Zipporah Saves Moses

When thinking of the deliverance of the Israelites from the oppression of Egypt the first time, whose name comes to mind? Moses, right? Did you know that God was almost forced to choose someone else? And not because Moses didn't want the job (although he clearly did not want it). No, God almost had to choose someone else because God sought to kill Moses.

It's true. You can find the story in Exodus 4:24 "At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him.” (NIV) Now, I have a bunch of questions that rise from this incident. The story of Moses' life from birth to deliverer does not take much space; it begins in Exodus 1, and ends at the end of the incident with Zipporah. After this, Moses is the prophet of God, the deliverer of Israel, and the law-giver. After this, Moses is not perfect (none of God's leaders and heroes are) but he is fully committed to the plans and purposes of God. He faces down the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth at the time. He rises above the whining of the people he is leading and stands between them and God when God wants to destroy the nation and begin again with Moses in the place of Abraham.

But as I said earlier, the story of Zipporah circumcising either Gershom or Eliezer (the two sons of Moses) raises lots of questions. The two main difficulties with the passage involve the identity of the person referenced by "him" in Gen 4:24, and the meaning of "bridegroom of blood". There is little question that the author includes this anecdote for a reason; there is a lot of discussion in interpretive circles as to exactly what that reason might be. For me, the questions have less to do with these scholarly questions and more to do with Moses and his household. Why were Gershom and Eliezer not already circumcised? Why was Moses so clueless that he did not realise that God was coming to kill one of them? What was there in Zipporah that made her not only aware of God's intent and reason for His anger, but also aware of the required actions to turn that wrath away?

On the face of things, Moses should have been more aware of God's commands. Moses, not Zipporah, was the one who had encountered God face to face at the "Burning Bush". Moses was the direct descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moses was the one raised by Jewish nannies while in the court of Pharaoh. Zipporah was the daughter of a priest of the gods of Midian. Zipporah was raised without knowledge of the God of Israel, and certainly without knowledge of the importance of the rite of circumcision in the relationship between God and Israel's descendants.

The Bible does not give sufficient data to form a clear picture of Zipporah.  We do not have much information about her relationship with Moses, or the nature and content of any religious discussions they had. I don't believe we can doubt that these discussions occurred. In ancient times, religion occupied a central place in the lives of everyone. Planting, harvesting, childbirth, diet, and all other aspects of life were governed by the rules of each religion. Zipporah, daughter of a priest of Midian, and Moses, a prophet of Israel, would have faced difficulties in every area of life without these discussions. We can assume that Moses did not 'win' the discussion about circumcision (which was mandated on the eighth day for every male child of Israel).

While we do not know much, we do know that Zipporah's actions saved Moses' life. Can we draw from this that God honours any actions taken in obedience to His commands? Or are we to learn that, even if our attitude is bad, God wants us to do what He commands? As usual in these blog posts, I'm not sure that I can draw any conclusions. What I do hope is that, if you are reading this, that you will re-read the story of Zipporah in Exodus 4:24-26 and see if God has something to say to you. He does promise that His word always accomplishes His purposes.

Jacob: Bargaining with God

The story of Jacob is told in Genesis from chapters 25 to 35. As with all stories, there are other characters, but the focus of these chapters in Genesis is very much Jacob. I was not going to deal with these major characters, not because I do not think that they have anything to say, but mainly because they have been dealt with so well, so often, by so many others. I could not resist the story of Jacob and his relationship with Isaac's God. So, join me in looking at this father of the tribes, the man who becomes Israel, who gives his name to the covenant people of God.
Jacob was the second son of Isaac, but only by a short amount of time; his twin was born first. Esau, Isaac's twin brother, was his father's favourite; Jacob was his mother's favourite.  Jacob was a homebody; Esau was a traveller. Jacob kept his eye on the main thing, always wanting more for less. In fact, his name came to mean 'deceiver, supplanter, trickster'. When Jesus met Nathanael (John 1:45-51), he commends him by saying, "Behold, an Israelite in whom there is no Jacob." (Jn 1:47)
Jacob is not a nice person. On one occasion, his brother returns hungry from his hunting, and asks Jacob for some stew already prepared. Common courtesy, and the custom of the day, required Jacob to feed his hungry brother, but Jacob would not until Esau "gave" him his birthright (a double portion of the inheritance). When their father is old and wishes to pass on blessing to his son, Esau, Jacob tricks Isaac and steals the blessing for himself.
This is not what I want to focus on. I mention these things about Jacob simply to notice the person about whom we are thinking, to paint, in broad strokes, a caricature of this patriarch. What I would like to focus on in this post is the relationship between Jacob and Yahweh. Jacob's birth is a direct answer to prayer. Like his grandmother, Sarai, Isaac's mother was barren. (I'm not sure what it was about the Patriarchs, but they each married women incapable of conception.) Like his father Isaac, Jacob was either the direct answer to prayer or the result of the promise of God. Isaac was born in a home and family accustomed to the blessing of God. As discussed in a previous post, Isaac passed on the heritage he had from his father Abraham, to his descendants. But, like all of us, Isaac needed his own encounter with God.
As a result of the theft of his brother's blessing, Jacob is on the run. Esau has vowed to kill him as soon as their father Isaac dies and the mourning period is over. Rebekah, Isaac's wife, has convinced Isaac to send Jacob to her relatives to get a wife, and Jacob is on his way. On the road one night, as he lay sleeping, he has a dream. He sees a ladder or staircase, set between heaven and earth, that angels are using to go back and forth. In the course of the dream, he sees Yahweh standing beside him, and Yahweh promises blessing to Jacob. When Jacob wakes up, he realises two things. First, he has been in the dwelling of God. Second, he should worship. So he makes an altar, or a stone of remembrance, out of the stone he was using as a pillow by pouring oil on it. Then he makes a vow. It is a most interesting vow, because it is such a quibbling speech. "If God will do this and this and that and that, THEN he will be my God."
If one compares the speech of God in the dream, and the vow Jacob makes, they are almost inverted. God says he will do A, B, and C, and Jacob says, "If you do A, B, and C, then you can be my God and I will worship you." Please keep in mind that Jacob is making this bargain with the creator of the universe. He is, in fact, withholding the worship God deserves simply because He is God, offering it only if (and after) God will also be Jacob's protector, deliverer, guide, and provider. We know God is all these things. But one should not refuse to worship God until God has done these things for us. Look at the story of Job, as a comparison. Job worships God even when terrible things have happened to him.
Perhaps the most amazing part of this story is the part where God continues to bless Jacob, continues to lead and guide him, and continues to protect him, even with Jacob's lousy attitude and lack of respect. These things end up costing Jacob, but God meets Jacob's terms.
God loves us more than we can ever imagine. He desires relationship with us, not because He needs to be worshipped and adored, and certainly not because He has a big ego. God desires relationship with us because He loves us. He wants our worship, not for His sake, but because we need to worship, and He is the only one worthy of that worship. If you are considering a bargain with God, be warned. He does not promise to give us everything we want, but He does promise to give us what we need. And if what we need is a period of trial, that is what He will supply. The rest of Jacob's story is certainly an example of this.

