Okay when I get to verse 5, I think what the !@#$ is wrong with you people? But then I remember. Our sinful nature. That terrible thing common to all people. That thing that makes us not live up to our own standards, let alone God's. That thing behind child abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sex trafficking, strip clubs, pornography, prostitution, abortion, murder, rape, kidnapping, neglect, fornication, adultery, divorce, backstabbing, gossip, fraud, envy, and so on. That thing behind making idols out of sports, games, food, clothes, jobs, kids, homes, bank accounts, cars, boats, hobbies, and so on. That horrid thing that, when we realize it, leaves us in a place where we realize we need someone who can solve a problem for us that we cannot solve -- a place where we realize our need for Jesus Christ.
So back to the gathering crowd. I get Lot's pleading with them not to do the wicked thing they were intent on doing. But, especially as a father of daughters, I do not get why in the world he would offer to send out his daughters in place of the men. I could get "touch my daughters and I will hunt down every last one of you and murder you while you sleep" but willingly giving them to the men I do not get. I can only assume based on a limited understanding of the culture, that hospitality was so greatly valued and women so little valued that this made sense. The hospitality thing seems to make sense when Lot says not to harm them "for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
It crossed my mind for a bit that maybe Lot's response would be different if he didn't know his guests were angels. But the text doesn't read that way to me, and I don't see that Lot actually knew they were angels.
If you try to picture the next scene in detail, I think there's something interesting. First, this angels strike the men with blindness -- they don't pussyfoot around here. However, why did the men wear themselves out groping for the door? If you were near the door, I would think you'd find it quickly or give up far before you wore yourself out. That's just my own thinking though -- we have to take the Word at face value here.
I get how Lot must have felt when he told people that the place was going to be destroyed. I feel the same way when I tell people about Jesus and they give me a "that's great, I'm glad it works for you" or scoff, or reject the message in some other way. It's very frustrating. It reminds me of when I was first rescued by Christ -- I asked a good friend "Why didn't you tell me?!" His response -- "Would you have listened?" The answer is a resounding no, I guess I wouldn't have.
I never really paid attention to the destination before -- that Lot requested to go to Zoar instead of to the hills. I could make something of that, but it would probably be reading to much into a simple detail of the account.
Lot's wife turning to salt has got to be one of the oddest miracles in the Bible. I still think confusing the languages is more odd, but this one is right up there. I've had people scoff and use this as an excuse for not believing the Bible is true -- "Really, salt? I don't think so." While I think it's weird, it's not beyond God. I mean, really, he made the whole universe and people to live in it. Aren't those a lot more awesome than a person turning into something?
The whole escape scene contains a great lesson. First you have people who don't believe Lot at all, and they perish. Then you have the people Lot didn't even tell, and they perish. Then you have Lot's wife, who looked back, and she perished. It's the same with Jesus and the coming judgement. You have people who reject the light of Christ, either outright, or by looking back and longing for their past with it's habitual sin they found so enjoyable. They will perish. But what about those who didn't hear the message? Don't worry about them.
"What? What do you mean don't worry about them." Don't worry about them. God's pretty big and can deal with that sort of thing. It's the person, maybe you, who hears a lot about Jesus, gets the message, and still rejects him, that has something deadly serious to worry about.
Okay, back to the account again. "We don't have a man around, so we'll get our father drunk and get pregnant by him." That doesn't sound like very solid thinking, but then again I don't think ahead regarding my actions a lot of the time. I wonder what he thought when they started showing, assuming he didn't remember what happened!
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genesis. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 18
Abraham's visit is quite interesting, probably on a number of levels. But the level that maks me wonder the most is the LORD'S appearance to Abraham as a man. It's not insane -- after all Jesus came to earth, becoming God in the flesh.
I think what's most strange to me is Abraham's calmness about the whole thing. It seems like he looked up and thought "Oh look, it's the LORD and two angels. Let's make them dinner." This is GOD we're talking about, the creator of the universe who breathed out stars and also knows how many hairs are on your head. And here he comes walking up as a man without an indication of this being just a tad bit odd from Abraham. Though we do know Abraham has encountered the LORD before, so maybe it was in a similar form.
Whatever the case here, I am always reminded of Hebrews 13:2 - "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." The writer of Hebrews almost certainly had to be thinking about this when putting pen to paper.
I am also sometimes reminded of that time when Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah in the New Testament, and Peter says they should put up three shelters. I think Peter gets a bad rap for his comment. Is that really so different than giving the LORD and his angels a meal when they show up? I don't know for sure, but I think we should give the poor guy a break on this one.
"Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans." "Want to make Sarah laugh? Tell her God's plans." How often do we doubt God? Yes we acknowledge that his is sovereign. We sing songs about his power. We tell people that God is in control. But do we really believe it?
I love God's question here: "Is anything too hard for the LORD?" Well, that answer is yes. It's probably too hard for God to make a square circle, a married bacheolor, or a burrito so hot that he couldn't lift it. Nonsense questions, all of them. Aside from such mumbo jumbo, no, there is nothing too hard for the LORD. But do we really believe it? And believe that he's for us and not against us? And believe that all things for for those who love him and are called according to his purpose?
Much of the rest of the account shows Abraham asking God the conditions under which he's going to destroy Sodom. He says that if there are ten righteous people found there, he wouldn't destory it. Reading ahead we know that God did destroy the cities because of their wickedness. So it seems that there were not even ten righteous in the city. "No one is righteous, not one." So if Abraham got God down from 10 to 1 -- I still think the city would have been destroyed.
Well then, some may say. Why doesn't God destroy other cities if no one is righteous? The time for wrath and judgment will come, and it's not pretty. I don't get a lot of that symbolism in Revelation, but I get enough of the descriptions to know I don't want to be an unbeliever going through that kinds of chaos. But, I digress. Back to the question. Jesus answered this in Luke 13 -- "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Remember, it's not about our performance, it's about the cross and repentance. The performance comes from the change!
I think what's most strange to me is Abraham's calmness about the whole thing. It seems like he looked up and thought "Oh look, it's the LORD and two angels. Let's make them dinner." This is GOD we're talking about, the creator of the universe who breathed out stars and also knows how many hairs are on your head. And here he comes walking up as a man without an indication of this being just a tad bit odd from Abraham. Though we do know Abraham has encountered the LORD before, so maybe it was in a similar form.
Whatever the case here, I am always reminded of Hebrews 13:2 - "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." The writer of Hebrews almost certainly had to be thinking about this when putting pen to paper.
I am also sometimes reminded of that time when Jesus was talking with Moses and Elijah in the New Testament, and Peter says they should put up three shelters. I think Peter gets a bad rap for his comment. Is that really so different than giving the LORD and his angels a meal when they show up? I don't know for sure, but I think we should give the poor guy a break on this one.
"Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans." "Want to make Sarah laugh? Tell her God's plans." How often do we doubt God? Yes we acknowledge that his is sovereign. We sing songs about his power. We tell people that God is in control. But do we really believe it?
I love God's question here: "Is anything too hard for the LORD?" Well, that answer is yes. It's probably too hard for God to make a square circle, a married bacheolor, or a burrito so hot that he couldn't lift it. Nonsense questions, all of them. Aside from such mumbo jumbo, no, there is nothing too hard for the LORD. But do we really believe it? And believe that he's for us and not against us? And believe that all things for for those who love him and are called according to his purpose?
Much of the rest of the account shows Abraham asking God the conditions under which he's going to destroy Sodom. He says that if there are ten righteous people found there, he wouldn't destory it. Reading ahead we know that God did destroy the cities because of their wickedness. So it seems that there were not even ten righteous in the city. "No one is righteous, not one." So if Abraham got God down from 10 to 1 -- I still think the city would have been destroyed.
Well then, some may say. Why doesn't God destroy other cities if no one is righteous? The time for wrath and judgment will come, and it's not pretty. I don't get a lot of that symbolism in Revelation, but I get enough of the descriptions to know I don't want to be an unbeliever going through that kinds of chaos. But, I digress. Back to the question. Jesus answered this in Luke 13 -- "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Remember, it's not about our performance, it's about the cross and repentance. The performance comes from the change!
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 17
Remember Abram and Sarai's attempt at fulfilling God's promise on their own? It was thirteen years from that time until God started fulfilling his promise HIS way. "Waiting on the LORD" is something good that we all need to learn how to do better -- especially in rush rush instant gratification western culture, where we want everything now now now. God will do things his way in his own time. I wonder how many doubted the promise of God to send a savior, until Jesus showed up on the scene to pay the price for our sins on the cross.
I wonder how many more doubt still the promise of his return where he will judge the world. After all, it's been almost two thousand years. Instead of doubting God, one is wise to remember the words of his servant, who wrote "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) Think on that for a minute -- if you are follower of Christ, why wouldn't you want him to come back? It would be the best news ever! Unless there was someone you loved who didn't believe in him. There, for their sake, you would ask the Lord Jesus to delay just a while longer, wouldn't you? God patiently waited for me to come to repentance, and I'm eternally grateful for it. If you reader are on the fence about Jesus Christ, don't delay! God will wait, but he won't wait forever -- if you feel that push on your heart to turn toward Jesus, do it now -- today is the day of salvation!
