Trip Round the Son

A Few Words About Grace

2011-07-18T00:10:00.000-05:00

Hi, my name is Derek and I am the long lost author of this blog. Being the fallen, undisciplined creature that I am, my initial goal of reading through God's Word chronologically has hit a few speed bumps. Namely, my own lack of self control and prioritization of spending time in the Bible.

So, I plan on continuing my study soon. I've spent far too little time reading and meditating on God's Word these last couple of months. That being said, though, God has been showing me things in spite of my delinquency (as a side note, as soon as I typed "delinquency," I did a spell check. Shockingly, I got it right!). One thing I would like to talk about right now is grace. As a disclaimer, none of these are my thoughts. They have been mined from either God's word, various pastors, select teachers, and other blogs. However, a general rule when discussing Christianity is that if you have an original thought, you are probably doing it wrong. We all stand on God's Word, and it's been around for a few centuries. Hard to bring accurate originality to something like that.

Something God has been beating me over the head with lately is grace. If you asked me straight up if works got you to heaven, I emphatically deny it. I don't believe it is true. But I haven't thoroughly applied that truth in every area of my life. I struggle with feelings that God only loves me when I am doing good. That He enjoys having me as a son when I am performing and is ashamed or disappointed when I'm not. In 1 Corinthians 15:10, Paul acknowledges that he worked harder than any of the other prominent early Christians, but it mattered not.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, & his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. (1 Cor 15:10 ESV)

Before you tune me out, hear this. Most of us can easily accept the fact that God's grace is the only way to get to heaven. But to limit God's grace to that alone is to cheapen it. God's grace means that nothing we do matters. Not the good, not the bad, nothing. All that matters is who God is and how He has chosen to deal with us. God loves me because of who He is, not because of who I am. I'm going to screw up sometimes, and I'm going to do well sometimes. But it doesn't affect God's love for me. God loves me because it glorifies Him, and nothing I can do will change that.

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Romans 11:6 ESV

What freedom that brings. Yes, sin is serious and it should be repented of. But, praise be to God, our salvation and our relationship to Him depends totally on Him and requires nothing from me. God doesn't wait for me to become lovable before loving me, He just does. And He doesn't rescind His love when I trample and profane it. He loves me anyway. To quote from Tullian Tchividjian:

Only in the gospel does love precede loveliness. Everywhere else loveliness precedes love.

How much energy have we all wasted worrying about what God thought about us following a moment of weakness? And how silly is it that we think God loves us enough to send Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for us but becomes a petulant teenager the minute we step out of line?

*To see the full context of Tullian's quote, go to http://theresurgence.com/2011/07/11/wrecked-by-grace

Not a Good Day to be a Three Year Old Cow

2011-03-05T22:15:00.000-06:00

Genesis 15

Having completed the rescue of Lot and his family, Abram is soon given a vision of God. This was Abram’s third vision since arriving in Canaan. God promised Abram that He was both Abram’s defender and Abram’s ultimate reward. Too many times, we pursue God because of the ancillary benefits of a relationship with Him. If you believe in the prosperity gospel, you likely believe that relationship with God will bring you health and wealth. Maybe you view God as a golden ticket to heaven. Maybe you think God will bring you the girl or the car you’ve always wanted. But, as God reminds Abram, He is to be our highest and central desire. We are to desire him among all else because He is God, not because He is some cosmic genie that can give us whatever we want.

Abram struggles with the whole “great reward” thing though and reminds God that despite His promise, Abram and Sarai remain childless. As it were due to the customs of the time, Abram’s heir would currently be his most trusted servant, Eliezer. God reiterated that Abram would have a son as an heir. He then went a step further, saying Abram’s descendants would rival the number of stars in the sky. One commentary says his particular metaphor was referring to the spiritual descendents of Abram, or those that are justified by their faith. By comparison, when God told Abram that counting his descendents would be like counting particles of dust, God could have been referring to Abram’s physical descendents or all those born Jewish. One final note is that the word that translates to “your descendents” is the Hebrew word for seed and is used in other places to refer to the coming Messiah.

After God’s promise, it is said in verse 6 that Abram “believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” Another way of saying that is that God declared Abram as righteous. I’m not sure how the salvation of souls was accomplished in the Old Testament. Some believe it was by works. This verse, however, seems in contradiction to that. It was Abram’s belief in God and His promise that caused God to declare him righteous. That is no different than now. It is our belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made on the cross for our sins that results in our salvation now. Abram completed no task or act that resulted in him being declared righteous. He believed God was who He said He was and that He would do what He said He would do.

God finishes this chapter by sealing his covenant with Abram for both descendents and the land of Canaan. PETA would probably not be happy with what’s about to happen. God commands Abram to get a 3 yr old heifer, 3 yr old female goat, 3 yr old ram, turtledove, and young pigeon. Abram obeys, and then does something that today would get him labeled as a nutcase and locked in the local mental institution or federal prison. He splits the heifer, goat, and ram down the middle. He simply killed the birds but did not split them. He then set the halves of each animal opposite of each other and made a path down the middle. He spent the rest of the day chasing vultures away from the carcasses of the animals. At night fall, God puts Abram to

sleep much like He did Adam when He removed a rib to make Eve. He then makes the following promises to Abram:

· His descendents will be strangers in a foreign land for 400 years (fulfilled in Egypt)
· The foreign land will be judged by God and the people will come out with great possessions (fulfilled by 10 plagues and subsequent plundering of Egypt)
· Abram will peacefully pass away at an old age
· His descendents will not inherit the land until 4 generations later because the Amorites hadn’t reached time for their judgement

Then, it gets even weirder. As a symbol of God’s commitment, He (in the form of a smoking oven and burning torch) walks the path between the split animals. The meaning of all this is obvious, right? No, not so much? Ok, well, God was fulfilling a common method of sealing covenants at that time. Symbolically, He was telling Abram that should anything He promised not come to pass, let the God of the universe become like these animals. God was putting the full weight of His existence behind the promises He made to Abram. And that’s not even the cool part. Traditionally, both members of the covenant walked the path, making matching commitments to fulfilling the promises. Notice God was the only one to walk the path. Abram committed to nothing. God promised Abram all this and Abram promised nothing in return. This is yet another example of God’s grace, of God giving with human beings offering nothing in return.

Genesis 16

After seeing all that, how could Abram possibly doubt God’s promise, right? Wrong. 10 years pass and Sarai still has no children. Sarai gets a little antsy, so she offers a solution that was customary for the time. Since Sarai had been unable to have children on her own, she offered up her Egyptian servant Hagar to serve as a surrogate. Now, Abram may have normally been a very intelligent individual full of courage and integrity. But right now, he’s stupid. Who really thinks this could end well? Your wife can’t have a child and she’s bummed. She says “Here, sleep with this servant girl and get a child that way. I want you to.” Riiiiiiiight. So Abram, being exceedingly dumb at this moment, agrees. Of course, Hagar gets pregnant. Hagar also begins to feel superior over Sarai, which isn’t surprising given the importance placed on childbearing at this time. Sarai feels insulted and curses Abram for sleeping with Hagar and giving Hagar the superiority complex. Abram’s probably standing their sputtering and stammering because this was Sarai’s idea in the first place. In an effort to placate Sarai, Abram tells her she can do with Hagar as she sees fit. Sarai treats Hagar poorly, so poorly that Hagar eventually flees . What can we learn from all this? Men, if a woman tells you she is fine with something, do NOT believe her. Seriously, millions of lives have been lost between Arabs and Jews because Abram believed Sarai when she said “I’m ok with it, I promise.” This should be made a mandatory topic of pre-marital counseling.

I love the language in verse 7 because it says the Angel of the Lord “finds” Hagar at a spring. God seeks Hagar out in order to comfort and minister to Hagar. It’s important to note that the phrase “Angel of the Lord” usually indicates manifestation of God and not simply an angel like Michael or Gabriel. Many believe this was actually Jesus Christ prior to incarnation. Anyway, He tells Hagar to return and submit to Sarai. He also promises that her son will also be the head of a great nation. That promise would be fulfilled in the Arab people. Hagar, who had apparently come to faith in God as a member of Abram’s household, names the location Beer Lahai Roi (Well of the One Who Lives and Sees Me) and returns to bear Abram’s son Ishmael. Abram was 86 at the time.

Next blog post will cover the covenant of circumcision and the beginning of the end for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Don't Mess with the Abram

2011-02-08T23:44:00.002-06:00

Bad news first. The cough that was terrorizing me at the time of last posting is still here. The good news is that with the help of two massive shots in the hindparts and daily antibiotics, it's on the run, hopefully never to return again. I'm also writing from the east coast of Virginia as I get what is billed as leadership training but is really much more. We've had some long days, and I'm ready to write about some Abram and hit the sack.

Genesis 13

Properly shamed for his deception by the Pharaoh himself, Abram packs up his family and possessions and high tails it out of Egypt. His nephew Lot tags along with his possessions and livestock and all that. Initially, Abram heads back to a place he is familiar with, between Bethel and Ai, and stops to worship God at the altar he had previously built to God. I believe this was the alter he originally built in Genesis 12:8 just before heading into Egypt due to the famine. The alter was built immediately after God appeared to Abram and promised to deliver the nearby land to Abram's descendants. Abram's altar was a testimony and statement of faith in that promise. Now, Abram is returning to that reminder of God's blessing with what has to be a fresh, hot, throbbing awareness of his sin. But still, Abram believes God will be faithful to His promise so Abram again calls on God and worships Him at this place. Important Truth #1 - God is not faithful because of what we do but because of who He is.

Unfortunately, even then vanishing resources was a problem. It takes massive amounts of land and water to support flocks of livestock. Abram's and Lot's livestock could not coexist on the same land any longer. It just wasn't enough. At least, I assume that was the problem. The only thing the Bible tells us is that scuffles broke out between Abram's men and Lot's men. The problem was becoming untenable and I think the likely source of the conflict was overcrowding. So, Abram does the generous thing and tells Lot that he can move his herds in whatever direction he wishes and Abram will go the other way. Lot, probably thinking the old man has lost his mind, gleefully picks the fresh and fertile plain of Jordan. He eventually would live in a city called Sodom, which we know is trouble. The Bible even foreshadows the trouble Lot will eventually be in by stating in verse 13 that the men of Sodom "were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord." Abram, true to his word, goes to Canaan.

Once in Canaan, God does what Extreme Home Makeover calls "the big reveal" and tells Abram that Canaan will, in fact, be the land that his descendants will inherit. God encourages him to explore it, to walk around in it. Canaan will belong to Abram's family which will rival dust particles in its abundance. So, Abram sets up shop at Hebron and builds another altar to God. Important Point #2 - God can work all things out to accomplish his will, including the selfishness of a nephew.

Genesis 14

Everything's good right? Problem is solved - Abram and Lot are no longer having conflicts among their men and everybody got what they wanted. Well, at least what they thought wanted in Lot's case. Lot is living in Sodom, which my commentary points out was so infamously evil that it was judged a full 400 years before the rest of the land of Canaan, which wasn't exactly Sesame Street itself. Everybody probably knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that's coming, but this is the prequel. Otherwise known as sign number one Lot probably should have got on out of that city but was too stubborn or dense to see it.

Now, we've got a royal rumble about to break out. One one side you have the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, Elam, and what my Bible calls the "Tidal king of nations." (Bonus points to anyone that can tell me who the "Tidal king of nations" was. You get 5 Shrute bucks). They are coming to lay the wood on the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (or Zoar). Here's what you need to know about the players:

The Attacking Four

Shinar

Referenced in Genesis 10 in relation to the kingdom of Nimrod (bad dude)
In Genesis 11, listed as the home for the Tower of Babel (bad idea)
Referenced in Isaiah 11:11 as a place God will call his people from. Could reference a past historical event or refer to the second coming of Christ. I'm not sure.

Ellasar

Nothing I know of (boring, isn't it?)

Elam

Mentioned in Isaiah 21:2 in conjunction with fall of Babylon. My commentary seems to think this is predicting Elam's role in the eventual fall of Babylon.

Tidal King of Nations

Still 5 Shrute bucks available to whoever can provide me info.

The Defensive Five

Sodom

Read Genesis 19, does not ultimately end well. Becomes an ultimate symbol of man's depravity throughout the remainder of the Bible.

Gomorrah

Same as Sodom above.

Admah

In Deuteronomy 29:23, Admah is grouped in with Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Probably not good for them.

Zeboiim

Same as Admah

Bela (Zoar)

City to which Lot fled in Genesis 19. I think it ultimately gets spared.

So, those are the players. Almost all of them we will see again in our journey through the Scripture. These battles and confrontations took place in the Valley of Siddim, which most scholars now believe is buried beneath the Dead Sea. Essentially, the Attacking Four had been extracting tribute from the Defensive Five for 12 years. The Defensive Five got tired of it, said no mas, and dug in. The Attacking Four called them on it and thoroughly defeated them in battle. Not only did the defeat them badly, the Attacking Four also looted Sodom and Gomorrah of its people and possessions, which at this time included Lot and his family.

Abram, being a good uncle, wasn't going to stand for this. He received word via an escapee and immediately enacted his own personal national guard. Abram armed 318 of his own men, enlisted the help of three allies (Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre), and took off after Lot. He eventually caught up to the Attacking Four, forcefully retrieved Lot, his family, and his possessions. He then returned to meet Melchizedek, king of Salem (whom we've never met until now), and the king of Sodom. It is important to note that Melchizedek appears with no fanfare or background. He is just here. And then he is gone. The only thing we know is that Salem was an older name for Jerusalem. He was a contemporary of Abram that worshiped God as well. We won't see him again at all in this book, but he does appear in Hebrews as part of discussion about Jesus Christ. We know that Melchizedek joined Abram in giving credit to God for the victory. Abram obviously appreciated the blessing. We know that he viewed Melchizedek as a priest because he gave a tithe to God through Melchizedek (which is an otherwise priestly duty). Important Point #3 - God is the ultimate author of our successes. It is only right to give him the credit and the glory.

Not to be left out, the king of Sodom has been begging for some of Abram's attention. He asks Abram if he can have the people while Abram keeps the goods. Abram raises his hand, which was a symbol of a strong oath, and told the king no. It was important to Abram that God be known as the author and sustainer of Abram's successes. He refused to share God's glory with an earthly king. Because of that desire, Abram took nothing save what he brought. He took his own men home and asked the king only give the portion of food that Abram's men had already eaten. Also notice that Abram does not force his conviction on his allies. He tells the king that Aner, Eschol, and Mamre, can all take their portions as they see fit. Important Point #4 - Just because we do or don't do something because of our relationship with God, we shouldn't necessarily expect those without that relationship to behave in a likewise manner.

Abram returns the conquering hero and all is right with the world, for now. For those that say the Bible isn't interesting, in the span of two chapters we've had a family feud, rebellion, rebellion squashing, and daring rescue raid by an outnumbered force. What more could you want?

One of the Most Epic Stories Ever Told Begins Here...

2011-02-02T22:16:00.000-06:00

If this blog asdlkfj contains random dsklfj bursts of characters, just know due to as;lkjfsa;l this horrible cough I've picked up. I am not experiencing a case of internet Tourettes nor having insane arm cramps. Somewhere, I picked up a lovely little virus that's got me sniffling, sneezing, alksf;j coughing, aching, stuffy as;lkdfj head, and otherwise fulfilling every prophecy on the Nyquil bottle. And yes, I did Google the phrase "Nyquil slogan." I'm trying to see how many trademarked words I can fit into one blog post. So, in the interest of my passing out in what-I-wish-was-a-medicine-induced-coma-but-will-at-best-be-fitful-sleep, I need to stop procrastinating and get on with Genesis. asl;dkjfsa

Genesis 12

Important Point #1 - This chapter marks the beginning of Abram's story. We will hang out with him for a few chapters and is one of the central OT people, so get to know him.

Important Point #2 - Abram's story begins with the remembering of a blessing. God had promised to bless Abram, and bless others through Abram. He promised protection, that any that cursed Abram's name would be themselves cursed. God promised to make many nations through Abram and to bless all people through the birth/death/resurrection of Abram's descendant Jesus.

Important Point #3 - Abram wasn't infallible even though God promised protection. He caved into fear and convinced his wife Sarai to tell a half-truth (or, more commonly known as, a lie) that she was his sister. He feared her beauty would incite so much jealousy amongst the Egyptians they would kill Abram to claim Sarai. It backfired. The Pharaoh himself claimed Sarai and, in turn, made Abram extremely wealthy.

Important Point #4 - From the outside, things looked fine. Abram had more money and possessions than he knew what to do with, but don't confuse that with God's condoning his behavior. Whereas Abram prospered, God sent plagues onto Pharaoh's house due to Abram's deceit. And with that, out of Egypt Abram and Sarai go. This problem would prove genetic. While God didn't punish Abram at the time of his deceit, we read another instance of this same thing happening with Abram's dear son Isaac. Sins of the father sometimes repeat further down the line.

You Can't Always Get What You Want, But You Get What You Need

2011-01-21T17:37:00.002-06:00

Snow’s on the ground, I have a stomach full of cinnamon toast (the real, homemade version), time to finish up Job. We’ve reached the climax of the story. Job’s been afflicted, he’s complained, he’s been rebuked, he’s complained some more, etc. Now, he gets his wish. God arrives, and He’s not mincing words.

Nobody can argue that Job’s been getting a little full of himself. God has unfairly afflicted him and now God, the Creator of the universe, must give an answer or account for His actions. My Bible describes it as a rival claim to God’s throne. To be fair, Job’s attitude is essentially human. We all demand answers and knowledge from God on the pretext that He owes us at least that much. God’s first order of business? Shock and awe. He shows up in a whirlwind, booming voice and all. I have no idea what that voice audibly sounds like, but it’s got to be this booming, chest-rattling bass. He demands to know who is questioning His plan. He tells Job to man up, the next few minutes are going to be difficult. As a side note, that will now be incorporated into any future smack talk I ever do. Imagine me striding to the batter’s box in softball, pointing the bat at the pitcher, and instructing him to “gird up his loins like a man” in my best James Earl Jones impersonation. It would be epic.

What follows that entrance is one of the longest strings of rhetorical questions I’ve ever seen. He challenges Job’s knowledge of creation, of God’s ultimate control over even the most chaotic natural forces, of God’s ultimate limitation of evil. He reminds Job that it is He that designed the stars, the weather patterns, the animal kingdom and all that goes on in it. Finally, after all these questions that Job can’t possibly respond to, God challenges him again. I’m sure Job stammers and stutters as he realizes the full extent of his error. He admits his wicked mistake in questioning God and says “no thanks” to the chance to talk anymore.

Oh, but God’s not done. He hasn’t fully demonstrated His superiority yet. Again, he tells Job to man-up, because it’s about to get rough. Up until now, God has challenged Job’s knowledge. Now, it’s time to show just how weak Job is compared to Him. God challenges Job to save himself, to show his mighty power and glory and deliver himself from his own affliction. Not only must Job save himself, he’s also got to ultimately deal with all who are wicked and humble all who are proud. If he can do all that, then God will admit Job’s ability to save himself. God then shrinks the scope and challenges Job’s ability to conquer two beasts, the “behemoth” and the “Leviathan.”

The identity of the two animals has been hotly contested. Scholars aren’t even sure if it is a real animal or a purely mythological one. For the “behemoth,” one explanation that seems to fit the ancient culture is a hippopotamus. At that time, the hippopotamus had an “overtone of cosmic evil” and could fit the physical description in chapter 40. The other possibility is a currently extinct animal, possibly a dinosaur. The word “Leviathan” is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for “sea monster” or “sea serpent.” Traditionally, the “Leviathan” has been thought to be a crocodile. The initial description of chapter 41 could fit a crocodile, but by the end of the chapter it’s a fire-breathing dragon. The “Leviathan” represents “chaos, evil, and destruction” and ultimately is a symbol of Satan that can be conquered by no one but God. Ultimately, the identity of the two beasts is somewhat of a side note. The important point is that it is again an illustration of Job’s utter lack of power and God’s sovereignty over all creation. If you can’t conquer a created being, how can you possibly hope to stand with its Creator?

And with that, the tempest subsides. Job admits he spoke without understanding, and he repents. The commentary insinuates that Job not only repents from his accusations of God but also the mistaken belief that God always rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked immediately. Now that Job understands that, he realizes it was wicked to accuse a holy and pure God of injustice and submits to God’s ultimate sovereignty. However, it appears that Job’s friends haven’t quite been convinced. Whereas Job repents, his friends hold on to their mistaken belief. God lays out a sacrifice plan for the three friends to offer to God through Job. I don’t know all the theology behind why God laid it that way, but it is interesting that the three friends required a mediator for their repentance. The three friends did as God commanded, and Job prayed on their behalf. Following that, God restored Job and gave him twice as much as he had before. Job lived for 140 more years and saw four generations of his children and grandchildren.

So there you have it. Even though Job wasn’t being punished for a specific sin, the suffering did reveal sinful areas in Job’s life. And even though Job ultimately ends up with enormous amounts of wealth and family, it would be a mistake to assume that a validation of the prosperity gospel. Job had to repent of that belief and his friends had to offer an enormous sacrifice and get Job’s mediatory prayer before they could be set right with God. The Bible itself and Christian history afterwards is littered with both wealthy believers and those one step short of the poor house. A person’s station, wealth, physical appearance, etc. cannot be taken as indicator of their spiritual health. Sometimes following God’s will for our lives will result in wealth and fame, and sometimes it will result poverty. The important thing is that we be content in whatever place God has us and we always submit to His will.

Long Time No See

2011-01-19T22:19:00.001-06:00

So lots has happened since my last blog post. We've had Christmas and New Year. I took the wife to New York City fearing a blizzard and it indeed came to pass....in HUNTSVILLE. We moved into a new house. I got a ticket for following to close on Christmas (and no, the officer was not a green man in a makeshift Santa costume). I got a cavity filled. And I once again failed in my attempt to grow a wintery lumberjack beard.

Let me tell you what didn't happen: blog posts. I'm a bum. I admit it. As famous atheletes are prone to say, I own my shortcomings. I thought about blaming it on my lack of internet, but that doesn't really explain a month's absence. No excuses, I just haven't done it. I need to have better self-discipline to first read my Bible and second follow through on my commitment to write about it. So, I plan on posting the final part of Job tomorrow night and we'll get back to Genesis.

UPDATE: Due to more snowfall, I cannot stay at work as planned and use their internet connection to post my blog on Job. So, I will write it tonight and post on Friday afternoon.

God is God and That's That

2010-12-08T00:03:00.000-06:00

I love TV. Specifically, I love my TV. It's 46 glorious inches of high def LCD goodness. It provides windows into worlds I could never visit and glimpses into situations I would never consider otherwise. For example, tonight I was flipping through the stations and came across the Discovery Health channel. Now, normally I don't frequent that particular channel, but the title caught my eye. Who could resist "I'm Pregnant...and a Nudist?" Pure gold. In the span of 10 minutes, I was able to observe a nudist baby shower (thank goodness for the little fuzzy boxes that cover things nobody needs to see) and here the mother's counseling session with a family therapist regarding raising her daughter in a nudist family. Two things I have to get off my chest.

One, a nudist baby shower is just wrong. A mixed nudist baby shower is even worse. Some attend clothed, some don't. The mother-to-be decided out of respect for the comfort level of the non-nudist in attendance, she would remain clothed. The grandmother-to-be also chose to cover up as the hostess of the party. Great-grandmother, on the other hand, did not. In the final analysis, if someone is willing to come to a baby shower where even one person would probably be naked, I don't think the mother-to-be or host dressing up is that big of a deal. In any case, there should be a nude and non-nude food table. Think about it, that ain't sanitary.

Two, why is it that most people that lead a somewhat deviant life style always stress that they will not force their lifestyle on their children? Instead, the child will decide what is best for him or her. I'm not much of a baby expert, but from what I can tell babies/toddlers love to be naked. The only thing a baby likes better than being naked is being naked while covering something in excrement. We know which way that is going at least through age five. What happens between 5-12 is a tossup, but I'm betting the kid chooses clothing once he or she realizes that being the only naked kid in elementary school is not the best way to make friends. By the age of 12, the expectant mother thinks her child will be mature enough to then accept or reject the nudist lifestyle. The only thing more incredible than that idea is that the therapist then told the camera that she assumes the mother has weighed all of the risks and will make the best decision for her child. Yes, crazy therapist lady, if there's one thing a nudist has, its rational thought processes and proper understanding of social interactions.

What does this have to do with Job? Nothing. Consider this my plea for the sequel to begin production immediately titled "I'm Pregnant...and Not a Total Weirdo."

