good post about it in 2022 and didn't have anything new to add. 

This week, however, I have two different things I wanted to post about. I did a post about Ruth in 2022 that covers the basics of the story. One thing I would add to that which I didn't know before, was that one reason Boaz might have been more compassionate toward Ruth is that he understood what it meant for a woman to be a foreigner and convert in Israel.  We learn from Matthew 1:5 that Boaz' mother was Rahab, the "harlot" who hid the spies of Israel in Jericho, and by so doing so was spared and protected when Joshua stormed that city.  Even though Boaz in the book of Ruth seems pretty well of, it might have been difficult for him to find a bride since his mother was foreign and a former prostitute. His kindness to Ruth may reflect his feelings toward his immigrant mother. 

The main thing I saw in the stories of Ruth and Hannah this time was that they can be seen as types.  I wrote before how Sarah's life foreshadowed the future of Israel. Sarah was "sold into Egypt" when her husband claimed she was his sister years before Joseph was sold into Egypt. The fact that the Lord remembered her and provided a way for her to be redeemed foreshadowed Israel's eventual escape from Egypt. This seems like a bit of a stretch unless you remember that throughout the Old Testament the Lord compares his relationship with Israel as a marriage. Later Jeremiah is even commanded to marry a harlot as a symbol of Israel worshiping other gods. I think both Ruth and Hannah's stories foreshadow things that are about to happen to Israel.

First let's talk about Ruth.  She is a Moabite, that is, not a member of the covenant family.  She marries an Israelite and comes to start to understand what Jehovah worship is. When her husband dies, she decides to stay with Naomi and follow the God of Israel rather than the gods of her own culture. Together they go back to Bethlehem and there she impresses and marries an Israelite man and through her the Davidic line is perpetuated.  How does this reflect what is happening is Israel?  Just as Naomi and her family left Bethlehem and traveled to pagan Moab, Israel has left their covenant with the Lord and has gone after idols. They leave because of a famine in Israel. We learn in the book of Judges that there was a famine of righteousness in Israel.  None of the Judges are without flaw, and the final judge, Samson, has truly left the covenants of Israel to follow a foreign path of violence and disregard for the law.

Israel needs a new system of government.  Later in 1 Samuel, we learn that they ask Samuel to find and anoint a king for them because they want to be like other nations (1 Sam 8:20). They are bringing in a foreign form of government just like Naomi is bringing in a foreign bride for Boaz. I think it is no coincidence that it is through Ruth, a foreign import into Israel, that the new foreign form of government, the Kingship, is established though David, her descendant. In other words, just as Naomi went into a foreign land and brought back a bride for Boaz, Israel looked to their foreign neighbors to replace the system of Judges with a King. 

Hannah likewise foreshadows  things that are about to happen in Israel.  Eli is a true High Priest, but his sons are corrupt.  The name Eli, means, Our God, so even though Our God is faithful, his sons, the house of Israel, and particularly the priests of Israel, have become corrupt.  God seeks a true priesthood but cannot find it among the priestly caste. Israel is barren, like Hannah, but when they pray for a king, just as Hannah prays for a son, the Lord grants their request.  Hannah gets a son, and Israel gets a king.  But Hannah doesn't get to keep her son.  After a few short years, he is given up to a lifetime of service in the temple as Hannah promised. Likewise, Israel does not get to keep its kingship.  Saul, David and Solomon rule over Israel as a united kingdom, but on Solomon's death the tribes of Israel fragment, and never again is Israel united under one ruler. In other words, even though Hannah rejoices at having a son, and Israel rejoices in having a king, for both the joy is short lived. 

It isn't as close of a connection as the story of Sarah predicting the story of Israel, but I still think in both cases,  God is using the marriage relationships described in these stories as symbols of his relationship with Israel. 

Book of Joshua

 This week we have done a cursory study of the book of Joshua.  Four years ago I wrote a blog post about the symbolism in the conquest of the city of Jericho. It is a pretty good post about the purpose of the book of Joshua, and some symbolism of the fall of Jericho. Some of what I wrote there bears repeating.  The Book of Joshua was written many years after the fact, and was written for a specific purpose: i.e to give Israel a pattern for covenant behavior that leads to God's help and favor. It is written in historic hyperbola.  In Joshua it states that the Israelites totally destroyed various populations, but then later in Joshua and Judges, these very cities are mentioned as if they are still existing communities. For example, in Joshua 11 the Israelites destroy the village of Hazor and burn it to the ground, but in Judges 4, Deborah conquers it again.  In Joshua 10, Hebron is destroyed, but in Joshua 15 it is given to Caleb as an inheritance. It seems clear that when the book of Joshua states that a town was totally destroyed, it means that Israel had some kind of victory there.