Isaac

Given that Isaac is one of the Patriarchs, and that his name is used in the identification of the God of the Israelites, not much space is given in the Biblical text to relating his relationship with God. Simply the amount of words used to record his story indicates the transitional nature of this man in the story of Israel, and God's redemptive work in the world at that time. The writer of Genesis records Isaac's birth, circumcision, offering, and betrothal to Rebekah as part of the Abram/Abraham cycle. After the death of Abraham, the narrator finds little of interest in the life of Isaac. The birth of Esau and Jacob, the famine and God's instructions to avoid Egypt, God's blessing of Isaac with property and harvests, and Isaac's blessing of his sons are the items that concern the writer.

As always, I find these types of details interesting. What is there in Isaac that renders him less important than Abram or Jacob/Joseph? This is actually the wrong question, for there is nothing in Isaac that was not initially put there by God. The correct question is, "What is there about Isaac's life that makes his story of less importance to future generations?" and the answer is that Isaac was simply the agent of passage between Abram, the father of faith, and Jacob/Israel, the father of the nation.

By this, I do not mean to imply that Isaac's life is not important. Nor am I attempting to minimise the significance of his place in the Biblical record. I am also not trying to diminish his place in either history or in the foundation of Israel. What I would like to emphasise is the importance of the role of "pass-through" in the plan and purpose of God.

Genesis 25, in reporting the end of Abraham's life, records that Abraham dispersed some of his wealth to his non-Isaac sons. Most of it, of course, went to Isaac as the son of God's promise. But the gifts Abraham gave to his other children diminished to some degree his possessions, that sign of God's blessing and favour. Abraham had also encountered God on several occasions; God called Abraham "friend". In short, Abraham was the one who had a personal, intimate relationship with God, and Abraham had passed to Isaac less of the visible sign of the blessing of God than had been Abraham's during his life. These two items provide sufficient reason for Isaac, as part of the founding, patriarchal line of Israel, to require his own encounters with God. So God provides opportunity to "right the wrong", in a manner of speaking.

The first thing God does is provide time and opportunity for Isaac's wealth to grow. Remember, in that time and place, wealth and possessions were considered good and sufficient evidence of both the blessing of God, and the righteous character of the individual. So by increasing Isaac's wealth, God indicates divine approval of Isaac and his way of life. The second thing God does is initiate communication with Isaac, and provides both guidance and the opportunity for relationship. Isaac is part of the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" formulation precisely because Isaac had the opportunity for relationship with God, and availed himself of that opportunity.

Some time ago, I was studying denominations, their birth, growth, and decline. One of the factors that caught my attention, beyond the requirements of the course, was the importance of the second generation of members. The first generation are converts, and possess the fire of conviction. The second generation is born into the experience, and believe because they were taught to believe. If this is all they have, they have nothing to pass on to the third generation. The faith of Abraham would have ended with Isaac, and not been passed to Jacob, had Isaac not embraced this faith for himself, and made it his own.

So, what do you believe, and why do you believe? Do you believe because of what you were taught? Or do you believe because of what you have experience for yourself of the goodness of God. Are you trying to pass on to others things you know, or only things you have heard about? If the former, you are involved in making disciples. If the latter, you can only make students. God calls each follower of Christ to the business of making disciples, not students.

