Exodus 3

Exodus 3:8

So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.

I honestly never really understood the imagery of a land flowing with milk and honey. Maybe the cultural background for an American is too far separated from the time, but I just don't see someplace with huge abundances of milk and honey to be a good spot to live. Milk would be okay, except for it to be flowing means a huge overabundance of livestock taking up all the nice places to live. And flowing with honey would be fine, except that means having a huge number of bees around, which I hate.

Also, this verse caught my attention because of the description of the land's current inhabitants. Normally, when we hear of the Promised Land, we hear it described as the land of Canaan. Maybe it's because I just finished a Sunday School class on Joshua, but it's passages like this that really show the significance and size of the land they're going to take. Here you're talking about 1 nation (Israel) taking over the land that's held by at least six nations. In the time of city-states and tight clan relationships, one nation isn't normally very big. But when you start listing off the peoples you're going to remove, you get a feeling of how big a place this will be, and also the huge power that you will have to have to defeat them. After all, it's not likely they'll just decide to sell out to you and move elsewhere. So God's setting Moses up with a not-insignificant task here.

Exodus 2

Exodus 2:23

Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died. And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God.

The chronology of this verse interests me. It appears to say that the Israelites did not seem to despair of their enslavement until after the king had died. What happened at this point to make them suddenly cry out? Did the new pharaoh make their work harder? Was this the first king's death since they'd been enslaved, and they were hoping his heir would be kinder to them? Something had to have been different with the new ruler, and I wonder what it was.

Also, why did their cries only now rise to God? Had they not been praying for deliverance before this? Had they forgotten about God altogether, and been subsumed by the Egyptian culture? Or was he just seen as one among the many Gods of the Egyptians, and they finally rotated through asking the rest until they got to him? They appear to remember Joseph, for they later would take his bones with them, but how much of what he did or God's power had been lost to the centuries? These people may have forgotten all about what God had done for Abraham and his descendants, and now they were going to receive new evidence that they were His people.

Exodus 1

Exodus 1:17

But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live.

While the new Pharaoh may not have known about Joseph, it is clear that the people still know about God, either through what Joseph did, or through the contemporary people. I wonder which it was, if not both.

Not to delve too deeply into modern politics, but there is an interesting warning here about what happens when the people remember and honor God, but the leaders do not. In an E&E class I took a couple years ago, it was said that the new Pharaoh was because Egypt had been invaded and conquered, so the line was broken. The new rulers hadn't suffered through the great famine, and certainly held no loyalty to the right-hand man of one of their vanquished leaders a few generations back. Still, there was obviously some reason still for the people to remember God, so the Hebrews of the time must have been doing something right. Given this is before the Law, we don't even know what that something might have been, besides telling the stories of their forefathers. I wish that were all it took today for people to remember and honor God.

Genesis 50

Genesis 50:17

'Thus you shall say to Joseph, "Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong." ' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.

Okay, are these brothers ever going to learn? After all they've been through, now they lie to Joseph (or at least, there's nothing here to indicate that it wasn't a lie). They were separated for about thirteen years before they migrated to Egypt. It's been seventeen years since then, without one bit of apparent resentment or malice. But after all that, the brothers are worried about a thirty-year grudge.

Now, I'm not the most forgiving person. But I have trouble holding a grudge for more than a few months, at least to the point where I want payback. I may not particularly like someone after that, and I generally will try to avoid people who have wronged me, but I'm not very good at keeping out for blood. Maybe the lifespan being longer meant people remembered grudges longer, or maybe the relative sparsity of population, or maybe the culture had something to do with it. But at some point "honesty is the best policy" must become the rule of one's life, or you're going to spend the rest of it waiting and dreading the payback you think is coming.

Genesis 49

Genesis 49:10

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
Until Shiloh comes,
And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."

I don't remember if I ever remembered before that Judah was not the oldest son. I'm sure, as a kid, that I always thought Judah was the line of kings because Judah was the oldest. But at least upon this reading through, I realized that was not the case. So why is Judah named as the leader of the tribes? I think it's because everyone ahead of him failed the test. Reuben had an affair with his father's mistress. Simeon and Levi committed mass murder. So that leaves Judah, even though he was tricked into an affair by his daughter-in-law after failing to give her a husband.

One other issue is brought to mind: what scepter? For centuries, the nation of Israel had no king, and never should have. Their first true leader, Moses, I believe was of the line of Levi. So this prophecy was made based on something that ideally should never have happened. You have to wonder if, had Israel warned his children not to ever appoint a ruler, if the kings would not have been needed, and the world would be much better...

Genesis 48

Genesis 48:19

But his father refused and said, "I know, my son, I know; he also will become a people and he also will be great. However, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations."

Given what Jacob did to Esau, I can't say I'm surprised that he would make a switch like this at the last moment. He tricked his brother out of the firstborn's privileges, so as he is dying he gives that swap to the sons of his favorite child. Rather than have it taken, he freely bestows it, with prophecy to support his reasoning.