There were a few other things that podcasters mentioned this week that I want to mention here. In my 2022 post I mentioned that there was no evidence that there was a walled city at Jericho at the time that Israel left Egypt during the late bronze Age. Kerry Muhlestein in The Scriptures are Real said that he worked on a Jericho excavation and there is evidence that Jericho existed as a walled city in the late bronze age, but that one of the main archeologists that adamantly denies that it did exist then purposefully denied the evidence because of her own bias. So that was interesting.  

Still, I don't know if proving that Jericho was a real city or not is super important.  I stand by my earlier exertion that the book of Joshua was written, or at least edited, by a later author who used folk stories about the founding of Israel in the promised land to teach about the importance of covenant obedience. Twice in Joshua there are formal covenant ceremonies.  The first is at the beginning of the book in Chapter 5. After the people cross the Jordan river, the males are circumcised (2), then they kept the passover (v. 10) during which they would have recounted the story of the Exodus. Then Joshua meets the angel of the Lord (v. 15). 

The second is in Joshua 24.  Joshua knows he is about to die, so he gathers the people in Shechem where the Ark of the Covenant is.  Joshua reminds them again about their history, going this time clear back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (v. 2-4). Then he recounts all the Lord did for them since they left Egypt, and came into the Promised Land (v. 6-13).  Then he says, "Therefore, fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth...Choose thee this day whom ye will serve...but for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (v 14-15)  The people answer and promise that they will serve Jehovah (v. 24).  Finally the story states, "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elder that outlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel." (v. 31)  It is a "tada!" statement,  "Look, this is what it means to serve the Lord." 

The Shema

 This week we read chapters from the book of Deuteronomy as part of Come Follow Me.  When I was in college I used to think of the Book of Deuteronomy as "ether in print."  There were  actually a few times when I was having trouble falling to sleep because of stress or anxiety, so I started reading Deuteronomy and then was able to nod off.  I don't hold that opinion any more, and have found much of interest in the book.

Tradition holds that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, but most scholars believe that it was probably passed down orally until much later.  Some scholars associate it with the text found my Josiah when he was restoring temple worship in Israel (2 Kings 22:8).  When Josiah read it he recognized that it foretold that Israel would be destroyed because they did not keep their covenants with the Lord and followed after idols.  Josiah was so upset his tore his clothes (a sign of deep despair).  A few years after Josiah's reign, Israel was taken into captivity. 

One of the main jewels of the Book of Deuteronomy is the Shema. It is the text of a covenant or commandment given from the Lord to the people of Israel right before entering the "promised land." The Shema is found in Deuteronomy 6: 4-9 and is called the Shema because the first word of 6:4 is "shema", which means "hear" or "attend".  It contains a passage that Jesus later quoted when a lawyer asked him what was the greatest commandment: 

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all they soul and with all they might." (v. 5) (see also Matt 22:37)

This is a notoriously difficult passage to translate. The word לבב, means heart, but in the Hebrew language the heart isn’t the center for emotion like it is in English, (that’s the abdomen). The heart is the center of true understanding and devotion.  

The word soul, נפש, comes for the word for your neck.  When the Lord creates Adam, he breaths into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7). The neck it where that breath, symbolizing your spirit, goes in and out of your body. When breath stops, life stops. Even though this word means neck, it is used as an idiom for your essential self in the Bible more than it is used to represent your physical neck.

The last word, מאדך (me'odecha) comes from an adverb meaning "very" or "a lot." When God finished creating the world and he said it was “very good” the term for very is מאד, me'od (Genesis 1:31). But here it isn’t used as an adverb, but as a noun. That last letter "ך" is a suffix that means "your". The the word means something like "your very-ness" or "your much-ness". It isn’t used in this form anywhere else in the whole Old Testament, only this passage. I think the writer couldn’t come up with a word strong enough to express how much of yourself you should use to worship God, so he made up one. 

