Genesis - a Week at a Time

New Site!

2006-08-27T15:41:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm on my way folks. After trying to contend with managing FOUR separate blogs for all of my work, I have happened upon the opportunity to consolidate them into one website. Thanks to a great deal of assistance from my friend Provoked, I now have a new site that I'm testing out in hopes of making the presentation of my work look more professional and less "Blogspot-ish", as I continue my attempts to locate gainful employment as a free-lance journalist.

Thus, I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd take some time to visit (and maybe even change your blogrolls) Dryvetyme Onlyne in the next few days (and in the subsequent weeks and months and years. And thanks for all of your visits to my blogs here over the past 18 or so months, because, as soon as Dryvetyme Onlyne is fully functional, my four Blogspot sites will become extinct.

Peace.

APN.

The Brick Testament

2006-08-22T16:58:00.000-05:00

OK folks....

If there's one thing in the world that makes me happier, it's the Legos that carried me through childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood (don't ask me how many Star Wars-sanctioned Lego sets I have). Thus, I must present to you something that has made me even happier in the past few months (since I've used these images over at my Genesis Commentary Blog a few times recently). This wonderful guy, Brendon Powell Smith, has created this wonderful site entitled The Brick Testament, where he has re-enacted a great many scenes from the Old & New Testament using (you guessed it) Legos. In fact, he's published three collections of his work so far -- Genesis, the Story of Moses, and the Christmas Story. Go check his site out and see if you don't laugh as much as I do. And if you're so inclined, marvel along with me at the time & dedication it's taken to create such wonderment.

ENJOY!

APN

Genesis 29:31-30:24

2006-07-20T19:37:00.000-05:00

The Origins of the Tribes of Israel
Or
How to Grow a Large Family
And Still Have Your Family Fall Apart

It seems that Jacob is fairly adept at procreating. Granted, the text does not provide us a chronology during this genealogical breakdown, but Jacob doesn’t have the same issues with childbearing that his father and grandfather did. On the other hand, just like his forebears, the woman he chose as his wife does have the same problems with fertility that Sarah and Rebekah had. Barrenness appears to be a common thread throughout the Story of the Patriarchs, and Rachel is the next in line to experience such heartbreak and domestic turmoil. (Berlin & Brettler, p61)

I don’t know about you, but reading through this selection of verses brings to mind a great many questions, concerns, and queries concerning the details of Jacob’s family and how daily domestic affairs were handled. A cursory examination might lead us to state that things haven’t gotten much better since the days of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. However, when we begin to look deeply into this portion of The Story, we quickly obtain a glimpse of much of the rest of Genesis will bear out, both in terms of Jacob’s generation and that of his children. It is as if the intensity of the effects of Sarah’s desire to subvert God’s plans by pushing Hagar upon Abraham back in Genesis 16 have been compounded and multiplied many times over.

I debated on just how deep I should delve into the finer cultural specifics and details present within this passage. As we see in the course of events between Sarah and Hagar of chapters 16 & 21, a woman, for reasons of procreation, may send her maidservant to her husband and any child born would legally belong to the husband and wife, and not to the maidservant. Moreover, we also learn from those two chapters that a great deal of tension can be easily introduced into a family and the individual lives of the people in that family when infertility and surrogate birthing rear their heads. Nevertheless, on top of the familiar problems Rachel has with bearing Jacob a child of her own, Jacob must face the discordant permutation of Leah and Rachel’s sibling rivalry into marital jealousy. Two sisters fighting over the affections of one man is never a pretty arrangement, and one that I’m surprised hasn’t been made into a major Hollywood teen-oriented movie.

Poor Jacob… At least Abraham and Isaac had enough sense not to marry more than one wife – Jacob has to become skilled at interacting with four adult women in his household. Sadly though, Jacob never becomes proficient with such tactics and diplomacy, because, from the outset of this portion of text, he chooses Rachel above all others, much to the dismay of Leah and the course of his children’s lives. But God proves to possess a rather unusual sense of decency and justice, since, upon seeing how Jacob ignores Leah, God opens up Leah’s womb as Rachel remained barren. “As in the case of Hagar (16:10-12; 21:17-18), God shows compassion to the unloved mate, thus partially equalizing the disparity between her and her co-wife. Barrenness, in some instances a punishment (e.g., 2 Sam 6:20-23), serves in Rachel’s case to place her in succession to Sarah and Rebekah (11:30; 25:21).” (Berlin & Brettler, p61)

Thus, Leah is able to bear children and three sons are the prompt result of God’s blessing – Rueben, Simeon, and Levi. However, in spite of what should be a time of great joy in the life of this family, it seems that Leah is in perpetual angst about Jacob’s lack of love for her and the names she gives to these three boys stands as proof of this. Rueben (see, a son), Simeon (has heard), and Levi (will join) are all evidences of Leah’s pleadings through childbearing for her husband to love her and give her some attention outside of the marriage bed. (Alter, p156-157) It isn’t until the birth of her fourth son, Judah, in 29:35 that Leah’s name-giving turmoil is silenced, but even that isn’t long-lived. (Hamilton, p268)

“When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, ‘Give me children, or I shall die!’” Jacob became very angry with Rachel and said, ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’” (Genesis 30:1-2, NRSV)

And, throughout all of this prodigious child-bearing, Rachel, the wife that Jacob does love has remained without a child, much less a son, a fact that plagues Rachel and her plight in life. “In the ancient Near East, one vital measure of a wife’s worth was her ability to bear sons – to tend the fields, herd the flocks, defend land and honor, and carry on the family name. For the woman herself, unable to inherit on her own, sons represented security in her old age.” (Frankel, p 54) Thus Rachel’s torment is two-fold – not only has she not produced any sons from practical reasons, but she feels ashamed that she had not born any sons to the man who does love her, who voluntarily worked seven extra years for her father to earn the right to marry her.

So, she approaches her husband in her anguish, begging him to bless her and give her a child of any kind, but he responds harshly, not truly understanding the depth and breadth of her request. (Frankel, p56) Granted, Jacob is correct in stating openly that he is not the person that Rachel should be beseeching for children, as culture custom and Biblical precedent dictate that she should visit a holy person, talk to God, or hope that God sees her in her childlessness and sends a messenger of God to visit her. (Alter, p158) But while his theological resolve is in the right place, he is relationally unsound. Throughout both women’s frustrations – Leah’s in bearing many sons to a husband who doesn’t love her and Rachel’s in not being able to become pregnant – Jacob seems to either not be present or not paying very much attention to the domestic strife. (Frankel, p56) Thus, reminiscent to Sarah’s thrusting of Hagar upon Abraham, Rachel responds to her husband’s pronouncement that he isn’t God by giving him her servant girl Bilhah to be a surrogate mother, an arrangement that produces two sons – Dan and Naphtali.

And the sad thing is that the birth of these two boys to Rachel, via adopting them straight out of Bilhah’s womb, only produces more domestic strife. It’s as if every single, possible familial disturbance that ever occurred in the prior two Patriarchal generations has been rolled together and greatly magnified in the Love Pentagon that is Jacob-Rachel-Leah-Bilhah-Zilpah. For, as soon as Bilhah bore two sons for Rachel, Leah counters by sending Jacob her maidservant Zilpah, assuming that, in her barren status, she can continue attempting to work her way into Jacob’s heart by siring more children (especially boys). Moreover, these two women were fighting through the naming of their son’s names: 1) Dan – “God has vindicated me”; 2) Naphtali – “I have been entangled in a desperate contest with my sister and have won”; 3) Gad – “What luck”; and 4) Asher – “Women will count me blessed.” (Hamilton, p271-273 & Frankel, p55, 57) Over and over again, the overt infighting being inculcated via the wife-and-sibling rivalry in Jacob’s house sets up the future for the failure, conflict, strife, and pain that will be so prevalent in Joseph’s story in the latter parts of Genesis.

“When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and said, ‘You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.’ So he lay with her that night. And God heeded Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son.” (Genesis 30:16-17, NRSV)

However, the child-rearing competition doesn’t even begin to cease. Rachel observes Leah’s eldest child, Reuben, returning home with some harvested mandrakes, a plant purported to possess a combination of aphrodisiac and fertility-increasing properties. (Berlin & Brettler, p61) Quite obviously, such rumored traits are attractive to both women – Rachel wants to get pregnant and Leah would like for Jacob to love her. (Frankel, p58) With this hope, Rachel proposes a trade with Leah – you give me the mandrakes so that I can increase my chances to become pregnant and I’ll let you sleep with Jacob tonight. There is a bargain here that is undertaken by these women, one that displays the absolute desperation present in both their lives, as Rachel wants a child that is her own and Leah just wants love from a husband that really doesn’t pay her any attention. (Hamilton, p275)

And what happens as a result? Leah bears three more children – another son, Issachar (“God has given me my wages”); her last son, Zebulun (“God has given me, even me, a valuable gift”); and a daughter, Dinah. (Alter, p161 & Hamilton, p275-276) And curiously, in a family rife with the tendency to provide an over-the-top significance for a newborn’s name, there is no explanation given for Dinah’s. However, textual commentators quite enjoy instances like these, as they are able to enjoy the privilege of debating whether the authors are a) intentionally silent due to Dinah’s status as a female (Alter, p161); b) highlighting Dinah’s position as the only female child being born to a family full of boys (Frankel, p58); or c) crafty and alluding to future events (Hamilton, p 276).

“Then God remembered Rachel, and God heeded her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, ‘God has taken away my reproach’; and she named him Joseph, saying, ‘May the Lord add to me another son!’” (Genesis 30:22-24, NRSV)

I can hear Rachel scream at this point, “FINALLY!” God finally remembers Rachel, finally heeds her, finally opens her womb, and finally allows her to conceive and bear a child, all privileges and blessings that have been bestowed upon Leah 8 times already (7 sons and 1 daughter). At this event, Rachel loudly proclaims that she finally feels that God no longer hates her and finally desires for her to have a child, a sentiment that she greatly holds in common with the prior two Matriarchs. However, Rachel becomes a bit consumed in her overwhelming need to compete with Leah and declares that, not only has God at long last given her a son, she will be blessed with more children. Now, there’s nothing wrong with hoping and believing – it’s what keeps us motivated and moving forward, even when we don’t want to do so. “Like all of us, Rachel keeps upping the ante of blessing. Although Jacob clearly loves her, she remains miserable without a child. And when she finally gives birth to a son, she immediately longs for another. Why is it so difficult for us to appreciate the birds in our hand?” (Frankel, p59)

Thus, with the birth of Joseph, and until the late-occurring birth of Benjamin through Rachel, we have the chronological and matriarchal breakdown for the children of Jacob. There are 11 sons and 1 daughter – 6 sons and 1 daughter to Leah, 2 to Bilhah, 2 to Zilpah, and 1 to Rachel, the most-and-only-loved. Jacob has proven to be quite the impressive creator of progeny, far more than the other Patriarchs (his father and grandfather) had ever imagined themselves to be. With 11 sons and 1 daughter, it seems that the Promise given originally to Abraham finally has a chance of coming to pass, if only people could/would stop fighting.

Genesis 29:15-30

2006-07-13T21:48:00.000-05:00

Jacob Marries Twice
Or
Laban Plays Rebekah to Jacob’s Isaac
Or
The Youngest Was the Most Loved

Our passions can be quite conniving at times. They have this uncanny ability to dominate the direction our lives at the mere mention of anything that might tickle their fancy. And there’s often something rather fleeting about many of these seemingly random passions of ours in that they rarely have the tendency to stay around for very long. However, what’s easily the scariest about our passions is that there are some that remain a very long time and revel in their capacity to permanently blind us to the actual events taking place in our lives. We think that we have them under control, referring to them as things we “like” or “love,” when, in reality, our passions are dictating to us the terms of any given interaction, whether public or private.

But at the same time, I find my passions to be fairly fickle on a regular basis. Whether it’s a style of music, a certain song, an author, a food group, a restaurant, or even someone in my group of acquaintances, I rotate through my likes and dislikes like I’m changing underwear (a pitiful metaphor, I know). I feel that it’s human nature to undergo this vicious cycle, but that cycle is nothing compared to the spontaneous and overwhelming feeling of “I have to have that now!” And this sudden shift in our passions can quickly turn into an obsession that compels us to set everything else aside, especially our sense of judgment and what's best for us.

Thus, I present the thought that much of Jacob’s trouble in this portion of the Patriarchal Story, as well as subsequent ones in Genesis, revolve around Jacob’s passions and his propensity for allowing those passions to take the lead in decision-making. Jacob was so overcome with emotions in verses 1-14 that he removed a very heavy stone covering the well all by himself and wept openly upon seeing Rachel for the first time. Thus, when Laban offers him a chance to set any possible terms for his servitude and work, Jacob readily offers up himself as a common laborer for the hand of Rachel in marriage. However, as we shall see, Laban has other plans in store for Jacob, plans that will replay an earlier story in a dark tent with a dark twist of irony.

“Then Laban said to Jacob, ‘Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?’ … Jacob loved Rachel; so he said, ‘I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.’” (Genesis 29:15, 18; NRSV)

From the outset, it appears that Laban knows exactly what he’s going to do in terms of exploiting Jacob’s obvious and over-the-top love for Rachel. Jacob arrives at Paddan Aram with little or nothing, the exact opposite of how The Servant approached him, Rebekah, and their mother when negotiating for the hand of Rebekah in marriage to Isaac. There is no possible way for Jacob to pay the standard bride-price to prove his financial and social worth to Laban, as was required for arranged marriages in such cultures. (Alter, p154) Thus, Laban is within his rights to request Jacob’s services in exchange for Rachel’s hand in marriage, but the language that he employs is intended to display his benevolence at wanting to pay Jacob for his services and mask his desire to marry off his eldest daughter deceptively. (Hamilton, p259) The trickster is tricked and he is so blinded by his passion that he sets aside his normally shrewd tendencies and embarks blindly into his labor. (Coogan, et al; p51)

Now, you see, Laban had two daughters – Leah, the eldest, and Rachel, the youngest – and, by custom, the eldest was supposed to be married off first, a situation reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew and/or Junger’s 10 Things I Hate About You. Jacob agrees to work seven years for the hand of Rachel in marriage, a time period that Jacob seems to not bother working, especially if it means that he obtains the object of his heart’s desire. However, Laban has other plans in that, when Jacob had completed the arranged period of labor, Laban tricks him into marrying Leah by veiling and disguising her, both during the marriage feast and in the marriage bed. Waking up from his slumber, Jacob discovers that the woman in his bed is not the woman he had arranged to marry and is thoroughly outraged. He confronts Laban with this deception and is met with Laban’s coolly-formed response that marrying off the younger daughter first goes against the customs of the land. The trickster may have been tricked, but this is not the first and this will not be the last time that Jacob’s past actions come back to haunt him.

Whether Jacob is aware of the cultural distinctive of the eldest having to be married first or not, it seems that Laban is fully aware of the fact that Leah must be married before Jacob can marry Rachel. Thus, the question remains – why doesn’t Laban enlist Jacob’s help in finding a husband for Leah? Why didn’t he inform Jacob of that point of cultural law? Don’t you think that Jacob would has been quite motivated to locate and/or coerce someone who is ready, willing, and/or able to ask for Leah’s hand in marriage? Why does Laban decide to deceive Jacob into marrying his eldest? Does he not think that any potential suitors will ever approach Leah? I could ask many more similar questions, but suffice to say that Laban’s course of action was one of intentional deception, forsaking logic and reason for long-term chicanery. (Hamilton, p262-263)

Regardless of his misplaced sense of timing and confronted by Jacob’s discovery of his ruse, Laban presents his son-in-law with the following option: if Jacob really wants to marry Rachel, he can work another seven years as Laban’s servant. If Jacob will wait a week, undergo another wedding feast, and work some more, Rachel is his, since Leah is now married off. And this is an arrangement to which Jacob readily assents, which is not surprising, since he willingly offered up his labor for Rachel in the first place. Victor Hamilton notes that Jacob’s character is affirmed and established in this passage – he honors both seven-year terms of labor and does not find a way to steal away with Rachel, repaying Laban’s deceit for one of his own. (Hamilton, p264)

Jacob’s integrity has been progressively rebuilt (or maybe even created for the first time) ever since his flight from home began, following his life of dishonest machinations. He was born tugging on the heel of his twin brother, he bought the birthright for a bowl of soup, and he hoodwinked his father into giving him the blessing due to the eldest son, effectively stealing the birthright that was rightfully Esau’s. Thus, specific to this story as a whole, from the dual marriages in this chapter to Joseph’s deception of his grain-seeking brothers in Genesis 44-45, Jacob is forced to bear the burdens and learn the lessons prescribed by the villainy he wrought upon his family. (Berlin & Brettler, p60)

Walter Brueggemann states it this way – “Since 25:27-24 and 27:1-45, we have known that Jacob was an effective trickster. But now he has met his match in Laban. Here Jacob is on the receiving end. He is done in. The one led and accompanied by God (28:15) is duped by his uncle. The reasoning of Laban has its own logic. And the irony of it is striking and perhaps a fair retaliation to Jacob. Since the early kick in the womb (25:22), Jacob has struggled with the ‘natural’ rights of the older. Only by subterfuge had he settled that with his own brother. And now it meets him again. The resistant reality of primogeniture blocks his love even as it blocks his inheritance. Leah is older, Rachel must wait. And so also Jacob must wait. But this time, Jacob has no trick to reverse the matter. He must wait. And he does. God is at work keeping promises again, but the keeping of promises can be delayed.” (Brueggemann, p 253)

I am not one to suggest that Jacob is set up by God here to get his “just desserts” and “he was getting what was coming to him.” However, it does appear that Jacob was the recipient of a great deal of justice here – the one who deceived his father regarding his birth order was deceived by his desired bride’s father as to the birth order of his daughters. Moreover, the fact that Jacob acquiesces to the course of events that have been handed to him is further testament to Jacob’s desire to marry Rachel and his growing understanding that he has brought this upon himself. The passions by which Jacob has lived for so long have finally risen up to receive their due position in Jacob’s life – he thought that he ruled over them, but it was they who controlled him.

Now, like many of you, you’ve heard this story portrayed in loving terms, even used in weddings to describe how Jacob was more than willing to spend the extra seven years of hard labor and that they “seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.” (Genesis 29:20, NRSV) I’m not discounting such a possibility in my discussion of this passage, but I do want to provide a shift in an interpretation that is merely cursory and simplistic. Jacob did love Rachel and he was more than willing to serve an extra seven years for Rachel’s hand in marriage, but it must be clearly stated that Jacob’s time spent in Laban’s tents was time spent with Jacob being the recipient of similar levels of deceit that he and his mother Rebekah enacted upon his father Isaac.

This story has two distinct, yet intertwined messages – Jacob does reap what he sows, but he remains focused upon obtaining that which he loves, no matter what the circumstances and obstacles. His passion blinded him to the deception, but also provided him the means by which he could make the best of the situation and come out with what he most desired – the hand of Rachel in marriage. However, Jacob’s desires in the past to obtain the birthright and receive the blessing, eschewing traditional familiar norms come to the fore later in the Story with the constant battles over children and Jacob’s favor undertaken by Leah, Rachel, and their two very fertile handmaidens (Zilpah & Bilhah) as well as the conflicts between Jacob’s children concerning who Jacob loved the most. As the Patriarchal Story infers continually, it can be quite hard for us to escape our past.

Genesis 29:1-14

2006-07-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

Jacob Arrives in Paddan Aram
Or
Jacob Really Knows How to Show Off to Get the Girl

One of the primary reasons I’ve come to enjoy the Story of the Patriarchs throughout the book of Genesis is that it is such a distinct microcosm of world history. Nations are born, nations develop, nations propagate internally and externally, the strength of the nations ebbs and flows, nations experience conflict internally and externally, and the story repeats itself endlessly. Moreover, nary three generations have finished with this story before the events are reprised with a new crop of descendents. It is as if the author(s) of the story would like for whoever is reading the tale or listening to it being told to realize the patterns and the various levels of significance present within each pattern.

But what makes the story of the Covenant so great is that, much like all other epic and archetypal narratives throughout literary and world history, these lessons being communicated are not spelled out in specific terms. They don’t scream, “Hey you! Pay attention here! Remember this!” And we should be glad of this fact. And yes, autocratic leaders throughout time immemorial have regularly concocted stories that openly declare their intentions and tell people exactly what to do and not do, believe and not believe. However, history also tells us that (with few exceptions) such belief systems have a rather short shelf life. Thus, we must perpetually approach the Story of the Patriarchs with reverence and awe, for we often aren’t aware of what ideas and impressions our current perusal of any given passage in the text might work their way into our imaginations.

So, if you’ve followed my train of thought this far, I ask you to walk with me into this bit of text – Jacob’s arrival at his mother’s home and subsequent conversation with the shepherds, Rachel, and Uncle Laban, who is both Rachel’s father and Rebekah’s brother. Jacob continues with his journey across the desert, seeking out the family members that his parents instructed him to locate. In so traversing the vast sandy peninsula, he comes across a well, covered by a large stone and surrounded by several shepherds and their sheep. As such wells are common places for people to meet, converse, barter, and trade, it is proper for Jacob to approach these shepherds and inquire of them where he was and if they knew who Laban was. (Coogan, et al; p51) However, Jacob seems to have found a collection of lazy shepherds who were seemingly unable and unwilling to remove the large stone protecting the well so that they may water their sheep and continue on with the rest of their daily chores. (Hamilton, p253)

The subsequent scene is a shortened, but altogether mirrored version of The Servant’s mission to locate a wife for Isaac. (Berlin & Brettler, p59) It seems that not only do these shepherds know of Laban, they point out to Jacob that Rachel, Laban’s daughter, is a shepherdess who is walking their way. Jacob sees Rachel and his reaction is one of “Samsonesque” strength as he removes the stone covering the well on his own, a task that typically requires the strength of two or three men. (Hamilton, p255) It seems that Jacob is intent upon impressing Rachel with his physical abilities and willingness to serve others – without the stone being removed, neither Rachel or the stationary shepherds would be able to water their sheep.

After accomplishing such a feat, Jacob is so overcome with emotion that he kisses Rachel and weeps upon her shoulder. He then declares to her that he is the son of her father’s sister, a piece of information that causes Rachel to run immediately and report this fact to her father, Laban. Realizing exactly who Jacob is and what his arrival means for him and his family, he quickly hurries to the well to see the visitor, falling upon him in a hug and kiss. And thus, upon Jacob’s recitation of the details of his lineage and voyage, Laban announces that Jacob is his flesh and blood and implies that he and Jacob possess more than a casual familiar connection. (Hamilton, p256)

I can hear the comments now – “What are you talking about? You said this episode was a copy of the interaction between The Servant and Rebekah. I don’t see any similarities!” And that’s an understandable reaction. This latter portion of the narrative seems to merely skim the surface of the former, as it is shorter, quirkier, and begins under different sets of circumstances. Nevertheless, you must realize there are some immediate parallels between Genesis 24 and Genesis 29:1-14 – 1) someone is commissioned to cross the desert to find a wife from amongst their family members; 2) there is a discussion that occurs at a well; 3) a man meets a woman at a well; and 4) the woman tells her family about meeting the man at the well. But in spite of those seemingly obvious parallels, what is subtly implied must be overtly stated – Jacob equals neither Isaac nor The Servant and Rachel certainly is not Rebekah. In fact, it’s the total other way around.

The means by which the details of Jacob’s meeting of Rachel occur are literally a mirror image of Rebekah’s introduction to Abraham’s house. The roles of the players are completely flipped. Ellen Frankel, in the voice of “Our Mothers” explains the situation this way: “When Abraham’s servant Eliezer devises a test to identify the right wife for Isaac, he’s looking for the following qualities: kindness to strangers and animals, beauty, modesty, and loyalty to family. He finds them all in Rebekah. But when Jacob comes to the same well years later, he finds himself replaying Rebecca’s [her spelling and italics], not Eliezer’s: so instead of waiting for a young woman to approach him, he comes forward to meet her; instead of her watering his animals, he waters hers. When he reveals himself to her, it’s not Rachel but he who weeps.” (Frankel, p50)

Jacob is certainly not his father; the fact that it is he has made this journey on his own and Isaac never sent out any kind of servant to find a wife for his children. He is the “antithesis” of his father in that he is the one present at the meeting of the future spouses and he is the one who prefers activity to passivity. (Alter, p152) Granted, Esau, back in Genesis 28:6-9, took offense to the mere assistance that their parents gave to Jacob concerning where to go to find a wife, but Jacob, considering the fact that he stole the birthright and blessing, was more than happy to get out of the house. Moreover, Jacob is certainly not a mere copy of his mother: having left his family’s tents, he can act of his own accord and allow his inner strength to come to the fore as he both does the shepherds’ jobs for them and initiates the potentially awkward introductions with Rachel and Laban. (Hamilton, p255)

Thus, we approach the end of this passage with a sense of heightened expectations – Jacob has met Rachel, he has sought to prove his worth and his bloodline to her and her father, his uncle Laban, and Laban has declared that he accepts Jacob as his kin by blood. It seems that everything is in order; all that remains is for Rachel to leave her family’s tents to become Jacob’s wife, just as her aunt Rebekah did when The Servant negotiated for her hand in marriage. However, the common factor in both of these stories is Uncle/Father Laban, a man who did his best to negotiate for extra dowry and time before The Servant took his sister away to Isaac’s tents. Jacob has none of the financial backing that The Servant provided in Isaac’s stead, a variation in the two stories that Laban latches onto quite quickly. Jacob the Trickster will come to meet his match in the personage of Laban. (Brueggemann, p253)

We are faced with the question of how to discern the content and purpose of this story in the narrative. We can approach these fourteen verses as purely story; they are the simple continuation of the larger account. Jacob has to go somewhere after meeting God at Bethel, so the logical place for him to go is for him to arrive at Paddan Aram, the tents of his mother’s family. He meets his future wife and her father, demonstrates his value, and places himself at the mercy of Laban. Many commentators mention specifically that they felt that this is the beginning of Jacob’s reaping of the sowing of bad deeds from his past, but to speak of this passage merely in vengeful tones misses the larger picture. To put it rather simply, the show must go on – Jacob must continue fulfilling The Promise, as God commissioned him to do. Moreover, after three chapters of reading about how despicable, deceptive, and power-hungry he seemed to be, it is in this passage that we learn of good, positive aspects to Jacob’s character. Jacob now stands up, all on his own, and does the proper and honorable thing by watering the sheep of his Uncle Laban and approaching Rachel with reverence and awe. However, with such helpful actions, Jacob falls prey to the machinations of Laban; Jacob will get to see what true deception looks like. (Frankel, p51)

Genesis 28

2006-06-30T01:14:00.000-05:00

Jacob’s Dream at Bethel
Or
People CAN Have Visions Without the Use of Hallucinogens

You see, I like stories. I enjoy them quite a lot. With stories, I am allowed to derive what ever point, content, purpose, plan, and/or theme I choose, with the full knowledge that the conclusion I arrive at could be totally different than the one that the author may have intended. And with stories such as the one in Genesis, there are so many twists and turns that it can prove difficult to stop reading. Or, as in the case of historical Jewish culture and similar cultures where history is conveyed through the oral tradition, the listener tries every means possible to keep the storyteller talking because the story is so enthralling that you want to find out exactly what will be happening next.

It is in this spirit that we approach our continuation of Jacob’s story in this chapter. The chapter markings that fill up contemporary Bibles were not part of the original texts and the standard division between chapter and verse was not achieved until the 16th century, just in time for the KJV to enter into mass production in 1611. Thus, anyone who read the Bible before this time would only read the story as it had been written, not being forced to stop by artificially imposed endings to chapters. And even more than that, those who were listening these stories were subjected to the whims of the storyteller who might have ended the recitation for the day whenever they felt like it.

I say all of that to say this – most scholars, when writing about Genesis 28 and focusing their remarks appropriately, combine Genesis 27:46 with Genesis 28:1-9 as a commentary upon how Isaac and Rebekah view Esau’s choice of wives and Jacob’s coming search for a wife. Specifically, Isaac’s blessing of Jacob is a reiteration of the blessing from chapter 27 and an echo of how Father Abraham sent The Servant to look for a wife (Rebekah) for Isaac. Some scholars also note that this section exists to provide a positive and theological context for Jacob’s flight, as if the composers wanted to show that Jacob wasn’t really leaving because of Esau – he was leaving to perpetuate the Promise and find an appropriate wife. (Brueggemann, p237) Moreover, this scene mirrors the events concerning the wives taken by Isaac and Ishmael – Jacob gets the benefit of the blessing and the chosen wife, while Esau reacts negatively and incorrectly by choosing wives from amongst the Hittites and by marrying his first cousin (Ishmael’s daughter). (Alter, p147) It is no wonder that Rebekah’s reaction to Esau’s choices in 27:46 is one of revulsion (and yet another example of her preferring the younger over the elder) – her complaint produces Isaac’s sending off Jacob to Paddan-Aram, in harmony with her sending of Jacob to Laban in 27:43-44. (Berlin & Brettler, p 58)

“When he [Jacob] reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway, resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of the Lord were ascending and descending on it.” (Genesis 28:11-12, TNIV)

Thus, while the core of the story in this chapter is contained within verses 10 through 22, detailing the beginnings of Jacob’s flight from home and the subsequent vision of the ladder/stairway leading to heaven, it seems that Jacob himself is unprepared for what’s about to happen to him. For you see, as opposed to his grandfather Abraham, Jacob had not experienced any contact with God when he launched across the desert. Moreover, in further contrast to Abraham, the reader knows a great deal about Jacob biographically at this point, whereas with Abraham, besides noting the names of his siblings and his wife’s infertility, the reader knew nothing of his personality and character when God first comes to visit him. (Hamilton, p238) In fact, when you examine what we learned about Abraham over the course of 15 chapters with what we have learned about Jacob in the last 3 chapters, one would find it hard to believe that God would really consider either Esau or Jacob to carry on the Promise that had been given to Father Abraham. Esau was a wild man who cared nothing for the birthright and what it truly meant, while Jacob, though understanding the true significance of the birthright and blessing, decided steal it from his brother instead of waiting on God to fulfill the prophecy given to Rebekah.

