Sarah's Laughter: Genesis 18:1 - 18:15

Some time after God's visit with Abraham, he visits again.  We can estimate that is visit was within a few months of the events of chapter 17.  The math is simple:  God told Abraham that Sarah would have a son within a year (12 months).  It takes 9 or 10 months (depending on how you count it) to have a baby.  Sarah does not seem to think she is pregnant (18:10 - 12).  Therefore, it's not been more than 4 months since the last visit.

The visit begins with Abraham offering hospitality to God when He appeared to Abraham.  During the visit, God addressed reiterated his promise from Chapter 17 (verse 18:10).  Abraham was going to have a son by Sarah within a year.

What is interesting about this part of the visit is that we do not hear anything from Abraham once the meal has been arranged.  The focus shifts to Sarah's response to the reiterated promise.

In 18:12, Sarah laughs much like Abraham did in 17:17.  But the tone is a little different.  In chapter 17 Abraham can't believe his ears when God says a new son will be the one to inherit the promise.  Notice that chapter 17 does not end with Abraham explicitly expressing his belief in this promise. It might even be possible that he still couldn't believe his ears.  But he demonstrates his trust in God when he immediately acts to obey His instructions.  I tend to think Abraham was convinced based on his immediate action.  But, if not, his trust in God is that much more evident when he obeys without being convinced.

Now, however, some time later, Sarah still isn't convinced.  Some suggest that Abraham hadn't told her about the promise but I think that's highly unlikely.  I imagine their household would have been in quite a state for several days after every man there had been circumcised.  News would have reached her quickly and explanations would have been requested (at least).

The alternative to not being told is that she still didn't believe the promise.  In his commentary "Genesis", Derek Kidner suggests this is the more likely explanation for her behavior.  His view is based on the different treatment of Abraham and Sarah.  When Abraham expressed disbelief in ch. 17, God reassures him (17:19).  But in 18:13-14, God rebukes Sarah's laughter and her bitter response by reminding her, "is anything too hard for the Lord?" and by reiterating the promise.  His tone seems matter-of-fact.  So, I wonder why she lied about laughing in 15?

But look what God says in response to her lie: "You did laugh."  He is not harsh but calmly states the truth and ends the exchange.  I wonder if he is underscoring the promise he made with his pronouncement here.  It's as if He is saying, "I know what I'm talking about.  I know you laughed about this just as much as I know you will have a son by this time next year."

I think we can see an interesting characteristic about God here.  He gave time for her to work through her unbelief on her own.  But, when she could not get past her unbelief, he moves her forward with a firmer approach.  While firm, he is not harsh or angry or condemning.  He is calm, forthright, and matter-of-fact.  Similarly, He DOES act on her unbelief with the exact amount of firmness required.  It is comforting to know that He does this for his children.

My thoughts...
When we consider the voice of God, is this how he sounds to us?
When we present the truth to others, is this how we sound?

Too good to be true: Incredulity and Grace - Genesis 17:17-27

After hearing all that God had planned for him and his descendants, Abraham falls face down before God.  Genesis 17:17 says that he laughed to himself.  What God was saying was beyond what he could imagine.  He says to himself, "Will a son be born to a man at a hundred years old?  Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"  Here he has put words to his feelings.  He cannot believe that what God said could be possible.

In verse 18, Abraham shifts the conversation to Ishmael: "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"  We aren't given an insight into why Abraham did this, but I can think of a few possibilities.  He might have simply wished God to bless Ishmael.  He might have realized he made a mistake by producing an heir for himself and wanted God to clean up his mess.  He might have been making an attempt to redirect God from what seemed impossible to what was reasonable and tangible.  This last view is the one that Derek Kidner takes in his commentary "Genesis".

In a way, redirecting to the reasonable and tangible is what Abraham had already done.  He saw a way to produce an heir that was reasonable and tangible and did so (through Haggar).  Now, perhaps, he wanted God to get on board and work through Ishmael.

God, for his part, handles Abraham very gently.  He does not show anger and he does not ridicule.  He first tells Abraham that Ishmael will also be blessed.  But God immediately steers the conversation back to the promised child and makes no mistake that the NEW child is the child of the covenant (verses 19 and 21).  While Ishmael will be blessed, he is not the one with whom God will establish His covenant.

When we encounter what we consider impossible, we have a few choices.  Reject it, believe it, or try to understand it.  So, which of these does Abraham choose?  It is clear that he struggled with what God said to him.  But, he does what God asked in spite of his struggles.  Verses 23 through 27 detail his efforts to keep his end of the covenant.  In a sense, Abraham makes all three choices.  There is an element of rejection when he laughed and essentially said what God was saying was impossible.  There is an element of trying to understand when he tries to redirect God's blessing on to Ishmael ("perhaps this blessing is transferable - let me find out").  And there is an element of acceptance and belief when he acts according to what God told him to do.

For God's part, He is patient and gentle with Abraham's struggles.  Once again, a God worth believing and serving...

A New Identity - Genesis 17:9-16

This section opens with God telling Abraham "as for you, you must keep my covenant".  This is the first time Abraham has been given a part to play in keeping the covenant.  Some would argue that he had a part to play in protecting the sacrifices of the first covenant making in 15:11 - even if only in a symbolic way.  But this is certainly the first time Abraham has been given an ongoing role to play in this everlasting covenant.

The obvious question is, why?  Why now and not back in chapter 15?  And, quite frankly, why bother with Abraham after he screwed things up in chapter 16?  And, finally, why choose circumcision (verses 10-14) as the way Abraham and his descendants were to keep the covenant?  There are so many questions!

I think the question of "why not give Abraham a part to play back in chapter 15" was answered in my post on that topic.  Quite simply, there was nothing for him to do and no part for him to play.  He did not have the power to produce a child of the promise and he would not be alive to procure the promised land for his descendants.  The only covenant maker who could affect outcomes was God.  Abraham's only role was to gratefully accept God's promise.

 I think there are two answers to the question about why God should bother with Abraham after the events of chapter 16.  The first reason is that God made a one-sided covenant promise in chapter 15.  This meant that He was bound to fulfill His promise NO MATTER WHAT.  It really didn't matter what Abraham did, God had a contractual promise He HAD to fulfill.  The second reason points to God's character.  God does not abandon.  He did not abandon Adam and Eve, He did not abandon Noah, and in spite of all the unsavory, unscrupulous things they had done, He had not abandoned mankind.  He was in it for the long haul - thick or thin - He would work his purposes out upon mankind.  Why should we be surprised that He was true to His character and refused to abandon Abraham?  However, we might be tempted toward surprise when we consider that God, knowing what Abraham would do in chapter 16, would still make the covenant in chapter 15.  My answer to that is God's willful intention to bestow identity.  Let's talk about that.

Abram's given name means "exalted father" which, at this point in the story, is ironic twice over.  Firstly because he was not a father until the end of chapter 16 (at the age of 86).  Secondly because there was nothing honorable about his fatherhood.  His child was not from his wife, he treated both his wife and the child's mother passively and with dismissive regard for their feelings, he abdicated his fatherly leadership responsibilities, and he initially abandoned the child and child's mother.  To say that his identity as an exalted father falls short is an understatement.  This should not surprise us since he acquired his identity through taking control for himself (see Taking Control and Family Feud).

But now God gives Abram the name Abraham - which means "(exalted) father of many nations".  This is obviously not an identity that Abram can take for himself.  He shouldn't really take the name "exalted father" to begin with.  Perhaps, "reluctant father" or "spineless father" or "finally a father" or "father through questionable means" would suit him better.  But this is not God's character either.  God does not leave us alone to wallow in the mess we make for ourselves.  He gives us a new name, a better name, and our identity - rooted in Him - is not ironic.  This does not mean that we no longer fail (as we will see in chapter 20) but it means that an identity given by God, secured by God, and worked out by God, is beautiful and appropriate.

They say timing is everything.  So it is here.  God did not Give Abram a role to play in chapter 15 because he was still looking to himself for his identity (see chapter 16).  It is no coincidence that God gives Abraham, with his new God-given identity and name, a role to play now.  And, it is no coincidence that the covenant-keeping task involves making a permanent identifying mark through circumcision.  Neither is it coincidental that this task is given right before the child of the covenant promise is about to come on the scene (verse 17).  When the child arrives, Abraham will have something to do.

Many Bible translations add section titles to give us clues about what's going on in the story.  They act much like road signs for people driving in an unfamiliar an area.  My translation titled chapter 17 "The Covenant of Circumcision" but I've titled this section "A New Identity".  This is because I think that is the main point of this section.  God begins by defining Abram's new identity with a new name in verse 5.  He continues by saying He will be the God of Abraham and his descendants in verses 7 and 8.  This defines the identity of a people-group.  He finishes by giving the covenant of a permanent identifying mark and by saying that those without this mark will be separated from their people.  Identity, identity, identity.

