I have just begun to scratch the surface of my copy of The Lutheran Study Bible. My biggest complaint so far is that there is so much information in it that I can’t use it with my kids — I end up glancing down to read the notes at each verse.
Stan Lemon pointed a, shall we say, feature with TLSB. There is a similar explanation of a miracle in CSSB using red sediment, but I won’t cover that.
Do yourself a quick favor and read the whole of Exodus 7:14-25. The passage describes how God turned the Nile to blood. Not only was the Nile turned to blood, the fish in the Nile died, the Nile stank, and the Egyptians could not drink it. Details, details.
The note for verse 17 in TLSB reads thus:
turn into blood. The same sense as in Joel 2:31, where the moon is to be turned into blood; thus it was not a chemical change into real blood, but a chagne in appearance, possibly because of red algae. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage (late third millenium BC) refers to the Nile as being turned to blood.
If you do follow that link to the verse and context in Joel, you’ll see that there’s nothing else that supports the moon turning to blood in the surrounding text. I would think that if the moon really did turn to blood, the change in mass would have at least caused the earth to shake, the seas to go crazy, or something. It seems strange to me though, that a passage as unclear as Joel 2:31 is overriding the clear, reinforced description that God really did turn the Nile to blood.
Rev. Paul T. McCain, Executive Director of the Editorial Department at Concordia Publishing House and blogger at http://cyberbrethren.com, offered that I should check out TLSB’s notes on p. 1674, a full page article entitled “God’s Care and Miracles.” It’s a good article, showing how God takes care of us not only through miracles of transmutation (water into wine, for example) but working through nature, such as the fog at Normandy that saved the lives of American soldiers, or, dare I say, the toppling of the cross in Minneapolis in August during the ELCA convention.
If the point was that the plagues were God working through natural means, I have two questions. First, what clues do we have besides Joel that God was working through natural means? Secondly, if God was working through natural means, how does that explain the previous passage in Exodus, 7:8-13, where Aaron’s staff became a snake and then proceeded to eat the snakes of Pharoah’s magicians? That’s not natural means!
Why are we reluctant to believe blood is blood? We believe in a six-day creation and the death and resurrection of Christ! 
That makes water to blood seem tame.
Rev. McCain does offer the following additional explanation to Lemon:
The notes in The Lutheran Study Bible do not deny the miraculous work of God in sending a plague in the form of water turning to blood (e.g., note for Exodus 7:19, “no ordinary natural event”). Please let me be perfectly clear: TLSB does not deny that that there was a miracle taking place in this particular plague.
The notes at Exodus 7 offer explanations of *how* God providentially and *also* miraculously used naturally occurring phenomena to accomplish this particular plague. God did the same thing with other naturally occurring phenomena, such as the plagues of locusts, frogs, and biting insects.
The article on page 1674 in The Lutheran Study Bible offers a helpful
discussion of the distinction between miracles and providence, a
distinction that is often not made.The TLSB note for Exodus 7:17 points to Joel 2:31, which describes a
similar transformation with blood and uses the same Hebrew construction found in Exodus (cf Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon entry on lamedh, section 4 a). If Joel 2:31 is taken literally, that would mean the moon will turn into blood.However, in the New Testament, this same transformation is presented as a description: “the full moon became LIKE blood” (Revelation 6:12; use of Gk hos). Therefore, the fuller context in Exodus and the rest of Scripture leads us to read “turn into blood” as a description of how the water changed and not as a chemical change from water into literal blood.
These observations are not based on historical-critical assumptions but on careful grammatical reading, Scripture interprets Scripture, and sound theological distinctions.
Once again, we thank you for your strong interest in TLSB. As you read, please be sure to consider each note in view of the surrounding notes and look up the many cross-references. They will help you understand the conclusions and intentions of our writers and editors.
God bless,
Pastor McCain
So because the New Testament applied a simile to the moon turning to blood, which makes sense because there were no other effects listed in Joel of the moon turning to blood, that must mean that the same word used in Exodus can’t mean the Nile didn’t turn to blood, though the fish died and the Nile stank. It could have been red algae, or if you read the Concordia Self-Study Bible, it could have been red sediment. But not blood.
It’s a stretch, but fortunately not a critical one. I still like my TLSB.
And to those who have argued this somewhat vehemently on Facebook and Twitter, watch your step and keep it cordial.
Update, 4:44pm: Pr. Don Engebretson weighs in and compares several historial commentaries.
Similar Posts:
- Bible Study Without Bibles
- Blood Has Meaning to Little Sis
- ‘Steadfast’ Commercials Could Be More Winsome
Did you read the other notes in Exodus 7? Particularly v. 19? I think the note there makes it clear that a lot of the concerns about v. 17 are overstated.