However, in a move that confuses (or should!) the “morality police” and gossipmongers of past, present, and future, God tends to choose some strange people to prod along the story. It appears that, no matter whatever prophecy or promise is at stake, the character of the one who will fulfill it often doesn’t really matter to God. Thus, Jacob travels towards his mother’s old home and to wherever his father has deemed appropriate to find a wife, unbeknownst to God’s higher purposes and desire for Jacob to truly receive Isaac’s blessing, regardless of Jacob’s tendency towards trickery and deceit. (Berlin & Brettler, p58) Thus, when Jacob awakes from his dream (or in the midst of his dream) to find angels walking up and down a set of stairs that stretch from heaven to earth, he is wholly unprepared to hear from God.

Jacob has never had any contact with God directly, something we can directly intuit from the text’s silence on any communication between God and Jacob up to this point. And that is often how God prefers it to happen. Jacob is running away from his brother fearfully, seeking to save only his own skin, sent off to find a wife by his parents just so he doesn’t start wandering and marry someone who was a local and not suitable for entrance into the First Family. Jacob’s agenda doesn’t include anything close to the will of God and God runs with that fact in how the conversation with Jacob comes to take place. (Brueggemann, p242)

“Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. He called that place Bethel…” (Genesis 28:18-19a, NRSV)

What a transformation Jacob underwent in the verses preceding his response here. Jacob enters into a dream and comes to stare in awe at the angels walking up and down the stairs between heaven and earth. God appears beside Jacob and proclaims to him the same promise that his grandfather Abraham received, and does this as the God of his grandfather and father. Isaac never had this experience and never blessed Jacob with the details of this promise; thus, while Jacob probably heard the stories about his grandfather, there is no evidence textually to state that Isaac or Jacob ever lived in light of these promises. If one were to compare the details of the Promise from Genesis 12, 13, and 17 to those in Genesis 28, the similarities would be overwhelming to the extent that they would seem quite verbatim. God extends to Jacob these promises: 1) the land on which Jacob sleeps will be his and his offspring’s; 2) his offspring will be as innumerable as the dust of the earth; 3) the peoples of the earth will be blessed by his offspring; and 4) God will be with Jacob, no matter where he travels. And upon waking from such a specific and direct line of communication with God, Jacob leaps headlong into loving God and acknowledging God’s presence in his life and in that place. (Brueggemann, p246) From there, Jacob worships a God through the building of a physical monument, the consecrating the direction of his life to trusting God for everything, and honoring God with a tenth of whatever God gives to him first.

A great many commentators give much attention to the physical and historical aspects of the events of this chapter. Whether they attempt to locate the location of this God-to-man communication, discuss the finer aspects of the building of the pillar/monument, or whether or not the angels were walking up and down a ladder or stairway, they spend more time trying to ascertain the specifics rather than gain a glimpse into the transformation that has taken place in Jacob’s life. Now, I do not ever want to dismiss such critiques and information from these authors; in fact, I find much of it to be great illumination into why Jacob chose to erect a physical monument as he made a verbal, spiritual declaration about the course of the rest of his life. However, I feel that some missed the larger, over-arching purpose of God’s entrance into Jacob’s life – Jacob needed this experience, this visitation from the God of Heaven. Before this dream, Jacob had lived a life by his own means and for his own ends, never truly taking the lives of others into consideration (besides obeying the whims of his mother). But after the dream, Jacob realized that he had received a literal and figurative wake-up call for his life – he became heir not only to his family’s physical possessions, but to their spiritual legacy and heritage. The birthright for which he had schemed and deceived for so long was much more important, significant, and eternal than he had ever imagined or dreamed.

Genesis 27

2006-06-22T21:58:00.000-05:00

Jacob Acquires Esau’s Blessing
Or
Not Only Does Jacob Find Lying Easy,
But He Also Enjoys Dressing Up

Again and again, I find myself convinced that the impact, truth, and depth of the Patriarchal stories in Genesis lie within the day-to-day humanity of the characters’ lives. These were real people, with real problems, with real issues, who tended to screw up quite often. And I find lots of hope and help in that fact, not because they’re broken, but because, in that brokenness, we can grow along with these characters. For far too long, the Church has idolized these men and women, but I take issue with that, not because they’re not worthy of study and respect, but because they are fallen humans, just as we are today.

Thus, with this third confrontation between Esau and Jacob, we gain yet another glimpse into how families, as wonderful and blessed by the Lord as they seem to be, struggle with their sin natures. These struggles come to the surface both in the lives of each individual and in how they four characters in this story interact with each other. Therefore, as I sift through the notes from several commentaries, the major theme of this story (and the rest of Genesis, in fact) seems to be how Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Esau grapple with the juxtaposition of blessing and duplicity, in conjunction with how this results of the events of this passage bear out across the rest of the book of Genesis. (Brueggemann, p227) Just as in Genesis 25, the two parents have chosen sides, the twins have made their preferences known, and all four equally honor and disparage the blessing. And in a bit of foreshadowing, since history has this sad and frustrating way of repeating, Israel as a nation, throughout the Old Testament and into the Gospels, embroils itself in this internal conflict over earning, deserving, and actually living as in the blessing.

The concepts of blessing and birthright, as we have seen in regards to the relationship between Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac, are often hard for the modern reader to understand. To bless one child over another signifies the transference of material blessing from the parents onto their children, with the eldest son receiving a double share compared to his other siblings, a share that usually meant that child would take over the running of the family upon the death of the father. (Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, p58-59) Thus, as Isaac realizes that he doesn’t have much time left on the earth, he wants to set into motion the events by which Esau, the son he favors, will take over the family. But little does he know that his wife was intently and purposefully listening to their conversation, much as Sarah eavesdropped upon Abraham and his heavenly visitors. (Frankel, p44-45)

We learned in Genesis 25 that Rebekah did receive the prophecy from God that The Twins warring within her would war their entire lives and would foster nations that would be at odds throughout history, with the specific mention that the youngest would be served by the eldest. I would imagine that she shared this prophecy with her husband, so the questions that I immediately ask myself when I begin reading of the conflicting interests of The Twins’ parents are, “Why do these two perpetually seek to serve their own purposes? Didn’t Isaac grow up in a house with a Mom and Dad who chose to take God’s promises into their own hands, much the eventual chagrin of Hagar and Ishmael?” One would think that Isaac would have learned that, no matter what humans might attempt, God’s promises find a way of coming to pass on God’s terms and not humanity’s.

Rebekah and Isaac knew that the younger child would rule over the elder, yet their actions lead me to believe that they really didn’t take that promise of God into account. Their initial choosing of favorites back in Genesis 25 simply laid the groundwork for the turmoil that would boil over in Genesis 27. Isaac’s preference for Esau obviously includes his preference for Esau as the primary heir, not precluding the culturally appropriate practice of primogeniture. Rebekah’s preference for Jacob isn’t specified in Genesis 25, but one could intuit that she preferred him because the prophecy declared him to be the eventual, historical victor. However, such a preference does not explain why she decided to deceive her husband and attempt to force God’s hand into making Jacob to be the heir and recipient of the blessing and birthright. Why does Rebekah not believe that the prophecy will come true without her direct intervention? If they are as close as Genesis 25 tells us they are, would not Jacob have already told his mother that he had bought the birthright for a bowl of soup?

I say all of that to say this – the deception occurred and all of the participants in this sordid, domestic power play suffered from it in the long run. But, you might ask, “What did Esau and Isaac do wrong here? Don’t the details of this story lead us to believe that it Rebekah and Jacob who should bear the brunt of the guilt and shame on display here in this story?” And I would respond to you, stating, “Oh yes. Rebekah and Jacob were at fault, but we should not ignore Esau’s contempt for the birthright (Genesis 25:34) nor Isaac’s deliberate ignorance of the prophecy and subsequent predilection for Esau.” So, in order to better describe the overarching outcomes of these events, let’s take a short walk through the essential details of this tale.

After hearing about Isaac and Esau’s preparations for the blessing of Esau, Rebekah counters by preparing a meal, covering Jacob in animal fur, and placing him in Esau’s clothing, all to trick her husband in his old age. Jacob’s only complaint concerning his mother’s plan was his initial reticence concerning his lack of hair; Jacob himself had purchased the birthright for a bowl of soup. Just because Esau misunderstood and despised the birthright didn’t mean that Jacob could step in and take advantage of the situation. Once in the tent, bearing the food so that he might receive the blessing, Jacob lies to his father about his identity, in regards to his voice, skin quality, and smell (as the text tells us how poor Isaac’s eyesight was). Isaac blesses Jacob, Jacob leaves quickly, and Esau enters. Esau asks his father for his blessing, and when Isaac tells him that he has already given out the blessing to someone else that had identified themselves as Esau, both men instantly realize that Jacob has deceived them. To top it off, Esau was very specific in his awakening – he declared that since Jacob had again deceived him, having first taken the birthright, he would launch a search for his brother in order to kill him, but only after the death of his father. Rebekah again overhears Isaac and Esau talking and tells Jacob where to run in order to escape his brother’s wrath.

Whew! I hope that I didn’t lose you back there in our attempt at summarizing. I know that we moved through the chapter at break-neck speed in that last paragraph, but we needed to do so in order to debate and discuss what this story really means to the overall story of God’s people in Genesis. What we have here is a chapter full of foreshadowing – from Rebekah’s decision to take on the curse from Jacob for their deception, to Jacob’s taking of the birthright, to Isaac’s blessing of Jacob and proclamation of perpetual tumult in Esau’s life, to Esau’s declaration of intent to murder his manipulative and lying brother, all the way to Jacob’s flight from home to Rebekah’s brother Laban’s household. Each instance of wrongdoing towards a family member comes back to haunt them later in Genesis.

Thus, this chapter is a turning point for the rest of the story as it sets the table for Jacob’s troubles: his obtaining a wife, the issues between his wives, the conflicts between his children, and the clashes between him and his children. As we will see in our next few chapters, Jacob will serve his uncle Laban for 20 years in order to marry Rachel, his wives and concubines will not get along due to their differing levels of fertility (in what seems to be a recurring theme in the stories of the Patriarchs), his sons will gang up upon Joseph (the son he prefers, though he should know that preferring one son over another causes more grief than it’s worth), and that conflict with Joseph will cause his sons to deceive their father with goat’s blood when they sell Joseph away. Moreover, Rebekah’s adoption of Jacob’s curse does not go unpunished – she dies before Jacob ever returns to his home, having never seen her wide collection of grandchildren.

Once again, in yet another fatalistic turn of events, human attempts to play God have gone awry. Both Rebekah and Isaac, having chosen sides, have perpetuated domestic strife in the tents of the Patriarchs; one son, already at odds with the other due to their personality differences and an earlier deception, is now intent upon killing the other. Isaac ignored the prophecy and looked to impose the birthright upon Esau, while Rebekah used trickery to sneak Jacob into receiving the blessing, even though she knew that Jacob was already supposed to be the chosen one. The Patriarchs do not seem to be able to listen to the voice of God, obey the directives of God, or believe the prophecies of God, after praying to God for directions. This chapter is a microcosm of the bulk of the book of Genesis; it is an indictment of human nature when it chooses to pay only lip service to the role of God in their lives. By choosing their own methods, plans, and strategies, The Patriarchs only suffer when God only seeks to bless them, which is a bit ironic, since they ARE supposed to be God’s Chosen People.

Genesis 25

2006-06-16T00:49:00.000-05:00

The Twins Arrive!
Or
How Domestic Conflict Can Come Early in Life

This chapter contains three distinct sections – 1) the specifics of Abraham’s last years on earth; 2) a chronological record of Ishmael’s sons and his death; and 3) the arrival of Jacob & Esau and their early dispute. And while it can seem as cut and dry as that, the chapter revolves primarily around the beginnings of the third Patriarch – Jacob. For you see, the Jacob & Esau conflict sets the stage for the rest of Genesis; from here on out, the story of Jacob and his family (primarily Joseph) takes center stage in the history of the Jewish people. Thus, our conversation here will discuss how the birth and early clash between The Twins introduces the major themes that will resonate throughout the rest of Jacob’s life.

It is not that Abraham’s death and burial are not important events, but with the marriage of Isaac to Rebekah, Abraham’s role in this story becomes drastically diminished. Notice how, after sending out The Servant to locate Isaac a wife, Abraham fails to appear again in that chapter, including when Rebekah arrives in camp for the first time and joins Isaac in Sarah’s tent to become married. And in the beginning of this chapter, we are only passive observers to the events at the end of Abraham’s life – his marriage to a wife/concubine named Keturah, through whom he birthed six sons late in his life. What is worthy of comment here is that the story takes time to specifically mention that Abraham gave each of these six sons a gift and sent them away from Isaac, reminding Isaac & the people then and readers throughout history that Isaac was the son of promise and no one else. (Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, p57)

From here, the story tells us about the death of Abraham, including providing a eulogy that anyone would be proud of – “Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people.” (Genesis 25:8, TNIV) Commentators note distinct tones of cooperation between Isaac and Ishmael as they bury their father. (Brueggemann, p203) There is no discord, only two sons working together to show the utmost respect to a man they both called father. (Hamilton, p168) Abraham is laid to rest in the tomb that he purchased from the Hittites for his wife Sarah and Isaac and Ishmael have a brief reunion to honor the passing of their father before they set off on their own separate ways to birth their own children.

From here, the chapter presents a brief synopsis of the life, times, and offspring of Ishmael. Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis: Interpretation, takes the position that, while the narrative is written heavily in favor of Isaac’s position as the son of promise, Ishmael’s story is not ignored, his claims as a son of the promises given by God to Abraham are not denied. (p203) Moreover, in conjunction with this view, Victor P. Hamilton’s The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 states, “We are told in v. 11 that God blessed Isaac, but we are not told how. Here we do not find the verb ‘blessed’ in reference to Ishmael, but we do find an ample illustration of what constitutes a blessing, twelve offspring. That Ishmael had so many children and that he enjoyed longevity are sure trademarks of divine blessing.” (p170) What we can learn from verses 12-18 is that Ishmael’s story is a part of Abraham & Isaac’s story and that Ishmael, even though he was not the primary recipient of Abraham’s blessing, still returned for his father’s funeral and lived a life that bore the fruit of God’s blessing. Ishmael was the father of a great nation in Biblical history, fulfilling, in his own right, the promises God gave to Abraham.

“Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ So she went to inquire of the Lord. The Lord said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two people from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.” (Genesis 25:20-23, TNIV)

And with one fell swoop, God declares to Rebekah that her children will be not only creators of their own respective nations, but those two nations will be in conflict, beginning with her two children. Rebekah’s cry of pain and confusion regarding her warring children in verse 22 is met with a prophecy from God in verse 23 that doesn’t even answer her question. The birth itself is not even what is notable in this section; with the declaration that the siblings will live in tension and struggle, it is the oracle that takes center stage here. (Alter, p126) However, Rebekah, ever the astute woman, uncharacteristically doesn’t reply with a question to this troubling non-answer; the comforting answer she sought never came, yet she seemed to be strangely content to be the mother of this conflict. (Hamilton, p177-178)

Once again, this time in the guise of The Twins, the story of the Hebrew people twists, turns, and runs counter to cultural norms, in the same fashion as the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac, Joseph and his brothers, & David and his brothers. (Hamilton, p177) Primogeniture, though upheld in general across the Old Testament as a cultural and regional norm concerning the passing on of the family line, is curiously cast aside when it comes to the foundational scenarios in the Patriarchal line of Israel. (Plaut, p175) What makes these occurrences stand out is that the means and methods employed for the younger child to rise over the elder child(ren) varied throughout history. In this story, as we will see, it was truly a case of not just sibling, but parental rivalry, that allows for Jacob to take the birthright from Esau.

“The boys grew up, and Esau became skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents. Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau, but Rebekah loved Jacob.” (Genesis 25:27-28, TNIV)

Many commentators approach this section from the vantage point of attempting to ascertain why Isaac and Rebekah played favorites with their sons. It seems that Isaac prefers the bounty of Esau’s profession and Rebekah simply loved Jacob, but that would be a shallow, cursory glance into the workings of that family’s lives. The concept of birthright, which Esau willingly trades away for a bowl of red lentil soup, stands up at the center of this controversy, since the son who receives Isaac’s blessing it both traditionally the oldest son and the son who is most responsible for carrying on the family name. However, with this family, the birthright carries with it the weight of fulfilling the promises of God made to Father Abraham. (Plaut, p175)

Let us sift through a few different interpretations of the domestic situation in the tents of Isaac and Rebekah. Hamilton theorizes, “We are not told why Rebekah was fonder of Jacob than of Esau, but later narratives (see ch. 27) focus more on that relationship than they do on Isaac’s favoring Esau. Isaac prefers Esau because of his own love of venison.” (Hamilton, p182) The women in Frankel’s The Five Books of Miriam declare, “Rebecca [Frankel’s spelling] clearly understands that it is someone like Jacob who will fulfill God’s covenant. Isaac, on the other hand, hopes for a different outcome for his family: to become through Esau a nation like all other nations among whom they live. That is why God reveals the future to Rebecca.” (Frankel, p42) The commentators in The Jewish Study Bible agree with that perspective, stating, “Once again, the mother mediates God’s preference (cf. 21.9-13; Mal. 1.2-5). The father seems blind to the higher purpose (cf. Gen. 27.1-45).” (Berlin & Brettler, p53) It simply seems quite peculiar to many people’s sensibilities that Isaac and Rebekah inculcated and supported the strife that was prophesied over The Twins. What is more strange is the fact that, even though Rebekah knew the youngest child would eventually rule of the elder, she had no problem supporting Jacob as the eventual victor, creating a space where the two boys would grow up in conflict with each other. (Frankel, p42)

Taking all of those comments into consideration, we must find a way to set this instance of parental affection gone horribly wrong into context of the larger story that exists until the end of Jacob’s days. There must be a reason that the author of Genesis includes these passages that often offense our ears, eyes, and understanding. “The narrative does not accommodate our discrete sensibilities. It does not waver from the exasperation of Rebekah (v. 22). It does not apologize for the partisan character of the oracle (v. 23). It is not even embarrassed by (nor does it bother to explain) the blatant preference by the parents (v. 28). Like its main character, this narrative is indiscreet and at times scandalous. It shows God and his chosen younger one aligned against the older brother, against the father, and against the cultural presumptions of natural privilege. Jacob is announced as a visible expression of God’s remarkable graciousness in the face of conventional definitions of reality and prosperity. Jacob is a scandal from the beginning. The powerful grace of God is a scandal. It upsets the way we would organize life.” (Brueggemann, p217)

“Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left. So Esau despised his birthright.” (Genesis 25;34, TNIV)

Ahhh… Brotherly Love… It seems that the Old Testament overflows with stories of strife amongst families, even more so than the historical record would reveal to be the average. What stands out from the story of Esau’s selling of the birthright is the utter disdain for the birthright that Esau seems to have and the downright guile with which Jacob conducts the negotiations for what is rightfully Esau’s birthright. (Alter, p129) Jacob has no problem openly declaring that he desires the birthright from Esau, doing so over a bowl of lentil soup. And what is most astonishing to me (and probably to Jacob) is the speed and bluntness of Esau’s response to Jacob’s offer – “‘Look, I am about to die,’ Esau said. ‘What good is the birthright to me?’” (Genesis 26:32, TNIV)

However, Jacob is no saint here, far from it actually. Jacob’s willingness to offer a mere bowl of soup for the privilege of leading the family after Isaac’s passing reveals how manipulative Jacob truly is, how he recognizes the worth of the birthright, but denigrates it by hoping to trade it for dinner. Jacob’s ability and readiness to deceive come to plague him for much of the rest of his life, as future chapters will reveal. Moreover, “The doubtful exchange of food for birthright brings him a brother’s enmity and still does not ensure him his father’s blessing.” (Plaut, p176) However, at the same time, Hamilton notes, “… The author or narrator of 25:27-34 never [overtly] condemns Jacob’s modus operandi. But he indicts Esau for spurning his birthright.” (Hamilton, p 186) The two boys are simply the product of their environment – they each are shown preferential treatment by one parent at the expense of the other, leading ultimately to Jacob living out a life of struggle with his father, his brother, his wives, his children, and the God who follows his throughout his life. (Brueggemann, p219)

Genesis 24

2006-06-09T00:38:00.000-05:00

Isaac & Rebekah
Or
You’ve Gotta Love Arranged Marriages

At first glance, this is quite a long chapter – 67 verses of Abraham sending off “his servant” (Eliezer, by most accounts and commentators, and referred to in this lesson primarily as “The Servant”) to locate a wife for Isaac so that the promise of a nation being born through can continue on unabated. Yes, to our contemporary thought processes appears to be quite a quaint social convention of ancient and/or pre-modern times. And yes, as someone rather versed in monarchical political machinations throughout history, I am more than aware of the biological messiness that often arises with marriages between closely related families. However, in all reality, Abraham is engaged in a tried-and-true exercise in nation-building, all dressed up in the guise of finding his son a wife.

Thus, in attempt to expedite and flow smoothly through these culturally delicate, our glimpse into this story in the lives of the Patriarchs will occur from four different perspectives – 1) Abraham & The Servant, 2) The Servant & Rebekah, 3) The Servant & Rebekah’s family, and 4) Isaac & Rebekah. (Brueggemann, p197) The Servant’s eyes will show us what it was like to be sent out on the search for the woman who will continue the promise with Isaac. Through the eyes of Rebekah, we will gaze into what it was like to be the woman being sought after to be the future wife of Isaac. And we will attempt to do our best and wait along with Abraham and Isaac back at the tents, hoping that The servant is either discerning, lucky, or both. Hopefully, throughout this discussion and three-voiced conversation, we will gain a clearer vision of what this story entails for the larger story in Genesis.

“He [Abraham] said to the senior servant in his household [Eliezer], the one in charge of all that he had, ‘I want you to swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.’” (Genesis 24:3-4, TNIV)

From the beginning of this story, the journey the reader takes with Abraham’s servant is one of faith, no different than that of Abraham’s original journey. Abraham declares to The Servant that he must travel back across the whole of the desert, back to Abraham’s homeland, in a possibly vain attempt to locate Isaac’s wife. There can be no stopping midway for a wife from a local girl, since, by marrying a Canaanite woman, the promise could not be properly fulfilled. I would surmise that to have married locally would meant that Isaac would have been able to possess the land through political machinations and not through divine providence and blessing. And if there’s anything that Abraham has (or should have) learned over all of these years is that his and Sarah’s human plans have paled in comparison to God’s and have usually caused more harm than good. Abraham simply isn’t going to settle for anything less than a God-provided miracle, even if he does send The Servant out on this very important mission, as opposed to himself or Isaac.

And listen to this unusual requirement Abraham issues for identifying his future daughter-in-law: “If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine. Only do not take my son back there.” (Genesis 24:8, TNIV) Abraham declared that an angel of the Lord would be guiding The Servant to any potential marriage candidates and, if they didn’t want to return to see Isaac with The Servant, then she was obviously not the woman for Isaac. Moreover, I find Abraham’s specific declaration that Isaac should not accompany The Servant on the journey to be a curious one. Now, while I don’t want to read too much into the text from my sociological purview, it would seem that Abraham doesn’t want Isaac to be tempted by any Canaanite woman along the way. If you’ve done your math along the way, you’ll remember that Isaac is 37 years old by this time and has just experienced the death of his mother, not to mention having had a near-death experience. Maybe Abraham is fearful that the middle-aged, lonely, and hurting Isaac would be inclined to marry any woman that struck his fancy or that he thought would be good enough. But we can only surmise these things because Abraham simply was not very clear in the instructions that he gave to The Servant, leaving him to his own devices.

“Then he prayed, ‘Lord, God of my master Abraham, make me successful today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. May it be that when I say to a girl, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’ – let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master.’” (Genesis 24:12-14, TNIV)

Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were praying a specific prayer to God to lead me in some difficult task, I’m not sure that I’m going to be requesting that this woman knows how to serve water well to a complete stranger. I understand that he’s looking for certain traits in a wife for Isaac, but The Servant’s desired method of back-and-forth conversation with a woman leaves much to be desired in terms of being effective. (Frankel, p32) However, Ellen Frankel, using the voice of Rebekah, responds to such criticism of The Servant’s methods with these words: “Eliezer’s test was designed to locate a woman discreet enough not to approach a stranger but bold enough to extend herself, once approached by him. This particular combination of character traits – a kind of cagey gumption – is precisely what enabled me to secure Jacob’s future by tricking my husband and my older son out of a birthright. So Eliezer’s angel [Genesis 24:7] obviously knew exactly what she was doing.” (Frankel, p33) It seems that God answered The Servant’s prayers, and as strange as the methodology might seem to us, it brought Rebekah and the servant together, in accordance with God’s plans. (Brueggemann, p198)

And in case you’re interested, I’d like to provide this side note to the general flow of the lesson, a curiosity upon which many commentators took specific note. The Servant launched off from Abraham’s tent with ten camels across the blazing hot Arabian Desert; thus, upon arriving at Aram-Naharaim, The Servant and his camels would be quite parched. A camel could drink up to twenty-five gallons of water to replenish their internal supplies, so The Servant’s prayerful request that the potential spouse for Isaac be willing to water all ten of those camels would be quite a daunting task for anyone to fulfill adequately. (Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, p56) Robert Alter even goes as far as to make the comparison in his book Genesis, stating, “This is the closest anyone comes in Genesis to a feat of ‘Homeric’ heroism. … Rebekah hurrying down the steps of the well would have had to be a nonstop blur of motion in order to carry up all this water in her single jug.” (Alter, p116) Rebekah’s overt willingness to achieve this feat would have been an example of chutzpah and physical strength that would have astounded the travel-worn, yet hopeful Servant beyond his wildest expectations.

So, The Servant has found, through angelic and divine direction Rebekah, the woman who is to be the wife of Isaac. From the well, The Servant went to the tents of Rebekah’s family so that he may meet with her (unnamed) Mother and brother Laban (who Jacob will have severe issues with later in Genesis) and persuade Rebekah’s family to permit her to return with him to marry Isaac. Much of the interaction between The Servant and the family revolves around two primary motifs – the ceremonial retelling to Laban and Mother of the scenario in which The Servant met Rebekah and the proffering of gifts as a means of proving Abraham’s wealth and Isaac’s suitability as a potential husband. With the recitation of their meeting, The Servant leaves out only Abraham’s specific directions that relate to the Covenant, an omission that many feel was necessary and proper to not offend those who might hear such seemingly egotistical declarations of divine supremacy. (Plaut, p163 & Alter, p118) Such a speech, though its style and substance sounds overly formal and unnecessary to our contemporary ears, in cultures where stories of familial history such as these were passed along orally, such repetition is quite typical, as it was used as for dramatic effect in an attempt to keep the listener’s interest and to underscore the importance of the details being discussed. (Brueggemann, p198) Moreover, the concept of “bride-price” and “dowry” appear as anachronisms to our societal behaviors, but such customs have been in practice amongst families, whether royalty or otherwise, as a means by which the parents of the betrothed can determine if bride will be taken care of appropriately and if the two families will be able to coexist peacefully (which is why many times arranged marriages were used as political tools to achieve long-sought-for peace). (Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, p56)

All of the cultural factors present in this story are designed to display the historical importance of this marriage to the listener and reader, since it seems that God has chosen this method to further extend and grow the Patriarchal line that God has promised to Abraham. By sending The Servant back to the land of his relatives, Abraham hoped to locate an appropriate wife for his son Isaac, who had yet to or was unwilling to find a wife amongst the Canaanites. Moreover, the great amount of detail in this story further illustrates how God works in ways that humanity has trouble wrapping its collective and individual minds around. Abraham and The Servant have the greatest understanding of this, which can be seen in the seemingly vague guidelines under which their search was undertaken – the fewer human preferences and wishes present, the greater the reliance upon God.

“When they [The Servant, Rebekah, and her family] got up the next morning, he said, ‘Send me on my way to my master.’ But her brother and her mother replied, ‘Let the girl remain with us ten days or so; then you may go.’ But he said to them, ‘Do not detain me, now that the Lord has granted success to my journey. Send me on my way so I may go to my master.’ Then they said, ‘Let’s call the girl and ask her about it.’ So they called Rebekah and asked her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ ‘I will go,’ she said.” (Genesis 24:55-58, TNIV)

Standing there in her mother’s tents, Rebekah observes the parley between The Servant and Laban concerning her future, a discussion that she arranged by fulfilling The Servant’s prayerful requirements, a discussion in which, by custom, she has no part whatsoever. However, when it comes time for The Servant to return with Rebekah to Isaac’s tents, her family understandably resists, since her departure meant that they would most likely never see her again. They petition for a ten-day waiting period, to which The Servant responds by declaring that he must return immediately as a way of thanking God for answering his and Abraham’s prayers. But in an instance unparalleled in Near Eastern literature from that time period, the men turn to Rebekah to ask her what she would like to do. Having not been consulted earlier during the exchange of gifts as to whether or not she would like to be married off to Isaac, the fact that The Servant and her family are now asking for her approval is quite unusual and atypical for similar scenarios. (Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, p56)

On pages 34-35 of her The Five Books of Miriam, Ellen Frankel provides the following two portions of commentary in dialogue/conversational format to shed some light upon these quite curious events. Read along with me.
Her Mother’s Household
“Our Daughters Ask: Why does the Torah say that ‘The maiden ran and told all this to her mother’s household’ (24:28)? More likely it’s her father’s house.
Wily Rebecca [Frankel’s Spelling] Answers: So much in my story goes against the grain of patriarchal culture: My genealogy’s usually traced through my grandmother Milcah (though Eliezer, whenever he told his side of the story, kept substituting my grandfather’s name). Although the narrator rightly identifies my home as my mother’s household, Eliezer always insisted that he’d been sent to Abraham’s father’s household. But notice that Eliezer gave gifts to my brother and mother, but not to my father. And it was my mother and my brother Laban who negotiated for my hand. And my mother and Laban asked me if I wanted to go off with Eliezer to marry Isaac.
Our Mothers Observe: Even today Middle Eastern and Mediterranean cultures typically don’t grant such privileged status to women. How much more exceptional that the ancient Bible does!”