Job 36 & 37
Elihu is wrapping up his speech. He hasn't been perfect, but he's made some very good points. He continues that trend with these final two chapters. First, Elihu emphasizes God's just nature. God does, Elihu states, deal with both the wicked and the righteous appropriately. God does not care whether the person is a pauper or a prince, they always get what they deserve. If the righteous man strays, God is faithful to point out the error of his ways and allow him a chance to repent. If the man repents, God rewards him. If the man doesn't, he "shall perish by the sword" according to verse 12. Elihu has one thing right...God is a just God. He deals with all of us as we deserve. Unfortunately for us, we deserve eternal death. And apart from Jesus work on the cross, we will all get what we deserve. Elihu warns Job that he is at a crossroads where he can respond to God's correction with either repentance or stubborn refusal. If he repents, God "would have brought you out of dire distress" (v. 16). If he doesn't, God's wrath will be released in such a way that "a large ransom would not help you avoid it" (v. 18).

Having defended God's just nature rather imperfectly, Elihu moves on to God's majesty and power. I suppose its my pride, but I have trouble not viewing Job and God an relatively close planes. It's not a conscious thought, but rather an underlying assumption I didn't even realize I had until I thought about it. I looked at it as more a boss/subordinate-type dynamic than the "all-powerful majestic and holy God" and "mortal fallen human" interaction it really is. Elihu reminds both Job and I of that. God's voice is as thunder and commands the lightning. He has never been taught nor corrected. God controls the wind, rain, snow, and seasons. God convenes storms and sends them as either correction, replenishment for the land, or blessing via crop-watering rain. Elihu challenges Job to seriously ponder how God controls the clouds, or warms him via the southern wind, or designs the skies. Having considered all that, how can Job possibly speak to God as one deserving an audience (37:20)? If we cannot even look at the sun because of its overwhelming brightness, how can we possible take in its Creator (32:21-22)? Elihu finishes with this description of God in chapter 37 verses 23 - 24:

He is excellent in power, in judgement and abundant justice; He does not oppress. Therefore men fear Him...

I like science. It's cool. Chicks dig it, sort of. It explains a lot of things. In some ways, though, its put us at a disadvantage. In Elihu and Job's day, supernatural beings were commonly used to explain natural phenomenon that they observed but couldn't understand. In some cultures, this gave birth to either incorrect monotheism or, more often, polytheism. In this case, Elihu correctly ascribes them to the one true God. However, thanks to years of scientific advances, we now better understand the mechanisms that drive seasonal change or weather patterns. We can read about them in textbooks and understand them. All that is well and good. However, it has negatively impacted our appreciation and awe for God. Thunder and lightning isn't a mysterious sign of God's power and creative genius any more. It's just what happens when energy moves between two oppositely charged electrical fields in the atmosphere. Nevermind that we still don't understand all facets of lightning, that its taken 2000+ years for us to even gain a partial understanding, and knowing how something works is drastically inferior to conceiving, designing, and creating it. Nope, we humans are smart, getting smarter, and destined to figure this whole thing out one day (for anybody that actually believes this, watch "I'm Pregnant...and a Nudist." We just aren't that bright). Once we've achieved that knowledge, we won't need an archaic notion of God any more. God literally help us when we reach that stage.

Conclusion
With that, the stage is set. Elihu has effectively introduced the main character in the story. God is about to make His entrance. He will reiterate and expand upon some of the incomplete ideas begun by Elihu. What's the takeaway from tonight? God is just, wise, and infinitely powerful. He may not act in all situations as we immediately hoped He would, but in the end His justice will be evident. I still believe God doesn't mind honest questioning, but we must avoid Job's folly of attacking God's character. Quite simply, He is God and we are not. My prayer is that I will remember that every moment of every day. That my inner thought life, interactions with the outside world, and spiritual walk will always reflect that simple truth. The ant doesn't dictate to the human, and the human certainly doesn't dictate to a just and holy God.

God Doesn't Need our Goodness

2010-12-06T00:08:00.000-06:00

What's my legacy? Discussion in our final small group class tonight got me thinking about the question. I can't answer the question myself, but I can be sure that it is a work-in-progress. I know what I want my legacy to be, and now I have to set about the business of creating it. Let's be clear about one thing, my legacy will be defined by God and my submission and relationship to Jesus Christ or lack thereof. On good days when I'm not completely self-obsessed, I desire to be known as a servant of Christ. So, sitting here on my couch, I pondered watching another episode of Friday Night Lights (which is a terrific show) or writing a blog post. As you can tell by my recent post history, blog hasn't won many battles. In my somewhat meager defense, my new TV is totally awesome and everything is better in HD (except the news, do we seriously need to see the incoming cold front in 1080p?). I seriously doubt, though, that God will ask my why I didn't watch more HD episodes of The Office when I stand before Him in heaven, so it's time to get about His business.

Job 35
Life's not fair. That may be one of the most quoted statements in all of human history. When children fuss because big sister got to eat candy after bedtime and they didn't, parents use the "Life's not fair" quote so as to seem that their allowance for big sister was really a carefully crafted teaching moment instead of the easiest way to make the screaming stop. When the lazy bum gets the promotion, the jerk gets the girl, the godly man gets terminal cancer, the cheater passes organic chemistry, Auburn beats Alabama, and the good man suffers, some passerby will always note that life isn't fair. And when talking about our fellow human beings, a certain standard of fairness can be expected. However, fairness doesn't apply between man and God. I'm quite certain none of us want God to treat us fairly and give us what we deserve.

Job wants a fair trial. Elihu is going to tell him why he doesn't deserve one. Job's (and his friends') premise is that righteousness deserves reward and evil deserves punishment. Simple enough and sounds fairly reasonable. Job's problem is that he sees no reward for his righteousness and only suffering, so to obey God is of no real profit to him. Job feels that his life couldn't have turned out any worse if he had lived wickedly for all his days, so why should he chase after righteousness? Elihu, though, reminds Job of one little fact: God neither suffers nor benefits because of Job's wickedness or righteousness. Job's actions are of no real consequence of God. Elihu makes that quite clear in verses 6 & 7. Job's behavior has consequence to his fellow man, but is ultimately inconsequential to God.

That isn't to say that God doesn't care what we do, because he does. But it is wrong to assume that God cares because He has some stake in our behavior. He will remain unchanged regardless of what Job or anybody else does. Our wickedness does not take away from who God is, and our relative righteousness does not improve His character. He is superior to us and is eternally the cause to our effect. Therefore, God owes us nothing. If He does not benefit from our pitiful good deeds, He has no obligation whatsoever to reward them. If He chooses to reward us, it is out of His infinite goodness and love and nothing else. We are to act righteously because our Lord commanded us to, regardless of any perceived reward or profit. Elihu reminds Job that, regardless of how he may feel about himself, he is in no position to demand fair treatment from God.

Lest we pile on Job, Elihu broadens his perspective. People, in general, cry out to God when faced with oppression. Elihu says as much in verse 9. They cry out when they need help, but rarely do they ever stop to think about God the creator and how He had blessed mankind with understanding beyond beast and bird. The same is true for me. Back me into a corner, and I'll pray. But if things are going well, God is seldom the first thing on my mind and in my heart. Because of our pride, our willingness to elevate self above God, God often doesn't work. Here, Elihu is telling Job that his pride is keeping his prayers from being answered. That may or may not be the case here (we'll find out later), but it certainly is the case in my life sometimes.

Finally, Elihu admonishes Job for claiming that God is no where to be found. Remember, Job's frustration comes from the fact that he feels God is unavailable and unreachable. Elihu reminds Job that God is present whether Job sees him or not. Only Job's arrogance blinds him, and because he speaks pridefully he is wasting his breath.

I wanted to finish Elihu's speeches tonight, but I spent more time on chapter 35 than I anticipated. So, its off to bed.

But I Said I was Sorry...

2010-12-01T00:14:00.000-06:00

For those that don't know me, I hate spending money. Not a fan. Some would say I am cheap, some that are slightly more cruel would call me miserly. In addition to that character trait, I am a graduate of the University of Alabama. So, combine the biggest shopping day of the year with one of the most disappointing losses in recent UA history and you can just guess how my weekend went. Truth be told, it wasn't that bad but I'm in a complaining mood.

Job 34
Elihu asks Job's friends to carefully consider Job's claims that Job is wrongfully accused and, ultimately, service to God is of no profit to man. Chapter 34 addresses the first of Job's claims listed above, and chapter 35 touches on the second claim. If Job claims that he is being treated unfairly by God as evidenced by his punishment, his attack is not just a temporal one. If God is ever unjust, then He can never claim perfect justice. If God is ever unjust, He cannot claim to be God because He no longer is eternally perfect. Job is claiming that God is unfair, and Elihu attempts to address that claim.

In verse 11, Elihu again asserts (as Bildad did earlier) that God punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous. It is impossible for God to "do wickedly" or "pervert justice" because He is the Supreme Being. Nothing is higher than Him and to say that God is unjust would imply that there is a standard of justice higher than God that He is violating. God is the ultimate model and source for all just behavior and that source cannot be corrupted. We are all ultimately dependent on Him for everything, including morality and physical health. In verses 14 & 15 Elihu mentions that if God were to draw his breath back to himself, that all life on this planet would cease and human beings would revert to dust. Elihu also points out that Job's questioning of God indicates a lack of proper respect and humility. If it is improper for Job to question the impartiality and/or judgement of a king or noble, than how can it be proper for Job to question the being responsible for putting those people in those offices?

One thing Elihu mentions starting in verse 21 is that God sees all that we do, think, and feel. The pastor of my church touched on that this Sunday. We were discussing Sodom and Gomorrah and the sexual sin that played a key role in those cities' downfall. The pastor made the point that most people involved in extramarital affairs, pornography, etc. are terrified that somebody they know (usually a spouse or family member) might find out about their illicit activities but give no thought to the fact that a holy God sees everything they do and think all the time. That isn't right. We should value are relationship with God above all others and the fact that our sin is a disappointment and barrier to Him should be foremost in our mind during temptation, not whether or not anybody will find out. God sees all. In verse 28, He doesn't ignore the poor and destitute as Job suggests. Rather, He hears and responds accordingly. Nothing escapes His gaze and nothing escapes His judgement. All of humanity, including me, will be judged according to our deeds barring some gamechanger. And as much as we would like to think that we come out ahead in that department, when compared with perfection we are woefully short.

But, even though we screw it up so often, God has a plan. Elihu touches on it in verses 31 & 32, telling Job that if he would simply recognize his iniquity, turn from it, and ask for God's correction, his suffering would end. In that sentence, you can see both the brilliance and the problem with Elihu's response. He is correct that the only thing God will entertain in forgiving sin is repentance (through the blood of Jesus Christ, which comes much later in the timeline but is nonetheless active at this point in history). The problem, though, is that Job can't repent of a specific iniquity or sin that is the root cause of his troubles and even repentance is no guarantee that his troubles would be over. See, despite the retribution dogma, repentance of sin doesn't always excuse us from the natural consequence of that sin. I may be real sorry, and sometimes God is graceful enough to spare me the full consequence of my sin, but that isn't a guarantee. Even though I regret my sin, I still often have to pay the consequences.

Conclusion
I was going to do a couple more chapters tonight, but I am exhausted. I'm going to try doing this blog earlier in the day to see if it helps in my consistency and overall quality because this late night thing is killer.

From the Mouth of Babes...

2010-11-23T23:23:00.000-06:00

     And now, 31 chapters complete, Job is silent. His three friends have said their peace, Job has provided his defense, and nothing is left to be said, right? Oops, somebody forgot about the young'un in the corner. Elihu jumps up and begins to imperfectly mediate between Job and his friends. As is the usual case with disagreements, both sides were wrong at times. Elihu zings both sides at times, showing both their shortcomings. Of course, Elihu's arguments aren't going to be infallible either, but seem to be the best we've had so far. He serves as God's opening act, because when he gets finished God clues Job and his friends in on a few little things.

Job 32
     Critics aren't quite sure what to make of Elihu. Some see him as a forerunner of Christ, mediating for Job providing the bridge between the three friends' incorrect interpretation and God's upcoming revelation of truth. Other critics believe that Elihu was a "conceited young upstart." Truth is, Elihu is probably some where in the middle. He isn't a perfect picture of Christ, but he does have good things to say. Once he realizes that Job's friends have no answer for Job's defense, Elihu decides that its time for him to speak up.
     Out of deference for his elders, Elihu has held his tongue to this point. He has given the three friends every opportunity to answer Job and show him truth, but they have obviously not convinced him. Now, they have nothing else to say and Elihu feels he must speak. Even though he acknowledges that typically the older are wiser, he does believe that experience does not lay exclusive claim to wisdom. In spite of his youth, he feels that God has given him insight that he cannot hold back lest he burst. He promises that even though he feels the need to speak, he asks God to help him do so without favor or partiality toward either party.

Job 33
     Elihu addresses his opening comments to Job. Job has no reason to fear Elihu because he is a mere man just like Job. Elihu has been formed from clay and given the breath of life by God just as Job has. Whereas Job may has been fearful of God's power, he has nothing to fear from Elihu and should feel free to make is defense to Elihu with no danger of judgement or repercussion. He then restates Job's case that he has been afflicted despite absence of any wrongdoing that would warrant such punishment.
     Next, we begin to see some of the wisdom that Elihu claimed earlier. He begins to remind Job of the fallacy of Job's claim that he deserves an ability to defend himself before God in a courtroom type setting. You see, the idea of justice and fair play is all based on equality. I have no right to harm my fellow man because we all stand on the same level ground before God. I have no claim over him and he has no claim over me. Therefore, if I injure him in any way, I have violated that assumed equality and asserted an unfair claim over him. The injured party is entitled to justice or repayment because the equality between us has been damaged. Problem for Job is that he is not God's equal. As Elihu points out, God can treat us however He pleases because He is a vastly superior being. Job claims to want a fair resolution from God but the reality is that he would be most unhappy with treatment from God equal to what he "deserves."
     Not only is Job wrong to assume an equality with God, Job is wrong about God's interaction with man in general. Job assumes that God punishes him for no reason. That assumption implies a sadistic being that cares not one bit about our eternal well being. However, Elihu points out that God's history is not one of endless punishment and torment but one of instruction and deliverance. He is constantly correcting men from their sin. He may use visions or dreams at night. He may manifest physical pain. He may strip a man of his wealth and title. He has a right to do all that he wants to humanity because He is such a supremely superior being, but he doesn't treat us maliciously. Rather, God uses those things to correct a man and turn him away from what Elihu calls "the Pit...the executioners."
     Finally, Elihu gives us a glimpse into how he views himself. Starting in verse 23, Elihu begins to talk of a messenger or mediator that points out God's correction to an individual in an effort to turn that individual from his/her sin. Verse 24 again points directly to Jesus Christ as Elihu mentions God finding "a ransom" by which man can be delivered from the aforementioned Pit. On the strength and atonement of that ransom, if the man identifies his wrongdoing, identifies it as such, and realizes that acting that way is no profit to him, God is faithful to deliver that man from the Pit. Essentially, if the human being admits his sin and repents of it, God will deliver him from the eternal punishment for that sin. For Elihu, the practical implication of that is that a man who had his health and wealth stricken as punishment for sin would regain all that he had before. I'm not sure we can count on that all the time, as sometimes the temporal punishment for our sin goes on for longer than we would like, but it is certainly true from an eternal standpoint.

     For any youth out there, the Bible is very clear on respecting elders and things like that. And it is definitely typical for wisdom to accompany age. But their are also examples of young people making a difference for God. Timothy is the oft cited proof, but Elihu deserves some credit. His speech isn't going to be perfect, but he is providing a lot of insight that was missed by his four elders in the previous 31 chapters. Keep in mind that Elihu is not saying things he thought up on his own but is rather restating items that God revealed to him. As Christians, our goal should be to act as God's mouthpiece. We are not reinventing the wheel here, just being open and allowing God to speak to others through our words and deeds.

The Defense Rests

2010-11-17T00:31:00.001-06:00

I've been thinking about Job 30 and 31 for a little while now. What could I glean from it other than its narrative purpose? In chapter 29, Job is relaying the life he lived before all of this tragedy, and it was awesome. He was a man of wealth, integrity, and influence. It's the before picture. Job 30 is the after picture. Everything that was once true about Job's life has been flipped. Job 31 is his last cry describing all the reasons he doesn't deserve what has happened to him. After Job 31, we get introduced to a new man named Elihu whom we will be discussing in detail in upcoming posts. And no, I have no idea whether or not that was the correct usage of "whom," but I think using that word makes me sound smarter.

Job 30
     Life is good, and then it isn't. Nobody knows that better than Job. In chapter 29 Job is the man. He is the one who's counsel is sought. People listened and did not argue. He was extremely wealthy. He was generous. In reality, he was all the things many of us wish we could be on our best day. He had influence and leadership ability that most today would kill for. Then tragedy strikes. Unknown to Job, Satan begins his attack. Chapter 30 is the aftermath of Satan's dealings and the picture isn't pretty. I don't think I need to repeat all the ways that Job's life and the perception of him have changed. So what can I learn from this chapter?
     In short, people can turn on you quickly, and often without cause. Job was the same man during and after his sufferings that he was before them. Satan did not touch his mind so we can reasonably assume his intellect, which was so well respected before, was still intact. I see no indication that Job's generous spirit has dissipated, simply that he has nothing left to give. Job the man was the same, but none of his peers recognized him as such. I believe that is a warning to us all.
     We heard growing up that we were never to "judge a book by its cover." Not necessarily the most spiritual advice, but I think we can see some Biblical value basis for it here. In the book of Job, we have perspective at this point that Job and his contemporaries did not have. We know that Job is not being afflicted for any specific evil that he had committed. Rather, Job is afflicted for the exactly opposite reason, as a test of his devotion and righteousness. Knowing that, we know that the character and heart of Job did not change during his suffering. It wasn't perfect before, during, or after, but it was blameless before God. He was a Godly man throughout. But his contemporaries don't see it. They only see the external loss of status and possession and make their judgements about Job accordingly. We, the reader, see the folly in those assumptions. That serves as a fair warning to me that while I can make inferences in the long term about a person's spiritual state based on the fruit evident in their lives, I better not make snap judgements based on external circumstances. I cannot judge peoples' relationship with God based on their current external situation because I have no knowledge of God's big picture plan for them.

Job 31
     Job cannot be accused of lacking passion. He vehemently insists that he has done no wrong doing worth of his current situation. Same thing he has been getting at before, right? In a way, yes. This time, however, he is practically daring God to produce evidence of his guilt. As noted in my Biblical commentary, Job is getting a little full of himself here. While we have Biblical evidence of his righteousness and blamelessness, we have no Biblical evidence that Job was perfect. My pastor on Sunday had as good an explanation for the definition of "blameless" as I have ever heard. He explained that it did not mean that the person was perfect, but that he walked so close with God that any sin that entered his life he immediately repented of so that he carried no blame. Regardless of Job's repentant heart, which is a trait that every Christian should seek after, he can make no claims that he never messed up. These verses get dangerously close to that, and should God show him the fullness of his sin, I doubt Job would be so quick to volunteer for the punishments he claims would be just if he was guilty.
     As I read through the list of things that Job never did, and the punishments he would submit to if God could prove that he had, in fact, done them, I was struck by something. Job is increasingly defensive here. In my life, when confronted with something I have done wrong, I immediately get defensive. Always have, even as a kid. The first thing that pops into my head is an excuse, a reason why I messed up. Usually, after I've had some alone time to ponder the issue at hand, I realize my culpability and feel some shame at me previous avoidance of responsibility.
     My defensive reaction is not just a physical and emotional reaction, but a spiritual one as well. I find that when I actually sit down to go about the business of confessing sin to God, I spend most of my time explaining my actions in some strange attempt to justify them. I don't know what Job's struggles and temptations were, but am I really to believe that he never engaged in falsehood, lusted after another woman, or put his faith in his immense wealth instead of God from time to time? I suppose it's possible, but extremely unlikely. And even if Job was able to somehow maintain innocence in all these areas, what about the unlisted sins that he could be found guilty of? Job is defending when he should be supplicating. Job is daring God to find him guilty instead of realizing he has no equal footing on which to engage God. I do the same, and bad news should God ever decide to really show me the extent of my guilt.

     One final note. I've said in previous posts that we need to look at the Bible in the context that everything points to Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and end of the Christian faith. Job longs for a defender, and finding none he begins to mount his own defense. Though Job feigns hyperbolic bravado and claims to be willing to accept terrible punishments if God is able to prove him guilty on just one charge, the folly of his mindset is clear. God can establish our guilt because it exists. Regardless of how righteous and good we are, sin exists in our life because we cannot be perfect. We stay mired in sin until something comes and pulls us out. That something is Jesus. The defender that Job longs for is on the way, and he will ultimately provide the only solid foundation that man can stand on before God. He gives us his shining righteousness in return for our filthy half-hearted attempts at being good. Cloaked in that righteousness alone can we stand before a holy and pure God with confidence that our guilt is gone.

True Wisdom and Humility

2010-11-09T00:49:00.000-06:00

The title of my last post was "Focus Lost." The title for the days following that post might as well have been "Health Lost" and "Sleep Lost." Thursday I spent with the aches and fever associated with what I am now calling the Calvert-Gossett Stomach Flu. However, unlike the rest of the weaker members of my family, I did not regurgitate so I am claiming a small victory. The next three days were affected by sleep shortage as I worked two mids, one of which was an extra hour long due to the time change. To be honest, I didn't get to read my Bible every day but I am going to blog tonight about what I did read.

Job 28
Wisdom. Probably the most valuable attribute a man can have. Plenty of people are smart. Several are cunning. But few are wise. I mean really biblically wise. One thing we can be sure of in Job is that his three friends most definitely were not wise. Job, however, understood the value of biblical wisdom better than most. He compares it to some of the most precious things on earth. Wisdom, though, is not something that you can find and possess. It cannot be held or horded. It is given from God Himself. Man has no access to it save through God's provision.
In this chapter, Job does give a glance at what wisdom looks like. After making clear that God alone completely and clearly understands what wisdom is, Job states it very simple in verse 28:

Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.

Wisdom, essentially, is viewing God properly. If I have a correct and proper view of God, then I will fear Him. Not as I fear heights, insects that sting or bite, or cold cheese dip (seriously, that lumpy goo is nauseating). Those things I just avoid if I can help it (I will run like a little girl from a bumble bee). No, I fear God with more loving respect. I don't avoid Him because He is some big scary being because part of His nature is merciful and kind. But, I cannot overemphasize that part of Him and ignore the righteous and wrathful Judge part. A being as great, mighty, and powerful as God demands our fear if we truly understand His power. And that fear, that knowing that evil inevitably invokes God's wrathful judgement, should alone be enough for us to turn from evil. That is why Job lists repentance as an indication of understanding. To truly understand God's power is to turn away from things that displeases Him.
     Some would say that to obey out of fear is wrong, that we should obey out of love. Essentially, we shouldn't obey because of the threat of punishment but we should obey because we want to do the right thing. I know those people. I watch their kids throw things across the aisle at Walmart. On rare occasion, maybe we can obey God simply out of love and wanting to do the right thing. But let's face it, most of us are children when it comes to Christianity. We come to God initially not out of love for Him (maybe infatuation, but almost never love) but fear for our soul. We believe what the Bible says about the eternal nature of our soul, the explanation for why it is wicked, and what the eventual consequence of that wickedness will be. We also believe the Bible's redemption for our wicked soul and we long for it because it prevents the punishment. If our Christian life stops there, we've missed the overall point but I think we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't acknowledge the role fear plays in our initial conversion. So lets not pretend like the only pure obedience is obedience born out of love with no thought to the consequence. Jesus talks more about hell than he does heaven. He urges repentance to avoid the inevitable punishment. He understands what makes human beings tick. Wisdom is fearing God, and understanding is avoiding evil because of that fear.

Job 29
     Job gives a little glance into what it used to be like to be Job. He was loved and respected. Both young and old awaited and heeded his counsel. He rescued the sick and the poor. His very presence uplifted the people around him. Man, it was good to be Job. The main thing that sticks out to me in this chapter is that none of this seems boastful or arrogant. I don't get the feeling that Job puffed himself up. Not one of his friends interrupts him and the Bible has no language that indicates this should be taken with a grain of salt. I think this was an accurate depiction of Job's life prior to all these tragedies. Quite a contrast to his current statement and quite a defense to the theology that said Job had done some specific evil act to bring all that suffering upon himself.
     One tiny note here about humility. It is, without any doubt, an incredible quality for someone to be humble. But I think we have a false concept of what humility means. For the longest time, I thought humility meant downplaying anything good about you. Somebody tells you how smart you are, you just disagree with an "aw, shucks" type attitude. Anybody could do it, right? But I'm learning that isn't humility. Humility is so much more than that. CS Lewis had one of the best illustrations of humility but I don't have time to look it up tonight. Basically, he said that it was a clear example of humility if an architect could appreciate a tremendous cathedral equally whether that architect worked on that building or not. It means having absolutely no personal bias. I'm as happy for somebody at work deservedly winning an award as I would be if I won it. It's not about downgrading my abilities or talents. It's about appreciating them just the same as I appreciate them in others. Think about how hard that is. Its about completely removing yourself from the equation. That quality is humanly impossible to truly achieve. Some people may can get close or, more likely, put on a good act, but God has to birth and grow that in a person for them to truly arrive at the point that they have no favoritism towards themselves whatsoever.

