A blog for participants in the 2008 Old Testament Bible Reading Plan at BCC.
Welcome.
Welcome to everyone participating in the Creation to the Cross Bible Reading Plan in 2008. Each week, there will be a new post for the week's reading. You are invited to share your thoughts about what you've read by adding comments to that post. From time to time there will be posts about the day's reading, and you're invited to comment on those posts also. And each week, there will be a suggested, optional, supplemental reading for Sunday.
If you'd like an Introduction/Outline of Numbers click here.
Family lines and brothers. Separation. Barren wives. The "she's my sister" ploy. There are surely a number of common threads running through the lives of the patriarchs. Here are a few ideas for observation this week. You may want to review some of the earlier sections of Genesis.
Using a concordance, find the occurrences of the words separate, separated, divided, and set apart. (The Hebrew words and Strong's #s are: parad, #6504; and badal, #914.) Is there a theme in their usage?
Note the similarities in the account of Abram and Isaac. Again, do you see a theme or purpose or understanding in the similarities?
What do you think the barrenness of both Sarai and Rebekah signifies? Are there other incidents that demonstrate the same principle?
Once you've completed all the readings for the week, reflect on the entire story of Jacob and Esau. It's very much rooted in the culture of the ancient Near East. What do you make of it? How do you respond to it?
Remember, this is a place where extended discussion "can" take place. But only if you start it.
This has to be one of the most shocking passages in all of Scripture. What do you make of it? I'll have some comments "below the fold", but first, would anyone like to share their thoughts? ... more comments soon.
The narrative of Abraham is interrupted by a story thread of egregious sin and eventual judgment. Isn't this remarkable? Not only are the first truths of God revealed in the narrative of Genesis, but they're revealed through excellent storytelling.
At the same time, there are elements in the events in our reading this week that sound strange to our 21st Century American ears. One way to move through the reading is to make a note of these items, and then reflect on them for a while. Is there a truth hiding in the circumstances? Is there a promise to claim or a warning to heed? What do you learn about God? About humanity? About yourself?
And if it still seems strange, this is the place to talk about it. Add a comment to this post.
Abram is the one called out by God to enter into the most important covenant for the people who would become Israel. Here are a few questions to consider as you read.
1. What was Abram's knowledge of Yahweh at the beginning of his story? What are the implications of this knowledge/relationship and Abram's actions? 2. What is a covenant? (Use a Bible dictionary, such as Vine's.) 3. How would you describe the covenant between God and Abram in your own words? 4. One way to look at the account given in these chapters and the ones from next week's reading, is to view it as a series of obstacles to the fulfillment of the covenant, and how they're overcome. What obstacles do you see? How were they overcome? 5. Do you consider yourself a descendant of Abraham?
Remember, you can comment on the reading (or anything else) here at the blog. What do you want to say?
"And Noah did all that God commanded him – he did indeed." (Gen. 6:22 NET)
Bill Cosby released his first comedy album in 1963, and it contained 3 short skits about Noah. If you've never heard them, or it's been a while, enjoy this video, and then take a look at some thoughts below the video for you to comment on.
Bill Cosby was able to have some fun with the story of Noah, because the biblical account tells us nothing about Noah's experience in building the ark and getting it ready for the flood, beyond one very remarkable statement, "Noah did all that the Lord commanded ..." Why are these skits so funny? (I'll assume you find them so.) Well, naturally one reason is that they say the unexpected. But it's the unexpected that should be expected. Why? Because we're a lot like the Noah Cosby portrays. Even when we're acting righteously and "doing what the Lord commanded."
If you've ever had a rough patch in life, you probably had moments of doubt, uncertainty, weariness, pain, perhaps even momentary rebellion, even if in the large picture, you remained faithful to what God wanted you to be and do. And whenever, in the end, you have kept on, remained loyal, regained your trust and certainty as you pushed past any moments of uncertainty (like Thomas following Jesus to Bethany), then you have done what the Lord commanded.
Cosby gives us a look at a human Noah, someone who accomplished the task, but surely had to deal with all kinds of problems, including the ridicule of his neighbors and the wearying length of his task. Perhaps he knew God so well, that he didn't suffer any moments of uncertainty. That seems unlikely, given all the other stories of people in the Old Testament, like Moses, and David, who did, but we have to allow for the possibility, given the silence on this matter. (We do know that Noah at least made mistakes, as related in his getting drunk from the wine of his vineyard after the flood.) And whether Noah experienced any moments of uncertainty, I know I would have, and so Cosby's skits are terrifically funny to me.
If you haven't listened to the skits yet, go ahead and do so, because I want to finish this post with some comments on how accurate Cosby is to portions of the biblical account. Here we go.