Okay, moving on -- verse 3. Abram fell on his face. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do too. I know people who have said "when I get to heaven, I'm going to tell God", thinking they're so much wiser than God that they can give him consuel. I've also heard people say, and have said myself, "when I get to heaven, I'm going to ask God ". Well, there's no arrogance there, but I still don't believe it's going to happen. Think about it, this is the creator of the universe -- a God of all kinds of crazy power and might. Isaiah saw a vision of him and was completely undone. Paul saw a vision of heaven and had no words to describe it. That's how we'll be before this holy and sovereign being that is so far beyond us, no questions asked -- absolutely floored.
Time for a name change -- Abram is now Abraham. I looked up Abraham on Wikipedia, a less than brilliant idea on my part. The biblical text pretty much says Abraham means "father of a multitude of nations" but scholars don't accept this. We're talking about God's Word here, not Pat the Bunny or Hop on Pop -- if the Bible says "A" means "B" then I'll wager that "A" means "B?!
I don't get the whole circumcision thing. I mean I get the idea of having some sign that sets you apart and the whole argument later in the New Testament about it meaning nothing without the proper heart change -- the same way baptism means nothing if you haven't been transformed by Jesus Christ. I just don't get why this particular sign was used. I'm not going to dwell on that too much -- when we start asking "Why did God..." we are headed for trouble. We can make some sane guesses about why God did some things, but the fact is, unless his Word explicitly tells us, we don't know the "why", and that's okay. I don't know why God made stinkbugs, but he did, and I'm okay with not knowing why.
There's something pretty sketchy here -- buying people with money. At this point I'd like to take one of those big old school Bibles and whack everyone in the head who used Bible passages like this to support slavery in America. From what I understand, "slavery" in the time of Christ was more like an employer/employee relationship. I'm not sure about during Abraham's time though -- but really, it doesn't matter. It seems that throughout history God puts up with all kinds of cultural crap (such as polygamy) without giving it the thumbs up. Remember when Jesus' disciples asked about the sin that caused the guy born blind? The two reasons they asked about came from two different beliefs in the culture at the time, and Jesus pretty much ignored both of them and just told it like it is.
It doesn't seem like a good idea to laugh at God. But really, how often do we hear him speak to us and shrug it off or ignore it? Probably a lot more than we want to admit.
I wonder how many more doubt still the promise of his return where he will judge the world. After all, it's been almost two thousand years. Instead of doubting God, one is wise to remember the words of his servant, who wrote "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) Think on that for a minute -- if you are follower of Christ, why wouldn't you want him to come back? It would be the best news ever! Unless there was someone you loved who didn't believe in him. There, for their sake, you would ask the Lord Jesus to delay just a while longer, wouldn't you? God patiently waited for me to come to repentance, and I'm eternally grateful for it. If you reader are on the fence about Jesus Christ, don't delay! God will wait, but he won't wait forever -- if you feel that push on your heart to turn toward Jesus, do it now -- today is the day of salvation!
Okay, moving on -- verse 3. Abram fell on his face. I'm pretty sure that's what I'd do too. I know people who have said "when I get to heaven, I'm going to tell God
Time for a name change -- Abram is now Abraham. I looked up Abraham on Wikipedia, a less than brilliant idea on my part. The biblical text pretty much says Abraham means "father of a multitude of nations" but scholars don't accept this. We're talking about God's Word here, not Pat the Bunny or Hop on Pop -- if the Bible says "A" means "B" then I'll wager that "A" means "B?!
I don't get the whole circumcision thing. I mean I get the idea of having some sign that sets you apart and the whole argument later in the New Testament about it meaning nothing without the proper heart change -- the same way baptism means nothing if you haven't been transformed by Jesus Christ. I just don't get why this particular sign was used. I'm not going to dwell on that too much -- when we start asking "Why did God..." we are headed for trouble. We can make some sane guesses about why God did some things, but the fact is, unless his Word explicitly tells us, we don't know the "why", and that's okay. I don't know why God made stinkbugs, but he did, and I'm okay with not knowing why.
There's something pretty sketchy here -- buying people with money. At this point I'd like to take one of those big old school Bibles and whack everyone in the head who used Bible passages like this to support slavery in America. From what I understand, "slavery" in the time of Christ was more like an employer/employee relationship. I'm not sure about during Abraham's time though -- but really, it doesn't matter. It seems that throughout history God puts up with all kinds of cultural crap (such as polygamy) without giving it the thumbs up. Remember when Jesus' disciples asked about the sin that caused the guy born blind? The two reasons they asked about came from two different beliefs in the culture at the time, and Jesus pretty much ignored both of them and just told it like it is.
It doesn't seem like a good idea to laugh at God. But really, how often do we hear him speak to us and shrug it off or ignore it? Probably a lot more than we want to admit.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 15 And 16
Stop after verse 6. Look at just what happened. God told Abram something that seemed impossible to him, yet Abram believed God. I have heard it said that faith is "believing God despite the evidence and then watching the evidence change." That's exactly what happened with Abraham, isn't it? The initial promise of an heir was given, and Abraham had numerous descendants. Check out Galatians 3:29 which says "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
There's a whole lot of future telling that God does with Abraham next. I never paid a whole lot of attention to it before, but he pretty much tells Abram -- "Your descendants are going to be slaves, then I'm going to judge the nation they're in, bring them out, and give them a bunch of stuff. Then I'm going to have them come back here and wipe out the people that live around here because they're wicked too -- and after 400 years, they're still going to be wicked. But you, you're going to die in peace." That's a whole lot to lay on a guy who's really old wife isn't pregnant yet with a promised heir.
I'm not a geography wizard, but I do recall hearing that not all the land God promised to Abraham's descendants was taken by the Israelites. There's a whole lot of failing to trust God in that I think. think of it this way -- if you're a baseball player and God promised you 3 home runs in the game, and all you do at bat is try to bunt, those home runs probably aren't going to happen. Why should they? You would have obviously not believed God's promises in the first place.
That said, there are some promises God obviously did not allow to be hindered by man's own stubborn and unbelieving heart -- all that stuff leading up to a savior who would take away the sins of the world especially!
On the topic of doubting God's promises, Sarai didn't seem to believe God's promises too well in chapter 16. She's thinking "Well, this child by me thing isn't working...hey Abe, go sleep with my servant." So what was going on in Abraham's head? Was he also not believing God's promises, or was he thinking with his lower brain more than his upper one in this case? Given my sins of the past and my weakness, I could get the whole "Hey my wife told me to go bonk the servant girl, and she had a good reason!" rationalization here. I'm not saying it wasn't sin, just saying I get how he could fall into it pretty easily.
Like how that whole plan backfires? "Hey that girl you slept with doesn't like me now!" "She's yours, deal with it." And then whatever Sarai does makes her run away. Broken relationships and tension lay all over the place here. That's pretty much what happens when we go off and do things our own way instead of God's way -- we break a bunch of stuff.
And what does God to in the middle of the mess? He steps in to get it worked out like a dad steps in between his fighting children to get things right again. He shows grace and mercy in spades here, restoring the relationships that got jacked up.
There's a whole lot of future telling that God does with Abraham next. I never paid a whole lot of attention to it before, but he pretty much tells Abram -- "Your descendants are going to be slaves, then I'm going to judge the nation they're in, bring them out, and give them a bunch of stuff. Then I'm going to have them come back here and wipe out the people that live around here because they're wicked too -- and after 400 years, they're still going to be wicked. But you, you're going to die in peace." That's a whole lot to lay on a guy who's really old wife isn't pregnant yet with a promised heir.
I'm not a geography wizard, but I do recall hearing that not all the land God promised to Abraham's descendants was taken by the Israelites. There's a whole lot of failing to trust God in that I think. think of it this way -- if you're a baseball player and God promised you 3 home runs in the game, and all you do at bat is try to bunt, those home runs probably aren't going to happen. Why should they? You would have obviously not believed God's promises in the first place.
That said, there are some promises God obviously did not allow to be hindered by man's own stubborn and unbelieving heart -- all that stuff leading up to a savior who would take away the sins of the world especially!
On the topic of doubting God's promises, Sarai didn't seem to believe God's promises too well in chapter 16. She's thinking "Well, this child by me thing isn't working...hey Abe, go sleep with my servant." So what was going on in Abraham's head? Was he also not believing God's promises, or was he thinking with his lower brain more than his upper one in this case? Given my sins of the past and my weakness, I could get the whole "Hey my wife told me to go bonk the servant girl, and she had a good reason!" rationalization here. I'm not saying it wasn't sin, just saying I get how he could fall into it pretty easily.
Like how that whole plan backfires? "Hey that girl you slept with doesn't like me now!" "She's yours, deal with it." And then whatever Sarai does makes her run away. Broken relationships and tension lay all over the place here. That's pretty much what happens when we go off and do things our own way instead of God's way -- we break a bunch of stuff.
And what does God to in the middle of the mess? He steps in to get it worked out like a dad steps in between his fighting children to get things right again. He shows grace and mercy in spades here, restoring the relationships that got jacked up.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 12 Through 14
Abram, later Abraham, great man of faith in God. What's the first thing recorded that God said to him? "Go." He didn't even tell Abram where to go, he just said to "a land that I will show you." How often do we want God's plan laid out before us? And how often is that totally not God's way?
