Wednesday, June 28, 2006

In Hot Pursuit

Genesis 31:22-55

Three days later, Laban realizes that his family has skipped town and for the next seven days he hunts them down. God appears to Laban in a dream and tells him not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad.

So Laban catches up to them and promptly says to Jacob "What have you done? You've deceived me, and you've carried off my daughters like captives in war. Why did you run off secretly and deceive me? Why didn't you tell me, so I could send you away with joy and singing to the music of tambourines and harps? You didn't even let me kiss my grandchildren and daughters good-by. You have done a foolish thing. I have the power to harm you; but last night the God of your father said to me, ' Be careful not to say anything to Jacob, either good or bad.' Now you have gone off because you longed to return to your father's house. But why did you steal my gods?"

This is Laban's version of not saying anything to Jacob, either good or bad. It seems like he says a lot- most of it critical- yet he seems oblivious to the idea that he hasn't followed God's order. Maybe he thinks the disclaimer excuses the action. I shouldn't say this but...

Jacob says he left out of fear but says the gods were not stolen. In fact, he tells Laban "...if you find anyone who has your gods, he shall not live." Laban searches and fearfully Rachel puts the gods in her camel's saddle and sits on it. She tels her dad, I'd get up, but, as she so delicately puts it, "I'm having my period." Luckily Laban doesn't discover Rachel with them. Would Jacob really have killed Rachel if her dad had discovered them. It seems like rash vows like this are seldom a good idea.

Jacob lets Laban have it. This seems like a dream opportunity for Jacob. You've been such a slime ball, and finally I get a chance to let you know how I feel. And amazingly the rebuke seems pretty well received. Maybe Laban is really living up to the not saying anything good or bad to Jacob at this point. Jacob ends the rant by saying that last night God had rebuked Laban. Was this decree from God punishment? It reads more like a warning to me.

The chapter ends with a covenant between father and son-in-law. Jacob promises to take no other wives besides Laban's daughters and not to mistreat them. They lay down some stones and promise not to go beyond the heaps attempting to bring harm to the other.

Once again, this is pretty weird. Laban seems more concerned about losing his idols then his family. This may indicate his lack of faith in Jehovah. Jacob had 14 years with this man and it seems like not much has rubbed off faith-wise. Although, it may be that Jacob's heart is on worldly things at this point too; heaping up riches and procreating.

Why does God give Laban the orders he does- and is it significant that God speaks to such a devious character as Laban? Is he testing Laban's resolve? Is it a chance for him to do right? Is the message here that we're all God's children, from those in Jesus' line to those who have a history of the most dastardly deeds.

So Rachel escapes with her little tin gods, and Jacob and Laban are at peace.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Haron Idol

Genesis 31:1-21

Laban changes his tune about Jacob and his wages when it becomes apparent that Jacob stands to gain so much. Laban changes the wages multiple times (ten according to Jacob) but to no avail. Jacob realizes that God has been helping him get rich. He says,

"If he [Laban] says 'The speckled ones will be your wages', then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said 'The streaked ones will be your wages, then all the young bore streaked young.'"

This kind of "luck" causes Laban and his sons to sour toward Jacob and his clan. They see their inheritance slipping away and suddenly Jacob doesn't seem to be such a catch anymore.

So God tells Jacob, pick it up and go home. Rachel and Leah concur- our father loves his sheep more than he loves us. He sold us and why shouldn't we profit from our father's possessions. Rachel really seems to believe this since she ends up stealing Laban's "household Gods" before they depart. Jacob also "deceives" Laban by not telling him that he was going home.

There's quite a bit of story, but the application isn't overly blatant to me. Jacob is pretty comfortable with talking directly to God. This method of communication seems to be fairly common place during this period of time, even for folks like Jacob who have been less than honest. Jacob is in the sacred line though, so maybe that's why he's got the hotline.

I don't think I would call Jacob's action here deception, although Moses does, and I guess technically he secretly sneaks away with Laban's daughters. But I see this as the equivalent as quitting without giving your notice. Besides, God's told him to get out of Dodge. Maybe the lesson here is that integrity goes beyond speech. He knew that Laban wouldn't be pleased and he purposely snuck away so Laban couldn't protest or try to keep what was Jacob's. Maybe the honest thing to do is to say- I'm done, I'm gone. I hope not, because I think we're about to do the same thing with the church we're attending.

Maybe the lesson here is that deception isn't always the same as lying. Maybe there are times when we could avoid conflict, save feelings and feuding by not answering questions, by avoiding issues, by choosing not to fight and instead sneaking away in the middle of the night.

Just don't take the idols with you.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Jacob Plans Sheepishly

Genesis 30: 25-43

After Joseph is born, Jacob decides it's time to take his family out on it's own, and Laban isn't too keen on the idea. He pleads- "Name your wages and I'll pay them."

This reinforces my thinking that Jacob's shepherding is Laban's primary concern over the last fourteen years. I've been given such wealth, and now he's leaving- how can I make him stay?

Jacob says, ok- I'll keep charge of your flock if you give me all the spotted or speckled sheep and goast and also every dark-colored lamb. Laban is so desperate that he agrees and Jacob begins to build wealth of his own. He devises a system of keeping the strong animals together to mate away from Laban's but he lets Laban have the weak ones back.

A few thoughts:
This passage may be further evidence of Jacob doting on Rachel. Once she has her child, they're ready to move. Maybe it was her opportunity to show off in front of her family. Maybe it was coincidence, but this event seems to be the catalyst inspiring Jacob to head for his own hills.

It seems significant that Jacob builds with the spotted, the streaked and the speckled- the less than pure, and uses them to build his fortune. I'm hesitant to make the same claim of the dark lambs, but it seems like there may be two purposes here. First, and most literally- by taking the spotted animals, it is easy to tell whose animals belong to who.

Second, though, maybe Moses is giving us another example of God's love for those who are less than pure- those that need him most. So he looks down and sees the spotted soul, the streaked, and the tarnished, and instead of trading up- instead of looking for the holier soul, He says, no- I'll take you, I'll wash you, and you'll be whiter than snow.

Maybe too though, the fact that he sends the weak back indicates our need to get stronger. He'll take us as we are, He'll help us to grow and strengthen, but if we're content to stay weak- He let's us wander back to Laban.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Wonder Womb-an

Genesis 29:31-30:24

God looks down and sees that Leah is unhappy- unloved, He opens up her womb. And when He opens, He opens. This section is comprised of an attempt by both wives to gain Jacob's favor by supplying him with offspring.

Once again, I'm struck by the importance of the names they give their children. In fact the names themselves sort of comprise the plot for this section.

Leah first bears Reuben, or (perhaps) "he has seen my misery. " So God sees Leah's blues and Reuben is a token to cheer her up. This is the most affirming lesson for me in this section. God sees our pain, He sees our longing to be loved- and he more than makes up for the love we don't get. He does it for Leah here, and for Rachel a little later- and He does it for us.

Leah sees the gift of son #2 to be for the same reason so she names him Simeon, or "one who hears." I assume that Jacob had no part in choosing the names of his children. Is this consistent with the customs of this time, or is Jacob a slacker dad?

Apparently the birth of his first two offspring did little to endear Jacob to Leah- but she figures the third time is the charm. On his birth she says"Now at last my husband will become attached to me because I have borne him three sons." So she names him Levi, or "attached."

Maybe Leah started to give up on winning Jacob's heart when son #4 came around. She's thankful for him- but maybe she realizes that she could produce an entire baseball team for him and it wouldn't help. She names this one Judah, or "praise."

For someone not loved by her husband, Leah was getting plenty of physical attention from Jacob. I wonder if these children were born in the period of time before Rachel married him, in the seven year of service span. It would explain the number of nights spent with Leah instead of Rachel. That would mean that the story was told out of chronology, but I don't think that would be out of the question.

It's also at this point that Rachel realizes- hey, I'm not bearing any children. So she gets jealous of Leah and angry at Jacob. It should seem obvious that Jacob's not the problem, but Rachel lashes out. In desperation, she visits an old trick that Sarai tried. Marry and sleep with my maidservant. We know how well that worked for Sarai.

Bilhah, Rachel's servant has a child and Rachel reacts with triumph. Somehow in her mind, this birth will even things out. She names him Dan or "vindicated." Bilhah's next son does more than even things out- Rachel says "I have had a great struggle with my sister and I have won." So she names him Naphtali, or "my struggle." What a happy message to have associated with your name.

Leah tries to up the ante by giving Jacob her maidservant. Jacob has plenty of stress with his two wives, I can only imagine how complicated his life must have gotten after adding the emotions of the two maidservants. So Jacob's fourth wife Zilpah bears Jacob two sons- first Gad, or good fortune (or a troop which would have been a good name for the offspring collectively) and Asher, or happy, named because Leah was so happy that another child had been born to her camp.

At this point Reuben gets some mandrake plants for his mother. Leah asks for some and Leah responds pretty boldly to the favorite wife. "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take away my son's mandrakes too?" Rachel says give me the mandrakes and you can sleep with Jacob tonight.

This strikes me as odd- two wives are planning the husband's amorous schedule. It seems like Jacob would have reacted strongly to such a loss of power. Maybe he didn't have much to begin wiith. This family seems to be comprised of very strong-willed women.