However, this is one point where my knowledge of Israel fails me. I don't remember anything occurring that made Ephraim more important than Manasseh. Granted, I don't remember much about either tribe, so it could be that I'm just forgetting things. However, I have to wonder why Ephraim is the greater of the two.

Genesis 47

Genesis 47:9

So Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning"

What a sad statement to make, near the end of one's life. Today, to hear of someone who lived to be 130, and was likely still able to walk on his own, is unheard of. Then think that he lived to 147, and it gets even harder to comprehend.

But to have lived such a long life, and describe your life as unpleasant, seems so terrible. Here the conniver, the deceiver, looks back upon it all and says it wasn't worth it. The man stole his older brother's blessing, his older brother's birthright, was tricked by his uncle into marrying the wrong woman and then the one he wanted (and had a couple extra concubines as well), makes peace with his brother, has over a dozen children, loses his beloved to the last son, and then loses his favorite son only to be reunited again, and he describes his life as "unpleasant." How differently might the book of Genesis read, if Jacob had followed a "better" path, and been more of the role model that we would look up to today?

Genesis 46

Genesis 46:4

I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will close your eyes."

A promise from God, that Jacob was not abandoning his fathers by leaving the land. Nor was God abandoning Jacob because he was leaving the land. God tells him that this is the right course, and maybe by implication that the land is not fit for habitation right now. However, God also promises Jacob that he would return to the land God had promised his fathers, though he doesn't mention how long it would be.

Also, he tells Jacob that Joseph will see him, and presumably vice versa. The last longing of Jacob's heart, to see his long-lost son, will be fulfilled. To borrow a phrase, the last wish of a dying man will be fulfilled.

Great is God's faithfulness.

Genesis 45

Genesis 45:9

Hurry and go up to my father, and say to him, 'Thus says your son Joseph, "God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not delay.

I'm not known for being particularly good with personal matters (and that means "no good at all, and I know it"), but even to me, this seems like a pretty cold greeting. I obviously don't have any kids, but if my sister were to call me tomorrow and say that my Aunt Anna had given her the message "I'm governor of Ohio, please come see me," I'd suddenly be much more worried about the school she chose to attend and its affect on her -- as in, I'd be finding the nearest drug testing center.

In this message, there's no mention of the minor fact that Joseph is alive, or of how he got to Egypt in the first place. He doesn't mention how his dreams of youth had come true, or how he had gone from being a slave to the regent of the land. I realize that the brothers filled in some of the gaps, but eve so, this seems like a very impersonal message. Not the kind of thing you send to your father after 15 years.

Genesis 44

Genesis 44:9

With whomever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's slaves."

A very strong statement, and one I would not have made without major hesitation. After all, they have already had one surprise about the contents of their sacks. After their previous visit, when they were heading home, they found that their sacks contained their payments, each man's money in his own sack.

Now, they're on their way home, and the boss's servant catches up to them and asks why they have taken his cup. While it's true that none of them had stolen it, they didn't steal back their money last time, but it got there anyhow. So now you say that if something once again shows up unexpectedly, that you're willing to accept punishment? Somehow, what pops into my mind is the phrase "Once bitten, twice shy." Unless I'd already checked my sack before he caught up tome, I wouldn't be making that oath.

Genesis 43

Genesis 43:18

Now the men were afraid, because they were brought to Joseph's house; and they said, "It is because of the money that was returned in our sacks the first time that we are being brought in, that he may seek occasion against us and fall upon us, and take us for slaves with our donkeys."

Interesting how their thoughts parallel so closely what they did to Joseph. Do they see this as possibly being some type of revenge by God? They sold their brother to slavery in Egypt, so now they have to go to Egypt and will be taken as slaves there? Honestly, reading this verse, what comes to mind is Threepio from Star Wars moaning "We're doomed..."

Is it possible that Joseph planned all this out, to garner this reaction from them? We know that he knew they were afraid and saw what happened to them before as some sort of payback for what they'd done to their brother. While at first reading it appears that Joseph saw his brothers and found an excuse to eat with them, I wonder if there was a little malice aforethought regarding the details of what happened. We know he didn't speak to them before the meal, so this was their first contact since returning.

So, the question is: were the brothers that pessimistic, or was Joseph that sneaky, or are both true?

Genesis 42

Genesis 42:24

He turned away from them and wept. But when he returned to them and spoke to them, he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes.

Here we see both Joseph's soft and hard sides. He still loves his brothers, and has to withdraw from them to keep from breaking down in tears when they express remorse for what they did to him. However, he then recovers and proceeds to bind Simeon, probably in much the same way he was bound for sale into slavery.

Now, I have to ask the obvious question here: why did Joseph choose Simeon to imprison? I have a theory, but it's not provable.