Close to my temporary home here we've got the earthly birthplaces of Calvary Chapel and Cornerstone church. You think God showed Chuck Smith or Francis Chan the whole plan up front? Ask them. The answer is a resounding no. Great works of God don't start with some well thought out plan and system to make it happen, but godly men and women following the prompting of Spirit and stepping out in faith. Our command is not "know", but "go."
Next verse. Look at why God says he blesses Abram -- so that he will be a blessing. When we think "there's no harm in enjoying the blessings of God," we're right -- unless. Unless our enjoyment of God's blessings becomes a hindrance, something that comes between us and him. Remember how Jesus said things like "What's greater, the gold on the temple or the temple that makes the gold sacred?" So what's greater? The blessings of God or God who gives them? The more we think the former, the more we hoard and keep for ourselves, building up our own little kingdoms. The more we think the latter, the more we give and share with others, building up God's universal kingdom.
God told Abram that through him all the families of the earth shall be blessed. I just noticed something I never paid attention to before -- the inclusion of the word families. I get that. I am definitely blessed myself through Abram, for through his line came my savior Jesus Christ. But my wife and children are also blessed, through their own faith in Christ, but also through mine -- as much of the crap in my sinful past that beat down my wife and kept the light of God from my kids is gone. Sure I'm a huge work in progress still, but I'm going in the right direction. Likewise, I am also blessed through my wife's own faith and shared purpose, as she encourages me, inspires me, and is used to show me my own sinful failings and directions for improvement. The way I see it when God saves an adult in the family, either the family is going to get fairly screwed up and possibly split apart, or the family as a whole is going to move closer to Christ. Maybe that's not true, but it sure seems like it, especially in light of verses like "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your whole household." The salvation of one person in the family doesn't mean the others are automatically saved, but it sure provides a good opportunity for the others to have the light of Christ and turn to him.
I like how when Abram gets to his promised land, there are people in it. How often do we expect God's plan to be completely free of obstacles? What a great opportunity to exercise more faith in God! What? You raise an eyebrow and that and don't believe it? If that's the case, I know why. It's because you're like me. When I run into this sort of thing, I typically I cry out to God, complain to God, argue with God, counsel God, reason with God, and so on, rather than just trust God.
Do you like how Abram lies? I do. This great hall-of-faither fails to trust that God has his back and comes up with his own plan. I love it. I love it because it encourages me. If Abram had this lack of trust at times, yet is spoken of so well in the Word, it gives me some peace -- as Abram, like Elijah, was a man just like me.
Refer to what I said about about God's blessings and then look at Abram and Lot. These two had a lot of material blessings from God -- they had so much stuff they had to split up. Look at what we can see of Abram and Lot's hearts -- Abram gave up the decision to Lot because he didn't want there to be any trouble, but Lot went in the direction that would give him best land and opportunity for profit for himself.
Let's also be careful when we look to biblical heroes like Abram and use them to justify statements like "God wants me to be rich." Balance the riches God gave to people with Jesus' words "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" There's nothing wrong with riches, unless. And we have a very, very, difficult time seeing that we're in the "unless" side of it.
Remember that Lot's greedy decision brought him closer to the sinful city of Sodom, even though he himself did not engage in the wicked practices of the city. Even so, when the battle came, he was swept away with the rest. Let that be a lesson to us about flirting with sin -- if we try to get so close to it, yet not do it, we're just going to get taken away by it also. So often we try to draw this line in the sand and ask "how close can I get to the line and still be good with God" when the right attitude we should have is found in our hero Joseph, who ran away from sin.
Melchizedek popping into the picture is a bit interesting. There's some speculation about Melchizedek, but a big take away from this I think is that Abram and his family were not the only people worshiping the LORD at this time in history. What we have recorded in the Bible is the path from Adam to Christ; details of other believers frankly are not relevant for telling that story. In the same way, in the New Testament, we have some accounts of the gospel spreading like wildfire through parts of the ancient world -- but those accounts are only a sliver of the big picture of the spread of the gospel. I think that indicates an important question to ask might be "why these particular accounts?"
I love how Abram rejects the king of Sodom's offer to take some of the spoils -- so that there is no way anyone else could say Abram's success was their doing. It reminds me of the story of Gideon, where God helped Gideon to win a battle with so few men that the victory could only come from God. It's the same thing all throughout the Bible -- God using weak and ordinary people to do crazy things that the people could in no way do own their own. It may be a bit cliche by now, but "God doesn't call the equipped, but rather he equips the called" still applies!
Grace and peace friends.
Close to my temporary home here we've got the earthly birthplaces of Calvary Chapel and Cornerstone church. You think God showed Chuck Smith or Francis Chan the whole plan up front? Ask them. The answer is a resounding no. Great works of God don't start with some well thought out plan and system to make it happen, but godly men and women following the prompting of Spirit and stepping out in faith. Our command is not "know", but "go."
Next verse. Look at why God says he blesses Abram -- so that he will be a blessing. When we think "there's no harm in enjoying the blessings of God," we're right -- unless. Unless our enjoyment of God's blessings becomes a hindrance, something that comes between us and him. Remember how Jesus said things like "What's greater, the gold on the temple or the temple that makes the gold sacred?" So what's greater? The blessings of God or God who gives them? The more we think the former, the more we hoard and keep for ourselves, building up our own little kingdoms. The more we think the latter, the more we give and share with others, building up God's universal kingdom.
God told Abram that through him all the families of the earth shall be blessed. I just noticed something I never paid attention to before -- the inclusion of the word families. I get that. I am definitely blessed myself through Abram, for through his line came my savior Jesus Christ. But my wife and children are also blessed, through their own faith in Christ, but also through mine -- as much of the crap in my sinful past that beat down my wife and kept the light of God from my kids is gone. Sure I'm a huge work in progress still, but I'm going in the right direction. Likewise, I am also blessed through my wife's own faith and shared purpose, as she encourages me, inspires me, and is used to show me my own sinful failings and directions for improvement. The way I see it when God saves an adult in the family, either the family is going to get fairly screwed up and possibly split apart, or the family as a whole is going to move closer to Christ. Maybe that's not true, but it sure seems like it, especially in light of verses like "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your whole household." The salvation of one person in the family doesn't mean the others are automatically saved, but it sure provides a good opportunity for the others to have the light of Christ and turn to him.
I like how when Abram gets to his promised land, there are people in it. How often do we expect God's plan to be completely free of obstacles? What a great opportunity to exercise more faith in God! What? You raise an eyebrow and that and don't believe it? If that's the case, I know why. It's because you're like me. When I run into this sort of thing, I typically I cry out to God, complain to God, argue with God, counsel God, reason with God, and so on, rather than just trust God.
Do you like how Abram lies? I do. This great hall-of-faither fails to trust that God has his back and comes up with his own plan. I love it. I love it because it encourages me. If Abram had this lack of trust at times, yet is spoken of so well in the Word, it gives me some peace -- as Abram, like Elijah, was a man just like me.
Refer to what I said about about God's blessings and then look at Abram and Lot. These two had a lot of material blessings from God -- they had so much stuff they had to split up. Look at what we can see of Abram and Lot's hearts -- Abram gave up the decision to Lot because he didn't want there to be any trouble, but Lot went in the direction that would give him best land and opportunity for profit for himself.
Let's also be careful when we look to biblical heroes like Abram and use them to justify statements like "God wants me to be rich." Balance the riches God gave to people with Jesus' words "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" There's nothing wrong with riches, unless. And we have a very, very, difficult time seeing that we're in the "unless" side of it.
Remember that Lot's greedy decision brought him closer to the sinful city of Sodom, even though he himself did not engage in the wicked practices of the city. Even so, when the battle came, he was swept away with the rest. Let that be a lesson to us about flirting with sin -- if we try to get so close to it, yet not do it, we're just going to get taken away by it also. So often we try to draw this line in the sand and ask "how close can I get to the line and still be good with God" when the right attitude we should have is found in our hero Joseph, who ran away from sin.
Melchizedek popping into the picture is a bit interesting. There's some speculation about Melchizedek, but a big take away from this I think is that Abram and his family were not the only people worshiping the LORD at this time in history. What we have recorded in the Bible is the path from Adam to Christ; details of other believers frankly are not relevant for telling that story. In the same way, in the New Testament, we have some accounts of the gospel spreading like wildfire through parts of the ancient world -- but those accounts are only a sliver of the big picture of the spread of the gospel. I think that indicates an important question to ask might be "why these particular accounts?"
I love how Abram rejects the king of Sodom's offer to take some of the spoils -- so that there is no way anyone else could say Abram's success was their doing. It reminds me of the story of Gideon, where God helped Gideon to win a battle with so few men that the victory could only come from God. It's the same thing all throughout the Bible -- God using weak and ordinary people to do crazy things that the people could in no way do own their own. It may be a bit cliche by now, but "God doesn't call the equipped, but rather he equips the called" still applies!