Noah hears God speaking to him. While still doubtful, "Right," he says to God, "Whadda ya want? I've been good." -- Sure enough, Gen. 6:9 says, "Noah was a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries."
"What's an ark?" -- What Noah was to build would be all new to him, although the idea of an ark as a box or container would be known.
"Who is this really? What's goin' on?" -- Is it really God talking to us? How is our life about to change?
Cosby says we should imagine the effect on the average neighbor ... -- And the response too. You're doing what? God told you? Are you kidding? And with that, dismissal.
"two mosquitoes ..." -- Now this is something to think about. God's goal is to effect justice on the unrighteous, and begin anew. Noah's task is to preserve the other living creatures. Does that mean that every animal would have to be on board? A seagull, for instance? The likely answer is that only the creatures that couldn't survive the flood were required. Mosquitoes? What do you think?
"You change one of 'em (the two male hippos)!" -- Fed up, tired, almost done, yet one more task remains. Why does God not usually work this way, just fixing stuff up miraculously so we don't have to do the work? (And notice how this is the temptation that Satan presented to Jesus.) And man, who would want to go back and herd another hippo?
(About God) "... you know all and see all ..." "... who's gonna clean up this mess?" -- The climax of Noah's rant ... 'nuff said.
(Sounds of thunder in the background.) "OK, Lord, me and you" -- "And Noah did all that God commanded him – he did indeed."
Noah is one of the "heroes of the faith" listed in chapter 11 of the letter to the Hebrews. This week, the events of his life are the major portion of our reading. Here are a few questions to consider as you read.
1. Who are the "sons of God" and "daughters of men"? 2. How many animals do you think Noah took on board? 3. How did Noah demonstrate his faith? What can you imagine about his life that isn't described in the account? 4. What "first acts" happen after the flood waters subside? 5. What do you think is the purpose of the genealogies before the account of Noah (Gen. 5), and after (Gen. 10)?
Remember, you can comment on the reading (or anything else) here at the blog. What do you want to say?
A question came up yesterday, during discussion of the story of Cain and Abel: why did God reject Cain's offering? Was God just being arbitrary, and isn't it unfair that just because Cain "worked the soil" that his offering wasn't good enough?
This is a great question, because it provides an opportunity to look at how to determine the answer. The first step is to observe the text carefully. More often than not, questions we have about a passage in the Bible are answered by a very careful reading of the text and its context. Here's the core passage:
Then she [Eve] gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground. At the designated time Cain brought some of the fruit of the ground for an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock – even the fattest of them. And the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering, but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. (Gen. 4:2-5a NET)
Perhaps the chief difficulty in understanding this passage is that it's so brief and spare. But we can make the following observations: Abel was the elder son. Abel was the shepherd, Cain the farmer. Cain's offering was "some of the fruit..." The offering was made at the designated time. Abel's offering was "firstborn and "fattest". And the distinction between the two offerings is made with the connecting word "but".
The word "but" really stands out. Is the writer making a distinction between the two individuals, Cain and Abel? Or is it a distinction between a "produce" offering and a "meat" offering? Or is it a distinction between the quality of the offerings? Or, finally, should the emphasis really be placed on "but"? Unless you can read the original language, it's a good idea to confirm your observations by looking at other translations of the account. One nice feature at the NET Bible site, http://net.bible.org/home.php, is that by clicking on a verse you get to see several translations on a single web page. The set of translations isn't as complete as those at other sites like the Bible Gateway, but will be sufficient for checking on the use of "but". Clicking on verse 4:4, it appears that "but" is the choice in the majority of the translations, but several use "also" as the connector. This isn't conclusive, so it's best to leave open the question of whether there's a contrast between the two offerings, or if this is just a way to say Cain brought an offering and so did Abel. (The translators' notes at the NET Bible tend to confirm that the contrast is between the quality of the gifts, but let's ignore that for the moment.)
However, these translations are all consistent in pointing out that Abel's offering was special -- firstborn and fat, while looking back at the description of Cain's offering there is nothing descriptive about what Cain has offered. In other words, this may have been only what was required at "the designated time." Knowing what we know of God, this is almost sufficient to answer the initial question in this way: "Cain's offering was perfunctory (at best), while Abel's was enthusiastic and "choice."
Certainly the behavior of Cain following rejection of his offering indicates that he had some sort of anger problem. But let's be as cautious as possible in understanding this passage. What else can we do to confirm our likely answer, short of reading what someone else has to say about it? I should point out here, that one of the reasons we may even think that this was an arbitrary choice on God's part, is because we have heard it taught that way.
