Genesis 42:1 - 44:34
"Grovel, grovel, cringe, bow, stoop, fall
Worship, worship, beg, kneel, sponge, crawl"
I love that song...
If you've not seen it you really do need to see Jospeh and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat...fabulous musical.
Imagine what it would have been like to be Joseph, going through your daily routine of doling out the grain, when a group of Canaanites show up, bow to the ground before you, and you recognize it is your brothers. It has been more than 20 years since you had the dreams that showed you that this would happen. I would think you'd get the chills, the hair on the back of your neck would stand up, your heart rate would increase. I almost wonder if he accuses them of being spies because it is the first thing that comes to mind in his excited state.
I love the way he works them though and gets them to bring back Benjamin. He seems to have gone from dreamer to schemer but then again that trait was probably inherited from his dad.
It would be interesting to know a little more about the family dynamic between the brothers. In the original plot to get rid of Joseph Reuben steps up to save his life but doesn't step up enough to thwart the plan entirely. Judah then steps forward with the sales idea.
When the brothers now come back with the requirement to take Benjamin back to Egypt it is Reuben who first offers to take responsibility...probably his role as the oldest. Israel (Jacob) turns that offer down...even though Reuben offers the lives of his own two sons as guarantee...why is it that these people always go straight to "If I prove to be wrong you can kill someone"? Sheesh...
In the next instance though it is Judah who offers himself as surety.
Was it that these two out of all the rest were feeling the most guilt over what they did to Joseph?
I wonder what Joseph was thinking though when he planted the cup. Did he know his brothers would offer up death and slavery? Or was he just playing it as it unfolded? I'll have to remember to ask him that when we finally meet.
(Ok, that just generated a crazy mental image: We all get to heaven one day, check into our mansions and a few block over is the gated community where the patriarchs and hero's of the bible live. There are a series of tables set up like a pre-Super Bowl press conference where the guys convene each day to take questions. Joseph has a HUGE throng in front of his table, Judah seems to have a large number of folks too as Jesus comes from his line. Naphtali, Asher and Dan are all sitting at one table together selling the complete line of 12 brothers action figures in hopes of generating some interest in what they might be able to add to the story...there is Andrew Lloyd Weber music playing in the background featuring the "ORIGINAL" cast)
It seems to me that Judah steps up here and takes an even stronger leadership role when he pleads for Benjamin's life...of course he is the one who guarantees Benjamin's safety in the first place. He doesn't plead for his own life, rather, he pleads for his father's health.
Maybe Judah has come of age.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Joseph the interpreter of dreams
Genesis 40:1 - 41:57
"Well I was walking along the banks of the river when seven fat cows came out of the Nile uh uh huh...whoa yeah."
It is interesting that when the cup bearer and chief baker have their dreams Joseph steps right up confidently and says that God will tell him the interpretation of the dreams. It makes me wonder if he has had some experience with dream interpretation before this.
Back in chapter 37 Joseph himself had two dreams that rather ticked his family off. We're told their reactions but we're never told what Joseph thought in terms of their meaning. From his reaction to Pharaoh's servants we can assume that Joseph has been able to discern the meaning of dreams before...in whatever way he is "hearing" their meaning from God. If that is true then he has GOT to be wondering when the events he saw in his earlier dreams will come to pass.
In this instance with the cup bearer and baker the time to fulfillment of the dreams is in the dreams themselves...three days.
Two years later, when Pharaoh has his dreams, Joseph says:
Genesis 41:32 - "The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon."
But hang on...Joseph had HIS original dream in two forms and he seems to know God's formula on dreams: 2 times, different forms = It has been firmly decided and will occur soon
so if he has known that from some earlier conversation with the Lord it has got to be driving him crazy that HIS dreams have not yet come to fruition.
Beyond THAT it makes me wonder if he would have found himself second in command in Egypt through some route other than slavery and prison had he been less cocky from the beginning?!?!
Joseph was 17 when we meet him and his coat. He is 30 when he enters Pharaoh's service.
That makes 23 years of wondering when his dreams will actually come true.
A shorter wait than Abraham had so maybe Joseph knew his family lore well enough to know that "soon" in God's economy is different than "soon" in man's.
Remind me not to pray for patience in waiting for God's promises.
Just trust and go with the flow.
"Well I was walking along the banks of the river when seven fat cows came out of the Nile uh uh huh...whoa yeah."
It is interesting that when the cup bearer and chief baker have their dreams Joseph steps right up confidently and says that God will tell him the interpretation of the dreams. It makes me wonder if he has had some experience with dream interpretation before this.
Back in chapter 37 Joseph himself had two dreams that rather ticked his family off. We're told their reactions but we're never told what Joseph thought in terms of their meaning. From his reaction to Pharaoh's servants we can assume that Joseph has been able to discern the meaning of dreams before...in whatever way he is "hearing" their meaning from God. If that is true then he has GOT to be wondering when the events he saw in his earlier dreams will come to pass.
In this instance with the cup bearer and baker the time to fulfillment of the dreams is in the dreams themselves...three days.
Two years later, when Pharaoh has his dreams, Joseph says:
Genesis 41:32 - "The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God, and God will do it soon."
But hang on...Joseph had HIS original dream in two forms and he seems to know God's formula on dreams: 2 times, different forms = It has been firmly decided and will occur soon
so if he has known that from some earlier conversation with the Lord it has got to be driving him crazy that HIS dreams have not yet come to fruition.
Beyond THAT it makes me wonder if he would have found himself second in command in Egypt through some route other than slavery and prison had he been less cocky from the beginning?!?!
Joseph was 17 when we meet him and his coat. He is 30 when he enters Pharaoh's service.
That makes 23 years of wondering when his dreams will actually come true.
A shorter wait than Abraham had so maybe Joseph knew his family lore well enough to know that "soon" in God's economy is different than "soon" in man's.
Remind me not to pray for patience in waiting for God's promises.
Just trust and go with the flow.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Joseph and the amazing technicolor dream coat
Genesis 37:1 - 39:23
I couldn't resist...it's my wife's favorite musical.
I even got to perform it several years ago. I had the role of Pharaoh...and either Reuben or Dan, I don't remember which brother.
Anyway...
The start of the story of Joseph is interesting to me in that we're told it is the account of Jacob.
I would take that to mean that at least in part we're going to learn something about Jacob by reading about Joseph.