Grace and peace friends.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 10 And 11
That's a lot of sons. Gomer sticks out, but only because of that "Well surprise surprise surprise!" guy. Tarshish sticks out because of where Jonah ran off too. Cush, Egypt, and Canaan stand out because of the same named land areas. Havilah sticks out because of some bars we sold in the Jewish style deli. Nimrod sticks out, but the connotation I am used to doesn't mean "mighty man". :-)
I never really noticed 10:5 before -- "From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations." The part that got me was "each with his own language", and it got me because of the account in chapter 11 where God confused the language and disperses the people. At first it seems to be conflicting and out of place, but that's because I incorrectly expect the Bible to read chronologically as I go through. Much of chapter 10 and 11 are in parallel, talking about the same time period. We have a more general account of the people and division in 10, and then we zoom into God's hand in it and the line leading to Abraham in 11.
I think that's pretty cool that God's sovereignty in dividing the people and the path to Abram are grouped together. That probably means something more significant than I get.
"In his days the earth was divided" (10:25) also sticks out. If you go with the whole Pangaea theory, then this could refer to the time there was some massive continental movement. That's bringing extra stuff back into the text though; really, I just don't know. I don't think we can be sure on what that means, but that's okay.
Since my first reading of it after being pulled in and flipped around by Jesus Christ, the account of the Tower of Babel was, and still is, the weirdest part of the Bible for me. It's surely no coincidence that it is one of the stories my dear brother I turned to with questions mentioned this one off the cuff when I was a baby Christian like it was nothing strange at all. And that's absolutely true -- God working in miraculous ways is not strange or abnormal -- it is the norm of the day, and, really, everything is a miracle. It just strikes me as odd anyway, much more so than pillars of salt or fire, big fish, floating axe heads, talking animals, and so on. It's God's creation; he can operate in and on it however he wants!
I had to look up some commentary for 11:6 because I just didn't get it. But then again I wasn't paying attention to the context (a common, but bad, mistake). The people have just had a taste of the product of pride and ambition, and they liked it -- thus preparing them for all kinds of crazy selfish sin. God in his wisdom and mercy stepped in to save people from themselves, as he so often does -- like in my own life!
And now we're caught up to the father of many!
I never really noticed 10:5 before -- "From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations." The part that got me was "each with his own language", and it got me because of the account in chapter 11 where God confused the language and disperses the people. At first it seems to be conflicting and out of place, but that's because I incorrectly expect the Bible to read chronologically as I go through. Much of chapter 10 and 11 are in parallel, talking about the same time period. We have a more general account of the people and division in 10, and then we zoom into God's hand in it and the line leading to Abraham in 11.
I think that's pretty cool that God's sovereignty in dividing the people and the path to Abram are grouped together. That probably means something more significant than I get.
"In his days the earth was divided" (10:25) also sticks out. If you go with the whole Pangaea theory, then this could refer to the time there was some massive continental movement. That's bringing extra stuff back into the text though; really, I just don't know. I don't think we can be sure on what that means, but that's okay.
Since my first reading of it after being pulled in and flipped around by Jesus Christ, the account of the Tower of Babel was, and still is, the weirdest part of the Bible for me. It's surely no coincidence that it is one of the stories my dear brother I turned to with questions mentioned this one off the cuff when I was a baby Christian like it was nothing strange at all. And that's absolutely true -- God working in miraculous ways is not strange or abnormal -- it is the norm of the day, and, really, everything is a miracle. It just strikes me as odd anyway, much more so than pillars of salt or fire, big fish, floating axe heads, talking animals, and so on. It's God's creation; he can operate in and on it however he wants!
I had to look up some commentary for 11:6 because I just didn't get it. But then again I wasn't paying attention to the context (a common, but bad, mistake). The people have just had a taste of the product of pride and ambition, and they liked it -- thus preparing them for all kinds of crazy selfish sin. God in his wisdom and mercy stepped in to save people from themselves, as he so often does -- like in my own life!
And now we're caught up to the father of many!
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 9
There's that whole "fruitful and multiply" thing again, just like before.
But now we have something new -- there's no happy relationship between man and animal any longer. The fear of man is now in them, which goes along with the other new thing -- man is now permitted to eat the animals, but not their blood. I've heard it put this way -- "why bother with finer commands like 'don't eat the animals' when man is still having trouble with weightier moral concepts like 'don't murder each other'". I don't find direct support for that, but it's an interesting thought.
I think it's interesting that God does not permit the eating of animals with the blood still in them. I take that to mean "don't eat them raw" though I suppose you could still drain the blood out and not cook the meat. I don't know why the command was given. Raw meat really could cause a person some internal trouble, so perhaps there is a dietary motive behind it from a compassionate God who knows that people don't know a thing about bacteria and other really small things yet.
The next part is one of the places people jump to when drumming up support for the death penalty -- "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." One could spin this a couple of ways, but the straightforward reading to me seems that we're talking about justice here -- though it also seems to me that God is more saying how it is going to be rather than issuing a hard command. I.e. "Because you are made in my image, you have this sense of justice inside, and will therefore dole out punishments that fit the crime." I could be off the mark, but it seems reasonable.
God's promise that the earth will not be destroyed by flood makes me at ease about the polar ice caps melting. Not really, that was just a bad joke. :-) It however seems to say something about God when he makes a promise with "all flesh" -- not just man, but every living creature. God does care about his creation.
The whole "Ham saw his dad naked" thing puzzles me. There's a lot of theories, but if I just start with what I read and try to draw solid conclusions from that, I come up a fair bit short. Ham did something he shouldn't have and Noah cursed his kid for it. I started to read some detailed commentary on this, and my head hurt. But I did notice this -- the Bible doesn't say that God cursed anybody here, only that Noah did. Could it be possible that we read too much into the account, and what we have here is a drunk guy waking up and getting ticked off at his kid for doing something stupid or outright sinful? I don't know, but it seems there is an awful lot of speculation around these parts in scripture.
Really I think God just puts up with a lot of our silly ideas (including my own) and just lets them be as he works on more important things in our lives. Just flip ahead and look at the way Jesus speaks to various groups, including his own disciples and the religious leaders -- the way they ask some things speaks to "weird" ideas about God, and Jesus just kind of glosses over it and tells it like it is9
But now we have something new -- there's no happy relationship between man and animal any longer. The fear of man is now in them, which goes along with the other new thing -- man is now permitted to eat the animals, but not their blood. I've heard it put this way -- "why bother with finer commands like 'don't eat the animals' when man is still having trouble with weightier moral concepts like 'don't murder each other'". I don't find direct support for that, but it's an interesting thought.
I think it's interesting that God does not permit the eating of animals with the blood still in them. I take that to mean "don't eat them raw" though I suppose you could still drain the blood out and not cook the meat. I don't know why the command was given. Raw meat really could cause a person some internal trouble, so perhaps there is a dietary motive behind it from a compassionate God who knows that people don't know a thing about bacteria and other really small things yet.
The next part is one of the places people jump to when drumming up support for the death penalty -- "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." One could spin this a couple of ways, but the straightforward reading to me seems that we're talking about justice here -- though it also seems to me that God is more saying how it is going to be rather than issuing a hard command. I.e. "Because you are made in my image, you have this sense of justice inside, and will therefore dole out punishments that fit the crime." I could be off the mark, but it seems reasonable.
God's promise that the earth will not be destroyed by flood makes me at ease about the polar ice caps melting. Not really, that was just a bad joke. :-) It however seems to say something about God when he makes a promise with "all flesh" -- not just man, but every living creature. God does care about his creation.
The whole "Ham saw his dad naked" thing puzzles me. There's a lot of theories, but if I just start with what I read and try to draw solid conclusions from that, I come up a fair bit short. Ham did something he shouldn't have and Noah cursed his kid for it. I started to read some detailed commentary on this, and my head hurt. But I did notice this -- the Bible doesn't say that God cursed anybody here, only that Noah did. Could it be possible that we read too much into the account, and what we have here is a drunk guy waking up and getting ticked off at his kid for doing something stupid or outright sinful? I don't know, but it seems there is an awful lot of speculation around these parts in scripture.
Really I think God just puts up with a lot of our silly ideas (including my own) and just lets them be as he works on more important things in our lives. Just flip ahead and look at the way Jesus speaks to various groups, including his own disciples and the religious leaders -- the way they ask some things speaks to "weird" ideas about God, and Jesus just kind of glosses over it and tells it like it is9
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 8
"God remembered Noah" seems to be more of that human language barrier thing going on. Since God made Noah, I'm pretty sure he didn't forget him.
And of course there is some barrier, look at the power of God again. He made a wind to blow on the earth to dry up all this water. "Okay, wind, so what?" No no no. He MADE WIND to blow on the earth that HE MADE -- the earth that sits in a pile of billions of stars in a universe that HE MADE. What's the best we can do? Make a wind to blow out our birthday candles or to clear the room after we eat beans? And the only reason we can do that? God allows it, because he is sovereign and in control. That's crazy, but that's God. We often make him seem smaller than he is, but we could never make him seem bigger than he is.
Did you get the location of the ark? Ready to search for it? Have fun, send me a post card. It's probably best we don't find it. As a friend and brother guesses, a bunch of people would probably start worshiping it.
I'm sure there is some significance to sending out the raven before the dove. I don't know what it is.
I don't know the origins (maybe here!) but I recall the olive branch being a symbol of peace. Is this an indicating that Noah now has peace with God through the symbolic new birth he had? Maybe.