Leah ges pregnant three more times- once with Issachar, or reward. She saw his birth as a reward for giving Jacob the gift of her maidservant. Secondly, Zebulon, or honor. She's back to clinging to desperation. She believes the sixth son will cause Jacob to honor her. Five didn't do it, but six is the magic number.

Some time later she gave birth to Dinah. No significance on the name and not much detail given. Another biblical example of potential misogyny. Maybe this comes more from Moses being sexist than any intentional slight from God. It's still a little worrisome.

Finally God remembers Rachel and she has her first child, Joseph. She's waited all this time and her response with his name is not joy, praise, or relief, although she certainly feels these things. She names him Joseph, or "may he add" hoping God will grant her another son.

In this long list of names I find another lesson here too. Since God provides, be satisfied. He blesses amazingly- but be gracious about His gifts. I guess, though, her "impertinence" actually pays off- she gets her wish in the future.

In case you were wondering:
Blaine: a servant of Blann, a Scottish saint - thanks mom and dad


Note:  name meanings except for Blaine:  NIV

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Surprise!

Genesis 29:14b-30

Jacob and Laban seem to be hitting it off. In fact, Laban approaches him and says- I know you're my relative and all but let me pay you something for your work. Jacob's response was probably not quite what Laban expected- I'll trade you seven years of labor for your beautiful daughter, Rachel.

I think that Laban was attempting to be shrewd, and initially it bit him. He may have realized that Jacob was a good worker and thought, this working for free thing is probably going to get old for him fast- let me make an attempt to pay him- and then he'll stick around.

But Jacob was ready for him- I'll stick around- but it will cost you. And while this is all speculation, I think this is what sparks the Leah charade.

Jacob marries his dream girl, has his night of bliss, and wakes up in the morning and...it's the homely sister. It's like the old cliche about the drunk who takes home the beautiful woman who doesn't seem quite so beautiful when the sobriety of morning hits. Maybe Jacob was toasted after the big marriage celebration. There's nothing written about it, except that there was a big feast, but how could he not know? For seven years he's dreamed of Rachel, admired her, even kissed her- but he couldn't figure out this was someone else?

And maybe there's a subtle lesson about beauty tucked into all of this. Jacob couldn't tell it wasn't Rachel- he wasn't unhappy until the morning came. How important was the beauty of Rachel in the scheme of it all? Maybe God's lesson here is not to focus on beauty- it's not as important as we make it out to be.

And why the deception? Laban may have thought- OK- I got seven years for him- but if I give him Leah, I can get seven more. Plus my girls will still be local. I think that Laban is smart enough to realize that while his plan would get his less appealing girl married, it couldn't make for much of a happy life for her.

What girl dreams of her husband waking up the night after the wedding disappointed, disgusted, irate- and hungrier than ever for someone else. How would those seven years have been for poor Leah (well, poor in a sense, she was in on this deception)? I would think she knew even now that her husband desperately loved someone else. Ahh, what a honeymoon.

And in contrast, Rachel knows that this beau will work 14 years for her and will endure the homely sister if it means he can have her. The romanticism may have increased for Rachel, but at the expense of Leah. I wonder if Rachel was in on this- surely on some level she had to be, she knew she wasn't getting married.

And Jacob marries into a family as crafty as his own. Rebekah's blood flows strong through this crafty crew. Maybe the lesson here is what goes around comes around. Yeah, you got your dad- but you're plenty dupable too, pal.

This is also, I believe, the first OT reference to bigamy. It seems to be no big deal- I wonder when culturally that became okay- and again when it became taboo. I doubt it was ever smart.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Kissin' Cousins

Genesis 29: 1-14a

So Jacob gets close to Laban's place and sees some shepherds in the field. He asks them if they know Laban and how he was. As they talk, Rachel approaches with the sheep. Somehow, he takes it upon himself to assume managerial sheperding duties and instructs Laban's workers to water the sheep. Maybe he sees how beautiful Rachel is and wants to prolong their time together- maybe he feels a familial obligation to make sure things are taken care of, but the sheperds let him know that it isn't yet time. The sheep need first to be gatehred and the stone needs to be first rolled away from the well.

When Jacob sees Rachel, he determines to roll away the stone himself and water the sheep. Maybe he's overjoyed to finally reach his destination and meet his kin, but it seems like he's totally hitting on her here. Let me water these sheep for you- and that rock, no problem hon, I can move it myself. Just have a seat and I'll join you in a minute. After he finishes with the watering he kisses her and begins to weep aloud.

This sounds a bit forward except that Laban embraces and kisses him too- so maybe this is just more of a custom of the time. I'm guessing he enjoyed the first kiss more than the second.

Maybe the lesson here is how we should treat family. Laban responds to Jacob's tale by saying "You are my own flesh and blood."  (NIV)While we definitely have an obligation to our kin- perhaps it's more significant that the church is later told to love each other like brothers. If we are Christians, we are family.

That doesn't mean I'm going to kiss you.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Led Zeppelin Dreams

Genesis 28:10-22

So Jacob hits the road for Laban's place and when he stops for the night he dreams of a stairway to heaven. Angels walk up and down with God at the top. God identifies himself and promises Jacob what he promised Abraham. Jacob wakes up and declares the land he is on the gate of heaven. He yanks out some oil and pours it on the rock he used as a pillow and calls the place "Bethel" or "house of God."

It's amazing to me that Jacob doesn't have any problem excepting that his dream is a vision and not the result of fatigue, stress about his death threats or the result of one too many pieces of pepperoni pizza the night before. He never suggests an earthly explanation for the dream, simply- God is here.

Does God still use our dreams this way? Dreams seem to tell us that we're worried or stressed or dealing with neuroses, but does God use them to work in our lives still? It seems significant that God identifies himself. Contemporary claims of God speaking often seem to be much more vague messages interpreted by the dreamer. Here God spells out his identity.

In the end of the chapter, Jacob strikes a bargain with God and says if God will watch over me on this journey and feed me and clothe me so that I can get back home safely, then He'll be my God, and I'll give him ten percent of all that He gives me.

This bargaining with God seems a little manipulative- like mother, like son perhaps. Burt Reynolds does the same thing in "The End" for comic effect- but here Jacob's not joking. It seems odd that this testing of God is treated so ordinarily. Moses isn't making obvious commentary on the need to trust God- Jacob tests God and no one seems to mind.

Coda: This also seems to be the first reference to tithing. Where does this percentage come from? What makes Jacob think- a tenth will be fair? Why not 5%? Why not 50%? And does this seemingly arbitrary (at this point) number mean anything for us today?
The Brotherhood of Black Sheep

Genesis 27:41-28:9

So Esau has lost his blessing and with it his patience for his family. In fact, he figures that Isaac is getting up in years and that his passing will be a great opportunity to kill his brother Jacob. Obviously, this is a poor choice- but it's hard for me to be too critical considering how Esau's been treated since day one. No, it doesn't warrant murder, but you can understand how he could be at his breaking point.

Unfortunately, or I guess fortunately, he's not too smart about it and mouths off enough that word gets back to Rebekah. I don't remember disliking Rebekah so much, but it seems like just about every choice we see her make is manipulative, controlling or deceptive. She whines about how much she hates the Hittite women and her melodramatics cause Isaac to send Jacob away to her less than trustworthy brother Laban. This family is bad news.

Maybe the lesson here is the importance of marrying well. She might have been a babe, but it seems like Isaac and Esau were both caused a lot of pain because of her attempts to work the strings of the puppet. She was looking out for Jacob- trying to protect him, but at what cost? Anyone who has ugly divorces within the family, or even ugly marriages, knows how widespread the damage can be. Happy men can ruin their lives by making the wrong choice. Trusting women can have their emotions and egoes demolished by picking the wrong man- and the carnage can spread to parents, siblings and most commonly, offspring. Witness Esau.

She tells Jacob he should hideout with Laban until Esau "forgets what you did to him." Whoa- 2 things here- first she seems to minimize her part in the whole affair. I mean, I know it was my idea and all, but look what YOU did. Second, she seems to belittle the extent of the damage done. Esau is mad enough to kill Jacob and she thinks they can wait it out until he forgets about it. What, in 75 years? Esau is a little simple-minded, but it seems like it's not too likely that one day he'll wake up and forget why he hates his brother so much.

Once Esau hears that Isaac blesses Jacob and send him away to avoid marrying a Canaanite woman, he reacts naturally. He goes to another famous outcast, Ishmael and marries his daughter. Knowing next to nothing about geography, I'm assuming that she's of the undesirable clan and Esau knows this will annoy Isaac. Ishmael died a few chapters back- but it's possible that the account is told out of chronological order. Since his death is listed at the end of a geneology, it might be that this account happens somewhere in the middle of that list. The other option is that going to Ishmael means going to Ishmael's people. The first choice makes more sense to me.

It's interesting that these two men, both of whom let the unfairness of their lives dictate their futures- Esau by plotting murder, Ishmael by creating a clan of hostility (maybe his fault, maybe a victim of circumstance) end up together wallowing in the injustices of life. This scenario seems to match my own experiences. When wronged, you seek out others wronged, discuss conspiracy theories and collectively fume. Sometimes the blowing off of steam is beneficial, sometimes it leads to making an important decision, but sometimes it's a way to make the pain linger and the anger grow.