So as I read it:
37:2 This is the account of Jacob
Joseph tattles
37:3 Jacob loved Joseph the most gives him a coat
37: 5-11 Joseph has to cocky dreams that make the family mad
37:14 Jacob send Joseph to "check on" his brothers who are working while he is not
I suppose what I see of Jacob is that he is not the world's greatest dad. He seems to have no clue about what is going on with his kids...OR he is so far beyond being able to keep them in line that he is using Joseph as his spy...in either case NOT GOOD.
Obviously the brothers are dealing with more than average sibling rivalry when Joseph shows up. Maybe they're also worrying about their family history and folks absconding with dad's blessing?
In any event Reuben has always seemed to me like he is stepping up...give Joe some grief then cut him some slack.
Judah seems to be in it for the money...of course he may be thinking about how to afford shrine prostitutes.
The interjection of the story of Judah in chapter 38 seems like an odd addition but if I read it as "the account of Jacob" then maybe it is further indictment of him as a dad.
It seems obvious that God wants to knock some of the cockiness out of Joseph.
But Joe is at least smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds him when Potiphar's wife comes after him.
Of course you might expect that God would bless Joseph for his obedience there...instead He throws him in jail. Apparently the boy still had somewhat to learn.
Once again it seems God is looking into something deeper than actions and words when He decides to bless or withhold blessing.
I couldn't resist...it's my wife's favorite musical.
I even got to perform it several years ago. I had the role of Pharaoh...and either Reuben or Dan, I don't remember which brother.
Anyway...
The start of the story of Joseph is interesting to me in that we're told it is the account of Jacob.
I would take that to mean that at least in part we're going to learn something about Jacob by reading about Joseph.
So as I read it:
37:2 This is the account of Jacob
Joseph tattles
37:3 Jacob loved Joseph the most gives him a coat
37: 5-11 Joseph has to cocky dreams that make the family mad
37:14 Jacob send Joseph to "check on" his brothers who are working while he is not
I suppose what I see of Jacob is that he is not the world's greatest dad. He seems to have no clue about what is going on with his kids...OR he is so far beyond being able to keep them in line that he is using Joseph as his spy...in either case NOT GOOD.
Obviously the brothers are dealing with more than average sibling rivalry when Joseph shows up. Maybe they're also worrying about their family history and folks absconding with dad's blessing?
In any event Reuben has always seemed to me like he is stepping up...give Joe some grief then cut him some slack.
Judah seems to be in it for the money...of course he may be thinking about how to afford shrine prostitutes.
The interjection of the story of Judah in chapter 38 seems like an odd addition but if I read it as "the account of Jacob" then maybe it is further indictment of him as a dad.
It seems obvious that God wants to knock some of the cockiness out of Joseph.
But Joe is at least smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds him when Potiphar's wife comes after him.
Of course you might expect that God would bless Joseph for his obedience there...instead He throws him in jail. Apparently the boy still had somewhat to learn.
Once again it seems God is looking into something deeper than actions and words when He decides to bless or withhold blessing.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Jacob, Laban, Easu
Genesis: 28:10 - 35:29
What a mess.
I didn't blog over the weekend because, quite frankly, this whole set of stories is catching me off guard this time.
Multiple wives, sons sleeping with father's concubines, daughters sleeping with fathers, lying, cheating, stealing, deception...and this all from the "good guys"!!??!
I can see where you would get all kinds of divergent theological systems just out of these few chapters of Genesis.
These stories certainly put a HUGE dent in the argument that God rewards instances of doing good and punishes instances of doing bad.
Maybe there is a deeper place in the heart that God sees that we can't see at all in others perhaps only get the tiniest glimpse of even within our own selves.
Maybe these generational stories are analogous to the decline that will happen later in Israel. Abraham is faithful, Isaac seems to be a little wavering, Jacob seems to really wobble back and forth...that kind of decline happens multiple times as we'll see in Kings and Chronicles.
But God is faithful through it all...maybe that is the point.
What a mess.
I didn't blog over the weekend because, quite frankly, this whole set of stories is catching me off guard this time.
Multiple wives, sons sleeping with father's concubines, daughters sleeping with fathers, lying, cheating, stealing, deception...and this all from the "good guys"!!??!
I can see where you would get all kinds of divergent theological systems just out of these few chapters of Genesis.
- Rebekah is told the older will serve the younger and yet she helps Jacob deceive his way into Esau's blessing. Hence we get the old adage: "God helps those who help themselves"
- The apparently obvious lack of punishment for all the deceit could easily lead to arguments in favor of predestination and the distinction between those chosen and those not chosen.
- Do you read these and become a covenant theologian or a dispensational theologian or both?
- "Saved by grace not by works" otherwise most of these folks aren't saved!
These stories certainly put a HUGE dent in the argument that God rewards instances of doing good and punishes instances of doing bad.
Maybe there is a deeper place in the heart that God sees that we can't see at all in others perhaps only get the tiniest glimpse of even within our own selves.
Maybe these generational stories are analogous to the decline that will happen later in Israel. Abraham is faithful, Isaac seems to be a little wavering, Jacob seems to really wobble back and forth...that kind of decline happens multiple times as we'll see in Kings and Chronicles.
But God is faithful through it all...maybe that is the point.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Isaac, Esau, and Jacob
Genesis 28:10 - 30:43
Imagine for a moment reading this story as pure literature...no faith based prejudice.
You would no doubt see Rebekah and Jacob as the bad guys in the story.
From a woman's point of view we might be persuaded that Esau had gone against his parents wishes and married Canaanite women and that was perhaps the last straw in drawing Rebekah closer to her other son Jacob. We might be persuaded that she believed Jacob to be better suited to carry on Isaac's legacy. But it still seems like it is all a little on the dark side.
And these are the good guys?!?!?
Abraham and Isaac pulling the "she's my sister" trick was one thing...there were shreds of truth in the background of those deceptions. Jacob claiming to be Esau at the behest of his mother is out and out lying with the intent being illicit gain.
This doesn't fit into our modern day nicely packaged high moral standard Christianity.
(Ok, they weren't Christians yet but that argument would open a whole 'nother can of worms.)
Isaac's blessing is interesting too. It seems like there is a bag of goodies that he has that he can give out in a blessing and the he empties the bag on Jacob. Then, when Easu shows up, he's got nothing left:
"Your dwelling will be away from the earth's richness, away from the dew of heaven above. You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother, But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck."
Now, I have two sons and I have to think that if I had emptied the goodie bag on my younger son and added in there that his brother would serve him I probably would have shot for something more like this with my older son:
"You will serve your brother with faithfulness and courage and you will be blessed by the bounty of his table and the bound between you will be like that of the salt in the sea."
Give the guy something at least!