Do I agree with the note on v. 17? No. Is it heretical? I won’t go that far. There will never be a perfect (by my standards) study bible, nor will there be for you, for Stan, or for anyone else… not even McCain.
Remember, just because someone can show that something is plausible doesn’t necessarily mean that it is identical to their own position.
Relax.
Yeah, I read them. Thanks. I’m not as exercised about this as some.
Just as extra grist for the mill…
The ESV Study Bible’s note for Ex 7:19 is the most directly germane, and it reads, “The extent of the first plague shows that it cannot be explained simply as the result of natural causes.”
Also, the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible’s note for Ex 7:20 cites the two ways in which blood is referred to (literally and figuratively), using Joel 2:31 as the citation for figurative use. The note then finishes with this, “In either case, the Bible is describing a true miracle. God produced the results He said He would, and He did it when He said He would.”
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that TLSB didn’t take the plain, simple, literal reading of this text, absent any definitive and/or voluminous corroborating Scriptural evidence to do otherwise. I tend to think that the ESV Study Bible note got it “righter”.
I’m also a bit disquieted, for some reason, by the fact that TLSB’s note for Ex 7:19 puts blood in quotation marks (i.e., “blood”).
On the other hand, whether it’s actual blood or the appearance of blood, it’s clearly a miraculous occurrence above and beyond any natural event.
I don’t see why our commitment to Scripture as God’s (written) Word commits us in advance to particular exegetical conclusions on what that Word says. I sometimes get the impression that a certain machismo creeps in, a desire to push the “literal” meaning as far as possible in order to demonstrate just how seriously you take God’s Word: “Well, I double-super-extra believe in the Bible, so [to take a not-dissimilar example] I think that Jesus sweated actual blood rather than just blood-like drops of sweat!”
So I have no particular view on Exodus 7, other than the fact that it was a divine miracle for the redemption of his people. But to treat the question as a three-alarm fire, as some (not you) have done (e.g. “an epic failure, heresy and a false hermeneutic”) seems… disproportionate.
Good points, John.
Perhaps, since this is a bit of pious speculation, it might have helped if the note said, “thus it may not have been a chemical change” rather than “thus it was not a chemical change”.
Or, addressing an underlying concern, that “it is possible to understand, without applying a historical-critical hermeneutic, that this wasn’t blood. Here’s how some have gotten to that point.”
I’m still thinking blood here, but I am ever the student.
[...] hermeneutic” (emphasis added), and it appears that a fairly passionate discussion ensued. Dan’s post at Necessary Roughness summarises the debate in rather more measured terms (though still critical of TLSB’s [...]
Good discussion everyone. Interesting points all. I just reviewed the CSSB’s notes on the plagues and I’m thinking how TLSB explains this all is much better.
I particularly appreciated John H’s remarks. I definitely see some of this dynamic going on here, John.
Was the water actually blood? Perhaps it was. Was the water turned into what everyone could see looking like blood? Most obviously.
Having grown up on an ocean, and spent most of my childhood at a bayou fishing, boating, etc. I can tell you that a red tide is an amazing thing, and one can only but imagine what God could do with a red tide. The water looks bloody and talk about a stench!
Either way, as the one note Piper cited put it:
““In either case, the Bible is describing a true miracle. God produced the results He said He would, and He did it when He said He would.”
Excellent.
I just wish that people who have a concern could find a way to express without resorting to the “tirade” one person felt necessary to indulge himself in on a Facebook page where he accused TLSB of embracing higher criticism, being littered with crap, and heretical.
Egads.
Perhaps this article would help reinforce the point about red tide:
http://www.lifeinfreshwater.org.uk/Web%20pages/ponds/Pollution.htm
Note the dramatic picture about three-fourths of the way down, and the description of how the algae produce a liver toxin.
An abnormal proliferation of this algae is *very* consistent with the other plagues–especially, the following three plainly involve the abnormal proliferation of animals or insects. On the other hand, actual blood, while certainly possible, doesn’t seem to fit the pattern.
I recently saw a documentary explaining how a volcanic eruption on the Greek Island of Santorini could have been responsible for all the plagues of Egypt. The theory was quite ingenious. They even handled the death of the firstborn, after a fashion. It was argued that the firstborn of Egypt slept in bedrooms on the ground floor while everyone else slept on the roof. When a toxic gas came through at ground level, it would have killed anyone sleeping near the ground. (Such a toxic gas after a volcano was then documented.) What I found interesting in digging around is how often such theories are recycled. You are given the idea that someone just recently hatched the idea fully formed, only to find out that it has been around in some form for decades. Try Googling Siro Trevisanato, Simcha Jacobovici. John Marr, and Graham Phillips, each with the word “plagues” and see what comes up. Interesting in its own right is how many people will try to take credit for producing the theory.