Let's remember God's first covenant back in chapter 15.  He passed through the sacrificial animals that had been divided in half.  This was a gesture in which God was saying He should be torn apart and killed like those animals if he broke his promise.  Here, in Genesis 17:14, God says that Abraham's descendants who did not keep the covenant would be cut off from their people.  The individual would be separated from the larger body.  This sounds a lot like the process of circumcision itself - a small part being separated from the main body.  Both covenants were sealed with symbolic gestures resembling what should happen if the promise was broken.  If a person chose not to draw his identity from God, then he had no business drawing his identity from the people-of-God (the nation that would come from Abraham).  Such a person would be separated from his people and would not share in the God-given identity or God-given promises.  

Let's me clarify.  Circumcision was a symbolic act of an individual making a permanent mark upon their bodies.  This mark identified them as a member of the nation of Abraham.  This was a nation of people who were to have their identity given by God just as God had given Abraham his identity.  They were to symbolize their new identity through circumcision.  Identity, identity, identity.

Confirming and extending the Covenant - Genesis 17:1-8

Chapter 16 ended with the birth of Ishmael when Abram was 86 years old.  In a previous post I called him "the child of taking control".  In chapter 17 God confirms His covenant with Abram 13 years later when Abram is 99.  This will be the 4th time God confirms His covenant in roughly 24 years.Verses 1 through 8 outline what God offers and, unlike chapter 15, verses 9 through 14 outline what Abram must do.

Beginning in verse 4, God tells Abram that he will be the father of many nations and kings.  In fact, the "many nations" aspect of the promise is repeated three times in verses 4 through 6.  This part of the promise is so significant that God gives Abram (which means high or exalted father) a new name.  He calls him Abraham (which means father of many).

Furthermore, God tells Abraham that He will make the covenant extend to all the generations of his descendants forever.  Notice that there is repetition here as well.  To "be their God" is repeated twice in verses 7 and 8.  This is interesting since there are three things offered in this passage:  descendants, land, and God himself.  We have seen the first two offered before.  However, this is the first time God has put himself into the bargain.

But, why is this significant?  Genesis has described God as the creator of everything so, what is special about God offering to "be their God"?  I would argue that God is offering Abraham's descendants the same kind of relationship He has had with Abraham this whole time.  God has demonstrated care, patience, understanding, comfort, reassurance, and a host of other characteristics in his very personal dealings with Abraham.  I believe He is offering a similar relationship to Abraham's many descendants.  This is certainly a favorable extension of the promise.

Promises and Blessings

Before we look at the covenant God makes with Abram in Genesis 17, we should review the setting for the promise.  God has made promises to Abram 3 times so far.  The verses are listed below:

Genesis 12:2-3 and 7
Genesis 13:14-17
Genesis 15:1, 4-5, 13-21

Here is a listing of the things God has promised Abram (from the verses above):

• make Abram into a great nation
• bless Abram
• make Abram's name great
• make Abram a blessing
• bless those who bless Abram
• curse those who curse Abram
• All peoples of the earth will be blessed through you
• give Abram and his descendants a land to live in
• give Abram uncountable descendants
• to be his protector (shield)

To summarize, there are 4 main promises here:

• Blessing (for him and others)
• Protection 
• Descendants
• Land 

The protection, descendants and land are pretty obvious and easy to understand.  But what about blessing?  What else is included in that?  How is it different from the other three?

To answer what is included in that, let's make some obvious guesses first.  Money, Power, Influence, Security, Fame, Relationships, comfort, and Pleasure are things most people think of when they hear the word "blessing".  Let's rule out a couple of these as duplicates of other promises.  Security is basically the same as protection and Fame is basically the same as making Abram's name great.  I would argue that power and influence would be part of being a great nation so let's eliminate them too.  That leaves money, relationships, comfort, and pleasure.  Is this the kind of blessing God was talking about?

We could argue that Abram likely had these things for himself.  And, he probably improved the lives of his neighbors, relatives, and servants so that they could have a measure of these things too.  But I don't think this is what God meant when He said, "All peoples of the earth will be blessed through you."  People all over the world had these things apart from Abram.

So, what blessing was God talking about here?  Let's look back at Genesis 3:15.  Here, God talks about one of Eve's descendants breaking sin's curse.  I think this is the blessing God was talking about.  From Abram, a descendant would come who would bless all the people of the earth by breaking sin's curse.  This is a great blessing indeed!

The God who Sees: Genesis 16:7-16

The story focuses briefly on Hagar and her flight back to her home country of Egypt.  There God (v.13) speaks to her and tells her to return to Sarai.  He also tells her of her son and his descendants.  Before we look at what God tells her here, let's remember how God called Abram back in Genesis 12:2-3.

I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.

Also remember how God described the number of Abram's descendants in 13:16 - like the dust of the earth - if they could be counted.  Now, in 16:10, God tells Hagar that her descendants will similarly be too numerous to count.  But that is where the similarity between Hagar's descendants and Abram's descendants ends.  Unlike God's promise to bless those who blessed Abram and curse those who cursed him, God tells Hagar that her son's life will be marked by conflict (16:12).  There is no mention of making him into a great nation and no mention of God using him to bless the earth.

This difference makes it clear that Hagar's son is not the child of God's promise to Abram.  This is the child of Abram taking control and doing for himself.  The implication of God's pronouncement in 16:12 is that Ishmael will follow in Abram's footsteps of doing for himself.  For him, there will be no peace associated with letting God act to bless and protect.  Instead there will be struggle and hostility.

We should not be surprised by this pronouncement or think that it is harsh.  God is described here as The One who sees me.  He is the one who sees Hagar in her distress and hears her misery.  His direction and pronouncements are intended to comfort and provide for Hagar and her son.  In spite of God's comforting intention, there can be no peace without God's presence in our lives.  Ishmael was not to be a man of peace and - I think we can conclude - not to be a man who sought after God's presence.

Looking back:  I think there is a similarity with God's pronouncements about Ishmael here and his relational pronouncements in the Garden of Eden.  There, God told Adam and Eve about their broken relationships with Him, each other, and the world.  As I mentioned before, this was not a new punishment from God, he was simply listing the things that had already been broken as a result of their decision to seek after their own glory.  Similarly, When God says Ishmael will not be a man of peace, He might not necessarily be pronouncing a new judgment, He may be saying something about the nature of mankind in His absence.

Family Feud: Genesis 16:4-6

Sarai's maidservant Hagar became pregnant when Abram took control of producing an heir.  Taking control made good sense at the time.  God said Abram would have an heir and this was a very pragmatic way to get that done.  But disaster awaits us when we try to do things according to our own wisdom and sensibilities instead of doing things God's way.

At the end of verse 4, Hagar begins to despise Sarai.  This doesn't require a great leap of imagination to visualize.  Suddenly, Hagar's status had been elevated from maidservant to heir-producer.  I can picture the hurtful things she must have said to Sarai.  And I can imagine Sarai didn't hold back in her responses.  These are not good conditions for a peaceful domestic environment!

Sarai reported to Abram and placed all the blame squarely on his shoulders in verse 5.  I've talked about his fault in this situation  (he stopped listening to God and listened to Sarai instead) so he certainly deserves blame for the situation.  However, this was originally Sarai's plan.  She is the last person who should point fingers of blame.

It is clear that Abram has returned to his passive stance (where is the family protector we saw when Lot was in trouble?).  I don't imagine Hagar would have gotten very far in her mistreatment of Sarai if he had cared enough to involve himself in the squabble early on.  And, his passivity extended to the solution as well.  Instead of taking responsibility for the mess and using his authority to produce a comprehensive solution, he told Sarai to do whatever she wishes with Hagar.  Now that he had what he wanted (an heir) it seemed he had little regard for the feelings of the people who were hurting because of it.

So, in order to quickly restore peace to his family, Abram quickly (and ironically) relinquished control.  Sarai used her new authority to terribly mistreat Hagar.  Apparently, Hagar was so mistreated that she had to flee the camp.  It is also ironic that there is no mention of Abram pursuing Hagar since her departure meant his unborn heir was leaving too!

What a mess!

But we shouldn't expect anything other than a mess in this situation.  Abram desired the fulfillment of the promise more than he desired God (an important detail we will look at again a little later).  He also believed that he had the best way of bringing about the promise.  Instead of patiently waiting for God to fulfill the promise like He said He would, Abram acted for himself and by himself.  His focus was on self and self ONLY.  

Once again, sadly, I can see so much of myself in the way Abram acted here.  He is grasping, prideful, callous, self-interested, passive, cowardly, and uncaring.  And my default is to be all these things too.  Thankfully, just like Adam and Eve's story, God didn't abandon Abram.  He will faithfully bring about the promise.  And, thankfully, God doesn't abandon me either - no matter how much I might deserve it.  God's good, gracious, and faithful character has not changed.

Taking Control: Genesis 16:1 - 4

In my last post, we saw the lengths God took to assure Abram that He would fulfill His promises to him. Specifically, the promises of an heir and of land.  Abram, for his part, believed that God would fulfill the promises.  However, in this chapter, we see him waver under the pressures of time and family.

Verses 1 through 4 of chapter 16 set the stage.  Sarai tells Abram that God has kept her from having children.  She suggests he get children through her maidservant.  Apparently this was not an uncommon practice in that culture (we'll see this sort of thing again about a dozen chapters or so from now).  Abram agrees with Sarai, does as she suggests, and her maidservant becomes pregnant with Abram's first child.