Rebecca’s Decision
“Our Daughters Ask: Who makes the decision that Rebecca should marry Isaac? Is Rebecca really allowed to decide for herself, as it is written, ‘Will you go with this man?’ (24:58) In most traditional cultures, such things aren’t allowed.
Wily Rebecca Answers: I always suspected that my brother Laban was up to something in asking me for my consent. Maybe he was hoping I’d refuse, so that he could squeeze more of a bride-price from Eliezer. Laban was certainly capable of such crude behavior. Remember that he later extorted from Jacob seven extra years for Rachel’s hand. And I also wonder about my mother’s motives. I suspect that she wanted to keep me home, so she insisted on my consent in the hopes that I would refuse the marriage. She already knew that she’d probably never see me again, never see her grandchildren. But in the end all she got was ten more days with me.
Our Mothers Add: Perhaps she simply wanted to grant Rebecca a voice, something she did not have in her own life. After all, she does not even have a name.”

“Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” (Genesis 24:66-67, TNIV)

After a long voyage back to Abraham’s old home, meeting Rebekah, negotiating with Rebekah’s family for her hand in marriage to Isaac, and having Rebekah personally decide that she did want to leave home to be Isaac’s wife, The Servant returns home to Abraham’s tents, bringing with him the woman who would help Isaac perpetuate God’s promises to Abraham. And as you read through the events of Rebekah’s approach via camel with Isaac observing her coming as he stands in the fields, you get the impression that Hollywood itself has borrowed from this idyllic scene a few too many times. The scene is almost cliché in how it concludes the journey that is Genesis 24, yet it evokes a sweet and happy tenderness as the coming together of husband and wife is so gently rendered, including Isaac’s comforting in his mother’s tent. (Brueggemann, p199) The long voyage and search have concluded and all parties involved are pleased with the outcome, one in which every possible consideration and plea that had been made prior to the journey being made was met to its fullest extent. Rebekah approached her husband veiled, in the cultural tradition surrounding marriage (Plaut, p166), and Isaac brought her into his deceased mother’s tent, so that Rebekah could take her place as the family matriarch. (Alter, p123)

The line can now continue and can do so without all of the domestic discord that surrounded Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac for those great many years. Isaac, above all, must have been quite pleased in the amiable outcome of the search for his wife, unbeknownst to the domestic trauma that will arise between his twin sons in the next chapter.

Genesis 23

2006-06-02T23:39:00.000-05:00

The Death of Sarah
Or
Abraham is Either a Great Negotiator,
A Very Respected Man, Or Both

Hello there folks. How are you doing? I hope you’re doing well.

If you’re not busy, I’d like to invite you to take a look through Chapter 23.

Yes, I’m talking to you, so stop reading this now and go read the chapter.

This is not a discussion. Go now.

You’re reading – Very Good.

Keep going. That’s it. You can do it.

So, since you’ve now finished perusing and soaking up the story recounted in those 20 verses, does it seem to you that the Hittites like Abraham?

It does?

I thought it would. That was my first impression as well. And it immediately begged the questions, “Who are these Hittites and why do they like him so much?” Until this chapter, there aren’t any references to Abraham talking to or having interactions with the Hittites, yet it appears that Abraham is quite a revered and honored person amongst their people, enough that they are willing to give up some of their best property for free. A cursory reading of this passage would suggest that Abraham has to finagle them into taking the money from him so that it won’t look like he took the land from them, alleviating any future pressure or misunderstanding about his family’s cemetery for years to come. Thus, if you’re anything like me, you’re quite curious as to how this specific story comes to arrive in the general flow of the book of Genesis. The author of Genesis has never failed to amaze me and neither has the story of Abraham, Sarah, and their descendents.

“He who possesses these three traits is one of the disciples of our father Abraham: a generous eye, a meek spirit, and a humble soul. How do we know that Abraham possessed a meek spirit? While the children of Heth call him a prince, he refers to himself by saying: ‘I am a resident alien among you’ [Gen. 23:4]. It further says: ‘Abraham bowed low before the people of the land’ [Gen. 23:12]. The Hebrew literally says ‘before the am ha-aretz,’ which later came to mean ‘the common people.’ To do what Abraham did is the sign of the great man.” (Plaut, p159)

To begin, the point being made in this portion of midrashic commentary is that Abraham was honored and respected by the Hittites. The burgeoning Jewish people were foreigners on Hittite soil, and thusly, had no claim to any land, any property, or any legal rights. Abraham needed a place to bury his deceased wife and had to purchase property to do so, something that was quite difficult to achieve in many ancient cultures. (Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, p54) While the bulk of the conversation is representative of a typical Near Eastern economic transaction (i.e. haggling), the fact that Abraham, as an outsider, is allowed to make such a request to purchase land is quite notable. (Berlin & Brettler, pp 47)

“Perhaps the narrative reflects no more than a specific commercial transaction. Nowhere is there any mention of God. The narrative gives no hint of any theological intention. It may best be left at that. In any case, beyond the actual securing of the grave, one may note the almost humorous style of negotiations, governed by the verb ‘give’ (vv. 4, 9, 11, 12) which is only a euphemism for buying and selling. If there is one thing neither party intends to do, it is to ‘give’ anything away. This tone is culminated by the speech of Ephron (v. 15). He finally, reluctantly, names an amount, probably a high amount and in effect says, ‘What is 400 shekels among friends?’ The answer is, ‘A lot.’ But that is the basis of the settlement. (The maneuvering for a suitable settlement is reminiscent of intense bargaining between Abraham and God in 18.23-33). (Brueggemann, p195)

Therefore, even with all of the consideration and respect that the Hittites afford Abraham, it seems that the Patriarch still must pay a premium for the land on which he will bury his wife Sarah. And as a good, dutiful, loving husband, he is willing to do everything in his power to honor her memory. Consider all that Sarah experienced as the wife of Abraham: 1) She followed him to Haran, then across the desert to Canaan; 2) she was declared barren when we are first introduced to her, yet God chose her to bear the child of promise that would begin the Jewish nation, a promise that she often laughed at and didn’t believe; 3) she suggested that her handmaiden Hagar become Abraham’s concubine, yet when she realized how she had set domestic disputes into motion, she cast her out of her house twice; 4) she had her life put into jeopardy twice by her husband concerning her beauty; and 5) bore the child of promise at the not-so-young age of 90, only to have God ask her husband to sacrifice Isaac as some sort of test. (Plaut, p158) Abraham wants to commemorate his wife and their life together by securing her a proper burial place and not just some random place in the desert near where their tents had been pitched. Such a strong, beautiful, flawed, yet virtuous woman deserved nothing less.

Abraham’s status as a loving husband notwithstanding, the Hittite Ephrom openly, yet acting fully within cultural norms, exploits Abraham’s willingness to pay a premium price to obtain a burial place for his beloved wife. Robert Alter, in his translation and commentary Genesis, notes that, from the outset the conversation between Abraham and Ephron is quite typical of land purchasing agreements in the ancient Near East. (p110) Thus, Abraham is not manipulated by Ephron into paying an exorbitant price; he is more than willing to engage in these negotiations with the landowner because he knows that any purchase he makes for his family must be beyond reproach and be indisputable in the eyes of the people in whose land he resides as a foreigner. (Alter, p110) Furthermore, some theorize that Abraham could be looking to buy whatever small piece of land is available as a symbolic representation of his family’s beginning to possessing the land that God had been promising him and his progeny for 67 years. (Brueggemann, p 196) But no matter how noble Abraham’s reasons were, Ephrom is attempting to secure from Abraham whatever Abraham is willing to pay.

“‘My lord, listen to me: a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead.’ Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants. … After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as property for a burying place by the Hittites.” (Genesis 23:15-16, 19-20, ESV)

Abraham and Ephron pull no punches with each other during the course of the negotiations. Ephron seems to know or intuit just how badly Abraham needed to purchase the land he so desired. Abraham keeps offering the same amount over and over again, in full realization that his bid was quite inflated and well above the market rate. (Berlin & Brettler, p 48) These are two quality, competent, and well-informed negotiators who are both were aware of where the other stands in relation to Canaan’s cultural milieu – Abraham, as the resident alien, needs to purchase the land outright and not be beholden to the native Hittite inhabitants, while Ephron, knowing that Abraham desires the independence inherent in land ownership and will gladly pay nearly any price to get the land, tests the strength and determination of Abraham’s bartering tactics, hoping to extract the maximum amount of silver from this respected outsider.

What’s that you’re saying?

You don’t know what this story is really about? And you’re wondering just what’s going on here with Abraham, his deceased wife’s body, this Hittite named Ephron, and a cave on some land?

Don’t worry. I had the exact same questions and concerns. So here’s what I feel the writer of this book was attempting to convey through this story.

Throughout this story, Abraham’s determination shines through every issue and every discussion. To some, this whole chapter simply delineates a cultural quirk of the ancient Near East – Abraham didn’t belong officially, so he had to jump through several hoops, including (possibly) paying more for the land than what it was worth, in order to purchase a bit of land on which to bury his wife. But if you look through that story, and not past it in an attempt to dismiss its content, you will view a man who is in love with his wife and will do anything within his power to display his love, respect, and affection for her. Some commentators have reflected upon the curiosity present in Abraham’s having to purchase land from others that God had already promised to him. (Berlin & Brettler, p47 & Brueggemann, p196) Still others muse upon the possibility that Abraham was simply trying to act appropriately as a foreigner in his attempt to purchase land for the family cemetery. (Alter, p110) However, while not debating the veracity and depth of those passages of commentary, what exudes out of Abraham, in my opinion, is the love of a husband for his wife – all other observations are simply trying to make the issues more complex and more worthy of quirky and esoteric conjecture.

“Perhaps the narrative should be left in this restrained way, as an actual report of a transaction without more meaning intended.” (Brueggemann, p195-196)

Yes, Walter, I think that I agree with that statement.

Genesis 22

2006-05-26T22:28:00.000-05:00

Genesis 22

The Sacrifice of Isaac,
The Akedah,
Or
Is This Really What a Test of Faith Looks Like?

There are few words that I could use to begin any conversation or discussion of this chapter, mostly because there are already so many words in print concerning the content of this passage. Suffice to say that there are few stories in the Old Testament that are both as controversial and foundational to the Jewish and Christian perceptions of faith as when God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac upon Mount Moriah. Thus, like with similar chapters and/or stories that can be quite difficult to interpret and translate (to anyone, no matter their age), I will be selecting some quality commentary selections for the reader to peruse along with some reflection of my own, as opposed to an in-depth lesson. After that, I will present some guidelines that teachers can use in telling this story to the students in their classes.

Genesis – Robert Alter
“2. Your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac. The Hebrew syntactic chain is exquisitely forged to carry a dramatic burden, and the sundry attempts of English translators from the King James Version to the present to rearrange it are misguided. The classical Midrash, followed by Rashi, beautifully catches the resonance of the order of terms. Rashi’s concise version is as follows: “Your son. He said to Him, ‘I have two sons.’ He said to him, ‘Your only one.’ He said, ‘This one is an only one to his mother and this one is an only one to his mother.’ He said to him, ‘Whom you love.’ He said to him, ‘I love both of them.’ He said to him, ‘Isaac.’” Although the human object of God’s terrible imperative does not actually speak in the biblical text, this midrashic dialogue demonstrates a fine responsiveness to how the tense stance of the addressee is intimated through the words of the addresser in a one-sided dialogue.” (p103)

“7. The fire and the wood. A moment earlier, we saw the boy loaded with the firewood, the father carrying the fire and butcher knife. As Gerhard Von Rad aptly remarks, ‘He himself carries the dangerous objects with which the boy could hurt himself, the torch and the knife.’ But now, as Isaac questions his father, he passes in silence over the one object that would have seemed scariest to him, however unwitting he may have been of his father’s intentions – the sharp-edged butcher knife.” (p105)

“11. And the Lord’s messenger called out to him from the heavens. This is nearly identical with the calling-out to Hagar in 21:17. In fact, a whole configuration of parallels between the two stories involved. Each of Abraham’s sons is threatened with death in the wilderness, one in the presence of his mother, the other in the presence (and by the hand) of his father. In each case the angel intervenes at the critical moment, referring to the son fondly as na’ar, “lad.” At the center of the story, Abraham’s hand holds the knife, Hagar is enjoined to “hold her hand” (the literal meaning of the Hebrew) on the lad. In the end, each of the sons is promised to become progenitor of a great people, the threat to Abraham’s continuity having been averted.” (p106)

The Jewish Study Bible: JPS Tanakh Translation
“22.1-19: Abraham’s last and greatest test. This magnificently told story, known in Judaism as the ‘Akedah’ (“binding”), is one of the gems of biblical narrative. It also comes to occupy a central role in rabbinic theology and eventually to be incorporated into the daily liturgy. Jewish tradition regards the Akedah as the tenth and climatic test of Abraham, the first Jew.” (p45)

“2: The order of the Heb[rew] is ‘your son, your favored one, the one whom you love, Isaac’ and indicates the increasing tension. Not only is Isaac the son upon whom Abraham’s life has centered; he also loves him. If Abraham did not love Isaac, the commandment to sacrifice him would not have constituted much of a test. The expression to go (“lekh-lekha”), which otherwise occurs only in [Genesis] 12:1, the initial command to Abraham, ties this narrative to the beginning of Abraham’s dealings with God.” (p45)

“3: … Some have wondered why Abraham, who protested God’s decision to destroy the innocent with the guilty in Sodom (18.22-32), here obeys without objection. The essence of the answer is that the context in ch[apter] 18 is forensic, whereas the context of the Akedah is sacrificial. A sacrifice is not an execution, and in a sacrificial context the unblemished condition of the one offered does not detract from, but rather commends, the act.” (p46)

“12: In the Tanakh, the ‘fear of God’ denotes an active obedience to the divine will. God is now able to call the last trial of Abraham off because Abraham has demonstrated that this obedience is uppermost for him, surpassing even his paternal love for Isaac.” (p46)

The Torah: A Modern Commentary – W. Gunther Plaut
“Few narrative sections of the Torah have been subjected to as much comment and study as the Akedah (binding [of Isaac]). Jewish, Chrisitan, and Moslem theologies have tried to fathom its intention. In his introduction to this chapter, Abarbanel called the story ‘worthier of study and investigation than any other section.’ Its subject matter ranges from the God who tests to the man who is tested, from the nature of faith to the demands it makes, and it considers many other questions as well. Says Von Rad: ‘One should renounce any attempt to discover one basic idea as the meaning of the whole. There are many levels of meaning.

The literary pattern of the section is reminiscent of the first passage of the Abraham story: A divine command is issued asking Abraham to set out toward an as yet undetermined place. The same unusual reflexive phrasing (see Gen 12:1) contains the directive lech-lecha (go forth). It is almost as though the external elements of the tale, while clear enough, hide deeper problems under the cover of simpler words.” (p145)

Genesis: Interpretation – Walter Brueggemann
“… In our present text, unexpected things happen. Only now do we see how serious faith is. This narrative shows us that we do not have a tale of origins, but a story of anguished faith. The narrative holds rich promise for exposition. But it is notoriously difficult to interpret. Its difficulty begins in the aversion immediately felt for a God who will command the murder of a son.” (p185)

“The life of Abraham, then, is set by this text in the midst of the contradiction between the testing of God and the providing of God; between the sovereign freedom which requires complete obedience and the gracious faithfulness which gives good gifts; between the command and the promise; and between the word of death which takes away and the word of live which gives. The call to Abraham is a call to live in the presence of this God who moves both toward us and apart from us (cf. Jer. 23:23). Faithful people will be tempted to want only half of it. Most complacent religion will want a God who provides, not a God who tests. Some in bitterness will want a God who tests but refuse the generous providing. Some in cynical modernity will regard both affirmations as silly, presuming we must answer to none and rely upon none, for we are both free and competent. But father Abraham confessed himself not free of the testing and not competent for his own provision.” (p192-193)

“The text asserts that God is this way with his people. There are deep problems with affirming that God both tests and provides. The problems are especially acute for those who seek a “reasonableness” in their God. But this text does not flinch before nor pause at the unreasonableness of the story. God is not a logical premise who must perform in rational consistency. God is a free lord who comes as he will. As the ‘high and holy One,’ God tests to identify his people, to discern who is serious about faith and to know in whose lives he will be fully God. And as the one among the ‘humble and contrite,’ God provides, giving good gifts which cannot be explained or even expected. We are not permitted by this narrative to choose between these characteristics of God (cf. Isa. 57:15). (p193)

Genesis 21:8-21

2006-05-19T19:28:00.000-05:00

Genesis 21: 8-21

Hagar & Ishmael are Cast Out Into the Wilderness
Or
Sarah Plays the Lovely Homemaker Once Again

Once again, we see the “First Family” in turmoil and tumult, greatly akin to the conflict in Genesis 16. In that chapter, we find Sarai encouraging Abram to birth a child through her handmaiden Hagar in an attempt to fulfill God’s prophecy on her terms. However, with the birth of Isaac, the subsequent, eight-day-later, celebratory ritual circumcision (known as a bris) and the weaning feast that occurred typically ate age 3 (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46), it seems that Sarah and Hagar have again entered into a conflict over who has the true place in the household. And as mothers are prone to do, the welfare of their children takes precedence in any circumstance, decent social behavior be damned.

At the party to mark the occasion of Isaac’s birth and circumcision, Sarah sees Ishmael fooling around and she didn’t quite like it. Gazing across several translations of Genesis 21:9, there are several different English words in use – “laughing” (ESV), “mocking” (NIV), “laughing” (Alter, p98), “playing” (JPS Tanakh), “mocking” (NASB), and “poking fun” (The Message). Any mother that I have ever known who has ever held a party for one of their children would have, at the least, been quite perturbed at Ishmael’s behavior as he played around at the party. And at the most, the mother would have reacted quite strongly and harshly to a supposed celebrant mockingly making fun of the person who was the focal point of the party, and most likely would have quickly called the child’s mother onto the carpet for the child’s behavior.

Plaut’s Commentary on the Torah does attempt to give this explanation of this passage: “Some commentators have suggested that it was sexual play that brought forth Sarah’s strong reaction. There is nothing, however, to substantiate this. The use of metzachek is an allusion to Yitzchak (i.e., Isaac). The word play seems to indicate that Sarah, seeing the children together, suddenly realizes their close affinity. It is then that she resolves to end the relationship by freeing Hagar and sending her away.” (Plaut, p139)

Now, without parsing the Hebrew a bit to finely, though some commentators do so in an attempt to disparage Hagar’s mothering ability, I would make the claim that Sarah’s declaration to Abraham that Hagar and Ishmael must be cast out of the house is quite understandable. What it is not is acceptable – Sarah could have handled the content and context of this situation with greater finesse. However, as we have seen in the last 10 chapters, tact, discretion, and subtlety are absent from Sarah’s repertoire of necessary societal skills. But Sarah pays no mind to how Hagar feels, since she realizes that, with the birth of Isaac, Ishmael has no place in their tents because Isaac is the son of promise. Whether it’s a matter of maternal politics or societal politics, Hagar and Ishmael are on their way out of the tent doors and out to wander in the wilderness.

Now, Abraham, as the biological father, remembers the lessons that he learned from Chapter 16 and is quite distressed over having to make such a harsh decision concerning his son. However, God is quite aware that Abraham is distraught over having to perpetrate this difficult deed and issues this promise to Abraham: “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:12b-13, ESV) It seems that God was both honoring Sarah’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding Isaac as well as Abraham’s faith and belief in the promises of God regarding any of his offspring (Brueggemann, p183).

Thus, with such a promise received, Abraham sends out Hagar and Ishmael into the deserts of Beer-Sheba (the Sinai Peninsula) with a bag of water and some bread. “Why doesn’t Abraham do more to prepare Hagar and Ishmael for their exile? Why does he give them only ‘some bread and a skin of water’ (21:14)? Why provision them so meagerly? He could have also given them a camel or a servant – or, at the very least, a blessing. In acting this way, Abraham demonstrates his faith that God will provide. He takes to heart God’s promise that Ishmael will become a great nation. This episode is a rehearsal of his later test of faith with his other son [Isaac].” (Frankel, p29) However, as idyllic and wonderful as that answer to those pointed questions sounds, my cynical nature takes over and wonders how Abraham could have sent his own son and his son’s mother out into the desert with “approximately three gallons” of water (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p46). It just doesn’t seem right to me, on several levels.

From here, Hagar and Ishmael wander in the desert, but their period of wandering doesn’t last very long, or at least the timeline provided in this passage doesn’t allow for much time to have transpired. Granted, two people were being forced to share about 3 gallons of water in the midst of a wide, uncivilized expanse of desert; 3 gallons wouldn’t last very long before one or both parties would quickly begin to expire. So, Hagar has Ishmael lie down under a bush, in hopes of getting him out from under the direct sunlight and to give him a bit of relief in his last moments on earth. From there, she walked “a bowshot away” (Genesis 21:16, JPS Tanakh) so that she would not see her son die and begin to weep in distress.

“God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.’” (Genesis 21:17-18, TNIV)

Then, amidst what should be a slow, agonizing death in the desert, an angel comes to visit Hagar, much in the same way as she was visited in Genesis 16. Indeed, these two scenes are reminiscent of each other because they are both rooted in similar circumstances. The timeline in both instances runs like this: 1) Sarah sees something in Hagar’s (or Ishmael’s) behavior that she doesn’t like; 2) Sarah complains to Abraham about it and asks him to get rid of her; 3) Abraham is reluctant to do so because Ishmael is his son; 4) Hagar leaves to die in the desert; and 5) an angel appears to her, making her aware of God’s desire to save her and Ishmael’s life because, as Abraham’s son, Ishmael is able to receive the protection and privileges afforded the biological offspring of Abraham.

Over and over again, it seems that God has a place and a plan for Ishmael that doesn’t quite agree with how Sarah sees the world. Rest assured, Sarah is acting with faith in God’s promises concerning Isaac’s status as the miraculous child of promise through whom Abraham and Sarah will sire a great nation. I do not feel that we are to attack Sarah out of pure sympathy for her treatment of Hagar and Isaac; to do so rejects Sarah’s faith in the promise of God. However, what we are to see is that human strategies and designs quite often fail and pale in comparison to how God sees the world and how God just might want humanity to see the world. God often blesses whomever God feels is worthy of such treatment, even if God’s opinions of a certain person or persons don’t quite agree with ours.

Thus, if you want a thesis statement, Hagar and Ishmael were protected, helped, healed, and given promises all their own because God honored the promises Abraham received about any children he would bear. God’s children will always be taken care of, no matter the shape, color, stripe, pattern, hue, tone, ability level, or individual eccentricity.

And in case you might like some additional scholarly texts to read through on this topic, I present the following passage from Interpretation: Genesis by Walter Brueggemann:

“The conflict between the two sons, between the two mothers and within the reluctant, ambiguous father, is complex (cf. 16:1-6). The story knows what it wants to tell. Isaac is the child of the future. But the story has no easy time imposing its will on the characters. Ishmael will not be so easily reduced. He has some claims. He has a claim because he is the oldest son of father Abraham. He is not adopted, not an intruder, but born to the man of promise. And Abraham is not ready to discard him (cf. 17:18). … But most compelling, God has this special commitment to Ishmael (cf. 16:7-12). For some inscrutable reason, God is not quite prepared to yield easily to his own essential plot. … God cares for the outsider whom the tradition wants to abandon. There is no stigma attached to the ‘other’ son. All are agreed on the preciousness of Ishmael – Yahweh, angel, Hagar, Abraham – all but Sarah. … The text is unambiguous: Isaac is the child of promise. That much is not in doubt. … But the text is equally clear that God is well inclined toward Ishmael. The ‘other son’ is not to be dismissed from the family. … It is, of course, evident that Ishmael’s promise is short of the full promise given to Isaac. And yet it is a considerable promise not to be denied. God is attentive to the outsider (cf. 30:17). God will remember all the children like a mother remembers all her children (cf. Isaiah 49:15). … Isaac is a gift to be explained in no other way than as a wonder. And Ishmael is a child gotten by skillful determination and planning. As oldest son, Ishmael is the child of ‘entitlement,’ possessing all natural rights.” (Brueggemann, p183-184)

The first steps on the journey have been taken...

2006-05-11T15:14:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s official – I have completed my application to seminary. The waiting game now begins, but I’m quite OK with that waiting time. I have spent the last 4-6 months of praying, conversing, sharing, debating, and pondering with others and myself as to if I should be pursing graduate-level work in Waldorf education and working for The Harvest as a Grades level teacher or attending seminary as a way to step into full-time ministry (with an option to seek more theological training and education afterwards). Often, I would fall on one side with great weight and great determination, only to pick myself up and hoist my present and future onto the other side with equal resolve and belief in my decision. But this one has been made and I am excited to see what lies ahead for the next 2-3 years.

For most of February and March, I had decided to pursue both options equally, feeling that, having been given the chance to make a choice, I would be best served by walking down both paths for as long as possible, in hopes that my way would be illuminated at some point. I began communicating with representatives from Biblical Seminary and Regent College to determine which institution would be best suited for me and I for them. I eventually chose Biblical because of their focus upon training and educating pastors and lay leaders who cannot afford to attend seminary full-time because of the fact that they’re already in full-time ministry. Having such a program and heavily promoting such a program by Biblical was the impetus I needed to select them over Regent.

From the other side of the fence, The Harvest, a school and community that has been absolutely wonderful and redemptive for me in the past year, offered me a job opportunity that was quite hard to refuse. For every summer/year of training that I attended (funded by monies that I and the school attained through loans), by working at the school for the school year, those loans would be waived. They were offering a one-to-one, loan-to-grant arrangement wherein I would be working with children and teaching music all week long, training as a Grades teacher. This has been a place full of staff, faculty, parents, and children who have loved me, accepted me, honored me, encouraged me, and shown me intense love and appreciation for my talents and abilities. They sincerely were investing a great deal into my life and I have been greatly humbled throughout the school year by being a part of their lives.

But during the course of Holy Week – Maundy Thursday, Gethsemane Vigil, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday – I experienced a moment of clarity of purpose that I had been seeking after during my quest. I came to the belief that, had I chosen the training that The Harvest was offering me, I would have been relying upon my life, my own abilities, and myself in general. By staying in the Houston area for the next 3-4 years, I would not have grown in ways in which I feel I should been – seeing the larger world around me, experiencing an intense theological education I feel would be foundational to the rest of my life, and following my heart and passion for God and the God’s creation.

However, by choosing to attend seminary for the next 2-3 years, I am going to be relying on God’s guidance to see me through on this path. My funding has not been confirmed – I am seeking grants from the school, seriously considering loans, and definitely looking to work 16-20 hours a week at a job. I cannot rely on myself in these situations – I will second-guess my decisions and backpedal from what I do not and cannot know; but by leaving this to God, I am going to be living according to a depth of faith that I will totally new, fresh, exciting, engaging, and exhilarating – all while being quite scary and frightening. I’d be naïve not to be nervous in making this step of faith, but it has to be made.

The Harvest has been fabulously supportive of my decision and I will be doing free-lance work for them all summer long: helping with their website, editing and compiling a revised set of handbooks, and development of their overall program. The rest of my summer will be spent in preparation for my departure: securing funds, attaining a job, finding a place to live, and saying good-bye to my family and friends in Texas. And oh yeah – I’m hoping to complete between 30-35 chapters of my Genesis commentary before the summer ends. That project has been such a stabilizing (yet freeing) creative and theological force in my life during this tumult. If anything, Genesis In My Eyes has been both my muse and the motivation behind my decision – I want to do justice to my writing and to the lives & stories in the book of Genesis.

To everyone I’ve talked to about this decision – thank you for everything. I love you all so very much and, if you’re a Texas resident, I will miss you tremendously. Your support, encouragement, and kicks-in-the-ass will never be forgotten; it is because of them that I write this today. Peace…

Genesis 21:1-7

2006-05-10T22:57:00.000-05:00

Isaac is Born, Fulfilling the Promises of God
Or
How to Really Begin a Never-Ending Story

With these 8 verses, the past 10 chapters of Genesis come to a culmination that Abraham and Sarah often thought would never come to pass. God has finally blessed them with the arrival of their first child, a son named Isaac. This was a birth backed by decades of prophecy declaring the event, but no actual child had yet been born to fulfill those prophecies. Sarah and Abraham had battled their individual and collective doubting during this whole process, calling God’s knowledge and their own physical ability into question.