Isaac seems to get over his anger because we get a later interaction between the two when Isaac sends Jacob off to find a wife from amongst his mother's people.
This is two generations in a row where the second son is chosen by God to inherit the blessing given to Abraham. Had Jacob not schemed would the blessing have gone to Esau? Had Sarah not asked Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away would Ishmael's inherentance have taken on a different tenor?
Maybe the intent of this story really is to remind us that God's plan will be accomplished even if the available tools are flawed, maybe it is a story of fogiveness, or sovreignty, or a combination of those things...Probably best to steer wide around some of these bits though when conversing with folks who aren't yet believers.
Them could be some deep weeds.
Imagine for a moment reading this story as pure literature...no faith based prejudice.
You would no doubt see Rebekah and Jacob as the bad guys in the story.
From a woman's point of view we might be persuaded that Esau had gone against his parents wishes and married Canaanite women and that was perhaps the last straw in drawing Rebekah closer to her other son Jacob. We might be persuaded that she believed Jacob to be better suited to carry on Isaac's legacy. But it still seems like it is all a little on the dark side.
And these are the good guys?!?!?
Abraham and Isaac pulling the "she's my sister" trick was one thing...there were shreds of truth in the background of those deceptions. Jacob claiming to be Esau at the behest of his mother is out and out lying with the intent being illicit gain.
This doesn't fit into our modern day nicely packaged high moral standard Christianity.
(Ok, they weren't Christians yet but that argument would open a whole 'nother can of worms.)
Isaac's blessing is interesting too. It seems like there is a bag of goodies that he has that he can give out in a blessing and the he empties the bag on Jacob. Then, when Easu shows up, he's got nothing left:
"Your dwelling will be away from the earth's richness, away from the dew of heaven above. You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother, But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck."
Now, I have two sons and I have to think that if I had emptied the goodie bag on my younger son and added in there that his brother would serve him I probably would have shot for something more like this with my older son:
"You will serve your brother with faithfulness and courage and you will be blessed by the bounty of his table and the bound between you will be like that of the salt in the sea."
Give the guy something at least!
Isaac seems to get over his anger because we get a later interaction between the two when Isaac sends Jacob off to find a wife from amongst his mother's people.
This is two generations in a row where the second son is chosen by God to inherit the blessing given to Abraham. Had Jacob not schemed would the blessing have gone to Esau? Had Sarah not asked Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away would Ishmael's inherentance have taken on a different tenor?
Maybe the intent of this story really is to remind us that God's plan will be accomplished even if the available tools are flawed, maybe it is a story of fogiveness, or sovreignty, or a combination of those things...Probably best to steer wide around some of these bits though when conversing with folks who aren't yet believers.
Them could be some deep weeds.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Isaac - The next generation
Genesis 25 - 26
The story of Isaac always feels to me a little bit like the second "Back to the Future" movie...just a link really between part one and part three, cool bits to the story but not a great deal of stand alone value on the surface of it.
There seems to be a great deal of strife and conniving in today's reading.
You do have to love Abraham having 6 more sons AFTER his 100th birthday. Would have had a potential career as a spokesperson for certain pharmaceutical companies...
We get to see Jacob's early career as a schemer...selling a bowl of stew for his brother's birthright. Esau seems to be a "live for the moment" kind of guy and if this story is meant as any indication that approach to life doesn't seem to work out to well, at least not in this instance.
Abimelech doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed either. There is no reason to believe that this is anyone other than the same Abimelech that Abraham fooled with the old, "my wife is really my sister" trick. Isaac has learned from his family lore that this trick works out well so when he moves to Gerar to ride out the famine he pulls the same ploy.
One has to wonder where the whole "Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife" scene happened. Because obviously Isaac let his cover down at that point.
Abimelech's reaction though is interesting. He doesn't 'punish' Isaac in anyway but rather he tells his people to give Isaac and Rebekah a wide berth or die.
Does he do this because he recognizes that Isaac has a tight relationship with God?
Does he do this because Isaac has a lot of servants / associates who represent a significant military force?
I can't pictue him reacting that way towards a poor nomadic run of the mill shepherd no matter how many flocks the guy has.
In any event Isaac becomes rich while in Gerar much as his father did before him.
Eventually he is asked to move away because he has "become too powerful"...this leads me to believe that the disputes over wells were no overt agression but covert persuasion done within the bounds of culturally accepted norms. Isaac seems to behave in confidence that the land will be his based on God's promise to his father and doesn't exert his own power or immediate influence even though the text seems to hint at the fact that he could have taken that approach.
The military prowess argument seems to be supported when Abimelech brings out his advisor and military commander to make a treaty with Isaac.
So we get a picture of a shrewd man who builds up his strength seemingly walking in the ways of his father and trusting in god for what He has promised. A real salt of the earth kind of guy.
Maybe his bumper sticker read..."Things will work out great so long as I don't screw it up."
And it seems he managed to avoid screwing it up.
Kudos.
The story of Isaac always feels to me a little bit like the second "Back to the Future" movie...just a link really between part one and part three, cool bits to the story but not a great deal of stand alone value on the surface of it.
There seems to be a great deal of strife and conniving in today's reading.
You do have to love Abraham having 6 more sons AFTER his 100th birthday. Would have had a potential career as a spokesperson for certain pharmaceutical companies...
We get to see Jacob's early career as a schemer...selling a bowl of stew for his brother's birthright. Esau seems to be a "live for the moment" kind of guy and if this story is meant as any indication that approach to life doesn't seem to work out to well, at least not in this instance.
Abimelech doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed either. There is no reason to believe that this is anyone other than the same Abimelech that Abraham fooled with the old, "my wife is really my sister" trick. Isaac has learned from his family lore that this trick works out well so when he moves to Gerar to ride out the famine he pulls the same ploy.
One has to wonder where the whole "Abimelech king of the Philistines looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing his wife" scene happened. Because obviously Isaac let his cover down at that point.
Abimelech's reaction though is interesting. He doesn't 'punish' Isaac in anyway but rather he tells his people to give Isaac and Rebekah a wide berth or die.
Does he do this because he recognizes that Isaac has a tight relationship with God?
Does he do this because Isaac has a lot of servants / associates who represent a significant military force?
I can't pictue him reacting that way towards a poor nomadic run of the mill shepherd no matter how many flocks the guy has.
In any event Isaac becomes rich while in Gerar much as his father did before him.
Eventually he is asked to move away because he has "become too powerful"...this leads me to believe that the disputes over wells were no overt agression but covert persuasion done within the bounds of culturally accepted norms. Isaac seems to behave in confidence that the land will be his based on God's promise to his father and doesn't exert his own power or immediate influence even though the text seems to hint at the fact that he could have taken that approach.