When Joseph was taken by his brothers and sold into slavery, Reuben was not there; he came later, and was distressed by what had happened. With Reuben absent, Simeon was the oldest brother. That would have made it his responsibility to protect Joseph from the others' evil intent, and he did not do so. Also, being in that position, it's possible that Joseph thought that it was Simeon's idea to sell him; he probably had no idea it was Judah's scheme. I have to wonder, if he'd known it was Judah, if Joseph would have imprisoned him instead.

Genesis 41

Genesis 41:32

Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.

This meaning of the double dream was something I didn't remember from before. It reminds me of something that Dr. Graff used to say about prophecy. He said that all prophecies happen twice; once near the time that they are made, and once later in a more complete fulfillment. Here, instead of a direct prophecy, Pharaoh receives a dream twice to show that it is serious and imminent.

Most people don't believe me, but I occasionally have dreams of my own future. However, I've never had anything close to what I would call prophecy, and certainly never dreamed the same dream of my future twice. Frankly, if I did dream something of this magnitude, I don't know whether I'd react with awe and terror. I only pray that I will never find myself in that position; there are some spiritual gifts that I don't really want.

Genesis 40

Genesis 40:15

For I was in fact kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon."

This verse caught my attention in an unusual way. First, Joseph refers to the "Hebrews." At this time, I'm not aware of the term "Hebrews" having a meaning. In fact, I looked it up; this is the first time the word is ever used in the Bible. At this time, the people who would become known as Hebrews are a small tribe: an old man, his eleven sons, and their wives, living about two weeks distance. Would the cupbearer even know who the Hebrews were? Would anyone in Egypt besides the occasional trader have a reason to know who he was referring to, and where? Also, he he calls it "the land of the Hebrews," when at this point the only land they have is whatever areas are owned by the family. The nation we think of didn't yet exist in a large enough manner to be called a land.

Also, he doesn't refer to himself as a Hebrew; he merely says that's where he was taken from. Is he trying to separate himself from his family? Or is he hiding his lineage for some reason? I would understand why he might not be seen well if the Egyptians looked upon others with disdain, but they're already in jail. I realize later that he would use this detachment to his advantage, but he can't know that now. He claims a homeland, but not a people, and I can't help but wonder if it's because he has truly lost all hope of ever returning home. If so, I can understand at time how he feels. Being lost and alone hurts, and there's only so much you can take.

Genesis 39

Genesis 39:10

As she spoke to Joseph day after day, he did not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her.

This is a verse that impressed itself upon me earlier this year. As a kid, I remember this... incident only happening once. It wasn't until relatively few years ago that I realized that this was an ongoing issue, for who knows how long. Every day she would approach him, and every day he would refuse. I have to wonder if he started finding ways to avoid her, so that she wouldn't be able to try that day.

I used to think that this verse shows a real resiliency in his character, very unlike that of most people today when faced with major temptation. However, now I do wonder whether it was resiliency, or just that he wasn't susceptible in that area. If so, it may be a first among males, but I suppose it's possible. After all, there are certain areas where I have been frequently exposed to temptation, but never had a second thought against refusing; one example would be drinking, or for a more benign example speeding. However, I'd be lying if I said that this is an area I was pure in. If I had the opportunity, and if my musings are correct, I'd probably trade vices with Joseph in a heartbeat.

Genesis 38

Genesis 38:26

Judah recognized them, and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not have relations with her again.

I've always had problems when trying to figure out when one sin is worse than another. I don't buy into the "deadly sins" of Catholic teachings or any such, but I do believe there is some distinction of levels. The Jews understood that some sins required the person's death, while some merely required an animal be sacrificed in their place. While all required one death or another, the scale went from a bird to a cow, and ultimately to a person.

However, this one leaves me scratching my head. Maybe I'm just rusty on Leviticus, but I don't see how prostitution would be less than breaking a marriage promise. Perhaps I don't understand the culture and am missing significance, or perhaps my "moral scale" isn't matching God's on this. However, while I agree that both sinned by their actions (or lack thereof), I would disagree with Judah on his statement.

Genesis 37

Genesis 37:22

Reuben further said to them, "Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him" - that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father.

My pastor has spent the last two weeks preaching on this chapter, so I'm trying to be careful to not mix my thoughts with his. However, this verse stood out to me, probably because of my comments on chapter 34.

Here, we see Reuben the big brother step up. He may have been MIA during Dinah's rape, but now, even though he hates Joseph like all the others, he knows that he cannot be a party to the murder of his own brother. His brothers lied to kill the town that raped their sister, he lies to his brothers to save a life.

Whether Reuben learned from Dinah's rape about protecting family, or if he didn't participate because he would not kill others, there is a telling trait here. As the oldest, he would be Jacob's rightful heir. But that has been given to Joseph, the oldest son of his "junior" wife. If Joseph's gone, Reuben again would likely become the heir. However, even with that temptation, he will not stain his hands with Joseph's blood. God uses him to preserve Joseph's life, and in doing so he will preserve them all.