Next blog entry will start with chapter 30 which contrasts Job's previous status with his current situation.

Focus Lost

2010-11-02T23:22:00.000-05:00

     I started this blog with really good and ambitious intentions. Not only was I going to go through the Bible in one year, but I was going to keep up with the experience via this blog. At first it was easy and fun. But, as I transitioned into Job and began the monotony of staying in the same book for days on end, I began to lose motivation. I no longer looked forward to the time reading the Word and writing this blog and frequently made excuses to skip it for a night. One night skipped turned into two, two turned to three, and before I knew it I was lucky to make a token entry on a weekly basis. What happened?
     Quite simply, I lost focus. I started thinking more about writing this than I did about reading Scripture and learning from it. The reading became a necessary evil so that I had material to blog about when I actually sat down to write. The cart is officially before the horse. My priorities are, to use a technical term, screwed up. My reading the Word should be both a joy and a duty. I lost the joy and lack the mental discipline to continue in the duty. How do I fix it?
     Honestly, I haven't a clue. But I know where to start (I think). I'm getting back to the basics. Tomorrow night, my schedule is packed. But I will make time to read my Bible. What I blog about that afterwards will depend on the amount of time I have. The reading of the Word will be my top priority and this blog will become a distant second. That may make the blog worse (and no, there is no need to point out that it couldn't possibly get any worse) but I honestly believe putting it in it's proper place can make it nothing but better.
     I hope I can make it through the rest of the process without a relapse into my current malaise. However, seeing as how I only made it a month or so before having this problem, the prospect of me maintaining my focus for the better part of a year doesn't look too good. This isn't a promise to be better for the duration, its simply a declaration of my will for tomorrow. Tomorrow I will read my Bible first and blog second. I'll worry about the next day when the next day gets here.

Marital Conflict Resolution

2010-10-28T00:01:00.000-05:00

No Job tonight because I got a later than anticipated start and didn't realize that I have a 7am meeting in the morning. But, I did want to pass along something that our pastor taught tonight as part of his Song of Solomon series on marriage. Tonight's lesson was really about proper conflict resolution. He talked some about what caused conflict but mostly on how to resolve it in a godly marriage.

The key, he said, was to have one partner that handles the dispute Biblically. Of course, in my marriage, that's always me. But it doesn't necessarily have to always be the husband or the wife, it can be one or the other every time as long as one person is committed to handling the conflict biblically. We could spend pages talking about how to biblically handle conflict, but basically it means repenting if you sinned against your spouse, forgiving if your spouse sinned against you, or understanding if its not a sin issue but simply a preference or difference of opinion all the while keeping God's glory as our primary focus and not our own. Easy, right?

Speaking of conflict, I think I'll get a chance to try all this stuff out when my wife reads my claim that I'm always the one that handles the dispute biblically.

Let's Face It, I'm a Horrible Blogger

2010-10-27T00:41:00.000-05:00

Wow, its hard to believe almost a week has gone by since my last post. A lot has happened since then. The wife and I had an impromptu trip to Knoxville for the weekend to see Bama roll the Vols. Went house shopping way late into the night last night. Had a date night tonight at the movies while negotiating with a seller in route to a verbal agreement on a house. I'm exhausted just reflecting on it. But, I do want to get back to consistently blogging, so I am going to do a short segment tonight, probably a short segment tomorrow night, and a longer segment on Thursday.

Job 26

With this chapter, we begin Job's final rebuttal of his three friends. In a bitingly sarcastic tone, Job asks Bildad specifically and his friends generically how they have helped him? Job agrees that, as a man, he has no power, strength, or wisdom, but points out his friends have done nothing to encourage or strengthen him. So, having established first his own inadequacies and second his friends inability to comfort or counsel, Job then begin talking about God's power. Through many excellent metaphors, Job describes the limitless nature of God's power. He acknowledges that God's power extends beyond the grave (v5), covers the entire earth and all that is in it (v8-13), and is unfathomable by human minds (v14). Some even say that Job's statement in verse 7 is a precursor to Newton and Keppler establishing the current understanding of our planet's physical location relative to the solar system. I'm personally not sure this is the case, but if it is than God most certainly revealed this to Job supernaturally.

I'm pretty tired, but hoping this entry is the start to a much more consistent few weeks for blogging. I really enjoy getting my thoughts down and hope somebody is benefiting from them (if only by realizing their flaws, not their strengths). I am definitely going to continue to make a consistent effort to spend time in my Bible every day (not extremely difficult) and more time in prayer (ok, that's going to be hard). It's not a salvation thing, not something I need to do for God to love and save me, but something I should do because I love Him.

Short and Sweet

2010-10-20T23:54:00.000-05:00

Short entry tonight, church and basketball made it a late night and I have an early meeting in the morning.

Job 25
With friends like these, who needs enemies? Bildad confirms that Job should fear God and points out that no man is righteous before God. That statement is true enough but I'm sure Bildad wasn't extremely compassionate or loving when he said it. While it is good to realize that next to God's righteousness and holiness, man is nothing. Literally, the Bible says that our own righteousness is as filthy rags when compared to God's. But I think Bildad is devaluing human beings a bit too much here. To say that man is both a "maggot" and a "worm" is to grossly shortchange man and rob him of the, for lack of a better word, "specialness" that God gave him. God, as we saw in Genesis, clearly made man uniquely and in His image, something that is said of no other creature on this planet. If we ignore the theological meanings of Bildad's statement, we must still view this as an incredibly insensitive and rude thing to say to Job because we see in Job 7:5 and Job is literally covered in worms. That, my friends, is kicking a man while he is down.

The commentary had a couple of interesting things to say about this chapter. First, it suggests that Bildad's final address is so short because the friends have nothing left to say. When Bildad realizes that long speeches aren't getting him anywhere, he instead ops to deliver a short speech with the two simple points that God is great and man is nothing. Another neat quote sums up the friends quite nicely:

Their language is noble and elevated, their metaphors of rare beauty and force, but their position and contention were wrong, narrow, and untenable.

It is true for the friends and I think a damaging blow to the philosophy that good intentions make everything all right. And before we are so quick to think that's simply an issue other people deal with, how many times have we said something along the lines of "Well, at least he/she tried hard and that's the important thing?" We all, at some point or another, give passes to people simply because their intentions were good (especially if it is a loved one). Sometimes, I think good intentions really does make up for a failed attempt at doing something, but all to often we excuse the bad results because the actions were well-intended. As we see with the friends here in Job, good intentions are not enough. His friends came with the intention to comfort and instead ended up attacking Job and making things worse which indicts the very theology they were so proud of. Good intentions are admirable, but even more so are doing things right. Job's friends failed on that account.

And with that, I'm literally falling asleep at the computer, so I am off to bed.

Something Just Doesn't Add Up

2010-10-19T00:29:00.000-05:00

I need to just get something off my chest. Some people think it is funny, some think its weird. But people need to know. I'm a huge fan of queso dip. Be it the fancy white kind you get in a mexican restaurant or the homemade version with sausage and rotel dip, its all good to a point. At the point were it drops below room temperature and starts to solidify, it becomes exceedingly nasty. I don't want to see it, smell it, touch it, or taste it. As a matter of fact, if I look at the stuff cold while dipping it out to be heated up, I lose my appetite. I'm sorry, but it's gross. Cheese dip should not be lumpy or clumpy or anything like that. As a matter of fact, I know that the only food served in hell will be cold, lumpy cheese dip. That fact, in and of itself, should be reason to get saved. Heaven will have dip cones and hot, smooth cheese dip (not together of course, unless you like that sort of thing - weirdo) whereas hell will serve nothing but cold, lumpy cheese dip. Write it down, you heard it here first.

Job 23
I really hope that if I ever see just a fraction of the suffering Job has seen to this point, I can maintain some of his perspective. He is upset and confused by God, there is no question about that. But he has not lost his faith in God. In verses 1-7, Job reiterates his desire to plead his case before God confident that God would hear and deliver Job because he is an upright man. Despite that desire, he cannot find God no matter where he turns even though God knows his every thought and action. During discipleship group this week, we talked about how Jesus is King and Lord over every part of our life. Nothing we say, think, feel, or do is outside of His ultimate authority. And here we see the deep contrast between God's perspective and ours: we sometimes cannot find God despite frantic searching but God always knows not only what we have done but the hundreds of other paths we didn't take. When you couple that amount of knowledge with the idea that Jesus is truly Lord over every aspect of our lives, it is both truly terrifying and unbelievably freeing. Terrifying because only God sees all of our actions, thoughts, impulses, emotions, longings, lusts, envies, lies, good intentions, truths, and injustices. Nothing good nor bad is hidden from Him. But it is also freeing because Jesus overwrites it all with His righteousness through the cross. He honestly says all can be forgiven by simply acknowledging the truth that He is Lord over everything and accepting only His work as capable of restoring our lost relationship with God.

So, Job knows that God sees everything. However, Job is able to confidently state that he has kept God's way and not departed from God's truth. Ultimately, though, Job doesn't think it matters. He feels that he is in God's crosshairs for whatever reason and closes out the chapter acknowledging that God can pretty much do whatever He wants and Job is terrified of him. I can't really blame Job for being terrified of God here. We should all have a healthy and holy fear of God, but I think what Job has goes beyond that. He currently views God as an arbitrary being that acts based on nothing by whims. Since Job can see no logical action for his suffering, he assumes God is as the kid with a magnifying glass over the ant just because he can. A god that acted in this manner would truly be horrifying. But, as we know and continue to see, God does not act recklessly or without cause. Rather, God acts in a way that first protects and magnifies His Glory which, in turn, works to the benefit of God's people.

Job 24
Job continues by describing the relative success that thieves, kidnappers, adulterers, and murders have in this world. It is without question in Job's world as in ours that the wicked do, on occasion, prosper. Those that do illegal, unethical, and unbiblical things often do see some measure of success in this world. Job is simply cataloguing that for his friends. Now, it's been a while since we've had some good Biblical controversy. Rest easy, we have some now.

Starting with verse 18 and ending in verse 24, the tone and content of the verses change so much so that the origin of the verses is challenged. By origin, I mean who is responsible for saying them. Up until this point, Job has been detailing how the wicked prosper in this world. Starting with verse 18, the Scripture begins to talk about what "should" happen to the wicked. These sound like words that would belong more to Job's friends than to Job himself. Throughout the years, three common theories have developed regarding what the origin or meaning of these verses are and/or what should be done about them.

Some say we should remove the words completely because they blur the line between Job's theology and the orthodoxy of his friends. I completely disagree with this idea. The Bible is about the truth and to compromise that truth in an effort to protect some false image of Job destroys any authority the Bible may carry.
Some attribute the words to Zophar since he doesn't have a speech in this third round. While it does seem a bit odd that Zophar gets left out since most things in the Bible seem so symmetrical, I see no evidence of that. I wouldn't go so far to say it was impossible.
Job is actually quoting his friends as a direct contrast to the previous 17 verses. Job has spent the last few minutes detailing how wicked people actually fare in the world, so he spends verses 18-24 repeating to the friends the obvious untruth they hold to. He then, in verse 25, asks them prove him wrong. I think this is the most likely. Both Job and his friends have repeatedly quoted the oppositions' words in retorts and it doesn't seem a stretch to do so here.

Job's logic seems very sound. He again tries to illustrate the disconnect between the orthodoxy his friends have been telling him and the way the world actually works. I think he is harping on an important point and it is that the Bible must have an explanation for reality. It has to check out. The evidence that Job's friends' theology was incorrect wasn't some philosophical point/counterpoint debate but that their beliefs did not match up with reality. Ultimately, Christianity's foundations, including the Bible, have to line up 100% with reality. If the Bible doesn't match up on any one point and no extenuating circumstance can explain it (ie something is clearly literary device or allegory), its validity has to be questioned as well. In my experience and my study the Bible has been 100% accurate and my expectation is that it will continue to be so.

You, Sir, Are an Eggplant!

2010-10-15T01:26:00.000-05:00

Just been joined on the couch by our slightly special dog. Apparently, the dog decided now wasn't a good time for sleep and annoyed my wife so much that she got out of bed and opened the door. That never happens. The irony? Not five minutes after being evicted from our bedroom for waking my wife up, she is practically asleep beside me on the couch. Like I said, she's special.

Job 21
     This is Job's response to Zophar calling him a wicked man and saying he deserved the just punishment being meted out by God. I had a little trouble making sense of the nuances in this chapter but review of study notes and commentary made it a little easier to see. This is the final response of Job in the second go-round of discussions with his friends. Job has given up on his friends offering any sort of meaningful comforting. Instead, in verse 2, Job just asks has friends to be silent and listen and that will be their act of consolation. Just enough silence for Job to make his point, and then they can continue their mocking.
     I was thinking about that on the way home today. Time for a slightly embarrassing confession: I love to listen to late night Coast-to-Coast with George Norrie. The craziest people call in and talk about all sorts of insanity. On the surface, it is absolutely hilarious. I think of CS Lewis' statement that if Jesus wasn't who He said He was, people must consider Jesus either a villain or a lunatic on the order of someone who considers himself an eggplant. I'm pretty sure I could convince every caller on that show that he or she is indeed an eggplant. But really, its a extremely sad commentary on our world. These people are so desperate for something to give meaning and reason to their life that they will believe anything, including UFOs, multiverses, and psychic gifts. One such lady was literally in tears because she felt she was a Christian but couldn't confide the contents of her visions and paranormal interactions with other Christians. Granted, she probably is crazy and most Christians she talked to probably laughed in her face. They likely even mocked her, I know I would have. Because of that, she was praising this crackpot expert on the radio who combined some elements of Christian faith with paranormal multiverse interactions. She was crying telling this man how much he meant to her because he accepted who she was. Think about that. She was praising God for this heretic because she wasn't finding acceptance in the Christian church.
     I'm not saying that the church should accept things that aren't Biblical and true, but sometimes we should do what Job asked his friends to do. We should just silently listen for a time, not affirming or encouraging, just listening and getting to know the person. As that relationship builds, we gradually expose them to the truth as a counter to their erroneous beliefs. We don't laugh at or mock, but we love. Yes, they are wrong. But we were all wrong once too. To expect nonbelievers to have correct theology is like expecting a first grader to understand calculus. If they don't ever change their beliefs, eventually it will be time to cut ties with them and move on. But I'm afraid we all too often mock without listening as Job's friends do.
     Ok, off that soapbox. Job spends the rest of this chapter pointing to a gaping hole in his friends' beliefs on suffering. Even though his friends all swear that the righteous will be spared and the wicked are made to suffer on account of their actions, Job points out that many examples show wicked people prospering. Some even prosper throughout their life, from cradle to grave. They are blessed with many offspring and possessions. Job even says that the wicked essentially tell God to get lost, they don't need Him. All this they do, and still they die "in his full strength, being wholly at ease and secure." That's the problem with the prosperity gospel, the belief that God always blesses His followers in this life and withholds His blessing from the wicked. Professional athletes beat their wives, do drugs, lie, cheat, rape, even kill, and they still collect millions of dollars in salary. Paris Hilton has more money than she knows what to do with. We all can think of people that don't live according to God's Word that live and die more successful by this world's standards than we will ever be. Job knows it as well, and asks his friends to consider that their theology may be wrong. God obviously doesn't always punish the wicked immediately, so suffering cannot be a sure indication of wickedness. Job concludes by calling their words empty because "falsehood remains in your answers."

Job 22
     Even my commentary say that Eliphaz and Bildad are using tons of repetition in their rebuttals to Job. In this case, its just Eliphaz. He also continues the trend of misapplying correct theological principals. For example, Eliphaz asserts that a man cannot be profitable to God and that man's righteousness is not gain for God. Therefore, God owes man nothing because of his (man's) righteousness. Sounds good, right? Even Jesus said that man's righteousness was as "filthy rags" when compared with the holiness and purity of God. Eliphaz's mistake is that he is using this idea as the basis for his theory that the righteous are always rewarded and the wicked are always punished on this earth in this life. Clearly, that isn't the case.
     Eliphaz then begins trumping up charges against Job. Most have to do with greed, with acquiring his riches wickedly and then greedily withholding them from the poor. We have no evidence anywhere that Job did these things. They are just conjecture by Eliphaz trying to find some evidence of Job's wickedness that would bring on this type of suffering and validate Eliphaz's false beliefs. Eliphaz also correctly asserts that nothing is hidden from God's oversight. But, incorrectly, he is using this as proof that Job cannot hide his overwhelming wickedness from God's sight. Eliphaz even tells Job that he is in danger of being swept away as the wicked were in the flood of Noah's day.
     Let it not be said that Eliphaz isn't a hopeful fellow. He finishes saying that Job can find redemption if he would only return to God and allow Him to remove the iniquity from Job's heart. Then, everything would be better. Sound familiar? Get saved and all your problems will end! Sow a seed of $500 dollars to XYZ ministry and you will see a harvest of 10x that! Just pray to God and He will give you your heart's desires! Interesting how "Christian" ministries have leveraged old fashioned greed and insecurity into the driver for salvation. Its obviously not a new concept either. Ironically, verse 30 is foreshadowing of Job's prayer that would deliver his three wicked friends.

Been an interesting night, but I'm off to bed. Let me know what you think.

Living in a Tintless World

2010-10-14T13:43:00.000-05:00

Last week of strange work hours for a while! Another post on Job will be put up late tonight. I had planned to do it during the day this week, but I've spent most of my last two mornings removing tint from my car. Peeling the tint off - easy. Scraping the remaining glue off - not so much. A word of advice to anyone that chooses to do this themselves, more heat equals less work. Definitely less glue residue remaining on windows that were seeing more direct sunlight, thus more heat, than on those that weren't directly in the sun. A hair dryer or heat gun is your best friend in this process. Anyway, I'll be back tonight with hopefully some insight on the next few chapters in Job.

Dip Cones in Heaven

2010-10-12T00:44:00.000-05:00

Still obviously struggling to do this every night. Working to get better though. Speaking of working to get better, looks like my Alabama Crimson Tide will have a week and my Atlanta Braves will have a whole offseason to get better. You know who's not getting any better at the moment? Job.

Job 18
     Broken record, thy name is Bildad. He tells Job to wisen up then, and only then, will they be able to have a conversation. Then we have many verses of Bildad explaining how bad the wicked have it in this life followed by Bildad questioning (indirectly) if Job even knows God. Bildad makes one particularly callous charge refers back to Job's tree reference in chapter 17. Whereas Job sees the tree as hopeful because new sprouts always come up, Bildad insinuates that Job's roots are dried up and his branches whithered. The commentary takes this as a statement about Job's family and a extremely rude assertion regarding the death of Job's children. The commentary I am reading again reinforces the point that Bildad was right in saying that man suffers as a result of his sin generally, but this was not an accurate explanation of Job's suffering specifically.

Job 19
     I love Job's responses. I would almost rather skip the chapters given to the friends to get to what Job says back. He asserts his friends' theory that God always righteously inflicts suffering as the result of wicked acts cannot be true. Job maintains he is innocent and therefore God (if it is God) is punishing him unfairly. I don't know if Job's mind took this though to its logical conclusion, but I assume he still held that God was nothing if not holy and righteous. For Him to be anything else would change Job's devotion to him (I would think) and that clearly hasn't changed as we'll later see. If Job still held God as perfectly righteous, and Job still believed in his innocence relative to this suffering, surely Job began to put the pieces together that his friends' view on human suffering and his knowledge of the character of God was in complete contradiction.
     Job describes how everyone in his life abhors him and how his friends should be ashamed for their actions toward him. He longs, somewhat ironically, for some book or writing to capture his words so that later, when all facts are known, his can obtain justice. Again, we see the Old Testament pointing towards Jesus Christ in Job's longing for, in his word's, "My Redeemer." My commentary also included some words from Spurgeon that talked about Job's anticipation of one day seeing God in his flesh (which in and of itself is evidence Job believed in a physical bodily resurrection);

Mark the subject of Job's devout anticipation - "I shall see God." He does not say, "I shall see the saints" - though doubtless that will be untold felicity - but, "I shall see God." It is not - "I shall see the pearly gates, I shall behold the walls of jasper, I shall gaze upon the crowns of gold," but "I shall see God." This is the sum and substance of heaven, this is the joyful hope of all believers.

Of all the wonderful things that Scripture tells us about heaven, the main attraction will always be God. It wasn't meant to be anything else and should never be. It isn't seeing deceased loved ones, getting a mansion, finding out that Dairy Queen does actually exist in heaven and does, in fact, still serve dip cones, or any of the other things we believers often get caught up in dreaming about. It's proximity and relationship with God, pure and simple.
Job finishes with another bang, telling his friends to watchout or the judgement they are quick to place on him might just be exacted on themselves. Bazinga. As a side note, spell check you might as well learn "bazinga" - it's here to stay.

Job 20
Zophar needs some new material. This is getting old. Zophar cannot stand by and let his idiotically evil friend Job continue to spout his nonsense without correcting him...evil people suffer. See how I did that in three words instead of 29 verses? These people talk too much. If Zophar keeps this up, I may have to rethink my plan to name our firstborn son after him. He has way too cool a name to be this painfully dull. The only noteworthy thing in this whole speech for me is that Zophar seems to reverse his course on Job's ability to repent and be restored. Now, in verses 28 & 29, Job is apparently already doomed to suffer becuase this is just what God does to people who do wicked things like Job must have. Nevermind Job ending chaper 19 with some really strong language regarding his anticipation of a "Redeemer" and yearning to see God with his own eyes. Nope, just toss that right out. According to Zophar, its too late for Job and his fate has been sealed.

So, two chapters of idiocy sandwiched around a really cool chapter from Job's perspective. On tomorrow with chapter 21.

The Grave, Corruption, and Worms

2010-10-08T00:32:00.000-05:00

Just going to hit one chapter up tonight. I'll try and get two or three in tomorrow night. Missed last night due to a busy night of house hunting and pickup basketball. I'd rather not talk about the basketball if that's ok with everyone. I'm a little bitter. As a matter of fact, lets just move on to Job.

Job 17
Ok, Job loses me a little bit in this chapter. Job's sarcastic smart-aleck side seems to be coming out some in this chapter, but I don't really understand what he is saying. A few interesting things I noticed though:

According to the notes in my Bible, the phrase "put down a pledge for me" in verse 3 is Job's way of asking God to post bail for him. The same metaphor in Psalms 119:121, 122 (go ahead, look it up - it's just one book over, I'll wait) where the Psalmist asks God to be his "surety for Your servant for good" indicates a request for God to grant the writer relief from oppression. The same is true here and could be seen as Job asking for God to demonstrate confidence in Job's relative innocence.
Verse 6 seems to show that Job experienced some social ramifications on top of his suffering. He goes so far as to say "And I have become one in whose face men spit." I originally thought this was just a statement to illustrate how low Job had been driven, but then noticed that was because I as assuming something in my reading. I was reading it as "And I have become as one in whose face men spit." That as that I was inserting subconsciously made the statement a simile (look, I did learn something in high school English) that compared Job's social status to somebody that would get slapped in the face. However, that comparison isn't there which to me means that Job is literally getting slapped in the face by those that look down on him, probably under the same assumptions his friends are making that Job did something to deserve all this.
I think verse 8 has to be some strong sarcasm. The "upright men" and "innocent" he refers to are his friends that perceive Job's guilt is what is causing his suffering. Job, on the other hand, is the perceived "hypocrite." However, despite the onslaught of righteous indignation being thrown in Job's direction, verse 9 affirms Job intent to hold to his position and claim of relative innocence.

Job ends the chapter saying that he has nothing to hope for except corruption (can be translated "the pit"), worms, and the grave. Not one if his friends possess any wisdom that Job can discern. Sorry it's so short, but its beddy-bye time for me, work is awaiting me in the morning.

Job, Meet Jesus. Jesus, Job.

2010-10-06T00:15:00.000-05:00

Ok, Job 14 - 16. Lets do it.