The military prowess argument seems to be supported when Abimelech brings out his advisor and military commander to make a treaty with Isaac.
So we get a picture of a shrewd man who builds up his strength seemingly walking in the ways of his father and trusting in god for what He has promised. A real salt of the earth kind of guy.
Maybe his bumper sticker read..."Things will work out great so long as I don't screw it up."
And it seems he managed to avoid screwing it up.
Kudos.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Genesis 22:1 - 24:67
Abraham and Isaac
If you grew up in church in the pre-technology era you can probably, like me, picture this story being played out on the flannel board in Sunday school. (If you're too young to know what that means it is your loss!!) A couple things that struck me this morning:
"...through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
I love the next couple verses of haggling:
"The cost of the field is 400 shekels but what is that between you and me?" From this we get the stereotype of the middle eastern merchant.
I confess I need to do more study on culture norms of the time but when the servant shows up, scouts out the well looking for the good looking wife for Isaac, asks for water, then busts out the nose ring....I'm not thinking that approach would work very well today.
Interesting though that God's blessing in chapter 23 includes:
"Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies."
And the blessing that Rebekah's family gives her as she leaves includes:
"...may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies."
Argue revisionist history if you want but I like the symetry.
If you grew up in church in the pre-technology era you can probably, like me, picture this story being played out on the flannel board in Sunday school. (If you're too young to know what that means it is your loss!!) A couple things that struck me this morning:
- God shows up and give Abraham the instructions and the next thing we're told is that he got up early the next and went. No debate, no lingering, simple obedience.
- It takes three days to get to the place God instructed him to go, long enough to think about what he is doing, and yet he continues in Obedience.
- Then there is the visual metaphor of Isaac carrying wood upon which he will be sacrificed foreshadowing Jesus' ordeal.
- Then we get the new blessing.
"...through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
I love the next couple verses of haggling:
"The cost of the field is 400 shekels but what is that between you and me?" From this we get the stereotype of the middle eastern merchant.
I confess I need to do more study on culture norms of the time but when the servant shows up, scouts out the well looking for the good looking wife for Isaac, asks for water, then busts out the nose ring....I'm not thinking that approach would work very well today.
Interesting though that God's blessing in chapter 23 includes:
"Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies."
And the blessing that Rebekah's family gives her as she leaves includes:
"...may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies."
Argue revisionist history if you want but I like the symetry.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Genesis 19:1 - 21:34
Sodom, Gamorrah, and Abraham's investment scheme
The destruction of these two evil cities is a fairly well known Bible story. I think it shows that God was still pretty intimately involved in men's affairs on earth in a very physical sense at this point.
I find it interesting that Abraham bargained God down from fifty people to ten in order to keep the cities from being destroyed (Gen 18:22-33) and then it turns out there were only 4 who were allowed to leave. Abraham should have done his homework.
The description of the destruction sounds like volcanic activity to me...something that struck me more clearly this time...what with burning sulfur raining down and the destruction of the entire plain...probably from lava flow. Even Lot's wife turning into a "pillar of salt" sounds like a reasonable description of a body that has had all the water evaporated out of it due to great heat. Even the fact that Abraham looks the next morning and sees smoke rising from the area seems to support a volcanic eruption. (Not that is HAS to be that but I think God tends to use the tools atr hand rather than going out of his way to throw in one-offs.)
Interesting too is the pleading of Lot that he can't possibly make it to the mountains but would rather go to the small town of Zoar. Of course he is permitted to do so but then quickly leaves Zoar because he is afraid to stay there....and goes to the mountains:
"God I know you have a plan but couldn't we do it my way instead?"
"Ok, I'll allow you to try it your way."
"Wow, this isn't working out. Let's do it God's way instead."
Important time saving tip: Do it God's way the first time.
Lot's daughetrs obviously have an intersting moral perspective, no doubt as a result of being surrounded by the morality of Sodom and Gamorrah growing up.
Then we come to Abraham's traveling investment scheme:
"Anytime we go someplace that has wealth potential you say you're my sister. That way the ruler of the area will take you in, (apparently Sarah is SO good looking she is desireable even when she is 'old and well advamnced in years') be convicted by God of the error of his ways, and pay us off in livestock, land, and loot."
I had the chance to spend some time in Ukraine as a missionary and I remember going with a friend there to get train tickets to Kiev. We were traveling with an entire football team and we needed to get tickets on a supposedly "sold out" train. My friend told me that "sold out" meant merely that we were expected to pay a bribe. I was perplexed because I wanted to explain that we should trust God...but he said the bribe was simple enough: "Autographed picutre of the team and some chocolates". Of course it all worked out and we got the tickets just fine.
That has always reminded me a bit of Abraham's dealings here.
We can read it as him trusting himself rather than God I suppose.
Or we could read it as him understanding the system and playing it wisely with a dash of God showing up to protect the innocent...in this case Abimelech and in the last instance Pharaoh.
I'm not sure HOW to interpret it but I have told my wife that if we ever have occassion to eat dinner with a billionaire she shouldn't be surprised if I introduce her as 'my sister'.
The destruction of these two evil cities is a fairly well known Bible story. I think it shows that God was still pretty intimately involved in men's affairs on earth in a very physical sense at this point.
I find it interesting that Abraham bargained God down from fifty people to ten in order to keep the cities from being destroyed (Gen 18:22-33) and then it turns out there were only 4 who were allowed to leave. Abraham should have done his homework.
The description of the destruction sounds like volcanic activity to me...something that struck me more clearly this time...what with burning sulfur raining down and the destruction of the entire plain...probably from lava flow. Even Lot's wife turning into a "pillar of salt" sounds like a reasonable description of a body that has had all the water evaporated out of it due to great heat. Even the fact that Abraham looks the next morning and sees smoke rising from the area seems to support a volcanic eruption. (Not that is HAS to be that but I think God tends to use the tools atr hand rather than going out of his way to throw in one-offs.)
Interesting too is the pleading of Lot that he can't possibly make it to the mountains but would rather go to the small town of Zoar. Of course he is permitted to do so but then quickly leaves Zoar because he is afraid to stay there....and goes to the mountains:
"God I know you have a plan but couldn't we do it my way instead?"
"Ok, I'll allow you to try it your way."
"Wow, this isn't working out. Let's do it God's way instead."
Important time saving tip: Do it God's way the first time.
Lot's daughetrs obviously have an intersting moral perspective, no doubt as a result of being surrounded by the morality of Sodom and Gamorrah growing up.