Genesis 36

Genesis 36:31

Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

Okay, now I'm confused again. According to tradition, Moses wrote Genesis. However, there were no kings over Israel until well after Moses died (a couple centuries, I think). Critics would probably point to this as an example of the Bible being re-written after Moses, or being wrong, or having been written much later than claimed.

I think it's more likely a foretelling. After all, God knows that Israel will eventually have kings. He apparently revealed that to Moses here, a foretelling of the path Israel will take after he is there. If Moses saw this as I do now, he would have known that the people would stray from God, and go the way of the nations they came to conquer. That would have been a very depressing thought to Moses.

Genesis 35

Genesis 35:22

It came about while Israel was dwelling in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine, and Israel heard of it.

Last chapter, I asked the question of where Reuben was when Simeon and Levi took action. Since he was the oldest, one would think he'd be leading the charge. Now it appears that there may have been a reason he stayed out of it.

As I said last chapter, I don't condone what Dinah's brothers did. However, it appears that Reuben may have kept out of it because he had problems in this area himself. I'm not saying the text indicates he raped anyone, but he obviously had sexual struggles, and here he lost that battle. Sleeping with your half-brothers' mother? This family really had some problems, yet God used them all the same. Oh, that he would use me, in spite of my struggles.

Genesis 34

Genesis 34:25

Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unawares, and killed every male.

This chapter is one I have to tread carefully through, given the (justifiably) strong feelings that rape causes in people. I have to say that while I don't condone their actions, I think I can understand why they did all this. This man had the despicable gall to come ask for Dinah to be his wife after he'd already raped her, and the townspeople went along with it. I'd personally be tempted to kill someone who tried that with my sister. At the minimum, I'd pull every resource I had to get him arrested and thrown in jail for the maximum possible sentence.

However, given that reaction, I do have to wonder where Dinah's other ten brothers were. Especially the other four who were her full brothers. For some reason, Simeon and Levi enacted a plan to take revenge, while Reuben (the oldest), Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were nowhere to be found. This is their little sister we're talking about! Why did only two brothers act, while the others dithered?

Genesis 33

Genesis 33:4

Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

I'm not sure I could be as forgiving as Esau. Granted, it's been something like twenty years since they last saw each other, so that may be a mitigating factor that I can't really relate to (especially since I'm only 28). But the last time they did see each other, Jacob had just committed a huge theft from Esau, stealing Isaac's blessing.

Yet in their entire conversation, Esau never once brings up the things that Jacob has done against him. He is so happy to see his brother again that he does not even consider that. Jacob even gives him great flocks as a gift, but Esau tries to turn it down. I hope to one day become as forgiving as Esau is here.

Genesis 32

Genesis 32:32

Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip.

Okay, this I don't understand. Why would the Israelites take up a custom like this? If they'd given a commandment not to eat it, that would be one thing. But why did they take that upon themselves? I'll admit I've never been one for customs without a direct purpose, even if it's just remembering an important event, but why remember a wrestling match with (a servant of) God where you are badly injured?

Also, who is "he?" I've never heard a good answer to that question. Some say it's a pre-incarnate Jesus, though the text seems to suggest that it's God Himself. Exactly how that distinction is made, especially to the Jews, is unclear. But whoever it was, he definitely had power, and came with authority. Changing a name is not something done lightly.

Genesis 31

Genesis 31:24

God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night and said to him, "Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad."

This verse confuses me. First, why did God speak to Laban? There's no evidence that Laban worshiped God, in fact quite the opposite. He was pursuing Jacob partially because Rachel had stolen his idols. However, it appears that Laban understood how powerful God is, for he heeded the dream. However, why did this get his attention?

Also, why not speak to Jacob either good or bad? Does this mean not to speak to Jacob at all? Does it mean to not bless or curse him? It can't mean not to speak, for he goes and does just that, and brings accusations against Jacob in the process. I'd call that speaking bad, personally. So if it doesn't mean to avoid accusations, and it doesn't mean to not speak at all, what does it mean?

Genesis 30

Genesis 30:2

Then Jacob's anger burned against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"

Why does Rachel blame Jacob for her not conceiving? Jacob correctly identifies that he cannot decide whether or not she has children; only God has that ability. She blames him, when in fact he would be even more happy if she did have children.

Today we know about how genetics can factor into conception, but there is much uncertainty if any single attempt will result in a child. In the same way, we have a tendency to blame something that is readily apparent, and preferably not our fault, whenever we don't get our way. Oh, that we would learn to put our faith in God, and ask of him before trying to forge our own path.

Genesis 29

Genesis 29:20

So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.