I think a major lesson here is the depths Esau goes to strike back at Isaac- and to see how damaging a father's failure can be to his son. How different would all of these lives have been if Rebekah acted purely, if Isaac had made better choices, if they had been the parents to Esau that they were to Jacob. But instead, the damage they inflicted shaped a bitter, angry man- who marries for spite.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Maybe we should have named him Harry

Genesis 26: 1-40
This is a very familiar story, but I have a hard time finding many moral lessons from it. There's a whole lot of lying going on.

Isaac is getting ready to pass on and tells Esau to go and kill him some food so he can have a great meal and in exchange he'll give him his blessing. In addition to his eyesight, it seems like maybe Isaac has lost a little more, because when Jacob deceives him, he can't tell goat's fur from Esau's hands. Esau must have been some kind of hairy.

Jacob doesn't work alone, Rebekah helps him plot, in fact this whole deception is her idea. It seems sad that she is so willing to thwart her husband's last wishes. Maybe the sister/wife incident started her down the path of rationalizing her actions.

Jacob is right there ready to rationalize too. When he asks Rebekah about the differences in skin between he and his brother, his language (at least in the NIV) is less than critical of his own proposed actions. He doesn't say, this is a bad thing to do- he says "I would appear to be tricking him" (emphasis mine).Have they lived amongst deception so long that they are oblivious to it?

Sin does work that way. When we get deeper and deeper, what was hard to swallow at first becomes second nature until we have a hard time ever resisting things we at one time would have never thought possible.

The heartbreak comes later. Esau comes back having followed his father's instructions and once again, Jacob has done him wrong. In my mind, Esau, at least up to this point, has acted more like the man of God, but his reward is not found in Isaac's words.

"Your dwelling will be away from the earth's richness, away from the dew of heaven above.
40 You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother. But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck." (NIV)

And would this encounter have made Isaac realize his own frailty? I'm at the point where I can't even differentiate between my sons- and it's not like they're real similar.

Pain caused by a conniving wife and dishonest son.

I don't understand why Isaac could only give one blessing. I don't know how Jacob could keep the blessing and hurt his brother. I don't know how Rebekah could turn on her husband and dupe him. I do know that we are all capable of evil and sin beyond our realization- and maybe this is the point here.

Even good people have moments, days, years, of great sin- we become blinded by lusts and pride and suddenly before we realize what we've done, we've acted in ways that are too horrible to accept. And the only hope we have is turning to God.

Thankfully, it's more than enough.
I Wouldn't Trade Dirty Socks for Lentil Soup

Genesis 25:19-34

So Isaac and Rebekah are married and are having trouble conceiving. Isaac prays to God and at last Rebekah is pregnant. Not only is she pregnant, but they've hit the jackpot- twins. However, after the babies kicked and fought in the womb, Rebekah seems to regret what she's been given.

Maybe the lesson here is to be careful what you wish for. They were sad before (or at least Isaac seemed to be), and when God grants their wish, Rebekah replies with "why me?" It's so easy to map out our own futures, to calculate and figure out what we need to be happy- if I could just get pregnant, if my job were a little better, if church weren't so annoying, if I only had an I-pod, I'd be happy. I suddenly hear Steve Martin chanting "All I need is this paddle game...and this remote control... and that's all I need." But too often the thing we think is the answer doesn't quite do it for us.

It seems weird to me that Isaac, this child of promise that Abraham waited so long for, has so little story. We get the attempted sacrifice from youth and the deception coming up soon, but so little else. But he's still considered a "bible hero." No Red Sea parting, no ark building, no imprisonment- but he's still a man of God. And when I examine myself, no king has demanded my head on a platter, I've never faced the fiery furnace, I've never faced stoning by an angry mob- but maybe the little things I have done are what God expects. He puts in our paths what we can face and that's what he expects.

So Rebekah prays and God tells her- two nations are in your womb and the older will serve the younger- prophecying or foreshadowing what was to come between her two sons. I wonder how this knowledge affected the way she treated her childern. Jacob was her favorite- but she already knew he was destined to control. Did she share the info with her husband? Did he have compassion for his son destined to serve? How would things have been different if the two of them never knew until the action took place?

Maybe just the names influenced the outcome- we'll call one of them Hairy and the other one Deceiver, I wonder how they'll turn out.

At the end of the section Jacob performs his coup. He trades Esau a bowl of lentil stew for his birthright. Esau, Esau, Esau- dumb move big brother. But Jacob knew what he was doing. He manipulated his brother and profited from him. And for this stupid mistake Esau will always be remembered- earning the name Red for his inheritance of red stew. I guess it's better than Hairy.

Jacob goes on to be a different man- but just like all of us, at times he looks out for himself and tries to beat the system. And maybe he lived a lifetime of regret for the pain he caused his brother- and when he saw his children mistreating their brother, I wonder if his mind went back to the wrong he caused Esau
Like Father, Like Sons

Genesis 25: 12-18

Short entry tonight- we're back to lists of names. A couple of quick observations though:

Ishmael passes on at the age of 137. Earlier in this chapter, Abraham's 175 was referred to as a "good old age."(NIV) I guess 137 isn't too shabby either. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like they were 137 happy years.

After all the problems, it seems the dysfunction didn't end with Ishmael. This section ends with the idea that Ishmael's decendants "lived in hostility toward all their brothers."

I understand that each man answers for his own sins, but it seems like this quick glimpe into Ishmael's family might illustrate how easy it is to emulate the pain, bitterness, and selfishness you witness in your own family. It's amazing how easily one generation can mess up the next.
Even well-intentioned parents (like Abraham must have been...right?) can end up passing neuroses down the line whose effects are shown generations later. And the solution is not to avoid having children, not to try to become super-protective parents shielding your children from the world (this has it's own bundle of neuroses), but instead to do the best you can- to understand that some of your own pain, fears and neuroses are the result of things that aren't your fault.

It doesn't lessen your responsibility or desire to work through those items and become more than you were- but it helps to understand what you're going through. And the good news is, God is bigger than any of that pain.
Goodbye Abraham

Genesis 25:1-11

The torch officially passes in this set of verses. Abraham makes up for lost time- remarries and has six more children. But in the end, when death finds him, he is buried with Sarah. In addition to the six children with Keturah (the new Mrs. Abraham) there is also a reference to children with concubines. At his death, though, he left all he had to his son Isaac. Was Abe still trying to patch things up with Isaac, or is the bond between father and chosen son so strong that no other offspring crossed his mind?

It strikes me as significant that at this time of mourning, Isaac doesn't act alone to handle the physical affairs of the burial. Isaac and the seemingly neglected Ishmael take care of that task. What must it have been like for Ishmael to return from isolation to help the "chosen son" bury the absentee dad that everyone respected so? Would the news of Isaac inheriting it all have opened old wounds, or by this point has Ishmael come to expect it?

And even the blessing from God mentioned goes to Isaac. It makes me assume that there's more to Ishmael than we're told- or maybe Ishmael is an example of enduring when it seems that everyone, even God, is against you.

And maybe the reward for Ishmael came later on- separate from Isaac, separate from Christ's lineage, and separate from any report we need to figure out God's will for us.

And maybe when it seems like the world is against us too, quietly, apart from any fanfare, headlines or the public eye, God reaches down and gives us enough to make it one more day, through one more trial, over one more mountain...until it's over and the reward comes.

Abraham lived to "a good old age, an old man and full of years." (NIV) By our standards yes, 175 almost gets you to Willard Scott's announcement twice- but by Old Testament standards it seems just that...standard. I wonder what it meant to "die young" at that time.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker

Genesis 24

If you can remember back to the last time I actually blogged, Sarah had just passed away, and as this chapter opens we find Abraham thinking about his son's future.

It's interesting to think about the possible relationship between these two. While we often hear about the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, we don't much discuss the aftermath. There's nothing written about it (which more or less explains the lack of discussion) but consider the dysfunction. Remember, Abraham tried to kill his son- yes it was God-ordained, and God stopped the death-inducing slash, but how would that moment have changed the relationship of father and son?

I wonder how comfortable Isaac would have been in Abe's presence. Would he worry that God would speak up again? While his intellect understood his father's obedience, did his heart resent the possibly perceived betrayal.

And now Sarah- the potential bridge between father and son is gone. And Isaac is left with his father.

How awkward was it for Abraham at this point? He acted out of faith- but did it cost him the warmth of his son? And while this is total speculation- is that why he acts at the beginning of this chapter to try and bring some peace to Isaac's life?

It seems significant that Abraham trusts such an important task of choosing his son's mate to a servant. Abraham seemed to know the value of delegation- a lesson that is easy to ignore. Too often we try to carry the load ourselves, neglecting the help that we could get for each other. This independent spirit seems a lot more in line with patriotism than Christianity. We don't like to admit our need for each other, our inability to handle it all on our own.

Abraham here let's his servant handle the important task and trusts that it will be handled the way God intends.

God commands going back to the homeland to find a wife. While Abraham here is following God's command, it's a little puzzling to me why God commands this. Is this an issue of race (keeping God's physical nation pure), or is it a matter of making sure that Isaac's partner comes from a land that knows and reveres Jehovah, helping ensure a smoother coexistence between these strangers who are spouses to be?