Job 14
No need for fancy introduction here. Really, there may be a need for it, but I can't think of one. Basically Job continues his eloquent dissertation on his plight. Here's the basic outline for this chapter:

He discusses how short and fleeting life is (v1-6)
He speculates trees have it better because they always have hope of regrowing whereas man while meet a more final end (v7-12)
He longs for death not as a final reprieve, but as a temporary location safe from God's perceived wrath (v13-17)
He accuses God of eroding and destroying the hope of man just as water erodes stone and mountains inevitably crumble and fall (v18-22)

Before we toss all this out as Job just continuing on with the same theme, we see an interesting difference from Job's previous statements. His longing for a different type of death than he seems to have always envisioned. Previously, Job always saw and spoke of death as the end of his suffering. Now, Job longs for something more akin to eternity, something those of us who have the blessing of God's entire word see in a clearer light. Job hopes for death as a hiding place from which God will call him eventually in a restored and healed fellowship.
     Remember that I've said before that the entire Bible points to and is about Jesus. Job's statements on death anticipate the very thing that Jesus provides through His death and resurrection. Job wants a temporary death that stops his current suffering until a time that God's wrath has subsided. At that point, God will call Job forth and begin again their relationship. God will again know Job personally (v16 - "For now You number my steps") but the sin problem will be gone (v16&17 - "...But do not watch over my sin. My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and You cover my iniquity") Job is longing for something that Jesus brings.  Job is a perfect example of the fact that deep within humanity is a longing for eternal fellowship with God that He has placed inside all of us. Even though Job couldn't know God was going to provide a way for human beings to obtain the resurrection and restored fellowship mentioned in these verses, Job still wanted it.

Job 15
     Eliphaz is losing patience with Job. He's done urging Job to repent and know he's ready just to throw some jabs. Strategy one didn't work, so Eliphaz is bringing the pain. No need to go into much detail about this chapter. Eliphaz's point is simple: Job is a wicked man who has brought his suffering upon himself. In verses 14 - 16, Eliphaz attempts to repudiate Job by saying that no man is perfect and all "...drink[s] iniquity like water." Interesting thing is that Eliphaz is using this as a hammering point on Job rather than empathizing and getting down on Job's level. Eliphaz has the theology right but, as most of us do, forgets to shine that light on his own life. We all have to be careful when discussing sin with others, especially if we are confronting someone about sin in their life. We must always remember that we stand just as guilty as anyone else and only have a relationship with God through the grace of Jesus Christ. No need for inflated egos in the church.

Job 16
     Job again tells his three friends that they are terrible comforters and that should the roles be reversed, Job would comfort and ease rather than attack. For Job, not only has God afflicted him personally but God has also caused friends and other human beings to lash out at Job and compound his suffering. Job again mentions the depth of his grief (v15-17) and again longs for a mediator to bear witness in heaven to God and plead Job's case. Starting to think that I would like to have seen Job's and Jesus' first meeting in heaven, where Job finally meets the person would would become all Job ever hoped for. How lucky we are to see the Bible in its entirety. We hardly ever see it clearly, but even the dimmest of reflections is better than no insight at all. I fear that many Christians, myself chief among them, fail to realize the gift we have sitting in our bookshelves.

Back to Basics (Again)

2010-10-04T23:21:00.001-05:00

Yikes, blogging has definately suffered the last few days. It's amazing how difficult it has gotten to find time/motivation to do these things after a month. But, no more looking back on my checkered past. On with the future. With that being said, this blog was originally meant to get through the Bible in one year. I've strayed from that goal by being too detailed and almost treating each chapter as if I was doing a Bible study on it.

So, in an effort to get back to my original intent, I'm going to move away from that model. I may occassionaly dip back into a more detailed entry if I just have a lot to say on a particular passage, but not normally. So, we are through Job 13 to this point. According to my calendar, the currently daily reading should be Job 14-16, so that is where we will start tomorrow. As a general rule, we will cover 2-4 chapters every entry so read along and post any thoughts, corrections, or insights you may have into whatever the reading is for that day.

Job Begs for Silence

2010-09-27T23:55:00.001-05:00

Alright, after a brief hiatus, I'm back. Looking forward to getting rolling again on Job, so lets start diggin'.

Job 12
     I'm becoming a fan of Job. He is wonderfully sarcastic. I can just imagine the eye roll and tone of voice as Job says "No doubt you are the people and wisdon will die with you!" He's tired of being talked down to, so Job reminds his friends that he is no dummy. Not only does Job have understanding, but Job insinuates that what his friends are discussing are so basic that he expects all to understand (v3).  Even the animals understand God's sovereignty, that nothing happens apart from His will.  Job then gets a bit long winded (something that would never happen to me and is in no way related to this blog being approximately 23.164 days behind schedule) giving examples of God's power and might.

Job 13
     This chapter really has two parts. The first concerns Job's continued address to his friends. One can almost picture his tormented face growing more and more frustrated with the prattling of his three "friends." He challenges them to demonstrate their wisdom by remaining silent and stop spouting shallow theology and platitudes. Job wants only to be comforted and listened to. Instead, his friends insist on trying to speak for God (quite wrongly). Good life lesson here. Funny thing about human beings is that once we think of something we consider wise or intelligent, we feel the need to share. Why? Well, for one we want the pat on the back that comes with somebody else agreeing that yes, we are that smart. Another, perhaps purer motive, is that we may genuinely want to help someone with our "knowledge." Regardless, we often find ourselves talking instead of listening, arguing instead of comforting. (That is, everybody but me.  Everyone needs to hear what I have to say, all the time. I'm a blogger.) All Job wanted was comfort but all he received was fundamentalist ranting.
     The second part of the chapter is Job ignoring his friends and going to speak to God. He begins by telling his friends to shut up and listen as he had prepared his case. Even though Job believed God to be the source of his infliction, verse 15 reiterates Job's commitment to trust God. Remember, it was Job that said in 2:10 "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" It sounds like a cool saying, might even make a decent bumper sticker. But for Job, it was obviously a reality. He asks God for two things before beginning his prayer: to stop afflicting him ("Withdraw your hand far from me") and to give him the strength and courage to address God ("...let not the dread of You make me afraid."). It is key to remember in all of Job's suffering, he still relies on and trusts God. That is a powerful example for modern Christians. Whatever the trials or sufferings we endure, we are to always trust and rely on God. He is our rock and our strength and to deny Him at these times is unacceptable (and really kind of stupid). Job did not, and we should not either.
     Job finishes by asking God to provide a list of the sins Job is charged with. He wants to know why God is pursuing something as insignificant as himself and why God punishes him for sins committed in his youth.  Job accuses God of watching him at all times with the intent of causing harm to Job rather than good. Finally, Job ends with the incredible depressing statement that "Man decays like a rotten thing, like a garmet that is moth-eaten."
     Job is beaten-down and tired. He's physically, spiritually, and emotionally drained. He is receiving no support from any human being with him. He's already been encouraged by his wife to curse God and die while the three stooges continue to spew worthless nonsense over and over again. He's in pain and financially ruined. All this, yet he still trusts God. Yes, he questions God. And yes, he is wrong in his belief that God is causing all of his suffering. But none of that changes his basic opinion about God. God can still be trusted, served, and loved. That is the attitude we need to have regardless of outside circumstance. No matter how much pain or suffering we endure in this life God still deserves all the love and adulation and honor that we pay Him, and more. If God did nothing but send Jesus to the cross on our behalf, then that is enough to make up for a thousand wars and millions of hours of agony. We get too caught up in our present circumstance and worship/serve God out of our present feeling. Job is a perfect example of someone who felt confused, hurt, and even angry with God but did not allow it to affect his basic relationship.

     Here is an interesting take on Job's perception and understanding of God versus his friends' that I will leave you with:

The mind reals at the immensity of his [Job's] conception of God. The little deity in the theology of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar is easily thought and easily belived. But a faith like Job's puts the human spirit to strenuous work. - Francis Anderson

The Secret Ingredient Is...

2010-09-22T00:00:00.000-05:00

After a break yesterday to read a little from an author a million times better than me, you get, well, me. And now that I've psyched myself out, lets begin.

Job 10
Job is getting a little feisty. He lets it all hang out, unloading both barrels on God. He begs for God to show the reason for his suffering, to look on him as His own creation and have mercy. Though Job bemoans the fact that no mediator exists to try the case between him and God in the previous chapter, he still begins to lay out his arguments. In verse 7 he accuses God of knowing Job's relative innocence but acknowledges that no one can deliver him from God's hand. Verse 8 changes the chapter a little bit, as Job begins to paint the picture of how God lovingly created him as a contrast to the God that punishes him unfairly (so he thinks). And then, Job gets off talking about how he would have rather not been born, how he wants just a little comfort before he dies, blah blah blah. I've read this book and know how it ends, and God will answer every one of Job's charges. And it won't be pretty.

Job 11
Oh good, it's Zophar's turn. Once again, Job's friends feel compelled to respond to his complaints. Here's the description of Zophar from my Bible's reference notes:

Zophar the Naamathite was even more rude than Bildad. He was a brash dogmatist who based his arguments on misapplied theology coupled with simplistic reasoning.

Allow me to translate: Zophar was an inconsiderate moron. And yes, I get the irony of calling somebody an "inconsiderate moron" for not being sensitive. It hasn't been lost on me, I just don't care. Zophar accuses Job of being all high and mighty touting his pure doctrine and fancy words. We've got another "good intentions pave the road to hell" situation going on here. Zophar is correct in his assertions that Job cannot possibly fathom the mystery and complexity of God, but that fact isn't to be used as a club to bludgeon a grieving man. It's doctrine without love. And as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13, love is a required ingredient for all Christian work. Whether a person is teaching, giving, sacrificing, dying, doing whatever as a Christian, if it isn't done out of love and with a loving spirit, it is worthless. Zophar had no love in his discourse. Instead, he implies Job is a foolish man who has as much a chance of being wise as a wild donkey birthing a human being (they were so much more creative with their insults back then).
Zophar ends his attack with a few words on why Job is suffering. Again, his opinion is that if Job could only bring his apparent iniquity before God and repent, Job would be restored. If he would just stop being bad, God would stop punishing him. And oh, by the way, God isn't punishing you to the level your iniquity deserves, Job, He's going easy on you (v. 6). Theologically, it all sounds reasonable. Sin is the ultimate cause of suffering, therefore suffering indicates sin. And further more, sin should cause eternal separation from God which means eternal separation for anything that is good, loving, joyful, righteous, pure, etc. So anything less than that is definitely going easy on us. But Zophar continues his critical mistake. Some of this is extremely simple reasoning. None of this is loving. None of this is understanding. None of this is what Jesus would do (just imagine how different the book of Job would have been had someone been mass producing WWJD bracelets). There is no picture of God who knows that mankind cannot possibly be reconciled to Him without His intercession. Instead, the burden is still on Job to bring his iniquity to God and stop doing wicked things. Only then will Job be restored. But that isn't the gospel. The gospel is that man made a humongous mess out of God's plan, a humanly irreparable mess. God, because He loves first His glory and then us, mercifully sends Jesus Christ to fix what would otherwise remain eternally broken. All man can do is realize that he really cannot do anything on his own and rely solely on the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ. Man (in this case Job) cannot make it better by just stopping or repenting because the damage is done. Job instead needs a loving God, which it just so happens he has even if he doesn't know it.

What to take from these verses? I think we learn more sometimes from seeing something done incorrectly. As Christians, especially fundamental/evangelical Christians, sometimes we get so caught up in the facts or dogma that we forget the people. Our faith and daily interaction as Christ's representatives cannot be solely based on truth nor emotion. It must be a supernatural blending of the two, where God's truths are relayed in a loving manner. This doesn't mean you have to be namby-pamby (spell check is going to love that) all the time. Love can be violent and noble and extremely manly. Don't believe me? Just watch any one of Richard Gere's movies. (Wait, that doesn't help my point, forget I said that.) But love is a necessary ingredient for any Christian work and as we see with Zophar, the results are quite ugly when it is left out.

A Brief Note from CS Lewis

2010-09-20T22:54:00.000-05:00

I don't have time for a full entry tonight. I thought about slamming something together, but I don't want to rush an entry if I can help it. So, in an effort to give any of you that read something to think about, I'm going to post a passage from one of my favorite authors, CS Lewis. At our weekly men's breakfast a few weeks back, we debated the theological accuracy of the statement "Love the sinner, hate the sin." And lest I create the image that I belong to some intellectual society that discusses high moral dilemmas over tea and crumpets, it was at Cracker Barrel and we may or may not have spent the previous 20 minutes mocking someone because of the street they live on (you know who you are). Anyway, here is the passage from the chapter "Forgiveness" in Mere Christianity where Lewis addresses it:

I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact, the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.

I'll keep my personal beliefs about the idea a secret, but I'd really love to get some comments/responses going to this.

Can You Subpoena God?

2010-09-18T02:14:00.002-05:00

Last day of weird work hours. Gotta be happy about that. No time for chit chat, lets dive in to Job 9.

Job 9
     Really, really good chapter. Before I read it, I asked for the Holy Spirit to guide me in a way that I viewed what I was reading through the lens that the entire Bible points to and is about Jesus. Chapter 9 was an excellent example of that. Job basically reinforces the point that as a mere man, Job can hope to gain no equal footing with God that is necessary for a legal trial. Job has wanted to be able to argue his case with God, presenting his righteousness against the suffering God has inflicted on him. But he acknowledges here that God is much more righteous and wise and powerful that a trial would be impossible. He then goes through some illustrations in an attempt to illustrate God's power, one of which is walking on the waves of the sea (remind you of anyone?). Who is Job to attempt to argue with a being so powerful?

     But Job does start to get a little off track. It is important to remember that while Job talks about being blameless and innocent, he isn't talking about absolute innocence. Job never claims to have never sinned, but is claiming that he has committed no sin equal to the amount of suffering God has inflicted upon him. He says that though he is innocent, he no longer cares about his life (v. 21). The only conclusion Job can reach is that God punishes both the guilty and the innocent. He gets a little hyperbolic and says that God laughs at the suffering of the innocent and rewards the wickedness of others. Job concludes verse 24 with a thought that is still very prevalent today: If it's not God that does it, who else could it be?

     Job's question is not unusual today. The idea of human suffering in the world is a huge stumbling block to many when Christians talk of a loving God. People have trouble resolving a holy God that can be both loving and wrathful. Christianity touts God's power, including how God will eventually triumph over all powers that oppose Him including Satan. People, however, struggle with the idea that an infinitely powerful being would allow a lesser power to inflict suffering on something that He loves, i.e. humanity. I think Job knew about Satan and understood his existence, but he also knew God was infinitely more powerful and could stop Satan's attacks if he wanted to. We don't always know why certain instances of suffering exist. God could certainly intervene if He wanted to, but suffering is our consequence for sin. And a just God cannot allow wickedness to go unpunished even if it involves those that He loves. If a parent loves his child, he must discipline the child. Which is more loving: to allow a child to bully without punishment in his youth only to spend a lifetime in jail as an adult because he was never taught physically attacking others was wrong OR to correct the child in his youth so that he never spends a day in the pokey?  Yes, its an extreme example, but it exemplifies the idea of short term suffering (whatever the discipline/punishment is) for long term benefit. And if we look at ourselves as eternal creatures that will spend an eternity in heaven or hell, for believers a lifetime of suffering is but a tiny speck when compared with an eternity in heaven. It would be like suffering a paper cut for a second in exchange for a lifetime of ultimate joy and fulfillment. God may not save us from temporal suffering every time, but He does save those that worship Him from eternal suffering. And please understand I am not being flippant about the agony associated with a paper cut. I, and others that work for NASA, take paper cuts very seriously. Please see a medical specialist immediately as they are trained in proper antibiotic application techniques and sterile bandage dressing. If you don't, your finger could get red and puffy. For those that don't know what I am talking about, be glad you don't have to endure monthly safety presentations.

     Finally, I started off talking about how the entire Old Testament points to Jesus. Notice that Job ends this chapter mourning the fact that no mediator exists to intervene in his case.

For He is not a man, as I am, that I may answer him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us, who may lay his hand on us both. (v. 32-33)

He's already established that as a mere man he cannot meet God in a courtroom setting and ask for mercy. The difference between God and man is too great. Job needs someone that can go in his stead that has equal footing with God that can convince God to ease up on him. In short, he needs Jesus. Jesus is that mediator, the one who can stand with God on equal footing and plead man's case.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all... (1 Tim 2:5-6a)

You see, Job was anticipating Jesus' arrival though he didn't know it. Job knew that he, as a mere man, had no chance to bridge the immense difference between him and God. He knew that he needed somebody else to do it and Jesus is that somebody. Pretty cool that in this chapter alone, Job anticipates Jesus twice by mentioned God's ability to "tread on the waves of the sea" and the need for a mediator between man and God.

Cause Doesn't Always Equal Effect

2010-09-14T11:58:00.000-05:00

Job has said his peace, so we are on to Bildad. If your name is Bildad, you better be extremely smart, good looking, or incredibly athletic or you know elementary school was tough. Well, lets be honest, he needed to be good looking or athletic because being smart buys you nothing in elementary school.

Job 8
I don't think Bildad got Job's point. He still believes Job has done something to deserve his circumstance. He even goes so far as to say that obviously Job's children sinned against God and that is why they were killed. I've been told I have no tact, but even I'm not that dense. Simply, Bildad's issue is that he believes the cause can always be deduced by the effect. He points to the history of plant growth, saying that plants will always fail without water. True enough, but he doesn't account for the fact that plants also fail when in water for completely different reasons. He sees only one cause for plant failure, and that is a lack of water. Since Job is suffering, it is obvious to Bildad that some sin is at the cause. The irony of it all is, in verse 6 Bildad makes the statement "If you were pure and upright..." which are the exact words God uses to describe Job at the beginning of the book. There we clearly see the fallacy of Bildad's assumptions. The very possibility he rules it out because of Job's suffering is the exact cause of Job's current testing. Again, in verse 20, Bildad assures Job that God will not "cast away the blameless." If that sounds familiar, it's because Job is described as blameless in verses 1:1, 8, and 2:3 by God. Bildad is incredibly off-the-mark here.

But for all he does wrong, it is worth noting that Bildad's overall goal is to defend the honor of God which he believes Job is attacking. It could be said that his heart was in the right place. But we also see the problem with giving people a pass on things because we believe their "heart was in the right place." Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions (may be one of my favorite quotes because it is so true). Bildad is being incredible caustic towards his friend and completely and utterly wrong with his theology. He is perpetuating the myth that God always immediately punishes sin and always immediately rewards faithfulness. It's the same hogwash that hundreds of evangelists and televangelists use to brainwash their congregations into believing they can financially or physically turn their life around if only they give more something to God. Of course, that "more something" is usually a donation to the telemarketer (I mean televangelist) for which the person will receive some magic rock or vial of water. I think I'm guilty of the same thinking at times. If my life isn't going quite the way I want, I start evaluating what the spiritual cause may be. Maybe I'm not reading the Bible enough (usually true but not the point) or praying enough or whatever enough. Sometimes God is likely trying to get my attention for something. Sometimes, life just stinks. No cause for it other than man's sin nature. The truth is, sometimes God immediately punishes sin. Sometimes He doesn't. Sometimes He immediately rewards faithfulness, sometimes he doesn't. Reading my Bible everyday will not guarantee a $100,000 check shows up in my mailbox tomorrow and not reading it everyday doesn't guarantee I'm going to die in a fiery car crash tomorrow (if I somehow do die in a car crash tomorrow, lets just say that was a weird coincidence). We can be assured that all sin that has not been covered by the blood of Jesus Christ will eventually be punished in hell, and all those that have had their relationship with God restored by the blood of Jesus will be rewarded in heaven. But those are eternal punishments/rewards which may or may not manifest themselves currently in our physical lives.

An Exciting Debut

2010-09-14T00:42:00.000-05:00

Ok, maybe it's not all that exciting for anybody but me. But, tomorrow morning will be the first morning edition of this blog. Not finished with the one tonight so I'll post it tomorrow before lunch. Don't cry, it'll be ok.

Counseling Lessons with Job

2010-09-13T01:07:00.000-05:00

Pretty good day today, if I do say so myself. Totally dominated in one of my fantasy football leagues. Breakfast Sunday at church. And a good Vintage Jesus class tonight where we discussed how the entire Bible points to Christ. So, today marks what I hope to be a return to everyday posting for a while. No more midnight shift for a while. Did I mention I was dominating one of my fantasy football leagues? 'Cause I did. Anyway, on to Job. I'm going to change up the format somewhat. I'm going to stop differentiating between my opinion, the reference notes in my Bible, and the commentary. I'm just going to roll it all up in one and see if that works a little better. If you don't like, feel free to share.

Job 6:14 - 30
Job is just getting warmed up. Having established the fact that he is suffering lately, Job tees off on his friends and the attitude with which they visited him. He compares them to vanishing streams, saying they disappear when the weather gets hot. Travelers go to the streams but find nothing because the streams have dried up. Job wanted his friends comfort, not their accusation. "I haven't asked you for anything!" Job is frustrated with his friends' insistence on trying to correct him. Here is where we can get some really practical advice for everyday life. Job admits, his words are like the wind and are spoken out of such grief and anguish that they should be taken with a grain of salt. We deal with people often who are upset or dealing with a crisis in their lives. In the midst of their grief, they don't need to hear platitudes or theological discussion or how much you dominated your opponent in fantasy football this week (even though that should cheer anybody up). They just want you to comfort them, to be their friend. To be a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on. Sometimes its just sitting their silently offering your company and nothing more. That's all Job wanted, but instead he got lectures. He doesn't need Eliphaz's harping about some secret sin that is causing all this pain. He challenges Eliphaz, tells him to name the sin or move on. Put up or shut up. Eliphaz can't. Job appeals to them to trust his integrity, as they should know that their friend Job would not lie to them. But, of course, they don't. Oh no, that would be easy. Instead, they have to be all human about it and keep on.

Job 7:1-21
Job's done with his friends for now, and has moved on with his complaints to God. It's somewhat strange to me, seeing this kind of language from somebody as righteous as Job directed at God. Job is pretty blunt. He is not happy and he is letting God know it. But we can see that God is the perfect Comforter for Job, as He is for all that call on His name. Job doesn't have to worry about God misunderstanding what he is saying as Job's friends have. He doesn't have to worry about explaining the fact that he is not preaching a theological viewpoint at this particular time but is speaking out of great sorrow and grief. God understands that. He understands that Job is looking towards death as a slave might look for shade on a hot day. He understands the physical pain of having cracked and broken skin that is constantly reopening every wound for months. He understands Job currently has no hope and cannot even find comfort in his own bed due to night terrors. Job would undergo nothing that God did not understand. You and I will go through nothing that God does not anticipate and understand. And notice, God isn't exactly striking Job with lightning bolts here out of righteous fury. He is listening. Rest assured, He is always listening. God will correct, but not now. Now, in His perfect wisdom, He is allowing Job to just be. Job even starts asking God why he cares so much for man. He wonders when will God turn His gaze for Job and pardon whatever sin Job committed to deserve this life (see, Eliphaz's words definitely had an impact on Job)?

Another interesting thing is that Job regards something as bad that God intends and regards as good. In verse 12, Job again refers to the protective guard that God has placed on his life as a bad thing. In Job's mind, it is all that keeps him from the sweet release of death. He doesn't understand that God intends it for good because He is intent on restoring Job someday soon. I wonder how many times we mix that up? How many times do we see something as bad that God intends as good? Could be not getting into the college you want, or the job you deserve, or the spouse you've been waiting for. We have such a limited view bound by our experience of time that we cannot see all God has planned for us yet we act and talk as if we do. As if we have infinite knowledge and wisdom and need to point out to God the error of His ways. Little do we know, just like Job, God intends good for His children. That doesn't mean will all be millionaires, have perfect health, or dominate every week in fantasy football in this life. That does mean in the scope of eternity, God's children will be infinitely blessed for we will eternally be in His presence in heaven. It's all about that eternal viewpoint.

That's all for tonight. Another one of Job's friends is on deck in chapter 8. I'll be writing again tomorrow night, following the completion of Monday Night Football as the first week of my fantasy football dominance comes to an all-to-soon end. Whatever you do, just don't ask my about my other fantasy team.

I'm Innocent, I Swear!

2010-09-09T22:10:00.000-05:00

After a long layoff, back for some more Job. We last left it with Eliphaz trying to convince Job that he must have done something wrong to deserve all that has happened to him. It is important to remember that Eliphaz is not associating human suffering with the general sin problem, which would be theologically correct. The problem of pain entered in with the original sin, no doubt about that. Eliphaz is wrong in that he is saying Job's current suffering is punishment for some specific sin Job committed recently. Due to our behind the scenes look at what is going on in heaven, we know that Job is actually suffering because he is such a righteous man and is being tested by Satan. Lets look at the first part of Job's response.