Then we come to Abraham's traveling investment scheme:
"Anytime we go someplace that has wealth potential you say you're my sister. That way the ruler of the area will take you in, (apparently Sarah is SO good looking she is desireable even when she is 'old and well advamnced in years') be convicted by God of the error of his ways, and pay us off in livestock, land, and loot."
I had the chance to spend some time in Ukraine as a missionary and I remember going with a friend there to get train tickets to Kiev. We were traveling with an entire football team and we needed to get tickets on a supposedly "sold out" train. My friend told me that "sold out" meant merely that we were expected to pay a bribe. I was perplexed because I wanted to explain that we should trust God...but he said the bribe was simple enough: "Autographed picutre of the team and some chocolates". Of course it all worked out and we got the tickets just fine.
That has always reminded me a bit of Abraham's dealings here.
We can read it as him trusting himself rather than God I suppose.
Or we could read it as him understanding the system and playing it wisely with a dash of God showing up to protect the innocent...in this case Abimelech and in the last instance Pharaoh.
I'm not sure HOW to interpret it but I have told my wife that if we ever have occassion to eat dinner with a billionaire she shouldn't be surprised if I introduce her as 'my sister'.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Genesis 16:1 - 18:33
The beginnings of Middle East conflict
I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Abram not taken his wife up on the offer of sleeping with her handmaiden.
Nice marital strife at the start of today's read...Sarai offers Hagar and then blames HIM for her being pregnant. Well sure, on one hand yes...but come on give me a break here...
Several interesting bits though:
Ishmael:
16:12 -"...his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand will be against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
I also wonder what is going on when it is clearly the "angel of the Lord" who shows up and promises Hagar: "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."
But the blessing that comes to the children of Sarai through the promise to Abram is from the Lord, clearly identified when He says, "I am God Almighty."
Is the angel promising on his own word? Which angel? There seems to be a distinction here.
Interesting too that God's covenant with Abraham, because he gets the name change here, is:
17:7-8
"I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for generations to comes, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you, and I will be their God."
Without even being TOO liberal one could interpret that to mean the peoples that would eventually becomes both the Jewish AND Muslim nations of the Middle East...all of them descendants of Abraham, each following after the "God of Abraham".
I don't think I am ready to go there just yet but I'd be willing to accept someone's perspective who wanted to debate that point.
No wonder things are such a mess over there.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Abram not taken his wife up on the offer of sleeping with her handmaiden.
Nice marital strife at the start of today's read...Sarai offers Hagar and then blames HIM for her being pregnant. Well sure, on one hand yes...but come on give me a break here...
Several interesting bits though:
Ishmael:
16:12 -"...his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand will be against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
I also wonder what is going on when it is clearly the "angel of the Lord" who shows up and promises Hagar: "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."
But the blessing that comes to the children of Sarai through the promise to Abram is from the Lord, clearly identified when He says, "I am God Almighty."
Is the angel promising on his own word? Which angel? There seems to be a distinction here.
Interesting too that God's covenant with Abraham, because he gets the name change here, is:
17:7-8
"I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for generations to comes, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you, and I will be their God."
Without even being TOO liberal one could interpret that to mean the peoples that would eventually becomes both the Jewish AND Muslim nations of the Middle East...all of them descendants of Abraham, each following after the "God of Abraham".
I don't think I am ready to go there just yet but I'd be willing to accept someone's perspective who wanted to debate that point.
No wonder things are such a mess over there.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Genesis 11:27 - 15:21
We meet Abram
Another interesting read today.
I never caught it before but Abram's father Terah was taking everybody from Ur of the Chaldeans to Caanan and along the way they stopped and settled in Haran.
If you grew up in church you know the bit that is in 15:7 -
"I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take3 possession of it."
The thing that caught me this time though was that the response to this "calling" was begun by Terah. I always thought of it as: God spoke, Abram went. But in context Abram was already going, in response to God's calling, before God even spoke the words. Otherwise God would have said something like , "I brought you out of Haran...".
I always am intruiged too by Abram's trip to Egypt. Aside from the fact that this is the first of several instances of God calling his chosen one(s) out of Egypt, I find it interesting that Abram shows up, kind of works the system by saying that Sarai is his "sister", and then is blessed because of it! Scripture tells us she is his half-sister so it isn't an out and out lie but I'm not sure how to interpret his actions and God's respone to them.
We also get the first reference to the "Hebrew's" in 14:13..
"One who escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew..."
Just a quick glance on the internet shows multiple interpretations of THAT title.
Melchizedek shows up.
Try looking up theories on THIS guy...including one that points out genealogically how this could be Shem, the son of Noah, Abram's multiple great grandfather!
The phrase "a priest after the order of Melchizedek" will show up later in scripture too so this is not an insignificant guy.
Sheesh, one day's reading and I could wind up sturying just these bits for WEEKS.
Another interesting read today.
I never caught it before but Abram's father Terah was taking everybody from Ur of the Chaldeans to Caanan and along the way they stopped and settled in Haran.
If you grew up in church you know the bit that is in 15:7 -
"I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take3 possession of it."
The thing that caught me this time though was that the response to this "calling" was begun by Terah. I always thought of it as: God spoke, Abram went. But in context Abram was already going, in response to God's calling, before God even spoke the words. Otherwise God would have said something like , "I brought you out of Haran...".
I always am intruiged too by Abram's trip to Egypt. Aside from the fact that this is the first of several instances of God calling his chosen one(s) out of Egypt, I find it interesting that Abram shows up, kind of works the system by saying that Sarai is his "sister", and then is blessed because of it! Scripture tells us she is his half-sister so it isn't an out and out lie but I'm not sure how to interpret his actions and God's respone to them.
We also get the first reference to the "Hebrew's" in 14:13..
"One who escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew..."
Just a quick glance on the internet shows multiple interpretations of THAT title.
Melchizedek shows up.
Try looking up theories on THIS guy...including one that points out genealogically how this could be Shem, the son of Noah, Abram's multiple great grandfather!
The phrase "a priest after the order of Melchizedek" will show up later in scripture too so this is not an insignificant guy.
Sheesh, one day's reading and I could wind up sturying just these bits for WEEKS.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Job 40:1 - 42:17
God finishes His say
Job comes clean, admitting he has nothing to say in answer to God's reminding him of who God is.
I find the pattern of conversation interesting in this section:
I don't think it is important that WE know what creatures are referred to when God speaks of behemoth and leviathan but my guess would be that the five guys present DO know what He is talking about and they understand the illustration: That God, who created these incredible beasts, also can control them in ways beyond man's comprehension.