Abram and Isaac

I'm almost done with Abram, but thought one more story might be good to lead us on our way. This final event occurs after the name change from Abram to Abraham, and involves the son who came in fulfillment of the event that inspired the name change - God's promise to Abram. We begin by placing ourselves, as much as possible, in the period and home of Abram. Some of the following narrative involves speculation on my part; feel free to disagree with my characterization.Abram was a wealthy man. His wife, Sarai, was very beautiful, so Abram was fearful that some man would kill him so they could have Sarai for a wife. Sarai, was barren, so Abram had his first son, Ishmael, by his wife's maid. Abram was the oldest male of Terah's line in Canaan, and was responsible for his nephew, Lot, and Lot's property. Abram did not enjoy conflict, and would avoid it by moving or acquiescing whenever possible. Abram only fought if required by some over-riding responsibility.Abram loved Ishmael. Ishmael was the first sign of Abram's manhood. The fact that Ishmael was not Sarai's son did not bother Abram at all. It surely bothered Sarai, but no formal protest was possible. As mentioned in a previous post, Ishmael's existence was a constant demonstration of Abram's short-coming as a husband.When Abram's son, Isaac, by his wife, Sarai, was born, Abram was thrilled. Ishmael was about 14 years old, likely beginning to assume some adult responsibilities in Abram's household. A much younger brother would not have impacted Ishmael much under ordinary circumstances, but Abram's love for Sarai and his fear of losing her made Abram's family life far from ordinary. Sarai was even more delighted than Abram. Here was proof that she was not cursed by God; she now had given birth, and to a son.When Isaac was weaned, likely when Ishmael was 16 or so, Abram threw a party. Ishmael was teasing his little brother, and this bothered Sarai. Remember that Ishmael's existence was a constant reminder that she had not, at least in the past, been sufficient for Abram. So Sarai demands that Abram get rid of Ishmael. Abram was unwilling to kick out his eldest son and heir, but was convinced to do so by his wife and his God.I know this is a lot of background, but I believe an understanding of Abram's family and environment is important to fully understand the impact on Isaac of Abram's test. You see, the Biblical author focusses on Abram in this test. God commands Abram to offer Isaac as a burnt offering, which Abram prepares to do. Throughout the journey, Isaac recognizes that an important part of the sacrifice is missing. They have wood, fire, the ability to construct an altar, but have brought no animal to actually sacrifice. What a shock it must have been to this lad when his father begins tying him up."Dad, what are you doing?""Well, Isaac, God told me to sacrifice you here on this mountain, and I figure you will struggle when I go to kill you, so I am tying you up to prevent the struggle.""Wait! What!?!""God told me to kill you and burn you, so that is what I am preparing to do."The two questions I have asked myself about this story are: What does Isaac learn about God? and, How does Isaac feel about his father after this? I do not have an answer for either of these questions, but I am certain that this experience, though it proves Abram's faith, had an impact on Isaac. Yes, he did not die as a sacrifice. Yes, he experienced the blessing of God as his property increased. But certainly his experience with God, would be affected by God's request for child sacrifice. What might God ask of Isaac, if he asked Abram for this? On a different note, would there be any sense of deja vu when God favoured Jacob, the second-born, instead of Esau, the elder son?I'm not sure that there is much of a take-away from this thought, but I hope to encourage anyone who reads these posts to reflect on all the characters in the narrative. God deals with the whole world. He deals with nations, cities, and groups. But He also deals with individuals. When we love Him, He promises to make all things work together for our good. This means that, even if we face a situation like Isaac faced, if we love God, He is working that situation for our good.

Abram and Lot

The story of Abram and Lot is a fascinating tale of love and generosity. In a culture where age and familial relationship were paramount, Abram's offer of first choice of land was unprecedented. As the older partner, he had cultural right of first choice. As uncle to Lot - senior relative - he had the right of command. To relinquish this right was an act of incredible generosity.

So, how to begin looking at the relationship between Abram and Lot, to see what might be learned?

It was the age of the Patriarchs. A time when the leadership of the oldest male relative was unchallenged, his rules and decisions unquestioned. A time when families stayed together until they were large enough to be called clans, and clans supported each other until they were tribes and nations. It was a time when a man's value was measured by the scales of knowledge and wisdom (demonstrated in conversation) and possessions (including wives, offspring, and servants/slaves). Visitors were invited in for meals and refreshment, as travel was often difficult and tiring; hospitality was a treasured virtue.

In this age, the story of Abram stands out on several fronts. His character is revealed in details that were well-understood by the original audience of Genesis, but tend to be missed in contemporary Western culture, particularly the self-absorbed, materialistic culture of North America. For example, God promised Abram, "I will make your name great and you will be a blessing." (Gen 12:2b) The first part of the blessing resonates today. Many would love for theirs to be a household name. The judgement and intrusion that come with fame might be inconvenient, but the desire for popularity and recognition is common; we want our 15 minutes of fame. The second part of God's promise is foreign to our way of life, but had great significance in the age of Abram. To be able to do good for others was one of the marks of a successful person, so for Abram to be a blessing to all the world would be a great good indeed.

Perhaps the most startling image in the story of Abram is his relationship with Lot. Abram argues for sparing Sodom, at least in part, to protect his nephew, Lot. Abram and his fighting men chase an army of five kings and their men, and engage them in battle, just so he can rescue Lot. The fact that he rescued the rest of the inhabitants of the area is just happy coincidence; Abram's concern was for Lot.

Perhaps the most remarkable incident in the relationship between Abram and Lot occurs when the two of them become so wealthy in possessions that the land cannot support them together, so they need to separate. As the elder partner, Abram had the right to choose first. By right and custom, he had the right and responsibility to direct Lot in his housing choices. But Abram graciously allowed Lot to choose first.