However, the writer of Hebrews counts these two as faithful believers in God, 100 and 90 years of age respectively. Their experiences throughout the past 30 years of their lives reads like a best-selling novel or some well-written narrative history. Few of us would ever hope to be called to such a life, but maybe we would be the better for such a journey, across physical terrain as well as the physical and spiritual terrain of faith. And that, to me, is what sets Abraham and Sarah apart, why they are counted as righteous – they kept walking and following God, even though they didn’t often really believe. As I’ve said before, belief often implies reliance upon a set of understood and accepted facts, while faith needs none of that, often doubting the conventional wisdom.

Annotated Chronology:
1) Abram and Sarai leave their homeland with their family (Genesis 11:27-32);
2) Abram hears promises from God that he and Sarai will be the parents of a great nation (Genesis 12:1-4);
3) They leave their family to embark on a map-less and direction-less trek across the desert (Genesis 12:5-9);
4) Lot, Abram’s nephew and their only family, leaves them (Genesis 13:1-18);
5) More promises are made by God about that son who will supposedly start off this great nation (Genesis 15:1-21);
6) Ishmael is born to Abram and Sarai by a surrogate mother named Hagar, Sarai’s handmaiden, causing great trouble in the household (Genesis 16:1-16);
7) God initiates the covenant with Abraham, including definite promises and the details of circumcision, the means by which God has decided that the Jews will be physically set aside as God’s children (Genesis 17:1-14);
8) God changes both of their names – Abram becomes Abraham and Sarai becomes Sarah (Genesis 17:5, 15);
9) God reiterates the promise of the birth of a son, to be named Isaac, causing Abraham to laugh in disbelief, due to both of their advanced ages (Genesis 17:15-21);
10) God again delivers these promises in person, coming in human form as a theophany and accompanied by two angelic companions, causing Sarah to laugh in disbelief at such a pronouncement (Genesis 18:1-15);
11) Abraham is told about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, whereby Abraham decides to barters with God for the salvation of the city based upon the righteous in those 2 cities, as his nephew Lot and his family is living in Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33);
12) Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed, though God honors Abraham by making sure that Lot and his family are saved, though they seemed quite reluctant to be rescued (Genesis 19:1-38).

“The Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as he had promised. And Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had spoken to him. Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac. And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight years old, as God had commanded him. Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. And Sarah said, ‘God has made laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh over me.’ And she said, ‘Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.’” (Genesis 21:1-8, ESV)

“The Birth of Isaac. The report of Isaac’s birth concludes the story begun with Sarah’s barrenness (11:27-32). The covenantal arrangement is underscored: God kept his promise to give Abraham a son through Sarah (vv. 1-2; 17:1-6, 15-16; 18:1-15), and Abraham obeyed the Lord by naming him Isaac (v. 3; 17:16) and by circumcising him (v. 4-5; 17:9-14), while Sarah responded with praise (v. 6-7). This episode illustrates God’s faithfulness to his promise to make Abraham’s descendents numerous.” (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p45)

“How mystical is the process of birthing children! God opens Sarah’s womb. Sarah conceives and gives birth to a child. Abraham provides his seed and names him. All three acts – opening the channel of life, nurturing and sending the child forth, giving the child an identity – are equally essential to the child’s development; and they are only the beginning. It has been said that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Actually, it takes the whole world.” (Frankel, p27-28)

What we should realize throughout this “review” of the past several chapters is that the promises of God will always be fulfilled and come to pass, no matter how long it might take. Abraham and Sarah heard God declared many things to them, in dreams, visions, and in person for nearly 30 years, with things never coming to pass in the ways that they though would be best or expedient. All through the Old and New Testament, God never follows humanity’s timetable, quite often doing whatever it takes to break down humanity’s reliance upon its own abilities and turn their attention to God. But no matter what happens, whenever God makes a promise (or, in Biblical terminology, creates a covenant), the terms of that promise always come to pass.

Genesis 18:16-33

2006-04-27T14:21:00.000-05:00

Abraham Barters With God for the Souls of Sodom
Or
How to Argue With God and Come Out Ahead

Am I proposing that Abraham really came out ahead in this discussion? Did Abraham “win” this debate with God concerning the potential deliverance of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? Not hardly, but what I would like to proffer forth is the idea that, because God was so convinced of Abraham’s righteousness and faith, Abraham was allowed to bargain, haggle, and negotiate with God. Abraham and God held an intense discussion regarding who would live, who would die, and how Abraham wanted God to save everyone.

“Abraham does not doubt the existence of God’s justice; he only asks its extent and limitations. The important thing is that he asks altogether and that God does not reject his question out of hand. The Bible thereby makes clear that man may, with impunity, question the behavior of God. Like Abraham, man need not surrender his own sense of justice; he remains free to accept or reject the divine judgment – although he will have to submit to it in the end. Man is not reduced to a moral automaton; his spiritual freedom is preserved.” (Plaut, p133)

Now, I was raised in a church culture that very much believed that only those people who are absolutely snow-white pure in their righteousness and faithfulness will be allowed to talk directly to God. God would listen only to those people who toed the appropriate set of lines, followed all of the rules, never sinned, always believed, and lived seemingly perfect lives. And the sad thing is that similar beliefs aren’t confined to the denomination in which I grew up. Many different wings of a variety of denominations (and non-denominations) propagate such unhealthy lines of thinking, whether through “health & wealth” teaching or through isolationist and overly-exclusionist doctrines of salvation.

However, Abraham’s own lack of belief and ill-timed actions in many circumstances (see Genesis 16) should allay any truth in such claims. God visited Abraham and Sarah several times over the course of their lives, because Abraham, ultimately, had faith in God, not because he did everything right, all of the time. Am I giving license to sin? Am I letting Abraham and Sarah off the hook for what they did and did no do? Not really, but what I am attempting to do is present the grand story of the founding family of the Jews as an example of how anyone can communicate with God, if they believe that God is there and that God does listen.

Reading through verses 16-21, we see Abraham following God and the two angelic beings on their way down to Sodom, as the three visitors began to discuss amongst themselves whether or not Abraham would be told the details of the soon-coming events. God reiterates the promises that have been given to Abraham and Sarah, while stating plainly that Abraham, because of his status in the world (and in God’s eyes), has a right to know what’s about to happen. And what’s about to happen is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their great sin against God, the status of which God’s two fellow travelers are going to ascertain.

“There is a combination of anthropomorphism (God being given humanlike qualities) and theodicy (explanation of divine action) in this story and in the Tower of Babel episode (Gen 11). In both cases, to demonstrate divine justice and fairness, God ‘comes down’ to investigate a situation before taking action.” (Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas; p50)

However, while it not explicitly mentioned in the text, it does seem that Abraham is quite aware of what’s being discussed between the three men. (Berlin and Brettler, p40) Thus, it seems that, contrary to everything you’ve heard about a highly vengeful Old Testament God, it might not be true at all. God allows Abraham to hear the conversation he had with the two men, God is sending those two men give the cities one last look-through, and God quite readily listens to Abraham’s pleadings for the souls and lives of the people of Sodom. (Plaut, p133) Thus, even with a city whose social and religious transgressions were as well documented as Sodom’s, God feels like there might be something (or someone) redeemable about it and their sister city of Gomorrah, a task that God allows Abraham to take part in (Berlin and Brettler, p40).

“Haggling is a part of all Middle Eastern business transactions. In this case, however, Abraham’s determination of the exact number of righteous persons needed to prevent the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah provides a repeated demonstration of God’s just actions. A just God will not destroy the righteous without warning or investigation. Even the unrighteous, in this early period, can be spared for the sake of the righteous. On the other hand, justice is not served by overlooking wickedness. The discussion of the number of righteous people may concern not whether they can balance the wickedness of the rest, but whether, given time, they might be able to exert a reforming influence.” (Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas; p50)

What follows is one of the most curious conversations between a human and God ever recorded in a religious text. Compare Job’s talks with God to Abraham’s – they are quite different in that Job talks to God as any confused and bewildered believer might when faced with hardship and trial. He begins by speaking reverently to God (Job 1 & 2), rails against God (Job 31), hears God chastise him (Job 38-41), and returns again to his reverence at the end of the book (Job 42). Throughout this chapter, Abraham and God, on the other hand, debate the future of the two cities as nearly equals. Now, Abraham doesn’t believe that he’s equal to God – his tone and verbiage explicates the fact that he knows that he is talking to God, and not another human being. (Berlin and Brettler, p40) However, it is quite evident that Abraham has no problem telling God exactly what he is feeling, what he is thinking, and what he thinks God should and should not do.

“Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25, ESV)

Verse 25, in many ways, is the fulcrum of the whole conversation, for, by appealing to God’s own sense of justice and mercy, Abraham is seeking to save the whole of Sodom on behalf of the few righteous inhabitants who are still inside the city. Abraham is fully aware that the city has transgressed mightily against God, and deserves their punishment, but hopes to make God see that the righteous people inside the city don’t deserve punishment. (Plaut, p133) Furthermore, by looking at verse 27, Abraham continues with the debate, but does so by stating blatantly that God really doesn’t have to listen to Abraham, since Abraham is “but dust and blood” (ESV), though he employs such self-deprecation in an effort to not have God ignore the pleadings of a mere human. (Alter, p82) Over and over again, Abraham hopes to see the salvation of the righteous in Sodom, no matter whether or not it’s merely his nephew, Lot, and his family or whoever it might be inside that city.

From there, Abraham begins to barter with God concerning the souls and salvation of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, working God down from the initial 50 in verse 24-26, down to 10 in verse 32. He does so slowly, with precise increments, knowing that there would be no other way to “talk down God” in terms of how many righteous people it would take for God to spare the two cities. God doesn’t respond to Abraham with counter-offers, just with a brief acknowledgement that the current offer being made by Abraham will suffice to avert the destruction of the two cities. God and man are embroiled in a classic bartering conversation, a scene straight out of any Middle Easter bazaar or flea market transaction across the American South. (Alter, p82) However, the whittling-away undertaken by Abraham concludes at 10, since “Abraham realizes he dare not go any lower than ten, the minimal administrative unit for communal organization in later Israelite life.” (Alter, p83) To further supplement the reasoning by Abraham’s cessation at 10 people, another source states, “They [the rabbis] set ten as the minimal number for communal worship.” (Plaut, p133)

In general, the whole interaction, I feel, was quite a brave and noble proposition for a human to undertake, since most of us only argue with God over our own selfish desires and personal sin natures. Now, one could argue that Abraham is just looking out for Lot and his family, even though they are never mentioned in this discussion, since Abraham has rescued Lot from a grave and deadly situation in the past (Genesis 14). However, taking Abraham’s words of reverence and respect towards God into account, it would seem he is fully aware that God knows of Lot’s status as citizen of Sodom. So, to believe that Abraham was acting selfishly would be to denigrate the character of Abraham and the lengths that Abraham would go to in order to secure the deliverance of the entire city.

However, throughout all of this, God knows that there are only 4 righteous people in all of Sodom and Gomorrah – Lot, his wife, and their two daughters. One then begins to wonder why God allowed Abraham to continually petition God’s decision to destroy the cities if God knew that Abraham could never go low enough to actually save the cities. If Abraham would never go below 10 people, and there were only 4 righteous people, what was the purpose to God listening to Abraham? Couldn’t God have said, “Listen up, Abe, old buddy. I’ve promised you many things – a child, your status as the father of a great nation, your presence and wealth throughout this region. But there’s just no point in arguing with me here – there are only 4 decent people in those 2 cities, not enough righteous to ever hope to prevent Me from punishing the rest of them. I’ll find a way to save Lot and his family, but there’s not much else you can do here. Go home and make a baby with Sarah.”

And I don’t type that to be facetious or irreverent, but who hasn’t thought this when reading/studying this passage? But when I think through this whole discussion here between Abraham and God, I can’t help but wonder what God’s point is, what God’s hoping to teach Abraham and any future readers/hearers of this story. And then it hits me – God desires to communicate with us, purely and simply. God wants humanity to talk to their Creator, not out of selfish desires, but out of love – love for God and love for their fellow human. Abraham’s haggling with God is a wonderful example of this, as Abraham is looking out for others, and doing so while respecting, reverencing, and loving the all-knowing and just God that he serves faithfully. Does this mean that God was being insensitive to the righteous people who were in Sodom? Not at all – why else would the Lord’s two fellow travelers be going into Sodom if not to save Lot and Lot’s family from the city’s impending doom?

Thus, this passage loses its status as one that gives license to only the purest and most faithful to communicate with God and gives rise to a belief that anyone who has a righteous request can come to God with their appeal. It is not the petitioner who has to be righteous, but the petition. We are made righteous through faith, just as Abraham was made, and not because we have done certain acts and abstained from others. God desired to listen to Abraham because Abraham’s request was worthy of being heard, as it showed forth Abraham’s character – a character full of mercy, justice, and love for those same attributes in his God. Thus, we, as heirs and adherents to the faith of Abraham, can offer up similar supplications to God, behaving not as if we are some type of political lobbyist petitioning the Congress, but admitting our incompetence and “dustiness” to our Saviour, knowing that God wants to hear us talk and loves it when we think about someone besides our own selves.

Genesis 18: 1-15

2006-04-20T00:35:00.000-05:00

Abraham & Sarah’s Three Visitors
Or
Proof-Positive That God Really is a Mind Reader

“Once again, this story shows what a scandal and difficulty faith is. Faith is not a reasonable act which fits into the normal scheme of life and perception. The promise of the gospel is not a conventional piece of wisdom that is easily accommodated to everything else. Embrace of this radical gospel requires shattering and discontinuity.” (Brueggemann; p158-159)

And this is how I wish to begin with this lesson – restating and revisiting the story of Abraham and Sarah that we’ve been studying and telling over the past few months. In each of the 6 previous chapters, God found various ways to communicate with Abraham and Sarah directly regarding their status as progenitors of a great race, despite their advanced age. However, in most of those 6 chapters, they were continually confronted because of their disbelief in God’s promises. As I like to say – “Welcome to Human Nature 101” – Abraham and Sarah are just like all of us. While most, if not all of us, are ever called to sire a whole race of people, we all consistently resist God’s pull on our lives because it conflicts with our plans and how we see the world. Let us continue our journey with this couple.

The chapter begins with Abraham seeing three visitors approach, all of whom seem to be angelic, and one of whom is eventually revealed to be God. Abraham’s response is one of extreme hospitality, of extreme cultural deference to the presence of the visitors in his home. From the promised meager meal, to the foot-washing, to the extravagant meal that he eventually produces for the three men, Abraham offers up his attendance, his tents, his food, and his servitude to honor his guests for honoring him with their visit to his abode. (Walton, Matthews, Chavalas; p50)

Some commentaries remark at length about the discrepancies between the singular and plural mentions of the visitor/visitors addressed by Abraham throughout the 15 verses. Most come down on the side of asserting that the One who does all the talking is God (making this “man’s” appearance a theophany) and the other two men are the two angelic beings who travel to Sodom to confront Lot and the people of Sodom. (Alter; p77-78) However, to quote Brueggemann here, “There is no need … to seek a Christian statement of the Trinity here.” (Brueggemann, p158) The focus points of these visitors’ appearance are: a) that the primary spokesperson is most likely God; and b) that God has much to say to Sarah, whether she likes it or not.

“Abraham and Sarah have by this time become accustomed to their barrenness. They are resigned to their closed future. They have accepted that hopelessness as ‘normal.’ The gospel promise does not meet them [Abraham and Sarah] in receptive hopefulness but in resistant hopelessness.” (Brueggemann, p159)

However, with the feast of Abraham in full swing by verse 9, the visitors ask Abraham where his wife is, calling for Sarah by name. This has to throw Abraham for a loop, because these are three men he’s never met before asking for his wife by name, something that only deity/divinity would be able to accomplish. (Alter; p78) Abraham then replies that she is inside the tent. God (referred to as “the Lord”) then proclaims to Abraham “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” (Genesis 18:10, ESV) Who else would be able to make this prediction except for God, as it was God who made the original promise of the birth of a son to the aged Abraham and Sarah?

But Sarah heard this prophecy from inside the tent and chuckled to herself in disbelief, though she has heard this news before. She even questioned the viability of this promise to herself, bringing up the fact that Abraham was too old to give her pleasure. Coupled with the fact that verse 11 mentions specifically that Sarah is post-menopausal, Sarah feels well within her biological rights to believe that this prophecy is quite ridiculous and not worthy of her belief. However, God calls Sarah’s bluff and asks Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’” (Genesis 18:13, ESV)

From here, it must be noted that many commentators remarked on how God, when sharing with Abraham what Sarah had just said, didn’t tell Abraham the whole truth. Sarah, in verse 12, laughs and makes light of the fact that Abraham is old and won’t be able to give her sexual pleasure, but, in verse 13, God tells Abraham that Sarah is in doubt because of her age. Yes, God edited the conversation for Abraham’s benefit. The renowned rabbi Rashi felt that God did this to preserve domestic peace. (Plaut, p125) Because, if Abraham had known of Sarah’s opinions of his abilities, would they ever have slept together in an attempt to conceive Isaac? (Alter, p79)

However, setting aside all of that discussion, the crux of these 15 verses lies in verse 14, where the Lord is talking to Abraham, in respect to Sarah’s (and probably Abraham’s past) doubts: “Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” (Genesis 18:14, ESV) God wants to make sure that this elderly couple fully realizes that they have been chosen, no matter what their physical age might actually say about their ability to conceive a child and populate the earth. It’s as if God is saying here that, regardless of their disbelief, they will be the man and woman who will be the ones to originate the Hebrew people. (Brueggemann, p160) God has spoken and our feeble words and excuses don’t quite amount to that much; just ask Moses about that one.

As a note of conclusion to this section, even as Sarah denies her laughter in verse 15, God rebukes her, letting her know that God is fully aware of her laughter, even if it wasn’t expressed outwardly. God knows our hearts, our intentions, our plans, our fears, our doubts, and everything in between. And that typically quite scares us, but that’s OK…

“Thus the strangers departed (Genesis 18:16) with the question [that God asked in verse 14] still unanswered. The answer is only given provisionally in Genesis, always waiting to see if God can do what he says. Faith is a scandal. The promise is beyond our expectation and beyond all evidence. The ‘impossible possibility’ of God deals frighteningly with our future.” (Brueggemann, p161-162)

More than anything else, when teaching a somewhat confusing passage of Scripture like this, what needs to be communicated is that God loves us and only wants to see the best for us in our lives. Often, this ‘best’ comes in the form of promises that God (speaking with or without the help of the prophets) has made in the Bible, in the words of people in our lives, and sometimes with strikingly daunting and intimidating methodologies. There are times when we won’t believe, when the facts don’t quite fit together, and when all that we know falls rather short of what needs to be known. Believing in God is different from having faith in God – belief needs something concrete to believe in, while faith doesn’t need anything. And that’s why it’s faith and that’s why faith doesn’t make any sense at all. As Brueggemann’s quote declares, “Faith is a scandal.”

Palm Sunday

2006-04-06T00:29:00.000-05:00

Palm Sunday:
April 9th, 2006

Psalm 118:1-2, 19-29
Mark 11:1-11
John 12:12-16

The Triumphal Entry of Jesus Into Jerusalem

Palm Sunday represents a day that is both simple and complex to celebrate in the Lenten calendar. It is easy to focus on how Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of a donkey as people threw down their cloaks and some palm branches for their Messiah to travel upon, but it quite difficult for us to interpret and/or understand how the mood, tone, and actions of the people degenerated so quickly over the course of the upcoming week. I feel that such an intense confusion is especially true regarding those people who had been “religiously” following Jesus as his disciples, because, of all people, they should have stayed with/by Jesus during the upcoming Week of Hell (though this week’s official name is “Holy Week”). Yes, I do realize that the people’s forsaking of Jesus in His hour of need was prophesied, but it still doesn’t make sense why it had to happen. Maybe it just goes to show how fleeting human loyalties really are, and, if so, that’s a rather telling condemnation upon human nature.

Mark’s recounting of Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem begins with the strange request made by Jesus upon two of His disciples that they appropriate a colt (a donkey in John’s story) that had never before been ridden. Jesus then gives them instructions on how to respond to anyone who might ask them what they are doing with the colt, basically answering any questions they might have had concerning their task (or at least I would have asked Jesus such a tacky question). They are to tell anyone who inquires as to their intentions that “… the Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.” (Mark 11:3, TNIV) The two followers of Christ go to fetch the donkey, are compelled to use Jesus’ words to defend their actions, return to the Jesus and the crowd with the donkey, and place their cloaks on the colt’s back so that Jesus can sit upon the animal’s back. People then commenced to place their cloaks upon the ground in front of the approaching donkey, as Jesus sat astride the pack beast. Shouts of “Hosanna,” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Mark 11:9, TNIV), “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David,” and “Hosanna in the highest heaven” (Mark 11:10, TNIV) filled the voices of the great crowd that was following Jesus.

In John’s rendition of this story, the crowd hears of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Finding palm branches to wave, they begin to shout phrases like “Hosanna,” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and “Blessed is the Kind of Israel!” (John 12:13, NIV) Jesus then quotes from the book of the prophet Zechariah, much to the (rather typical) confusion of his disciples.

“Rejoice greatly Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zechariah 9:9, TNIV)

Well, with that typical (and easily discerned) timeline completed, what must be emphasized are all of the subtle and overt ways that the disciples and the crowd bestowed outright declarations of the royalty, divinity, and status as the Messiah upon Jesus. “The spreading of the garments represents royal homage (2 Kings 9:13). Branches were also waved in homage to rulers (cf. 1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7) … In view of the crowd’s acclamation in [Mark] 11:10, however, the image that may have come most readily to the minds of Mark’s ancient readers is probably that of a royal entrance procession. … ‘Hosanna’ means ‘O save” and both this and the next line of verse 9 come from Psalm 118:25-26. … The coming of the kingdom when David or his descendents would again reign (e.g., Is 9; 11; Jer 23) is here associated with the hope of one coming in the Lord’s name. … By treating Jesus as the object of any of these hopes, the crowds are beginning to see in this teacher a possible messianic figure who could leave them against the Romans.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament; p164-165)

Granted, some commentaries state that the crowd (as a whole) might not have made the connection between Zechariah’s prophecy and Jesus Messianic claims, because if they had, the Roman guards at the garrisons and checkpoints would have definitely arrested Jesus and His followers for treason. (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament; p164 and The Spirit of the Refomation Study Bible: NIV; p 1727) However, even if we take that caveat into account, we still must acknowledge that the crowd in general found ways and means to best honor the idea that Israel’s long-promised Messiah had arisen. Israel was in the midst of being occupied by the Roman Empire, and, even though the people had already experienced having a revolt crushed in a rather violent fashion, they were still hoping to see their Messiah rise up and overthrow their oppressors, along with the collaborationists amongst the Israeli people.

Israel was hoping that Jesus would be that political and military Messiah, a leader who would come into their midst, galvanize public opinion against the rule of the Romans, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the Children of God. Much like the disciples, nonetheless, it seems that the average crowd that followed Jesus’ steps and listened to His parables & stories had no real clue exactly what He was attempting to communicate. Thus, even as Palm Sunday is a tremendous celebration of Jesus receiving honor and glory from his disciples and the average Jew-on-the-streets, it’s rather easy to see how the common person’s opinion concerning Jesus would be dramatically different in just a few days. Jesus wasn’t here on earth to conquer the using the techniques and blueprints that people wanted him to employ; He was here to enact the will of the Father – to die, be buried, and rise again for the eternal forgiveness of humanity’s sins. Palm Sunday is a reminder to us today of reasons and ways to worship our Saviour and the sacrifice that He so willingly accepted, but also that humans are quite fickle creatures, capable of the worst possible jealous and vengeful reactions, especially when their best laid plans fall awry.

Teachers: Read through the Psalm first to set the celebratory tone for Palm Sunday; read it with gusto and feelings of praise towards God. Let the children feel your love for God as you read. Then, read through Mark and John, seeing if any children point out any similarities between the two New Testament passages and/or the Psalm. Focus your energies in this lesson on celebrating Christ as Messiah, since our lectionary readings for this week do the same. Any tension I address and contemplate in this lesson should be for the teacher’s consideration and not for the children.

Fifth Sunday of Lent

2006-03-30T14:00:00.000-06:00

Fifth Sunday of Lent:
April 2, 2006

Jeremiah 31:31-34
Psalm 51:1-12
Hebrews 5:5-10
John 12:20-33

I spent much time reading the lectionary readings and then discussing the development of this lesson with some of my confidants how to best focus these verses for children. The four selections for this, the Fifth Week of Lent, were read through, considered, reflected upon, and otherwise just talked about in terms of how to best communicate these ideas, concepts, and truths to early childhood- and elementary-aged children. Specifically, the debate revolved around the issue whether or not it is ever practical to present more than two passages of Scripture during any given class. Does it ever make sense to do more than read a portion of a psalm and then read the verses that correspond to whatever moral lesson (or hopefully, a Scriptural truth) the teacher/author wants to convey to students in a classroom?

Conventional wisdom says that it doesn’t make sense, but I want to take issue with the over-simplification inherent and assumed to be necessary for a Sunday School/Children’s Church lesson. Now, having taught many Sunday School classes and used different curriculums in the teaching of children (both in Sunday School and “regular” school classrooms), I am aware of the measures a teacher must use to excite and interest a class with the material being presented. Children have the uncanny ability to disrupt (and often with the best possible intentions) anything that their teacher might be attempting to initiate and/or achieve in the classroom. However, the teacher must not subvert and weaken the depth of any lesson to expedite the conclusion of a lesson, simply because the kids are rowdy, daydreaming, or just seemingly not paying attention to the teacher.

Do I think that teachers and curriculum writers do this intentionally? No, I don’t, but I do believe that they often set their sights on meeting the needs and keeping the attention of the “lowest common denominator” amongst the students in their classes. Thus, while these lessons do call for the teacher to read a segment of one psalm before reading through only one section of verses connected to the lesson to be taught, I hope to provide something of substance for all students, especially the teacher, since I feel that a good teacher should be a perpetual student. And on that note – enjoy!

The Son of Man Must Be Lifted Up – John 12:20-33

The first thing that one should notice when reading through this passage is the composition of the crowd whom Jesus is addressing. Most, if not all, of the commentaries and study Bibles that I studied when writing made specific note that it is a group of Gentiles (Greeks, to be precise) that are listening to Jesus predict his own death. These “God-fearers” came first to Jesus’ disciple Philip, mostly due to Philip’s name being Greek and, due to his being from Bethsaida (a town quite involved in Gentile trading circles), the possibility that Philip had Grecian trade contacts. (IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, p295) Philip talked to Andrew about these Gentiles’ request, the two disciples both brought the appeal to Jesus, and then, in response, Jesus talked to them personally.

From here, Jesus launches into his first public declaration of the impending scenes that are about to unfold in his life. Moreover, he begins to discuss why he is doing what he is doing and how any disciples should be responding to such news. Of course, as was typical, such news and such speeches tend to confuse Jesus’ listeners, but to hear their rabbi talk openly about being glorified (v23) and being lifted up (v 32) probably confounded his followers even more than usual. However, if I had been one of those Greeks who had asked to talk to Jesus, I would have been rather bemused by his tone of conversation, especially since they were probably only hoping to talk to this seemingly novel Jewish teacher who had been raising the ire of the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin. They most likely came away from this scenario not realizing the true depth of what they had just heard.

But when I start reading through how Jesus is talking about being “glorified” and “lifted up,” it seems that his definitions of those actions are rather backwards. Jesus had been turning the tables on human behavior during the course of his whole ministry, beginning with the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7). Thus, while they rarely understood him, his followers were most likely used to hearing such provocative statements about the state of the human condition. But to hear Jesus talking about falling on the ground and dying (v24) and hating his life in this world (v25) had to have a rather chilling effect upon how they viewed their rabbi.

Jesus compares himself to a seed that falls to the earth and dies (v24), declares that his soul is troubled and needs saving (27), and states that he’ll have to leave the earth in order to draw all people unto him (v32). Again, I would imagine that the twelve disciples, the multitudes that normally followed him, and the Greeks that came to talk to him would have been befuddled and perplexed to hear Jesus talk in this manner. The actions and scenarios that Jesus was describing would happen ran totally contrary to how humanity has predictably viewed what a leader of a movement does in order to impact the world around them. A leader traditionally doesn’t leave right when things are getting started and they certainly don’t look to get themselves killed before their words begin to really have any impact.

To top it off, Jesus starts talking about how his servants should also follow him, not just serve in the traditional master/slave relationship. Customarily, observant Jews as a rule centered their religious and everyday lives on a certain Rabbi’s (living or deceased) or sectarian interpretation of the Torah. But with the exception of maybe Judas Maccabeus in 167 BC or eventually the Essenes in Petra in AD 70 (I think), Rabbis (and certainly not the Pharisees or Sadducees) never talked about laying down their lives for their beliefs in order to see those beliefs perpetually disseminated. To hear Jesus speak in this manner ran contrary to anything Jews or Gentiles had ever heard.

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32, ESV)

I must take note here of Jesus words and how they were being heard by Gentiles. Granted, the Greeks who were present were those who were in Jerusalem to celebrate and worship the Jewish God (though they were most likely not true proselytes), but their status as non-Jews is very much worth mention. Jesus knew that these people were in the audience and that they would have an even clearer perspective on what “all people” actually meant, compared to the average, religiously-xenophobic Jew in the audience. Again and again, Jesus makes it known that he has come for everyone, not just the Jewish people, and that he expects his first disciples (who were all Jews) would be the ones responsible for spreading the Gospel throughout the world.

“He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.” (John 12:33, ESV)

John adds these words himself, in an attempt to clarify to any of his readers exactly what Jesus was referring to as he made these seemingly bizarre statements. Granted, John was writing long after they were first said, long after Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and ascended into Heaven, and during the initial spread of Christianity around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, but the fact remains that John felt that he had to include them anyway. It’s as if John had to constantly remind his readers and the “second-generation” Christians that Jesus was exactly who he said he was and that he did exactly what he said he would do. We might think that John was being a bit superfluous in writing these words, but human nature as it is, reminders can be rather wonderful things.

Thus, while reading through this passage in our present, we should be able to intuit quite easily what Jesus is describing with his words here in John 12:20-33 about dying and being lifted up. Accordingly, as we journey through Lent, we must become acutely aware of Jesus’ suffering on our account, since it is he that begins openly discussing these events. His tortured prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, the scourging, the crown of thorns, the carrying the cross down the Via Dolorosa, the lifting up of Jesus’ impaled body on the cross on Golgotha, his death, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension were all topics of conversation during the last year, weeks, and days of Jesus’ life, conversations that Jesus himself initiated. These verses here are both the beginning of Jesus’ attempts to communicate this timeline of pain and eventual triumph to his disciples and the means through which we in the twenty-first century can launch into our own voyage to the cross of our Saviour.

Teachers: Read through the portion of Psalm 51 given for this week. If you remember, this was also the psalm for the First Week of Advent; however, we can now see how it is Jesus who is the one who can lift us out of our lives of sin. David could petition God directly, but he still would have had to follow Levitical law concerning sacrifices and the rolling ahead of his sins. It is only with the coming of Jesus that humans could directly appeal to their Creator through their Mediator Jesus and have their sins forgiven eternally. But don’t worry about communicating those thoughts to your class; just read the Psalm.

Read through the passage entirely and then ask the kids what they think about those words. After they respond, read verses 23-26 and 30-32 again, and then ask them what they think those verses mean. See if they can make ties between Jesus’ words and what they might know about the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Talk to your class about how Jesus knew what was going to happen to him, and, as sad and scary as it may have been, how he was willing to die for everyone in the whole world’s sins. The kids will be seeing a greater and more complete picture of these events as we read through the verses for Lent, but many of them might already be somewhat familiar with what Jesus will go through. Take advantage of any child’s prior knowledge and ideas and incorporate them into the lesson.

Third Sunday of Lent

2006-03-17T01:56:00.000-06:00

Third Sunday of Lent:
March 19th, 2006

Exodus 20:1-17
Psalm 19

Mosaic/Sinai Covenant

I approach the creation of this lesson with a deep sense of awe and reverence. Throughout the past 4,000 years of history, the Ten Commandments have held a respected, disputed, and yet continual place in the pantheon of religious and cultural lives of the people of this world. Also known as The Decalogue, the Mosaic Covenant represents new territory in the relationship between God and the human race, fresh ground upon which people can walk in order to connect themselves to their Creator. Moreover, the creation of this bond between God and humanity further extends and develops the covenants already in place (Adam’s, Noah’s, and Abraham’s).

Thus, the task before me (and anyone who might be reading along with me) is to not simply dissect this passage in Exodus down to its component parts and view those parts simply as the “rules” that the Israelites are supposed to follow. My goal is to integrate what we Christians have been taught about the Law and how Jewish people have observed the Law since the time of Moses in order to somehow relate it to the Season of Lent. I will do my best to not make this lesson as dense as it could be, so that the content, ideas, and principles can be presented to children in a fashion that they can comprehend. After all, this series began as an attempt to teach children the lessons, stories, and truths of the Bible.

“20:1-14: The Decalogue. The Decalogue, Heb[rew] ‘caseret hadevarim,’ lit[erally] ‘ten words,’ i.e., ‘statements’ (see 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) is the initial stipulation of the covenant. (‘Decalogue,’ from the Latin for ‘ten words,’ or ‘ten statements,’ is a more literal rendering of Heb[rew] than ‘Ten Commandments.’) They are addressed directly to the people. No punishments are stated; obedience is motivated not by the fear of punishment by God’s absolute authority and the people’s desire to live in accordance with His will.

The belief that God is the author of the Biblical laws is a distinctive feature of Biblical law. Elsewhere in the ancient Near Was the laws were believed to be the product of human minds, particularly the king. While Mesopotamian kinds claimed to have learned the principles of truth and justice from the gods, they themselves turned those principles into specific laws. Implicit in this Biblical view is that God is Israel’s king, hence its legislator. This elevated the status of law beyond matters of practicality and endowed it with sanctity. Obedience to law – civil no less than moral and ritual law – became a religious duty; obedience made one holy and crimes were sins, a flouting of God’s authority.

The items in the Decalogue are arranged in two groups. Duties to God come first. Each commandment in this group contains the phrase, ‘the Lord your God.’ The second group contains duties toward fellow humans, which are depicted as being of equal concern to God. The first five are accompanied by explanatory comments or exhortations. The remaining five, as widely recognized ethical requirements, need no such support.

Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4 all refer to the ‘Ten Commandments,’ but do not clarify how these should be divided to reach that number, and this issue was debated in antiquity, and continues to be disputed. The translation follows the view of Philo, Josephus, and some Talmudic sources. The Decalogue was repeated in Deuteronomy 5:6-17 with a view variations, especially in the Sabbath commandment.” (Jewish Study Bible: Tanakh Translation, p148)

I begin with those paragraphs of commentary upon The Decalogue from a Jewish source so that I state upfront my belief that any study into the Old Testament must take a Jewish perspective into account. Christians are only allowed into the Story via the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; before His atonement for the sins of the world, the Jewish people were the sole heirs, the only children in the Kingdom of God. Thus, when we look into the Old Testament, we must realize that it is their Story we are reading; only through grace are we heirs in the Kingdom ourselves. Hence, I feel it is greatly essential to take into account a Jewish point of view as we seek to focus upon the Old Testament on our journey through Lent (which does correspond with the Jewish celebration of Passover).

More than anything else, I feel, these verses display to humanity more than just God’s expectations of the Israelites; they are a deepening and focusing of the covenants that God has already made with Adam, Noah, and Moses. The covenant of Moses outlines a series of statements designed to further connect (or maybe reconnect) the Chosen People back to their God, after a period of 400 years (Joseph to Moses) where it seemed that God had been absent in their lives. God had delivered Israel from the land of Egypt so that they would be able to worship their Creator as God has always intended them to do.

With Adam and Eve, God was issuing forth punishments and promises related to how they had sinned against God’s one commandment in the Garden. In the case of Noah, God was honoring Noah’s faith and obedience by promising never to destroy the whole of the world with a flood again. And with Abraham and Sarah, God was promising them many things: 1) a child, 2) that through their child, they would be the parents of a great many descendents who would form a great people, and 3) that God would continue to be the God to their many subsequent generations of progeny. Thus, by the time of Moses at Sinai, God was establishing more that just the terms of their relationship, but was beginning a new relationship all the way around. With the prior three covenants, God spoke to a singular man (or couple) specifically, in regards to humanity in general; but with the giving of the Decalogue at Sinai, God was speaking through a singular man (Moses) to Israel specifically, something drastically different in the annals of God-to-man communication.

“And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.’” (Exodus 20:1-11, ESV)

These initial four statements of the Decalogue refer directly to how Israel is to regard, respect, and worship their Deliverer. The first is rather revolutionary in theology, as it establishes monotheism as a standard of religious belief in a world (now just a region) that practices polytheism (or a pantheon of gods who all report to one “chief” god). Literally, there is no one before God because there are no other gods in the world, a direct foreshadowing of the shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. With the second, God states that idol creation, much less idol worship, is forbidden, another blow to the religious practices (those of the Egyptians and Canaanites) with which Israel was quite familiar. In regards to the third commandment, the original intentions were that people wouldn’t employ the name of God loosely in their contracts, agreements, oaths, treaties, and everyday conversations, in contrast to how people had used the names of deities to manipulate those deities to do what they wished. And what makes the fourth so important is that, before it issued from the mouth of God, there was nothing akin to it in world religions – a day set aside solely to worship God (or any other god). (IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p95-96)

“Honor your father and mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12, ESV)

“Ancient Near Eastern legal documents make children’s rights to inherit their parents’ property contingent on honoring them by providing and caring for them. Here God applies this condition on a national scale: the right of future generations of Israelites to inherit the land of Israel for their parents is contingent upon honoring them.” (Jewish Study Bible: Tanakh Translation: p150) “Honoring and respecting parents consists of respecting their instruction in the covenant … If parents are not heeded or their authority is repudiated, the covenant is in jeopardy. In this connection, notice that this commandment comes with covenant promise: living long in the land. In the ancient Near East it is not the religious heritage but the fabric of society that is threatened when these is no respect for parental authority and filial obligations are neglected.” (IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p96)

Simply put, I couldn’t say it nearly as well as they could, not without turning these lessons into formal, for-grade, college-type papers, complete with dense footnoting. Perhaps when I get that grant from a publisher, I’ll have the time and resources to place those above quotations into an appendix at the end of the book, as opposed to typing them out verbatim for the reader. Alas…

“You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20:13-17, ESV)

What I would like to bring up first is that, in the Jewish resources that have been recommended to me by a local rabbi I’m getting to know (or at least starting to do so), Exodus 20:13-16 in the Christian Bible is solely Exodus 20:13 in the Torah. This calls to mind the earlier bit of commentary regarding the discussion on whether or not there were supposed to be actually ten commandments or how readers were supposed to subdivide the commandments so that they could be properly codified. I have yet to find an answer to that question, so we’ll continue with the traditional Ten.

Looking into the sixth commandment, every commentary and study Bible I read through convened the idea that the injunction against murder (“kill” in the KJV) specifically prohibits homicide of any nature, but not in terms of capital punishment, a method of punishment often prescribed throughout the Torah. With regard to the seventh commandment, I found that what was being prescribed was not sexual ethics, but the integrity of the man’s name/honor. Adultery was defined as between a man and a married/betrothed woman only; relations between a man (married or otherwise) and an unattached woman were not considered adultery (though it was frowned upon in Deuteronomy 22:21 & 23:2). The goal was to preserve the man’s character by ensuring that, if he did have an affair with an unmarried woman, he would pay that woman’s father damages (subjecting women to the status of being property) and would often marry her as well, a prevailing practice in polygamous cultures.

Commandments eight and ten are rather closely related, with the eighth hopefully preventing the tenth from ever occurring. The idea is that, if theft is prohibited, than any actions that might transpire in regards to coveting and desiring a neighbor’s possessions will be quickly curtailed. However, as God does know quite best, the fact that covetousness is forbidden after thievery is a testament to humanity’s tendency to be envious and jealous, no matter what God might have said. The ninth commandment is a rather clear one, specifically referring to honorable and accurate speech in a legal setting. “Nevertheless, character assassination in any of its forms, legal or casual, would constitute false witness and would be a violation of this commandment.” (IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; p96-97)

What are we supposed to read, see, and comprehend here? What are the reasons behind why, once again, there had to be some agreement set forth between God and humanity (or this time, the chosen people of Israel)? I would have to declare that God, through the relationship with Israel, was attempting to show the world what a bond between Deity and humanity was supposed to look like. The people of Israel were leaving Egypt and entering into Canaan, a land rife with small nations of differing gods and strange practices, all divergent from what God wanted things to look like. While God was trying to protect Israel with the Decalogue, the general idea was to display to the world what the love of God actually looked like, apart from how their gods treated them.

Taking Lent into account in this discussion, Jesus came down to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17), to see the ideas and concepts proffered forth in the Law to their ultimate conclusion. What Moses began with his conversation with God on Sinai, Jesus completed on earth by His atonement sacrifice, something the Law could only begin to accomplish, by rolling back sins every year. All of the commandments were designed to bring Israel into a blessed covenant with God, one that was created by God and seen to fruition by the priests serving as God’s representatives.

If one follows the commandments fully and completely, there would be no breaking of the bond between God and humanity. However, since humans are rather fallible creatures, the Law was bound to fail; no one can follow all of those rules. But Jesus did; He showed us a new way to live, one immersed in grace, as Jesus took the sins of the entire world on His shoulders and paid the ultimate price for our sins. We read through the Ten Commandments, the Torah, and the whole Tanakh, knowing that somehow, someway, the Messiah would eventually arrive on the earth to show humanity the way back into a restored relationship with their Creator.

The Ten Commandments represented God’s all-encompassing attempt to provide a template for the people of Israel to follow so that they could live faithfully and blamelessly in God’s eyes. But, when it gets down to living out the rules of that template, as wonderful, appropriate, and truthful as they are, humanity has proven its inability to do so with any measure of success. However, the Season of Lent represents the Christian tradition’s attempt to bring Christians into recognition of the fact that Jesus is the vehicle of our redemption and not our own efforts. Thus, Lent is our journey through that path of discovery; we set aside our schedules and preconceived notions about how we think we can best relate to God and put ourselves in a place where God can best speak to us, the fallen, broken, yet beautiful creatures we are.

Teachers: Read through Psalm 19 and then through Exodus 20:1-17. More than anything, we should talk to the kids in our class about why the Ten Commandments were and are so important in the lives of God’s people. They are good rules, good concepts, good ideas that we should (and hopefully do) incorporate into our lives; they should not be overlooked as outdated or outmoded, in terms of the truth they represent. However, without Jesus coming to earth, we would be bound to those rules and not God’s grace as the prevailing motivators in our lives. Yes, Jewish people for time immemorial have lived out their lives in obedience to the Law out of love for God, but Jesus’ arrival on the earth as the world’s Saviour and Messiah. We have a new way to live and the kids must understand that. The blameless and faithful life led by Jesus is our example, both to see the Law truly fulfilled and to see grace in action.

Psalm 19

Psalm 19: This psalm praises the Lord for two of his great gifts to humankind: the creation and the law. Using theological terminology, it speaks of God’s general revelation in nature and his special revelation in the Scriptures. At the conclusion, David turned to his private life, praying that God would keep him on the true and right path. (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV; p821)

Psalm 19: After exhibiting the harmonious revelation of God’s perfections made by His works and His word, the Psalmist prays for conformity to the divine teaching. (Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown’s Commentary; p414)

Psalm 19: In this hymn of praise, David reflects on the glory of God in natural revelation and the glory of the law as God’s special revelation, which alone meets man’s spiritual needs. (Ryrie Study Bible: NASB; p846)

Psalm 19: This psalm is recited as part of the preliminary morning service on Saturday and at festivals. It divides neatly into three sections: Vv 2-7 (1-6) are a hymn, focusing on creation, specifically on the sun; vv 8-11 (7-10) are a hymn focused upon torah; and vv 12-15 (11-14), which are connected to the immediately preceding section, are a petition to be saved from sin, and for prayers to be heard. … Some modern scholars have understood the poem as a whole as focused on God’s revelation in heaven and on earth, while others have noted that torah is associated with light, allowing the two sections to function together.” (Jewish Study Bible: Tanakh Translation; p1302)

Second Sunday of Lent

2006-03-17T01:55:00.000-06:00

Second Sunday of Lent:
March 12th, 2006

Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16
Psalm 22:23-31

I talked with a fellow teacher before and after Children’s Church last week concerning what methods we felt worked and did not work in teaching through the verses for Lent. We both took a similar approach to talking to the kids about the Old Testament verses – reading through the two passages and explaining what the key concepts mean, verse by verse. Now, granted, I fully admit that such an approach is a rather vague one, but I do believe that teachers must keep it in mind. I say this with the thought that the teacher has to find a way to balance the fact that the idea of covenant is a very mature and difficult one with the fact that that same idea of covenant is a necessary one for the children to understand.

Thus, it is my proposal that teachers read through these verses with the kids in their classes, talking about what they decide is most essential. When we get into the New Testament passages, this approach with be updated, but will remain much the same. The point is this – our children must be made familiar with all of these stories and the ideas behind them in order to expose them to the core beliefs, questions, answers, difficulties, and experiences contained within the Bible.

In reference to this week, I posted the lessons and commentary for Genesis 17 about 2 or 3 or so weeks ago, so those are already present on this blog. For Psalm 22, I have transcribed sections from various study Bibles that I have enjoyed using and learning from while studying all of these passages. And as usual, talk to me if you’d like to discuss anything you read that I’ve written here.

Jewish Study Bible, p1306-1307

Psalm 22:24-31 – The psalmist’s recovery is a sign of God’s power and mercy, an example for all, and an occasion for praise. With his reintegration into the community, all Israel is invited to join him in praise.
24 – You who fear the Lord: YHWH-fearers is a term that occurs elsewhere in the Psalms; sometimes it is a general distinction for those who worship the God of Israel and at other times it seems to be a group within Israel – proselytes according to some scholars. Here it is the former.
28 – On praise of God by the nations, see Ps 47:10, 67:3-5, 86:9, and 117:1.
30 – The healthy and the sick should praise God. Those at death’s door: in Hebrew, “those who go down to dust” usually is a reference to the dear or the almost dead. If the reference is to the dead, it would contradict the belief that the dead to not praise God (Ps. 6:6), but it is perhaps a poetic way to reinforce the idea of the surrounding environs that everyone, in every time and every place, should praise God.
31 – God’s power to cure will be proclaimed to future generations.

Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, p825-826

Psalm 22:24 – he has not hidden his face. The reason for the shift is from lament to praise. David’s enemies despised him, but God did not.
25 – From you comes the throne. Literally, “From you comes my praise.” The vow of praise leads to doxology. This, too, is prophetic, anticipating the praises of God in glory.
26 – eat well and be satisfied. This is likely a response to the sacrificial meal of the “peace offering” in which the vow is discharged and the worshippers join in.
27 – All the ends of the earth. The scope of praise expanded in prophetic reference to Christ.
28 – he rules over the nations. The Lord is more than the God of Israel; He is the God of the Gentiles as well.
29 – All the rich. Now only the poor (v26) but also the rich will worship God. These who cannot keep themselves alive. Another possible reading is, “The victor himself restores to life.
31 – He has done it. The final victory of salvation is accomplished by God.

NIV Study Bible, p809

Psalm 22:22-31 – Vows to praise the Lord when the Lord’s sure deliverance comes. The vows proper appear in v 22 & 25. Verses 23-24 anticipate the calls to praise that will accompany the psalmist’s praise. Verses 26-31 describe the expanding company of those who will take up the praise – a worldwide company of persons from every station in life and continuing through the generations. No psalm or prophecy contains a grander vision of the scope of the throng of worshipers who will join in the praise of God’s saving acts.

22:27 – All the ends of the earth. They too will be told of God’s saving acts. The good news that the God of Israel hears the prayers of his people and saves them will move them to turn from their idols to the true God.

22:28 – The rule of the God of Israel is universal, and the nations will come to recognize that fact through what he does in behalf of his people.

22:29 – All the rich … all who go down. The most prosperous and those on the brink of death, and all those whose life situation galls in between these two extremes.

First Sunday of Lent

2006-03-03T22:35:00.000-06:00

First Sunday of Lent:
March 5th, 2006

Genesis 9:8-17
Psalm 51:1-17

More than anything else during this Season of Lent, I wish to impress upon adults and children how sacred this time is in the life of individual Christians and in the long spiritual history that is the Christian faith. The journey thought Season of Lent should be the defining experience in what it actually means to be a Christian. During Lent, the Church allows itself to reflect, meditate, and focus upon why Jesus came to this world, what He accomplished, and how His Birth, Life, Death, Burial, and Resurrection have changed the direction of the world in its entirety. Thus, for the children and adults that we both teach and impact by our lives in general, I feel that it is our responsibility to truly embody all that this Season entails.

I approach the task of writing the lessons for this Season, having really only celebrated Lent for the second time in my whole life. Oh, by going to Church with my Roman Catholic father for the first 15 years of my life, I attended many services during Lent, with many Palm Sunday being of noticeable memory. However, since I was not a Catholic myself (as a child, my father never pressed my mother to send me to Catholic Sunday School, i.e. CCE), I did not have any appreciation for the confessional voyage that Catholics, Orthodox, and “high” Protestants undertake during Lent, or any season for that matter. And while I have no regrets over the events comprising my past, as they make me who I am today, I do wish that I could have grown up experiencing community in a liturgical fashion.

I say all that to say this: too many Christians, especially here in the evangelical South, have never made this journey part of their spiritual lives. Thus, even more so than during Advent, the Church should create an environment in which all believers might have the opportunity to experience Christ in a new, yet utterly timeless way. Through these 7 weeks of readings, studies, and reflections of mine, I am looking forward to both lead and travel alongside people as we walk, crawl, stumble, scratch, claw, and eventually run towards the Cross and Empty Tomb of our Lord Jesus Christ. Read along with me…

Genesis 9:8-17: In the 7 verses prior to this selection, we read of a covenant between God and man that totally changed how humanity would be dealing with each other and with the animal life of Creation. Specifically, “in the Talmud, it is taught that the ‘descendents of Noah’ – that is, universal humanity – are obligated by seven commandments: 1) to establish courts of justice 2) to refrain from blaspheming the God of Israel, as well as from 3) idolatry, 4) sexual perversion, 5) bloodshed, and 6) robbery, and 7) not to eat meat cut from a living animal.” (Jewish Study Bible, p25) Thus, due to the corruption of humanity prior to Noah and his family entering the Ark, God had to extend a clearer set of guidelines by which all of humanity might live.

However, right after establishing those conditions for men, God speaks forth a beautiful series of detailed promises to Noah and his progeny. God promises Noah that never again will all of creation be killed off because of their disobedience. Furthermore, Never again would God issue floodwaters to wipe away the face of the earth & all the creatures upon it. “In this covenant, God takes the stipulations upon himself, rather than imposing them upon Noah and his family. Unlike the later covenant with Abraham, and those that build on the covenant with Abraham, this covenant does not entail election or a new phase of revelation. It is also made with every living creature, not just people.” (IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p39)

Moreover, God, as a sign for all future generations that the world would not be destroyed, sent the rainbow. When the rainbow is seen in the clouds, this would be God’s way of continually reminding humanity that God does love us and wouldn’t send waters to destroy us ever again. “The designation of the rainbow as a sign of the covenant does not suggest that this was the first rainbow ever seen. The function of a sign is connected to the significance attached to it.” (Ibid, p39) The rainbow isn’t important or memorable because it’s a rainbow; the crucial element of this sign is what the rainbow tells us – that God won’t be destroying us again any time soon.

What can we learn from this section? Why would this story be included in the lectionary readings for Lent? In my estimation, I feel that the concept of covenant is instrumental in how Christians come to view their relationship with Christ. When examining the Old Testament and the relationship between Jews and God, the concept of covenant is used to provide a detailed outline of how humanity and deity would interact. Thus, it is only through the events observed during Lent is humanity ushered into a more complete and more holistic covenant with their Creator, one that allows humanity the chance to re-create and re-enter Eden with the Second Adam – Jesus Christ.

Psalm 51:1-17: This psalm is one accredited to David, written when the prophet Nathan came to him to censure David after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and sent her husband Uriah to die on the frontlines of battle in order to cover up their sin. What follows are the first four verses of this psalm and the bulk of the general commentary on this psalm, taken from The Jewish Study Bible: JPS Tanakh Translation. These are provided to better engage us in reading and praying these songs in the light of how the Hebrew people make the Psalms a part of their religious life. My challenge to the reader would be that you read through David’s confession and fervent petition for forgiveness and meditate upon what you might have in your life that would bring you to a place of repentance akin to David’s.

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion, blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from all my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.” (Psalm 51:1-4, TNIV)

“Ps. 51: An individual complaint expressing an extreme sense of guilt. Although written in good classical Heb[rew], internal evidence suggests that this psalm may be exilic or early postexilic. 2: See 2 Sam. Ch 12, where Nathan rebukes David for two grave offences: committing adultery with Bathsheba, and having her husband, Uriah, murdered. Given the tremendous guilt expressed in the psalm, and the specific request to be saved ‘from bloodguilt’ (v16), it is understandable that tradition would explicitly connect this psalm to those events. 3-4: The complain in a nutshell, containing four imperatives (Have mercy, blot out, purify, wash me thoroughly), an invocation (O God), and the motivations (as befits Your faithfulness; in keeping with Your abundant compassion). God is asked to act according to His faithfulness. … 7: So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feelings that he sees himself as sinful even before birth; in other words, he is, by nature, a sinful being.” (Jewish Study Bible, p1338-1339)

Teachers: As you can probably tell, we have already told this story from Genesis to the kids, having done so back in November, the week before we entered into the Season of Advent. Thus, my proposal is this: 1) read through the Psalm for each week, allowing the words of the Hebraic song/prayers to sink into your kids; 2) read through the main Old Testament selection (whether in whole or in part, depending upon the ages of your kids); 3) talk about any concepts from the passage that spring to your mind (whether from your reading or my notes) as being important; 4) possibly talk about how the words of the Psalm tie into the general OT story; and 5) emphasize how this story about God’s agreement with Noah is similar to the agreement that God made with all humans through Jesus.

Now, I fully realize how esoteric this could be for some/most kids/age-groups. You might be asking, “What in the heck am I supposed to do with this when teaching my 1- & 2-year-olds?” And I believe that to be a very valid question. Thus, I recommend that you simply 1) read through the Psalm, 2) read through the OT selection, and then 3) talk to them about Lent in whatever way you feel is most comfortable or appropriate. The goal is not to overwhelm the children, but to provide them a safe & loving space where they can feel Christ’s love in us. If you are walking through and observing Lent, the children will be able to sense that in you.

Genesis 17:15-22

2006-02-25T12:35:00.000-06:00

Details, Details, Details –
(Which is Exactly What Abra(ha)m Wants)
Or
Mama’s Got a Brand New Name (Act Three)

“And God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.’” (Genesis 17:15-16, ESV)

And with that proclamation, God modifies his words from verses 5 and 6 of chapter 17 to apply directly to Abraham’s wife. Some commentaries specifically mention that the name change that Abraham and Sarah both experienced was one of God’s ways of solidifying the covenant. (The Jewish Study Bible, p37-38) Granted, in Abraham’s case, the name change reflected his status as the father of many people, where Sarah’s name change wasn’t an adaptation of meaning, since both Sarai and Sarah are both variations of “princess.” (The Torah: A Modern Commentary, p117) However, what is important with these two verses is not that Sarah’s new name wasn’t as revelatory a change as was Abram’s, but that she too was included and deemed equal to Abraham in terms of their roles in creating the Jewish people. (The Jewish Study Bible, p38)

“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” (Genesis 17:17, ESV)

Yup -- you just read it. Your eyes weren’t deceiving you. Abraham just laughed at God and God called him on it. As I have said to many people in the past month, my affinity for Abraham and Sarah has increased greatly during the course of researching, studying, and writing these lessons. I can relate to the Abraham I am coming to know as I read and study his story, while, in the past, I struggled with any attempt to learn from his life. The Abraham you learn about in Sunday School as a child, especially the version that’s influenced by Chapter 11 of Hebrews and flannel-graphs, was this wonderfully fabulous paragon of faith, virtue, and righteousness after whom I should model my life. However, the problem with such an image of spiritual perfection looming in my vision was that I became convinced that I could never attain that status.

But then I read verses like Genesis 17:17 (and later 18:10) and I am reminded that the Patriarchs were imperfect humans just like myself. They experienced, portrayed, and dealt with deep levels of unbelief on a regular basis. “Some feel that Abraham laughed for joy [i.e. Jamieson, Fausset, and Browne’s Commentary, p28] but verse 18 indicated that it was an expression of doubt as he struggled to match his faith to his circumstances.” (Ryrie Study Bible: NASB, p29) Tell me -- who hasn’t been there, right alongside Abraham? If you’ve ever been a human being on this earth, you too have struggled to match your faith with your circumstances.

This is why studying the stories of the Old Testament is so crucial, so important to how we live our lives and interact with the world around us. Each of us is fallen and imperfect; thus, we must remember that exact piece of information so that we can attempt to live a bit more peaceably and see issues from several vantage points. Abraham and Sarah resonate with me as I read their lives – I’ve made those mistakes, you’ve made those mistakes, I’ll make them again, and so will you. By acknowledging, along with Abraham, my lack of faith, we can both have our faith strengthened by listening to God in the subsequent verses.

“And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh, that Ishmael may live before you!’ God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.’” (Genesis 17:18-19, ESV) “But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” (Genesis 17:21; ESV)

“Isaac means ‘he laughs.’ God specifically designated him, not Ishmael, as heir of the covenant. … Legally, the natural son became the heir, even though born after the son of a slave-wife.” (Ryrie Study Bible: NASB, p 29) “The natural impossibility of her giving birth at 90 (not to mention her life-long infertility) only highlights the supernatural character of Isaac and the nation descended from him (v 17). (The Jewish Study Bible, p38) “By his own sovereign counsel, the Lord elected Isaac, not Ishmael. His [God’s] chosen race would not come by natural selection, but by supernatural grace.” (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible: NIV, p40)

Abraham and Sarah are reminded here that God remembers their antics from chapter 16 where they attempted to circumvent the promises of God by having Abraham take Hagar to be his concubine, conceiving Ishmael. God wants the couple to remember that their plans aren’t nearly as important as they think they are. However, God redeems the potentially tense situation with the specific naming of their child, to be named Isaac. It is Isaac, all along, who has been the child of promise, the child that Sarah would bring into the world, as the fulfillment of everything God had told them would happen.

“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.” (Genesis 17:20, ESV)

“Ishmael, however, is not dispossessed. Whereas only Isaac inherits the covenant (and its attendant promise of land), Ishmael inherits a large measure of the Abrahamic promise. Like his nephew Jacob, he will become the patriarch of a twelve-tribe confederation and thus the father of a great nation.” (The Jewish Study Bible, p 38)

To his credit, Abraham is concerned, as a good father should be, for the welfare of his children, no matter the conditions of the child’s origins. Furthermore, God fulfills the promises he has made to both Abram and Hagar over the past 6 chapters. Ishmael will receive a portion of Abram’s possessions, though it will be nothing compared to what has been promised and is due to Isaac. What should be noted is that the Bible does not mention who the descendents of Ishmael become, outside of the 12-son collective mentioned in Genesis 25:13-18. The Bible places no claim and no blame upon Ishmael and the direction in which his descendents would take. Any and all prophecy about Ishmael is relegated to discussing his temperament and that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation, conditions befitting Ishmael’s status as a child of Abraham’s.

Teachers: What do we have here, with this discussion of covenant and name changes? What are we supposed to learn ourselves so that we can best convey these themes to the children in our classes? Simply put, we should talk about how God keeps any promise made, especially in ways that are beyond what us average humans could ever understand. God uses a scheming, barren woman and her doubting, laughing husband to create the Jewish people and still finds ways to declare that these two are full of faith and credited with righteousness. Moreover, it’s also an example of how, even when we don’t quite believe what God has been telling us, God gives us many chances and opportunities to build or reestablish our faith and trust. Furthermore, the idea of covenant must be stressed in that the covenant was God’s way of leaving proof that the Jews were to be a special people throughout world history, subject to much blessing, much assistance, and much responsibility. Might that we are cognizant of God’s blessing, provision, and protection throughout the whole of Old Testament, due in large part to the terms of the covenant arrangement between Abraham and God.

Genesis 17:1-8

2006-02-15T18:08:00.000-06:00

Details, Details, Details – Which is Exactly What Abra(ha)m Wants
Or
Papa’s Got a Brand New Name

“Names had power in the ancient world. By naming the animals, Adam demonstrated his mastery over them. In a similar way, God’s changing Abram’s name to Abraham and Sarai’s name to Sarah signifies both a reiteration of the covenant promise and the designation of these people as God’s chosen servants.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; p49)

“There are no parallels in the ancient world to covenants between deity and mortal, though certainly gods are known to make demands and promise favorable treatment. In most of these cases kings report their care of the sanctuaries of the god and then tell how the deity responded with blessing. But these fall short of a covenant relationship initiated by deity for his own purposes.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; p49)

“Covenant: a contractual agreement associated in the Bible with the agreement between Yahweh and the Israelites that promises land and children in exchange for exclusive worship and obedience.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; p813)

For the fourth time in six chapters, God appears before Abram to talk about what he is to do and what God wants to do through him. God reiterates the same promises for Abram and his descendents that had already been communicated, to various levels of belief on Abram’s part. Once again, Abram hears the promise that he and Sarai will be the parents of a great nation whose numbers will grow dramatically and whose influence throughout the world would become quite prodigious.

However, some disparity presents itself; a subtle variation in God’s words becomes rather apparent. The difference between God’s declarations in this chapter compared to the declarations in chapters 11-16 is the specific mention of word “covenant.” This concept is introduced in order to establish something firm and definite between God and Abram, where vague guidelines and promised had previously existed in their relationship. This covenant contains all of the guarantees that Abram has heard before, but, for the first time, there are some ground rules and guidelines by which God asks Abram to live.

Conditionality between deity and mortal had existed before – many gods of the region had set forth agreements between themselves and their adherents. However, most of them centered around kings and rulers making sure their took care of the deity’s temples and paid them whatever money, resources, and sacrifices they demanded. Or, in other terms, these provisional arrangements were typically negative and fear-based in context and focus. The god/deity would declare what was to be done and, if the humans did not fulfill their end of the bargain, there would be destructive consequences. Yes, beneficial treatment was promised if the simple rules were followed and obeyed, but the negative results were outlined just as specifically.

“I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.” (Genesis 17:1ff-2, TNIV)

Thus, what God was proposing in order to fulfill the promises given to Abram and Sarai was rather revolutionary for its time and place in world history. God outlined exactly what Abram would experience, what his descendents would do, and how Abram would be the beginning of it all, except that God didn’t include an “or else” clause anywhere. What makes this covenant revolutionary is how God’s purposes were intent upon blessing Abram and having Abram see all of the promises finally set into motion. God had been making promises for 6 chapters, and, with each set of promises, Abram initially expressed doubt and then finally believing after God reiterated the assurances. But when push came to shove, God displayed to Abram just how important he was in God’s eyes – God desired Abram’s obedience and that obedience would be honored with the implementation of all God had set forth.

(Side note: The only exception to this concerns the issue of male circumcision, something that, while physical in nature, is symbolic in context to how it applies to God’s promises. Circumcision will be addressed in the next section of commentary.)

“No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations." (Genesis 17:5, TNIV)

And how did God express concretely how Abram see the promises realized – by changing Abram’s name to Abraham. This was not merely a matter of semantics; it was the definitive means by which God was proving to Abraham how sincere and serious the terms of the covenant would be. In Hebrew, Abram means “exalted father,” which, in itself, isn’t a bad title or descriptor, especially since God had notified Abram several times that he would be a father to a great nation. However, Abraham, in Hebrew, means “father of many or a multitude,” an entirely different and much more expansive way of describing the man who would be the Patriarch of the entire Jewish race.

What is God announcing to Abraham, Sarai, and those who would read and hear these words throughout the rest of history? I would like to proffer forth the opinion that this name change that God wrought in Abraham’s life (and Sarai’s later in the chapter) was God’s means of proclaiming to all present and future generations exactly how important the covenant would be in the lives of the Hebrew people and how committed God is to seeing through to completion and execution the promises laid out to Abram in the covenant. Abraham’s new name, in and of itself, is a promise and assertion that the covenant is real, alive, and an act of love, flowing from God to Abraham and to Jews throughout time immemorial.

“I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendents after you for generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendents after you." (Genesis 17:7, TNIV)

Teachers: I feel that we must approach this chapter in terms of emphasizing how much God loved Abraham, Sarai, and the Jews. Abraham and Sarai had been struggling mightily with truly believing the promises of God (remember the episode with Hagar in last chapter), so God finalizing and codifying the covenant in this way only further displays how much God cares for them and how greatly God wants them to believe in the promises they’ve heard. God has yet to punish them for their unbelief up to this point and at no point during the creation of the covenant does God imply and punishment for unbelief. Blameless and faithful obedience is what God is asking of Abraham in order to see the covenant brought to fruition in his and Sarah’s life. The kids must see and understand this – to underscore God’s love throughout this section is to miss the point of the covenant. God’s expectations for obedience through the implementation of the circumcision ritual will be discussed in another section (and most likely NOT discussed in a classroom in a specific sense).

Genesis 16

2006-02-08T21:10:00.000-06:00

Haven’t I Seen This on “The Jerry Springer Show”??
Or
Hagar’s Bogus Journey

I read through this chapter and simply had to feel sorry for Abram and Hagar. I don’t mean to blame Sarai for everything that happens here, but it really is hard not to look at the events of this chapter and wonder what Sarai was thinking throughout all of this. Both Abram and Hagar did exactly what they were told and suffered for it – Sarai blamed Abram for the problems of the household and Hagar ran away, out into the wilderness. Now, I’m not letting Abram slip off the hook here, since he should have been wary of what Sarai proposed and how it didn’t quite match up with the promises of God that Abram had heard so far (as recent as last chapter). But I do question Sarai’s motives and actions throughout this chapter.

The chapter begins with Sarai being rather impatient with God and the fulfillment of what she and Abram had been promised. She felt that, since she can’t bear children, there had to be some way that she could start a family. So, in order to be a mother and begin populating the world according to God’s promises, Sarai offered up her Egyptian servant Hagar (possibly comparable to Eliezer’s standing with Abram) to become Abram’s second wife and bear his children. This was a common arrangement during the patriarchal and monarchical periods of biblical history, both within Hebrew culture and within other cultures as well. Specific examples include Hammurabi’s Code mentioning this type of arrangement, as well as Rachel and Leah giving their maidservants to Jacob (Israel) for procreation purposes in Genesis 30.

But no matter how “legal” the agreement might have been between Sarai, Hagar, and Abram, once again, personal pride entered into humanity’s relationship with God. Sarai had to do things on her terms, ignoring what God might have wanted to do in her & Abram’s lives. And Abram agreed to the proposal. Yup, he did. Thus, no matter how ridiculous Sarai’s request seems to us as readers, Abram himself has to bear a great deal of responsibility for the problems that are soon to come by acquiescing to Sarai’s idea. It is as if Abram said, “OK dear! I’ll sleep with your servant so we can have a family. What you’re asking me to do isn’t faithless and prideful at all. Of course God would want me to sleep with Hagar. Why haven’t we thought of this before?” I just can’t begin to comprehend why Abram would proceed with this course of action without any discussion or hesitation.

What happened next shouldn’t have really surprised Abram and Sarai, unless they were in total denial of human nature. Abram took Hagar to be his second wife, they conceived a child, and Hagar began to resent her status as servant to Sarai. What was she supposed to do – just give over her child to Abram and Sarai when the baby is finally born? Well, technically, yes, she was supposed to do so. She was the legal representative of Sarai in Abram’s bed, and so any child that she bore was to be Abram and Sarai’s.

Granted, in many respects, Hagar could have become an official second wife, earning her the same rights and privileges as Sarai. But regardless of the official implications of the letter of the law, human nature took hold fairly quickly. Both began to resent the status of the other – Sarai was probably resentful towards Hagar over her being able to actually reproduce and Hagar began to despise Sarai for treating her as merely a servant when it was she who was bringing Abram and Sarai their promised child. Thus, while this set-up might be anathema to us, to act in this manner has been standard operating procedure in many cultures for many centuries.

“Then Sarai said to Abram, ‘You are responsible for the wrong that I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.’” (Genesis 16:5, TNIV)

I read this verse and can’t decide whether to be shocked by her audacity or laugh at the surrealism of her chutzpah. Sarai had the gall to complain to Abram about Hagar’s attitude when it was Sarai who suggested their coupling. More than just complaining, Sarai blamed Abram for causing the domestic conflict. Yes, Abram should have accepted some of the blame, since he could/should have rejected Sarai’s idea, and, according to the commentaries I read, he was the person legally responsible for enforcing compliance with the marriage contract. However, it is Sarai’s total reluctance to take upon herself any responsibility for this situation that strikes me as rather ridiculous. (But, maybe that’s my cultural baggage seeping in…)

Upon hearing this, Abram did stand up for himself, deflected the guilt that Sarai was attempting to place upon him, and told her that, since Hagar was her servant, it was Sarai who must resolve this domestic squabble. On one hand, this seems like an appropriate response, since it was Sarai’s attempt to play God that created this situation. However, with Abram rejecting any responsibility in this matter (even though he is the father of Hagar’s child), he allowed Sarai a chance to exercise some of the baser aspects of human nature.

“… Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.” (Genesis 16:6ff, TNIV) And I don’t blame Hagar for this reaction whatsoever. Judging from all of the evidence at her fingertips, she probably felt that her status and standing in Abram & Sarai’s family was either tenuous at best or, at worst, any child she bore will be yanked out of her arms immediately after the baby’s birth, even though according to similar arrangements of the time, the child she was carrying was legally Abram and Sarai’s. But even possessing such knowledge, Hagar chose to flee the tents of Abram and Sarai to seek refuge in the desert, which, unless she knew someone else in another family or was trying to thumb a ride back home to Egypt, was a rather ill-advised idea. The desert is a dangerous place for anyone to be without water, supplies, or a plan of any kind, much less for a pregnant woman.

Nevertheless, as she rested at an oasis located upon the road to Shur (most likely a desert area in the Negev, between Palestine and Egypt), an angel, most likely a theophany approached her. This messenger from God questioned Hagar as to where she had come from, and where she was going – 2 questions that are quite appropriate to ask anyone (much less a pregnant woman) traveling alone in the desert. Hagar responded that she was running away from Sarai, which technically answered neither of the angel’s questions. The angel then told her to return to Sarai and submit herself to her, which Hagar probably didn’t want to hear, since to obey this command would mean that she would have to bear the consequences of showing contempt towards and despising Sarai’s status.

I can see Hagar’s face contort into an ugly grimace as she listened to the angel’s words. Questions probably flooded through her. “Why should I go back? What would I be going back for? What could this angel say that would make me even consider obeying him? He’s never lived with and worked for that woman. He can’t be serious!” However, the angel’s response, in the form of promise, prophecy, and prediction, probably allayed many of those fears and concerns. He declared that God will increase the number of her children until they became too numerous to count, a direct parallel to the promise that God gave to Abram about his descendents. Did this promise come to Hagar because she was to bear Abram’s child, as part of the fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to Abram? Quite possibly…

“The angel of the Lord also said to her: ‘You too now are pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.’” (Genesis 16:11-12, TNIV)

What did all that mean? Does any of that mean anything in terms of world history? Many people directly correlate these predictions to be a reference to either contemporary Arabic peoples or Arabs in general throughout history. Conversely, many people feel that the descendents of Ishmael would form many of the tribes that would harass the Hebrews for centuries. However, one of the best descriptions of this prediction reads, “The fearless and fleet-footed Syrian onager [wild donkey] is a metaphor for an individualistic lifestyle unrestrained by social convention (Job 24:5-8, 39:5-8, Jer 2:24, Hos 8:9). Ishmael’s blessing would occur away from the land of promise; he would live by his own resources. The fierce, aggressive ways [hostility] of the Ishmaelites are contrasted with nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs.” (Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible – NIV, p39)

Nonetheless, no matter what the means and ends could be for deciphering these statements from the angel, it is Hagar’s response that should receive the most notoriety and attention. She reacted to all that the angel told her with the reverence, respect, and awe that any deity would ever desire. In fact, Hagar even fashioned a specific name for God to commemorate and memorialize her conversation with the angel – “… ‘You are the God who sees me,’ for she said, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me.’” (Genesis 16:13ff, TNIV) Thus, Hagar returned to Abram and Sarai, gave birth to a boy, and Abram, now 86 years old, named his son Ishmael.

Teachers: Read through this whole chapter. Present Hagar here as the key figure from whom we can learn a specific lesson, as she is the central figure of the story in these verses. 1) She fulfills Sarai’s request to become Abram’s wife. 2) She resents and looks down upon Sarai, because she is the one who is bearing the child and not Sarai. 2a) Yes, she did despise Sarai, but maybe that was because she felt that she should have been treated as a wife and not a servant after conceiving a child with Abram. 3) She is abused and mistreated by Sarai. 4) She runs away into the desert to escape the hostile environment. 5) An angel from God visits her, tells her to return to Sarai, and that the son she bears will be the beginning of a numerous people. 6) She returns and bears Abram a son, who is named Ishmael.

Maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe I should have skipped this chapter, deeming it too uncomfortable and too strange to present to kids. However, I think that, as adults, we don’t give children enough credit in terms of their comprehension and understanding. I feel that we can present this story as more than some tragic set of events or wrong choices made by Abram and Sarai (which they were), but as a story about God’s blessing, protection, and love for all people.

So, if you’re not sure how to talk about the above 6 points, here are 2 points to focus upon: 1) Talk about how God took care of Hagar, after Sarai had mistreated her, even though she had treated Sarai rudely herself; and 2) Possibly discuss how Abram and Sarai were wrong in their attempt to play God. They tried to fulfill God’s promises through their means and not God’s. Their efforts to have a child without God’s help or direction only resulted in heartache, hurt feelings, and a disruption of God’s original plans.

Genesis 15

2006-02-01T19:20:00.000-06:00

"It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back"
Or
God’s Covenant with Abram

There are many reasons that I feel that I can relate to Abram, just as there are many aspects of Abram’s life that make absolutely no sense to me. That Abram simply packed up the life that he and Sarai created in Ur and Harran without complaining or asking questions of God seems completely out of my realm of understanding. But when Abram asked God how he and Sarai were going to be the progenitors of the great nation that God promised even though Sarai is barren, I can make a connection to something similar in my life. This is what makes the story of Abram and Sarai so compelling – we’ve all been there and we’ve all been them. We’ve all had conversations and interactions with God like the one Abram had in Genesis 15, except that most of us haven’t been made mother and father of a whole nationality, lasting throughout history and extending around the globe. And if you have, let me know because I want to meet you.

God meets Abram in a dream, with God immediately telling him, “Hey! Don’t be afraid! It’s me, God, your shield and the one Who is and give you your great rewards.” What initially is most noticeable here is that God realizes what Abram’s reaction will be upon seeing God in a vision – Abram will be freaked out. God knows that Abram will be scared, so God makes sure that Abram’s fears are allayed.

But surprisingly enough, to me at least, is that Abram doesn’t appear to be scared by God coming to him in a vision. Abram automatically knows what the “reward” is that God is probably talking about – the peopling of Canaan by Abram, Sarai, and their descendents. I would imagine that this specific set of promises of God’s is at the forefront of Abram and Sarai’s minds – they can’t have kids, yet God keeps saying that, somehow, they’ll be the parents of a large number of people.

And of course, with this being on his mind, Abram feels compelled to tell God that, unless God starts fulfilling these promises, Abram’s wealth, property, and influence in the region will pass to his chief servant Eliezer of Damascus. This would be a fairly standard thing to worry about – kings & rulers of various types have worried about who will inherit their stuff for centuries. Someone as wealthy as Abram would want to know exactly what’s going to happen when they pass away, simply because, in most (if not all cultures) of nearly any era throughout world history, people with lots of stuff have lots of influence. Just ask Julius Caesar what happens when you die and your friends have to divide up your empire because they can’t get along and you don’t have any direct descendents to whom you can pass your stuff along.

Yet again, God reaffirms the promises given to Abram, reassuring him that the promises will come to pass. The words God uses to do so are remarkably similar to the ones Abram heard back in Chapters 12 and 13. “Then the word of the Lord came to him: ‘This man [Eliezer] will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.’ He took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the heavens and count the stars – if indeed you can count them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’ Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:4-6, TNIV)

Yeah, I guess I would believe the Lord at this point along with Abram – God has spoken to me three times about how my wife and I would be the parents of a brand-new nation, regardless of her medical condition. Then, Abram did exactly what I would have done: he moved onto a question that he could wrap his mind around. “But Abram said, ‘Sovereign Lord, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?’” (Genesis 15:8, TNIV) He went beyond asking about how these children will be born to him and Sarai to ask God how their kids will actually inhabit this so-called “Promise Land” – a land currently filled with a wide variety of tribes and nations. He has the chutzpah (and this was before Yiddish was even a language!) to ask God how he and his descendents were going to take possession of this land being promised to them.

What else should he have done – continue believing in blind faith? Maybe, but again, I would have had the same issues and asked the same questions. My conversation with God would just have sounded a bit more like this: “OK God, I do believe You when you say that You’re going to heal my wife’s womb and bless us with at least one child so we can start this great people You’ve promised that we’ll start. I do believe that, mostly because that’s a miracle of healing that is truly beyond my human abilities. But this business of taking over a country already filled with people who don’t like me – are You serious about that? How would my family, workers, descendents, and I even begin to attempt that? Do You realize what You’re asking?”

Yeah, that’s what it would sound like. It’s also an introduction to my regular crisis of faith. I can believe God for things beyond my control, but, when God allows me the slightest bit of input and involvement in the events, I just tend to doubt anything and everything. And as great of a man of faith as Genesis, the book of Hebrews, and church history describes Abram/Abraham to have been, I feel that he was a man just like me, a human just like anyone of us. And that’s what is so amazing about the story of Abram, Sarai, and the other patriarchs throughout Genesis.

So, what is God’s response to Abram, yet again, not believing what he’s heard? “So the Lord said to him [Abram], ‘Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.’” (Genesis 15:9, TNIV) Abram does this, sacrifices them all by cutting them in two pieces (except for the birds), and sits down to wait. Abram falls asleep after defending the sacrifice from the attacks of the birds of prey (why is this mentioned anyway?).

During this deep and troubled sleep, God goes into great detail concerning the future of Abram’s descendents. Specifically, God talks to Aaron about the 400 years that his people will spend as oppressed foreigners, serving as mistreated slaves in a strange land. We now know this to be the 400 years that the 12 Tribes of Israel lived in Egypt in between the time of Joseph and Moses, between Genesis Chapter 50 and Exodus Chapter 1. But I would imagine that Abram would have been rather saddened upon hearing this.

However, God follows up this negative news by declaring that, even though Abram will not experience the hard life his descendents would, they will still come up out of their oppression to fully take the land that Abram, his immediate family, and his workers never could. This is God’s answer to Abram’s concerns on how the land will be possessed – God will be sending these people through a long bit of suffering and hardship in order to best prepare them spiritually, emotionally, physically, and numerically to conquer and fill the Promised Land. Thus, “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendents I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.’” (Genesis 15:18-21, TNIV)

Now, leaving all politics aside regarding the contemporary state of Israel and the Palestinians, this is a large swathe of land God is promising to Abram, Sarai, and their progeny. Israel as a nation does come to occupy all of this land during the reigns of David and Solomon, but after the Kingdom was divided between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, Israel was destined to see its borders shrunken, cities assailed, and the both kingdoms occupied, the inhabitants either killed or carted off to Babylon and Assyria. But to Abram, this land and this vision was God’s answer to his doubting and his questions. God knew exactly what Abram would need to see and hear to have faith in God, not that Abram had to know everything, but that God wanted to honor the faith that Abram had already exhibited through his actions so far.

Is it OK to ask questions and display your not-quite-so steady faith to the God you love and believe in? I’d say yes – Abram did.

Teachers: Focus on reading the first 6 verses. These talk specifically about 1) how God came to Abram to talk more about the promises that had already been given, 2) how Abram questioned God about the promises, 3) how God gave answers, 4) the content of those answers, and 5) how Abram came to believe and be praised for his belief. The kids need to understand that God appreciates people coming with their questions – God seeks out people willing to communicate honestly and openly about their unbelief. We see several shining examples throughout the stories, tales, and trials of the patriarchs in Genesis and throughout David’s’ psalms. God does want us to believe and have faith, but God also wants us to talk when we don’t. It’s often in those times that the greatest instruction and discernment comes to us.

Genesis 14

2006-01-29T10:13:00.000-06:00

Abram’s Excellent Adventure
Or
Lot’s Bogus Journey

Lot gets captured in a military conflict and Abram goes to save him. (Genesis 14: 1-16) I thought long and hard about how to best dissect what is happening here into some understandable format, not only for the children, but also for any teacher who would use my commentary in their classroom. What might be the larger principle to learn here? What is the point of including this small story into the larger story of the beginnings of the Hebrew people as a nation, as the children of God? Do we really need to read about the political machinations of the various tribal powers that wandered the deserts of the ancient Middle East? What is the relevance of this episode to Abram and Sarai’s larger story of becoming the parents of a great nation?

And then I realized how Chapter 14 is a thematic continuation to Chapter 13 – Abram continues to take care of and show responsibility for the welfare of those people important to him. Lot, having merely lived close to Sodom at the end of Chapter 13, was now residing in Sodom with all of his possessions. Unfortunately for Lot, he fell prey to the looting of an army who had recently been the victors in a war that settled a rather long-standing political feud of 14 years. Am I letting Lot off the hook here? I don’t think so – he should have known what was going on politically in the region or at least learned about it as he lived there. But you can’t anticipate being carted away across the desert by an invading army.

After being informed of Lot’s abduction by someone who had eluded capture, Abram then gathered up his 318 (isn’t that a rather specific number?) trained men to pursue the army that had captured Lot (maybe to hold him for ransom). Judging by his tactics of dividing his force to surround the enemy at night, Abram also seems to have been a capable military strategist. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (p46) declared that a force of 318 men was very large for its day and time, more than capable of being able to defeat most any army that stood against them. Thus, with such resources at his disposal, Abram chased the invaders to the north of Damascus (into modern-day Syria), rescuing Lot, his possessions, and his family.

Again, what jumps out of the page at me is Abram’s willingness to take care of those people who mean a great deal to him. We are not privy to Abram and Lot’s personal feelings regarding their seemingly amicable separation in Genesis 13, but it would have been very easy to build up a grudge regarding what happened. However, it seems that no matter what Abram felt, he believed that Lot deserved and was worthy of his help. Thus, it seems that, even without projecting intuitions and presupposing emotions upon Abram, the principle still rings true – we should want to help our friends and love ones when we see them in trouble. Sadly, we don’t live according to that adage as often as we should.

Abram Meets Melchizedek. (Genesis 14:17-24) What we have here is another incident where Abram’s character is wonderfully exemplified. As Abram returns to his tents following his successful journey to reclaim Lot, two men meet him: the King of Sodom and Melchizedek, the King of Salem. The King of Sodom was there because Abram, when reclaiming Lot, also procured the possessions that the other kings captured when they overran Sodom and other towns. Melchizedek was present because he was probably the most important king in the area.

However, Melchizedek was more than just a king; he was a priest of God’s. The author of Hebrews felt that Melchizedek was a typological forerunner and image of Christ to Abram. Why else would have Abram have willingly given him a tenth of all he owned after just meeting the man? Many people teach that Melchizedek was a theophony – an angelic being sent to earth to give forth an image of God to the people of God. As Hebrews 7:3 tells us, “He [being Melchizedek] is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3, ESV)

However, Melchizedek’s status as either human or not is a moot point really. Abram’s reaction would most likely have been the same either way – showing reverence and respect to those he felt were worthy, people he felt were of God. Abram tithed a tenth of his money to the King of Salem to show admiration for the King’s position as leader of the peoples of the region and because he recognized God as being present in the life of Melchizedek. Abram’s giving of his tenth occurred after being blessed by Melchizedek in this manner: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” (Genesis 17:19ff-20, ESV) I feel that this wasn’t some support group that these 2 men joined, but a way for them to connect with each other in a rather pagan world.

After this exchange, the King of Sodom decided to win back his people to his side, a crucial point as the King wants to see his people return to their homes. Abram was well within his rights to keep all of the people and resources that he had recovered, but he was honor-bound to God to treat people in a manner that he would want to be. But Abram gave all of the people and belongings back to the King of Sodom with these words, “… I have lifted my head to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth, that I would not take a thread or a sandal strap or anything else that is yours, lest you should say, ‘ I have made Abram rich.’ I will take nothing but what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me. Let Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre take their share.” (Genesis 14: 22ff-24, ESV)

Abram realized that, to keep all of the goods of Sodom that he had retrieved from the fleeing armies, he would be allowing someone to say that they had played a part in blessing Abram. The covenant between Abram and God was designed for only God to have the distinction of directing, guiding, blessing, and providing for Abram’s journeys and fulfilling the promises that had been made to Abram and Sarai. Abram could have taken everything and tithed more, but chose to honor the fact that God had promised to take care of Abram; he wouldn’t need any outside assistance.

Teachers: Two primary things to focus on here. First, talk about how important it is to take care of the important people in our lives. Abram honored his brother and father with the way that he always took care of, protected, and loved Lot. When we help others, it allows for blessing to enter our lives. Second, Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek shows us how crucial it is that we honor the people of God in our lives. Yes, we should love our neighbor as ourselves, but we should also seek to show specific love to the people that God has placed in our lives to help us, assist us, and guide us. Thus, I feel it makes most sense, when teaching through this chapter, to read Genesis 14:17-24.

Genesis 13

2006-01-19T19:36:00.000-06:00

Abram’s Excellent Adventure
Or
“Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want”

Quoting from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, “The primary requirements for a successful herding group are pasturage and water sources. The hot, dry months from April through September require movement of herds to higher elevations where grass remains and streams and springs can be found. In the colder, wet months of October through March, the animals will be brought back to the plains for grazing. This seasonal movement necessitates long separations of herders from their villages or the establishment of an unconnected, semi-nomadic lifestyle in which whole families travel with the herds. The knowledge of natural resources along their routes of travel would be their primary lore. Disputes of grazing land and water rights would be the most frequent cause of quarrels between herdsmen.” (Walton, et al; p44-45)

Abram & Lot separate: How clear is that? If there are too many sheep and herdsmen and too few natural resources sharing the same space, there are going to be arguments and disputes over who gets to use what. It’s not really that surprising that this happened, as it was bound to happen eventually as Abram and Lot traversed the Negev countryside between Egypt and Canaan. “… For their possessions were go great that they could not dwell together.” (Genesis 13:6ff, ESV)

Abram, Sarai, and Lot covered territory ranging from Egypt to the Negev Desert to the area between Bethel and Ai, where Abram had built an altar when his caravan first arrived in Canaan. Thus, after all of their traveling to that point (200 miles from Bethel to Egypt + 200 miles from Egypt to Bethel = 400 miles), the amount of flocks, herds, and property they owned had increased. This was an entirely natural procession of events, considering that nomads literally lived and died by the health of their flocks. And besides, I figure that the writer of the book of Genesis (Moses?) would have mentioned specifically any events (famine, drought, attack by outsiders) that would have led to Abram & Lot’s flocks decreasing in number.

Yet, what is so important to learn from this part of Abram’s story is how the two men resolved the situation. They handled their employees’ dispute over resource availability and sharing in the only manner appropriate to their situation – through conversation, discussion, and compromise. “Then Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife between you and me, between your herdsmen and my herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left.’” (Genesis 13:8-9, ESV)

And with that declaration from Abram, Lot chose the Jordan Valley, leaving Canaan proper, and moved his tents close to Sodom. While Lot’s future deleterious relationship with the people of Sodom will be discussed later, I do want to say that I do not feel that Lot’s decision at this point was any indication of his leanings or inclination. Nowhere in this passage does it ever mention that Lot chose this area because of his selfishness or sinfulness that he possessed. It simply says that he liked what he saw in the Jordan Valley and took his uncle Abram up on the offer he made for Lot to have the first choice of where he wanted to live.

Side Note -- Genesis 13:13 does tell us, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.” What is to be derived from this verse? Are we to be under the impression that Abram and Lot knew that the people of Sodom were wicked? Or was this verse included by the omniscient author of this book who had the knowledge of Sodom based upon the way that the story of Lot in Sodom would eventually play out? I don’t want to guess or presuppose knowledge upon Abram or Lot, mostly because, to do so, it would mean that I would be reading the story already knowing the way the story would end. Not enough people give Lot the benefit of the doubt when retelling and explaining these events, so I will. Forgive me…

After all of this, Abram looks across the horizon at Canaan, the land that Lot chose for him, yet the land that God had always chosen for Abram, Sarai, and their descendents. God reminds Abram, “Arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.” (Genesis 13:17, ESV) Once again, Abram and Sarai receive the promise from God that they will be the progenitors of a great nation that will cover all of the land that Abram sees to the north, south, east, and west, numbered as if they were as countless as the dust of earth. And once again, Abram and Sarai are faced with the issue that they are both advanced in years and barren up to this point. Nevertheless, Abram moves his tents to the area of Hebron where he builds an altar to the Lord, acting upon his faith in the Lord. Would that I had such faith…

Genesis 11:27 – 12:9

2006-01-10T16:16:00.000-06:00

Abram and Sarai’s Excellent Adventure
Or
Abram and Sarai’s Bogus Journey

Terah leads his family (Genesis 11:27-32): Lest we ever forget (or maybe just didn’t learn in the first place), Abram and Sarai’s travels began with them first following Terah, his father, as he chose to uproot his family so that they might relocate to Canaan. To be sure, I’m not trying to discount all that Abram and Sarai would come to do; I’m just seeking to give credit where credit is due. Granted, we don’t know why Terah decided to relocate his son, daughter-in-law, grandson, and all of their belongings, but he did so regardless. Maybe Abram and Sarai just needed someone to help them get their foot out of the door of their homeland; maybe Terah’s decision to move to a new locality served as an excellent and inspired example to them.

Terah himself was the father of 3 boys: Abram, Nahor, and Haran, 2 of whom had children of their own. Abram and Sarai, however, had no children, as Sarai “… was not able to conceive.” (Genesis 11:30ff, TNIV) From time immemorial, most world cultures have deemed a couple’s ability to bear children to be of highest societal importance. Whether the pressure came from religious or secular sources, couples unable to procreate were frequently marginalized and looked down upon as weak and/or sinful.

Along with Abram and Sarai’s troubles, Terah had to face the fact that his son Haran had died, leaving behind three children: Lot, Milkah, and Iskah. Orphaned children, even in our present society, typically have limited rights and representation, even to the point that they are often abused and forgotten. Luckily for Lot, as the oldest and only son, he was the heir to all of his father’s wealth – livestock, land, and all other possessions. Such was his privilege in being born into a patriarchal society.

For Milkah and Iskah, their position as women was much more tenuous than Lot’s, as it has been only in recent years that women have risen above the second-class-status that had been imposed them for so long. Milkah was the wife of Nahor, the last of Terah’s children; the Bible does not state what happened to Iskah. Granted, the family has often been the institution that has taken care of orphans, but such care often comes at a price: Milkah was mostly likely married off to Nahor and Iskah was most likely married off to someone, as women were viewed as property to be bought, sold, and traded.

His decisions concerning Milkah and Iskah notwithstanding, Terah deserves some credit for bringing Lot along with him on his journeys, as he could have easily left Lot behind to fend for himself on his inheritance. Terah, I propose, seemed to be an ideal patriarch, the man from whom Abram learned all of his best traits. Terah sought out what was best for his family and took care of that family, to the best of his ability. By choosing to relocate them, Terah was offering a brand-new start to Abram, Sarai, and Lot, a life that, due to their standing in their society, they might not have been able to live out in Ur of the Chaldeans. However, as plans can change, Terah had his family settle and live, upon their arrival in the city of Harran, aborting the journey to Canaan. Terah never made it to Canaan, since, “Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Harran.” (Genesis 11:32, TNIV)

God comes a-calling (Genesis 12: 1-9): And with utterly no pretense, God came to Abram in the midst of what was most likely a very safe and comfortable existence with his father in Harran. God declared to Abram that there is this far-off place where Abram and his family should be headed, but the catch is that only God knows (no pun intended) where they will all be going. However, though Abram, Sarai, Lot and their entourage were being asked to travel across the (Saudi Arabian) desert with no clear idea of their destination, God did have a beautiful set of promises to set before Abram.

“I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:2-3, TNIV)

I don’t know about you, but I would be really scared, honored, frightened, blessed, and pee-in-my-pants freaked out if anyone would spoken this over me, probably even more so if God had told me this in any kind of audible voice. What does that say about you and me if we were to have that kind of reaction? But the fact is that it is not noted specifically what Abram might have thought when God told him this. We can assume that there was some natural, human trepidation within Abram and Sarai at their hearing God’s promise over their lives, but that wouldn’t be appropriate. Abram just gathered everyone up and left, going where God directed his family. Absolutely amazing…

Think about what God is proclaiming here, compared with the human reality of the situation. 1) Abram will be the father of a great nation, though he and Sarai are physically unable to have any children. 2) Abram’s name will be made great, though there is no evidence that Terah or Abram were leaders of any kind in Ur or Harran. 3) God will bless Abram, Abram will bless others, how people respond to Abram will determine how God responds to them, and everyone on earth will be blessed because of Abram, even though Abram really hadn’t done anything worthy of receiving such other-worldly, insanely, seemingly-impossible-to-enact blessings. I’m not even sure how to process reading this section, much less imagining myself as Abram hearing God speak this over him and his family.

So, what does Abram do in response to this? He packs up everything and everyone, just as Terah had done with their move to Harran (though they had originally set out for Canaan). However, this time, the difference was that Abram would complete the journey that his father never did, traveling about Canaan to the great tree of Moreh at Shechem, the hills east of Bethel, and going down into the Negev and Egypt. Abram heard from God the promise that Canaan would belong to Abram’s offspring and responded by building an altar to the Lord at the great tree and in between Bethel and Ai.

How can I even begin to relate to Abram here? Has God asked me to move across whole nations and expanses of land with no forewarning, with the only promise that God will lead me, though I know not the way? No, God hasn’t, but I have been asked to step outside of my comfort zones, to leave behind the ideas, plans, and expectations that I’ve created for my life. Has God told me that I will be the father of a great nation that will spread across and bless the whole world? Not yet, but I have been told to forget what I think and to stop talking so often, so that I might be able to listen more fully to what God wants to say to me. Hmmm… I guess maybe I can find a bit of Abram inside of me; maybe I need to start finding a bit more of him, the part that actually believes and obeys after listening to God speak to me. Look at how often Abram talked to God in these verses – not at all…

Genesis 11: 1-9

2006-01-06T16:01:00.000-06:00

Strange Languages
Or
“Hey! Let’s Build Something and Become World Famous!”

We have here the famous story of the Tower of Babel, a key scenario in the propagation of peoples around the globe. Many would say that this scene is a metaphor or a folktale, akin to something out of Aesop’s Fables, and I would be inclined to agree with them. It’s not that I doubt intentionally because of the content of this story, but because many other cultures around our world have similar stories and myths outlining the dissemination of languages and peoples.

Do not interpret this statement in a manner that might describe me as a purely inclusive universalist. I simply feel that there is much the reader & listener can learn from the tale described in these 9 verses. That is what makes this narrative valid, not whether it actually happened or not. The worlds of the historical fact and nonfiction description are not the exclusive purveyors of truth.

The events of this story are very straightforward. At the time, all of the people in the world were of one language, of one common speech pattern. And this makes much sense, as everyone was very nearly related to everyone else. That’s what happens when men and women have very long life spans and procreate very extensively. And with the advent of these large immediate and extended families, people were running out of livable land relative to the size of those families. Thus, according to this story, people moved eastward to the plain of Shinar, a region that will come to be known as Sumer, Babylon, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and Iraq. We aren’t sure where these people moved east from, though some feel they could have been living simply more to the west in the historical “Fertile Crescent”, in present-day Israel, or in eastern Africa. But regardless of their origins, they arrived and settled there.

What follows is an anthropological lesson in the development of cultures and their engineering practices. These peoples had made the transition from collecting and assembling rough stones to harnessing fire so that they could bake bricks and melt tar for mortar. This being the Middle East, there was lots of petroleum byproducts readily available. Moreover, they were choosing to build a city in which to live, deciding not to live in tents and wander about seeking their fortunes as hunter-gatherers.

This is actually fairly significant in terms of measuring a civilization’s status and progression. Not only had they made a long journey to settle a new homeland, they possessed the tools and knowledge necessary to inhabit the land. Kilns in which bricks were to be fired were not hallmarks of migrants; they were tools that befit a tribe/people/ethnic group that was set down long-term, stable roots. Also, their knowledge had progressed to where they were experimenting and researching in order to better their lot in life. One has to burn lots of clay to finally determine a process by which you achieve a building-worthy brick. These were not migrant peoples of the stereotypical Bedouin archetype; this was burgeoning civilization.

Where these people went wrong was when they decided to do more than just build a city in which people could live and start families. They openly declared that they were going to build a tower that would reach to the heavens so that their name would be known in all of the earth. You would think, by now, that humanity (especially the descendents of Noah) would have a pretty decent idea of what God, His judgment, His opinions, and His preferences would be throughout the Old Testament. But no, not humans – we always seem to choose what’s so very wrong for our well-being. This whole free-will thing is such a blessing and such a curse.

And I would say that the issue would not be the people’s desire to settle permanently as a civilization. I’ve heard it preached that God wasn’t pleased because these people were trying to do everything (building a city and/or building a civilization) on their own terms, not in God’s time. My response to that would be that the core issue is the blatant fact that the builders & organizers were building primarily for their glory, as opposed to building for God’s glory or for functional purposes by the city’s inhabitants.

In verses 5-7, God comes down from Heaven to see what the people of the city were doing, to what extent this building project was being pursued. And God was astonished at the scene, prompting a response that still rather confuses me. “The Lord said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.’” (Genesis 11:6-7, TNIV) Why this reaction? Yes, I can see why God would have issues with people exalting themselves and attempting to achieve permanence, even though humanity has proven to be rather temporary & ephemeral. However, why God feels that it is necessary to create new languages in order to facilitate the dispersal of these people is beyond me.

And that’s why God is God, and why I’m not.

But here’s this thought – it’s not just how God dispersed the peoples of the world, but why God did so. I can’t quite wrap my mind around God’s reasoning – if people keep building and working together, they will be able to do just about anything. This flies in the face of God’s usual penchant for letting humanity use and abuse its collective free-will. God sent languages to confuse the builders of the city, dispersing them, and separating them purposefully because of their unified ambition. Did God feel they weren’t ready to work together? Does God think we still aren’t ready to work together? Does God only want people working on good things, ready to stop people if their purposes don’t line up with God’s?

Regardless of my questions and concerns, I must return to the discussing the fundamental lesson that anyone who reads this story should be able to intuit. The people of Babel were dispersed because they built and created with the sole purpose of immortalizing themselves throughout the world, in defiance of God being God. Whenever people try to exalt themselves to a position equal to or above that of God’s, they should realize that they are stepping outside of their role as created beings. I am not advocating that people should live in fear of God’s impending and imminent judgment upon our wrongdoing, but I do believe that too many people throughout world history have lived as if they were gods unto themselves, to typically tragic outcomes. God has promised many things to people throughout the Bible, and all of them are dependent upon people fully recognizing their status as the creations of God. I just hope that my life can serve as an example of someone who looks to God first in deciding what is best for my life, because I know that I’ve listened to myself too often and for too long.

Luke 2: 1-20

2005-12-13T21:32:00.000-06:00

Fourth Week of Advent
December 18, 2005

I must provide a preface to this bit of commentary: yes, I do realize that it’s not quite Christmas yet, but, due to the fact that Christmas Day falls on a Sunday, our church community has rightly chosen to have families celebrate the birth of Christ AS a family, together in service. Thus, we will be reading through the second chapter of the book of Luke this week, as we won’t be having standard Sunday School classes next week.

Luke 2: 1-7 – I tend to think that few people actually realize the depth and extent of Caesar Augustus was actually wanting here. When he talks about trying to ascertain the population of the Roman world for tax purposes, he’s referring to most of the known world at that time. Yes, as a student of History, I am FULLY aware that there was a flourishing world in the area now known as China, not to mention all of the aboriginal peoples populating ALL of the lands not known to the Roman Empire 2000 or so years ago. However, the Roman Empire was very widespread and ruled what is now known as Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa, conquered by force, and dominated by rule of law.

Thus, to call for a census meant much more than asking people to answer the questions of the government employee came to their door. The Roman Empire asked everyone under their domain to return to their town of origin, not their personal birthplaces, but to where their family/clan/tribe had called their home for generations. (To be honest, I have no clue where I’d be returning to – Center, TX; Minnesota; Poland; England; Scotland; Ireland – any of those places could be my family’s place of origin.) Now, in an era without the technological advances of the telephone or the Internet, the Romans HAD to call people back to their hometowns. How else would they be able to track people down most effectively? It would greatly expedite matters for the tax collectors (why else do you take a census of your population?) to gather people back in large areas, as opposed to smaller towns and villages.

Caesar, whether he knew it or not, in his push for more taxes from his people, brought about the fulfillment of many of Isaiah’s prophecies. Here are just two of them: 1) Joseph was a descendent of David; thus, since a child’s birthright and legacy in Hebrew law came from the father’s side, Jesus was a descendent of David’s as well, fulfilling that portion of the Davidic covenant, and 2) David’s home (if you’ve ever read anything from I or II Samuel) was in Bethlehem, so Jesus was to be born there as Joseph returned for the census. There are more (specifically that virgin birth thing), but those can be discussed at a later date and by theologians (and prophecy wonks) more proficient and knowledgeable than I am.

Interesting (maybe only to me) side note here… Verse 7 tells us that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn child. The inference here is that Mary obviously had more children after Jesus, but why do we really never hear about them (outside of various deuterocanonical and pseudoepigraphal sources)? Were they not important to the story? I would claim that such stories from the childhood and adolescence of Jesus WOULD be important or at least worthy of study. So, if they have ever existed in any official context, why were they deemed NOT important or crucial to the canon? But I digress…

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7, TNIV)

Joseph did what any father and husband would have done at this time – found a place for his wife to give birth to their son. Yes, it was in a manger. Yes, it was probably a couple of troughs set inside a carved or naturally-formed indention in the side of a rock face. No, it wasn’t a clean place whatsoever. No, there was NOT a clean trough to lay the child in once he was born, contrary to the images of every Nativity scene any of us have ever seen or constructed. But, no matter what, they had a place to rest for the night, a place with a bit of a roof, and a place where they could stay, since there were no rooms in Bethlehem for them. No matter what though, Jesus was born; the long-promised Messiah had come to Earth in the most humble way possible, in a dirty food tray that animals ate out of.

And while were at it, let’s stop blaming the innkeeper for putting Jesus in the barn. He had no way that this pregnant (most likely) teenaged girl was carrying the Messiah around in her womb. More than that, he probably had to turn LOTS of people away from his inn. It was the census! Bethlehem was most likely packed full of people with a greater social standing than a carpenter and his young wife. You can’t blame any innkeeper for doing such. If you did, it would be like an agnostic blaming a Hilton in Branson, Missouri for being full during the “Tribute to the Gaither Family” weekend.

Luke 2: 8-20: These 7 verses can be summed up by a few certain words, depending upon what choice exclamatory phrases or expletives you would use if YOU were a shepherd on that Judean hillside that night. But in another stroke of spiritual democracy (or ecumenical action) on God's part, we see the angels declaring the arrival of the Messiah to the lowest of the low in Hebrew culture. In a contemporary context, it would be like Gabriel going to an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart and saying, “Hey! Guess what!! The Saviour of the world was just born! Go say hello and give Him some praise!” God had spent centuries speaking to his people (trained priests or otherwise) about the Advent of the Messiah, but they really didn’t like to listen that well. God does sometime remarkably similar in having the astrologers (possibly Zoroastrian wise men) from the East to see the signs of His Coming, so that they could bring gifts to Jesus.

So, God chose the dirtiest, most unwashed group of people He could find to declare the Arrival of His Son. And since these shepherds were most likely rather uneducated teenagers from the lowest social stock in Israel, they were scared out of their minds. But what makes them different than any another group the angels may have visited is that the shepherds listened and obeyed. They would have received enough religious education to realize that these WERE angels and that they WERE telling the truth. The angels praised God in their presence, compelling them to find the Christ Child so that they would praise Him also. It’s always amazing to me when I see/read/hear how God chooses to do anything, since He does so in ways that I can’t even begin to imagine, fathom, or consider.

The angels then disappear and the shepherds decide to act upon what the angels told them about. They headed straight for Bethlehem where found Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, just as the angels had stated. After seeing him, these Hebraic rednecks started telling everyone about what they had seen, what they had been told, and that the Messiah had come to Israel in the form of a baby. Everyone who heard them was amazed at such words, but we’re not told if anyone believed or acted on any kind of belief, similar to that of the shepherds. I’m not sure that I would have believed them either. Would you have? Seriously now…

But Mary did, I feel. “But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19, TNIV) Mary herself had seen an angel speak to her directly about the birth of her son, God’s Son. So, she knew that angels did communicate to the lowest of the low (of which she, as a formerly single woman, was) as opposed to the rich, powerful, and educated. God literally pays no attention to what any person or any social prejudice says about you – He takes great care in whom He talks to and what He talks about to that person.

And THAT is the beauty of the Gospel that we are celebrating this Advent season. The God of Creation doesn’t quite care about what people say we are; He’s more concerned with us believing what He has told us about ourselves. We are His children. Jesus came to save us from our sins. We don’t deserve such grace, but He offers it anyway. This baby, born in such a worthless place, to a powerless young girl without any social or religious standing, in the most backwater of all Roman provinces, came to redeem all of humanity through His perfect, holy sacrifice. The Good News that is the Gospel is that we can’t do anything to merit His grace. It is ours freely and we must live in it, as hard as that might be. And He is there to help us, always…

Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11

2005-12-07T20:34:00.000-06:00

Third Week of Advent
December 11, 2005

I approach these verses wondering just exactly what we’re supposed to intuit here. So many proclamations broadcasted; so many promises made; so many injunctions delivered; so many commands shouted out. We are faced with a series of verses in this passages that could receive many divergent interpretations. These verses could contain prophecies concerning John the Baptist’s message, the good news in the message that Jesus would bring to the world, or maybe the kind of life that we as believers in Jesus should live in front of and proclaim to others.

What I am most reluctant to do, however, is to declare that these verses are exclusively referencing some sort of social gospel that we as humans are supposed to enact, through our own efforts. I am most reluctant to do so because it is my first reaction. I do not want to read prophecies here; I want to read verses that compel humans to treat other humans better. Verses about prophecies worry me because they can be so over-blown and over-analyzed that their message is disregarded. Unfortunately though, when I choose to ignore the fact that these verses could be prophetic, I have chosen to not receive the beautiful promises contained in those possible prophecies. Thus, I seek to enter into these verses by allowing them to speak to me, allowing them to examine me, as opposed to my standard tactic of looking for concepts & ideas that are outside the norm, simply because they are outside the norm.

Isaiah begins by stating explicitly that God is with him, that the Holy Spirit is upon him. By and through no other means is Isaiah able to speak forth in the following verses: “… the Lord has anointed me …” (Isaiah 61:1b) We then read through a litany and laundry list of blessings, deliverances, protections, and redemptions that could have only come from God. Verse one has us seeing that the emotionally distraught are comforted, the political prisoners are freed, and those trapped in prisons are let loose. In verse two, Isaiah declares that Lord will be coming to punish those who have caused people to mourn, while seeking to comfort and console those mourners.

We continue on in verse three with God assists His children who have been grieving during the dark times. Since they have been laden with grief (a very appropriate reaction during times when wrong beliefs and wrong actions violently oppress a population, God decides to give those who have been sad a crown of beauty, removing them from their lives filled the sackcloth & ashes befitting a mourner. Their lives will be filled with joy, as opposed to the sadness of a mourner and they will exchange all of the tears of lament and despair for a spirit that seeks to praise and exalt God for everything. And because they mourned to God for their lost country, these people will be counted by God to be wonderful and blessed examples of God’s provision. “They will be called mighty oaks, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor.” (Isaiah 61:4ff, TNIV)

And to complete this passage, Isaiah states boldly that these people, planted as the new growth in a new country of God’s, will be called upon to rebuild & restore the cities of the country. These are cities that have long sat demolished & destroyed by invaders and oppressors. These are their cities, homes, synagogues, marketplaces, and safe environments. God, through the oracle of Isaiah, is speaking forth a promise and responsibility to His faithful children: he will restore them because of their faithfulness and they will restore their nation as a testimony of who God really is.
Verses 8 & 9 have God speaking out directly through Isaiah: “For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery and wrongdoing.” (Isaiah 61:8a, TNIV) Because Israel has been robbed and exploited (and though the nations who did so were sent by God to judge and purify Israel), God asserts that the faithful will receive their due rewards and that He will create a new covenant with them, coupled with the Davidic covenant. The covenant will state that nations will know exactly who God’s children are, that all who see these people will know that they are blessed by God in all that they do.

Isaiah then responds in verses 10 & 11 to this covenant, these promises by praising God for all of it. His words, full of superlatives, imply that the promised transformation and provision have already come to his life. His clothing (spirit) has changed as he puts on garments of salvation and a robe of righteousness. His status in the world (countenance/self-image) has become as though he compares himself to a royal bride and priestly bridegroom preparing for their wedding.

After everything has been knocked down and desecrated, God is coming to restore his people. And it’s more than just God giving His children back what they had lost (or “deserved” to lose through their disobedience) – God is making Himself known through His children. They will (and have historically served) as the best possible example of God’s grace, provision, and blessing. Isaiah, in conclusion, uses the metaphor of organic, long-term, quality plant growth – the praise and adoration God will receive results from starting from scratch, as people grow & emerge out of a laborious planting, watering, fertilizing, tending, and sowing process. God deserves more than trite, empty, obvious, and over-the-top praise; He is worthy of praise that reflects the true depth and breadth of the promises He fulfills in the lives of His people.

In conclusion though, I do not seek nor wish to interpret these verses to be specifically for Israel & the Jews in a historic sense. By choosing to embrace these verses fully and not shying away from them prophesying in the traditional context, I feel that God can prophesy to us in an everyday context with Isaiah’s words here. With the Holy Spirit living in us, we are anointed of God to preach the good news through the lives we lead and the words we speak. We, as Christians, as followers of Christ are able to bring into action & into practice everything that God promises here through the voice of Isaiah.

“They will be called mighty oaks, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor.” (Isaiah 61:4ff, TNIV) “All who see them will acknowledge that they are a people the Lord has blessed.” (Isaiah 61:9ff, TNIV) We too are these people, as followers of Christ; we too can proclaim the good news that will set free those in emotional and spiritual chains. As we continue through Advent, we should expect and anticipate, with the coming of Christ as THE good news, that we are both the recipients of the fulfilled promises and the means & mediums through with God can fulfill his promises.

Poem for Advent 2

2005-12-07T16:35:00.000-06:00

This is a poem written by an elder at the church of which I am a member for our service on the Second Week of Advent. He read this during our AM service, and, due to his not feeling that well, I was asked to read it for our PM service. I was taken aback at the breadth of themes presented and the way in which they were all tied together to make a beautiful & coherent whole. After the service, several people came up to me to let me know how much they loved the poem and asked me if I had written it myself. I told them that I had not written it, but that an elder, Paul Randall, had. Such a response to his poem compelled me to inquire of Paul as to whether or not I could include this poem as a part of my series of Advent posts. He granted me permission and you get to reap the benefits of his craftsmanship. Please enjoy, reflect, and comment as you see fit. Again, I give thanks to Paul for his permission.

Poem for Advent 2
2005

Mountain peaks tremble, quake and give way
in a day, or a thousand years
into open-mouthed valleys
swallowing sin and shame.

Grass, so zealously green in the spring,
browns with age, withers, cracks,
tumbles before the breath of God
gathers along fence lines,
lodges with leaves on the sidewalk.

Over newly leveled plains
Righteousness and Peace
outstretch lips to kiss.
A seed falls, roots, sprouts
Faithfulness flowers and bears fruit.
The harvest is the glory of our God.

Winter wheat to be milled, baked, broken.
Succulent grapes ripen on the vine
bursting under bare feet of one unworthy, unkempt
fresh from the wilderness
preparing the wine, preparing the way.

A measure of flour
lumpy, uneven
is shaken, tapped, leveled
heights made low
holes filled in
sifted, for the second time
(the first for the chaff)
the recipe, the way, is prepared.

Copyright © 2005 by Paul Fredrick Randall

Luke 1:18-25

2005-11-30T19:23:00.000-06:00

Second Week of Advent
December 4, 2005

This is the crux of our text here, on several levels. This passage marks the announcement of Elizabeth’s coming pregnancy with John the Baptist, the one prophesied by Isaiah, the one hoped for by the Psalmist in Psalm 85. Thus, not only do we rejoice with Elizabeth and Zechariah at their soon-coming newborn, we rejoice that, with his arrival, John will be proclaiming a soon-coming Messiah.

Zechariah listens to Gabriel announce the birth of his son, yet doesn’t believe him at first, causing Gabriel to strike Zechariah speechless until John’s birth. However, his mute condition serves to make Zechariah a believer and doesn’t prevent him from communicating this good news to his wife. As she entered into 5 months of seclusion, Elizabeth declared, “The Lord has done this for me. … In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.” (verse 25, TNIV)

This portion is a rather telling one: this couple who loved and served God obediently had never borne children, a sure sign in Jewish culture that God was judging and punishing you for your sins. It seems that God chose to save his blessing for this obedient and faithful couple until the exactly appropriate time. They had been chosen to raise the child who would be Jesus’ forerunner. As faithful & obedient Jews, Elizabeth & Zechariah knew of the prophecies of the Messiah and that Israel had spent the preceding 400 years without a prophet from God to lead His People. Thus, upon hearing the words of Gabriel, they realized that God had not forsaken them and that they had been chosen to receive a blessing beyond their wildest imaginations – their son would not only be the first prophet in 400 years, but would be the prophet that would prepare Israel for the coming of their Messiah.

And as the Messiah has already come to us, it is our task to wait faithfully for His return. Our position is hardly different from the one in which the Jews stood at the time of Jesus’ birth – we have heard the prophecies, listened to the promises, and been waiting faithfully. Each Advent season is a chance for us, as Christians, to re-enter and re-awaken within us a hope, expectancy, and anticipation that Jesus will return again. We should become excited once again, not dreading each day, not living faithlessly, and not worrying about determining the exact day of his re-arrival. With Advent, we are allowed the opportunity to restore our faith in Jesus and His promised Return.

II Peter 3:8-15a

2005-11-30T19:01:00.000-06:00

Second Week of Advent
December 4, 2005

This is a rather beautiful passage here, closely tied to Jesus’ own words in Mark 13, written down here by a man who most likely was personally present at the event when Jesus spoke them forth. Peter’s words are filled with hope, as they seek to elicit faith in those who read this letter of his, reminding his readers of what they need to do as they anticipate the second coming of Christ (especially since the first-century church expected Jesus to come back fairly soon after his departure). Twice here Peter declares that Jesus keeps the promises He makes, though we might not ever understand his timetable. Peter slyly contrasts his readers’ patience with that of Jesus by mentioning that Jesus is more patient with humanity’s sins than humanity is with Jesus’ promises, even to the point that Jesus doesn’t want “anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (verse 9ff, TNIV)

Following this, though, Peter references Jesus’ words by telling his readers that Jesus will come back like a thief, unbeknownst to anyone at all. Not only this, but the world will be totally destroyed by fire, laying creation bare before Jesus upon His Return. Thus, Peter declares that people “ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming,” (verses 11ff-12a, TNIV) making the subtle declaration that it’s MUCH more important to live according to Jesus’ commands than worry about when He’s coming back. “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation…” (verse 13a, TNIV) Each day is a gift – our dual tasks are to obey His teachings and live in faithful anticipation of His promised Return.

Mark 1:1-8

2005-11-30T18:38:00.000-06:00

Second Week of Advent
December 4, 2005

This is a fairly straight-forward passage here as Mark chronicles the prophecies concerning John the Baptist (Malachi 3:1 & Isaiah 40:3), his arrival, and the basic substance of his message to Israel. John went into the Judean wilderness (of which there is much, even today), preaching that people should be baptized as testament of their repentance and God’s forgiveness of their sins. Mark says that everyone in the Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem came to hear him, many confessed their sins, and many were baptized as a result. John dressed poorly, ate meagerly, and was completely aware of what his task was upon the earth: proclaim the soon-coming arrival of the Messiah and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that He would be bringing. It would have been rather easy for John to claim all kinds of credit for compelling people to repent and be baptized, much as many of us become prideful in our spiritual work. However, the lesson here (besides the obvious fulfilling of Isaiah’s prophecy in the coming of John the Baptist) is that just as John was self-deprecating and self-effacing in his role, so should we be in proclaiming God’s message to the world. Yes, John spoke boldly, but he did not become puffed up in doing so; he realized that he spoke for another, that his words were not for his benefit, but to proclaim the Advent of the Messiah.