But consider what else is happening here.  In Genesis 15:3, Abram acknowledged that having a child is under God's control.  God reassures Abram that He will fulfill the promise and Abram believes Him.   Now, at the beginning of chapter 16, Abram stops listening to what God said (he listens to and agrees with his wife instead) and decides to take matters into his own hand.  It's as if the author wanted to curtail any notions we might have about Abram as a larger-than-life man of faith.  This portrayal of Abram's story hasn't been photo-shopped to remove the blemishes.  He is presented with all his flaws, human, and easy to identify with.

I say easy to identify with because we all struggle with exactly the same things.  It's easy to believe God when He says we are loved, rescued, and made pure only by Him.  It's easy to believe with our minds and our mouths and then wake up the next morning and try to DO those things for ourselves.  We want to make ourselves worthy of love, rescue ourselves, and make ourselves pure.  We want to do the work He says only He can do...  Because then, not only can we control the how, and when, and if, but we can also claim the credit.  Sidenote:  I'm not advocating laziness here.  But we do need to be careful of our motives.

Let's remember back to the covenant God made with Abram in chapter 15 for a moment.  This was a unique covenant since God was the only contractually obligated party.  There is a not-so-subtle point God makes by not giving Abram a part to play in the promise making.  God was the one to fully bring about the promises.  Abram would have no part in supplying the promised child or bringing forth a nation to claim the land of Canaan.

So, what happens when we try for ourselves to do the things God has promised us?  What happens when we (just like Eve) choose our own wisdom over God's?  Abram soon found out when Sarai and her maidservant began fighting.

I'd love to find fault with Abram and point an accusatory finger at him.  But, truthfully, I've done no less.  I imagine most of us have.  In his position, I probably would have listened to the practical advice of Sarai and done the same thing.  Today, we aren't concerned with trying to produce an heir to inherit God's promise.  But we still consider the promises of God and try to accomplish them on our own.  We desire happiness and become slaves to hedonism.  We try to earn God's favor and become prideful through our good works.  We listen to the advice of those around us instead of God and fall well short of what He has promised us.

Assurances: Genesis 15:7-21

Abram and God have had one short exchange where God tells Abram that he will have a son to inherit the land God promised and Abram believes what god tells him.  In verse 7, God reiterates His purpose for Abram, "[I] brought you out of [your homeland] to give you this land to take possession of it."

We might well ask, "why did God say this?"  He had already initiated a conversation with Abram, listened to his situation, and made a response.  Abram believed what God said so that should be the end, right?  Thanks for the chat.  Good night.  Enjoy the rest of your dreams.   

Instead, God makes a statement and waits for a response.  Again!  It seems Abram's trust about an heir wasn't the only thing on God's agenda.  Abram responds by asking God how he can KNOW that he will inherit the land.  

Now God's purpose for extending the conversation make a little more sense.  He is assuring Abram about two of the promises not seen: an heir and the land he was giving to Abram's descendants.  

God's response starting in verse 9 seems a bit strange.  Why all the animals?  Why the smoking firepot and torch?  What's going on here?  Derek Kidner notes in his commentary "Genesis" that this covenant ritual usually involves two parties passing through the carcasses.   Each party was ritually saying, "if I break our agreement, my fate should be the same as that of these grotesquely slaughtered animals."  Here, however, only God (manifested as the firepot and torch) makes this agreement.  The covenant is clearly one-sided - a great blessing for Abram.

But, why should God make such a one-sided agreement at all?  Well, firstly, Abram really has no power to  accomplish the promise.  He cannot give himself a child and even if he could, he has no power to build a nation from that child.  Only God has the power to do those things.  Secondly, in verses 13-16, we learn that the nation won't be created for over 400 years.  Abram certainly wouldn't be around to see that!  So God makes a covenant with Abram to show him how serious He is about accomplishing the promise.  In effect, the eternal God was saying, "I, who cannot die, will die before I break this promise to you and your descendants."  The strength of the promise was now rooted in the immortality of the creator-God.  I cannot think of any greater assurance.

Looking ahead:  Ok, I just cannot help myself here.  The comfort and assurance God gives Abraham and his descendants in this section is mirrored in another section of scripture too.  You might be tempted to read Ephesians 1 (particularly verse 14) where Paul talks about God giving his spirit as a pledge (or down payment) guaranteeing inheritance.  This simple phrase has a similar effect of rooting promises in God's eternal and unified nature.  He guarantees the promise of redemption by giving Christians His spirit.  While God effectively told Abram He would die before breaking the promise, God tells Christians they can keep His spirit if He breaks his promise.  He does not simply make a promise, He backs it up with his unbreakable, eternal nature.  God goes above and beyond to comfort and assure all His children.

Review and Trust: Genesis 15:5 - 6

In my last post, we saw God (infinite creator of the universe) initiate a conversation with Abram.  He tells him his reward will be great and pauses to hear Abram's response.  As I read their interaction, I get the sense that God is preparing Abram for something new.  In a way similar to how God prepared Adam for something new (Eve), God starts a conversation with Abram and let's him express come to the right conclusion.

Abram, for his part, realizes that he has been blessed by God and that God has kept all His promises so far.  He is so richly blessed that he needs nothing more for himself.  But he wonders about God's promise to make his family into a great nation that will inherit the land and bless the earth.  He has not seen this promise happen and he is getting too old to do it himself.

So Abram tells God about his situation.  He is getting old and God has not provided descendants to inherit his land.  The land God promised to his descendants will go to his servant.  We might be tempted to think there is some bitterness in Abram's response.  But I don't think this is the case.  I think Abram is acknowledging God's role in providing descendants here.  So, Similar to the way in which God paused in verse 15:1, Abram pauses to see how God will respond.

God responds dramatically in verse 5 just as I mentioned in my last post.  He is not harsh, or sarcastic, but kind and comforting - giving Abram the reassurance he needs.  Not only does this demonstrate something about God's character, but it strongly suggests Abram was not bitter or disrespectful to God for bringing up the issue.  This suggests we have a similar freedom with God.  We are invited to respectfully bring Him our concerns and He will answer.

For his part, Abram believes what God tells him.  Verse 15:6 says that God credits Abram with righteousness for believing.  We should ask ourselves what this means.  We should also ask what this does NOT mean!  This is not blind belief - God has proven himself to Abram regarding the promises He has made and kept - so Abram's choice to believe God was informed by his previous experiences.  But what does it mean to believe God in this case?  Put simply, Abram trusted that God would fulfill the promise He spoke of.  He trusted that God spoke the truth.

And what about crediting as righteousness?  What does that mean?  Let's go back several posts to the fall of Adam and Eve.  In the garden they proved that they did not trust God.  They thought He was not being completely good to them and they did not trust His provision for them.  Here, Abram does the opposite.  He trusts that God is being completely good to him and trusts God's promises.  Where Adam and Eve's mistrust lead to sin and death, Abram's trust is considered righteous by God.  Interestingly, this righteousness comes before any action on Abram's part (hint: that's later in the story).

God confirms His promise to Abram: Genesis 15:1 - 5

After Abram's faithful recognition of God's protection, he has a vision in which God says: "...I am your shield, your very great reward."  The footnotes in my NIV translation suggest an alternate translation, "I am your shield, your reward will be very great."  This makes more sense when we consider Abram's response in verse 2.

Notice there is an implicit pause at the end of verse 1.  God says, "...your reward will be very great," and nothing more.  God, through Abram's vision, initiates a conversation and pauses for Abram's response.

Abram responds by telling God about his situation - the part of God's promise not yet seen.  Abram, at nearly 86 years old (from chapter 16), wonders how God intends to fulfill the promise of numerous descendants.  How could God bless the world through him if he had no child?  How could God make Abram's name great without an heir to carry on his name?  How could a nation come from him when a small family seemed out of reach?

I'm a bit torn about Abram's response.  In one sense, it seems like he still has hope about the promise of descendants (otherwise, why bring it up at all).  In another, it seems like he is resigned to not having this promise answered.  I picture him hemming and hawing in a more modern context: "Hey God, um, thanks for all the blessing, and protection and all, but, well...  I mean, I don't want to seem ungrateful, 'cause, really, you've saved my bacon countless times (thanks for that by the way)...   And, well, it seems like I'm getting on in years and I was about to go see my lawyer to draw up my will tomorrow....  And, um, since you've not given my any kids, it looks like my butler is going to get everything...  And, um, well, is that what you meant about having descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth or did you mean something else?"

But, perhaps I'm not giving Abram enough credit.  Perhaps Abram's response is one of bewildered acceptance.  "Ok God, my reward will be great...  But the only thing left for you to give me is an heir.  I haven't seen that happen yet, and I would have expected that gift from you first, you know, when I was younger and could have kids..."

God responds in verses 4 through 5.  Notice that God is not harsh.  He does not belittle Abram or punish him.  He responds to Abram's earnestness by confirming His promise for a third time.  He tells Abram that he will have a son to carry on his name.  And, instead of just telling him that his descendants will be as numerous as dust (13:16), he uses the uncountable stars as a visual aid to SHOW Abram what he means.