The author here is using amazingly strong words to try to communicate how much we should love the Lord and how faithfully we should serve him. I think it is why this prayer has endured a central tenet of Jewish worship and is so powerful and meaningful for Jewish people today.

Of course, because Jesus repeats it in the New Testament, it is also a powerful part of Christian worship. Every Christian must ask themselves if we worship God with all our heart (devotion), soul (essential being) and me'odecha.

Shema Israel

Jesus is the GOAT: a look at the Day of Atonement

This week in Come Follow Me we read about a couple of the sacrifices regularly conducted in the Tabernacle. This year I have been able to see more than ever before how all of these ancient practices, although they seem a bit barbaric to us, were actually pointing to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is as if God was sitting up in heaven with Mother God, and trying to come up with as many ways as possible to foreshadow the life and mission of Jesus. They tried using every sense--taste, smell, touch, sound, sight. They used a variety of ceremonies and places--the altar of sacrifice, the altar of incense, the laver, the show bread, the menorah, the curtains... everything foreshadowing some aspect of Jesus' life and mission as our Savior. 

I can't go into all of them in one post, so I wanted to talk about the Day of Atonement. It is one of the high holy days in Judaism, and the only time that anyone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. It is explained in Leviticus 16:2-22.  The high priest first made a sin offering for himself, washed himself, and changed into specific clothing to represent his ritualistic purity. Then he took two goats and presented them at the door of the Tabernacle. There they cast lots to establish which goat will be sacrificed and which will be set free as the scapegoat. The first goat was offered up as a sin offering for all the people. The high priest brought the blood of the offering into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled it on the Mercy Seat (the cover of the Ark of the Covenant). Finally, he went out of the Holy Place, confessed over the live goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and then sent him off into the wilderness. 

Some of the symbolism here is really clear.  The first goat represents Jesus whose blood atones for the sins of the people.  Just as Jesus will advocate before the throne of God for us, the blood of the first goat is placed on the Mercy Seat, which represents the throne of God. This symbolic act says, "Look father, I have given my blood for these people, therefore have mercy on them."

But what of the other goat? The sins of the House of Israel are ritualistically placed on the second goat and that goat is taken out of the camp.  One obvious symbolism is that the second goat also represents Christ.  He takes upon him our sins and then removes them from the community. By his departure (i.e. his death) the community is cleansed of sin. 

But why does one goat die and one goat live?  Jesus died for our sins (first goat) and thus reconciles us to God.  He also takes away our sins, like the second goat, but where does he go with them?  Does he pass them off to another community?  Is it understood that he would die in the wilderness?  One Jewish commentary, Mishna Yoma 6:6, suggests that the scapegoat was pushed off a cliff.  This symbolized that those sins were permanently removed out of the community in a way that they wouldn't come back. 

What if,  however,  there is another foreshadowing here.  Maybe the scapegoat represents what Jesus did after his death.  The casting out of the scapegoat does happen after the sacrifice of the first goat. We know from the scriptures that after he was killed, Jesus went and ministered to the spirits in spirit prison (1 Peter 3: 19-20). Couldn't that be like a wilderness of type? We also understand that Jesus visited his other "sheep" (John 10:16). From a Biblical point of view, that could represent the Gospel going to the Gentiles. From a Book of Mormon point of view, it could represent Jesus visiting the saints in the Americas. Both of these groups could be metaphorically on the other side of a barren wilderness because they were separate and different from the community where Jesus taught during his ministry.

This is all a bit of a stretch. None of the podcasters I listened to this week brought up this idea as a possible symbolism of the scapegoat.  Still, who knows? There has to be some reason why there are two goats and one is left alive. In all the other sacrifices, the animals are killed. 

It is easy to see symbolism if you are looking for it, and it is easy to take it too far.  One might even suggest that a "goat" is used in this sacrifice instead of a sheep or bull because God knew that 3000 years later in English the term "G.O.A.T" would be an acronym for Greatest of All Time, and Jesus was certainly the greatest man of all time. That's silliness, of course, but it could make a good t-shirt, especially for those who know their Old Testament.  In a way it explains the symbolism of all the sacrifices of the Levitical worship: "Jesus is the GOAT".