Having absolutely zero romantic experience, I can't even imagine what Jacob's feeling at this point. I've heard many people describe their relationships this way, but usually those are the ones that end badly.

So, I will ask the question of anyone who happens to read this: is that how being in love really feels? Does time just fall away like this? Somehow, with my ADHD, I have a lot of trouble believing that I could ever feel this way. However, I am happy for Jacob, that he loved so strongly.

Genesis 28

Genesis 28:14

Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

That last phrase caught my attention. How is it that everyone will be blessed by Jacob's line? Is it that everyone will be related to him, somehow or other through the centuries? Is it that since they spread out, there will be one of his line nearby to help all?

I think this may be the first hint of Christianity. Hebrews explains that Christians are grafted into the line of Jacob (the Jews), and there are suggestions that all will hear the Gospel before the end times. Therefore all families will have the chance to be saved, and perhaps someone from every family will accept that salvation. I hope it is more than one per family.

Genesis 27

Genesis 27:13

But his mother said to him, "Your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, get them for me."

This confuses me a bit. From what Rebekah says, it sounds like curses can be transferred to other people, at least under some circumstances. Is this rhetorical, that she will take responsibility with Isaac before he can curse Jacob? Or is it literal, in that the curse will be upon her, not him? Or would it be shared by both?

Whichever it is, I think this is the first time that we find reference to someone else offering to take another person's punishment. The first example of sacrificial love, though very poorly displayed. It becomes the first display of what Jesus would perfect centuries later.

Genesis 26

Genesis 26:7

When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful."

Ah, the perspective of hindsight. One of those passages where you want to shout at the text and tell Isaac how stupid he is.

Apparently, one thing Abraham was not good at was warning his son about repeating his own mistakes. Abraham did this twice, and both times it turned out badly. Either Abraham never happened to mention those, or else he didn't do so with enough force to get through to Isaac that it had been a bad idea.

Also, it may show a lack of faith in God on Isaac's part. God had specifically told him to stay in the area, and that he would have many descendants. Either he was concerned that God would not spare him since he already had children, or he didn't trust God's word to be fulfilled.

Genesis 25

Genesis 25:16

These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names, by their villages, and by their camps; twelve princes according to their tribes.

God's promise to Ishmael to raise him up into a great nation happens sooner than Abraham's does. For Abraham, there was an extra generation before the twelve tribes of Israel come about.

Why is Ishmael made many sooner than Isaac? To get it over with? To show that it can happen for Isaac's descendants? Or is it a consolation for Ishmael, after having been driven away from his family as a child? It may not matter, but it may also give us a glimpse into the plans of God.

Geensis 24

Genesis 24:50

Then Laban and Bethuel replied, "The matter comes from the Lord; so we cannot speak to you bad or good.

They were asked to give their daughter/sister up to a man they didn't even know, who could have been lying through his teeth about who he was and where he came from, and how he'd asked for a sign. But when they are told that God caused this to happen, they don't even blink. They immediately accept it, and give her over.

Today, we're often taught to be skeptical when someone says they've received "a sign from God." Partly, that's because God doesn't appear to operate this way since the coming of the Holy Spirit. But also, Christianity is so well known that it can be faked easily, and con artists abound. It can be hard to determine who's being truthful and who's not, so we tend towards skepticism. Would that our belief in God were so pure that we would know, and not doubt.

Genesis 23

Genesis 23:13

He spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying, "If you will only please listen to me; I will give the price of the field, accept it from me that I may bury my dead there."

Abraham does what many would not. He is considered great among these people, a prince, yet has not bought any place where he can bury those from his group who die. He is offered the field as a gift, but insists that he will pay for it properly.

Today, when offered a gift like this, most of us will refuse only long enough so that honor is satisfied, then quietly accept. Abraham wouldn't do that, even when encouraged to. He insists on not being given special treatment, and doing what any outlander would have to do. He pays for what he is given, and I take this as an example that we should also do everything possible to act fairly in our business and personal dealings.

Genesis 22

Genesis 22:12

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

OK, this is one of those statements from God that gets some people very confused. Here you're dealing with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-everything God, but He said "now I know"? What does that mean? That He didn't know before? But that would mean He's not all-knowing, but He has to be, so He had to have known, but He didn't...

Yes, this is one of those things that can make your head hurt. One of my former teachers deals with this much like when Abraham bargains with God about saving Sodom. God knows he's going to "change his mind" and go lower, but Abraham has a lesson to learn in the bargaining. Here it's almost the opposite; Abraham doesn't try to bargain, and therefore learns from the experience. Also, this is proof that he has changed, and now trusts God completely to provide. In the previous chapter we saw the start of that change, and here is the completion of it.

Genesis 21

Genesis 21:12

But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named."

In today's modern Christian circles, this would probably shock a lot of readers. Here God is, telling Abraham to kick out his own son and the boy's mother, just because his wife wants him to. What kind of compassionate God would tell a father to abandon his own child? Yeah, he promises to make Ishmael a nation as well, but to make a father never see his teenage son again?