The method of choosing the bride also seems a little odd. The servant sets up a test. The woman who offers water to the camels is the woman who is to be the bride. It seems like this might be a "test" for God to get the choice made. While the process ultimately works, it's puzzling to think about God's nature in relation.

It seems ludicrous to assume that I can set up some random, arbitrary method of judgment and claim that it comes from God. The first 11 students to show up to class will be the ones who deserve A's, the first candidate who ties his shoe is the one we should hire, the first charity request written in blue ink will get our money. But as ridiculous as it seems, here, it's the right choice. So what do we take from it? (Jana's take..."she was nice")

Its cool to me that once it works, the servant praises God. It's not, God please help me; it's not God, I need you- it's simply God...thanks! - and God... You're awesome. That's not something we hear often enough. It's as important to remember God in joy as it is in sorrow or fear- and that's what the servant seems to do.

We also see some foreshadowing of Laban's sneakiness. He agrees that the decree is from above, but tries to prolong the departure. We'll see more sneakiness with Rachel later on.

So, Isaac gets his bride and all is well. The chapter ends with this thought:
So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

A result of Abraham looking out for his boy- I'd like to think the gap to Isaac got bridged.
The Patriarch Formerly Known as Abraham

Genesis 23

After 127 years, Sarah passes on, and in his grief Abraham seeks to find a burial place. Apparently, they were traveling at the time of her death and Abraham was forced to find somewhere amongst the Hittites to leave Sarah's body.

When he tries to buy some property, the Hittites reply, "Sir, listen to us. You are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will refuse you his tomb for burying your dead."

Was this response based on Abraham's socio-economic status? Or was it based on Jehovah's presence in Abraham's life? While God had done some amazing things in Abraham's life at this point, it seems that most of them were things that would be more amazing personally and not on a large scale. The birth of Isaac and his near sacrifice, while amazing, would be easier to explain away by skeptics than say, the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea or Christ's resurrection. Not that skeptics can't find ways to cast doubt on these too, I just wonder at the legendary status of Abraham's life during his lifetime- although earlier on the kings had heard about the wife/sister controversies.

So Abraham says sell- they say- no you can have it for free- Abraham says- please sell me a certain cave, I'll pay full price- they say please take it for free- Abraham says no, please let me pay, they say you can have it, but it's worth 10 pounds of silver.

It seems like Abraham is having a hard time excepting charity. This is such a tough issue for so many people to deal with. While at times we may be amazingly generous with what we have, sometimes the real challenge comes in humbling ourselves enough to take what's being offered.
I sense that Abraham is a rich dude, without much need of financial help, and maybe he saw this act of buying a tomb as a way to honor his dead wife- but it also might be true that a group of people who respected him and wanted to pay tribute and honor to him were denied the opportunity because he was unwilling to accept their charity.

It's often difficult to express love and actually find things we can DO for each other, especially in this culture where it's a struggle to think of something we want for Christmas that won't sit in a closet or clutter up our lives. We don't NEED anything- we've pretty much gotten most of the financial concerns under control most of the time. But when we don't, others finally have an opportunity to show their love by doing for us- if we'll let them.

Now these folks seem like strangers, and maybe Abraham made the right choice by actually using what he had- money- to feel like he had some control of the world spinning around him after Sarah passed. But I think the lesson here might be to offer help when people are suffering-even if they are strangers- even if they might not need it.

We get plenty of detail about the lot and the fact that it was deeded to Abraham. Seems like filler material, but it must be there for some reason. Any insights?
And you think religion's scarred you

Genesis 22: 1-19

This section is the familiar story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son on the altar for God. I've wondered (and in fact still do) why God needed this proof. He can read our hearts, right? He knows what tomorrow holds in store, so why is this test necessary?

Maybe it was for Abraham. Maybe the result is Abraham saying- ok, I've made some bad choices, I've been afraid, I've been dishonest, but in this very major test involving my beautiful child, I passed. I am truly devoted to my Lord and God.

The text never really says it was for God's benefit. It says that God tested Abraham (but not for what purpose) and the Angel of the LORD said " Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son" (NIV) - so maybe God did know the outcome, it was a test designed to benefit those around.

The whole point-of-view thing involving God is frustratingly difficult to understand. God is testing Abraham according to verse one- but then the angel says you have not withheld your son from ME. Is he the angel of death? Is God speaking through the angel (in which case my outcome explanation doesn't make sense).

Obviously, Abraham shows all kinds of faith here. God has promised over and over to bless the world through my seed- and God wants to take him away. It seemed so close finally, but maybe we're starting over. God knows best.

Jana points out that there is a verse in the NT stating that Abraham thought He would ressurect Isaac (another reference to Jesus?). Once again though- believing he can and would both would take much faith.

So Abraham passes with flying colors- and his reward...the SAME promise he already had been given- or at least pretty close.

Here the angel appears to be quoting God and says "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Can you imagine Abraham pausing and puzzingly responding...ummm, thanks. But wasn't I already receiving that? Maybe that's how our blessings work too. We know they're coming but we don't know what's in between here and the finish line that we'll have to face before we're allowed to get there.

I'm sure Isaac had some pretty high child psycho-therapy bills after this incident. To see your dad, knife poised, ready to bring you closer to your maker in a less than touchy-feely way would have to have some effect. Did this incident affect his childhood? Did it affect his parenting later on? Did it make him wake up in the night shivering, thinking he sensed Abraham's trembling figure ready to strike again? How would this affect his faith? Would he think that at any time he could be the lamb again?

I'm not sure how foreshadowing works in non-fiction, but this seems to be a pretty clear allusion to incidents following involving God's son- only no angel stops the hands nailing Him to the cross.

It seems a little sacreligious to verbalize, but the themes of child sacrifice are frightening to me- and if they weren't coming from God, I would label them sick and twisted. How do we come to grips with this (fixation doesn't seem like quite a respectable enough word) use of child trauma (both grown and not)?

On a lighter note- folks in this day seem to be less imiganitive than Adam. Adam named the animals and had to come with quite a few- but it seems like later on things are named pretty literally. Abraham names the mountain "The LORD will provide."

I've decided to name my socks "they smell from Chip's feet but Jana will wash them soon." What... you don't name your socks?
Names to Avoid if You're Expecting a Child

Genesis 22:20-24

Joy of joys, I was hoping for another list of names. Very short section, much of which consists of names of Abraham's relatives. We find out that some time later Abraham received word of 8 children born to his brother and sister-in-law. I wonder what his reaction would have been.
I've finally gotten a son (actually 2, but I don't get the sense he was bragging about Ishmael)- oh, what do you hear from home? My brother has 8, huh? Did I mention that my seed will be blessed?

Maybe more significantly, in an era of cell-phones and email, it's hard to imagine not hearing about being an uncle until the 8th child has been born. Abraham truly left his family behind. Did this news make him homesick? Reminiscent of days horsing around with Nahor? I talk to family almost every day- imagine going 8 years (or more) without speaking to your brother. And then hearing about how much his life has changed.

I guess it should make us realize the blessings of our time- even if we forget to turn off our cell phones and our inboxes are full of spam.
The Boy Who Cried Sister

Genesis 21: 22-34

A short passage without a lot of blatant meat. Abimilech and his captain Phicol meet with Abraham and say- God's always with you, please be honest with us and treat us like we've treated you. Abraham agrees.

I might be reaching here but, does Abimilech react this way to Abraham because of his history of deception with men in power regarding the nature of his relationship with Sarah? Is he saying- the word's out, Abraham, we've heard that you duped other important men, and they got in trouble with your God- and the consequences weren't good- please don't lie to us too.

It seems sad to me that God's "leader" of the day had garnered a reputation as someone who couldn't be trusted. Someone who later in the chapter was inclined to offer 7 sheep as evidence that he was being honest about owning a well. Was his word not enough?

Maybe these were both standard practices at the time- maybe the sheep weren't necessary, Abimilech doesn't seem to know what they were for. But maybe if Abraham hadn't tried to snooker other leaders, none of it would have been an issue.

They also know about God being with Abraham- not only suggesting that they may have known about the Sarah stories, but also that God's power had impressed and distressed these who only knew Him from afar.

Lessons for me:

The lies you tell today haunt you in the future- so work to develop honesty. Depend on God to get you through troubles instead of your keen talent for fiction.

God is more powerful than a potential enemy. They were impressed by what He had done. He's just as powerful today.

After the treaty, Abraham calls upon God. And maybe that's the central lesson. Whatever choices you make, right or wrong, good or dumb, include God. He can pick up the slack.
No Kidding a Kidder

Genesis 21: 8-20

And the laughter stops. Sarah, who as all laughs in the last section, doesn't like the satirical stylings of Ishmael. His mocking of Isaac doesn't go over very well, and she has Abraham send him and his mother away. It seems like Sarah was destined to have problems with these two anyway.

After she set up the encounter between Hagar and Abraham back in chapter 16, Hagar got resentful, Sarai started mistreating her, and surprise- the two women who shared a man had trouble coexisting.

And now, when Ishmael makes fun of his little half-brother, Sarah has had enough and it's off to the desert with them. At least in my mind it comes off a little harsher than we aren't getting along, let's part ways. "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac." (NIV)

In so many ways, I feel like I relate a whole lot more to Ishmael than Isaac. Rarely have I felt like I fit in in church circles. The kids my age were the "chosen ones"- they had nicer clothes, were better looking, had more money. I never had the right last name, the same confidence, or maybe even the feeling that people wanted to be around me as much as I wanted to be around them.