Lot does not share Abram's generous spirit. Being allowed to choose first, Lot looks over the land, sees which part looks best, and grabs that part for himself. (Gen 13:10-11) We know, from reading further on, that God gives Abram all the land, both the part Lot chose, and the part left for Abram. We know that Lot's decision leads him to leave the nomadic life of a herdsman and settle in Sodom. We know that Lot is only spared the fate of Sodom because of God's favour to Abram. We know, again from reading ahead to the end of the story, that Lot eventually ends up living in a cave with his two daughters, who get him drunk, seduce him, and have sons by him, who become the Moabites and the Ammonites. We know Lot's descendants cause problems for Abram's descendants.

Abram's generosity leads to blessing just as certainly as Lot's selfishness leads to disaster for himself and his descendants. But the point of this writing is that neither Lot nor Abram knew, at the time of Abram's generous decision, what the eventual outcome would be. Neither of them knew that God planned to give both parts of the land, the east where Lot resided and the west where Abram wandered, to Abram and his descendants forever. Abram's decision was made in the expectation that he would have whatever land Lot did not choose, and would face the natural consequences of abiding in that land. If Lot left him with the poorer of the two areas, that Abram would face the struggle of finding pasture and water in an undesirable location.

God blessed Abram for his generosity, but that was not Abram's motive. Abram was not buying a lottery ticket hoping to win. He was not putting a coin in the "magic God" machine, expecting to win material blessing from God. Abram was being generous because he wanted to be a blessing, not because he was looking to be blessed. The question to ask today is, "why is a person generous?" If they are generous so that other people can be blessed, God promises blessing to them. If a person is generous so that they can receive a blessing, no such promise exists.

Abram and Sarai

When I began this blog, I was not going to do Biblical characters like Abram/Abraham. They are well-known, have been studied exhaustively, and by better scholars than I am. Those who know them, or know of them, accept the various accounts as representative of real people, living real lives, in a real environment. So what could I add to this?

The only reason I chose to write about Abram this morning was to look at his relationship with Sarai, his wife. Though Abram is called a great man of faith, and the father of many nations, I have read no one that describes him as a great husband. There are several places in Genesis that reference Abram and Sarai (or Abraham and Sarah after God changes their names) - Genesis 12:10-13; 16:1-6; 18:6-15; 20:2, 12-13; 21:9-10; and 23:2. These accounts form the basis for this post.

In Genesis 12 and 20, there are an account of Abram/Abraham and a foreign ruler with respect to Sarai/Sarah. Some scholars see these as two accounts of the same event, a discussion not relevant to this writing. Whether Abram practices deception on one ruler or two is irrelevant. Abram thought his wife was very beautiful. (So, apparently did others - both Pharaoh of Egypt (12:15) and the king of Gerar (21:2) took Sarai into their harem when they saw her and learned that she was unattached.) Because she was so beautiful, Abram was afraid that foreigners would kill him so they could have her as their own wife or concubine. To save his own skin, he asked Sarai to tell people that she was his sister. Part of his discussion with Sarai is given in 12:11-13. Abram begins by complimenting Sarai on her beauty, and then asks her to deny their relationship in case some foreigner wants her enough to kill for her. Sarai, as was custom at that time, had little choice but to obey. Abram seems to give little thought to the effect on Sarai of this deception; his request is based solely on fear for himself.

Both Abram and Sarai know that Abram is to have numerous descendants. As far back as 11:30, the reader knows that Sarai is barren, which was a great disgrace for women in those days, taken by many righteous as a sign of God's displeasure. Culturally, Abram has options, and Genesis 16:1-6 records Sarai's urging of him to avail himself of one of the more common options- surrogacy. "I can't have children, so let's you and me build a family through the womb of my maid." Abram agrees, has intercourse with the maid (Hagar), who gives birth to a son (Ishmael). In terms of the relationship between Abram and Sarai, this action can only be seen as validation that Sarai is a failure in her role as child bearer. Culturally acceptable or not, this action of Abram can only reinforce her feelings that she is letting Abram down, not fulfilling her part of the marriage relationship. The fact that Hagar now despises Sarai, her mistress, only adds insult to the already-present injury, emphasizing Abram's poor role as husband to this hurting woman.

Genesis 18 adds little to the relationship between Abram and Sarai, but does reveal that God has good planned for Sarai. Genesis 23:2 records Abram's actions on the death of his wife. These actions seem to reveal some depth of feeling for Sarai on the part of Abram. He does not even haggle the price quoted for the cave he wishes to purchase. In the account in chapter 21, Sarai demands that Abram banish Ishmael. Abram's concern, that he will be separated from his son, seems to again ignore his relationship with Sarai. God promises to look after Ishmael and Hagar, so Abram gives them some supplies and sends them away.

In 1 Peter 3:6, Sarai is commended as a wife. While acknowledging the patriarchal bias of both the Genesis and the Peter narrative, and without endorsing the actions taken by any of the human parties in the various dramas, the modern reader must admit this truth. She faithfully and conscientiously fulfills her responsibilities to Abram (and to her son, Isaac also). But Abram, in spite of admirable qualities, like his exemplary faith, is not a good role model for husbands. If you want the Biblical example of a good husband, there is only one - Jesus. Abram thought about himself, Jesus thought about his bride. Abram was willing to sacrifice his wife for his own sake, Jesus sacrificed himself for the sake of his bride. Follow Abram’s example as a man of faith, but do not follow his example as a husband. Follow Christ’s example instead.