After being severely dressed won by God Job confesses that he spoke of things he "did not understand".
God then turns to the 'friends' and says that they have not spoken of Him "what is right" as Job has.
It's easy to skip right through God's punishment of the 'friends' but I think it is some pretty significant stuff:
sacrifice 7 bulls and 7 rams:
Not a cheap offering to be sure, a rather costly one actually.
And not just one, but 7...a number representing perfection
And not just sacrifice but Job must also pray for them
Sacrifice AND intercession in order that God might forgive them of their folly.
Wow.
Of course then we get the happy ending where God's justice DOES seem to show up in a way we understand it and Job winds up better off than he had been before.
I'm almost tempted to want to start over with this book and study it much more in depth. There is a lot more here than I have imagined in the past...seems like a lot of early symbolism.
Good Stuff
Job comes clean, admitting he has nothing to say in answer to God's reminding him of who God is.
I find the pattern of conversation interesting in this section:
- Job admits he has no answer
- God questions Job's ability to dispense justice
- God gives two examples from creation (behemoth and leviathan) of His might
- Job 'remembers' who God is
I don't think it is important that WE know what creatures are referred to when God speaks of behemoth and leviathan but my guess would be that the five guys present DO know what He is talking about and they understand the illustration: That God, who created these incredible beasts, also can control them in ways beyond man's comprehension.
After being severely dressed won by God Job confesses that he spoke of things he "did not understand".
God then turns to the 'friends' and says that they have not spoken of Him "what is right" as Job has.
It's easy to skip right through God's punishment of the 'friends' but I think it is some pretty significant stuff:
sacrifice 7 bulls and 7 rams:
Not a cheap offering to be sure, a rather costly one actually.
And not just one, but 7...a number representing perfection
And not just sacrifice but Job must also pray for them
Sacrifice AND intercession in order that God might forgive them of their folly.
Wow.
Of course then we get the happy ending where God's justice DOES seem to show up in a way we understand it and Job winds up better off than he had been before.
I'm almost tempted to want to start over with this book and study it much more in depth. There is a lot more here than I have imagined in the past...seems like a lot of early symbolism.
Good Stuff
Friday, January 16, 2009
Job 38:1-39:30
The Lord shows up to have His say.
This section doesn't start well for Job.
The storm that seems to have been approaching in the previous chapters has now arrived.
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm"
God starts off with what seems like a condemnation of Elihu, who was speaking at the end of the previous chapter:
"Who is this that darkens My counsel with words without knowledge?"
But if you read ahead a little you find out that He is talking about Job.
Then comes the bit we'd not want to hear from our earthly fathers let alone our heavenly father:
"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me."
DOH!!
The thing that seems key to me here is that God is not disciplining Job for sin but rather for a lack of faith. In his complaining, his arguing for wanting a hearing, Job forgot who God is, forgot His sovereignty.
There is a pretty constant theme throughout the old testament of "remembering".
Remembering what God has done in a specific place: Samuel setting up the Ebenezer stone.
Remembering what God has promised: The rainbow given as a sign to Noah
Remembering what God has spoken: Joshua setting up the stone at Shechem.
Remembering what God has done for His people: The passover
...and numerous other examples.
So here in this early story of Job we see how important it is for us to remember who God is in terms of His sovereignty, His majesty, His power, His creativity, His wisdom. etc.etc.
Again, Job's complaint, "Let me at least face my accuser (God) and present my case because I am wronged!", is way out of line when help up the the light of God saying, "Do you remember who I AM ?"
It makes me wonder how often I allow circumstances, dire or otherwise, to shape my mental picture of God.
How good are we at remembering?
This section doesn't start well for Job.
The storm that seems to have been approaching in the previous chapters has now arrived.
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm"
God starts off with what seems like a condemnation of Elihu, who was speaking at the end of the previous chapter:
"Who is this that darkens My counsel with words without knowledge?"
But if you read ahead a little you find out that He is talking about Job.
Then comes the bit we'd not want to hear from our earthly fathers let alone our heavenly father:
"Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me."
DOH!!
The thing that seems key to me here is that God is not disciplining Job for sin but rather for a lack of faith. In his complaining, his arguing for wanting a hearing, Job forgot who God is, forgot His sovereignty.
There is a pretty constant theme throughout the old testament of "remembering".
Remembering what God has done in a specific place: Samuel setting up the Ebenezer stone.
Remembering what God has promised: The rainbow given as a sign to Noah
Remembering what God has spoken: Joshua setting up the stone at Shechem.
Remembering what God has done for His people: The passover
...and numerous other examples.
So here in this early story of Job we see how important it is for us to remember who God is in terms of His sovereignty, His majesty, His power, His creativity, His wisdom. etc.etc.
Again, Job's complaint, "Let me at least face my accuser (God) and present my case because I am wronged!", is way out of line when help up the the light of God saying, "Do you remember who I AM ?"
It makes me wonder how often I allow circumstances, dire or otherwise, to shape my mental picture of God.
How good are we at remembering?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Job 35:1-37:24
Elihu throws it down today...
I started reading this and again it sounded like Job's 'friends'.
But then I slowed down to try to catch whether this was a different sort of argument.
Elihu seems to reminding Job, pointing out to him what he already knows about God.
Almost as if he is saying, "Look, quit asking where God is in all this, instead hold on to the fact that you know God rescues the afflicted. Instead of focusing on your problem focus on what you know about God."
It's almost like Elihu is the herald, giving a little taste of what God is about to say when He shows up.
Consider the fact that the second half of chapter 36 and most of chapter 37 almost seem to be describing a literal storm that they can see approaching them as they talk:
36:30 See how He scatters His lightning about Him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
36:32 He fills His hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.
36:33 His thunder announces the coming storm
even the cattle make known its approach.
37:2 Listen, listen to the roar of His voice
to the rumbling that comes from His mouth.
37:3 He unleashes His lightning beneath the whole heaven
and sends it to the ends of the earth.
37:4 After that comes the sound of His roar;
He thunders with His majestic voice.
When His voice resounds
He holds nothing back.
37:5 God's voice thunders in marvelous ways;
He does great things beyond our understanding
All of this followed by a seemingly simple sentence at the start of chapter 38:
Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm.
Elihu bothers me, if I am being honest, when he says things like:
Be assured that my words are not false;
one perfect in knowledge is with you
But he seems to be speaking correctly.
So is he arrogant? Don't think so or God would probably have had words for him.
Confident? certainly
Angelic perhaps? Who knows...
In any case his words announce the arrival of the Lord...who shows up tomorrow.