Some of this is also a matter of motivation. Does one espouse the red algae theory because he thinks this is the legit, most likely way of understanding the text, or does one espouse the “RAT” (hmmm, unintentionally demonstrated my opinion of the theory there) because one feels that the idea of the nile turning to blood to be. . . embarrassing?
The first is honest and legit, even if debatable. The second is. . . dubious.
Now, looking at the Greek and Latin (for my Hebrew is lousy), there seems to be a stronger, concrete usage of blood – it is “metabalei eis” and “egeneto” in Greek, changed into, become. Latin has the vertantur – also a strong word denoting actual change.
The only thing that gives me pause is the idea in verse 18 that the Egyptians would hesitate to drink it. . . if it were full bore blood, I don’t know of anyone who would drink it… although watered down blood would still be freaky. And that also shows up in 19 where it hits all the pots and such as well.
Should have just read more (and in the Greek rather than King James) – not able to drink it. . . over and over and over. That does seem to be beyond just. . . a red tide.
Here’s something that boggles me. What is there to gain by saying that the blood in the Nile isn’t blood? If the Joel argument is simply an effort to best understand what is going on, that’s one thing, but I don’t know of a doctrine that hangs on this.
The CSSB references Psalm 78:44 and 105:29, which reference the Exodus plagues, rather than Joel in CSSB’s thesis that blood may not be blood. CSSB doesn’t mention Joel at all. Neither TLSB’s nor CSSB’s notes for the two verses in Psalms do not stipulate about blood being something else.
I got three passages that say the Nile turned to blood, versus one passage in Joel that’s modified by the Revelation of St. John. I’m still thinking blood is blood at this point.
Some people may get a kick of being holier than thou because they follow the Bible to the letter better than someone else. I am just a poor, miserable sinner, whose curiosity has been aroused. If someone thinks it’s red sediment or the Crimson Tide, I don’t see them going to Hell for it.
I would like to see the definite “thus it was not a chemical change” changed to indicate that there may very well have been blood in the Nile.
I guess I’m just simple like you, Dan. I, too, am drawn to the plain, simple, reading of the text – i.e., the one that doesn’t require explanations or hoop-jumping to “logically” explain that which was done miraculously. You’ve done a very nice job of laying out the “Scripture interprets Scripture” argument/method, showing that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to a literal reading – i.e., it was actually, really, *blood*.
Pr. Brown brings up a great point (re: “embarrassment”), that I think also helps answer/refute the “machismo” worries (not unwarrantedly) brought forth by John.
To that point I would add this: There seems to me to be a danger of falling into the “Did God really say…?” trap, when we overthink/overexamine a text, and move beyond the plain, simple, & straightforward reading given to us in Scripture. IOW, if it says “blood”, what overwhelming & corroborating Scriptural evidence is there to safely lead us to even a pious opinion that it’s *not* blood? Else, wouldn’t it be more prudent to stick with the plain, literal reading & meaning?
While, in this particular note’s case, both readings are still well within the “God’s miracle in God’s time” parameters, one reading does run the risk of introducing more doubt (via the “Did God really say…?” trap) than the other.
I agree that I think it is the simplest and best way of reading just to say — blood. However, not everyone. . . necessarily. . . moves away from that reading for poor reasons. But as theories go. . . while plausible from the view of the world, I do not need the miracles of God to be plausible from the view of the world.
I find this conversation very interesting. While I have TLSB, I have not used it much yet. It’s primarily a reference for me, that is all.
Years ago, I had a pastor who tried to tell his congregation that Moses led the people through a swamp, it spite of what the text says. This was a popular theory at the time. Several people in our church, myself included, lost a lot of respect for the man because he introduced a principle of interpretation which made him and his theories the authority. This conversation reminds me a lot of that time.
My own view on the passage is that God turned the water into real blood, and that the best Pharaoh’s magicians could do was turn it red by natural means. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened toward God. Can we, by tinkering with scripture, do the same to other people? I wonder.
It is ironic that we ask people to believe that Christ’ blood is present in the supper, but we might not want to lead them to believe that real blood was present in the Nile. Why?
I agree with Dan. What is to be gained here? If “blood” doesn’t really mean “blood”, what else doesn’t mean what it says? That is where the rubber meets the road in the real world.
K.I.S.S.
Peace, In Christ
Doug, this is *nothing* like the teaching you describe about Moses leading people through a swamp. That teaching denies that a miracle happened.
Several of the other plagues were seemingly natural phenomena gone haywire. To believe that the frogs were a miracle, do we have to think they were some kind of special miracle frogs? Of course not. They were just frogs.
Many people who read this text really, genuinely think of a red tide when they read it. To them, that *is* the plain reading of the text.