But why?  Why act this way?  Why does God initiate a conversation instead of just addressing Abram's issues?  And why confirm the promise in a new way instead of just repeating it?  I think these questions rightly challenge our view of God as an imperious tyrant.  We would expect an imperious God to be more declarative and harsh.  To say, "Abram, you whining, faithless doubter, I promised a son and you'll get one.  Now, stop bugging me about it."  And we expect a tyrant God to strike Abram dead for asking questions.  But this is not the God Abram serves.  God initiates a conversation with Abram because He desires relationship.  And He knows Abram's need for comfort and reassurance on this issue (wouldn't we all after at least 10 years of waiting).

Abram's Faith and Courage: Genesis 14:13 - 24

In the first part of chapter 14, the larger political setting was laid out for us.  Four strong kings swept down from what is modern-day Iraq and were attacking cities in the area of the Dead sea.  During their conquest, Abram's nephew Lot is taken captive.  We pick up the story as they head back to their kingdoms in the North and news of Lot's capture reaches Abram.

Abram decides to rescue Lot and takes with him men from his household and the households of the tribal chiefs he was allied with (Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner).  He makes a coordinated attack at night and succeeds in recovering everything the 4 kings took.

There is some room for speculation about Abram's success here.  Did he, with only 318 men defeat the strong and battle-tested armies of 4 conquering kings?  Did the 318 men include the men from Abram's allies or were they additional?  Was Abram's coordinated night-attack a stroke of military genius?  Did they attack the main force of the kings or just a plunder-transport crew?  Maybe the armies of the kings were tired and their numbers reduced from all of their previous conquests...

These are valuable questions to ask.  But their answers are glaringly missing.  The battle and its success take a single sentence (verse 14:15).  The author seems much more interested in what happens afterward.  Perhaps we should be too.  Let's have a look.

When Abram returns, two kings come out to meet him.  The king of Sodom (who's name sounds like evil and who's townsfolk were wicked) and Melchizedek, king of Salem (who's name means "king of righteousness", who is a priest of God, and who rules Salem - which means "Peace").  If we were only to judge by their names and kingdoms, there could be no greater contrast.

Abram accepts a blessing from the king of Salem and gives him one tenth of the recovered plunder.  At first, this seems a bit confusing.  Who is this second king?  Where did he come from?  His kingdom wasn't conquered so why should he get anything (or be included in the story)?  But Abram wasn't returning this king's property.  This king was God's priest.  By accepting the king's blessing and giving a portion of the recovered goods to him, Abram acknowledged that his success was because of God.  This is apart from any recorded miracle or other intervention.

What a change in character!  In chapter 12, Abram was afraid of the Egyptian king, schemed with his wife to avoid an unrealized (almost imaginary) danger, and ended up having God actively rescue him from his failed scheme.  But there is no mention of him thanking or acknowledging God's role.  Now, in chapter 14, Abram faces a very real danger from 4 conquering kings, has a good plan, and appears to be successful in implementing it (apart from any recorded divine intervention).  And here, he DOES acknowledge God as an ally by giving a portion to His representative (note that Abram's earthly allies received a portion in verse 24).  The contrast is night-and-day.  But why?  What caused the change in character?  Why was Abram suddenly so courageous?

Let's go back to the second king for a moment.  The king of Sodom proposes a deal where Abram would keep all the riches and return his people (verse 21).  Abram rejects this deal and gives the king of Sodom both people and riches (less the portion given to his allies).  He also gives his reason for keeping nothing for himself - an oath he made to God.  

We still don't know why Abram showed such courage in this section.  I propose a few reasons.  First, At the end of chapter 12, Abram sees God very actively protecting him as He promised He would.  Second, after trusting God's promise a little in Chapter 13, God shows Abram the land He promised to him.  Now, Abram has seen two promises fulfilled by God.  And now, he trusts even more.  In this instance, he trusts that God will protect him and he acknowledges God's protection by treating him as an ally.  Therefore, I think Abram's courage comes from his trust in God.

An Ancient Geopolitical Interlude: Genesis 14:1-12

Looking back:  At the end of chapter 12, we saw God rescue Abram from his cowardice and failed scheme.  Chapter 13 set the stage for Abram to show a little faith and settle in Canaan - West of the dead sea.  Now the scene shifts and the trouble foreshadowed for Abram's nephew Lot (in 13:13) will start to bear fruit.

Chapter 14 opens with a lesson in geography and politics.  It seems that four kings were making war around the area of the dead sea.  I'll describe what's going on shortly but you might want to check out some of the pictures here:  http://www.jesuswalk.com/abraham/3_rescue.htm.

These four kings were from cities in the fertile plains watered by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Their combined kingdoms likely spanned the length of what is modern-day Iraq.  In 14:2 we find out that 5 kings in the area of the dead sea were under their rule for 12 years (probably a result of earlier conquests).  In verses 14:3-4 we find out that these 5 kings join forces to break free of the rule of the 4 kings.

This rebellion is successful for about a year while the 4 allied kings join forces and begin attacking cities as they sweep down East of the Sea of Galilee to the The area that has become the southern most tip of modern-day Israel.  Then they zig-zagged their way North until they met the 5 kings in the Valley of Siddim (near the Dead Sea).

The battle was clearly very one-sided since we are only told about the retreat of the 5 kings (verse 10).  The four victorious kings pillage the region and then return to their land (probably along the west of the Dead Sea and Jordan river).

There are two details we should probably be interested in at this point.  First, an ancient reader would have picked up on the wickedness of the 5 defeated kings since the names of two of them (the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah) appear to be a play on the hebrew words for evil and wicked (Thanks to Derek Kidner's commentary "Genesis").  Second, verse 12 tells us that Abram's nephew Lot is carried off as part of the plunder.  This sets the stage for Abram to take action.

Affirming the promise: Genesis 13:1 - 13:18

After Abram and his family leave Egypt, they wander for a while.  His nephew Lot had been with him throughout his travels and now they both had flocks so large that the land could not sustain both of their herds.  So they decide to part ways on friendly terms.  According to Derek Kidner in his commentary "Genesis", this is a subtle demonstration of faith on the part of Abram.  The land of Canaan was failing to meet his needs.  But, instead of abandoning the land that God showed him, he offers Lot an obvious choice.  Stay here, where we have used up the land, or go East to the fertile plains there.  Lot heads to the fertile plains (probably to the region south of the dead sea) and Abram stays in Canaan.

The results of the decisions of Lot and Abram are immediately affirmed.  In verse 13 the wickedness of Lot's neighbors in Sodom foreshadows trouble.  Conversely, in verse 14, God reaffirms his promise to Abram.  Notice God's affirmation focuses on the land that Abram can now see, but He foreshadows the unfulfilled part of the promise - a nation of descendants that will inherit the land forever.  Abram must still trust God to provide descendants.

Also notice the role God plays in this passage.  God - the hero and protector of chapter 12 (in spite of Abrams scheming faithlessness), is the comforter and encourager of chapter 13.  He kindly reminds Abram of the promise He made and lovingly assures him that He will fulfill all of it.

Looking forward:
This story would have been particularly important to the people who God promised to to deliver from Egypt and bring to the promised land.  Abram was in a promised land and hoped for a nation of descendants.  They were a nation of descendants hoping for the promised land.  Neither would see the full promise.  But God gave protection and comfort to both.

The Call of Abram: Genesis 12:1 - 20

Abram's story begins with God's calling.  God calls him to leave his country, people, and family behind and go to a land that God will show him.  I imagine this must have been difficult for Abram.  I've had times in my life where I felt I was uprooting everything and it hasn't been easy.  But, Abram is called with a purpose as well.  Beginning in 12:2, God says:

(2)I will make you into a great nation,    and I will bless you;I will make your name great,    and you will be a blessing.(3)I will bless those who bless you,    and whoever curses you I will curse;and all peoples on earth    will be blessed through you.

God is calling him out of his land and away from his family so that his descendants will one day become a great nation that will bless everyone on earth.  Now THAT's a big purpose!  Also notice that God promises Abram protection at the beginning of verse 3.  God gives Abram assurance that he will carry out his plan to bless the earth through his descendants.

The next section gives some details about Abram's journey South to Egypt.  His passage through the land of Caanan would have been an important detail for ancient readers.  This was the land God had promised to Abram and his descendants (them).  This was the land that they, during the exodus, were journeying to.

But notice how Abram responds to the promises of God.  Even after God shows him the land he and his descendants would inherit.  In the very next section we see Abram hatching a scheme to protect himself (verses 11 through 13).  He was afraid the Egyptians would kill him and take his wife.  So he tells his wife to hide their marriage and say they are siblings (they are half-siblings from Genesis 20:12).  I'd love to criticize Abram because he so quickly forgot the purpose and  promises God gave him in verses 2 and 3.  Does he think God won't be successful?  Does he think God won't protect him?  Why should he act so dishonestly?  When I wonder these things, I also realize I probably wouldn't have acted differently.  I also quickly forget God's promises and purposes.  I quickly seek my own solutions.  I also doubt His faithfulness.  I suspect we all do.  And, this should not be surprising.  As we have already seen, we are not the hero of our stories, God is.