And my defense mechanism? Mockery. In ways probably both healthy and not, I've depended on wit, and maybe even more often ridicule to account for insecurities and strive to fit in.
Ishmael probably felt the same way. Hey, Abraham's my father- and all I keep hearing is that I'm not the chosen one. The seed won't come through the slave. We'll tolerate Ishmael, because of Abraham, but he's really not one of us. And when he strikes back with his weapon, humor, it doesn't work out for him- he's sent out to the desert to die of thirst.

And Hagar, maybe she overstepped her bounds back in chapter 16, but it seems like she really gets a raw deal. Banishment, because Sarah is offended by her son's sense of humor.

2 big lessons here that I can see.

1) When things get too much for Hagar, she despairs. She can't bear to watch her boy die of thirst, so she goes off and cries. She doesn't call out for God, but He hears her all the same- and reassures her. God saves them by giving them more water- and is with Ishmael as he grows.
God heard the cries of the outcasts. He took them under his wing- why shouldn't I believe he doesn't do the same today? Even if the Christian poster-children reject you, that doesn't mean that God does. He may even fulfill your needs without your having to ask for them.

2) God tells Abraham not to worry about Ishmael and Hagar. He says the line is coming through Isaac. While I don't understand why he still shouldn't have shown greater compassion on the fruit of his loins, it's important to realize that God's running the show. Abraham- I've got it under control- now matter how much worrying you do- how much you try to work it all out, I'm still in charge, and through me it'll all work out.

It's hard to let go of the things you can't really control. Maybe God saw that Hagar and Sarah were never going to get along, and used the situation for the best furtherance of His plans.
How hard it is to not try to work things out for God.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Why Mrs. Lewis went with Jerry instead of Isaac

Genesis 21:1-6

So it finally happens. Abraham sees the promise start to come about. Isaac is born. Interesting that vs 2 says that the promise happened at the very time God had promised him. Does that mean God gave Abraham more detail then what we have here in Genesis? Is that God's way of saying, it'll be on My schedule- and look- here it is on My schedule? The former seems to make more sense to me.

It does change the story a bit, though, to think of Abraham having a tentative schedule for the blessings God had promised. Easier to keep the faith if there's a deadline involved that hasn't yet been passed.

I think it's pretty cool that Sarah names the son Isaac (he laughs) and says "God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me." She laughed when she heard about the promise, and I guess finally having a child kept the joy alive.

Quite a lot of pressure to be funny if your name is Isaac. I've met one or two in my life. Not funny guys.

Lesson here for me: God follows through. Keep the faith, great things are coming.
Like Kissing Your Sister

Genesis 20

Once again I find myself a little puzzled by what transpires in this passage. In a retread of Genesis 12, Abraham claims that Sara is his sister and Abimilech takes her for his wife. Once again, I'm struck by the cowardly nature of this action from a man of such great faith. In order to save himself (I assume this is why), he's willing to let his wife be the loved one of someone else.

Now, God steps in before Abimilech does anything too severe, but Abraham seems willing to risk it. Abimilech says- wait...I didn't know, Abraham told me she was his sister. And God replies, I know, that's why I've stopped you from sinning.

So when Abraham is confronted with his story, he replies- well, she is my half-sister, so I wasn't really lying. It seems like this justification smacks of legalism. It's technically true, although I'm leaving out the pertinent parts that were really more crucial to your question.

And God tells Abimilech to return his wife and Abraham will pray for him. So, the offense is against Abimilech, even though it was Abraham being shady.

As in Genesis 12, I have a hard time coming to grips with Abraham's action being okay- but I'm still struck again by a man of God doing less than Godly things. Maybe that's what I'm supposed to take away. Even the greatest men of faith didn't have it all together- why should it surprise you that you struggle?

It actually doesn't, but it's nice to know that it doesn't surprise God either.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Branchless Family Trees

Genesis 19:30-38

One of the more disgusting passages thus far. In short, Lot's daughters are concerned that there aren't any men around, so they get dad sauced up and get pregnant from him.

How far gone do you have to be for your dad to seem like the best mating option? Is this just an act of desperation or had Sodom really effected them this much?

It's easy to pin the fault on the wine, and say if Lot hadn't enjoyed the wine so much it never would have happened. Those things may be true, but that takes the focus off the real culprits here, Lot's daughters. They connive and dupe dear ole dad.

What's really odd is that this story is told non-judgementally. There's no blatant condemnation- just a matter of fact retelling, an explanation of the birth of the Moabites and the Ammonites. I don't know the history of these people, maybe it's a shady beginning to a shady history, but those details seem to be outside the parameters of this text.

Once again I'm left thinking..."weird"
Vacating Lot

Genesis 19:1-29

OK- so I'm swinging back to part of my original idea. Here, the men refered to in chapter 18 are called angels...but the number has gone from 3 to 2, so it seems that 3rd "man" might have been God, which means the conclusions I derived may have some validity after all. I guess there's something to be said for having all the facts.

This is a pretty troubling passage in my mind. There's no attempt to even find those 10 virtuous men- I guess Sodom's so far gone, it's a safe bet that they aren't there. The angels come and Lot (realizing they're angels?) bows before them and begs them to stay. Is he worshipping them? Showing humility? Simply being hospitable? Have a good idea of what might be in store for them?

Regardless, he convinces them to stay and EVERY man in Sodom comes to Lot's house demanding Lot to release these angels to be at their mercy. It seems like Sodom is usually a tale combatting homosexuality, and while the bible does talk about homosexuality in other places, I think the bigger issue here may be forced sex without consent. Would this behavior be acceptable if the angels were female?

Lot apparently thinks so- he offers his daughters (?!) in their place. How is this ok on any level? Maybe he thinks that at least the rape will be heterosexual in nature. How far gone to you have to be to think that the gang rape of your daughters is an acceptable compromise? Even if it wouldn't have been rape with his daughters, the offer of them sexually is puzzling from someone that God is actively saving in the same context.

There also seems to be a lack of concern for women expressed or at least implied in this passage. What does it say about the value of women in this time (even from God's people) that Lot was willing to give up his daughter's virtue? What does this say about God's feeling toward the genders? In the new testament it says that in Christ there is no man or woman- does this indicate a change in policy? And if so, what brought that change about?

Despite all the troubling questions- there's at least one comforting message in this passage. God takes a servant less than perfect and actively works to save him. Lot's knee deep in the big city, and instead of letting him go down in flames, He sends the angels- they go to destroy, but at the same time, they save Lot. He even bargains with them to escape somewhere easier to survive , they have to pressure him to hurry and they tell him that they can't destroy Sodom until he reaches the city. It sounds like God really wanted to save him- and it only stands to reason that he wants the same for me.

Sometimes he might need to prod me, sometimes I might be stubborn and resist change- but He's still with me, not wanting me to perish- encouraging me to keep moving away from sin and toward Him.

Finally, what's with the salt thing? I get that she was punished for looking back (wow- there's a lesson for me there about looking back and leaving sin behind- not dwelling, just moving forward), but why salt? Why not just strike her dead? Why not a melting goo? Is there some significance to being a pillar of salt?

And what about Gomorrah? We don't really hear about them until the destruction happens. Sodom commits the sin (at least the one we read about) but Gomorrah receives the same fate. Maybe they were in the same boat, but why do we hear about their destruction and not their sin?

Just seems odd.

Talk to you tomorrow,
Chip
Let's Make a Deal

Genesis 18:16-33

Seems like there's quite a lot of insight into the nature of God in this section. This is the section where Abraham negotiates with God for the deliverance of Sodom.

First off- here's some clarity regarding the last section. When last we met, if you recall- The LORD appeared to Abraham, he looked up and saw men standing before him, he fed them and spoke to the LORD. It seemed to me that these men were the personification of God and that his seeing them, and seeing God were the same thing. I waxed eloquent about God eating with Abraham- and drew some conclusions about God's nature.

Here the men depart toward Sodom and Abraham then talks to God... so apparently, they aren't the same entity. So most of that stuff from last time...? Never mind.

3 interesting things from this section:

1) God seems to have a pang of conscience. That's probably an overstatement- but in the course of his time with Abraham, He says to Himself, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" So, God searches Himself and decides sharing His will is the right thing to do. It's funny to think of God having to search his conscience for the right choice. I don't ever think of God in those terms. He's God- He knows right from wrong- He knows it all. But this is a dimension of God that seems a little more complex. He decides...you know what? This is the right thing to do.

2) God responds to an "outcry" regarding Sodom. What does this mean? People praying against the actions of the city? Angels reporting back to God? Is this like the blood of Abel crying out to God. And once again- God doesn't know- He responds to some sort of report and decides to go check it out. God's omniscent- why does He need the cries or the investigation?

3) Abraham does his best yard-sale customer imitation with God and seems to have some success. Would you spare Sodom for 50 righteous men? 45? 40? All the way down to 10- and God goes for it. This is pretty cool. I think it speaks volumes about the power of our prayers. Even things God sets out to do, He's willing to reconsider if we ask Him. This reminds me of a thread we had on the believing blog some time back that Dave started about the purpose of prayer. It's awesome to think that God cares enough about our feelings to even consider altering His plans if it will bring us comfort or joy.

Unless God knew that Abraham wouldn't be able to find those ten. In which case it seems kind of mean. Sure Abraham go ahead and try- it's pointless, but see what you can do. Although even then it could serve as a way for Abraham to understand just why He was commited to the destruction- there aren't even 10 righteous men there Abraham, see for yourself.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Lord's Supper

Genesis 18:1-15

OK- it seems like there's so much nuance that I've never noticed before.

In this section Abraham sees three men approaching and somehow knows these three men are the "LORD". I guess that's what happens. It says the LORD appears to him and he looked up and saw three men standing there. Maybe God appeared and said- look- here I come- but it's not really clear how Abraham knew these men were God. It's also odd that he refers to them as "lord" (not LORD as it appears elsewhere in this text). He does seem to realize who he is talking to though.

Do these three men comprise the trinity? Is it God and some angels? Is it something beyond abstract that is pointless to try to put your mind around?

Abraham begs them to sit and rest and let him get some food and water for them. And they do?! And apparently they don't just eat...they EAT. He tells Sarah to get 20 quarts of flour to make some bread- I haven't ever made bread, but Jana assures me that that would make a lot of bread. I assume they eat the bread, although it's not mentioned- it does say that they had a choice, tender calf and curds and milk. While I'm tempted to use this story to justify my fascination with buffets and what we all plan to do on Thursday(Thanksgiving), the cooler part of this story is that God eats dinner with Abraham. I don't know that Abraham eats- but he's still there with him.

This is a far different picture than the high and mighty, unreachable, easily agitated deity that is so easy to picture in so many stories in the old testament. In some instances it might seem like God and Jesus are contrasting images of each other- God, the warring, burning bush, loud voice in the night, stern leader through the wilderness- bringing the flood and banishing from the garden. But here- he seems an awful lot like the Jesus we see in the New Testament. Sure, I'll hang out for awhile- why thanks, I'd love some food.

They repeat the promise to Abraham about having a son with Sarah- only now they're much more specific. In a year, it will happen. Sarah is amused by this revelation and chuckles in the tent. Remember, just last chapter Abraham reacted the same way- but this time God responds.
"Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?' Is anything too hard for the LORD ?"  (NIV)

Is the reaction because it was Sarah? Maybe it was a cummulative effect. OK, I let it slide last time- but why don't you people take me seriously?

Sarah reacts naturally- when she's confronted with her reaction, she gets nervous, or embarassed and lies about it. How often have I made a bad situation worse by not being straight about my guilt. For me, it's also a temptation to admit to a little bit- it eases the conscience for a few minutes- and then the guilt comes back, and you're worse off than you were before. Oh Sarah, I feel your pain.
Covenants Below the Belt- and Hagar Remix

Genesis 17


God seems to repeat Himself quite a bit in His conversations with Abra(ha)m. Once again He tells Abram his promise, maybe with a little more detail this time, but it still seems like the same old thing. It seems like Abram could have been tempted to respond, at least internally with a "here we go again, I keep hearing this, but I'm waiting to see it happen" kind of mentality. He at least doubts a little- laughing at the idea of a 100 year old man and a 90 year old woman having a child. I'm more tempted to be nauseated at the thought than to laugh, but Abraham laughs as God is telling him. That's pretty gutsy. This great pillar of faith chuckles at promises God makes, "knowing" how outlandish they are. While humor might not be the venue that we use to display it, maybe we doubt the same way- we hear it over and over, but inside we doubt that God can or will come through for us in the end. How could He really forgive us? Why would He bother? Maybe we need Him to constantly remind us so we can actually believe that He will follow through on all He's told us is in store for us, no matter what the sins of our past are.


The covenant is pretty steep. Circumcision. Go ahead, cross your legs, it's a natural reaction. A couple of thoughts here- the command is for everyone 8 days old or older to go through the procedure. A painful thought now- even more so in a time with archaic medical practices, less than sterile operating conditions, and not much in the form of sedation, at least to my knowledge. 8 days old- and if it doesn't happen, you're cut off from God. How can an 8 day old guy have any control at all over this surgery happening? Why did God hold these babies responsible? Or is there more to it- is grace the key even then? God knows who's responsible and when we're able to obey and defy.


What an arduous task for Abraham the next day. To approach a camp full of men of various ages and convince them of the need to have non-health essential medical surgery on their sexual organs to please a God that to my knowledge hadn't spoken directly to them, only to Abraham, must have taken some amazing persuasive skill. It's one thing to give this surgery to a crying baby- but to convince an adult male to endure the pain must have taken some serious commitment.


Abram to Abraham; "exalted father" to "father of many"- but what's the significance of Sarai to Sarah? No indication in the footnotes on that one.


FYI: So the night I wrote the last post I thought about Hagar's situation and I think I had it all wrong. Maybe instead of thinking that God offers a less than appealing promise for Hagar which somehow convinced her to go back to Abram's camp- the message really is God saying- Look Hagar- I know you're in trouble- and things aren't going to get better soon. Ishmael is in for a mess of a time- but know this- I'm here, I'll be watching- and in the end- it will all work out.

And maybe that's what we need to hear too. God says, No, I'm not going to shield you from it all. You'll experience sickness, and fear and guilt, and pain and you may be haunted by the sins of your past- but I'm here, I'll be watching- and in the end it will all work out. And that's more than enough.

Cabo Wabo

Genesis 16

Chapter 16 starts like a bad soap opera set in biblical times. Sarai tries to work out God's promise for Him by setting Abram up with her maidservant. Rationally, this can't end up good. So...things work according to plan, Abram gets Hagar pregnant, and the result? Strife. Once Hagar is pregnant she begins to resent Sarai- which angers Sarai- who takes it out on Abram. Abram! What are you thinking? How could he possibly think this would all turn out okay?

I think all the reactions here are totally reasonable- except maybe Abram's cluelessness. Hagar realizes she has been used and resents it- she has the valuable commodity- the offspring- and is angered at being treated as a servant. Sarai feels herself being pushed out of the picture. And Abram tries to save his own backside by leaving Hagar to Sarai's vengeance.

Hagar has enough and flees. God reaches her in a vision and tells her that she too will have descendants too numerous to count. He then goes on to talk about how bad Ishmael will turn out- how angry he will be and how poorly he will be thought of. Once again, this seems less than comforting. How does this curse/blessing convince Hagar to head back to Abram's residence?

Regardless, she does- and when Ishmael is born Abram is 86 years old. Which of course makes Abram 102 when Ishmael gets his driver's license.
Abram's Heir-Stylist

Genesis 15

The chapter begins with a vision. Abram hears God tell him to not be afraid and that He is Abram's reward. Abram seems potentially frustrated or skeptical replying- "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" and further "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir."

It's comforting in a way to realize that even Abram- who converses directly with God, has moments of doubt, times when promises from God seemed out of reach. If Abram has these moments, how much more so would we? God doesn't reprimand him for a lack of faith, instead He offers words of confirmation. He says- look at the stars, count them, this will be the number of your offspring.

Puzzling though, God requests a heifer, goat, lamb, dove and pigeon. Abram cuts the heifer, goat and lamb in half- the birds remain intact. God then tells Abram about the 400 year suffering his offspring would endure and the eventual punishing of their captors. He tells Abram that he will live a long life.

Vs 17 reads:" When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces." (NIV) Apparently this sealed the covenant- or at least gave Abram a sign to confirm what was said.

What's the deal with the animals? Isn't it enough that God said it? It seems like Abram knows he is speaking to God- if that's the case it wouldn't be to confirm that God is God. Is this a test to see if Abram will follow commands? Is this a form of sacrifice on Abram's part?

Again I'm struck by the long-sightedness it would take on Abram's part to see all of this as a blessing. Yes, the gift of a child would surely seem a blessing. But 400 years of suffering for offspring might seem like a less than stellar gift. Maybe cultural differences allowed Abram to see the blessing- but I doubt that he understood the significance of all he was being given.
What great faith it must take to believe that "blessings" from God, even those that don't seem too positive, are actually things we can trust are for our own good. Wow- to be able to see suffering as a blessing- hard to understand, but truly admirable.

One last puzzling piece: God says that "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." So He's holding off until the Amorites sin a little more? That's pretty scary- when we wallow, God may wait until our wallowing is it at it's worst before stepping in and punishing. Maybe the key here is that these folks were the enemy of His people. Still seems scary.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

King's Row

Genesis 14

I don't remember this story. I'm not sure why it isn't one of the common OT tales, except that the lessons aren't quite so blatant.

There's a pretty major war- 4 kings take on another 5. I don't know any significance of any of the geography, but it sounds like quite a big deal. Sodom and Gomorrah aren't faring too well in this battle- and as they retreat, some of their men fall into tar pits- and the rest escape to the hills. While the cities are deserted, the enemies ransack them and end up capturing Lot.

When Abram hears about it, it's like a bad Steven Seagal film ( I guess that was redundant). He gets the "318 trained men born in his household" and sets to taking care of b'ness. Was he preparing for such a calamity- why the posse at home?

Without much detail, Abram's ninjas "rout" the enemy, save Lot and bring back the plunder. Enter Melchizadek- King of Jerusalem. I'm not sure why he's involved, unless he was king over Abram. It seems like he might be, since Abram gives him 1/10 of all that he comes back with- although it seems like this has more to do with Melchizadek being a high priest.

The king of Sodom offers to let Abram keep all he brought back if he'll only return the people. Abram declines- having given an oath to God and not wanting to get rich off of Sodom. He lets his men keep their share, but returns the rest.

So, what's to learn here? 1) God wants us to risk for the sake of our loved ones. Abram sticks it all out on the line when his nephew is in danger. Get involved! It would have been easy for Abram to shake his head and say...if Lot hadn't gone that way, this never would have happened. Instead, he trusts in God's care and goes and saves him. 2) Do the right thing for the right reason. Instead of profitting off the war effort, Abram doesn't forget the noble reason that led him to fight, and he refuses to compromise that rationale. 3) When you're blessed, share the wealth. This whole tithing thing is a little condemning. I don't know that God wants a meticulous accounting of what we do with our material wealth- but it seems that he expects sacrifice of some kind.

Intersting that Sodom and Gomorroah come off of as 2 of the good guys here. I wonder when they jumped the shark.
Separate Ways (Worlds Apart)

Genesis 13

So Abram and Lot start raking in the moola- we don't know how- maybe selling livestock, but apparently the riches get to such an extent that they run out of room. Too many animals are trying to survive on too little land. And the servants start quarreling.

So to solve the problem they decide- let's go our own ways. This strikes me as sad. An uncle and nephew place greater value in the wealth they've accumulated then in the pleasure of each other's company. Now, I have some uncles who I'd give up wealth to avoid living with- but it seems here that these are people who care about each other, at least to some extent. They've traveled together- Abram tries to do him right by letting him choose where to go- and the ultimate goal is peace. It seems like maybe they've misplaced what is important.

Lot furthers the problem by setting up camp near Sodom. This is the lesson I've always heard from this story. Lot picks the better land and his family is corrupted by the Sodomites. It seems like an emphasis on wealth haunts both these guys before Sodom enters the equation.

An odd aside: After discussing the quarreling of the herdsmen, the following statement occurs-
The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.

As if this is explanation for the quarreling. Is there some struggle going on historically between these two peoples? Could Abram and Lot been mixed up in the politics of these warring folks? Is this concept randomly placed within for some other purpose?

Buckle up gang- we all know where this story is going.

Talk to you tomorrow,
Chip

Monday, June 12, 2006

Chinatown, Egypt

Genesis 12:10-20

So Abram senses trouble and tells Sarai, since you're so pretty, pretend you're my sister- that'll get me out of trouble.

Lots of weird things here in this section. First Abram is right- they do realize how beautiful she is, and attempt to take her for their own. Pretty amazing that this actually comes to pass- either she must have been amazingly beautiful or the Egyptians must have taken a pretty high percentage of the beauitful women. How did he know it would happen?

Second- this is God's chosen daddy of the world- the seed's coming through him- and this action is amazingly cowardly. We hear a lot about Abraham and Isaac- and his great faith, but we seldom hear about his giving away his beautiful wife to save his own backside. Actually- even worse- he "trades" for her- well paid for his beautiful "sister", knowing (?) that as a result she is serving as wife to Pharoah. Maybe he had so many wives that her "duty" as wife wasn't what we would expect. But if he's paid handsomely for a beautiful woman, it stands to reason that Abram's traded her favors for riches.

Third- the punishment comes down...on Pharaoh. Abram lies, and the penalty comes on the ones he fools. Abram seems to get off scott free. I'm not sure what to take from this- it's better to be the fooler than the fooled?

Bottom line for me here- even men of great faith sometimes act out of fear and make choices they will regret forever. If Abram made choices this poor, surely my bad choices are met with the same mercy
Calling Abram

Genesis 12:1-9

It must have been pretty amazing to be Abram. We're not told what made him special here. He has yet to distinguish himself- he seems to have found financial success and found a wife, but otherwise we know little about him- and certainly not what brings God to give such a blessing to him. But basically Abram knows, pretty much whatever good there is to be in this world will happen through him.

There is potential though, in my mind, to view this blessing as less than stellar. Abram could have short-sightedly wondered what was in it for him. Sadly, I can see myself answering this way, at least internally. Well great, but what's in it for me? I'll be long gone when this whole blessing thing comes to pass...can I have a little taste now?

I guess this is a cultural thing, but I'm a bit bothered by the phrase "all the people they had acquired." So, Abram, the father of blessings was a slave owner? And God was okay with this. The Jews were God's chosen people in this period of time, but Christ's message seems to be more about those who are chosen being servants- not being those who own the servants. Does this bother anyone else?

I've been taught that this chapter shows Abram's 3-fold promise of nation, seed and land. I don't see these distinctive promises here- maybe if you go in looking for them. I also understand that Christ comes through the seed- but beyond that, I'm not sure of the necessity of distinguishing these promise-tenants. Maybe i'm just missing something.

Message in this section for me: God blesses His children and when he blesses, respond with worship.

footnote from last night: Abram's deceased brother was named Haran- which also is the name of the city(?) that Abram and company move to and the city that Abram's father died in. Coincidence? Maybe Terah names Haran after his love for the city, maybe Terah established this city and named it in honor of his missed, late son, maybe something else. Seems too odd to be coincidence- however it's also probably quite irrelevant to getting the meaning of the text.

Leaving town- I'll post again Monday. Awfully quiet out there lately- hope it's busy-ness and not boredom.

Chip
Geneology Blues

Genesis 11: 10-32

Moses sure knows how to slow down a story. Another big section of begittings and begattings- at least if you use the KJV (which I don't).

Not much here that I found to grab hold of- but here's a couple of observations:

Shem was 98 at the end of the flood. I always picture Noah's sons much younger. I guess because of the whole disrespecting naked dad thing that follows- they seem much more like 15 than 100. Maybe Ham was much younger-they could have been more spaced out age-wise since these OT folks seem to have much greater virility than senior citizens of today (Shem had a son at 100). But it seems like they might have matured beyond laughing at dad, but I guess at 33 I haven't, so who am I to talk?

OK- this took a little family tree sketch to figure out but apparently Abram's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah. It makes sense that when your down to 8 people, there has to be some inbreeding to populate the world, but at what point did this become taboo? I guess royalty was still doing this in the realtively recent past, but it still seems a little icky.

It's also interesting that Abram's dad Terah takes Abram, Sarai (mrs. Abram), and his orphaned grandson Lot to set out for Canaan, leaving the incestuous duo behind (also Milcah and Lot's brother Iscah). It could have been coincidence, maybe Nahor and Milcah liked where they were, maybe they were just more independent. Could it be disapproval of the union? OK- way out on a limb here I know- nothing to suggest it except my wanting to condemn the union...but it's a geneology, cut me some slack.

Also curious that in the age of octocenturians, Haran dies before his dad who only lived to the brief age of 205. No explanation of how or why but it doesn't seem overly common to read about death before old age. OK, you've got Abel- and the whole world with the flood- but in the lists (and lists)of names, it seems like most of these folks are wearing out an awful lot of sandals before calling it quits.

So nothing here that really speaks to me about how to live more for God- but at least some expostition set up for Abram.

I'll be-getting along. Talk to you tomorrow,
Chip
The Power of Communication

Genesis 11:1-9

I'm choosing to interpret this passage to mean that my field of education is certainly the most valid. It all hinges on communication- if they all speak the same language- are able to communicate- there's nothing they can't accomplish.

While I think there is a message about the power of communication- God's desire to throw a wrench into the works is puzzling. Is He just trying to further their dependence on Him?
Interesting to note that which language they spoke isn't specified. Did these other languages exist before the flood- just foreign to Noah, so they didn't survive with him? I'm guessing that there may have been multiple languages before, whether these languages or others, since this problem apparently didn't arise until now. Really an unimportant issue, but kind of neat to think about.

I guess the basic problem in this scenario is the attempt to immortalize themselves. Otherwise, it seems like they were just being innovative. Actually, it doesn't say that God was upset with them- it has more of a feel that He just didn't want them to be able to accomplish what they were capable of.

This is really a weird idea. God was worried that men would be able to do too much. How was He threatened by thir industry?

So he confused the language...and we've puzzled each other ever since.
Genesis 5 Redux

Genesis 10

Yikes, this is even more boring than the last geneology. Maybe I just wistfully recall the lovely time spent reading the names 5 chapters ago- but this stuff is really dry.
2 minor ideas-

1) Are these names from birth? Peleg gets his name (not from Peter Pan) but because during his days the earth was divided. So...how did they know? Prophecy? Was he the child to be named later?

2) it seems fairly arbitrary which names get carried through- sometimes the oldest son, but not always- arbitrary unless (as Icky eluded in an email) this is tracing the lineage of Christ. This makes the passage a little more pertinent (though sadly not much more interesting).

Ah if it weren't for the casual reference to Nimrod and the Ludites (what's the connection to the techno-phobes of today? ) this would have been even more of a snoozer.

Sorry, a few lame jokes and very little insight- let's hope there's more to pull from in chapter 11.

Chip
Stories hard to teach in children's bible class

Genesis 9:18-28

OK- what I get from this passage application-wise is pretty simple- honor your father...even if he's drunk and naked.