Hi Kaleb,
With all due respect, I think you just made the truthfulness of scripture dependent upon the impression of the reader. Isn’t this is the “What does it mean to you?” argument?
I have seen the “Ten Commandments” so many times that Moses looks like Charlton Heston & Pharaoh like Yul Brynner in my mind. But sincerity is no argument.
I also, like others, don’t want to beat this to death. Maybe there is a better place for a more lengthy discussion. But I was trained to read the word “blood” as real blood unless there was something in the surround text or the immediate context that told me it was something other than real blood.
The frogs can be real frogs multiplies by God in the same way He can make a fish on the spot to swallow up Jonah. The moon turning to blood, as others have mentioned, is prophesy and clearly in a separate category of literature, and thus is interpreted in a different way.
This account of the plagues is not like that, and so, unless the context leads us into a different understanding, we should just be happy that it is blood and leave it at that. Otherwise, I can just call it chocolate pudding because I lived by the Mississippi river as a child and the barges would kick up a mud that looked like chocolate pudding, but the fish died and it really smelled bad. So maybe I genuinely think of rancid chocolate pudding when I read it and that is what it means to me.
One final note. The pastor I mentioned before actually did believe that God dried up the swamp, and that the people passed through it with a small hedge like wall on either side on slightly muddy ground, and that the chariot wheels of the Egyptians got stuck in the mud and they were all drowned, and that it was a miracle of God to use nature in this way.
This is one of the reasons I am Lutheran.
Blessings to you!
We’re not talking about truth vs. falsehood. We’re talking about whether the plague was described in terms of sense perception or chemical composition. That puts this in an entirely different category from the Red Sea interpretation you describe, which would require us to believe that the writer exaggerated the events.
Going back for a moment to your comparison of this to the Lord’s Supper, I would argue that the context leads us in entirely different directions on these two issues. John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 reinforce the literal interpretation of Jesus’ words: it is actually His blood. On the other hand, actual blood flowing through the Nile, while absolutely a good and reasonable reading of the text, might not fit the pattern of the first few plagues as well as a multiplication of algae would.
Having said all that, I believe this is merely an interpretation of the text that happens to have some reasonable arguments in its favor. I think we would both agree that TLSB should not have declared this interpretation as if it were established fact.
Feel free to email me if any of what I said needs to be clarified or if there are any glaring holes in what I’ve said. kaleb70@gmail.com
When I first saw the post title, I was wondering if you were reviewing a remake of or a sequel to Soylent Green.
No matter how you slice him, you’re still serving Man.
I think the plausibility would be different if we weren’t talking about blood. Real blood is part of our Lord’s salvation history. The sacrificial blood of the Passover lamb, blood sprinkled over the people of Israel, the blood Christ shed on the cross, and the blood we receive in with and under the wine.
This plague is part of this salvation history, leading to the Passover and finally to the cross. The text says “blood.” We would not rationalize away the blood mixed with water as they pierced Jesus’ side. We should not rationalize away the blood of the plague.
Abel’s blood for vengeance
Pleaded to the sky,
But the blood of Jesus
For our pardon cries.
Christians to the Paschal Victim
Offer your thankful praises!
The Lamb the sheep has ransomed:
Christ, who only is sinless,
Reconciling sinners to the Father.
Draw near and take the body of the Lord,
And drink the holy blood for you outpoured;
Offered was He for greatest and for least,
Himself the victim and Himself the priest.
Where the paschal blood is poured,
Death’s dread angel sheathes the sword;
Israel’s hosts triumphant go
Through the waves that drown the foe. Alleluia!
Blood is everywhere! By reducing the blood of the Nile to some other means, our confession is weakened. A weak Christian might ask, “If the Nile didn’t really turn to blood, then what else didn’t happen?”
Even if the red algae theory is tolerable and in harmony with Scripture (and I can’t say that it is right now), TLSB is not the place to promote this, especially if it is not a part of a balanced article weighing other thoughts on the text.
Kretzmann: “not merely be given a blood-red color through the presence of microscopic animals or particles of red clay, but actually be changed into blood, that the river throughout the length of Egypt would flow with the liquid which commonly pulses through the arteries and veins of men and beasts.”
v. 22 ESV “But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts.” It doesn’t seem likely that Egyptian magicians would replicate an algal bloom.
v. 18 “… and the Egyptians will grow weary of drinking water from the Nile.” It does still say “water,” even after it was turned to blood.
The bottom line is that we don’t know if it was blood or something else. I tend to think it was blood, because that is how the text reads, and there’s really no reason for us to go beyond that. The text is too strong! The blood put on the doorposts and lintel saved the Israelites. The blood of the Nile was a disaster for the Egyptians. A great example of God’s hand working in history to preserve His people.