This isn't the first time I've read the phrase "be fruitful and multiply". I've only thought of it as "go, have a bunch of kids and fill up the place". I'm not saying here it means anything more, but it does remind me of a story Jesus told -- this dude gives three servants 10 talents, 5 talents, and 1 talents. The first two multiply their money and are rewarded. The last doesn't do anything worthwhile and is punished. What did Jesus say? "By your fruits you will know them". What are we supposed to do as God's children? Be fruitful and multiply, making more of God's children -- i.e., disciples of all nations.
More offerings to the LORD. It seems from early on, in many other cultures as well, this notion of sacrifice was prevalent. It's like it's wired in us or something!
"The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" -- a very early statement of our big problem, our own sinful nature that we're born with. We're not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.
I don't remember ever noticing the last verse before today. I think we gloss over it a lot.
And of course there is some barrier, look at the power of God again. He made a wind to blow on the earth to dry up all this water. "Okay, wind, so what?" No no no. He MADE WIND to blow on the earth that HE MADE -- the earth that sits in a pile of billions of stars in a universe that HE MADE. What's the best we can do? Make a wind to blow out our birthday candles or to clear the room after we eat beans? And the only reason we can do that? God allows it, because he is sovereign and in control. That's crazy, but that's God. We often make him seem smaller than he is, but we could never make him seem bigger than he is.
Did you get the location of the ark? Ready to search for it? Have fun, send me a post card. It's probably best we don't find it. As a friend and brother guesses, a bunch of people would probably start worshiping it.
I'm sure there is some significance to sending out the raven before the dove. I don't know what it is.
I don't know the origins (maybe here!) but I recall the olive branch being a symbol of peace. Is this an indicating that Noah now has peace with God through the symbolic new birth he had? Maybe.
This isn't the first time I've read the phrase "be fruitful and multiply". I've only thought of it as "go, have a bunch of kids and fill up the place". I'm not saying here it means anything more, but it does remind me of a story Jesus told -- this dude gives three servants 10 talents, 5 talents, and 1 talents. The first two multiply their money and are rewarded. The last doesn't do anything worthwhile and is punished. What did Jesus say? "By your fruits you will know them". What are we supposed to do as God's children? Be fruitful and multiply, making more of God's children -- i.e., disciples of all nations.
More offerings to the LORD. It seems from early on, in many other cultures as well, this notion of sacrifice was prevalent. It's like it's wired in us or something!
"The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" -- a very early statement of our big problem, our own sinful nature that we're born with. We're not sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.
I don't remember ever noticing the last verse before today. I think we gloss over it a lot.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 7
I find it interesting to see a distinction between clean and unclean animals already. I wonder if God had already made that distinction to Noah, or if he listed them off by name -- and then when Moses penned Genesis, he substituted "clean and unclean" because he knew what groups they were in. The answer doesn't really matter, but I thought it was curious.
Seven pairs of clean animals is interesting, as seven typically stands for perfection or completeness.
And speaking of numbers, now we have seven days until 40 days/nights of rain, where 40 typically stands for judgment. So, God's perfect judgment?
You know how a lot of people in ancient times (and some today, less legally) had multiple wives? Got sure permits a lot, even though Jesus seemed to make it clear from the beginning the design was one man, one wife (see Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5). Look at Noah's family -- Noah and his wife, 3 sons, and 3 wives. Righteous Noah's family was following the design. In fact, now that I think about it more, those multiple wife situation I read about just seem to cause trouble. Perhaps God's design is better, and in more areas than this one?
Related to the last comment, even the animals were paired up evenly, one male, and one female. :-)
Hey, wait a minute! What about the fish? My kids gave me the "duh" look -- in the water. But then you get people moaning that the salt water fish can't survive in the fresh water and vice versa. Okay, but we're really supposed to know what the world looked like back then in the first place? And if we did, wouldn't there be less salt in the ocean water anyway? And even if they got mixed up, would all the fish die? No. I put salty water in my fresh water fish tank on accident, and I've still got fish in it. Not as many as before I did that, but there were survivors and they were fine!
Think the flood was local? "...all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." That sounds world wide to me. The "Answers in Genesis" folks wrote about more evidence than I care to read about. The main point -- just read what God's Word says and don't try to get too clever with your own twists. Being born again of the Spirit of God first help with that whole illumination thing.
And, the most important thing I think there is to take out of the chapter -- God provides a way for his people to be saved from judgment. Remember in chapter 6 that "Noah walked with God". Noah's family wasn't "good people". Rather, they were "God people".
Now, did Noah get saved because of his own efforts? No, God provided the means. Does that mean Noah could sit on his butt and be lazy? No! He still had to do what God said, or perish. That's not salvation by works, that's evidence of faith. Well then, could Noah boast about the ark project later? No! Who do you think was in his heart and mind, keeping him on task for all those years? Tinkerbell? Or should we look ahead to Philippians 2:13, which says "for it is God who works in you to will and act according to his good purpose." All credit and glory to God!
Think about the alternative here, if Noah was one of those Sunday-only walk-with-Godders. A century passes. "Noah, where's the ark?" "Uh, I don't have one. But I memorized what you told me to do. And then my family did a 5 week study with the neighbors about what it would look like to build the ark. And then I learned how to repeat your instructions in Greek." "Okay Noah, but you, your family, and all those animals aren't going to fit into that big head of yours..."
Seven pairs of clean animals is interesting, as seven typically stands for perfection or completeness.
And speaking of numbers, now we have seven days until 40 days/nights of rain, where 40 typically stands for judgment. So, God's perfect judgment?
You know how a lot of people in ancient times (and some today, less legally) had multiple wives? Got sure permits a lot, even though Jesus seemed to make it clear from the beginning the design was one man, one wife (see Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5). Look at Noah's family -- Noah and his wife, 3 sons, and 3 wives. Righteous Noah's family was following the design. In fact, now that I think about it more, those multiple wife situation I read about just seem to cause trouble. Perhaps God's design is better, and in more areas than this one?
Related to the last comment, even the animals were paired up evenly, one male, and one female. :-)
Hey, wait a minute! What about the fish? My kids gave me the "duh" look -- in the water. But then you get people moaning that the salt water fish can't survive in the fresh water and vice versa. Okay, but we're really supposed to know what the world looked like back then in the first place? And if we did, wouldn't there be less salt in the ocean water anyway? And even if they got mixed up, would all the fish die? No. I put salty water in my fresh water fish tank on accident, and I've still got fish in it. Not as many as before I did that, but there were survivors and they were fine!
Think the flood was local? "...all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered." That sounds world wide to me. The "Answers in Genesis" folks wrote about more evidence than I care to read about. The main point -- just read what God's Word says and don't try to get too clever with your own twists. Being born again of the Spirit of God first help with that whole illumination thing.
And, the most important thing I think there is to take out of the chapter -- God provides a way for his people to be saved from judgment. Remember in chapter 6 that "Noah walked with God". Noah's family wasn't "good people". Rather, they were "God people".
Now, did Noah get saved because of his own efforts? No, God provided the means. Does that mean Noah could sit on his butt and be lazy? No! He still had to do what God said, or perish. That's not salvation by works, that's evidence of faith. Well then, could Noah boast about the ark project later? No! Who do you think was in his heart and mind, keeping him on task for all those years? Tinkerbell? Or should we look ahead to Philippians 2:13, which says "for it is God who works in you to will and act according to his good purpose." All credit and glory to God!
Think about the alternative here, if Noah was one of those Sunday-only walk-with-Godders. A century passes. "Noah, where's the ark?" "Uh, I don't have one. But I memorized what you told me to do. And then my family did a 5 week study with the neighbors about what it would look like to build the ark. And then I learned how to repeat your instructions in Greek." "Okay Noah, but you, your family, and all those animals aren't going to fit into that big head of yours..."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 5 And 6
Genesis 5
I was looking forward to this chapter, only because something hit me when I listened to it (at BibleGateway.com, very cool). There's something about hearing the Word as well as reading it. From what I understand, some of the text in the Bible was written with the intent of being read aloud to an audience.
Read it aloud. What do you keep hearing? "Blah blah blah, and he died." "And he died." "And he died." Over and over again, a bunch of people living for some number of years and then dying now that sin and death have been brought into the world.
But look! "Enoch walked with God" and no "he died". That's weird. And it's repeated. "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." I've heard this taught as a foreshadowing of the rapture. Maybe, maybe not. What I see here is that if you "walk with God", you don't die.
Genesis 6
I really don't get the "sons of God" versus "daughters of man" part. I looked it up. There's a lot of speculation. I had my own theory based on sonship in the Bible dealing with inheritance. So men following God marrying women who did not, Samson style? Maybe that's a stretch. We'll just put it on the "ask God in heaven" list; of course as soon as we take our first breath in the presence of God, we'll not care about that silly list.
When I first read the Bible I thought the 120 years referred to what the post-flood lifespan of man, but after some re-reading (and math) it became clear that it referred to the amount of time until the flood. Imagine, Noah building a huge boat over 120 period when there wasn't any rain. Talk about trusting the LORD among a bunch of ridicule. Noah rocks!
Verse 4 goes on "the list" too.