God and Terah

Several people groups acknowledge Abraham as their father. He is the father of both the Ishmael, the father of the Arabs, and Isaac, the father of the Jews, but showed favouritism to Isaac, even though Ishmael was his first-born son. 
For the Jewish people, of course, he is the first-named of their patriarchs. God was known to the nation of Israel as "Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Many people know that God called Abram (as he was first called) to go to Canaan, the land that becomes the land of promise, the land "flowing with milk and honey". Most of these people, if they read the story of Abram/Abraham, begin in Genesis 12.  In Acts 7, Stephen reminds the Sanhedrin that God had appeared to Abram in Ur before Terah gathered his people and set out for Canaan. God then appears in Genesis 12, and makes a covenant with Abram, said covenant being dependant on Abram leaving his country, his people, and his father's household.
But if you begin a few verses earlier, there is an interesting little tidbit worthy of some consideration. Genesis 11:27 begins introduces the story of God's call to "leave and go" with the name Terah. Terah has three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and at least one daughter, Sarai. Haran has a son, Lot, who features in the further story of Abram/Abraham, but Haran dies in Ur of the Chaldeans, where he was born. Sometime after this, Terah leaves Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan, but stops at a place called Haran, settles there, and dies. The information from Acts, specifically regarding the location and timing of God's call to Abram, does not appear in Genesis, but may provide an explanation for Terah's departure from Ur to go to Canaan, and it is Terah I would like to consider in this post.
We know little about Terah, beyond the brief biographical sketch in Genesis 11:27-32, and much of the author's words deal with Terah's children. Verse 27 lists Terah's sons, but includes the fact that Terah's son, Haran, had a son named Lot. Verse 31 gives what details we have regarding the departure of Terah from Ur and his arrival and settlement in Haran. Verse 32 gives the standard life-summary for this portion of Genesis - "So-and-so lived so many years and then died.
Why did Terah leave Ur? Some speculate that his departure coincides with the destruction of Ur (c. 1950 BC) There is, I think, an answer closer to the text. Perhaps, (and I recognise that this is also speculation) Abram shared God's call with his father. There are several possible scenarios that make this sharing proper, logical, and consistent with what is known of life and culture at the time. Abram may have been anxious to obey God, and shared this call with his father as an explanation for an otherwise inexplicable course of action - leaving the family and abandoning his duty to his parent and family. Abram may have shared the call in an effort to obtain guidance and wisdom from Terah. The reason for Abram telling Terah about the call from God is less important than the possibility that this sharing provides a reasonable, logical, Biblically-consistent reason for Terah departing Ur with all his people and goods.
If Terah did set out for Canaan in response to God's call to his son, he was either trying to support Abram (a noble gesture), or else he was trying to follow God's call for someone else. If the former speculation is the reason Terah sets off for Canaan, the story provides an illustration of a parent supporting their child in following the call of God. Terah does all he can, which is, I believe, the most common response of parents to the dreams of their child(ren). If the latter, if Terah was trying to follow God's call to Abram, then we have a less-noble parent. Terah may have also wanted to experience the blessing promised to Abram for himself, so he tried to fulfil God's instructions himself. He packed up and left Ur to go to Canaan, so he would be blessed, and be a blessing to all nations.
In either case, Terah supporting Abram or Terah trying to claim the blessing, the short story of Terah illustrates the folly of trying to do for ourselves what only God can do. Terah's support of Abram, though noble in desire, means that Abram does not leave his father's family, at least not until Terah dies. Trying to claim the blessing for himself, if this is the case, fails because God's blessing for one is not intended for another. God calls each person with their own call, and, though we walk together in fellowship, no one can walk the path of another. Each of us is called by God to follow Him ourselves, not through someone else. Nor are we called to live the call of each other. This is, perhaps, particularly difficult for those called as shepherds/pastors. Because they care so deeply for others, they want to help. Helping is good, but only within the limits God sets. Sometimes, we need to let people go, leave us, and walk a separate path.

God and Noah

A few years ago, while teaching Bible in high school, I had a student ask me if Noah might have known Adam. I did a bit of research, basing my work on two assumptions: 1) that the writer of Genesis knew what he was talking about when it comes to ages and numbers, and 2) that there are no missing generations in the genealogical list of Genesis 5. Adam lived 800 years after Seth was born. Seth had Enosh at year 105, Enosh had Kenan at year 195, Kenan had Mahalel at year 265, Mahalel had Jared at year 330, Jared had Enoch at year 492, Enoch had Methuselah at year 557, Methuselah had Lamech at year 744, and Lamech had Noah at year 926. So Adam was not around when Noah was born. He had been dead for 126 years. Seth also was not around; he had been dead for 4 years. This means that, when Noah was born, Adam's grandson Enosh was still alive. Adam was alive, however, when Lamech was born; Noah's father could easily have known and spoken personally with Adam. Lamech was 56 when Adam died.

This interesting tidbit comes to mind when I think of the life of Noah. In the genealogical list of Genesis 5, Noah is a slow starter. Some of the men in the list are approaching 200 years old when they have the named son, but Noah is 500 when he "becomes the father...". By comparison, Mahalel and Enoch are only 65 when they become fathers. Some other things come to mind when I read and think about Noah. I think about how, in some ways, Noah was a very unsuccessful person. He was certainly a disappointment as a preacher. He preached for 100 years (let me know if you would like the logic behind this statement) and had no converts, excepting (perhaps) his three sons. I also think about how gracious God was in being the one to close the door to the ark. Finally, I think about the progressive nature of revelation from God. In chapter 6, two of every kind of animal are to go into the ark with Noah, while in chapter 7, 7 pairs of some animals are to be accommodated. Let's look a bit at the story of Noah, from Genesis 6-9.