Job 6:1 - 13
     Job basically reiterating the depth of his suffering and grief. One interesting thing is he uses the phrase "the arrows of the Almighty are within me." That seems to be Job crediting God for his suffering. I'm not sure if he is saying that God is directly inflicting his suffering (sounds to me like he is) or that God is letting it happen. I'm leaning towards Job thinking that God is personally making Job suffer. We know that is incorrect. Job also reiterates his desire for God to let him die. Once again, this is not Job contemplating suicide. God is in control of Job's life and God alone has the right to decide when it ends. Finally, Job mentions that he hasn't "concealed the words of the Holy One" which is Job saying he has done nothing specifically to deserve what is happening to him.

     The arrows of the Lord are generally symbols representing His judgement or wrath.   Job likely assumed God was required by His nature to reward the faithful and punish the guilty in this life, which is why he is thinking that God is punishing him unjustly. In verse 10, Job says "though in anguish I would exalt," which indicates that Job is more concerned with preserving his relationship with God than with eliminating his pain and suffering

     The commentary provides a pretty good synopsis of Job's words through verse 13. While Job does admit his words may have been a bit rash, there was a reason. His suffering was extreme and he saw no cause for it. One of his points was that he would not speak and complain so bitterly if there was no cause for his bitterness. He has no strength or hope to continue so he sees no use in prolonging his life.

Unfortunately, I've got to cut it off here. I've got to get ready to head into work. Job is just getting warmed up though. Next entry will look at Job's response to his friends. He doesn't address Eliphaz specifically, but rather unloads both barrels on the group of three.

A Note from The Editor

2010-09-07T08:35:00.000-05:00

Sorry the entries are so long in coming. Ever since I've gotten back from travel I've been working weird hours and that has not helped my consistency. I plan on cranking up in earnest again really soon. But now, it's time for bed. First midnight shift is always tough.

With Friends Like These...

2010-09-03T01:17:00.002-05:00

I just deleted several sentences expressing my dislike for Lane Kiffen following his incredibly arrogant halftime interview of the USC/Hawaii game. I think it's best we move on.

Job 4:1 - 6
     I'm not liking Eliphaz's tone here. As some friends of mine would say, he seems to be setting himself up here for a throat punch. He comes in trying to be polite but getting some righteous indignation going pretty quickly. <start sarcasm> After all, how could he help from speaking up with all Job was blathering on about? Job needs to hear what Eliphaz has to say. <end sarcasm> How many times have people waded in to other people's business with something along the lines of "I just can't hold my tongue any longer..." Trust me, you can. Eliphaz could have here. But instead, he starts in reminding Job of all the people he, Job, has helped overcome trouble. I'm just taking a shot in the dark that Job has helped Eliphaz overcome something in his life. Because the next thing Eliphaz says is insinuates that Job can't do the very thing he has helped others do. Now that Job has experienced trouble, he cannot overcome as he has helped others to do. And finally, in verse 6, we start getting to Eliphaz's point. He tells Job that his integrity and reverence of God should be his hope to overcome these troubles. Not God himself, but Job's actions regarding God. Sounds to me like he is telling Job to put his hope in himself and not in God. Eliphaz just dresses it up in religious wording to make it sound spiritual.

     Since Eliphaz spoke first, he was likely the oldest of the friends. It is also noted that Eliphaz was more curteous than his other friends would be but his observations were just as distorted (we'll get to that in later verses). It is also mentioned that Eliphaz is very complimentary and curteous to Job in his opening remarks but verse 6 might have been a mild rebuike.

     Some opening remarks on Eliphaz from the commentary. Eliphaz, in most of his speeches, seems to rely on general observation or experience. So we can expect him just to speak on what his perceptions are. The three friends' viewpoint is summed up in the idea that suffering is a consequence of some sin rather than an instrument God uses to teach. All suffering is strictly and solely punishment. But we see from the beginning of the book that while Job was under the sin curse as all men are, he had done nothing specifically wrong to warrant this suffering. In fact, Job was singled out for suffering by Satan for all he had done right. The description of Eliphaz is "a pious and prominent person, orthodox in his views of God's greatness, but sadly lacking in compassion." The commenatry reduces Eliphaz's comments in this section down to "you have helped others, but cannot help yourself." The parallel is then drawn to the mockers at Christ's crucifiction saying that Jesus had saved others but could not save himself. Didn't think about that possibility.

Job 4:7 - 11
     Here Eliphaz digs his hole a little further. He attempts to make the point that upright and righteous men never suffer, while those that practice iniquity cannot help but reap suffering. Then he uses a lion analogy I just don't get. No need to spend much time here. Jesus proved that the most righteous of men do suffer. And plenty of the world's wealthiest who had relatively easy lives will die apart from God and spend eternity in hell.

     Not much help on the notes on the whole lion thing. They do say it is definately metaphorical. One explanation is that Eliphaz is comparing Job to an old lion who's grumblings are like roars and how is reaping the consequnce of his wickedness. That fits with Eliphaz's theme, but I'm just not sure I get that from the lion verses.

     Nothing from the commentary. If somebody reading this has a thought on the lion verses, please share. I got nothin'.

Job 4:12 - 21
     Now Eliphaz has a word from God. He had a vision, a secret word that only he got in the middle of the night. Interestingly enough, what he's saying isn't that bad. He is saying that man, God's creature, cannot be more righteous than God himself. True. His implication is his downfall. He is still working on the angle that suffering is simply punishment for wrongdoing. In a very general sense, he is right. All suffering is the product of man's sin. But I think we'll see that isn't Eliphaz's point. His point is that each specific instance of suffering is directly the result of a specific act of sin. I can think of sins I've commented that I have received no direct suffering for (yet). I can think of suffering I've endured through no fault of my own. Above all else for me, Christianity must be real and it must be truthful. Eliphaz's theory he is building doesn't match up with reality.

     Interesting note for verse 21. The Hebrew phrase translated "their own excellence" also means "tent cord." So Eliphaz may be saying humanity's existance is as precarious as a tent in a sandstorm.

     Another implication of Eliphaz's statements is that God is so far above man that man has no right to petition God when suffering. Job has no right to even approach God about this because God is so much more righteous than Job. I'm not sure that isn't true in a legal sense. Really, as a human being, I have no right to approach God, talk to God, or even really think about God. So great is my sin and my disobedience. But God's love for us and ultimately Jesus' life, death, and resurrection allowed me access that I could not earn. I think Eliphaz, if this is what he is saying, may be right about human beings having no right on our own to approach God. But he is denying God's love and mercy because God paved a way for us to have what we could not earn.

Job 5:1 - 27
     Eliphaz basically says that Job has no one to turn to but God. Just by itself, that seems like a correct enough statement. And maybe I've done myself a disservice by doing this in sections. But we have to remember the whole context of what Eliphaz is driving at. He has told job that suffering is a direct result of wickedness. Since Job is suffering, Job must have specifically done something wicked which he is specifically suffering for now. So when Eliphaz tells Job to go to God, he is sending Job to God looking for forgiveness of whatever wicked act Job did to bring this suffering upon himself. He isn't sending Job to God as the comforter or companion or even lord. He is sending Job to God as a guilty child goes before the principal to receive his due licks and/or be forgiven. And then get this: he tells Job TO BE HAPPY ABOUT IT. Yes, God heals the broken and restores those that need and ask for it. But what Eliphaz doesn't get is that Job isn't being punished for anything specific. Job is suffering because he was righteous. The trouble with heresy and false teaching is that it often sounds so much like truth. Otherwise nobody would buy it. If somebody sent you an email saying they were broke, wanted to by a camero, and needed $10,000 dollars from you to get started there is no way you would hand it over. And if you would, I really want a camero and need $15,000 to get started because I'm a little poorer than my hypothetical criminal. What they will do, though, is spend a few hours on making an email look exactly like your bank's and send you some bogus message about a problem with your account requiring you to log in through their email to set it straight. People don't fall for the former, but thousands fall for the latter because it is so close to what they know to be true. Eliphaz is close, but gets no cigar. God isn't punishing Job for anything specific. Suffering can exist for other reasons than punitive ones.

     Not much more than what I've already talked about. Basically confirmation that while God does occassionaly discipline people for their sin through pain and suffering, it is not always the case. It definately isn't the case for Job.

     The commentary boils Eliphaz's point down to if Job will just admit to God's chastening, Job will enjoy domestic peace, security, fruitfulness, and longevity. So, the magic pill to cause suffering is specific cases of sin and the magic pill to end suffering and secure all kinds of blessings is to submit to God. See how this ties in to the prosperity gospel. Eliphaz is assuming a one-to-one correlation where none exist. Submitting to God's will in your life doesn't guarantee money or security or peace or longevity. Jesus' earthly life ended at 33 and he was the perfect model. None of the disciples ended up wealthy. Millions of Christians have died penniless and homeless. If God worked the way Eliphaz claims, if God always punished the wicked and always rewarded the righteous, how do you reconcile the wealthy sinner who lives a long life (Hugh Hefner comes to mind) or the penniless Christian (Mother Theresa, anyone?) with that? Simply, you can't.

Now that we've finished with Eliphaz's speech, next time we see Job's rebuttle. I did enjoy the last part of Eliphaz's speech where he says "Behold, this we have searched out; It is true. Hear it, and know for yourself." Sounds like a movie trailer. Or a wrestler's really cool catch phrase he says at the end of every in-ring speach - "Hear it, and know for yourself." Next up, Job reponds.

PS - My spell check isn't working, so sorry for any mistakes.

World's First Pity Party?

2010-09-01T01:05:00.000-05:00

I'm pretty sure the prevailing dish in hell is raw fish on a bed of sticky rice which is wrapped in dried seaweed. Man discovered fire for a reason, and that reason was to cook every piece of meat that we eat. No excuse for raw fish. As you can tell, I'm still a little cranky from the jet lag that goes with a 14 hour time difference. So tonight's entry is going to be short, possibly sweet, and definitely starting right now.

Job 2:11 - 13
     As you might can tell from my reference to them last entry as the "three stooges," these three friends aren't the best. But you couldn't tell that from their entrance. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar all travel what was then a long way to visit their friend during his grieving and sat with him in apparent silence for 7 days. They are fine as long as they are grieving with him. However, this section also introduces that they plan to "comfort" Job, and that's where it all goes terribly wrong.

     Nothing spectacular in the Bible notes. Simply a note that three traveled a long way and obviously cared for Job since they sat with him grieving for 7 days.

     Again, nothing major in the commentary.

Job 3:1 - 19
     Cue pity party. Not that I can really blame Job, but he's letting out some pent-up emotion in these verses. He curses the day of his birth and goes to far to wish that he had been as a stillborn infant that never saw the light of day. Notice that he isn't directing his wail at God at this point, but is lamenting his own life and situation in it. But Job does get pretty imaginative in his whining. See verse 12, which the NKJV reads as "Why did the knees receive me?" I think we should adopt that as the new euphemism for birth. Imagine leaving the delivery room, handing out cigars, and telling your friends and family that your wife's knees just received your baby into the world? I love it. I'm announcing the birth of my first child that way.

     So, the reference notes agree that Job never blasphemes God, but he does come dangerously close. He curses the day of his birth and night of his conception by personifying them. It isn't directed at any human being much less God. We also cannot equate Job's wishing he hadn't been born to thoughts of suicide. He never gives any indication that he is considering ending his life. This is also a good chance to point out that Job was wishing his life away due to sorrow, which indicates at least a temporary misunderstanding of the purpose of life. The purpose of life isn't our happiness, but to increase the glory of God. But if you want to believe that God created you solely to be happy, I know some people willing to sell you a bottle of holy water to make that happen. I'm sorry, "sell" is a bad word to use. I meant gift you a bottle of holy water in return for your gift of money. Back to the text. Job used two separate Hebrew words that translate curse. The imagery he is drawing upon is that of a magician casting a spell for a client to cast a spell on a day (in this case, the day of his birth). To better understand that concept, I point you to the latest Shrek movie where you will find an extremely philosophical and practical example of how magicians in that time period were able to cast spells to alter days in the past. Of course, given Job's relationship with God, we can safely assume that he didn't believe in those things but was instead employing literary device to make his point.

     Actually some really good stuff in this portion of the commentary, but I'm going to save some of it until the next entry which is where we will start covering the friend's responses. But it is easier to see the progression of Job's lament in this form. He starts off cursing the day of his birth. Then I think decides that isn't strong enough a curse, so he starts in on the night of his conception. Still looking for the proper comparisons, Job then begins to wish he had been lost in the womb never to see the earth as a living creature. I didn't realize it, but the commentary points out that abortion was a fairly common evil back then as it is now. Job wasn't advocating it, but the idea of babies dying before or during birth was probably a very common one then. And then Job ends this particular session extolling the virtue of death, how it is a place free of trouble and full of rest.

Job 3:20 - 26
     Job's worst fears have come true. He starts to come across a little envious. He wonders why others are granted death when they may not want it why he longs for it but cannot receive it. Job actually blames God a little for keeping him from dying. Seems like an odd thing to blame God for, but probably not that uncommon. People suffer greatly in this world and death likely does seem a welcome respite. But we must always remember that God is the one who gave us life and should, if we are Christians, control our life. My lifespan is God's decision and to try to undermine that authority is to try to act as god in our own lives. Obviously we cannot do that and still proclaim to follow Him. The phrase "it's my life!" should never be said by anyone other than Bon Jovi. It's just not true. Nothing about my life is mine and nothing about Job's life was his. It all belongs to God. As Bill Cosby said (sort of) - "God put you in this world and God can take you out."

     It is quite ironic that the Job talks about God hedging Him in as a negative thing. That is God's protection, His barrier between Job and Satan. God allowed all sorts of physical harm as long as Job was not killed. What God meant for protection Job took as a suffocating restriction. None of us would make that mistake, would we? Surely we, being educated 21st century human beings, would see God's law in Scripture as a protection for our life and not as a suffocating set of rules designed to ruin our fun at every turn? Surely we have progressed beyond that type of thinking. On a side note, if your name is Sheldon and you are reading this, consider this your sarcasm sign.

     Only major thing to note in the commentary is the paragraph on verse 25. Job is wrapping up his first lament by saying that these circumstances were his worst fears realized. He had always been afraid something like this would happen. The commentary points out that this is a common thought for those that are wealthy (and yes, that includes most Americans). Their greatest fear is losing it all. Money, fame, family, etc. Job had so much to lose. And it appears from verse 25 that Job always feared losing it. Does that make him materialistic? Probably. But I'm not going to throw any stones from my glass house.

With that, my head is losing the battle with gravity and its sleepy time for me. I don't have time to proofread so sorry for any errors. One thing we cannot forget here is that Job is speaking from the heart. He has just undergone unspeakable tragedy and is simply reacting to it. We must not judge him too harshly for his words. On the otherhand, for those in a judgy mood, we can start tearing apart the friends tomorrow night. They provide plenty of ammunition for that.

Temporary Hiatus

2010-08-17T01:16:00.002-05:00

Going to have to take a quick break from the blogging business. I've been packing for my 11 day jaunt over to Japan starting tomorrow. So, I'd appreciate any prayers for a safe and productive trip. I might be able to throw a few entries up while in Japan, but I'm not promising anything. I'm sure all my readers will somehow get through the day without me. It'll be hard, but just push through.

You Think Your Day Was Bad...

2010-08-16T00:32:00.000-05:00

Not a consistent week for me. Had full intention of writing a blog last night, but then I got wore out by an impromptu Sunday School cookout filled with young'uns. Crashed on the couch. So, with that off my chest, I press on into the book of Job.

Job 1:1 - 12
     Job was, quite simply, the man. He was extremely wealthy with a large family and God's obvious favor. His righteousness (by human standards) could not be questioned. He was such a godly man that he made sacrifices for his children after they feasted just in case they sinned. He was literally an intercessor for his children. But he wasn't anonymous. Satan knew him and knew him well. But despite Satan's knowledge of him, it is worth remembering that it is God who brings Job into the conversation. Like a proud father, God brags on his servant Job to His archenemy. And then, Satan trots out the line that millions of nonbelievers or even Christians have used for centuries to justify their bitterness towards God, the faith, or each other: he only loves You because You give him everything. Like God is some sort of cosmic sugardaddy buying love from human beings via gold and female donkeys (in Job's case). I can almost hear God chuckle as He tells Satan to go ahead and take all Job's possessions but to leave the the man himself alone.

    It is pointed out that Job has the "complete" family because of his seven sons. Seven was a number symbolizing completeness in Biblical times. The term "sons of God" again appears to indicate angelic beings. We first saw the term back in Genesis just prior to the flood. The term "Satan" may not literally be the devil himself as it simply means "adversary." But, most scholars believe it was actually the devil. The commentary also notes that Job wasn't an Israelite, but likely an Edomite. Never thought about that. Finally, the commentary spends a great deal of time discussing the fact that God limits Satan's power. That should be a comforting factor for all Christians and really adds validity to the statement that in Christ, all believer's can outlast any temptation God allows to come our way. Even when Satan is throwing his fiercest attacks our way, they are still limited by God's providential hand.

     Excellent commentary and application on Job's interceding for his children. Basically, what Job was doing, was providing for the fact that in times of celebration, it is all to easy for us to slip from Godly conduct to "sinful levities" as Spurgeon put it. Think about it, how many times when you are having fun socializing with friends do you find yourself laughing at an off-color joke, participating in unpure conversation, or gossiping about someone else? We slip all to easy and comfortably into our sinful behaviour. So, Job makes a provision for his children (and likely himself) that in an unguarded moment he or his children cursed God. Spurgeon says that the Christian should do that every night, taking spiritual inventory of the day's activities (both intentional and unintentional) and then repenting and relying on the sacrifice of the cross to atone for it.

Job 1:13 - 22
     And now we have quite possibly the worst day in history. Job loses his possessions and his children in one day, possibly within the same hour. Some are carted off by raiders, some die in natural disasters. I find it interesting that the sheep were killed by "the fire of God" and his children died from a wind that struck all four corners of the house. I'm not sure what the "fire of God" looks like, but I picture tons of meteorites flaming through the atmosphere and obliterating the pasture the sheep and shepherds were residing in. Notice that the affliction was attributed to God. As for the wind that leveled the house, how do you have wind that comes from all directions at once? Both of these were clearly natural events, one even directly attributed to God and the other indirectly. So while Job might could have written off the raiders to his own misfortune and human depravity, he cannot ignore the supernatural element inherent in the death of his sheep and children. Which, to me, makes his statement "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" even more impressive. He truly loved the Lord regardless (at least at this time) of his personal fortune.

     The commentary notes that the language indicates that Job's fall "to the ground" just after he tore his robe and shaved his head wasn't some involuntary muscle spasm in response to grief, but a deliberate and humbling act of worship. Job was completely in control of himself and voluntarily fell on his face before God. He correctly apprised himself as having nothing when he entered the world and acknowledged that he would take none of it with him. I can imagine most American Christians (including myself) reaction to these circumstances. We wouldn't fall, we may drop to a knee for just a second, then stand back up and shake our fist at Satan (possibly even God) and vow never to give in. We would try to summon our own strength deep from within and continue to soldier on as good Christians as the theme from Rocky played in the background. It's the American way. It's what John Wayne would have done. What's scary is that it feels right. But I think Job has it pegged. The correct response to tragedy isn't false bravado but humility and dependence on God. Draw your strength there, and then fight with God. We don't fight for Him, we fight with Him.

     Ok, the only thing the secondary commentary does is rain on my parade. The fire from heaven wasn't some type of cool killer meteor shower, but rather it was just plain ol' lightning. Whatever, when Michael Bay makes Job: The Movie, it will be a meteor shower. Just like in Armageddon. Just don't invite cast Ben Affleck as Job, I'm begging you.

Job 2:1 - 10
     Strike one. Job has passed Satan's first test. God rubs Satan's nose in it a little, and Satan goes to plan B. Can't get him with his possessions and family, so Satan goes after his health. Again, God grants Satan's request but limits him by placing protection over Job's life. I'll admit, all this is a little scary. I want to be a godly man, living as a Christian ought to live. But being in Satan's crosshairs is a frightening thing. Anyway, Job gets boils from head to toe. It's so bad he gets a piece of a broken clay pot and uses it to scratch himself. And then, to top it all off, his wife abandons him. Here's great advice from your partner in life: curse God and die. Gee honey, thanks. But instead, Job goes where few married men dare go: he calls his wife a foolish woman and tells her that we can't accept only good from God and not also accept the adversity. Dude was smart. Too many of us today just sign up for God's "best life now" plan and tell Him to leave all that adversity stuff for someone else. But, we have to take it all. When we get to the new testament, we'll see Christians thanking God for adversity. I can honestly say I'm not there yet in my spiritual life, but I hope that God will grow me to a point where I can be.

     The term "painful boils" was used in Deut. 28:35 to indicate an incurable illness. So this wasn't some temporary thing. Job was given an incurable illness, so he had zero light at the end of his tunnel. It is also likely that the wife's abandonment of Job in his time of need was likely his greatest trial. She felt he was a religious fanatic that had lost all touch with reality. Hmmmm, that sounds familiar. Hopefully some will say the same about each Christian reading this blog. That we will become so Christlike that some will question our grip on reality, not realizing we have a stranglehold on it while they just grasp at faint wisps.

     Ok, I'm not sure what to make of the stuff in the other commentary. Maybe any female readers can chime in on their perspective. But it quotes Harold St. John, who in turn attributes a lady named Louise Haughton. I'll put the meat of it here:

...that as long as Job's wife could share in his sorrows she bore up bravely, but as soon as he enters a fresh chamber of suffering and leaves her outside, then she breaks down; for her the one intolerable woe is that which she is forbidden to share with him."

So, not sure what to think of that. I've always thought of Job's wife as a nagging, unsupportive wife constantly harping on him to abandon is faith. But maybe that isn't the case. Maybe that's just a male chauvinistic point of view. Ok, it probably is. Some of you that know me are nodding your head vigorously and you need to stop. I'll admit, this turns my perception of her a little on it's ear. I'm not sure it's completely accurate, but my view of the situation probably wasn't either. Maybe she does deserve a little more credit than I've given her, but I still think her choice not to support Job in his faith was a first-rate betrayal much worse than his so-called "friends" that are coming up. I think I would say the same if it was a husband failing the wife. I'm sure, given the amount of faithful women in the Bible, I'll have my chance to prove it.

Time to stop. We've got the three stooges coming in next, and I don't want to start talking about them tonight. Tonight has been a very good session. I've been challenged by Job's interceding on behalf of his children and integrity in the face of adversity. I've been forced to consider Job's wife from a different point of view. If you can read Job and not feel a little shame regarding your own personal handling of adversity in your life, you are either completely missing the point or incredibly in tune with Christ. Me, I feel a little shame.

Patience of Job

2010-08-14T01:27:00.000-05:00

Late entry tonight. Took an unexpected night off last night due to being on the softball field from 5:30 to 9:30 yesterday afternoon. But it was all worth it, as we took second place coming from the loser's bracket before finally running out of gas in the championship game. Today we begin a look at the book of Job. Job is an interesting book I've actually studied from an academic point of view my senior year of high school. I'm looking forward to doing an indepth study of the book over the next week to two weeks. Since this is somewhat a departure from my normal entry, we'll have a slightly different format. The next paragraph will be based on the background information from my Nelson Study Bible. The paragraph following that will contain any other information I can pull from my Believer's Bible Commentary.

Ok, I lied. I know, that's technically a no-no in a blog about reading the Bible, but I have a really good reason. Ok, so I lied again. I don't have a good reason. I just wanted to tag on some more personal thoughts and I'm too lazy to go back and redo the original paragraph. One of the great questions about the nature of God is why He allows pain and suffering. Job offers one possible explanation. I don't think its an exhaustive exploration of the topic, but it does offer an interesting perspective that I doubt humanity would have ever discovered had it not been included in the Bible. The idea that God allows suffering as a test of Job is, to me, not about Job at all. Job's eventual faithfulness to God despite all the odds isn't a story about human will and perseverence as much as it is a story about God's worth to humanity. It's about God Himself, how He is worth infinitely more than any suffering we endure on Earth. That concept becomes a little cliche in the midst of our human experience of suffering, but it doesn't make it less true. And with that said, I'm actually going to move into the Nelson Study Bible portion of the blog. I promise.

So, I was initially wondering why Job fits in to this particular portion of the chronological ordering of the Bible. Lucky for me, the introduction addresses that right away. Many details in Job's story indicate a partriarchal setting for this book. From the way Job's wealth was measured (in livestock, as was Abraham and Jacob's) to Hebrew terminology (Hebrew word for "piece of silver" is otherwise only found in conjuction with Jacob in Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32) and Job's method of sacrifice (extremely patriarchal), many signs point to Job being figure from the patriarchal era. While the text mentions that Job lived in the land of Uz, the location of Uz is currently unknown. The phrase "greatest among the people of the east" indicates that Job lived east of the Jordan river. Most writers believe Uz was near Edom because many of the proper names in the book occure in the genealogy of Esay, the father of the Edomites. No one is sure who wrote the book, but the candidates include Job, Elihu, Solomon, or possibly even Moses. The literary evidence indicates that the Bible was written in the Solomonic era during the Iron Age, which would have been after 1200 BC. Remember a few entries ago when i warned that those fond of a "prosperity gospel" might want to skip this part? The introduction to Job touches on a reason why: Job refutes the simplistic understanding of a direct and automatic connection between one's prosperity and one's spirituality. We'll see that the two are in no way linked. That may sound obvious to some, but there are some televangelists that completely miss this point.