When you believe God to be omniscient (which I do), verses that say things like "The LORD saw that" and "the LORD was sorry" seem strange, because you think "Huh, you're God! You knew what would happen!" But when we run into things like that, we have to remember that the Bible is God's truth communicated through human authors. Really, if you were given the task of writing down the story of an infinite God as a finite person with an inadequate language, what words would you use?
There's that "walked with God" phrase again with Noah. Yeah he dies later, but he escapes the flood, God's judgment on the world a that time, and a symbol of God's final judgment to come. Walking with God seems to still be a good thing. :-)
What does that "walking with God" phrase bring to your mind anyway? It reminds me of that "footprints" story where Jesus (or does it say the LORD?) carries the dude during the storms of his life. To me it implies a solid relationship and a deep connection with each other. Like the line goes, "no religion, just a relationship".
Bottom line about the ark: it was big, and the animals and their food could fit. I'm sure the "Answers in Genesis" people have some analysis on their website if you're not convinced.
There are no unicorns today because Noah didn't listen to God and ate them on the ark. No. He "did all that God commanded him". How much better is that than what we do? Don't we often do some of what God commands us, but not all of it? Egregious enough and we get whapped in the head with the rolled up newspaper of conviction.
I was looking forward to this chapter, only because something hit me when I listened to it (at BibleGateway.com, very cool). There's something about hearing the Word as well as reading it. From what I understand, some of the text in the Bible was written with the intent of being read aloud to an audience.
Read it aloud. What do you keep hearing? "Blah blah blah, and he died." "And he died." "And he died." Over and over again, a bunch of people living for some number of years and then dying now that sin and death have been brought into the world.
But look! "Enoch walked with God" and no "he died". That's weird. And it's repeated. "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." I've heard this taught as a foreshadowing of the rapture. Maybe, maybe not. What I see here is that if you "walk with God", you don't die.
Genesis 6
I really don't get the "sons of God" versus "daughters of man" part. I looked it up. There's a lot of speculation. I had my own theory based on sonship in the Bible dealing with inheritance. So men following God marrying women who did not, Samson style? Maybe that's a stretch. We'll just put it on the "ask God in heaven" list; of course as soon as we take our first breath in the presence of God, we'll not care about that silly list.
When I first read the Bible I thought the 120 years referred to what the post-flood lifespan of man, but after some re-reading (and math) it became clear that it referred to the amount of time until the flood. Imagine, Noah building a huge boat over 120 period when there wasn't any rain. Talk about trusting the LORD among a bunch of ridicule. Noah rocks!
Verse 4 goes on "the list" too.
When you believe God to be omniscient (which I do), verses that say things like "The LORD saw that" and "the LORD was sorry" seem strange, because you think "Huh, you're God! You knew what would happen!" But when we run into things like that, we have to remember that the Bible is God's truth communicated through human authors. Really, if you were given the task of writing down the story of an infinite God as a finite person with an inadequate language, what words would you use?
There's that "walked with God" phrase again with Noah. Yeah he dies later, but he escapes the flood, God's judgment on the world a that time, and a symbol of God's final judgment to come. Walking with God seems to still be a good thing. :-)
What does that "walking with God" phrase bring to your mind anyway? It reminds me of that "footprints" story where Jesus (or does it say the LORD?) carries the dude during the storms of his life. To me it implies a solid relationship and a deep connection with each other. Like the line goes, "no religion, just a relationship".
Bottom line about the ark: it was big, and the animals and their food could fit. I'm sure the "Answers in Genesis" people have some analysis on their website if you're not convinced.
There are no unicorns today because Noah didn't listen to God and ate them on the ark. No. He "did all that God commanded him". How much better is that than what we do? Don't we often do some of what God commands us, but not all of it? Egregious enough and we get whapped in the head with the rolled up newspaper of conviction.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 4
I like how Eve still gives the LORD praise for her son even after that whole garden incident.
It doesn't seem totally clear why the LORD didn't like Cain's offering but liked Abel's based on the text I read. It's almost certainly a heart issue, which is all over the Bible. The way my kids and I talk about is that "God wants your best". No leftover crap. I have to be really careful about that in my own life and put God first, not on the back burner. I'm sure I screw that up a lot more than I think.
See how God warned Cain first? He does that so often with us before we stubbornly choose to sin anyway. Then we get convicted and cry out to God. We don't even need an "I told you so. Listen next time, smart guy." We have to be vigilant. Sin just wants to devour us whole, and once it gets its claws into us, it's trouble.
The answer to Cain's question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" is "Yes, you are." Romans 14:21 says "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." Paul was very willing to deny himself freedoms he had for the sake of his brothers.
Trinity pointed this one out to me. She's a smart cookie. God showed mercy to Cain by putting a mark on him instead of outright killing him or allowing others to kill him. I never thought about that before. I need to stop more often and think about what certain actions show about the character of God. He certainly is merciful and gracious, both of which are shown in spades through Jesus Christ!
But notice what happened with Cain. He "went away from the presence of the LORD." That's exactly what sin does, separates us from God, and that's a terrible thing.
This is a fun one people ask sometimes: "So where did Cain's wife come from?" Well it seems pretty obvious that if you start with two people, you have some brother/sister relationships going on, or God started by creating more than two people. I don't really see the second one in anything I've read, so we'll assume the first.
The end is cool, I forgot about it -- "at that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD." I don't know any more than what those words say, but it definitely reminds me that we have this innate desire to worship and fill our lives with something greater. We all worship and fill up our lives with something -- who or what that something is fairly important. If its not the one true God, it's a false one!
It doesn't seem totally clear why the LORD didn't like Cain's offering but liked Abel's based on the text I read. It's almost certainly a heart issue, which is all over the Bible. The way my kids and I talk about is that "God wants your best". No leftover crap. I have to be really careful about that in my own life and put God first, not on the back burner. I'm sure I screw that up a lot more than I think.
See how God warned Cain first? He does that so often with us before we stubbornly choose to sin anyway. Then we get convicted and cry out to God. We don't even need an "I told you so. Listen next time, smart guy." We have to be vigilant. Sin just wants to devour us whole, and once it gets its claws into us, it's trouble.
The answer to Cain's question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" is "Yes, you are." Romans 14:21 says "It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." Paul was very willing to deny himself freedoms he had for the sake of his brothers.
Trinity pointed this one out to me. She's a smart cookie. God showed mercy to Cain by putting a mark on him instead of outright killing him or allowing others to kill him. I never thought about that before. I need to stop more often and think about what certain actions show about the character of God. He certainly is merciful and gracious, both of which are shown in spades through Jesus Christ!
But notice what happened with Cain. He "went away from the presence of the LORD." That's exactly what sin does, separates us from God, and that's a terrible thing.
This is a fun one people ask sometimes: "So where did Cain's wife come from?" Well it seems pretty obvious that if you start with two people, you have some brother/sister relationships going on, or God started by creating more than two people. I don't really see the second one in anything I've read, so we'll assume the first.
The end is cool, I forgot about it -- "at that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD." I don't know any more than what those words say, but it definitely reminds me that we have this innate desire to worship and fill our lives with something greater. We all worship and fill up our lives with something -- who or what that something is fairly important. If its not the one true God, it's a false one!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 3
Man, look at what the serpent, the evil one, Satan, whatever name you want to use, does here -- he starts by twisting God's words and then calls God a liar. He uses the same old, yet effective, tricks when he tempts Jesus in the desert. He succeeded with the first people, bringing sin and death into the world. He failed with Jesus Christ, the one who conquered sin and death once and for all.
He's also not a complete liar when he calls God one. After all, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they knew good from evil. And they didn't die either, at least not physically, right away. But that's how sin is, isn't it? It doesn't look horrible and nasty most of the time. It looks pleasant and pleasurable. It might even look good or holy -- a shiny facade surrounding death and decay.
I noticed that Eve's eyes were not opened until after they both ate. It's interesting to think of what it would be if that was not the case -- what if Eve's eyes were immediately opened? There would be two possible outcomes as far as I see. The first is that she would knowingly drag Adam down into sin with her, which is quite a common effect of sin, isn't it? To quote a character in a film I wouldn't recommend watching -- "when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change -- the devil changes you." The second is that she would see the terrible thing that she did and try to prevent her husband from following, at all costs. I'm not sure how that second scenario would pan out. Obviously it doesn't matter because that's not what really happened -- it's just an interesting thought.
For this next one, I won't pretend I would have ever noticed this on my own -- but let's say that Adam and Eve's nakedness represents their sin. Becoming aware of it, they try to cover it themselves in making loincloths out of fig leaves. But we can't cover our own sin, can we? Absolutely not. God is the one who does the covering, with animal skins -- meaning blood had to be shed to cover their sin. That's a pretty awesome picture of the redeeming work Jesus did on the cross.
Notice how God says "Where are you?" and "Did you eat what I told you not to?" I hope no one actually reads that and thinks that God didn't really know. I read it and think of it like this -- say my kids ate some cookies from the cookie jar (that we don't have, but let's just say...) and I knew it. It was just before dinner time. There were crumbs on the counter and chocolate on their mouths. "Girls, did you any cookies from the cookie jar?" What, like I'm stupid? I'm just making a point with the question.