At the beginning of Genesis 6, God determines to destroy His creation on the basis of the increase of wickedness among people. Much of this passage is unclear. Who were the sons of God that saw the daughters of men? Who were the Nephilim? But the main point - that wickedness was increasing - is abundantly clear. God had made a perfect creation that was very good, and it had been, and continued to be, spoiled by the wickedness of people. There was one bright spot in the midst of the wickedness, and that spot was Noah.

So God comes to Noah with a mission. "Noah, build a big wooden chest 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high." As a visual reference, the boat was as long as 11/2 football fields, as wide as 1 1/2 basketball courts are long, and higher than a 3-story building. This is a large-scale building project, accomplished, to the best of our knowledge, by manual labour.
The story of Noah is the longest story in Genesis prior to the stories about the Patriarchs (Abram/Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. The bulk of narrative space is given to God's instructions and Noah's obedience. God's instructions come in several stages. First, God tells Noah to build the Ark, giving instructions about both design and materials. Noah obeys. Then God tells Noah to start loading the ark, but adds details to the initial loading instructions, specifically telling Noah to include 7 pairs of clean animals. The initial instruction was for a single pair of each land- or air-based, air-breathing creature. This does not seem to be a change in instruction or direction, but a necessary clarification from the original simplistic directive. Noah did not need to know, while constructing the chest, that some animals would be represented by a single pair, while others would be represented by seven pairs. When the time for loading came, this detail became significant, so that is when God revealed it.
The third instruction from God comes after the Flood has receded. "Time to leave" is the basic instruction. Again, Noah is obedient to the word of God. God's final instruction to Noah and his sons echoes God's "be fruitful" instruction to Adam and Eve. Again, Noah is obedient to God's word.
Noah was not a perfect man, though God considers him to be a righteous one. He plants grapes, makes wine, and gets so drunk he falls naked onto his bed. He curses his grandson (or his son, depending on which argument you think is stronger) for his son's disrespectful conduct. But one thing about Noah, perhaps the character trait that earns him the "righteous" label from God, is that he was obedient to the commands of God. Build an ark? Check. Get food, animals and people into the ark? Check. Leave the ark? Check. Replenish the earth? Check. Whatever God needed Noah to do, Noah's answer was always, "Yes". May this be true of God's people today.

God and Cain

The story of Cain, in the book of Genesis, is a story with which many Christians, and not a few others, are familiar. It is, after all, the Biblical story of the first murder. According to some scholars, the line of Cain is the line from which evil is propagated into the world. Cain, the world's first murderer and the one whose descendants bring all other evil into the world, must be an evil person. Evil people have no relationship with God, so there must be no point in looking at Cain and God for ideas about relationship, right? I disagree. I believe there is great value in looking at the relationship between Cain and God. 

That there is a relationship is beyond doubt. When God pronounces sentence on Cain for the murder of Abel, Cain's complaint is that he will be hidden from the presence of God. God and Cain have several conversations. Cain makes an offering to God. All of these are evidence of relationship between God and Cain.
As I read the story in Genesis 4, I notice that Cain and God are the focus of the writer's attention. Abel is present as a bit player, background scenery against which the story of Cain plays out. I notice the similarities between the two offerings; Cain brings some of what he has produced and Abel brings some of what he has produced. In Cain's case, as a farmer, he brought some of his produce. Abel brought fat from some of his lambs, as he was a shepherd. I notice God's care for Cain, warning him about choices and consequences. God also looks after Cain when delivering His judgement, marking him in some fashion so that strangers who see Cain wandering will not kill him.
I also notice some details that are absent from the story. Nowhere does the author indicate the manner in which God indicates favour of one offering over the other. Nowhere do we read of Adam and/or Eve teaching the boys about God and sacrifice. The author makes it quite clear that God does favour Abel's offering over Cain's, but no reason is given for this favouritism. We also are not told why Cain was angry with Abel as a result of God's choice.
What we do have in the story is sufficient to reveal something of the nature of God and His desire for relationship with all people. One of the first things to notice is that our actions affect our relationship with God. God "looked with favor on Abel and his offering..." (Gen 4:4b NIV, emphasis mine) God was pleased with Abel because of his offering. The only way for Abel to bring fat from a lamb was to kill the lamb. He was not killing the animal for food, because the diet God gave Adam and Eve involved no meat. Meat was not included in the human diet until Noah. Abel killed the lamb just so he could bring fat to God. Cain's offering, on the other hand, involved no such death. Somehow, this action on Abel's part was pleasing to God.
Another item of note in this story is that our choices and actions affect other people. In the case of Abel, Cain's choice to harbour anger and commit murder affected him immediately, directly, and permanently. As John Donne said in his famous poem, "No man is an island." What we do affects others, sometimes limiting their choices. Abel did not choose to be murdered (though he may have been foolish in choosing to go to a lonely place with his angry brother), but his death removed the ability to make any other choices. What each of us can choose is our response to the actions of others.
God also made a choice. He chose Abel's offering over Cain's. Later on, God will clearly delineate what constitutes and acceptable sacrifice or offering, and under what circumstances these offerings or sacrifices are to be made. At this point in redemptive revelation, no such prescription has been made. It might be possible to read forward from God's fabrication of clothing for Adam and Eve out of animal skins and deduce that an offering to God requires the death of animals, but this is quite a leap. God's actions were the based on the need to deal with the effects of sin. Cain does not seem to be making a sacrifice to atone for specific or general sins; he is making an offering (possibly of thanks for a good harvest, though this is speculation). 
God's choice of Abel's offering and rejection of Cain's required a choice of responses from Cain. Cain chose anger. He chose not to learn from God's response. He also chose to express that anger against his brother. Each of these choices moves Cain further along the path of sin, from emotion to plan to active sin. And this sin, as with the sin of Adam and Eve, requires a response on the part of God. In the case of Adam and Eve, God's response was both punitive and redemptive. It was punitive in that it removed Adam and Eve from the delights of the Garden, required toil for sustenance, added pain and death to their existence. It was redemptive in that it provided an escape from an eternity of this punishment; they were allowed to die so they could live again without sin in a future existence. God's response to Cain is likewise both punitive and redemptive. God drives Cain from his stable existence, making him a wanderer instead of a farmer. God's response to Cain is redemptive in that God provides protection, in the form of a mark, from the actions of others while Cain wanders.
So what can a person learn today from the story of Cain and God? God makes choices with which we must live. He is God, and these choices are His divine prerogative. It is not our place to judge the choices God makes. It is our place to choose our response to those choices. If we believe that God is good, that He loves us, and that He has our best in mind, it is simple to choose a faithful response of gratitude. If we hold other beliefs, or perhaps even doubts that God is good, or that He loves each person specifically, the choice of a faithful response is more difficult. How do you respond when things you do not like happen to you? Your choice likely indicates the level of your faith in God, and perhaps reveals some hidden beliefs that may or may not be accurate.