What does the other commentary have to say? Well, first it concentrates on the type of writing in the book of Job. It is mostly poetry of such quality that Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson (who served as the poet laureate of England) called it "the greatest poem whether of ancient or modern literature." As for authorship, this book confirms that Jewish tradition has Moses as the author but adds Hezekiah, Ezrah, and anonymous writer (did this really need to be said?) to the list of possibilities. Since Job lives 140 years beyond the events of the book, this commentary seems to say Job is the most likely choice. This commentary also further clarifies the timing of the events of the book, saying that it was likely before the birth of Abraham (Abram) and falls somewhere in the latter part of Genesis 11. Now it makes sense as to why we are studying Job at this particular point. As for when the story was written, the two likely eras are patriarchal or Solomonic. While the obvious argument for patriarchal authorship is proximity to the actual events, the most convincing argument for Solomonic is the similarities in style and content to other "Wisdom Literature." One observation I hadn't thought of is the role of Job in preparing Jewish society for Jesus. In order to be able to accept a Messiah that suffers horribly on earth as Jesus did, one must eliminate the premise that suffering is connected to sin. If that statement were true and Jesus suffered as He did, the natural conclusion would be that Jesus had sinned to deserve it, just destroying Jesus' claim to perfection. Also, to appease the academic part of me, here is a cool list of statements in Job that may allude to an advanced understanding of science (I'll try and address these in more detail as we go through the book, but I may forget.)

The evaporation-precipitation cycle (36:27-28)
Wind and weather directions(37:9, 17)
Composition of the human body (33:6)
Suspension of Earth (26:7)
Ocean-bottom phenomena (38:16)
The orbits of heavenly bodies and their influence on the earth (38:32, 33)

And that wraps it up for the commentaries. I was expecting to see some discussion about whether or not Job was real or an allegory, but there was basically zero. The expectation from these two documents is that Job was a real man that really lived and went through all of that. And with that, I'm off to bed. Sleep will feel good tonight. Tomorrow we jump feet first into Job and see just how bad things got for him.

Who's Your Daddy?

2010-08-12T00:31:00.001-05:00

After a night off, I'm back. I was hoping to do this 7 days a week, but I underestimated the time it takes to write one of these. You also may notice a few layout changes. Just trying some different stuff.

Genesis 11:10 - 32
     More genealogy. Woohoo! Not much to talk about here from my perspective. We have the line traced from Shem to Abram. I can also start to see the lifespans of these people start to shrink. For example, Shem lived to be 600. Skip ahead a few generations to Abram's great-grandfather. He only lived to the ripe old age of 230. Abram's grandfather lived to be 148. Terah, Abram's father, was 70 when he had Abram and by reading a little ahead, I can see Terah lived to 205 (age may be in dispute, see second commentary paragraph below). As for Terah's genealogy, the only things that stood at to me is Lot's introduction as Abram's nephew and the first proclamation that Sarai was barren. Feel a little sorry for Sarai that the first thing we learn about her is that she cannot have children. Granted, that is central to the story but that's got to still be a hard thing to have always associated you. If Sarai worked at Walmart or another store like that, I can almost imagine her nametag having SARAI in big letters with the following just below it in a little bit smaller font: "(Barren)." For that day and age, with God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" still very much in the forefront of human beings minds, Sarai's inability to have children must have been a terrible disappointment to her and Abram. But God was lurking, and the story is about to change.

     While it is easy to lose track of the total amount of time between Shem and Abram, it's significant. It must have been a least a few thousand years between the two. We know from archeology that texts from the first literate culture Sumer have been recovered and dated to around approximately 3500 BC. Those texts speak of an ancient flood many generations before that. Using those dates and other scientific methods dreamed up by people smarter than me, the approximate date for the birth of Abram is 2150 BC. Good news! We've only got 2 millenniums to go before Christ arrives! Moving on, Abram's wife Sarai has a name that means princess. We find out later that Sarai was Abram's half sister and that his brother Nahor actually married his niece. On a side note, I'm so glad that part of earth's history is over. It is also worth noting that Abram's father Terah actually moved his family from Ur to Canaan, so he got Abram's own journey kickstarted in a way.

     Ok, so this commentary steps its game up for these verses. First, it takes a chance to give us a few fun facts on Abram, soon to become Abraham. Three major world religions include him as a main figure (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) and he is mentioned in 27 books of the Bible (16 OT and 11 NT). Next, the commentary digs into a mathematical difficulty inherent in the genealogy of Terah. We know that Terah began having kids at 70, and Abram is listed first which would seem to indicate he was the oldest. With Terah living to 205, the math works out that his oldest son is 135. However, if you look ahead to Gen. 12:4, it says Abram is 75 when he receives his marching orders from God. This inconsistency can be solved in one of two ways. First, we can throw away the assumption that Abram was the oldest son and he was instead the youngest, listed first because of his prominence in Hebrew history and not his birth order. Otherwise, we can look at the Samaritan text which puts Terah's age of death at 145, which would line up perfectly with Abram being born when Terah was 70 and being 75 when Terah died. The commentary seems to prefer the second exclamation because they don't think Abram would have laughed at God's promise to make him a father in his old age if his own father had begotten him at 130. Sounds reasonable to me.

And with that, the stage is set for Abram's epic story. I've also finished the official third day on the "read the Bible chronologically in 365 days" calendar, so I'd say I'm a little behind. For those tiring of Genesis, tomorrow marks the beginning of a new day and we'll move to the book of Job. I'll try to get through chapter 1 tomorrow, but I want to include some historical information on the book so that may delay the start of the actual Scripture until Friday.

Lost in Translation

2010-08-10T00:28:00.001-05:00

I would say something about this blog entry being late, but lets be honest, this is normal time for me. Time to dive into another genealogy chapter.

Genesis 10
     I read the entire chapter, I promise. I just didn't get much out of it. Lot's of names, lots of people groups. One thing that did give me pause for a second was the statements that the people separated according to language. Not to give anything away, but the entire world spoke one language until the Tower of Babel. So, it's fairly safe to say that the genealogy listed in chapter 10 spans a time period that includes at least the Tower of Babel.

     One of Japheth's sons Javan was an ancient name for the Greek people. It is also mentioned in verse 5 that the descendants of Javan were the "coastland people of the Gentiles." That also lends credence to the possibility that the Greek people had their origins in Japheth's line. As for Israel's history, Eber was the son of Salah, a descendant of Shem. The name Eber actually gave rise to the term "Hebrew," and the term "Semitic" is derived from the name "Shem."

     Another good chart in this commentary. Here is the people groups attributed to each son of Noah:

Shem (Semitic peoples)

Jews
Arabs
Assyrians
Arameans
Phoenicians

Ham (Hamitic peoples)

Ethiopians
Egyptians
Canaanites
Philistines
Babylonians
possibly most African peoples
possibly most Oriental, though many scholars place them with Japhepth

Japheth (Japhetic peoples)

Medes
Greeks
Cypriots
probably Caucasian people of Europe and northern Asia
many scholars include Orientals here

One note I would like to tag on that list is that the descendants of Ham read as a who's who for foes of Israel during Old Testament times. We talked a little about the line from Shem to Abram earlier. Specifically, it went from Shem to Arphaxad (who names their kid that?) to Salah to Eber to Peleg and on to eventually include Abram. The reason I stopped at Peleg is one that the verses stop their genealogy here but more importantly that his time is when the earth was divided at the Tower of Babel. Which leads us right into...

Genesis 11:1 - 9
So, at some point after the flood (likely during the time of Ham's grandson Nimrod since he is credited with building Babel), the entire human population of the world settles in the land of Shinar. They also all spoke the same language, which may seem strange until you remember that all these people were descendants of one family. This unity, combined with man's discovery of bricks and mortar, allowed them to build a city and a tower "whose top was in the heavens." Working on an international project like the International Space Station, I am well aware of the problems that come when working with different languages. And it's not just an international thing. As a matter of fact, some people in this country don't even understand that when I ask for a coke, I don't necessarily want a Coca-Cola. I could want Mountain Dew, Pepsi, Grapico, RC Cola, Sun Drop, etc. This is the proper exchange in a restaurant, for all those that currently order drinks incorrectly:

Me: I would like a coke, please.
Waiter: What kind of coke would you like?
Me: I'll have a Dr. Pepper (we are going to assume Mexican restaurant, because Dr. Pepper always goes good with Mexican food)
Waiter: I'll have that right out.

Is that so hard? I think not.

Ok ok, back to the Bible. But to have that language barrier removed, people in that time probably thought there was nothing they couldn't accomplish. And while we encourage children to "reach for the stars" and tell them they "can do anything they put their mind to," is that what we really want our kids (or even ourselves) to pursue? Here, the people were literally reaching for the stars and starting to develop the mindset that they could provide themselves everything they wanted or needed. In reality, that's a very dangerous arrogance and pride creeping in and destroying their reliance (thus their relationship) on God, and He wouldn't stand for it. God wasn't threatened by man's capability. If mankind could maintain that ability while losing the arrogant self-sufficient pride that goes with it, I firmly believe God has no issue with it. But, being fallen creatures, we cannot. As we realize our own minuscule capability we elevate that above God's infinite provision and tell God to butt out because we can handle it from here. We stop worshipping the Creator and start worshipping the creation. It happened then at the Tower of Babel and the entire world has since been separated by nation and language. We shouldn't be so dismissive to think it doesn't happen in our own lives as well.

The land of Shinar is the region of ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia, which is part of modern day Iraq. Traditionally, this location is also suggested to be the location of Eden. It is likely that these people were seeking the same fame the Nephilim (giants) had before the flood and were worried God would scatter them before they could achieve it. This is the third great judgement on humanity in the first 11 chapters of Genesis (expulsion from Eden and Flood being the other two). This has got to the be shakiest beginning ever. The word "Babel" is a pun no Hebrew would miss because it greatly resembles the Hebrew verb for "confuse."

If we wanted to label the sins driving the creation of the tower, they would be pride (humans seeking their own fame) and defiance (attempting to avoid God's scattering of the people). One parallel that this commentary got me thinking about is how the tower represents man's failed attempts to reach heaven of his own accord. Most modern Christians scoff at the idea of a tower that can reach heaven because we've been higher than ancient peoples have ever dreamed and know that heaven in that since doesn't exist within our physical reach. And while the idea of a physical tower reaching to heaven does seem silly, are the metaphorical and spiritual ones that man has continuously built throughout history any less ludicrous? I mean come on, the idea that imperfect man can reach the dwelling place of a holy God is ridiculous be it a physical attempt or spiritual one. Ok, moving on. One final interesting idea in this commentary is that while this was the point in which man was scattered through the diversification of language, the Pentecost was a type of reversal of this event. At the Pentecost, the gospel was made accessible to all men in attendence regardless of language through the speaking of tongues. It's kind of a cool parallel that I never thought about before.

Alright, with another genealogy coming up, its sleepy time. I think I wore my soapbox out tonight jumping on and off it so much. Good news is that we are creeping closer and closer to the start of Job and there is no genealogy in that book.

Also, I can't believe that I haven't said one thing throughout the course of this blog that somebody doesn't agree with. Please feel free to comment with any opposing viewpoints. I'll either argue with you, ignore you, or concede you are right. My wife would tell you that the third option is impossible, but miracles do happen. All kidding aside, I have as much to learn from other Christians (and some non-Christians) as I do from just thinking about this myself.

Why You Should Never Laugh at Naked People

2010-08-09T00:23:00.001-05:00

The sun is shining bright (metaphorically speaking, it's pitch black in reality right now). The birds are chirping (again metaphorical, rocky start for this entry). Not a cloud in the sky (could be true, can't see to verify). Football is back. As the men in my Sunday School class declared, today is the beginning of football season. For those of you wondering why I'm discussing football on a religious blog, you obviously haven't lived in Alabama. The two are synanamous. And, once again, it's my blog and I can talk about what I want. Anyway, let's pick up where we left off in Genesis.

Genesis 9:1 - 11
     Beef, it's what's for dinner. And chicken. And fish. And venison. And any other kind of meat you want. It is at this point that God gives over "every moving thing that lives" for food (while I think that is cool in theory, I'll stick to the big three: beef, chicken, pork) as He had vegetables to this point. The lone caveat is that they couldn't eat the animal with the blood still in it. Sounds fair enough to me. Short of Jesus coming out of the tomb, this may be my favorite moment in the Bible. In addition to this proclaimation, God also places a special protection on the lifeblood of human beings, saying that He will demand retribution from any animal or human that spills it unjustly (I add unjustly because even know God makes provision for those that shed blood to have their own blood shed by fellow man). Finally, God promises to Noah (and all his descendents, look in the mirror if you can't figure out who that is) that He will never again destroy the earth via flood.

Something my reference notes refocused me on (I was so excited about the meat eating) is God's declaration that now animals will fear man innately. It is also worth remembering that the reason we are so special to God is nothing that we have done, but simply that we are the only creation that bears His image. Little humble pie. In honor the verses, we'll call it humble shephard's pie.

The condoning of capitol punishment presupposes the establishment of government authority. Though it isn't mentioned here, the New Testament gives capitol punishment the context of being the responsibility of legitimate governments, not individuals. So while we all love movies where one lone man (or woman, as the case may be) get's wronged and then spends an hour and a half exacting punishment on the villans, that is not the Scriptural model. Capitol punishment is the responsibility of established governments.

Genesis 9:12 - 17
     Basically a lot of verses to say that God pointed to the rainbow as a symbol of His promise to never destroy the earth via flood again. I'm not sure what ancient literary device requires all the repeating of the same statement in slightly different ways, but I'm glad we don't use it any more. I'm sure it had something to do with the fact that most of these stories were oral traditions and these type things were used to aid memorization, but now that stuff just gets tiresome.

Nothing too enlightening in either commentary, so moving on.

Genesis 9:18 - 28
     And this is why drinking is a baaaad idea when you can't control it. Noah gets himself drunk and is laying naked in his tent. Not exactly the distinguished pose of the patriarch of the entire human race. His younger son, Ham, sees this and thinks it would be funny to tell his brothers. Noah is just lucky they didn't have camera phones back then, or he would have been all over TMZ or YouTube. Fortunately for Noah, Shem and Japheth have more respect and sense than Ham and they cover up their father, who soon wakes up and finds out what happened. We then see a curse pronounced on Ham's son Canaan and a blessing on Shem and Japheth. Basically, Ham and his descendents will be lowly servents to Shem and Japheth and their descendents. It's also worth nothing that Noah was the last recorded patriarch to live past the age of 900 (he died at 950). I think its a little odd that the Bible seems to be mum on the issue of Noah's drunkenness, choosing instead to focus on the misdeeds of Ham. Seems to me Noah gets off a little lite.

One context I wasn't aware of is that the first readers of Genesis were the people of Israel and they were about to enter the land of Canaan. I'm sure that didn't help Israeli/Canaanite relations any. The reason Noah cursed the son of Ham and not Ham himself is that all three of Noah's sons had been blessed together with Noah immediately following the flood. Noah could not curse Ham directly so he choose to curse Ham indirectly by cursing his son. This curse would also provide encouragement to the nation of Israel as they prepared to invade the land of Canaan, ensuring their victory. Shem is given special blessing over both of his brothers, as Japheth's blessing was that his number of descendents be enlarged and they all dwell in the tent of Shem. The reason Shem's status is important is that Abram, whom we know better as Abraham (the father of the nation of Israel), was a descendent of Shem. So Shem's blessing would ultimately be Israel's blessin (don't you love southern English typos).

A few other possible explanations are offered for Noah cursing Canaan instead of Ham. One being that the evil tendency that guided Ham during this episode was even more prominent in Canaan (seems like a reach to me). Another possibility is that Canaan himself committed some sin deserving of a curse. It could be that verse 24 refers to Noah's youngest grandson rather than Ham as the "younger son." This would again have Canaan being cursed for his, not his father's, sin (assumes a lot of extra-Biblical stuff that we have no evidence of, so I'm a little skeptical). Finally, it is possible that God's grace prevented Noah from cursing an entire third of the human population by cursing Ham but allowed Noah to curse some other lesser percentage by cursing Canaan. Of the possible explanations, I think either the "previous blessing" or "God's grace" explanations fit the best.  Both the reference notes in my Bible and the Beliver's Bible Commentary note that some used verse 25 as a basis for slavery, but that was a definate misuse. This commentary also believes Shem to be the older brother, although it does allow that some read the Bible and believe Japheth was the older.

I was going to keep going to chapter 10, but then I noticed it was a geneology chapter again. So, I'm going to procrastinate and put that off till tomorrow, when hopefully I can hit chapters 10 and 11. Also, as a little teaser for those getting bored with Genesis, we are reaching the end of our first section in the chronological reading of the Bible. We will soon be departing Genesis and heading over to the book of Job. Those looking for proof that God only wants us to be healthy, wealthy, and wise might want to skip the next month or so.

PS - Blogging History has been made!! I have successfully completed my first blog with no spelling errors! If you find one, DO NOT leave a comment. Just let me have this.

The Entry I Forgot to Title (and nobody noticed...until now)

2010-08-07T23:41:00.001-05:00

After an unexpected absence last night, I'm baaaa-aaaaaaaaack. Had date night with the wife last night, had full intention of writing an entry when we got back from the movie, but let time get away from me. So, sorry for the interruption. Time to pick back up with the flood waters rising. Several entries ago, I mentioned we would discuss how Noah's ark wasn't necessarily a story suited for preschool Sunday School. Granted, most churches teach it and there is nothing wrong with it. Obviously, the focus then is more on God delivering Noah and the animals through the storm. The problem is, adults have problem adjusting their focus from the "kiddie" version to the actual historical event. Realistically, every human being save 8 was killed during the flood. The world has never, ever seen a loss of population that drastic since the flood. And while the rainbow is pretty and all the "Precious Moments" animals are just so adorable, we can't lose sight of what really happened. Humanity was this close to being gone forever, saved only by the piety of Noah and the unbelievable grace of God. So, with that in mind, let's see what happened.

Genesis 7:17 - 24
     So the way I read this timeline, we had 40 days of rain (the actual flooding) and another 150 days in which the water continued to cover the earth. The first several verses seem to all say the same thing in different ways: there was a LOT of water. First, there was enough water to lift the ark from the earth's surface. Then, more flooding occurred and the ark rose high above the surface of the earth. In fact, it rained so much all the high hills under heaven were covered. Next is a statement that confused me at first, but it says the water rose 15 cubits (about 23 feet) and all the mountains were covered. At first I thought that was an absolute depth, but I really think it was relative. In the previous statement, Moses said that all the high hills were covered. Then, I think he is saying the water raised another 23 feet or so and covered the remaining mountains. Final thing I want to point out is that moses writes in verse 22 "all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life" as what I think is a specific reference to humans. In Gen. 2:7, it is written that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he "became a living being." I think it's Moses explicitly pointing out that God is judging his most unique and loved creation. How's that for arrogance on my part?

    My Bible notes that the verb used in the phrase "the waters prevailed" means "to be strong" or "to be mighty." As for the portions that refers to the waters covering the high hills, that could be hyperbole but it isn't certain. Me being a literal person, I naturally took it as a literal phrase. However, I find it unlikely that any habitable land was left uncovered because that would have allowed for the survival of human beings other than Noah. I'm going to cast my lot with the literal translation for now. Just to continue the sobering note I began this blog with, my commentary emphasizes that all mankind - senior citizen, infant, teenagers, etc. perished in the flood. This was not a happy moment. That is why Jesus compares the "days of Noah" to the end of days in Matt. 24:37, 38 and Luke 17:26, 27. Newlyweds were on honeymoons, children were being born, young adults were starting college, and then it was all over.

     My other commentary tackles some of the perceived symbolism in the flood. The ark represents Christ, the waters represent God's judgement, those inside the ark represent those that are saved in Christ, and those outside represent those that aren't. This commentary also provides a better explanation for the 15 cubits issue that I discussed earlier. It says that the waters prevailed 15 cubits higher than any mountain, which as a description makes more sense to me. Hard to imagine waters that high, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I also find it hard to imagine that anybody could not like cheesecake, but the weirdos do exist.

Genesis 8:1 - 19
     So here we have the start of a happy ending. At least, as happy an ending as we could get. The phrase "God remembered Noah" is interesting to me. I don't believe for one second that God "forgot" about Noah in the same way that we use the word. There wasn't a point where God got so caught up in wiping the surface of the earth clean that He wasn't conscious of Noah's existence. Rather, I think it means that God chose that moment to faithfully complete His end of the bargain and deliver Noah and his family. I'm not even going to try and follow the timeline because I cheated and my commentary does that for me. I did want to note that Noah and his family boarded the ark in the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's life, and the earth was dry on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the 601st year of Noah's life. That's a looooooong time on a boat. God gives his second command for man to be "fruitful and multiply on the earth" and the second chapter in our story begins. One would hope it goes better, but as we all know from living it that human beings still screw everything up.

     You know, the raven doesn't get any credit in the Sunday School version of Noah's ark. But it is worth noting that it was released by Noah to fly until it was able to locate land. Really, the dove is kind of the wimpy bird. Noah releases it knowing that it will have to return to the ark if it can't find land. The notes also point out that the olive branch is a symbol of peace and restoration, which I wonder if this is where that started? Also, we should remember that just as God called Noah and his family into the ark, He also commanded them when it was time to leave. Pretty impressive stuff that Noah totally trusted God in building the ark, boarding it, and then leaving it. It would be tough to wait on God's command to leave after that long in a boat. Think Noah was a little stir-crazy?

My "Believer's Bible Commentary" gives a good timeline for the whole flood event, so here it is:

7 days - from the time Noah entered the ark until the beginning of the flood. (7:10)
40 days - duration of rain (7:12)
150 days - from the time the rain began until the waters decreased and the ark rested on Mount Ararat (7:11 and 8:4)
224 days - from the beginning of the flood until the mountain tops reappeared (7:11 and 8:5)
40 days - from the time the mountaintops were seen until Noah sent out the raven (8:7)
7 days - from the sending of the rave to the first sending of a dove (8:6-10)
7 days - from sending of the first dove to the second dove (8:10)
7 days - from sending of second dove to final dove (8:12)
314 days - from beginning of Flood until Noah removed the covering of the ark (7:11 and 8:13)
371 days - from the beginning of the Flood until Earth was dry and Noah was commanded to leave the ark (8:16)

Genesis 8:20 - 22
I think it's amazing that the first thing we have Noah recorded as doing after leaving the ark was to build an altar. I can't imagine how pumped and excited he was to be off the boat. I would likely be all about doing my own thing, figuring I'd done my 371 days on the ark and I deserved some "me" time. But Noah builds an ark and then sacrifices one of each of the clean animals that lived on the ark. Kind of feel bad for the animal. Here they are, thinking they've just survived the worst catastrophe ever to befall earth since their creation. Looking forward to being fruitful and multiplying, and here one of them goes and gets all burnt up. Kind of a downer for them, but a really, really good thing for human beings. The sacrifice so moves God that He says that even though "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth," God will never again destroy every living thing as He had. I don't know about you, but that's worth a sigh of relief for me.

Even though this is the first mention we've had of sacrifice since Cain and Able, it is a good assumption that sacrifice had continued from that time until now, at least among those still faithful to God. It is possible that God's statement that He "will never again curse the ground for man's sake" is a repealing of his curse in Gen. 3:17. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, I would hate to know what the ground was like between the fall of man and the flood. It is also worth noting that God was not fooled by Noah's sacrifice. Even as He accepted it, God knew that man was still evil at heart and would move towards evil as his default setting. Knowing all this, God still loved, spared, and blessed Noah and his family and, in turn, all of His children since. It is also possible that verse 22 became a type of faith song from this point on and was recalled in Isaiah 54:9,10.

That's it for tonight. Tomorrow we pick up with life after the flood. To me, this is getting better and better because I am starting to get into Scriptures I'm not as familiar with. Up till now has kind of been a rehashing of familiar verses, but we are moving into a fresher part of the Bible for me and I'm definitely looking forward to that.

What's the saying about herding cats...?

2010-08-05T00:08:00.000-05:00

I've sat here for five minutes trying come up with something creative and witty. And, shocking no one, I got nothing. So, I'm just going to blather on here for a few lines until I have something approaching a suitable length for an introduction. Yep, that should about do it. So, without any further adieu, let it rain.