And on that note, we read verses 12:14-20.  Abram's scheme backfires and his wife is taken from him.  Oh, how sad it is that I can identify with his cowardice!  But God is faithful and God rescues Abram from his own failed scheme (in spite of Abram's faithlessness).

The Family of Abram: Genesis 11:10-32

As we've seen before in Genesis, the scene shifts.  This time it narrows to the ancestors and family of Abram.  His story was particularly important to the people who were with Moses since he was their ancestor (well, most of them, Exodus 12:38 records that people who were not descended from Abram were also part of the Hebrew nation).

Let's skip the family tree and move to verse 27.  Abram's father was Terah (who, according to Joshua 24:2, did not worship God).  His descendants will all play important roles later in the Bible.  Their relationships can be easily viewed here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terah

Terah had three sons (Abram, Nahor, and Haran). After the death of Haran, Terah moves his family from Ur (near Babylon) to Haran (near the border of modern Turkey and Syria.  North of the land of Caanan).  It is in the land of Haran that Abram hears from God.  His story spans the next 12 chapters of Genesis (nearly 1/4 of the book!).

The Tower of Babel - Genesis 11:1-11:9

Some time after the flood, populations began to expand and people moved East into what would be modern day Iraq.  A quick look at the map and you will see a fertile region that roughly extends from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf.  The story of the Tower of Babel takes place in the southern part of this region.

Let's have a quick look at verse 11:3-4.  It says:

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.  Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

The choice of building materials is interesting.  It says they used brick instead of stone and tar for mortar.  Reading around the internet, the general consensus is that this river-rich region has a lot of clay and very little stone.  The phrasing seems to hint that stone would have been a preferable material and that they are using brick out of desperate necessity.  And why desperate?  The second half of the passage betrays an undercurrent of fear.  They are afraid of being spread out.  

Or perhaps their fortified city is a way to feel secure against another flood.  Perhaps baked bricks and waterproof tar for mortar would not crumble in a flood.  Similarly, a tall tower would allow them to escape another flood.  I'm speculating about this, but, consider the implications.  If this is true, it means there was a general mistrust of God among these people.  They didn't believe his promise to never eradicate life through a flood (from Genesis 9:15).  Or, even more speculative, they knew that God flooded the earth because of human corruption and were taking measures to protect themselves from a similar fate (so they could safely sin however they pleased).

Also consider their stated purpose.  They want to make a name for themselves.  They want to be considered great.  There is an attitude of pride alongside their insecurity.

If they wanted to stand up to God and sought security through their numbers, God's solution was to divide them (verse 8).  God confuses their language and they are scattered.  But consider God's statement in verse 6, "nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them".  If, in fact, they are fear and pride driven, I wonder if there is some sarcasm implied here.  Their choice of building materials and their grandiose plans to build "a tower that reaches to the heavens" makes me think that God was showing mercy when he halted them. 

Noah's Sons: Genesis 9:18-9:29

After the flood, life moves on and so does Noah's family.  In this section we get a short glimpse into the dysfunction of the family.

Let's start with Noah.  Remember back in 5:29, Noah was given his name because his parents were hopeful he would bring them comfort as they worked the cursed ground.  So we should not be surprised in 9:20 when it says Noah was a "man of the soil" which I read to mean he was a farmer.  At some point after the flood, he plants a vineyard, makes wine, and gets drunk from it (while naked in his tent).  We can come up with several theories about this.  Perhaps this was a regular occurrence where some of Noah's human weakness is exposed.  Or perhaps this was an isolated incident since he didn't have much experience with wine.   I'm inclined to think this is the more likely scenario given his responses in 9:25-27.  Even so, Noah is human; flawed and weak.  We should remember this if we are tempted to think he was the hero of the flood.  The place of the righteous hero is reserved entirely for God.  

While Noah is passed out naked in his tent Ham comes in and sees him lying there.  He tells his brothers who respectfully and carefully (so as not to see anything) cover up their father.  There is a sense when reading this that Ham should have done what his brothers did (respectfully covering his father) instead of running to tell them.  There may also be an implied attitude of disrespect here too.

In any case, Noah blesses the two sons who showed him respect and curses Ham's son Canaan.  This may have been significant to the audience originally reading this passage since they were descendants of Shem (the oldest of the 2 respectful brothers).  They were traveling to the promised land (which just happened to be the land occupied by the descendants of Canaan).

For my next post, we will skip the lineages and geography lessons of chapter 10 and speed along to chapter 11 - The Tower of Babel.  Bear in mind that chapter 10 will be a good reference as the Israelite nation encounters these people groups.  Also, take a brief note of Nimrod, the hunter king who founded the cities of Babylon and Nineveh.  These two city-regions will play a big role in the history of the nation of Israel.  But that will happen much later in the Bible.

New Beginnings: Genesis 9:1 - 9:17

After the flood, God speaks to Noah and his family.  His goals seem to be three-fold.  First, to establish blessings similar to those he gave to Adam and Eve (9:1-4).  Second, to establish some new responsibilities (9:5-7), and third, to reassure Noah's family after the ordeal of the flood (9:8-17).  Let's have a look at each of these

In 9:1, God repeats the blessing of Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and increase in number".  Notice, however that instead of subduing the earth, God tells Noah and his family that their rule over the animals will be one characterized by fear.  And, notice that God includes the animals as food for mankind while in Genesis 1:29 God only included plants as food.  There are many speculative things we could say about these differences but the thing to grasp is that things will be different for mankind after the flood.

In 9:5 it looks like God will hold man (and animals) accountable for the life of "his fellow man".  This makes sense since the examples of Cain and Lamech earlier in Genesis suggest that there may have been a murder problem among the people of Noah's day.  God follows this up in verse 6 by delegating to mankind the authority to punish bloodshed (murder).  The second part of the verse makes a justification for this change: "for in the image of God has God made man."  This has three effects.  First, it places importance upon mankind as image bearers of God.  It is no small thing to kill a human being.  Second, there is an implication that previously, mankind did not deal with murderers, God did directly (as with Cain).  Third, there is a suggestion that God is justified in delegating the task to mankind (since they bear his image).

From verses 9:11 through 9:17, God establishes a covenant to never flood the earth again.  He designates the rainbow as a sign of this covenant/contract/promise.  Notice that this contract is one-sided.  God initiates the contract, provides terms, and is the enforcer of the promise.  God will be merciful.

The Flood Ends: Genesis 8:1-22

Genesis 8:1 opens with the phrase "God remembered Noah."  The idea of God remembering should seem strange to us.  Had he forgotten Noah for the year and ten days he spent in the ark?  What sort of omniscient god forgets something?  It turns out that the Hebrew concept of God remembering is a quite different from our own.  Derek Kidner, in his commentary "Genesis" says, "God [remembering] combines the ideas of faithful love... and timely intervention."  So when the text says that God remembered Noah, there is an implied action taking place.  In this case, God acts to dry up the waters and bring Noah out of the ark.

Verses 6 through 14 are interesting.  Why is Noah playing with birds?  Why is he waiting?  Why not just come out of the ark if he can see the ground is dry (verses 13 and 14) instead of just removing the ark's covering?  We might think his behavior is a little odd, but consider that God commanded Noah to build and fill the ark (6:14-22), and he commanded Noah to enter the ark (7:1-3).  Now Noah demonstrates his obedience once again by patiently waiting waiting for God to command him to come out of the ark (this happens in verse 8:15).  

In verse 20, Noah builds an altar to God and offers sacrifices of clean animals on it.  You might wonder what constitutes "clean".  For this, we have to remember the audience that was hearing the story.  The newly minted nation of Israel, led by Moses, had laws defining which animals are clean.  This would have been familiar to them and needed no further explanation.  Descriptions of clean animals can be found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

Let's consider why God is pleased by Noah's offering.  The text says that he found the aroma pleasing in verse 21.  But consider the offerings of Cain and Abel from chapter 4.  In my post on that passage, it was clear that God was displeased with Cain's attitude more than the nature of his offering (aroma or otherwise).  I think the same is true here.  Let's once again consider our audience.  The nation of Israel had laws regarding burned offerings and their purpose (see Leviticus 1).  In general, burned offerings had the following concepts associated with them:

1)  Recognition that the giver had a broken relationship with God (sinfulness)
2)  The offering was a symbol of the giver's sinfulness (through laying on hands in Leviticus 1:4)
3)  Burning the offering restored the relationship between God and the giver (atonement)

So it is likely that Noah's offering showed his desire for a restored relationship with God.  In verse 21, God responds with two statements.  First, God tells Noah that he will not curse the ground (as he did in Genesis 3:17) even though man's inherently evil nature would justify such action.  Here, we see God acting mercifully toward mankind in spite of the evil in their hearts, not because of their righteousness.  Second, God reassures Noah that he will never again destroy all living creatures.

The Flood: Genesis 7:1 - 7:24

In my last post, I talked about how God deals with evil.  I said that he is patient, and he graciously pursues us in our fallen state.  But, eventually God acts and he acts boldly.  In Genesis chapter 7, we see God act boldly to destroy evil by flooding the earth.  Let's consider some things in the way he brought this about.