Adam and Eve

I've been working my way, slowly, through some of the stories in the First Testament, and wanted to think with you today about Adam and Eve. The Bible gives two separate accounts of creation, one in Genesis 1, and the other beginning in Genesis 2:4. The first account emphasises the supremacy of God in creation. Even the word used for God in this section emphasises His transcendence. The second account of creation seems to emphasise the relational aspect of God's nature. The word for God used in this section (Yahweh in English characters) is the same word used for God in His relationship with Israel in later portions of the First Testament.

Most scholarly work done on these two chapters attempts to deal with textual problems or rational issues. Were the six days of creation 24 hour days, or should the word translated "day" actually be rendered "era" or "age"? Was creation from nothing, or did God bring order out of chaos? Should this account be taken literally, or is this a mythical composition for the nation of Israel to explain the supremacy of their God?

Most pastoral work in this part of Genesis focuses on the goodness of creation and the horribleness of original sin. Some sermons emphasise the dominion of males over females on the basis of creation order. Some focus on the importance of useful labour and bemoan the advent of toil and tribulation. Little pastoral effort in Genesis focuses on the relationship between God and humans, save for the emphasis on our current deplorable state and the necessity for a remedy.

As I read Genesis 1-3, what stands out to me is the obvious relationship between God and humans. Relationship is evident, as mentioned above, even in the word used for God. Former generations of scholars noted this divergence, and used it as proof that Genesis was not written by one person. Instead, they claim, Genesis is the work of an editor or editors, likely around the time of the Babylonian exile (600-500 BC), compiling the work from four different sources - JEDP. I see the change in terms as an indication of change in focus. Genesis 1 reveals the power, glory, and majesty of God. He speaks, and things happen. God's word is sufficient to bring light from darkness, to bring order from chaos, and to bring a world out of nothing. Even in this account, however, humans are separate. God forms man from the dust, not simply speaking humanity into existence. Chapter 2 picks up on this special relationship and makes it central to the account.

When reading Genesis 2, particularly in a literal or a dynamic translation, one thing that sticks out is the awkwardness of the phrasing. "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, ..." (Gen 2:5 NIV) My wife would say this is the way I speak when I am in my "Academic" mode; you really have to pay attention to follow the ellipses, tangents, and rabbit trails. If you have ever had a conversation with someone who has a Thinks/Creates disposition and ADHD, you might recognise the experience. It is as if the author is constantly interrupting himself with other ideas. What the author seems to be making central is the creation of humans and God's care and provision for them. "When all of these things had not happened, God made a man, planted a garden for the man, and put him in the garden." Everything else that is happening in creation is happening for the benefit of the human that God formed from dust. Man is alone, but God has made all these other creatures, so He brings them to the man to name. No companion is found for Adam, so God does something about it, making Eve. Eve is, of course, the perfect companion for Adam, and we expect them to live happily ever after. The ending of this account (Gen 2:25) has them both naked and unashamed.

It seems to me that the focus of chapter 3 remains on relationships: between God and people; between people and people; between people and land; and between 'the woman's seed" and  "the serpent". If this is correct, then there is likely some profit in considering Genesis 2 and 3 as a unit, at least around the idea of relationship between God and people. We know little about the events that occur between the completion of creation in Genesis 2 and the encounter between Eve/Adam and the serpent recounted in Chapter 3. There is some indication that time passes between the events: God's appearance in "the cool of the evening" causes Adam and Eve to hide, not because they were startled, but because they now know they are naked. If they were startled, their most likely response would have been, "You startled us." There is no indication from the text that God showing up in the evening to talk to Adam and Eve was an unusual occurrence. Those who believe and practise an intimate, personal relationship with God know how precious encounters with him are, how much we long for them, even though our nature is scarred by sin. It would be reasonable to expect this to be at least the same for Adam and Eve, if not more so.

If this understanding of the time frame - that God’s walk in the Garden “in the cool of the evening” was a normal occurrence - is correct, we have a glimpse into the background of the encounter between God on one side, and Adam and Eve on the other. God shows up for His regular meeting with His people, and they are not there. In fact, they are hiding from him.