Genesis 7:1 - 6
     It's interesting that God distinguishes between clean and unclean animals. That of course tells us that at least some of those guidelines existed prior to the flood. That may not shock anybody else, but it was news to me. Poor Noah is 600 years old, just built the biggest floating box ever constructed, and now has one week to get all these animals loaded. I can't get my dog to go into her kennel when she's supposed to, so I can't imagine this task. And I'm assuming this includes things like spiders and such? How do you herd ladybugs? Seriously, I need to know. This is one of the more unbelievable feats in the Bible for me (not that I don't believe it happened, I just struggle with it some). Man rises from the dead? No problem. Parting the Red Sea? Piece of cake. But this is just shockingly difficult and there is no way Noah did any of this without God's help.

     One reason for the increased quantity of clean animals on the ark was so that Noah and his family could offer sacrifices and have food after the flood subsided. No mention of meat eating up to this point, but it is coming after the flood. As for the period of 40 days and nights, that number was likely chosen because it represented a special fullness of time. Note that God forced the nation of Israel to wander in the desert 40 years (Num. 32:13). He also sustained Elijah for 40 days and nights without food (1 King 19:8). Even Jesus was tempted in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights (Matt. 4:2). My commentary also describes 40 as the number of probation or testing in the Bible. The commentary also notes that Noah's kids were likely about 100 years old since Noah became a father around the age of 500. I'm not sure he was mature enough to have kids as young as he was.

My commentary notes that verse 1 is the first time the word "come" appears in the Bible. It treats it as a sort of gospel invitation from God. I didn't think of it that way, but it is interesting to me that God didn't command Noah and his family to "go" into the ark (which implies leaving the place where God is speaking to Noah). Instead, He told Noah to "come," which to me implies God was asking Noah to join Him on the ark. Obviously, God can be all places at all times but how comforting to Noah to hear God speak to him in such a way that Noah knew he wasn't going away from where God was even though God was literally raining punishment down.

Genesis 7:7 - 12
     These are basically execution verses, where Noah executes what God told him to do. I find it interesting that the Bible pinpoints Noah's age to a degree I don't remember seeing to this point. We find out Noah was 600 years 2 months and 17 days old when the rain came from the sky and the underground springs rose from the ground. Maybe this was to help emphasize the 40 day period, but its definitely different than anything I've seen before.

Sometimes, the notes in my Bible say the most obvious things. It does point out that this week must have been very busy for Noah even though the organization and loading of the animals must have been mostly the work of God. No, really? You mean to tell me a 600 year old man and his three 100 year old sons couldn't get that number and variety of animals together and loaded onto a gigantic boat in one week?! I'm shocked! If you didn't pick up on that being sarcasm, you need a sarcasm sign. Sheldon Cooper has one you can borrow. My Bible reference notes have nothing on the reason for the exact day of Noah's age but they do agree with me that it's "remarkable" to have that level of detail. Thanks guys, you really brought your A-game on this section.

Genesis 7:13 - 16
     Ok, this is pretty repetitive. We basically have a restatement that on the day the rain began, Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and all those animals loaded up the ark as God commanded. The one new tidbit we do get is pretty cool. Before I talk about that, I want to kind of set the scene. Here, I believe Evan Almighty can be of some use. I wish I could link to it, but I can't find the scene I am looking for. But, as Evan, his family, and the animals board the ark, locals gather round to mock and deride Evan and his family. Of course, news crews are also there to chronicle the insanity and get their own little digs in. This was done for comedic affect, but can you imagine what Noah was going through amongst a generation that disheartened and disgusted God so that He was willing to wipe His beloved creation from the earth? The mocking and cruelty must have been horrible. And then, in verse 16, we get the little tidbit that "and the Lord shut him in." Very cool. Noah goes through all this, and God buttons up the ark to get it ready to sail. I wonder if the people mocking Noah saw it. Did they see the Hand of God close the ark and seal Noah and his family safely inside? I bet Noah saw it, and was greatly comforted by it.

     I find it very encouraging how God was with Noah through this entire process, working with Noah and helping him execute His commands. It's a great parallel to our own lives. God will ask things of us as Christians, as His representatives to a lost world. But He will not set us on a task and abandon us. He will enable and help us. It may not always look like help from our perspective, but God is always there and always working for the good of those that love Him.

     Nothing really shocking here, but the commentary does not that the Lord's closure of the door was a symbol of safety and God's deliverance. It also notes that the animals must have been drawn to the ark by the compelling force of the Lord. Again, nothing terrible surprising with the commentary notes

I know, we were supposed to cover the flood today. But what can I say, it's August in the south and you never know when it will rain next. But, I'd say the forecast for tomorrow looks pretty wet, at least Biblically. Presently, it's going to be unbelievable hot with no rain. I'll be back tomorrow. Might be a little delusional from the 110 heat index, though.

Is it Too Much to Ask for a Little Precipitation?!

2010-08-03T23:52:00.001-05:00

This one is going to be pretty short. I'm pretty tired tonight, so my endurance isn't going to be what it needs to. We'll begin tackling one of the more famous Biblical stories, Noah and the ark. I was tempted to just watch "Evan Almighty" and write based on that, but the video store didn't have it. So, I guess I'll just stick to the tried and true formula of reading the Bible.

Genesis 6:9 - 12
     Oh great, another genealogy. But thankfully, this one is fairly short. Noah must have been a heck of a guy, because he is described as a "just man, perfect in his generations." He was also called out for "walking with God." The last person who received that description - Enoch, the dude that didn't die. The Bible says the whole earth was corrupt and filled with violence. I wonder how today would be described in the Bible? Which gets me thinking, since most Bible verses are 140 characters or less, could we call them tweets in today's lingo instead of verses? Tell me it wouldn't be awesome if your pastor asked you to turn to John chapter 3, tweet 16. You can't.

     Apparently, the "just man, perfect in his generations" was slang back then for "genuine righteousness." So yes, Moses did use 6 words when he could have used 2. My commentary carries my comment regarding Enoch being the previous man described to have "walked with God" a bit further and says that Enoch and Noah are the only two men in all of Scripture to get that description. It also says that if Enoch symbolized the raptured church, Noah symbolized the Jewish remnant preserved through the tribulation period for life during the millennial earth.

Genesis 6:13 - 22
     How would you like to be Noah here? God comes to you and says that the whole earth is so messed up and corrupt that He's going to wipe the slate clean and start over. Fortunately for you, God has noticed your "genuine righteousness" and is going to reward it by allowing you and your family to live. Then, here comes instructions for building the biggest thing you've ever seen and once you build it, you've got to get two of every kind of created animal on the ship. And you've got to feed both them and your family. I guess it's better than annihilation, but still.  But here again, we have another example of God sparing human beings because He loves us. We certainly didn't deserve it. And even before we get caught up in talking about how good Noah was, he wasn't perfect. He still messed up. God had every right to hold Noah's life in forfeit just like He did all others, but for Noah's sake (and our sake, for that matter) He did not. God is a lot of things, but you can't get 6 chapters in to the Bible without seeing that He is holy, just, loving, and merciful. And I can't help but be proud of Noah (my great-great-great...great grandfather of course) and his immediate obedience. Unfortunately, anytime I picture Noah now I see Steve Carrell. I wonder if Noah was that funny?

     The word "ark" means "a box." In all reality, even though we picture the ark as a giant ship built to move through water, the terminology paints a different picture. The ark was possible just a gigantic floating box. My Biblical notes indicate that Noah wasn't any where near water yet he was building the largest floating box ever attempted to this time. The actual dimensions in feet was 450 ft long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. For comparisons sake, it was the length of one and a half football fields, near as wide as a football field is long, and four and a half stories high. Folks, that big. My Biblical notes also emphasize the fact that God said He Himself would bring the flood waters. This was no natural flood that happens under God's sovereignty but not necessarily caused directly by Him. This was a judgement of God deliberately poured out on mankind.

My other commentary notes that this is the first time the word "covenant" is used in Scripture. God promised that if Noah would build the ark, enter it with his sons and all their wives, stock it with 2 of every type of animal and the food needed to support them, Noah's fate would be different from the rest of the world. It's such an interesting thing to watch especially since today's world is built on negotiating from a position of power and not giving in, yet God willing enters in an agreement with a human being even though He has ultimate power. What does that say about the way we should conduct ourselves in both the professional and personal world? At the very least, we should show at least the same amount of love and grace that God has shown us throughout history.

Also, one theory advanced in my commentary is that the animal life contained on the ark wasn't as diverse as it is now. That the ark only contained the basic types, and variations have entered the picture since then. This is mainly to answer the criticism that the ark couldn't possibly have been big enough to store 2 of every kind of animal and food to support them. I think this is a plausible explanation. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the ark only contained basic types of animal and then those animals evolved based on their surroundings and environment. Talking solely about microevolution here, not macro.

I'm going to call it a night here. It's the end of chapter 6, and we get into the actual event tomorrow. I think the main keys to this are as follows:

Man is without a doubt a sinful creature. So much so God couldn't stand our depravity any more.
God is a just God. He will punish sin.
God is also a merciful God and will show mercy to those that please Him (now, that is solely based on acceptance of the gospel)
Obedience should be immediate, without question, and full of faith

I still don't have an answer for what the plumbing system was on the ark. That's a lot of manure to get rid of. Tomorrow, we stop talking about the ark and actually get on it. We'll look at how Noah's ark really isn't all that friendly a story to be teaching five year olds in Sunday School.

The Man Who Didn't Die

2010-08-02T23:52:00.000-05:00

No, daylight savings time did not prematurely end. Do not adjust your computers. This blog is actually being written before midnight. Which is good, because I'm going to need all my energy to make it through tonight's reading. Not to say any part of the Bible is boring, but genealogies are dry as a bone to me. Part of me is wondering if I should have mentioned genealogies in the first paragraph for fear of losing any readership I have. But hey, if you have a problem with it, then pass it on up the line. God put it in the Bible, not me. So here we go, Genesis 5.

Genesis 5:1 - 5
     To start off, we get a little recap. God created mankind male and female, blessed them, and Adam lived 130 years before giving birth to Seth. I think the fact that Cain and Abel are left out is the first clue that the purpose of this list isn't to give us a complete rundown of human history, but to establish a line. Something I've been looking forward to doing throughout my study is to get a better understanding of the line of Jesus and why that was so important. This is the beginning of that list.

The NKJV notes give two suggestions regarding interpretation of the extremely long lifespan (Adam lived to be 930 years old). One possibility is that different environmental conditions and climate enabled human beings then to live a long life. Another suggestion is that the numbers were inflated to express the relative importance of the figure, a type of hyperbole (contrary to what my high school English teacher may say, I DID learn something in English). Me, because I'm a literal guy, I think Adam really did live 130 years before having Seth and lived 930 years on the Earth. I think that regardless of what the environment might or might not have been, early human beings needed to live that long to exponentially increase in number in order to populate the earth. I also believe that God designed the human body for immortality, so I think it perfectly reasonable that something designed to exist for an infinite amount of years would take longer to break down than 80 - 90 years. The notes end with an emphasis on the statement of Adam's death, proving once again that God is a being of His word.

The other commentary also emphasizes Adam's death, noting that verse 5 is the physical fulfillment of God's punishment. The spiritual equivalent was instantaneous the moment Adam disobeyed God.

Genesis 5:6 - 18
     Ok, my eyes are starting to cross. So and so was born, so and so lived approximately 65-100 years, had a son, and lived 800-900 years after that while having multiple other sons and daughters. All these names are important because they allows us to trace the genealogy of Jesus, but this is near impossible to track. All I know is that I'm glad this whole "having kids until I'm 687 years old" business is over. You should not be able to eat off the early bird menu while your kid can still get a Happy Meal. It's just not right.

I love my NKJV Bible. It makes me seem so smart. It gives a more algebraic representation of the formulas these genealogies take, but it matches my much more entertaining if not quite elegant "so and so" description above. One interesting point is that it expresses the point of this section of verses was to connect Adam and Noah via the line of Seth. Another key point that I didn't realize is that these genealogies aren't necessarily all inclusive. When it says person X begot person Y, there is no guarantee that Y was the son of X. He could be a grandson, great-grandson, or further down the line. This is due to the fact that these listings were originally oral and were designed to be recited from memory. This was a common pattern in both the Bible and ancient Middle Eastern cultures. We may still find this type of history among tribal groups that still exist. The point is simply to connect Adam to Noah, not give a rendition of every human being that came in between.

Genesis 5:21 - 27
     Finally, some excitement! See, this is why you can't skip sections in the Bible. No matter how dry and boring they may seen, God never fails to do something really cool or man do something really stupid. This time, we have the former. Enoch was the father of Methuselah, who most know as the man with the longest recorded life span (I was shocked to see Noah was 2nd and only trailed Methuselah by 19 years). This is not the same Enoch as Cain's son, but somebody who lived a relatively short life of 365 years. He is the only one in this list who has his walk with God called out, so he must have been an extraordinary man of faith. It's not shocking he stood out, given that from him in three "begots" we get to Noah and God had some pretty harsh things to say about mankind during Noah's lifetime. Point being, mankind as a whole was likely spiraling away from God and Enoch stood out as a strong man of faith. So much so, that he is the first man to not experience death. That's right, after 365 years the Bible says God called him up. This isn't some fancy literary device used to represent death because every other entry in this list ends with "he died." Enoch, my Bible says, "...was not, for God took him." Before we all get our hopes up that Christians can possibly bypass death, this wasn't at all common and it seems kind of weird to just be sitting in this section of verses. What was God's point?

My Bible notes that Enoch's experience was both a testament to his faith and a reminder that all believers will have life in God's presence after death. My other commentary also points that this is a foreshadowing of the rapture during the end times, where God's people will be called into His presence without having to experience death. Funny thing, I used to dread that because there were so many human experiences I wanted to have first. Sometimes, in a weak moment, I still do. I want to be a daddy, reach a 50th wedding anniversary, ~~see Alabama when a national championship~~, etc. What that tells me is I need a priority shift and I may be holding onto the things of this world a little too tightly.

Another cool thing in my Bible's notes is a chart (I'm an engineer, I LOVE charts) showing the lifespans for every generation for the first 23 recorded generations. After the flood, Noah is the only figure to live beyond 600 years. His son Shem lives to 600 and the span gradually decreases until it begins to level off with Abraham living 175 years, Jacob 147, and Joseph 110. Just thought it was cool.

Genesis 5:28 - 32
     So, we've reached the end. Time just flies by when you are having fun. It also flies by when you are eating homemade chocolate chip cookies. Note to pastors preaching this text, cookies can only help. Noah has arrived, along with his three sons. Funny thing when you think about it, but if you take the Biblical account of history and creation to be true (and I do), then every human being shares two common ancestors: Adam and Noah. I don't understand Lamech's statement regarding Noah's name or why Noah's name gets an explanation and nobody else does, so I'll just hope the commentary covers that.

     My Bible notes that Noah is a form of the word meaning "to rest" and is associated with comfort. It also says that Noah's name refers to a reversal of the curse (God's curse of the ground?). I don't know why Lamech thought Noah would be a reversal of the curse, maybe he just hoped mankind had worked it off? The other commentary brings up the possibility that it could be a prophecy of Noah's descendant, Jesus. An interesting tidbit in that commentary is that some say Methuselah means "it shall be sent" and the year Methuselah died is the year of the flood.

Genesis 6:1 - 2
     Ok, I have no idea what this means. I've read books in the past that said "sons of God" were angels or other supernatural creatures. I'm remembering something that said they could be some form of giant. I don't know.

But that's why I have commentary! My biblical notes say that clearly the females were daughters of human beings, but the males could have been something else. The phrase occurs elsewhere in the Bible and clearly means "angels." Job 1:6 places this title on the angels that accompany Satan to God's throne room. It is important to note the assumptions Genesis has regarding supernatural beings:

Existence of good angels (Gen. 3:24)
Existence of Satan and bad angels
Satan and his bad angels have already fallen and under God's judgement (Gen. 1:2) - I struggle with this. I don't necessarily understand how 1:2 indicates this. My Bible uses Is. 45:18 to say that something major happened to cause the earth to be how it is described in this verse. The implication being God didn't originally create the earth in this form, but some cataclysmic event happened rendering the earth to be "without form and void." My Bible believes this very well could have been the fall of Satan and his expulsion from heaven. I've never heard that, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around that concept.

Back to the story at hand. My Bible notes that it is likely that some of Satan's fallen angels have focused their perverted lust on human females, seduced them, and made them their wife. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 especially call out these fallen angels for punishment. It should be noted that the interpretation of those two verses as they relate back to Genesis 6:2 is not without controversy. It was just one explanation that my Bible seems to be backing (just a reminder, "my Bible" in the italics section refers to the study notes embedded in my Bible, not the scripture itself). My commentary notes the main objection to this view is that angels aren't known to be sexual beings and Matthew 22:30 proves Jesus taught that angels don't marry. One caveat to that verse is that Jesus taught that angels in heaven don't marry and that it might not apply to fallen angels.

My commentary offers another possible explanation that the "daughters of men" refers to women in Cain's bloodline and "sons of God" refers to males in Seth's bloodline. One mark in this theory's favor is that it places the sin solely on man, which seems to fit the coming punishment of man's extermination better than the theory that fallen angels sinned with human beings. However, it seems to assume that all women of Cain's lineage are ungodly and all men of Seth's lineage were godly. Seems to be an awfully broad brush to be painting with. And (I knew there was going to be giants in here somewhere), how would two human parents produce "giants?"

I'm throwing my lot in with the first theory that women married and mingled with fallen angels (or demons as we like to call them). It's a simpler fit for me. You can disagree with me if you want, you just won't be saved. Kidding, of course. I think. No, definitely kidding.

Genesis 6:3 - 8
Come on, stick with me. Last section. I mentioned previously that I believe man had continuously been falling away from God since Adam (since the fall really). Here, God has had enough. He was been patient. In previous entries, I have talked about how amazed I am at God's grace and giving throughout the first four chapters. But now, the straw has broken the camel's back. God is ready to wipe out His creation. He notes that man "is indeed flesh" and limited man's days to 120 years. Not sure what this means, possibly that 120 years from the point God made the decision to eliminate man He was going to send the flood?

GIANTS!!! I love the idea of giants. The Jolly Green Giant, Andre the Giant, Jack and the Beanstalk Giant. How could you not love giants? Aside from, you know, them being the spawn of an unnatural relationship between mortal and supernatural that did just as much to contribute to the flood as anything else. I find it interesting that Moses attributes giants (no indication that the interpretation should be anything but literal) to the earlier minglings of "daughters of men" and "sons of God." He mentions that these were the mighty men of old, men of renown. This makes me think that Moses' primary audience had heard legends and stories about men that were giants, were literally larger than life. I think Moses is providing God's explanation of those legends.

One final thing that jumped out at me is that God mentions that men are naturally evil and that every thought of their hearts were continuously evil. My natural reaction is too recoil from that, to think that I truly was never that bad. Then God pops the verse into my head about even my good deeds being as "filthy rags" to Him. I need to remember that the term "evil" doesn't just constitute an Adolph Hitler type sadism. It applies just as readily to me as it does Hitler because the same seeds that grew to what Hitler eventually became exist in my life. The seeds of hate, anger, ambition, jealousy, and pride all have taken root in my life at some point and only by God's grace have they not grown any more than they already have. I am as evil and undeserving as the murder on death row. But, in typical God fashion, God finds room in His grieving heart for a little mercy and grace to bestow on Noah, and ultimately to all of us who ask.

My Bible references point out that the Hebrew word for giants means "fallen ones." Many ancient cultures had legends of titans and/or demigods, and this verse seems to give those legends some credence. It is also noted the impact that a pious and God-fearing family had on human history. Had it not been for the faithfulness and devotion of Noah and his family, God would have wiped out his entire creation and started over.

The BBC (Believer's Bible Commentary) confirms my theory that the 120 years is the period before God making the proclamation that He would not reside with man forever and the judgement of the flood. It also notes that God didn't change His mind on mankind, per se, but that it is just a different attitude on God's behalf towards His creation. A holy God has to act against sin.

I think this is a good place to stop. We've got a good conflict brewing with God all set to wipe the slate clean and start over until He considers Noah and his family. Make no mistake, God would still have been completely justified in sending the flood, but His mercy and grace save the day again as we'll see. It's actually been a fairly active post, especially considering that most of the subject matter was genealogies. I'm hoping for a relatively quick spell check and then it's off to bed for me. Tomorrow, we'll start studying the flood.

The First Dirty Diaper

2010-08-02T00:29:00.000-05:00

After a two day hiatus, I'm back. This has got me fairly far behind on my year goal, but I'm starting to think a year and a half, maybe two may be more realistic. It's just difficult to think and write about three chapters a night. We'll pick up with Genesis 4 today and see how far I get before passing out.

Genesis 4:1 - 5
Ever wonder what Adam and Eve's reactions were the first time they saw Cain? This was the first baby to ever exist. How do you cope with something like that? Adam and Eve came preprogrammed (I'm guessing). Adam had no clue what it meant to potty train a baby. I can just imagine the scene now:

Adam: "Seriously, I couldn't love anything more than this child. This is the best I've felt since we lost Eden. I mean, just look at the face he is making! Isn't that just adorable?! Wait, hold on, something isn't right. What is he doing......OH NO! I AM NOT CLEANING THAT UP! WHO DOES THAT?!"

Sometimes I wish the Bible covered things like that.

An important point to remember is that the jobs of farmer and shepard were equally valid occupations. It is only a reflection of Cain and Abel's interest, nothing more. Also, it is incorrect to assume Cain's sacrifice was deficient because it wasn't an animal sacrifice. While the Bible describes Abel's gift as the best of what he had to offer, no such description accompanies Cain's offering. So, I think it's safe to assume that what Cain offered wasn't the absolute best available. The main point was something about the attitude and mindset with which the gift was given. Abel came with the proper attitude of thanksgiving, while Cain did not.

A second commentary takes the viewpoint that the phrase "the process of time" in verse three allows for a period in which guidelines are developed demanding blood sacrifices. Therefore, the deficiency of Cain's sacrifice was that it wasn't a blood sacrifice as required by a guideline (that we have no Biblical record of at this point in the story). I struggle with this explanation. One, as the notes in my NKJV Bible point out, we have no indication that these sacrifices were for forgiveness of sin. Two, also pointed out by the notes in my Bible, grain offering was an acceptable offering in Leviticus 6:14-23. It was each brother giving of what he had. Therefore, I believe that the first explanation is more likely and it is a matter of the heart with these sacrifices, not the animal vs. vegetable issue.

Genesis 4:6 - 9
     Ok, as an older brother, I get why Cain is angry. It's not justified, but I understand it. It's a shot to his ego that Abel's gift was accepted and his wasn't. Older siblings feel as if they should reach milestones first, that they should succeed before younger brothers or sisters do. That's a sinful ambition and the reality is that we (oldest siblings, I'm talking to us) should find joy in our younger brothers' and sisters' success as if it was our own. Cain was struggling with this. He was supposed to be the good brother, the example Abel strove to live up to. I'm assuming that the same Old Testament favor we see on the firstborn son in later stories applies here. In some ways, Cain probably viewed success as his birthright. So, while he's angry and sulking, God confronts him and points out that it isn't any sort of favoritism that caused Abel's gift to be accepted, but that he "did well." Cain was perfectly capable of doing the same and if he did, God would accept his gift just the same as he did Abel's.

     The other interesting thing to me is that God describes sin as a living thing. He says that it is waiting outside the door for Cain, desiring to have and control him. God acknowledges the power and pull of sin, but doesn't excuse our giving in. We are to rule over sin, to make it subject to our conscious as it is powered by the Holy Spirit. But Cain doesn't do that. He takes the easy way out and refuses to take responsibility for his actions. It isn't his fault that his gift wasn't any good, but Abel's. So he killed him. I think we see a very serious warning if we refuse to accept responsibility for our faults and shortcomings. We all live in a world that bends over backwards to invent lies as to why our mistakes aren't our fault. And it results in sin. It may not always be murder, but it pulls us farther and farther away from God just the same.

The commentary points out the suddenness of the murder. It highlights the complete lack of precedent in the world. How painful must this had been for Adam and Eve, knowing that this death was the inevitable consequence of their disobedience?

Genesis 4:9 - 15
     What would have happened had Cain owned up to the murder when God asked him about it? Would his story been any different? I don't know, but we can see clearly in these verses that Cain held no remorse at that time for what he had done. Even when God banishes him, Cain doesn't reply that what he did was wrong. Rather, he complains that the punishment was too steep. And it is interesting that when God handed out the original punishments to Adam and Eve for disobedience, He never cursed them directly. He cursed the ground and said childbirth would be unpleasant, but He did not place a curse on human beings at that time. However, in verse 11, God states "So now you are cursed from the earth..." No matter where Cain settled, the ground would no longer sustain him.