In 7:1, God commands Noah to go into the ark and take his family "because I have found you righteous..."  In his commentary "Genesis", Derek Kidner notes that the "you" in this verse is singular.  There is a suggestion that Noah was righteous and that his family was blessed (and preserved) because of his righteousness.  There might also be an implication that perhaps Noah's family isn't so righteous.  Perhaps, after Noah is gone, there will be no righteous influence left on the earth.  If this is the case, God patiently (and dramatically) waited until the last possible moment before bringing the flood, giving mankind as much time as possible to repent and turn toward him.  But he acts before all is lost; before there are no righteous left to preserve.  

There is a lot of repetition in this section.  When you look at it, the story is practically repeated three times.  Once in 6:9 through 22 with a focus on God's plan and covenant with Noah, again in 7:1 through 7:12 with a focus on God's provision for the animals and Noah's family, and finally in 7:13 through 7:24 with a focus on the great flood and all the destruction that it caused.  It is interesting that Noah's obedience to God's commands is highlighted in each telling of the story (6:22, 7:5, 7:16).  Not only does this emphasize Noah's righteousness but also God's provision for the righteous.  I can't imagine this would have been an easy time for him, but God's purpose was to use the last righteous man on earth to preserve the living, not give him a comfortable life.

On a less theological note, I know many struggle over the nature of the flood.  Was it a large but local flood with the text describing the way things appeared to Noah?  Was it global with the entire earth covered in miles of water?  I don't really know.  Kidner notes that "Whole Earth" can also be translated as "Country" in Hebrew and that the language could be used to support either case.  We would do better concern ourselves over how passionate God is about dealing with evil and the provision he makes for those who love him and obey. 

A Path for Redemption: Genesis 6:9 - 6:22

Before we get to Noah and the flood, notice there is a lot of repetition in verses 5 through 13.  In verse 5, humans are evil, and in verse 12 they are corrupt and they have corrupted the earth.  In verses 6 and 7 God's heart is "deeply troubled" by the situation and he plans to solve it by wiping the earth clean.  In verse 13 God declares he will "put an end to all people for the earth is filled with violence because of them."  The end of verse 13 repeats and summarizes, "I [will] destroy both them and the earth."  Verses 8 through 10 talk about Noah.  He "found favor in the eyes of the Lord" in verse 8.  In verse 9 he is described as righteous, blameless, and faithful.  Noah is a sharp contrast to the violent corruption of the people around him.  The scene is set (multiple times for emphasis) with the earth in a state of utter depravity, only a single family still faithful to God, and God ready to act.

We might wonder, why would God let this happen to his creation?  Why choose this moment to act?  Why not sooner?  (and we may well ask, why not later?).

Let's consider how we've seen God deal with evil so far.  In the garden he punished Adam and eve for disobeying.  With Cain God pursued him despite his rebellious heart and told him he could still be accepted if he did what was right.  When Cain murders his brother, God punishes him by taking away his livelihood (the ground would no longer produce food at ALL for him) but also protected him to prevent others from killing him.  In Chapter 6, God sets a time limit for his corrupted creation.  So, what does all this suggest?  From my perspective, God's prevailing characteristic when dealing with evil is patience.  He does not act impulsively (like I would) and he does not act harshly (yep, me again - I'm pretty sure I'd be harsh if I were in his position).  But he does act!

So far, we have only seen God act in a measured and precise way.  He responds to Cain's bitterness by not looking on his offering with favor in 4:5.  Then God escalates his response to Cain by calling him to repent in verse 4:7.  And he further escalates his response after Cain murders his brother.  At each point, Cain rejects God instead of repenting.

Now, many generations later, mankind has overwhelmingly responded to God's patience with more and more corruption.  Perhaps we should not ask, "how could God let this happen," instead we should ask, "why did mankind repay God's patience and kindness with evil and corruption?"  While we might like to blame God for the problems on the earth, we are not given that option in the story.  We must either realize that mankind is responsible for the corruption on the earth or look like fools when we attempt to pass the blame: "I responded to your patience, kindness, and redemptive pursuits with rejection, corruption, and evil, so it's your fault God!"

Now that mankind has fully revealed his wicked nature and utter refusal to repent, God acts.  His plan to wipe the slate clean also includes a plan to preserve mankind through Noah and his family (as outlined in verses 6:14 through 6:21).  As we have seen before, God provides a path for redemption when he deals with evil.

The Decline of Mankind: Genesis 4:17 - 6:6

This section of Genesis marks a shift in the story.  We've seen how quickly man has fallen from the peaceful relationships before being cast out of the garden to the murdering siblings we saw in the last post.  It took only one generation apart from the presence of God.

Starting in verse 4:17 we have a look at Cain's descendants.  In verse 19 we briefly pick up the story again about 5 generations after Cain.  Here we meet Lamech who boasts to his wives that he killed a young man in a fight.  Kidner, in his commentary "Genesis", contrasts Cain's response with Lamech's.  He notes that Cain succumbed to sin and its consequences whereas Lamech revels in it and seeks provocation.  Cain's descendants have clearly taken sin to a new level in a short time.

In verse 4:25, Adam and Eve have another son named Seth.  Seth is declared to be a replacement for his righteous brother Abel at the end of verse 4:25.  His descendants are enumerated in chapter 5 and his lineage appears to be a counterpoint to the violent line of Cain.  Consider Enoch (5:24) who "walked faithfully with God".  Also note that the Lamech of verse 28 is not the same violent Lamech we saw among Cain's descendants.  This Lamech is the father of Noah (who we will talk about in the next post).

This brings us up to chapter 6.  There is a bit of confusion about some of the terms in the first part of this chapter.  Who are the sons of God?  Who are the daughters of humans?  Who are the Nephilim?  Why are they having kids?  There are a few theories about this, but we don't really know for certain.  And who they are is less important than God's view of mankind at this time.  In verse 3 God says, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever..." and in verses 5 and 6 we read:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.  The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Clearly, all is not well.  Nearly all of mankind has turned away from God and, following in the footsteps of Cain's descendants, is only inclined toward evil.  How far they have fallen from the garden!  This is the foundation the author is lays as we head into a story about what God will do about it.  

Cain and Abel: Genesis 4:1-16

This is another story I remember disliking when I was younger (yes, I did like some of them I promise).  Interestingly, this is now one of my favorite stories.  Not because of what ultimately happens but because of what this story demonstrates about God's character.  Let's have a look.

The story opens with Eve giving birth to her first-born son Cain.  She seems pretty happy about it when she declares, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man."  I've heard people speculate that she was hopeful this child would crush the serpent's head as told by God in 3:15.  If only the serpent's reign could have been crushed so quickly!  However, Cain is no deliverer.  Quite the opposite in fact.

The story picks up when Cain and his brother Abel bring offerings to God in verses 3 and 4.  There is a strong contrast between the two brothers here.  Cain's vegetable offerings are contrasted in verse 4 with fat portions of the firstborn of Abel's flock.  There's a lot of speculation about the acceptability of the offerings themselves.  Did God dislike broccoli?  Were there already rules in place about acceptable offerings?  I speculate that Cain offering "fruits of the soil" - soil that God had cursed - might display an attitude problem.  Offering fruit from cursed soil may have, by association, carried with it a bitter rebuke.  It's as if he is saying, "here, I offer a portion of this harvest that you have cursed and made meager.  You deserve nothing more."  But I am only speculating about the cursed soil being the issue.

However, the adjectives that describe the offerings suggest very different attitudes from the brothers.  Abel clearly chooses the best of what he has while Cain does not.  Cain's attitude, more than anything else, is at the heart (pun intended) of the problem.

So, God doesn't look with favor on Cain's offering and Cain gets very angry in verse 5.  And here is the part of the story that changed my attitude about it.  God doesn't leave Cain alone.  Think of the wealth of things God could have done.  He could have destroyed Cain for being a sullen giver.  He could have told Cain that their relationship was ended and he should never return.  But that's not what God does!  He pursues Cain.  He goes to him to talk and work through the problem.  God goes to a sullen, rebellious, murderous Cain and tries to mend the brokenness in their relationship!  He asks, "Why are you angry?" Now of course, God knows why Cain is angry but he gives him the chance to express himself.  This might also be a rhetorical question suggesting that Cain shouldn't be angry with the situation.  This is probably a better interpretation since God next says (with my paraphrase), "do what is right and I'll accept you."  God tells Cain that this isn't a permanent situation, he can make a choice and be accepted.  And, God warns Cain.  He tells him that he is on a path to be owned by sin.  This is also amazing to me.  Cain is already on this angry murderous path and God still pursues him.  The reason I find it so amazing is because this is a depiction of God's pursuing character.  He  actively pursues us even when we are broken and rebellious.  When I re-read this story several years ago, my picture of God was angry and wrath-filled, and I was shocked at how gracious he was acting.