Returning to our observations, is there anything in the passage that indicates that fruits of the field are inferior to an animal sacrifice? I have two thoughts in answer to that question. First, there is nothing pejorative in the passage that would indicate that. Second, in this sparse account, mention is made that Cain is the farmer, Abel the flock herder. Their offerings, therefore, are appropriate to their trade. This pretty much leaves us with two choices: God acted arbitrarily or Cain's offering was inferior in some way. And as hard a truth as this might be to take, God has every right to accept or reject the offerings as He sees fit.
One way of confirming the tentative conclusion we've reached through observation only, is to consult other portions of the Bible, letting it comment on itself. In Leviticus there are a lot of rules related to sacrifices, and what we can say from those rules is that: 1) sacrifices aren't always acceptable; and 2) grain is one of the sacrifices available under the law. This is confirmation that our two choices are correct: either God has arbitrarily rejected Cain's sacrifice, or it's inferior (and not because it isn't an animal).
At this point, in fact before this point, I would normally be content with my conclusion that Cain's sacrifice was inferior, that his heart wasn't right in making it and that he didn't bring the best fruits of his labor. A quick search for Cain at the NET Bible site, confirms this conclusion. The writer of Hebrews says in verse 11:4 -- "By faith Abel offered God a greater sacrifice than Cain, and through his faith he was commended as righteous, because God commended him for his offerings. And through his faith he still speaks, though he is dead."
It's good to have such clear confirmation of what we've learned through careful observation.
I have one final thought that I offer up for you to consider and respond to. God says to Cain in Genesis 4:6, "Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine?" What does this tell us about the role our offerings to God play in our own life, and in our relationship to Him?
Before too long, if you didn't read the 5x5x5 blog (here) and don't yet know it, you'll learn that I'm a Star Trek fan. Well, fan isn't quite right, but I've watched most of its incarnations, except ST:DSN, and I have an attic full of references to occurrences in the TV show and movies. And as I re-read Genesis 1-5 today, this one popped into my head.
In the movie, Star Trek VI, a Vulcan woman, Lt. Valeris, is serving on the Enterprise, presumably to one day replace Spock. There's a wonderful thread of dialog that runs through several scenes between Spock and Lt. Valeris. It centers on Spock's need to keep the Enterprise from responding to orders so that he can investigate what happened earlier that implicated Kirk and the ship in the killing of the Klingon ambassador, Sarek. (Whew, that's a lot of setup. Bear with me.) The problem is that Vulcans have a rigid adherence to the truth, which creates a dilemna. Valeris is trying to understand how Spock can participate in deception. For example,
UHURA: ... Starfleet is screaming for us to return to port.
SPOCK: Mr. Scott, any progress on repairing our warp drive?
SCOTTY: There's nothing wrong with the bloody -
SPOCK: (coughs hard.)
SCOTTY: (continuing) - could take weeks, sir.
SPOCK: Thank you, Mr. Scott. If we were to return to spacedock, the killers would surely manage to dispose of their incriminating footwear.
LT. VALERIS: A lie?
SPOCK: An error.
This thread of dialog continues through several scenes, then dies out, only to resurface near the end of the movie. Eventually, Spock deduces who was involved in the plot to kill the Klingon ambassador Sarek, and the conspirator on the Enterprise is none other than Lt. Valeris. And here's the dialog I was thinking of in conjunction with Genesis 3.
KIRK: NAMES, Lieutenant....!
UHURA: I can send a message to Starfleet Command.
LT. VALERIS: Unlikely. Enterprise has disobeyed orders and harbors two escaped convicts. All your subspace transmissions will be jammed.
KIRK: NAMES!!
LT. VALERIS: I do not remember.
SPOCK: A lie, Valeris?
LT. VALERIS: A choice. (turns her back to the crew)
This is actually a pretty cool moment in the movie, which makes it memorable. And so it came to mind in thinking about the choice that Eve, and then Adam, made in the garden. What exactly was their choice? In reading today, the answer that came to mind is that they chose disobedience. While that's not particularly profound, the enormity of that choice is remarkable. Their Creator has given them every good thing they have -- a world, responsibility, food, each other, an idyllic place to live -- life itself and His companionship. And all He desired was that they demonstrate the value of all of that (its "worth") by obeying what He commanded. This would have been their act of worship. Paul put it this way in Romans 12:1: "And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him." (NLT)
And they chose to disobey. To "not worship." Before they ever ate that fruit, they had decided that they were gods. That they were what mattered, not God -- "The woman stared at the fruit. It looked beautiful and tasty. She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit." (Gen 3:6 CEV)
When God returns, they're hiding because they now know they're naked. He asks Adam how he knows that he's naked. "Did you eat ...?" "Yes." "Disobedience, Adam?" "A choice."
As you read through this first week, pay special attention to the relationship God establishes with Adam and Eve, and what you learn about Him, about people, and what big principles are established in these chapters.