I started reading this and again it sounded like Job's 'friends'.
But then I slowed down to try to catch whether this was a different sort of argument.
Elihu seems to reminding Job, pointing out to him what he already knows about God.
Almost as if he is saying, "Look, quit asking where God is in all this, instead hold on to the fact that you know God rescues the afflicted. Instead of focusing on your problem focus on what you know about God."
It's almost like Elihu is the herald, giving a little taste of what God is about to say when He shows up.
Consider the fact that the second half of chapter 36 and most of chapter 37 almost seem to be describing a literal storm that they can see approaching them as they talk:
36:30 See how He scatters His lightning about Him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
36:32 He fills His hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.
36:33 His thunder announces the coming storm
even the cattle make known its approach.
37:2 Listen, listen to the roar of His voice
to the rumbling that comes from His mouth.
37:3 He unleashes His lightning beneath the whole heaven
and sends it to the ends of the earth.
37:4 After that comes the sound of His roar;
He thunders with His majestic voice.
When His voice resounds
He holds nothing back.
37:5 God's voice thunders in marvelous ways;
He does great things beyond our understanding
All of this followed by a seemingly simple sentence at the start of chapter 38:
Then the Lord answered Job out of the storm.
Elihu bothers me, if I am being honest, when he says things like:
Be assured that my words are not false;
one perfect in knowledge is with you
But he seems to be speaking correctly.
So is he arrogant? Don't think so or God would probably have had words for him.
Confident? certainly
Angelic perhaps? Who knows...
In any case his words announce the arrival of the Lord...who shows up tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Job 32:1-34:37 - The unknown youngster
Suddenly we get a new character in the drama.
Elihu, "He is my God", son of Barakel, "God blesses"
He gives a nod to the older gentlemen, claiming to have remained silent out of respect for their seniority, then he launches.
It is easy to just read through this almost skimming over the surface because it sounds so much like what has gone on for most of the previous chapters. But if you skim ahead to the end of the book ( My wife does that all the time ) you find that while God is not pleased with the other three friends He doesn't have anything bad to say about Elihu. That alone makes him interesting.
So what is different about Elihu's argument?
The previous quadrilog (Conversation between 4 people) has been mainly comprised of Job complaining of his uprightness and his three 'friends' arguing he must have unconfessed, hidden, ongoing, secret sin. In truth neither party has caused the other to budge a single inch.
Job has been crying out for the opportunity to present his case before God.
Elihu doesn't try to convince Job that he MUST have sinned as the others have done. Instead he argues God's character. (Keep that in mind when God shows up in a day or two.)
It seems to me that perhaps Job has been arguing his innocence based on man's economy. "I've done what was required of me."
Where Elihu is making an argument based on God's economic scale. "You may have done what was required of you but how can you even begin to question God when you KNOW that, beyond all temporary circumstance, He is just?"
It could almost be argued that Elihu is saying that ALL men deserve death but that if they have a mediator between themselves and God then they are renewed and God hears their prayers. (33:12-26)
I almost wonder if this is one of those hidden nuggets in the bible that explicitly foreshadows the need for Christ's intervention on man's behalf.
Elihu, "He is my God", son of Barakel, "God blesses"
He gives a nod to the older gentlemen, claiming to have remained silent out of respect for their seniority, then he launches.
It is easy to just read through this almost skimming over the surface because it sounds so much like what has gone on for most of the previous chapters. But if you skim ahead to the end of the book ( My wife does that all the time ) you find that while God is not pleased with the other three friends He doesn't have anything bad to say about Elihu. That alone makes him interesting.
So what is different about Elihu's argument?
The previous quadrilog (Conversation between 4 people) has been mainly comprised of Job complaining of his uprightness and his three 'friends' arguing he must have unconfessed, hidden, ongoing, secret sin. In truth neither party has caused the other to budge a single inch.
Job has been crying out for the opportunity to present his case before God.
Elihu doesn't try to convince Job that he MUST have sinned as the others have done. Instead he argues God's character. (Keep that in mind when God shows up in a day or two.)
It seems to me that perhaps Job has been arguing his innocence based on man's economy. "I've done what was required of me."
Where Elihu is making an argument based on God's economic scale. "You may have done what was required of you but how can you even begin to question God when you KNOW that, beyond all temporary circumstance, He is just?"
It could almost be argued that Elihu is saying that ALL men deserve death but that if they have a mediator between themselves and God then they are renewed and God hears their prayers. (33:12-26)
I almost wonder if this is one of those hidden nuggets in the bible that explicitly foreshadows the need for Christ's intervention on man's behalf.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Job 30:1-31:40
Interesting read this morning.
Job continues his complaint that he has acted righteously and his further complaint that God is silent. It seems to me that what pains him most is God's seeming silence. Time and time again he begs for the opportunity to present his case.
If you take what he is saying in these verses and flip them from negative to positive then Job is claiming that, in his 'account' he has:
Yet in the midst of losing everything he still hasn't made the complaint that so many make today, "I did all of that for nothing, forget trying to be good."
The fact that he doesn't go there seems to indicate something about Job's heart.
He did all that he did in the above list out of a love for God, a love that survives even though Job feels like he has been the victim of terrible injustice at the hand of God.
His 'friends' have been making the black and white argument:
"You sin, you lose it all. Therefore, Job, you're guilty."
Job seems to have been saying, "I used to think that too but now I realize I have seen the wicked prosper and I KNOW I am right with God so I'd just like to be able to plead my case, or die."
It is God's silence on the matter that he is lamenting.
Today finishes with: "The words of Job are ended"
So we get to hear closing arguments from the three stooges next.
Job continues his complaint that he has acted righteously and his further complaint that God is silent. It seems to me that what pains him most is God's seeming silence. Time and time again he begs for the opportunity to present his case.
If you take what he is saying in these verses and flip them from negative to positive then Job is claiming that, in his 'account' he has:
- Wept for those in trouble and grieved for the poor
- Remained pure as regards sexual immorality
- Been honest in his business dealings
- Treated his servants justly
- Fed the poor, widows and orphans
- Clothed those in need
- Rightly understood that his wealth was from the Lord
- Guarded his tongue
- Provided materially for his employees
- Opened his home to strangers in need
- Confessed his sin
- Kept clean books
Yet in the midst of losing everything he still hasn't made the complaint that so many make today, "I did all of that for nothing, forget trying to be good."
The fact that he doesn't go there seems to indicate something about Job's heart.
He did all that he did in the above list out of a love for God, a love that survives even though Job feels like he has been the victim of terrible injustice at the hand of God.