The story continues and Cain ignores God and murders his brother.  Then Cain denies that he did anything in verse 9.  When God reveals Cain's lie and explains his punishment, Cain essentially tells him it's unfair in verse 13.  At this point, Cain has hit strike four (ignoring, murdering, denying, and whining), but what does God do?  He protects Cain from harm!  This is a far cry from how I would react and a far cry from a depiction of God as a raging tyrant.

Creation and the Fall: Recap

In the final scene of the fall, God drives Adam and Eve from the garden so that they could not, "take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:21)  Derek Kidner suggests this might be because of "logical necessity, since eternal life is fellowship with God."  I think he's right but would add that I don't like to imagine a world where evil people lived forever.

That pretty much wraps up the creation and fall of man and I think it's a good place to stop and consider a little historical context.  

The first five books of the Bible have their authorship attributed to Moses and tell the story of God's interactions with man up through the creation of the nation of Israel.  The Israelite people were brought out of the nation of Egypt (that story is in Exodus) where they were exposed to a different view of the world that included many gods struggling for balance and control. 

The Genesis account would have been particularly important to the fledgling nation.  First, it gives a view of the world as created by single all-powerful being that creates everything.  The same god that created the heavens also created the earth, the seas, the plants, the animals, and mankind.  Second, it establishes that mankind is created in God's image and given great value by him.  Finally, it establishes man's rebellion as the root cause of suffering, struggle and evil in the world.  Each of these would have been radically different from the views they would have been exposed to in Egypt.

Curses part 2: Genesis 3:12-19

In my last post I compared the temptation in the garden to a chess game between the serpent and God.  The serpent made his move and declared victory.  So, how does God respond in this situation?  Let's keep this in mind as we look at the text today.

God first deals with the source of the temptation in verse 14 by cursing the serpent.  There is a lot to say here (I'm using Derek Kidner's "Genesis" commentary again today) but I want to briefly focus on verse 15.  Notice that part of God's curse on the serpent is for his head to be crushed by one of Eve's descendants.  How fitting that the serpent should be "done in" by the very thing he sought to destroy.  Kidner suggests this curse on mankind's enemy is a "glimmer of the gospel".  God indicates that the serpent's victory is temporary and that his power over mankind will be undone.

If we return to the chess game for a moment, it seems like the serpent's declaration of victory was a bit premature.  It's as if God says, "That is not checkmate, I have other pieces on the board that you didn't pay attention to."  

Next God pronounces judgement on Eve.  There are two parts.  The first is painful child bearing.  While the curse on the serpent is for his power to be undone by Eve's offspring, this judgement tells her it won't be an easy thing.  The second judgement is a depiction of marital discord.  This shouldn't be surprising to us since we already saw their broken relationship when they played the "pass the blame" game in verse 12.  In a sense, God is giving her a head's up about the damage that has already been done to their marriage and how that damage will manifest as a mutual desire to dominate each other.

Now God turns his attention to Adam.  Just like the explanation of relational brokenness he gave to Eve, God explains that Adam's actions have cursed the earth and that he will have to struggle to provide sustenance.  And he explains that mankind will eventually die and return to the earth from which God made them.

We might be tempted to think that the pronouncements upon Adam and Eve are rather harsh, but consider, for a moment, what God has done.

1)  He ordered the earth and made it a place suitable for life
2)  He created all living things and provided for them.
3)  He had an inclusive, patient relationship with Adam and gave him Eve as his wife.

Now that mankind has rebelled against God and declared, "I know better than you," there is a separation between God and man (see verse 8).  Since God authored the three things above, it seems logical and natural that a broken relationship with him would translate into a broken relationship with the things he created.  And so the natural result is that life, provision, and relationships are all broken because of man's rebellion.  In this light, God is not being harsh, he is being very forthcoming with Adam and Eve about the natural result of their actions.

Curses: Genesis 3:14-3:19

I used to read this section and wonder why God didn't just fix the problem?  I mean, he’s God right?  Why suffering?  Why pain?  Why frustration and brokenness?  I think a lot of people struggle with this dilemma.  Why would God allow evil into his creation in the first place?  And why doesn't he seem to fix the problem?  These two questions about the fall are really just a small part of two bigger questions that people have debated since time began:  “Is God good?” and “Is God all-powerful?”  In fact, Adam and Eve were confronted with the first question “Is God Good?” as we saw in our last post.  Their actions answered the question with a resounding: “No.  He’s not good.  I know better.”  As we work through the Bible, we’ll have to consider these two questions over and over again:  “Is God good?” and “Is God all-powerful?”

When I consider the situation, I wonder what I’d do in God’s place.  There are many options.  Consider these:

Resigned acceptance – “Well, back to the drawing board.  ‘Earth 2.0’ has a nice ring to it don’t you think?”
Passive aggressive – “I think it’s time for a nice hot meteor shower don’t you?  Oh.  Too hot?  I’m terribly sorry, but it IS the best thing for cleaning up messes like these.”
Wishful thinking – “Let’s just forget this ever happened and start over.  Best friends?”
Fashionable – “I’m trying to figure out if the Earth would look better as a cloud of vapor or with a shiny glass surface ten kilometers thick.”
Apologetic -  “Oops, it seems I've bumped your planet onto a collision course with the sun.  Butterfingers!
Time travel – “Did God really say – “ [Flash, bang, boom! An imposing figure appears in the garden and says:] “Come with me if you want to live…”
Cooking show – “Just pop it into a 7200 degree oven for about 2000 years.  Oh!  It seems I've got another in there already.  Doesn't it look delicious?  You know it’s done when it stops bubbling and a knife melts before you can get it close to the surface.  Bon appetite!”

OK, all humor aside, my options boil down to destroying everything and starting over or somehow undoing man’s rebellious actions, or just ignoring the problem all together.  Let's look at each of these options and consider what kind of god would act this way.

What would we think if God ignored the problem, hugged the first couple and acted as if nothing had happened?  We would probably start asking questions like, "Did God really mean what he said about eating the fruit?"  And move on to questions like, "What kind of God doesn't do what he says he'll do?"  And end up with questions like, "How can I believe anything God says?" or, "What else can I get away with?" and, "I don't really need to listen to God at all."  It's obvious that a willfully blind god isn't a very good one.

So, what if God completely destroyed mankind and started over?  Well, at least he wouldn't be useless like the god of the last option.  This is a god who has power and knows how to use it!  But consider all the time and effort he spent making the earth and everything that lives on it.  We might start asking questions about such a god like, "did he forget something?" or, "did he make a mistake?" or, "did he care about what he created?" or even, "what will this god do to me?" It seems like this god, while powerful, is either uncaring or foolish.  He wields his power haphazardly and has no mercy, grace, or wisdom.  While this god is worth fearing, he is not a god worth following.

So, why didn't God just erase the problem?  Maybe he could have just waved a magic wand or modified everyone's memory to make things OK again.  Surely this would be a good and measured use of his power right?  This god has great appeal for a modern culture filled with near-instantaneous fixes.  But, for a moment, consider that the garden scene was a game of chess between God and the serpent.  The serpent made his move and victoriously declared "checkmate!".  A god that fixes problems by erasing them would say something like, "New rule! No checkmates on Tuesdays!" or he might remove the serpent's last piece and say, "I don't know what you're talking about..."  This god is a cheater and isn't trustworthy.  How can we trust that he won't break the rules when it comes to his interactions with us?  And, not only is this god a cheater, he's also a loser.  When the serpent cried out, "checkmate!" this god's only option for winning was to change the board.  It seems like this god isn't worth following either.

Thankfully, God doesn't act like any of these optional gods.  He's not blind, uncaring, foolish, or untrustworthy.  He acknowledges mankind's rebellion and deals with it like a good parent.  He holds his children responsible for their actions and explains and enforces the consequences.  When I compare God's response to how I would respond, it's clear that he is more restrained, more calm, more mature, and more thoughtful than me.  When I consider how he uses his power in this situation, I see the same caring craftsman depicted in Genesis 1 and 2.  He acts with exacting precision in every situation.  And he prepares his creation for what's coming next.  Even though mankind had rebelled, God still takes the time to prepare them.  In short he acts better than me.

The realization that God acts better than I do is important.  I know that it doesn't fully answer the questions of if God is good and all-powerful.  But it does place him somewhere above me on the scale of goodness.  This might not seem significant, but consider where Adam and Eve placed God on the goodness-scale when tempted by the serpent.  They decided their judgment was better than God’s and that decision lead to disaster.  When we answer, “God is better than me” we are on a different path than theirs.

For a moment, let's return to the chess game I mentioned above.  How does God respond when the serpent declares victory?  If he didn't cheat and didn't leave the game (or flipped over the board), how is DID he respond in this analogy?  Let's consider that a bit more closely in the next post.

The Fall: Genesis 3:1 - 13

My dad would read the creation story to my sister and me when we were young.  I always hated this part of the story because I didn't like tragic endings.  I’d rather my dad read a different Bible story because, let’s face it, this section of scripture doesn't show mankind at his best.  Thinking about it now, I realize how naive I was - the stories don’t really get any better, and selecting a story that shows man in a positive light would be difficult.  In the Bible, mankind has a bright light shown on him and we see him with all his blemishes, his bruises, and his defects.  Make no mistake, God is the only hero in the story.