It's also kind of interesting they hid when they sinned. That's so like us, and it's even like my dog when she poops on the carpet. She's an idiot like us. "Gee, I know pooping on the carpet is going to bring all kinds of trouble down on me, but, man, I really want to poop on the carpet, so I'm going to do it anyway!" Then she hears me coming and puts herself in timeout in her box! Just don't poop on the dang carpet in the first place! But then, we, I, don't learn very quickly either...
I don't really get the whole cursing the snake thing. Some sort of symbolism over my head? Or maybe snakes were just a lot more awesome back in the day. I think the first is more likely.
But right after that is what appears to be the first promise of the plan to fix the whole mess Adam and Eve just made. An offspring of Eve crushing the serpent's head while the serpent bruises his heel. Well, let's see, crushing one's head pretty much kills them. Bruising one's heel, not so much. And the two go together. Could it be that Jesus defeated Satan completely with his death on the cross -- a fatal blow for the evil one that came at a price?
I think the next part where God talks to Eve gets misread a lot. Maybe I'm wrong, but telling the woman "and your husband shall rule over you" isn't some sort of command that says "hey dudes, you're the boss and your wife has to do what you say." Yeah, that makes for a great marriage. I think it's more God looking into the future and seeing what men are going to do because of their own sinful nature. Now don't get me all wrong here. I'm not saying their aren't different roles for men and women, nor I am saying that men are not to be the spiritual leaders of their own homes. I'm just saying that this doesn't look like a command saying how it must be, but rather a statement of how it's going to be.
I think the next part where God talks to Adam is pretty clear cut. The lesson here is "don't listen to your wife". Just kidding.
I talked about this "to dust you shall return" idea with my kids the other day. Smarties said, "Well you don't turn into dust!" So I asked them what happens when you stick a body in the ground. "It rots" my little one told me. "But there's bones!" I'm glad they're thinking. :-) Leave them long enough and it all gets mixed together. Dust.
There's that "us" part again with God. I guess it wasn't a fluke in the first chapter.
My kids were thinking about the next part too. "What if they ate the tree of life, and what if they ate it first?" they asked. That's cool they're asking questions, especially ones that God addresses in his Word. Now that they've sinned, he doesn't allow for it.
One thing I just noticed is that it seems man wasn't created automatically living forever. If they ate of the tree of life, yeah, but they didn't. And what do we see in revelation when all things are restored and made new? "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." That's so cool. The tree of life, eternal life, at the beginning and end of God's story. The wrong choice made right.
And for those of my LDS friends reading this -- it's such nice tight wrapping up and closure of the whole big story in the Bible that makes me further baffled about why you hold dearly to the Book of Mormon. You have the whole story of God wrapped up from creation to new creation in the Bible. It's done, that's it, nothing more! I say this not meaning to turn you away from reading my posts -- I just want desperately for all junk "around" Jesus to be stripped away so that all that's left is him, because he is all we all need. The same goes for my Catholic and protestant friends as well -- if you've got a bunch of junk you don't need bolted on to Jesus, whatever it is, get rid of it!
He's also not a complete liar when he calls God one. After all, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they knew good from evil. And they didn't die either, at least not physically, right away. But that's how sin is, isn't it? It doesn't look horrible and nasty most of the time. It looks pleasant and pleasurable. It might even look good or holy -- a shiny facade surrounding death and decay.
I noticed that Eve's eyes were not opened until after they both ate. It's interesting to think of what it would be if that was not the case -- what if Eve's eyes were immediately opened? There would be two possible outcomes as far as I see. The first is that she would knowingly drag Adam down into sin with her, which is quite a common effect of sin, isn't it? To quote a character in a film I wouldn't recommend watching -- "when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change -- the devil changes you." The second is that she would see the terrible thing that she did and try to prevent her husband from following, at all costs. I'm not sure how that second scenario would pan out. Obviously it doesn't matter because that's not what really happened -- it's just an interesting thought.
For this next one, I won't pretend I would have ever noticed this on my own -- but let's say that Adam and Eve's nakedness represents their sin. Becoming aware of it, they try to cover it themselves in making loincloths out of fig leaves. But we can't cover our own sin, can we? Absolutely not. God is the one who does the covering, with animal skins -- meaning blood had to be shed to cover their sin. That's a pretty awesome picture of the redeeming work Jesus did on the cross.
Notice how God says "Where are you?" and "Did you eat what I told you not to?" I hope no one actually reads that and thinks that God didn't really know. I read it and think of it like this -- say my kids ate some cookies from the cookie jar (that we don't have, but let's just say...) and I knew it. It was just before dinner time. There were crumbs on the counter and chocolate on their mouths. "Girls, did you any cookies from the cookie jar?" What, like I'm stupid? I'm just making a point with the question.
It's also kind of interesting they hid when they sinned. That's so like us, and it's even like my dog when she poops on the carpet. She's an idiot like us. "Gee, I know pooping on the carpet is going to bring all kinds of trouble down on me, but, man, I really want to poop on the carpet, so I'm going to do it anyway!" Then she hears me coming and puts herself in timeout in her box! Just don't poop on the dang carpet in the first place! But then, we, I, don't learn very quickly either...
I don't really get the whole cursing the snake thing. Some sort of symbolism over my head? Or maybe snakes were just a lot more awesome back in the day. I think the first is more likely.
But right after that is what appears to be the first promise of the plan to fix the whole mess Adam and Eve just made. An offspring of Eve crushing the serpent's head while the serpent bruises his heel. Well, let's see, crushing one's head pretty much kills them. Bruising one's heel, not so much. And the two go together. Could it be that Jesus defeated Satan completely with his death on the cross -- a fatal blow for the evil one that came at a price?
I think the next part where God talks to Eve gets misread a lot. Maybe I'm wrong, but telling the woman "and your husband shall rule over you" isn't some sort of command that says "hey dudes, you're the boss and your wife has to do what you say." Yeah, that makes for a great marriage. I think it's more God looking into the future and seeing what men are going to do because of their own sinful nature. Now don't get me all wrong here. I'm not saying their aren't different roles for men and women, nor I am saying that men are not to be the spiritual leaders of their own homes. I'm just saying that this doesn't look like a command saying how it must be, but rather a statement of how it's going to be.
I think the next part where God talks to Adam is pretty clear cut. The lesson here is "don't listen to your wife". Just kidding.
I talked about this "to dust you shall return" idea with my kids the other day. Smarties said, "Well you don't turn into dust!" So I asked them what happens when you stick a body in the ground. "It rots" my little one told me. "But there's bones!" I'm glad they're thinking. :-) Leave them long enough and it all gets mixed together. Dust.
There's that "us" part again with God. I guess it wasn't a fluke in the first chapter.
My kids were thinking about the next part too. "What if they ate the tree of life, and what if they ate it first?" they asked. That's cool they're asking questions, especially ones that God addresses in his Word. Now that they've sinned, he doesn't allow for it.
One thing I just noticed is that it seems man wasn't created automatically living forever. If they ate of the tree of life, yeah, but they didn't. And what do we see in revelation when all things are restored and made new? "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." That's so cool. The tree of life, eternal life, at the beginning and end of God's story. The wrong choice made right.
And for those of my LDS friends reading this -- it's such nice tight wrapping up and closure of the whole big story in the Bible that makes me further baffled about why you hold dearly to the Book of Mormon. You have the whole story of God wrapped up from creation to new creation in the Bible. It's done, that's it, nothing more! I say this not meaning to turn you away from reading my posts -- I just want desperately for all junk "around" Jesus to be stripped away so that all that's left is him, because he is all we all need. The same goes for my Catholic and protestant friends as well -- if you've got a bunch of junk you don't need bolted on to Jesus, whatever it is, get rid of it!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 2
The first part of the chapter makes it sound like God created the world in six literal days, since he rested on the seventh day and made it holy. There's this whole argument about whether "day" was "24 hours" or "a really long time" and the Hebrew word used means "day" and not "day-age" or something like that. But just think about it -- if each "day" was "a really long time", God did what with the seventh day? Set apart and made holy "a really long time". I don't think so.
I remember when I was a new believer and read through Genesis the first time. I thought it was weird there were "two accounts" of creation. It's not really two accounts though. Genesis 1 (and the first part of 2) goes through all of creation at a high level, while Genesis 2 focuses on creation of mankind on the sixth day. Though if that day was really just 24 hours long, a whole lot of stuff happened on that day to Adam -- getting the rule about the tree, naming the animals, going into a deep sleep, etc.
What's the deal? I've no idea, but scratching my head for a long time trying to figure it out precisely seems to distract from the larger truth of God creating everything!
It's pretty interesting that the Bible specifically mentions the beauty of the trees as well as their usefulness for food. I often discount "pretty" things, especially man-made "pretty" things, but God didn't just make a practical world, he made a beautiful world, and he did it for a reason. Perhaps I shouldn't be quick to ignore that aspect of God.
I wonder how the four rivers mentioned line up with anything we can see today. Really if this world started out with the continents together (Pangaea I think they call it) and there was also this great catastrophic world wide flood, they probably wouldn't line up at all. Yet the names Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis do line up with what I remember from geography/history in school. Interestingly, isn't the that area known also as the (or a) "cradle of civilization" in the secular world as well?