To me, this does make some sense, however much I dislike the practice. Isaac was the chosen of God to be His people. Ishmael was never really supposed to exist under God's plan. He was only conceived because Sarah and Abraham lost faith in God. If he'd stayed, he probably would have been entitled to half of Abraham's estate, which would have drastically changed the future of what became the Jewish people. With God's blessing to Sarah's decision, Abraham can let his son go with a clear conscience. I believe that Isaac's birth is the turning point for Abraham's faith. We know that he is willing to trust God now.

Genesis 20

Genesis 20:12

Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;

OK, here we finally get the truth. This is the second time that Abraham plays this ruse regarding Sarah, and now we know why he chose this. He was afraid to tell the truth, so he only kinda told the truth. They're really half-siblings, so it's not like he's lying. He's just neglecting to mention another, closer relationship.

How often do we make excuses like this? I know I do it far more often than I'd like, and half the time I don't even realize I'm doing it until after I've done it. I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to disappoint people, but sometimes that means not being entirely truthful. It's one of those things I really hate about myself, and I ask God frequently for help in fixing this problem. Would that God would smack me as hard on the head as he did Abimelech for unknowingly sinning.

Genesis 19

Genesis 19:14

Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said "Up, get out of this place, for the Lord will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

These two young men were given the opportunity to save their lives, if they would just take a day trip out of town with the future family. However, they didn't believe that Lot was serious. The previous night several people are suddenly blinded in front of Lot's house, and that wasn't enough of an indication that something serious was going on.

One thing that interests me is that there is nothing said here about whether or not these men were good or bad. They obviously didn't think that God's coming destruction of their home was real, which points towards bad. However, they had been accepted as fiances for Lot's daughters, which may mean there was some hope for them after all. On the other hand, given what Lot's daughters do later in the chapter, they and the girls may have been made for each other, and would have all died if not for Lot's presence.

Genesis 18

Genesis 18:32

Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten."

We approach God in a much different manner than Abraham did. We will pray about anything and everything, sometimes treating God like a vending machine. From the beginning of this chapter, Abraham considered merely speaking to God to be something he was completely unworthy of. He was actually afraid of making God angry at him for opening his mouth! How often do we approach God with that amount of awe and reverence? How would our actions be different if we did?

Abraham saw God as the Almighty, someone who could do whatever he wished, but had looked upon Abraham with favor. That favor shows here, as well. Sodom has become so evil that it cries out to God, and he plans on destroying it. But if there are merely ten people who do what is right, who stand against the trend, God will spare the hundreds or thousands of evildoers from his wrath. Today, some people wonder why God doesn't come down and destroy the "sinful nations," sometimes including America in that group. Perhaps this passage gives a possible answer. If God would spare places of complete wickedness for the sake of ten, how many millions will He spare for the thousands of believers here? While Abraham sees God as being just, he also sees His mercy at work, as well.

Genesis 17

Genesis 17:17

Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"

I don't remember this from the last time I read this chapter. Obviously, Abraham believed that he and Sarah had done the right thing in having Abraham and Hagar have a child. Abraham had no more clue than Sarah about the likelihood of a child between them. Everyone remembers that Sarah laughed when she hears this prophecy, and that she is rebuked by God for it. Yet Abraham is remembered as the man of great faith in God, and Sarah as the doubter and skeptic.

Why is that? Abraham has messed up at just about every option, except for going to Canaan in the first place. He still has a way to go before he gains that amazing faith, but this is the start. From here, God has laid out the proper path, that his descendants will come through Sarah. Now Abram knows how things will go for his family, but that doesn't mean he believed.

Genesis 16

Sorry I didn't post anything yesterday. I went to a friend's wedding in Dallas, and got back very late.

Genesis 16:2

So Sarai said to Abram, "Now behold, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Please go in to my maid; perhaps I will obtain children through her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.

At first glance, this doesn't seem to terrible. God has promised Abram descendents, but I don't recall that he's said anything about them coming from Sarai. She's in her seventies at this point, well past childbearing age. So if Abram's going to have kids, it would appear they're not going to be from her. Therefore, they have to come from someone else, so her servant is as good a choice as any.

Today we tend to use this passage as an example of not trying to take God's work into our own hands. And I'm not trying to argue the example. However, given that I think they only had "half" the prophecy at this point, I don't hold this against Sarai as much as some do. She had given up hope, and probably thought she was doing God's will by offering this alternative to the impossible. She learned later that "impossible" doesn't mean what she thought, though.

Genesis 15

Genesis 15:8

He said, "O Lord God, how may I know that I will possess it?"

From the context of the passage, it doesn't appear that Abraham doubts God This isn't the first time that God has told him he will inherit Canaan, and He just him that he will have a son to be his heir, and believes Him on that. So why does Abram ask for proof? Why does he need evidence, or a sign?

This type of question has always been one I've struggled with. There's faith, and there's asking for evidence to prove faith. At what point are we not trusting God when we ask for proof? Is it when we make plans, and ask God to bless them when they're not His? Is it all right to ask when we are not sure of God's plan, and need a pointer? Or should we only ask for him to give us a sign when we're going down the wrong path? How does having the Holy Spirit change the dynamic of the question?

Lots of questions, but I can't say I have any solid answers.

Genesis 14

Genesis 14:18

And Melchizedek king of Sales brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

This man shows up in three verses, but is very important to Christians. I've honestly never really understood why, given that the book where he is repeatedly referenced is Hebrews. I understand why he would be important to Messianic Jews, since he shows that one does not have to be a Levite, or even a Jew, to be God's priest. But while the fact that a non-Jew can be God's priest is significant, I always thought that Melchizedek was held in much higher import than warranted.

However, what happens in this verse is significant. Abram is returning from battle, having saved his nephew and the property of four cities, with only 300 men. As he returns, Melchizedek meets him, and brings provisions. There was no real need for the food or wine; Abram just took all that he could need from the victory. Yet he later says that he would not take any of it, except what the troops had eaten. He doesn't include himself in that group; did he not eat? Did Melchizedek bring food at God's prompting so that Abram could be fed, and maintain his oath?

Genesis 13

Genesis 13:9

Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me; if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left."

Interesting that Abram let Lot choose the direction. Obviously, this gives Lot almost by default the best territory. Given the size of Abram's herd on its own, and the fact that the area is already inhabited, this could leave Abram in a difficult position to sustain his herds.

Also, by this point, God has already promised Abram that his descendants will be given Canaan. Does he offer Lot the choice knowing that it will leave him to go into Canaan, or is it just the kindness of a man toward his "brother" and accepting that God will provide?

Genesis 12

Genesis 12:2

And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;

Interesting contrast to Babel in the previous chapter. They wanted to make a name for themselves, and God thwarts them. But here, he chooses Abram, and says that He will make his name great. So what do you have to do to get God's attention? Stupid question, it would appear. We can't "get" God's attention, we already have it. However, most people tend to go through life trying to make everyone notice them, so that they can be considered important.

As a natural introvert, I have a bit of a war going inside me at many times. I like being in the spotlight sometimes, as long as its on my terms. But I think this is the first point in the Bible where God makes a point of Him being the one to point that spotlight. We don't know what Abram did to be favorable with God, but arrogance definitely wasn't on the list.

Genesis 11

Genesis 11:4

They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

We're back to the same problem, with man desiring to be famous. However, their motivations appear to be mixed in this case. Their first, and seemingly primary, reason is to be remembered. The first celebrity-wannabes, I guess. However, their second reason doesn't seem so bad? They want to come together rather than be scattered.

The text isn't clear whether this is to be able to do something that can be remembered, or if it's to avoid being isolated from one another. The first is quite possible, and in fact I think that's the truth. However, if the second is right, it doesn't seem so bad, does it? We were made to have community with one another, not to be alone. Without the ego involved, we might all still be living in Babel (or whatever they named the city instead), and not have to learn different languages.

Genesis 10

Genesis 10:32

These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.

This is one of those chapters that people hate to read. Person A was the father of person B, who was the father of persons C and D, etc. Given that this chapter doesn't even have any time lengths listed, it's not all that interesting reading. However, this verse caught my attention.

Out of all the people who lived before the Flood, we know almost nothing of them. Anything we do know is kinda useless, since all remnants of their civilization were wiped out. The human race was down to 3 brothers, their wives, and Noah and his wife (who apparently did not have any more kids). So out of 3 monogamous couples, enough people to be called nations came. Given all the fears today of genetic inbreeding being dangerous and such, that amount of stable procreation is amazing. Modern geneticists would say that's probably impossible, that there would be too high a probability of them being wiped out.

Genesis 9

Genesis 9:3

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

This caught my eye because it appears that at this point, God did not require any dietary restrictions. So, did God later add the dietary restrictions for some specific reason? If so, why not have them here? Before the flood, God gave Noah instructions based on what animals were clean and unclean. Has that restriction been removed?

This verse reminds me of Peter's vision in Acts, where God says that nothing is unclean.

I wonder if Ham enjoyed a nice piece of bacon now and then. :-)

Genesis 8

Genesis 8:20

Then Noah built an alter to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

I'd forgotten about this verse, so when I read in the previous chapter, I wondered why God told Noah to take seven of every clean animal. Now I know why: so he would have one to offer to God in thanks.

God didn't tell Noah to make this sacrifice. He could have let them all loose, but he didn't. He took of what God had spared, potentially risking what we now call the gene pool, and gave it back to the one who had spared him. As it "worked out", that left an even three pairs of the clean animals to breed. Even in tragedy, God's forethought is amazing.