There is a further indication that God’s arrival was not predicated on the choice made by Adam and Eve. After they choose to disobey God, they have time to recognise their nakedness, decide that something should be done to cover themselves, pick leaves, pick apart some kind of plant for thread fibres, fashion something to use as a needle or an awl, sew the leaves together, and fashion a covering for themselves. This activity took time, time during which God, if he truly be God, was aware of the choice the two had made, and chose to not confront them about their disobedience. God did not need this time to decide what He would do about their actions. Revelation, at the other end of the Bible, informs readers that Jesus is the “Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world”. Prior to commencing his creative acts, God knew that Adam and Eve would choose sin over obedience, and so He formulated a plan to restore humankind to His original plan and path for us. It seems as though God establishes a relationship with people, and acts on the basis of good faith on both parties, until we choose to act in violation of the agreement. Then, he puts his contingency plan(s) into action.

We know the effects of the choice made by Adam and Eve. Sin and death enter the world, relationships are affected for the worse, work becomes toil, the joy of obedience is tempered with pain, and we now long for what we lost. In spite of the changes wrought by the choice of our first ancestors, God’s desire for relationship with people is unchanged. He still walks the garden in the cool of the evening, waiting to meet with us. He still acts in good faith in his dealings with us, until we give him reason to change. And when we give him that reason, he acts justly in dealing with our choices, and redemptively in restoring relationship.

Invitation to Struggle

If you like your Christianity easy, this is probably not the blog for you. If your idea of a difficult challenge is "Starbucks or Blenz", this is not the blog for you. On the other hand, if your idea of the truth is whatever most people believe, or what you heard from your most respected leader, this is likely not for you either.  This blog is written with the questioning Christian in mind. It is written to help the author wrestle with some of the complexities of the stories and people familiar (for the most part) to those who have read the Bible, or who grew up hearing Sunday School stories. Maybe you were raised in a Christian home, but the simple truisms of your younger years are no longer sufficient.
The impetus for this blog came on a Sunday morning, while attending my usual church. It was a typical Sunday morning in church. The greeters were greeting, the ushers were ushering, the worship team was leading the congregation in worship, the prayer team was praying, and the pastor was preaching. Just another normal Sunday morning in Anytown, North America.
The pastor preached one of the best sermons I had heard him preach. So many things he said spoke to me. So much of what he said was bang-on, and God convicted me in some areas of my life, illustrating the need for some changes. One of the Biblical illustrations he used that morning was the story from Acts 16, where Peter has the vision of the sheet coming down from heaven and he is commanded to kill and eat. Peter says,"No", which the pastor used to illustrate our disobedience to God. As he spoke, and without taking any of the good things he said away from him, he commented that Peter should have known it was OK to kill and eat the forbidden animals because of Jesus' comment to the Pharisees regarding hand washing. I paused and thought about the story, and about how little we grasp the struggle faced by Peter. In Acts 16, we read the story of Peter and the vision of the sheet. If you do not remember this story, go ahead and read Acts 16. Peter is hungry, visiting Simon the tanner, goes to the roof to pray while he waits for lunch, and has a vision. In the vision, a sheet is let down from heaven. On the sheet are all kinds of unclean animals, and Peter is told to kill and eat of these animals.
We get to read the end of the story, so we know that the vision came from God, that Peter was being brought to understand that God wanted to include gentiles in the message of the Gospel, and that Peter was to go with the soon-to-arrive gentiles and tell Cornelius about Jesus. What I have not heard or read anywhere is someone dealing with the very real struggle Peter faced. His struggle was not a struggle based on cultural prejudice, though that might have added emotional weight to the conflict. Rather, his struggle was based on the discrepancy between the very clear teaching of Scripture and the command he was being given in this (possibly) hunger-induced dream sequence. The law of Moses, the Torah on which the faith of Israel was based, clearly forbids the eating of unclean animals (the ones on the sheet) under any and all circumstances. The basis for the command is the holiness of God. Violating the command breaks the relationship with God. Even touching these animals was forbidden, carrying the same penalty as eating them would. This sounds like something God takes seriously.
Let's try and put ourselves in Peter's place. Imagine with me for a moment a purely fictitious event. You and your spouse are called as missionaries to a previously-unreached people. While praying and asking God for the key to reaching them with the life-changing message of the love of God through faith in Christ, you have a vision. You dream of a room filled with people from this group. There are young people and old, male and female, with plain features or comely features, a wide variety of people. In your vision, a voice from above instructs you to have conjugal relations with one of these people. Faithful to the Word of God, you (of course), say, "No. I cannot commit adultery." This happens three times and then the vision ends.
Before you read any further, stop and think. How are you feeling after this experience of a vision? How are you feeling about your decision to not commit adultery even though the vision commanded you to? How will you resolve the tension between what God's Word says about adultery and the clear command of God to you regarding reaching this group of people for Christ? Let me change the scenario once more. Instead of the vision coming to you, imagine that it came to someone you know, someone you trust and respect, and who has come to you with this story asking for advice. How will you respond?
I realize that there are many dissimilarities between my fictitious illustration and the truth of Peter's encounter. But the truth of the struggle Peter faced should not be lightly dismissed as we read the story of his vision. In the same way that Peter's struggle was a real struggle faced by a real person in real relationship with God, the people I would like to look at in the entries in this blog were real people (or represent real people, if you hold a slightly different view of the historicity of the Old and New Testaments), living real lives in real places with real opportunities, challenges, strengths, and weaknesses. My prayer is that, as you read these stories again, God will speak fresh truth to your real life as you face your own opportunities and challenges, with your own strengths and weaknesses.