Man had a job from the beginning. God put man in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. But since this was God's perfect world still, I'll bet there was only joy in this work, no toiling and suffering yet.
Notice how many rules God gave man? One. One stinking rule. I bet the fruit on that tree looked really really good. Isn't that how sin is? It looks like a pleasurable thing, and the knowledge in the back of your head that something isn't right just attracts you to it more! I know this to be true from my B.C. days when I reveled in my own wickedness -- with idleness, greed, and lust ruling my mind and heart. I knew it wasn't right, and that made me like it more when I was sin's slave.
"It is not good that man should be alone" is so true. Just having my wife on the bed next to me as I write this is a blessing. I would be very lonely and incomplete without her. Even though Dog could teach man loyalty and Cat could teach man humility, he really needed Woman. :-)
It might seem odd that the chapter talks about leaving father and mother and becoming one, when there were no other people yet. Remember the words were written down a long time after creation actually happened. I think the greater point here is that this was God's original design for marriage. One man and one woman, joined together and faithful to each other -- no divorce. This is emphasized when we learn much later in the Bible that the marriage between husband and wife is supposed to be a picture of Christ's love for his church.
I'm not advocating the whole nudist thing, but it had to be pretty freeing that they were both naked and not ashamed. After all, they were brand new and innocent. On top of that, there were no other naked people to lust after, were there? Just the first husband and the first wife together in paradise. Awesome. Yeah, there seems to be this whole other symbolic layer on top of that also that obtuse guys like me don't get without listening to others. I'll get into that next time.
I remember when I was a new believer and read through Genesis the first time. I thought it was weird there were "two accounts" of creation. It's not really two accounts though. Genesis 1 (and the first part of 2) goes through all of creation at a high level, while Genesis 2 focuses on creation of mankind on the sixth day. Though if that day was really just 24 hours long, a whole lot of stuff happened on that day to Adam -- getting the rule about the tree, naming the animals, going into a deep sleep, etc.
What's the deal? I've no idea, but scratching my head for a long time trying to figure it out precisely seems to distract from the larger truth of God creating everything!
It's pretty interesting that the Bible specifically mentions the beauty of the trees as well as their usefulness for food. I often discount "pretty" things, especially man-made "pretty" things, but God didn't just make a practical world, he made a beautiful world, and he did it for a reason. Perhaps I shouldn't be quick to ignore that aspect of God.
I wonder how the four rivers mentioned line up with anything we can see today. Really if this world started out with the continents together (Pangaea I think they call it) and there was also this great catastrophic world wide flood, they probably wouldn't line up at all. Yet the names Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis do line up with what I remember from geography/history in school. Interestingly, isn't the that area known also as the (or a) "cradle of civilization" in the secular world as well?
Man had a job from the beginning. God put man in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. But since this was God's perfect world still, I'll bet there was only joy in this work, no toiling and suffering yet.
Notice how many rules God gave man? One. One stinking rule. I bet the fruit on that tree looked really really good. Isn't that how sin is? It looks like a pleasurable thing, and the knowledge in the back of your head that something isn't right just attracts you to it more! I know this to be true from my B.C. days when I reveled in my own wickedness -- with idleness, greed, and lust ruling my mind and heart. I knew it wasn't right, and that made me like it more when I was sin's slave.
"It is not good that man should be alone" is so true. Just having my wife on the bed next to me as I write this is a blessing. I would be very lonely and incomplete without her. Even though Dog could teach man loyalty and Cat could teach man humility, he really needed Woman. :-)
It might seem odd that the chapter talks about leaving father and mother and becoming one, when there were no other people yet. Remember the words were written down a long time after creation actually happened. I think the greater point here is that this was God's original design for marriage. One man and one woman, joined together and faithful to each other -- no divorce. This is emphasized when we learn much later in the Bible that the marriage between husband and wife is supposed to be a picture of Christ's love for his church.
I'm not advocating the whole nudist thing, but it had to be pretty freeing that they were both naked and not ashamed. After all, they were brand new and innocent. On top of that, there were no other naked people to lust after, were there? Just the first husband and the first wife together in paradise. Awesome. Yeah, there seems to be this whole other symbolic layer on top of that also that obtuse guys like me don't get without listening to others. I'll get into that next time.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Joe Dude's Bible Thoughts: Genesis 1
I got convicted of something the other day. That happens a lot with me. It's a good thing. Change and growth and all that.
What I got convicted about is not really getting into the Word for myself as I should. I like to listen to a lot of teaching and I like to listen to a lot of preaching, but I haven't been reading or listening to the Bible for myself as I ought. After all, we've been given a book that we can read and understand for ourselves.
It's kind of funny because God used a pastor I like to listen to and watch online to point out to me that it is beneficial to do more than listen to what others have to say. As part of getting into the Word myself more, I thought I'd throw out my thoughts as I read/listen to it, starting with the beginning...
In the beginning there was God, and only God. I don't hear anything in here about stuff or spirits existing before God. The whole explanation about creating the heavens and the formless earth, and then manipulating the earth, make it sound like the account doesn't line up too well with the whole big bang or expanding universe theories, even though such theories do point to a universe with a finite beginning that demands a supernatural beginner to kick it off.
The first day is interesting. You've got the light, day, and the darkness, night, created. And then you have evening and morning, the first day. There's no sun going around the earth yet. Maybe evening and morning refer more to time periods than the earth's rotation. After all we're talking about ancient literature here, not a modern day science book.
The "separate the waters from the waters" action is also interesting. It's like there used to be a whole bunch of water above us somewhere -- either surrounding the earth, possibly providing the source of water for the flood and shielding the planet from nasty stuff, or beyond the edges of what we know as the universe -- as later the sun and moon seem to be put in the expanse between the waters.
God has crazy power we just can't understand. He just says things and and they happen. "Let this appear" and it appears. "Let that do this" and that does this. What can we do? Nothing! Go ahead, try to make a blade of grass. Now make life from non-life. Now make atoms from nothing. Good luck.
The phrase "let us make man in our image" is interesting. Looking very far ahead to the idea of the Trinity, this seems to be the first hint that there's more to the nature of God than meets the eye. Though the LORD is one, you still have Father, Spirit, and Son.
Mankind is a special creation. We're created in God's image, which is very different than all the rest of his creation. God is not a man or a woman, but spirit, and man and woman were both created in his image. That means traits, not physical looks.
Mankind was also put in charge of the rest of creation. That brings to mind the idea of stewardship -- this is God's world, but we are to take care of it. That doesn't mean go insane and elevate nature in general and/or animals to the level of false idols or preach the Gospel of Greenpeace. But we shouldn't wreck the place willy nilly either.
The end of the first chapter is also interesting. Apparently men and animals originally were vegetarians. "I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." That reminds me of a verse in Isaiah that says "the wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox." That sounds a little strange, but then again, it's not my creation, is it?
What I got convicted about is not really getting into the Word for myself as I should. I like to listen to a lot of teaching and I like to listen to a lot of preaching, but I haven't been reading or listening to the Bible for myself as I ought. After all, we've been given a book that we can read and understand for ourselves.
It's kind of funny because God used a pastor I like to listen to and watch online to point out to me that it is beneficial to do more than listen to what others have to say. As part of getting into the Word myself more, I thought I'd throw out my thoughts as I read/listen to it, starting with the beginning...
In the beginning there was God, and only God. I don't hear anything in here about stuff or spirits existing before God. The whole explanation about creating the heavens and the formless earth, and then manipulating the earth, make it sound like the account doesn't line up too well with the whole big bang or expanding universe theories, even though such theories do point to a universe with a finite beginning that demands a supernatural beginner to kick it off.
The first day is interesting. You've got the light, day, and the darkness, night, created. And then you have evening and morning, the first day. There's no sun going around the earth yet. Maybe evening and morning refer more to time periods than the earth's rotation. After all we're talking about ancient literature here, not a modern day science book.
The "separate the waters from the waters" action is also interesting. It's like there used to be a whole bunch of water above us somewhere -- either surrounding the earth, possibly providing the source of water for the flood and shielding the planet from nasty stuff, or beyond the edges of what we know as the universe -- as later the sun and moon seem to be put in the expanse between the waters.
God has crazy power we just can't understand. He just says things and and they happen. "Let this appear" and it appears. "Let that do this" and that does this. What can we do? Nothing! Go ahead, try to make a blade of grass. Now make life from non-life. Now make atoms from nothing. Good luck.
The phrase "let us make man in our image" is interesting. Looking very far ahead to the idea of the Trinity, this seems to be the first hint that there's more to the nature of God than meets the eye. Though the LORD is one, you still have Father, Spirit, and Son.
Mankind is a special creation. We're created in God's image, which is very different than all the rest of his creation. God is not a man or a woman, but spirit, and man and woman were both created in his image. That means traits, not physical looks.
Mankind was also put in charge of the rest of creation. That brings to mind the idea of stewardship -- this is God's world, but we are to take care of it. That doesn't mean go insane and elevate nature in general and/or animals to the level of false idols or preach the Gospel of Greenpeace. But we shouldn't wreck the place willy nilly either.
The end of the first chapter is also interesting. Apparently men and animals originally were vegetarians. "I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." That reminds me of a verse in Isaiah that says "the wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox." That sounds a little strange, but then again, it's not my creation, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)