Psalm 85:1-2, 8-13

2005-11-30T18:03:00.000-06:00

Second Week of Advent
December 4, 2005

This is a somewhat similar and somewhat lighter version of the passage in Isaiah 40. I don’t mean to diminish these verses at all, since they serve as a direct complement to Isaiah 40, both in tone and theme. Verses 1 & 2 say much the same things as the first 2 verses of Isaiah, but with much fewer words. I would think this so mostly because the Psalms are songs, songs to be sung congregationally, needing fewer words or more succinct phraseology, where as Isaiah was either writing down the visions/messages that God was giving to him (to speak forth later or preaching/speaking forth the message directly as he received it from God.

And even moving onto verses 8-13, the psalmist here echoes the same themes & ideas that Isaiah does: God promises peace to his people, His salvation is near so that glory might fall, and the Lord will give what is good. The psalm here is much more buoyant its expectancy than its counterpart in Isaiah, concluding even with a reference to the preparation coming: “Righteousness goes before him and prepares the way for his steps. (verse 13, TNIV) Might that we learn to wait upon God with such breathless anticipation, such exultant joy.

Isaiah 40:1-11

2005-11-30T17:47:00.000-06:00

Second Week of Advent
December 4, 2005

Just a mere bit of preamble here before I begin – the content & themes of these passages here are outgrowths and progressions from those of last week, not only in tone, but also in style and substance. Read and meditate with me upon the material, ideas, and prophecies presented in these sections of Scripture, not only in their application to the Advent season, but in their relevance to how we approach God in our everyday lives.

From Isaiah 64, filled with doubt, hurt, pain, and a dark realization of the depth of Israel’s sin, we come to this passage filled with declarations of joyful repentance and intimations of oh-so-necessary submission & dependence. Verse 2 is probably the key verse in projecting the overall state of Israel’s soul – “[God] Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” (TNIV) I myself become filled with expectancy as I anticipate what God will bless His people with after their confession. Isaiah realizes that God can’t turn a blind eye or deaf ear to His people when they have repented and turned back to Him (II Chronicles 7:14).

Thus, with this verse, Isaiah openly is petitioning God to send His people some relief, so, prophetically, God answers Israel’s prayer through the voice and lips of Isaiah in verses 3-5. “A voice of one calling: In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (verse 3, TNIV) This section of verses has traditionally been interpreted as a prophecy about the coming of John the Baptist, complete with John asking God exactly what to say to Israel.

But let us address the imagery in verses 4 & 5 before moving onto verses 6-11. Maybe I’m interpreting this through the political scientist/sociologist lens that I possess, but I feel that the concepts of high being brought down, low being brought up, and rugged/rough terrain being smoothed out are all symbols and pictures of the great spiritual democracy that Jesus will bring upon the earth. I’m not arguing for universalism in salvation, but that salvation would be available for all through Jesus. The Jews (especially those of the Pharisee, Sadducee, or generally xenophobic variety) would no longer have a monopoly upon God’s blessing, God’s provision, and God’s grace. John was to be the beacon, the harbinger, and the herald of Jesus and was supposed to begin the leveling of the religious/spiritual playing field. Everyone was to be able to see, experience, and receive the glory of God in their lives. John would just be the first to talk about it and Israel had to hear this message first.

Isaiah hears a voice commanding him to cry out and Isaiah asked the voice what it is he was supposed to be crying out. The voice (most likely speaking prophetically for John the Baptist, since he spoke to Israel much this way) compels Isaiah to remind Israel (and subsequently all people) of how absolutely transient and temporary they really are, not just their faith, but their faithfulness as well. At the same time, the voice wants to remind Israel of how permanent the word of God is and always will be. However, despite the seeming derogatory comments about how fleeting Israel’s faith and lives are, the voice wants to make sure that Israel understands how much God loves them, how much He cares for them, and that He is for them. The voice calls this “Good News” twice (verse 9) comparing God (and prophetically, Jesus in His coming) to a shepherd – how He will tend His flocks, how He will carry them close to His heart, and how He will gently lead them.

What we have here is a double-headed prophecy. Not only are we reading about the arrival of John as he prepares the way of the Lord with a rather specific message, but we learn that the message that John will be bringing proclaims Israel’s long-anticipated Messiah. As Advent approaches, let us turn our ears & hearts to the prophetic voices in our lives, the oracles that are in our lives that seek to not only prepare our lives for the coming of our Messiah, but also remind us that God is truly near at all times.

Scene 6

2005-11-26T19:46:00.000-06:00

For those of you who might be interested in reading along, my friend Simon has finished Scene 6 of his screenplay Like Augustine. I just figured that some people would like to peruse this bit of creative writing. Give Simon some input. He'd like to hear from you...

Luke 1:5-17

2005-11-22T20:27:00.000-06:00

First Week of Advent
November 27, 2005

We have here the initial section of the Christmas story, the coming of the angel of the Lord to visit Zechariah and tell him of the upcoming birth of John the Baptist. This story is crucial because, since John is both born before Jesus and ministers in expectation of Jesus’ ministry as the Messiah, it is important for the kids to sense the feelings of excitement and nervousness that Zechariah felt upon hearing this news. Israel has just experienced 400 years without a prophet of any kind, without any word from God at all. John the Baptist will change all that, as he prepares the people for and proclaims the arrival of the soon-coming Messiah. Thus, the inclusion of the story of Zechariah & Elizabeth into the Christmas story is crucial.

Mark 13:24-37

2005-11-22T20:26:00.000-06:00

First Week of Advent
November 27, 2005

Let’s begin by putting this to rest – Jesus was absolutely specific that no one knows when the Messiah would be returning, not even Him. So, my commentary and thoughts on this passage won’t be taking a Preterist, Partial-Preterist, Dispensationalist, or any other sort of position on the End Times. And you thought you could draw me into THAT discussion. Fat chance you have with that… I have long resolved to not worry with such silly arguments to prevalent amongst eschatological conversations. Jesus told us to watch and pray, and pretty much told us not to bitch, moan, and argue about who’s right, who’s the elect, and when He’s coming back again. We only watch the events to back up our pre-determined positions and we certainly don’t pray. So, on with the show… **stepping off my soapbox**

In the 23 verses before our reading, Jesus discusses and lays out a variety of signs that will foretell His Return. Some concern families, some are about global politics, some are warnings about what will happen to those who believe in Jesus, and some detail the arrival of false messiahs. However, our passage begins with Jesus describing His arrival – “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” (Mark 13:24b-25) Not a very pleasant image, but it’s the one that Jesus said would announce Him. Jesus would be sending his angels to collect the elect from the ends of the earth.

But what I see as the crux of this section are verses 32-37 where Jesus uses the metaphor of a man leaving his house to his servants, charging the servants to keep the house in order until his return, though the servants have no clue at all when he would be returning. The lesson here is that our duty, as Christians, is to be vigilant in both watching for His Return, while maintaining the house as He left it, each of us responsible for the job we’ve been given in His absence. Jesus doesn’t tell us to sit around the table talking about when He’s going to come back; He tells us to keep busy with our work in His world and watch for Him to return. Unfortunately, we prefer sitting around to doing work; we prefer trying to figure out when He’s going to come back so that we don’t have to do any work until right before He gets back. (And I don’t know about you, but that’s how I did things when I was a teenager – dirty up the house with my brothers until RIGHT before we knew Mom would be getting home. It was easier to waste time doing what WE wanted to do than do maintain a steady level of vigilance towards the state of the house’s cleanliness.)

So, as we begin the journey that is this beautiful season of Advent, let us keep in mind that Jesus has commissioned us to watch for Him, expect Him at any time, and be about our work in the world - loving the world around us, though it doesn’t really love us all that much. We wait in hope, not mournful lament, for His coming. We are filled with a sense of joyful expectation of the Coming of our Lord to the Earth.

I Corinthians 1:3-9

2005-11-22T18:55:00.000-06:00

First Week of Advent
November 27, 2005

Paul speaks here on the other side of the First Advent of Jesus Christ, but with the same sense of anticipation that the prophets spoke hundreds of years before Christ’s birth. The Early Church believed that Jesus would be coming in their lifetimes (Mark 13:26-30), so Paul is petitioning the Church in Corinth to stay to their course, stay trusting in the grace of Jesus to save & protect them, and stay faithful as God is faithful to them. Because of Jesus, Paul declares, it fully possible to wait for His arrival, patiently & without blame. Jesus came once and promised to come again. We wait for His arrival, relying on Him completely in the interim.

Psalm 80:1-7, 17-19

2005-11-22T18:42:00.000-06:00

First Week of Advent
November 27, 2005

The portions we are reading of this psalm are similar to those we read in Isaiah, except that the people singing here are much more direct in their exaltations to God. They plainly see their failings and openly, blatantly beseech God to restore them, to visit them anew. They know that God has left them and are praying that He will visit them again. They have left their cynicism and the sin that caused their grief. They fully realize that it is their sin that brought the tears, brought the enemy’s hatred, derision, and mocking. Israel knows that only God can save them from themselves, from the mess in which they have placed themselves. And on top of all of this repentance, they proclaim the arrival of the Messiah, knowing that His presence will make all of the difference. They have mourned & wept and now they seek their deliverance, since they were unable to fix themselves on their terms, only getting deeper into trouble. “Restore us, Lord God Almighty; make your face shine on us, that we might be saved. (Psalm 80:7, 19 TNIV) They wait expectantly on the arrival of the Lord.

Isaiah 64:1-9

2005-11-22T18:30:00.000-06:00

First Week of Advent
November 27, 2005

On one hand, I am rather full of anticipation of having the privilege and honor of helping to lead Ecclesia’s children through the Advent Season as we approach the celebration and commemoration of the birth of our Saviour. On the other hand, I am rather full of nervousness and trepidation at the prospect of examining these verses on behalf of the children at Ecclesia, not that I don’t feel up to it, but that this is a rather large task for which I’ve been made responsible. But regardless, I am looking forward to digging into these verses, coupled with arranging them with the traditional Christmas story. Join with me as we read, pray, meditate, and yearn with expectation as the arrival of the Christ child approaches.

Isaiah 64:1-9: I read through this passages attempting to place myself in the context in which Isaiah would have been proclaiming this lament on behalf of the people of Israel (or even on behalf of himself). I wondered what would have brought about this combination of declaring God’s promises, lamenting my indiscretions, and turning back to Him. And then I found that I couldn’t do it, at least not in the physical sense in which it was originally written. I have never been carted away to a foreign country in captivity because I sinned against God, though I knew better and had been protected and delivered by Him over and over again.

However, I have been in spiritual & emotional captivity. I have sinned against my Creator, a Creator that has led me, guided me, protected me, and provided for me. Israel was led into captivity by Assyria; I led myself into a place of bondage. I have felt the yearning and the lack of hope in any potential deliverance, along with the expectation and the abundance of hope that God will come to my aid when I repent and turn from my sins. I have been where Isaiah was in these 9 verses.

Here is how I view this breakdown:
V 1-5a) These verses are the way in which Isaiah reminds himself of the promises of God, as they are the way that he prepares himself spiritually for the dark confession that comes in the next section. The oracle here announces God’s power, God’s blessings, God’s protection, and God’s deliverance, in hopes that he will find himself worthy of these things, as he knows how far he has strayed from what God has asked him to do.
V 5b-7) “You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved?” (Isaiah 64:5 TNIV) Here is the turn-around verse for this whole passage, the connector to the general Christmas story. With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, Israel exits 400 years of having no direction, no contact with their God, as they suffered in their homeland. Though they had been released from bondage, Israel still had to bear the burden of disobeying God and not listening to his prophets throughout their many years of ministering to Israel. The verses in this section are a precursor to the 400 years of silence, as Israel finally realizes how much they messed up by not listening to the prophets’ words (as troubling and hard-to-swallow as they were). Isaiah is repenting for Israel, beckoning God to listen to their broken & contrite hearts, seeking deliverance from the silence and their wanderings.
V 8-9) Isaiah, after repenting, confesses to God that he knows that God is in control and places himself in His hands, no matter what the result. Isaiah declares to God that he is the creation and God is the Creator, allowing Him to work in him/Israel. Isaiah places Israel back under God’s protection, though they had failed & disobeyed, “Do not be angry beyond measure, Lord; do not remember our sins forever. Oh, look on us, we pray, for we are all your people.” (Isaiah 64:9 TNIV) Israel is the Lords, just as we are His now.

In terms of Advent, this passage in Isaiah creates & fosters within us a hope that we too can experience the restoration that Jesus brings when He enters our lives, when we allow Him, individually and communally, to mold us into the image that He feels/knows is best for us. Might we enter into a place of repentance, acknowledging that we have failed, we have sinned, we have transgressed, but Jesus is there to forgive, there to heal, there to bless. He is coming; He is on His way.

Genesis 9

2005-11-16T20:22:00.000-06:00

Promises, Promises, Promises
OR
What Could Happen When Your Youngest Child Catches You Drinking

Verses 1-7: We begin with a brief restatement of the commands & promises that God gave to Noah at the end of Chapter 8. God commissions Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japheth (along with their wives) to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” (Genesis 9:1, ESV) However, the next verses further pollute the original ideas & constructs behind Creation: God tells Noah that all of the animals will fear humans. Yes, every animal will be scared of humans – beasts of the field, birds of the air, insects on the ground, fish in the sea. No animal will be immune from fearing humanity, to the point of God declaring that all plants and animals will be forced to serve as food for humanity. God told Noah that every animal on the earth would be delivered into humanity’s hands, to be used as food or resources.

The further we walk from the Garden of Eden, the further we walk from the original intentions that God seemed to have set out for His Creation in the beginning. Look at verses 5 & 6: “From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” It’s easy to see where conservative Christians get their reasoning behind their support of the death penalty – God said that when someone kills another, they get to be killed for committing that murder.

It doesn’t make sense to me – God didn’t kill Cain for killing Abel. It seems that God is changing His mind on this issue, but when I look into it, God is really just saying what’s going to happen on the earth, post-Flood. This is God’s way of letting us know that, due to sin’s increasingly strong presence in the world, He was placing a very high value on life, with strong deterrents to taking the life of another. One commentary I read on these verses said that this injunction by God created a civil magistrate to dispense with this new-fangled concept of capital punishment (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown), while another remarked that these verses began the tradition of Israeli blood vengeance (the family was responsible for redeeming the life of their lost family member) as well as capital punishment (IVP Bible Background Commentary).

Again, it doesn’t make sense to me and it won’t make sense to the kids, especially to those of us who do live under the law of grace, according to the precepts and commands of Jesus. But the best way to explain it is, as I stated earlier, that, the further humanity walked from the Garden, the further that humanity walked from what God intended in the Garden. God didn’t intend for humans to kill and eat animals, but he says here that it’s OK. God didn’t intend for humans to kill each other, but here he says that humans were supposed to avenge the life of the slain by slaying the slayer. These were perilous times, perilous days before the coming of the Ten Commandments and the law book that is Leviticus. In the Ten Commandments, we have God telling us not to kill; yet in Leviticus, there are all these injunctions telling us when/how/why it’s necessary to kill someone who sinned against the law. Already, I can’t wait for Jesus to come onto the scene…

Verses 8-17: After 7 verses that totally changed how humanity would be dealing with each other and with the animal life of Creation, God speaks forth a beautifully detailed promise to Noah and his progeny. God promises Noah that never again will He kill off all of creation; anything that was on the ark with Noah fell under the purview of this promise. Never again would God issue floodwaters to wipe away the face of the earth & all the creatures upon it. The rainbow was then sent by God as a sign for all future generations that He would never again destroy Creation. When the rainbow is seen in the clouds, this would be God’s way of continually reminding Himself and humanity that He does love us and wouldn’t send waters to destroy us ever again.

Verses 18-29: From here, we get to read a rarely commented upon section of the story of Noah’s life. Noah became a farmer after the Flood and planted a vineyard, a common practice in a time when there was no water treatment facilities or even a knowledge that purifying your water was a necessity. Noah begin drinking the wine from the grapes in his vineyard, got drunk on that wine, and then laid naked in his tent (sounding much like a participant in parties that I’ve been to). Ham (one of Noah’s sons) walked into his dad’s tent, saw Noah naked, and told his brothers. His two brothers, Shem & Japheth, went into the tent, walking backwards with a blanket so as to cover Noah’s nakedness, so that they might preserve their father’s dignity.

When Noah awoke to find himself covered, he knew that Ham had found him and told his brothers about it. Noah proceeded to curse Canaan (Ham’s son – why wasn't Ham himself cursed) and bless the two brothers. We’re not sure what the details truly are and what caused Noah to react as such. Two commentaries that I read felt that pronouncements by Noah were the result of an accumulation of transgressions against Noah or Ham and his descendents. The conjecture is that how else would Noah have known who it was that would have caused his nakedness.

Or, in other words, Noah, as the patriarch, was making predictions concerning the futures of those of his lineage who he felt were already headed in the wrong direction. It’s as if Noah is speaking into existence a series of self-fulfilling prophecies – one set speaks ill about a son and his children while the other set blesses two sons and their descendents. But this was common practice in Israeli households, a practice that Moses’ readers/listeners of the Pentateuch would be familiar with. Fathers blessed the children they wanted to bless, especially the first-borns, and dealt with younger children in a lesser manner, a practice to be ultimately understood and subsequently abused by Jacob.

Inspiring and funny people these patriarchs – they simply are NOT as superhuman and super-spiritual as we often proclaim them to be. And I like it that way – we need to be reminded that average people can live for God, since we’re all dirty and flawed on some level. We don’t come to God already perfect; we stumble towards God so that we might be perfected.

Noah’s righteousness & walk with God saved 8 people and pairs of all the animals & creatures on the earth. Our righteousness & walk with God come from our understanding that we can’t be righteous unless we walk with God no matter what’s going on around us. Noah walked alone on the earth, saving 7 other people. We should thank God that He hasn’t asked us to walk alone; we have our friends, families, and church bodies alongside us.

Genesis 8

2005-11-11T20:55:00.000-06:00

"What Happens As It All Starts Over"
OR
"Who Let the Doves Fly Around and Poop on All of Us??"

Verses 1-12 – We have here the story of how Noah, his family, and all of the Ark’s inhabitants finally stepped back onto dry land. After the 150 days of the floodwaters covering the earth, they finally began to recede and, by the middle of the seventh month of the (Jewish??) year, the Ark came to rest on the peak of Mt. Ararat (located in modern-day Turkey). 2-1/2 months later, at the beginning of the tenth month of the (Jewish??) year, the waters had receded enough for the tops of the mountain to finally be seen (that is, if you were outside of the Ark, which no one was).

40 days after the mountaintops could be seen, Noah released a raven to see how the raven would respond to what it saw. The raven simply flew around until all of the water dried on the earth. Noah then sent off a dove to survey the situation – it flew around, finding nothing, and returned to Noah when he beckoned for it. Seven days later, Noah sent off this dove again; the dove returned that evening with a freshly-plucked olive leaf in its beak. At this, Noah was excited because it meant that the water had finally left the surface of the earth. Noah decided to wait yet another week before releasing the dove. This time, the dove failed to return, a sign to Noah that it was time to exit the Ark.

Verses 13-22 – By the beginning of a new year (2 months after seeing the mountaintops for the first time), Noah removed the covering of the ark (the roof maybe?) to see that the waters had finally left the earth, and, by the end of the month, the ground was completely dry. God spoke to Noah and told him to exit the ark with his family and every creature on the earth. It was now ALL of their jobs/responsibilities to repopulate the earth – “…multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.” (TNIV)

And beautifully and appropriately, the first thing that Noah does when he exits the ark is to build an altar unto God, thanking for His provision and protection from & through the Flood. In response, God saw Noah’s sacrifice burning on the altar and said to Himself that He would never again attack Creation that way again, no matter how poorly humans acted, since they are inclined to evil always. God also said that He would never destroy all living creatures again, as He had just done.

I could comment greatly upon what we have here, but I think that I'll wait until we work through Chapter 9. There's a culmination of God's promises as well as Noah's response to this new (renewed??) earth that he gets to refill. A crazy ending to a story filled with tragedy, redemption, hope, massacre (will I ever understand God in the OT), and rebirth.

Genesis 7

2005-11-09T21:13:00.000-06:00

"OK Kids! Everyone Inside NOW!!"
or
"Lots of Water and a WHOLE Lot of Devastation"

Verses 1-16 – These 16 verses both summarize the end of chapter 6 and provide greater detail to the Flood that is about to take place. Once again, God reminds Noah that he is being preserved because he is the person that God feels is worth saving. (It’s a harsh reality to face actually; I would imagine that Elijah during the reign of Ahab and Jezebel would have much in common with Noah.) However, we find here that God asks Noah to take more than just one pair of certain kinds of animals, as if the animals are special creations that God wants preserved right alongside humanity.

Specifically, Noah is to save 7 pairs of all clean animals, 7 pairs of all unclean animals, and 7 pairs of every kind of bird so that, when the Flood is over, these animals will be fully able to propagate their species once again. (Genesis, at this juncture, doesn’t tell us what “clean v. unclean” animals really were; however, if Moses did write Genesis, as many claim he did, the Hebrews who were reading/listening to these stories would know exactly what kinds of animals Moses was referring to. Ah, the joys of Levitical law….)

God gave Noah 7 days to complete this task before He sent rain upon the earth for 40 days and nights, before He was to destroy every living thing left upon the earth. And, just like everything else he had done, Noah did exactly as God commanded him to do. Thankfully, God sent most of the animals Noah’s way, pair by pair, as Noah, his family, and all of the animals that had arrived entered the Ark to be saved from the Flood.

The Bible says, in verse 11, “all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (TNIV) Many scholars and commentaries that I’ve read feel that the reason that so much water fell from the skies was that, until the Flood, there had been no rain upon the earth. There was a canopy of water that protected the earth from the most harmful effects of the sun. There is a bit of logic behind this reasoning: before the Flood, people lived rather long lives, but Genesis 6:3 tells us that God began to limit human life expectancies to 120 years. Hence, post-Flood, there were no long lifetimes recorded in the Bible, after Noah’s 950 years. (Please don’t take me to be some kind of Creation-scientist or rigid proponent of intelligent design; I’m simply speculating a bit.)

Verses 17-24 – These verses are rather straight-forward: water flooded the earth for 40 days, the ark floated upon the water, the water covered even the highest mountain peaks (by a margin of 22 feet above the peaks), and every creature that lived on the earth perished. Yes, literally everything died, with the exception of those with Noah on the Ark. The flood waters covered the earth for 150 days; that’s right, water covered the earth for 110 days AFTER the flooding had stopped.

Genesis 6

2005-11-06T14:50:00.000-06:00

“Who Built the Ark? Noah! Noah!”
Or
How the World Generally Sucked, Big-Time

There are two general sections to this chapter: 1) WHY God chose to brings a worldwide flood of massively destructive proportions and 2) HOW God chose to protect a tiny remnant from that worldwide flood of massively destructive proportions. Yes, it’s really that simple, but not really. I feel that our goal with these chapters (Genesis 6 – 9) will be to truly tell these stories to our children and not sell them short on their depth, breadth, and substance.

If you’ve sat in (or taught) as many Sunday School lessons on Noah and the Ark as I have in my 26 years of living, you’ll remember that most lessons on Noah take about one week to go over, with Genesis 6 comprising about 2 to 3 lines of that lesson. Those lines would probably read like this: “During Noah’s time on the earth, the people were very wicked and only did evil things in the sight of God. However, since Noah was the only righteous and blameless person amongst his people, God chose to save Noah and his family. God told Noah to build a big boat/ark, capture two kinds of every animal, and generally keep obeying.” Or something to that effect… Now, I’m not diminishing the truth of those 3 sentences, but there is so much that we should be focusing on with presenting those concepts.

Let’s break this down.

1) Verses 1-8: During Noah’s time on the earth, the people were very wicked and only did evil things in the sight of God. We must focus on the specific instances that the author of Genesis brings to our attention: 1) the sons of God married any of the daughters of man that they wanted to; 2) the Lord said that His Spirit wouldn’t want to deal with humans anymore, limiting their lifespan to 120 years; 3) the Nephilim (offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men) lived, were heroes, and were men of renown; 4) the wickedness on the earth was great, with every thought of every person was severely inclined only to evil all of the time; 5) God regretted ever making humans (think about THAT!) and His heart was troubled greatly; and 6) the Lord felt that he had to get rid of the whole of Creation and start over again because He regretted it so much. While you don’t have to address all 6 of those fairly remarkable points, it would be good to talk specifically about how God was so deeply bothered by the evil in the world that He regretted Creation. That will be a VERY hard concept to talk about, but a necessary one, I feel. Talk about how God made us with free will (to do whatever we choose to do), but that He is continually sad when we choose not to love & serve Him, the One who created us.

2) Verses 9-13: However, since Noah was the only righteous and blameless person amongst his people, God chose to save Noah and his family. This section is fairly straight-forward, so covering all of the information is key here. Noah was the only person considered righteous – his wife, sons, and their wives were NOT mentioned as being righteous. Hence, God realized that Noah would need people besides himself to be saved. God knows our needs, protects us, keeps us, and takes care of us, even if we don’t really understand all of what’s happening. He’s God & we’re not. In a world full of violence, hate, corruption, evil, and disobedience, God realized that things couldn’t continue as they had been going, that things had to change. Noah was to be the man to live through the change and to propagate that change upon the earth, with God’s blessing.

3) Verses 14-22: God told Noah to build a big boat/ark, capture two kinds of every animal, and generally keep obeying. These verses represent the dimensions of the boat, how (and how many of) the animals were to be saved/kept on the ark, and how Noah was going to be able to take care of and feed everyone on the ark. Translating cubits into the US Customary System, the ark was 450 feet long (1.5 Football Fields!), 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a small roof that lifted only 18 inches off the top of the ark. The ark was more of a box than what we think of as a boat. There was a door on the side of the ark, with the ark having three layers (or floors). God made a covenant (an agreement or promise) with Noah with the provision that, while everything would be destroyed because of the sin on the earth, Noah would be saved. Noah was made responsible for preserving the animals on the earth. Noah obeyed God, just as he always had done, which is why Noah and his family were being saved while everyone else was being destroyed.

Sometimes, it seems, the older I get and more that I read, I get intimidated by this story. I start reading this story through my human eyes, with my western, liberal sensitivities, and I wonder how God could ever destroy His creation. I wonder how God could actually REGRET making humanity. I wonder why we tell children this story, with its somewhat violent, vindictive imagery.

But then I realize that I’m not God and these people DID disobey God – they were corrupt, thought evil thought, engaged in violent actions perpetually, and generally violated the principles that God had set down before them. I look back over the chronology of Genesis 5, do some basic math across a timeline, and realize that so many of these patriarchs knew each other intimately. Adam lived 930 years, allowing him to be around for several generations, speaking with many boys & girls, men & women, telling them the stories of the Garden, the Tree, the Fall, Cain & Abel, and everything else. Yet, by Genesis 6, people who should have KNOWN BETTER were still corrupted, sinful, engaging in evil, and generally prompting God to regret ever having made humanity. How striking is this realization…

Genesis 5

2005-11-06T14:34:00.000-06:00

Chronology
Family Tree
“The Begats”
Family Ties

This will be a difficult chapter to work through, whether we’re talking about the different Sunday School classes or Chris talking through this chapter in main service. Chapters like these always make congregations fall asleep, probably because they’re not approached in the right context or for the right purposes. What should be focused on primarily are the three following sections: v1-5 (Adam), v18-24 (Enoch), and v28-32 (Noah). Chris will (should most likely) have his The Voice/screenplay paraphrase of Genesis 5 ready Sunday morning to hand out as a reference, but I would also like the teacher to read through these verses out of another version. At a minimum, The Message can be used, but I would prefer the NIV, ESV, or NLT (or something similar) to be used in conjunction with The Voice.

1) Verses 1-5: We see that, even with the death of Abel at the hands of Cain and Cain’s permanent exile, God blesses Adam and Eve with the birth of Seth as well as many other children and many years of life (930 to be exact). Remind the kids that, even with the most horrible and tragic of circumstances, God does bless His children again and again. Furthermore, talk to the kids about how, while the names of the Moms are NOT mentioned in this chapter, a family is made complete (and biologically possible) by the inclusion of the Mother. Family lines are not accurate unless Mother is talked about and regarded as absolutely essential and necessary. We love our mothers!

2) Verses 18-24: Enoch’s life gives us a glimpse into the life of one of the 2 people in the Bible who did not die, but were taken away by God so that they might escape death. The Bible says that Enoch (and his wife) had several children, but that, because of Enoch’s faithful walk with God, he was taken away to God at age 365, the earliest of ALL of the patriarchs. What should be noted primarily though is that out of this whole chapter, Enoch is the only one we read of specifically mentioned as walking faithfully with God. Look at the ages of these patriarchs – they’re all living to be 900 years or more. Many of these generations probably talked with Adam face to face, the first man who talked to GOD face to face. I would like to think that some of these descendents mentioned would have been impacted by Adam’s story & experiences. But not so… No one else’s spiritual lives are even referred to or mentioned at all, just Enoch’s. God does bless his faithful children and takes care of them in a world where many do not love God, as they should.

3) Verses 28-32: We see the birth of Noah and read about how his father prophesied over his life as to what Noah would be to the rest of the world. Noah would “comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” (Genesis 5: 29 TNIV) When we think about Noah, we don’t think of a comforter, but a survivor because of his faithfulness and belief in God, in the midst of an unbelieving world. Chapter 6-9 will cover the complete story of Noah and his ark with which the children would be more familiar.