My NKJV notes that Cain was the third thing to be cursed by God: serpent, ground, Cain. A point I didn't address above by possibly should have was the issue of other people. Cain mentions to God he is afraid that someone else will find and kill him. It's pretty safe to assume that the world's population has grown beyond just Adam, Even, and Cain. The likely explanation is that Cain was afraid of unnamed brothers and sisters. A possible explanation is that he is afraid of an unrelated group created in addition to Adam and Eve, but there is no Biblical evidence for that and I think it very unlikely. One other note that I can't believe I missed in the first reading is God's mercy again making an appearance. In addition to God gracefully trying to counsel Cain on what was deficient with his sacrifice prior to Abel's murder, He also places a mark on Cain protecting him should someone else find him. It's interesting that the one thing Cain asked for regarding his punishment, God granted. Cain was afraid of someone killing him and God spared him from that fate. If only he could have asked for forgiveness, surely God would have offered it.

Genesis 4:16 - 24
     Interesting that the "presence of the Lord" appears localized in verse 16. I'm not sure that is the case, but the way the verse reads is that God resided in a section of the earth and when Cain left that section, he left behind God's presence. It could be a strictly metaphysical statement, though. But the point of these verses seem to be to explain what happened to Cain and how his family tree branched out. Interest that Lamech, who appears to be Cain's great-great-great-grandson, commits the same sin that Cain did. Not only that, Lamech then tries to place 11x the protection on himself that God placed on Cain. A little sobering to think about how my personal sin could affect generations that come after me.

"The land of Nod" was a wordplay on the term for vagabond, which is what God's punishment was for Cain. My NKJV thinks this is more a theological statement than geographical one, which casts my theory that the presence of God was localized at this time in doubt. It seems that Cain leaving the "presence of the Lord" was more a metaphysical statement. It is likely that Cain married one of his siblings, but that was really his only choice at the time. My personal opinion is that God, having complete control over His creation, briefly suspended the physical realities that inbreeding causes genetic deficiencies and mutations. I believe He reinstated those biological rules after human beings had sufficiently inhabited enough and the gene pool was diverse. Not Biblical at all, just my theory.

I also noted that Lamech committed the same sin Cain did. The commentary points out something that I missed in that Lamech claimed his killing was in self-defense. We see nothing in the Bible to dispute that claim, so I think we have to take him at his word that it was self-defense. That doesn't, however, excuse the arrogance he displayed in claiming a superiority in his ability to avenge himself relative to God's promise to avenge Cain. One commentary points out that this is the first recorded song. What a sad statement it is that the song describes violence and bloodshed.

Genesis 4:25 - 26
     Another generous and graceful act by God. Is anybody keeping score here? God replaces the two children Adam and Eve lost with Seth. And by all accounts in these two verses, Seth was a godly man. I'm not sure what the last part of verse 26 means, so I'm going to withhold comment until I get to the commentary section. I tell you what though, if I ever was one to believe in good works earning my way into heaven, I'd have to seriously reconsider that after these 4 chapters. God has given and given so much to man, only to see it continuously trampled underfoot. How could I possibly stack up my paltry list of "good deeds" (most of which are likely motivated by some selfish desire to see myself as better than I am or, better yet, have others see me as better than I am) to what God was done in FOUR CHAPTERS?

     The importance of Seth in the overall redemptive picture is that he was a continuation of the bloodline that would eventually yield Jesus. As for the last part of verse 26, the commentary throws out the notion that it could mean the beginning of prayer. Rather, it points to the beginning of preaching, witnessing, and testifying about God. Another possibility is that it marks the beginning of public worship. I'm not sure which is correct, both seem plausible to me.

I could go on to chapter 5, but that feels too fast. I think I need to keep chapter 4 in my head and let it marinate a little bit. Thanks for reading.

How did it go so wrong? (Part II)

2010-07-30T01:41:00.002-05:00

I promise I have a good excuse this time. I had to work swings (technically 230-1030, but I don't get home until 11). So, tonight will be short. I'm definately going to have to find ways for this to go faster to make it through in a year.

Genesis 3:1 - 6
     As a famed archeologist once said: "I hate snakes, Jock! I hate 'em!" (As a side note, I think Indiana is a perfectly good name for a boy. Unfortunately, nobody else agrees. And by nobody, I mean my wife). Really, it was just a matter of time. Satan knew he couldn't defeat God straight up. So, he goes after God's creation, the ones that He loved the most. It's interesting that Satan could make Adam and Eve believe that God was holding out on them despite all God had given. Remember earlier it said that every good and pleasent tree was in the garden of Eden. So they had plenty of great food and beautiful scenery. Adam and Eve enjoyed daily physical walks with God. Want to talk about compatibility in a marriage? Eve was custom made to be a partner for Adam. Even E-Harmony couldn't have messed that one up. Yet still, Satan got Adam and Eve thinking about the one thing they couldn't touch, and for the sake of that Adam and Eve threw it all away. I don't think the fruit necessarily looked any better than any other fruit (remember, all fruit was described as pleasent to look at and good to eat), so it wasn't irresistable. Rather, it was the idea that Adam and Eve could gain equality with God. They didn't worship God's glory but they envied it.

     Another interesting aspect I didn't consider is they way the Bible describes Eve's thought process. She inspected the fruit, evaluated it, and pronounced it good for eating. This is evidence that Eve had never considered eating the fruit until this point. Also, Eve tacked on the concept of not touching the fruit to God's original instruction to not eat the fruit. I think it interesting that Eve originally erred toward a stricter command, not a more lenient one. Maybe the seeds of what would later grow into legalism? Finally, it is worth noting that Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam was not. He took the fruit from Eve and ate of it willfully. Romans 5:12 said that sin entered the world through one man, so for some to lay the fall of man solely at Eve's feet are in direct disagreement with the Apostle Paul.

Genesis 3:7 - 13
     Ever wonder why children have to be taught to take responsibility for their mistakes? Isn't it amazing how human beings don't come from the womb willing to admit wrongdoing and take just discipline? This section of verses tells you all you need to know about that. I'll admit, I'm a little jealous of Adam and Eve right now. I have to think that quiet times and prayer and all that goes with the Christian life would be a little easier if I got to physically walk and talk with God every day as Adam and Eve did. So God comes down for the walk, Adam and Eve hide (I'm sure their fig leaves made great camoflauge) and hope the Creator of the universe can't find them. Would seem silly if it wasn't a spiritual reality in most Christians' lives at one point or another, including my own. God doesn't react immediately, but gives Adam a chance to explain. When confronted with the evidence, Adam falls all over himself to blame anything but himself. First, it's God's fault because He gave Eve to Adam. Then, it's Eve's fault because she gave it to him. And Eve, evidently not familiar with "the buck stops here," blamed the serpent for deceiving her. The only thing that has changed over thousands of years is that now we are more creative in our blame-shifting (God made me this way, I have an addiction, the devil made me do it, etc.). One final interesting point is that Adam doesn't claim he was deceived, only Eve does. That supports the idea that Adam knew what he was doing and willfully disobeyed God's command.

     Ok, so the commentary gives Eve a little more credit than Adam. While it sounds to me like Eve is blaming the serpent, the commentary correctly points out that Eve is simply stating fact. She was deceived. Another point is that this is really the first time God goes looking for the "lost sheep" Jesus occassionaly alluded to in the New Testement. We see the first example of God loving and seeking out sinful human beings despite their direct disobedience. God's love is amazing and if the story stopped here, prosperity gospels and "God is never mad at you" churches might have it right. Unfortunately for them, God goes on to dish-out the promised punishment. He punishes sin, but as we'll see it is to the ultimate benefit of those who love and serve Him.

Genesis 3:14 - 19
     First off, here is where we get the first allusion to Jesus. I bet Satan was pretty proud of himself after this happened. Probably ready to pop off a few zingers at God. But God wasn't to be trifled with. He told Satan that because of there would be enmity between Satan and the woman. More importantly, He told Satan that their would be enmity between Satan and the woman's Seed, which is Jesus (another cool note is that Jesus is referred to as the woman's seed with no mention of the man and is an early nod to the virgin birth). And then God really brought the pain. He told Satan that while he may be able to "bruise His heel," the Seed would rain down some punishment on Satan's head. I'm no doctor, don't even play one on TV, but I can tell you that head trauma is more serious than heel trauma. I bet Satan left thinking "this wasn't quite what I had in mind." That's an example of God's punishment and judgement on those that don't love and honor Him. Complete anhilation. He takes a different tact with human beings in order to restore their relationship.  Eve's punishment was basically a painful childbirth and submittal to the husband's rule.  You know that scene in every movie containing childbirth where the woman in labor screams to her poor husband (ok, I may be a little biased but go with me) something along the lines of "YOU did this TO ME!" while making what can only be described as the face of the devil himself? I think the man should reply "No, you did this to yourself. Remember Genesis?" As Sheldon would say, bazinga. For Adam, God explicitly calls him out for listening to his wife and not to God's command. He then curses the ground and turns what was pleasent work tending God's garden into a painful and difficult process simply to get enough food to eat. And then God brings out the big gun and tells Adam that he will return to the dust he was created from.  Thus through Adam death became a reality for the human race.

     The commentary translated God's punishment for Eve regarding her relationship with her husband as follows:  "You will now have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have the tendency to act as a tyrant over you." As for Adam, it is important to note that it wasn't Adam himself that was cursed, but the ground was cursed which made trouble for Adam. Work is not the curse, but the object of the work was cursed so as to make it a more difficult task. Adam worked in the garden before sin entered the picture, and many believe humans will work in heaven. It's also worth remembering that before God punished Adam and Eve, He basically announced the coming of a Messiah to restore their relationship with God.

Genesis 3:20 - 24
     Interesting that Adam didn't give Eve her name until after fall. I wonder if he just referred to her as woman for the entire point leading up to that day? I went back to try and find where Adam received his name, and the Bible account never says. Moses refers to Adam simply as man until 2:19 when he talks about Adam naming all the animals. I wonder when Adam got his name? Anyway, moving on. God then gives Adam and Even another gift by replacing their fig leaves with "tunics of sin." Isn't it amazing how much God has given to man up until this point? I never realized how generous and gracious God was until reading these verses tonight. Not only did God give human beings literally the entire world prior to the fall, but afterwards He promised the Messiah, provided a new wardrobe, and mercifully ejected Adam and Eve out of Eden. Why is that merciful? Because if Adam and Eve continued to live their and eat of the "tree of life" Adam and Eve would have lived forever. Some may say this was God punishing them again or preventing them from becoming more like Him. That God was somehow insecure and was afraid of man reaching His status. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It was a tremendous act of mercy that God kicked them out. The Bible indicates that if Adam and Eve had continued to eat the fruit they would have lived forever. That was desirable before the fall when there was no pain or sickness or difficulty. But now that all those negatives were a reality, how cruel would it be having to endure them for an eternity, especially with the knowledge of heaven?

     The fact that the tree of life was not destroyed serves as an indication that it may one day be accessible again. If it was never needed again, wouldn't God have just destroyed it? I wonder if Adam and Eve had an appreciation for all that God did for them despite His just punishment for their sin? If they were anything like me, I know they didn't. Some say that if we can just get the right environment, all man's problems would go away. If we could create utopia, we wouldn't have need for a "god" anymore. But Eden is proof that isn't true. Man had the perfect environment. All we could possibly want and need. But we wanted more. Even with utopia, sin entered the world. Therefore, we can conclude that all the environmental conditioning in the world isn't going to save the human race. God is the only way, we can't fix it by somehow manufacturing a perfect setting to live in.

And with that, I've completed the first day's reading assignment. The good news is that I'm already learning quite a bit. The bad news is that I'm on pace to finish in three years. As always, comments are welcome.

How did it go so wrong? (Part I)

2010-07-29T01:51:00.002-05:00

You know, I've got to figure out a way to stop writing this thing at midnight. We'll be looking to at least finish Genesis 2 and start working on Genesis 3. Genesis 2 is interesting because it basically takes a magnifying glass and focuses on the creation of human beings in the overall creative narrative. Genesis 3 is the infamous snake scene. On a completely trivial level, ever wonder what would have happened had the animal Satan used to tempt Adam and Eve been something cuddly, like a koala bear? Would my wife then be afraid of koalas and completely cool with snakes? I think that'll be on my question list when I get to heaven.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand, I want to try something a little different tonight. I'm going to include two sections of reaction to each section of verses. The normal text will be my reaction/thoughts/etc. on the text itself without looking at any commentary. The italic text will be my reaction after reading the commentary. We'll see how that works. If it doesn't, I can just switch back (you know, because its my blog).

Genesis 2:8 - 14
     God plants this garden in Eden and drops man off. It says it contains every tree that is "pleasant to the sight and good for food." Remember this scene later. This is what Adam and Eve are surrounded by when God said they could have anything but the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve were surrounded by the prettiest trees and tastiest food God had to offer, but as we'll see it just isn't enough.

     Commentaries point out a couple of interesting things. One, that Eden is eastward of Palestine, which is the Biblical point of reference for directions. Second, I did recognize two of the rivers that shoot off from river going through Eden (Tigris and Euphrates). However, that location is general at best because erosion and the gigantic flood of Noah's time likely changed the courses of rivers that existed previous to the flood.

Genesis 2:15 - 17
     Some weighty verses here with a couple of things that standout. First, God appointed man to simply be a caretaker of the garden and charged him with tending it. He didn't say to create it, replant it, or anything of that sort. He was basically to take care of God's creation, adding nothing and removing nothing. I draw a parallel to the gospel. We are the caretaker of the gospel, charged with only protecting its integrity. It isn't our duty or role to update it and change it. We simply maintain and spread it. Second, God doesn't give any reason about why the tree he forbids Adam to eat from is bad. It's not that the fruit was poisonous. Death was a natural result of disobedience of God and had nothing to do with the actual fruit. I don't always have to understand God's commands or teachings, but that doesn't release me from an obligation to obey them.

     Not that its all that shocking, but I missed a couple of things reading the passage.  I tend to focus on the restriction God placed on Adam and emphasize what he was commanded not to do.  It's easy to overlook the fact that God prefaced the command not to eat of the one tree with the statement that Adam could have every one of the other trees. For somebody like me (and I know other people struggle with this because I've heard them say it) who sometimes feels that Christianity becomes a list of things not to do, this is a perfect example of the vastness of the freedom offered by God in contrast with the narrow restrictions I voluntarily place myself under. And not that this necessarily needs to be said, but it is worth mentioning that God isn't saying that to possess knowledge is to sin. What it appears to say is that to obtain knowledge out of the context of your relationship with God and in direct disobedience to the will of God is the sin. I wonder if God's thought process was that man would never have a reason to want knowledge outside of their relationship with Him unless man was trying to elevate himself to God's level? It's always seemed to me that the primary motivating factor of Adam's and Eve's disobedience was their desire to be God-like in their knowledge, which would appear to be a sin of vanity and ambition. Regardless, I think I need to tatoo that verse on my head backwards so every time I look in the mirror, I see the evidence that God's freedom far outweighs His restricitons.

Genesis 2:18 - 25
     And here is where God's greatest creation (other than coke icees and banana popcicles) and greatest mystery makes her grand entrance. I wonder why God didn't start out with man and woman? It's not like He didn't know He was going to have to create one, so why not start that way from the beginning? One, I think God may have wanted Adam to appreciate the favor He had shown him by creating a helpmate. Two, its possible God wanted Adam to know that woman was a part of him, that she was unlike any other creature he had met until that point. Regardless, God marches all His creation in front of Adam so that he can both name the animals and classify them. Adam doesn't find a helpmate, so God performs the first surgery and formed woman. Wouldn't you have loved to see the look on Adam's face when he first saw woman in all her literal perfection? Bet he asked for an instruction manual. If he didn't ask then, I'll wager he did a few times in his later years. Finally, here is where we find the Biblical basis for marriage. A man and a woman will leave their parents (some of you don't need to wait on a spouse, you just need to get out 'cause your parents are tired of you) and forge through life together as one flesh, one entity. Sounds simple, right? One quick story just because I like it. I have a good friend with whom I worked camp with a few years back. He met his future wife while we were working on the same team in 2003, but the company has a strict policy about dating team members during the summer. So, the joker gave the girl a spoon and told her to hang on to it all summer and he would explain it after summer was over. She did, and at our final end-of-summer party, he finally gave the girl his explanation. It was a deeply romantic symbol that communicated his feelings about her. In short, it was a visual reminder that she "stirred his grits." They date, go on to marry, and he takes to calling her "his rib" after these verses here. If you are waiting for me to tie this something deep and spiritual, you will be disappointed. Like I said, I just enjoy the story.

     The commentary points out that the process of naming all the animals validated Adam's role as the regent and lord over all created order at that time. It also allowed him to see that he needed someone his emotional, mental, and spiritual equal and no animal would be able to fill that void. It allowed him to see how perfect God's creation of woman really was for him. It also points out something that I've heard in sermons and marriage counseling before regarding the reason God chose a rib. One commentary attributed the observation to Luther. The gist of it is that God could have taken a bone from anywhere he wanted or started completely from scratch (He is, after all, God) but he didn't. The Bible specifically calls out rib, and one of the reasons why is that the rib is on the side of Adam. It wasn't from his head symbolizing that she should lord over him nor was it taken from his feet as an indication that he was to lord over woman. It was taken so that the common bone between Adam and Eve would show equality and mutual respect as the ideal relationship between man and woman.

     Commentary also discusses how Adam was the head of the household (whatever the expression was for "wearing the pants in the family" before it was cool to wear pants) as appointed by God. He did not give that up when woman came along. As for Adam's reaction when he saw her for the first time, he said something akin to "At Last!" I hope to continue to see my wife with that same reaction for the rest of our married life (see how I worked that in just in case she reads the blog?).

Finally, it appears that Adam and Eve enjoyed all aspects of married life prior to the fall. That's why I wonder about teachings that people say mean that there will be no marriage or romantic relationship between opposite sex in heaven. At this point, Earth was a perfect place with perfect people on it so romantic relationships within the Biblically defined parameters couldn't have been a sin. And if they existed in God's perfect world before sin entered it, what keeps them for appearing again in heaven? I'm not sure if this question is more or less important than my koala bear vs. snake question. I'm going to say less since I should be able to just observe the results once I get to heaven.

Ok, I'm falling asleep while typing, so I'm going to call it a night. Let me know if you liked the format of separating my comments into two groups: Scripture only and Scripture+Commentary. This is just Part I. Part II of this section will appear hopefully tomorrow morning.

Every Story has a Beginning...

2010-07-28T01:00:00.001-05:00

Goal for tonight is Genesis 1-3. I will get through as much of it as I can, but I'm starting a bit later than I intended. So, without any further adu, we're off.

A little background information before we dive into the actual text. This will be common knowledge to Christians, but I figure it can't hurt to relay it here as well. Genesis was written by Moses while in the Wilderness of Sinai around fifteenth century BC. It is the first book of the Pentateuch, but is not necessarily the first book Moses pinned. Obviously, the content for a some of this book predates Moses, so he either incorporated some existing stories, received details directly from God Himself, or a combination of the two. Ok, enough of that.

Genesis 1:1 - 5 (Day 1)
I find it interesting to remember that while this begins our story on this planet, it doesn't begin God's story. As an engineer, most things (inclined planes, calculus, spherical horses, thermodynamic cycles, etc.) fit neatly into a logical box tied up with a bow of reason. If they don't, I can write a list of assumptions and make them fit (aforementioned spherical horse). But then I am confronted with something like the timeless eternal aspect of God, and that just completely obliterates my box. I don't understand, won't understand it, and lack the mental capacity to ever understand it. I'll pause while some of you recover from the idea that something is beyond my understanding.......ok, time's up. But just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true. I take God at His word.

Genesis 1:6 - 25
And in 19 short verses and 5 short days, creation of galaxies and solar systems, sun and moon, land and see, plant and animal was complete save one thing. Some argue that the days indicated here may not be analogous to our current 24 hour day. Some say that it means exactly 120 hours to do all this. Honestly, I don't know. But the amazing thing to me is that irregardless of the time period, God spoke all these things into existence. And here's a sure-fire cure for any pride human beings carry in our own intellectual ability: we are still trying to figure out how it all works. We find new animal species every day. Still examine the expanse of space looking to see what exists beyond our own orbit. What did the season finale of Lost actually mean? And God knew it all and made it all from before the moment it began.

Genesis 1:26 - 31
Ah, now we get to the good part. Man and woman have arrived! Not only that, we are large and in charge. Unlike any other creation, we are made in the image of God. We have morality, logic, creativity, spirituality, and a relationship with our Creator. At the risk of inflating our already bulging egos, we were created special. We were given responsibility. My only problem with this section is that man was vegetarian. That better have been some good fruit if I couldn't have steak. But imagine the tranquility and peace of no enmity between each other! The fact that lions and lambs really could coexist peacefully! But I just can't get past the responsibility man was given. God created this entire world, and then handed us the keys as caretakers. No wonder the consequences were so grave when we messed it up. How many of us have looked at a newspaper or watched cable news and said something to the effect of "What a messed up world we live in." Most of the time, we aren't wanting to face the real culprit for an imperfect world. I wonder if we were fully aware of our sin if we would keep any mirrors in our houses, or would we be too ashamed to even risk glimpsing our own reflection?

Genesis 2:1 - 7
These verses wrap up the general narrative of God's creation of the heavens and the earth. I find it interesting the Moses finishes with emphasizing what seems to be more care on the part of God regarding the creation of human beings. Whereas other things were spoke into existence, God "formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." I wonder if God was conflicted at this moment? If Jesus even gave thought to what His creation would eventually require of Him? I know He did (God knows all things all the time), and I also believe that it didn't give Him one seconds pause. If I truly believe that, I don't see how I can refuse God's claim on my life. Hasn't stopped me from trying though.

Overall Impression
I wanted to try and sum up what I got from this passage. Ultimately, this one is a little boring and predictable for me. Not only have I studied it in Sunday School since the age of 2, I've also started several doomed attempts to read the Bible from cover to cover here. So to say I know the factual material would be an understatement. But I'm left feeling humbled in a way I probably haven't been before. I can't escape the awesome scale and magnitude on which God exists relative to my own temporal and finite one. I have to confront ideas like the eternal aspect of God, the Holy Trinity, the perfect nature of God's design, and ultimately what I lost because of my own sin. How about you? Please feel free to post your own thoughts or ideas.

With that, I'm going to call it a night on this post. I don't know if this format will stick, but I'll likely experiment with different formats from time to time until I find one that fits best. Up next tomorrow - why "rib" is a theologically-correct-but-possibly-dangerous pet name for your wife, why my "rib" hates snakes, and the death of nudists' colonies in mainstream society.

What Exactly am I Trying to do Here?

2010-07-26T23:35:00.005-05:00

Why start a blog? I've tried several times over the past few years, but I can't seem to find any consistency. I think the main reason is that I have had nothing meaningful to say. Nothing has excited me enough on a steady basis to run to a computer and post on it. I'm hoping this will be different.

Blogging isn't the only thing I've struggled with consistency on. I have also failed to spend regular time in God's Word. Make no mistake, I subscribe to Christianity and believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who came to live among us without sin in order to offer a perfect sacrifice on a Roman cross. He then, to paraphrase Jesus himself, picked up the life that he laid down three days later and made it possible for unholy human beings to obtain a relationship with a holy God. But I haven't spent time studying Nahum, Lamentations, or Haggai. I haven't personally traced Jesus' lineage from Adam through David. I couldn't give you the historical order of some of the major events of the Bible.

As a Christian with at least three Bibles currently within view, that is a terrible statement about my committment to learning about the God I claim to love and serve. So, my goal starting tomorrow is to read the Bible from cover to cover. I'm going to use a plan I found online to read the Bible in historical order in 365 days. That means I won't go straight through Genesis and then on to Exodus and so on. But I'm going to skip around so that I can see the events as they unfolded thousands of years ago. I want to use this blog as a means to chronicle that journey.

I may from time to time deviate from posts strictly about my reading, but the majority of posts at least for this year will be regarding my study of God's Word. I am a layman and definately no pastor, so please treat this as the simple observations of an infant of God.

As for the name, it is a nod to the length of this commitment and the subject matter. A year is the period of time required for the Earth to complete one orbit around the sun. And ultimately, since the Bible always points to Jesus and God's redemptive work, it's safe to say one of the major topics of my study will be God's Son. It may be corny, but I'm kind of proud of it so leave it alone.

My hope and prayer is that this blog/effort brings me closer to God and my Savior and does the same for any that read it.

EDIT: Some additional information, but here are the books I plan to be using during my study. If I use more, I'll try and mention it

The Nelson Study Bible (New King James)
Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald