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?
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)