Genesis 7

Genesis 7:4

For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made."

What interests me in this verse isn't really the verse itself, it's what precedes it. The chapter before this verse is the command to put the animals in the ark. Only at this point does God start the countdown. So Noah's spent who-knows-how-long to build a zoo, and here he's told he has a week to fill it.

Obviously, Noah and his family don't have time to go on safari, grab two or seven of every creature, and then drag them back to the ark. So God must have seen to it that the animals came to him. I have this crazy thought in my head like one of those commercials where someone's doing something, looks up, and they're surrounded by people staring at them for as far as the camera can see. Trade the onlooking people for animals, and I wonder if that's what happened to Noah.

Genesis 6

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

OK, I'm not going to try to explain this one. Just go ahead and file it under "Things to ask God when I get to Heaven." So I'll just pose the questions that come to mind.

First, who are the Nephilim? Are they people of a certain background (like we would say German or Ismaelite or Bush? Are they heavenly beings, or demonic beings? Are they the men of renown, or are they the sons of God?

Second, what is meant by "sons of God"? Is this in the sense that Adam was a son of God, as in made by God? Or is it meant to also signify some kind of heavenly creature?

Who are these mighty men? At the time of this writing, and without looking it up, I believe that roughly a millennium has passed. Are they still known to Moses and the Israelites? If so, how? What did they do to be renowned?

Lots of questions, few answers.

Genesis 5

Genesis 5:24

"Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him."

Two things of interest in this short verse. First, this is the only person in the genealogy, including Noah, who is said to have walked with God. Everyone else was born, had kids, lived a while longer, then died -- straight and simple. Enoch was special to God. Something about what he did set him apart from the rest.

Second, he is the only person whom "God took." Everyone else just dies. Some think this means that God took him directly to heaven, like he did Elijah. Also, there is disagreement on who the Two Witnesses in Revelation are; when I was growing up, I was taught they're Elijah and Moses. However, I think it makes more sense for them to be Elijah and Enoch, as the only two men who never died.

I still download the sermons from the church I went to in Indiana, though I'm a couple years behind in listening to them. I put one on while I was on my back from a get-together in Gilmer, and it turned out to be a memorial; one of the more prominent church members had died of a heart attack a few days before while jogging. I didn't get finished with the message, but the pastor said this verse was on his mind at the service. I only knew the man who died in passing, since I wasn't there long enough to connect with anybody, but I know he was a great help to the church body. He will be missed. O, that when the day comes, this could be said of us all.

Genesis 4

Genesis 4:7

If you do well, wil not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it"

The first of many warnings about the danger of sin, and the necessity of fighting it.

In the very next verse, Cain lost that fight... no, that's not right. Cain didn't lose it, he surrendered to it. That's what we always do, isn't it? We don't lose the battle, we can't. If this is a battle, then we have God and Christ right there next to us in the trenches, and can't lose. But we just get up and surrender. Maybe for the Jews it was a real battle, but that battle is now ours to lose.

Genesis 3

Genesis 3:22

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Two things strike me as interesting here. First, only now does God seem concerned with man eating from the tree of life. He did not forbid man from eating of the tree of life before, only from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did He forbid them. Does this mean neither of them hadn't eaten from the tree of life before?

Second, let's say they had eaten from the tree of life before. What changed? Did the something about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil change the affect of the tree of life? Since eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is how sin entered the world, did eating from the tree of life keep them immortal before sin? Or were they already immortal, and eating from the tree of life would have reversed the consequence of sin (death)?

Something to ask God when I get the chance...

Genesis 2

Genesis 2:19

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

The first thing man did after his creation was to engage in a huge effort of creativity. Imagine having to name every living thing, from emus to elephants. Today we tend to be rather flippant with names, and forget that names had meaning that could reveal deep insights into a person. When you look at the people in the Bible and see what their names mean, you often know instantly whether this is a "good guy" or a "bad guy." His name in itself was sometimes enough to shape a person's life.

In my family, there a tradition for naming the first son after the grandfathers' middle names. Luckily for me, my parents broke with that tradition, or I've be Alvin Truman Miller. However, I've often considered whether I will eventually restart that tradition, if my future wife is agreeable; Curtis isn't a half bad name for a kid. However, what would I name a daughter? Or my second son? I hope that when that time comes, I would remember how important a name can be.

Genesis 1

Genesis 1:7

God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

I'm not really sure what is meant by this. I know the Creationists theorize this may be referring to the water canopy that was broken to create the Flood and caused the long lifespan before the Flood, but in context with the surrounding verses (especially the verse before and v9), I'm just not sure.

To paraphrase an old prayer: Lord, give me the wisdom to understand your Word, the ability to accept when I cannot understand, and the wisdom to know the difference.