We've already seen God as creator, provider, and nurturer in the first two chapters.  The scene is set with everything at peace, in its proper place.  But this is not how we experience the world.  Finally we find out why.

In 3:1 Eve is tempted with a question.  It starts with “Did God really say…”  I think there is an implied sense of shock with this statement.  It’s as though the real question is a statement such as: “Admit it, God keeps you in chains down here,” or perhaps, “Does God really keep you locked up down here with nothing to eat?”  In any case, the “question” isn't really a question at all.  The serpent probably isn't interested in the answer, but in the seed of doubt he is planting.  With that in mind, the intended statement is: “God isn't really being good to you”.*

Verses 3:4 and 3:5 follow with 2 outright lies.  I’ll rephrase them for emphasis.  3:4 – “God is lying to you, you won’t die” and 3:5 – “God is oppressing you by withholding something good from you.”

So Eve eats the fruit and so does her husband.  But, consider this question:  When did they sin?  I believe they sinned when they chose to trust the serpent instead of God and what he said.  Also, look closely at the end of 3:6.  Eve didn't have to go far to give Adam some fruit.  He was right there with her! (So, guys, stop being so self-righteous toward the gals) Presumably, Adam was watching and listening to the whole exchange and did nothing about it…  Except disobey in the exact same way Eve did.

This brings us to verses 3:8-13.  Or, as I like to call it, the “pass the blame” section.  Now that they've done something wrong their first instinct is to turn on each other and God (“the woman YOU put here with me” [my emphasis]).  So we see how their broken relationship with God has also driven a wedge of discord between them. 

In the next post, I’ll have a look at the fall out of this whole mess.

*Many people speculate about Eve’s response regarding touching the fruit.  Was she lying because God did not say that in Genesis 2:17?  Had Adam misinformed her?  Had the statement in 2:17 been a brief summary of what God really said?  I tend to think she might be lying (or been misinformed) simply because it is the act of eating that causes the problem (as seen in verses 3:6, 3:11, 3:12, and 3:13) and not the act of touching the fruit (or so it seems to me).  If this is true, this lie might indicate a seed of bitterness already growing in the hearts of the first couple.  I imagine the serpent being surprised to find that a seed had already put down roots and was sprouting.  How fortunate for him; he wouldn't even have to water or fertilize…

The Creation of Woman: Genesis 2:20 – 25

As I mentioned in my last post, Genesis 1 is a big picture view of creation, while Genesis 2 is a view of creation with mankind under the microscope.  Everything slows from the rushed pace and the broad scope of the creation days in Genesis 1.  Before talking about how the first woman is created, have a close look at verses 18 and 20.  In 18 God speaks His first “not good” statement… ever.  It is “not good” for man to be alone.

How interesting.  Clearly God doesn't mean “alone” in the sense of loneliness or isolation since God has a relationship with the first man (Adam).  He seems to mean “alone-in-kind”.  It is not good that Adam be the only one of his kind.

What I find even more interesting is how God goes about making the first woman.  Once He decides to make her, He doesn't just snap His fingers and introduce her to Adam:  

[A bright flash of light and a poof of smoke]

God:  “Surprise!  Look what I made!”

Adam:  “What’s that?”

God:  “It’s a woman.  She’s for you.  Isn't she great?”

Adam:  “What do I need one of those for?”

Badum-Ching. Curtain.

God doesn't act imperiously.  He doesn't manipulate or order Adam to go along with His decision.  He acts just like he did in Genesis 1.  Just as He prepared creation to make a place for lights, birds, fish, and land animals, he prepares Adam for Eve.  He parades all the animals past Adam so that he might name them.  And, in the process Adam realizes he is unique and alone.  There is no other created being like him. 

People make much about how Eve was created from Adam’s rib.  This starts their relationship as being side-by-side co-equals.  I think there is a better argument that reaches a similar conclusion.  The text says, “no suitable helper was found”.  But, surely the animals would have been helpful.  Domesticated animals have been very helpful to mankind.  So, what kind of help are we talking about here?  The conclusion I draw is that Adam needs someone to share in the ruling of creation.  So, God makes for him a complementary co-ruler.  A helper suitable for sharing the duties of ruling.

My thought for application:

We see God preparing both creation and Adam for new things.  He is patient, gracious, and kind in the process.  The preparation takes work (both on God’s part and on ours).  Do we have faith that God is preparing us?  Are we doing the work He has put before us?

The Creation of Man: Genesis 1:26 – 2:20

In case you are wondering, I’m using a commentary on Genesis by Derek Kidner.  I really needed it today.  He points out an interesting turn of phrase in 1:26.  Here, God says “let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”(NIV).  This is interesting for a couple reasons.  First, notice that during the other creation days, God says things like, “let there be…,” “let the water…be…,” “let the water teem…,” and “let the land produce…”.  These phrases are very different than the “let us make” of 1:26.  “Let us make” implies a greater closeness.  Unlike telling the water to teem with living creatures or the land to produce animals, God himself will make man.  And not only will he make man, but he will make man in His image for the purpose of ruling the earth.  Kidner points out that man is a new and unique creation; both part of the created world, but also created in the likeness of God.

In verses 29-30, God gives all of his creatures plants as food.  Once again, God is depicted as caring, and provisional.  All creation depends upon His good gifts.  Kidner suggests that we do not assume God created all things as herbivores.  Instead, it is widely recognized that all things ultimately derive sustenance from plants.  Whether or not you agree with that, God is still seen as the ultimate provider and giver of good gifts. 

Verse 31 marks another change in the creation account.  After creating man (both male and female), God looks at all of his work and declares it “very good”.  Prior to this, God called the work of each day “good”.  I think there is a sense of completeness with the “very good”.  And this is appropriate since the next verse says “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” NIV).  The completeness of creation is marked by the seventh day of creation.  Here God ceases from the work of creating.

Now that the author has established a creation account from a big picture point of view, the scene shifts to focus on the creation of man and woman and God’s early interaction with them.  Once again, we see an intimate picture of God forming mankind and lavishly caring for them.  The depiction of a lush garden with beautiful trees and delicious fruit is nothing short of drool-worthy.  But this idyllic setting is not a place for laziness.  God intended man to take care of the land (2:15), to know the animals, and to name them (2:19-20).

In the Beginning: Genesis 1:1-25

I really can’t think of a more controversial place to start than Genesis 1.  Put simply, there is much battling over the question of how we got here.  And there are so many sides to take – I know, I’ve been on a couple of them.  I don’t think having different ideas about how we got here is necessarily a bad thing.  If anything, I think my experiences wrestling with this question allows me to appreciate that wrestling with questions is just part of the Christian walk. 

There is no end of different views about Genesis 1 – even among Christians.  I think, however, that every Christian can agree that God created everything.  And we can all agree that we really don’t know how He did it (although we may like to speculate).  About the only disagreement among Christians, in my opinion, comes from how we view the text of Genesis 1.  Is it largely poetic/allegorical or largely narrative/literal. 

Before I discuss my thoughts about how to view the text, let me say a couple things about the importance of how we view the text.  First, I really don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things.  For the Christian walk, I think it is enough to say “God exists eternally and created everything” and move from there.  Second, the implications of how we view the text boil down to HOW God did His creating.  Was it over in 6 24-hour days or billions of years?  I think getting caught up in answering this question is a big distraction. 

This doesn’t mean we should never consider or investigate it but I don’t think we should be consumed with it.  Considering how long the Bible is, there really isn’t a lot of detail about creation.  And there are a lot of details to wonder about!  The Bible briefly establishes that God is the creator of everything and then spends the rest of the time telling of God’s relationship with Mankind. 

If the Bible’s primary concern is our relationship with God, we might do well to thankfully acknowledge Him as our creator, and, like the text, move on to discovering and building our relationship with Him.  And, if this result is the same whether or not the text is poetry or narrative, then determining the exact genre of Genesis 1 seems like a secondary issue in the Christian walk.

However, I admit that I have a preference toward a poetic interpretation for a couple reasons.  The most significant reason is how a poetic interpretation shows God’s beauty, power, and character.  For a moment, let’s consider Genesis 1:2 and the days of creation as counterpoints to each other.  In 1:2 it says “the earth was formless and empty”.  And, if we look at the first 6 days of creation, God spends three days forming the earth and bringing order out of chaos.  He separates day and night on the first day, separates sky and sea on the second day, and separates land and sea on the third day.  In these three days, we see a powerful God who is carefully forming a safe place for his creation to reside.  He sweeps away the chaos of formlessness and replaces it with order, boundaries, and beauty.  Now that the Earth is no longer formless, God fills it with life.  Where he ordered night and day on the first day, he adds lights.  Where he ordered the sky and seas he adds birds and sea creatures.  And, where he created the land, God fills it with plants and animals.  This is a counterpoint to the “void” or lifeless earth found in verse 1:2.  So God prepared a place for life and then filled that place with life.  This, to my mind, shows a picture of a powerful god who operates in reasonable, orderly ways.  A provider who does what is best for his creation.  An artist who is pleased with his work and calls it good. 

This brings us up to around verse 26 – the creation of mankind.  Let’s discuss this next time.