This is a weird story that has seemingly always puzzled me. Noah gets drunk and is laying around minus his clothes- Ham (quite an unfortunate name- especially if he was a heavy kid) stumbles in and sees him- spreads the news- and is consequentially cursed.

Something I noticed for the first time- the footnote in the NIV says that verse 20 could read that Noah "was the first to plant a vineyard." So- perhaps Noah was unaware of the intoxicating nature of his drink? Had no clue that to drink too much might make him a bit goofy? Or is there a lesson here about the nature of God's attitude toward alcohol.

I've been raised to believe that alcohol is the root of evil and to have it cross your lips is sin- despite the whole first miracle of Jesus thing. Does this maybe show a priority from God between respect and drunkeness?

The curse doesn't come from God though- it comes from Noah- maybe they're both at fault- Noah, embarassed and hung-over (the first? ahh- what an honor) lashes out at the son who thought his nakedness was amusing.

Speaking of the whole nakedness thing...what exactly is going on here? What did Ham actually do? It seems like a pretty steep penalty for "seeing" your father naked- the haunting image would be punishment enough. Maybe he made fun of his father's anatomy? Jana read a novelization of the account that spins it as Noah being in a state of drunken arousal that Ham was amused by. "Who'd have thought the old man could still make that happen" kind of thing. Or is it even more sinister and there's some kind of creepy inbred homosexual thing going on that translators are too gentle to translate with specificity. It all just seems a bid weird.

Finally- how about this curse? He doesn't curse Ham- he curses Canaan (which I assume is Ham's son- not the nation. This is even more harsh- and seems really unfair. Is there any lesson for us here?

Thanks for making it through this icky passage with me. Tomorrow looks less seedy, but unfortunately a bit more boring.

Peace,
Chip
The Rainbow Connection

Genesis 9: 1-17

This is an interesting passage to me. I'm not sure what to take from it in a practical sense, but there are some interesting tidbits.

Were men strictly vegetarians before the flood? It seems that God is saying from this point on, it's okay to eat meat- if so, why the change?

Then there's that whole don't eat the life blood stuff- what does this mean? Is God saying, keep away from a rare steak? Is he saying be sure the carcass is prepared a certain way. Are these things that in our day and time we should be concerned with? I certainly hope not.

Vs 6 supports capital punishment- this is the harsh, stern voice of God that seems to be so prevalent in the OT. Much different than the voice of Jesus who stressed mercy. How do you make sense of the two voices- and what does that mean for us?

Are the animals still more than animals here? I was struck by the oddity of the snake speaking in chapter 3- here God's rainbow convenant is also with the animals. Huh? Are they able to make sense of it? When do the animals become the creatures we know today?

The bottom line in this section for me is this- God promises and keeps it. Here's a sign that I won't flood you out- you can count on it, you can trust in it- you can trust in Me.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Down in the Flood

Genesis 6-8

It seems the more I read, the less I know.

Here's the important message I get from this passage: Even when God is at His most irate, He is still merciful. He's ready to wipe out virtually all He's created- yet still thinks of His servant Noah. It's good to know that in the midst of potential wrath- Hes till loves His children- and that soft spot should be more than enough to let us feel His grace.

Sometimes though, it's a real challenge to believe that I'm "Noah" and not a scoffer (or just sinking sinner) lost in the flood.

OK -more random thoughts, queries and confusions:

Chapter 6 begins with a description of the evolution of mating rituals of the human race. It seems that God's children started to go "outside the family" and mate with those who were "daughters of men." Where did these daughters come from? Is this an implication of so much more that was created outside the scope of the garden? When Adam and Eve left their home- was there a whole world waiting there for them? Or is the language here just confusing and the chronology just a little altered?

It seems these unions created a race of giants. OK-that's really cool- why don't I remember ever hearing that before in a Bible class?

In God's anger (I assume it's anger- since it's in response to the mating) He reduces man's lifespan to a mere 120 years. Is there any modern day application here? With modern technology and scientific advancements, we don't come close to this often...just why is that?

If God is angry at the evil in men's hearts, why is it he destroys the animals? Is it just so the ratio between man and beast won't be all out of kilter once the waters evaporate? Is it because the animals are meant for man's pleasure and there won't be too many of them to please in the next chunk of time?

Is there some irony in the fact that because of the violence on the earth (6:13), at least in part anyway-God chooses to virtually wipe out mankind? It must make sense- it feels sacreligious just to type it- but this violence for violence thing is a little puzzling.

Toward the end of chapter 6 we see all the ark particulars. Over the course of my life I've heard that section used as justification for what I would deem legalism. See- you must follow God's law to the letter to please Him. He told Noah to build the ark450 feet wide. If Noah had done it 430 feet, it wouldn't be obedience. This concept seems not only silly (yet haunting) but dangerous. We don't have the ability to do it all just right- and that's what Jesus's death and resurrection was for- so in light of that- what do we need all these specifications for?

Jana just reminded me that we heard in a Bible class recently that these same ratios are used in contemporary ship building. Noah would never have known how to do this on his own- and maybe these instructions are (at least) 2-fold. 1) The boat willwork for My purpose if you follow the blue print and2) thousands of years later- men will see how far ahead of the technological curve I was and know that I am God.

Seems cool to think that all the animals came to Noah for boarding on the ark- I don't think I've ever envisioned it that way before- but it must have been pretty cool to experience- a gentle stampede, with noone hurt, but all ready to get on your big boat.Gathering all food known to man seems like quite a task. I wonder how they kept the ice cream frozen.

It seems that the instructions in chapter 6 (2 ofeverything) change when we get to chapter 7(2 of some,7 [7 pairs perhaps?] of others). Is chapter 7 a more detailed version of the same account? Does God changeHis mind?

I'm guessing that fish aren't part of the all animal decree- I'm also guessing that fish were quite a common meal for the Noahs after leaving the ship while the animals procreated. I assume that their production began on the boat- yet another issue for them all to deal with.

Can you imagine the smell in that boat over that period of time? Can you imagine not leaving a boat for that period of time? Can you imagine not being annoyed at every other person on the boat before the door opened to let them all out?

Why does Noah choose the birds he does to see if all's clear? Why the raven? Why the dove?
At this point, how does Noah know what constitutes a clean animal and what is unclean? He's 601 at the end of this chapter- a little beyond the 120 mentiond inchapter 6. Is this a reward from God for hisGodliness?

I've got plenty of questions- just not too many answers.
BORING!

Genesis 5


Yikes, Genesis 5 is truly dull. Hard to find much in the sea of names and ages.
Here are a couple of things:

1) The temporary nature of life: Even these old timers eventually ran out of steam and left the earth. I don't get how they lived so long- but even so...their clock was ticking.

2) Enoch- the walked with God guy- lived a short (by the out of control standards of this chapter) life. Maybe the idea of being blessed with a long life doesn't have much validity.

And I'm done. Anyone have some insight on the value of geneology?

Perhaps a way to validate bilibcal facts with historical record? Perhaps a way to show that you can live a long time and still not have your named remembered? It's a chapter that's tempting to skip-

Short entry... ahhh geneology night.

Chip
I've Fallen and I can't Get Up

Genesis 3

OK- Genesis is weird. So Eve has a conversation with a snake, and not only is it no big deal that he talks- and knows about God's rules- but she trusts the snake's word over God's. I think there is a rebellious part of us that wants to believe a second opnion or even a stranger over an authority figure (in the forensics world, trusting a ballot over a coach- even if they say the same thing) - but it seems like credibility should have been an issue here.

Then she shares the fruit. Does she know at this point that she's really messed up and figures shared responsibility, shared guilt, shared repercussions- or is it a genuine "this is cool Adam- see what it's like to be way smart?"

They put on the leaf coverings and hide- Adam explains to God that it's because of their nakedness. God asks how they knew- and if they've eaten the fruit. Is this rhetorical? Shouldn't God know that that's what's happened?

God curses the serpent. OK- this might be the weirdest thing in the chapter to me. It has to crawl and eat dust. It's actually kind of cool to consider that this being may have been something entirely different before this encounter- but it's still a snake. Cursing the decendants seems really odd- obviously this serpent has some mental capacity beyond an ordinary animal- but how much would an animal care that his specie be changed on account of him?

Jesus' victory is foreshadowed- but from the snake's perspective...why does he care?

Two key lessons in my mind:1) Believe what God says. Even when seductive voices say something different. Even when the fruit looks good- when you've got a partner in crime- or when you think you'll try it just once. I would have spared myself and others so much heartache and pain if I hadn't justified sin by thinking it would be one-time or temporary life experience.

2) God wants to trust us. Why in the world are those trees even in the garden? If they aren't there- then mankind can't fall- right? So ultimately, God wants to think that His word is enough for us. This is here, but you don't have to worry about it. Just listen to me- leave the harmful stuff alone, you'll be okay. I'll trust you to do the right thing. We disappoint Him a lot- but when we leave the trees alone- it's a victory.

interesting footnote- in vs 20 children are spoken of in the future. she will become mother of the world. So 1) she never experienced painless childbirth,-I'm guessing a real missed opportunity and 2) her sons had to find someone to mate with that came from...? Maybe this reference doesn't neccessitate no other children, but they had to come from somewhere? Any insights? Does it matter?

Also of note- Eve isn't even named until after the curses. Man has been thoughtful since day one.