His 'friends' have been making the black and white argument:
"You sin, you lose it all. Therefore, Job, you're guilty."
Job seems to have been saying, "I used to think that too but now I realize I have seen the wicked prosper and I KNOW I am right with God so I'd just like to be able to plead my case, or die."
It is God's silence on the matter that he is lamenting.
Today finishes with: "The words of Job are ended"
So we get to hear closing arguments from the three stooges next.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Through the Bible
As previously mentioned I, along with a fair number of other folks in our organization, have taken on the discipline of reading through the bible in 2009. I thought this might be a good place to start to record thoughts from each days readings.
As we move here through the end of week two and into week three I'll start with some catching up:
Jan 1 - Jan 4:
Creation - Noah
A couple thoughts from the creation story:
The next big thing is Noah:
"...a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."
I think this is the first time I have ever caught the fact that when Noah enters the ark he takes two of every kind of animal but also 7 of every kind of clean animal and every kind of bird.
(Of course clean vs unclean is established until Moses time so he would have had a more comprehensive list than "clean vs unclean". It's handy to catch that tidbit because if you don't you'll wonder why, after only a year in the ark, he comes out and starts sacrificing animals!!! If he only started with two of each that sacrificing bit would put a serious dent is his plans for animal husbandry and global restoration!!
Next comes the "Tower of Babel" as almost a footnote:
The thing that strikes me here is that there still seems to be some different kind of commerce going back and forth between heavenly creatures and earthly creatures. Genesis 6:1-4 seems to indicate that angels were in regular contact with men. (Just as it seems that God himself "walked" with the folks in the garden.) Then in Genesis 11:1-9 God scatters man, either to further subdue the earth OR as part of a change in how man and heavenly beings will be interacting henceforth. Either way we only get to see the earthly side of the conversation.
Which leads us next...to Job:
(You have to love the chronological Bible!!)
Which brings us more or less up to current.
The last week or so has been the exchange between Job and his "friends"
Thoughts on Job anyone?
As we move here through the end of week two and into week three I'll start with some catching up:
Jan 1 - Jan 4:
Creation - Noah
A couple thoughts from the creation story:
- The serpent's speech seems to be the prototype for Satan's prime argument against God:
- Adam's attempt to blame God for his eating of the apple is always amusing and convicting at the same time: "The woman...who YOU put her with me...SHE gave me the fruit of the tree and I ate it." Not my fault man!!!
- The argument of Cain is always intriguing: "If you sent me away people will find me and kill me" Who? What people? Either there are folks outside the garden...or more plausibly, Cain has had some conversation with God about what the "subduing of the earth" is going to look like and know folks might come after him down the road.
The next big thing is Noah:
"...a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."
I think this is the first time I have ever caught the fact that when Noah enters the ark he takes two of every kind of animal but also 7 of every kind of clean animal and every kind of bird.
(Of course clean vs unclean is established until Moses time so he would have had a more comprehensive list than "clean vs unclean". It's handy to catch that tidbit because if you don't you'll wonder why, after only a year in the ark, he comes out and starts sacrificing animals!!! If he only started with two of each that sacrificing bit would put a serious dent is his plans for animal husbandry and global restoration!!
Next comes the "Tower of Babel" as almost a footnote:
The thing that strikes me here is that there still seems to be some different kind of commerce going back and forth between heavenly creatures and earthly creatures. Genesis 6:1-4 seems to indicate that angels were in regular contact with men. (Just as it seems that God himself "walked" with the folks in the garden.) Then in Genesis 11:1-9 God scatters man, either to further subdue the earth OR as part of a change in how man and heavenly beings will be interacting henceforth. Either way we only get to see the earthly side of the conversation.
Which leads us next...to Job:
(You have to love the chronological Bible!!)
- Important to remember that Job is first described as being blameless and upright. (If you forget that bit then you'll think he is being arrogant and/or blasphemous later on.)
- The next interesting bit is that satan shows up with the other angels. Hasn't he fallen already? Is he allowed to come back into the throne room after having fallen? What IS his status at this point? Notes on the text indicate that 'satan' means 'accuser'...so is he the prosecuting attorney?
- Interesting too that it is God who brings up Job..."Have you considered my servant Job?" ...it isn't as though satan has his eye on Job and comes in looking to take him out.
- I love the exchange that happens after that where satan claims that Job only fears God because God has blessed Job. "But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." I have this picture in my minds eye of God looking over the edge of his glasses kind of glancing down at satan. "Do, you see what you're saying you angelic being who was once blessed with everything much as Job is blessed? Are you not now using Job as your excuse for cursing me after that fall?" (of course we've not yet decided if satan is fallen at this point but I enjoy the picture anyway.)
Which brings us more or less up to current.
The last week or so has been the exchange between Job and his "friends"
Thoughts on Job anyone?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
And now for something completely different...`09
I somehow seem to have managed to skip through all of December sans post. So I do need to clear out a few cobwebs I guess. December looked like this:
-getting ready for Christmas
-kids getting off school
-computer crashes due to faulty wiring in the wall
-wiring gets fixed, computer saved
-fun Christmas at home
-New Years
This year brings us new president, that should be interesting and already has been to some degree. For me it also brings two new disciplines.
1. Training for triathlons once again. This means exercising AND dieting. The dieting thing has been on for just under a week now, down 5 of the target 45 pounds to lose. I'm hoping the food headaches will all be done by tomorrow or the next day. The exercising challenge is to find time in the day. Looks like it will work out at lunchtime.
2. Reading through the bible in a year. I've made it through before, 2006 and 2007. This year we're doing it as a rather large group of folks. THAT means I'll be posting observations from some of the daily readings here.
Ok, there's the cobwebs cleaned...next post will be on the biblical topics of the daily readings from this week.
-getting ready for Christmas
-kids getting off school
-computer crashes due to faulty wiring in the wall
-wiring gets fixed, computer saved
-fun Christmas at home
-New Years
This year brings us new president, that should be interesting and already has been to some degree. For me it also brings two new disciplines.
1. Training for triathlons once again. This means exercising AND dieting. The dieting thing has been on for just under a week now, down 5 of the target 45 pounds to lose. I'm hoping the food headaches will all be done by tomorrow or the next day. The exercising challenge is to find time in the day. Looks like it will work out at lunchtime.
2. Reading through the bible in a year. I've made it through before, 2006 and 2007. This year we're doing it as a rather large group of folks. THAT means I'll be posting observations from some of the daily readings here.
Ok, there's the cobwebs cleaned...next post will be on the biblical topics of the daily readings from this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
