Jacob prepares for his meeting with Esau – Held on Sunday, October 20, 2013

Posted on October 25, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Session held on 10/20/13

  1. Previous Week’s [10/13/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [10/13/13] Review

After being prompted by Tim, I invited those who might be interested in a more in-depth study.  We would be following the format outlined by Carla Mae Streeter.  He process would focus our attention on a specific biblical unit of thought by asking a series of four questions.  The questions are based on Purpose, Point, Presuppositions and Praxis Value. I then review each of the questions. [If any web reader is interested, let me know.]  At the end of our session Ken, Faryl, Mark, Tim, and Michael expressed an interest.

My review of the previous week’s conversation was sparked by Jude, my four year old grandson.  I had picked him up from the Tuesday afternoon CCD program at St. Anthony All Saints.  We headed home when Jude asked, “Nonno, [Italian for grandpa] where can I see Jesus?  I’ve been looking but I don’t see him.”  I certainly wasn’t expecting that question nor did I have a ready answer.  By the following Sunday morning, however, I did have a few thoughts.

I saw a connection between what my grandson’s question assumed and an assumption I thought I heard in Kai’s remarks from last week.  So I attempted to link them together.  As part of our conversation in which we wondered whether God’s promise was dependent on us, Kai thought that God’s promise was independent of our actions.  Part of his basis for thinking that emerged in a quote he offered from the Christian Scripture.  The scene was Jesus before Pilate in which Jesus responded, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”  Kai added we can’t take it with us.  As you might recall there was considerable conversation on this point; does what we do matter or are things pretty well determined by God already.  Tim raised the issue in different terms, Is God controlling my life or am I controlling my life.  Does what we do matter?  Is God present in this world, now; if so, how is God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit present?  Before you read any further would you be willing to answer those questions for your self.

There is an underlying assumption about how we know anything that I wanted to address. The critical point, from my point of view, is that we don’t know by looking.  Looking maybe one part of human knowing but by itself it is not knowing.  Jesus is present to us but his presence is not immediate, by taking a look.  Rather Jesus’ presence is mediated by meaning.  I don’t expect you to grasp the significance of these last two sentences but it’s worth the effort.

Let’s begin with the obvious.  I am in the 21st century in Canton Ohio writing English words, you are reading them on this website on the internet.  Let us take one word, Jesus.  In some fundamental way, Jesus is present in that word.  His name, Jesus, means something to you.  But that meaning bears the weight of some 2000 years of human history coming to you, most likely from your parents.  In some way that “Jesus” is unique to you.  He is whomever you actually think Jesus is.  Now you are not alone, Jesus is meaningful to others, and the others form a community.  To the extent that the members of the community share a common meaning they are united but are divided to the extent that their meanings are opposed, contradictory.

This point of community united or divided was brought out clearly by a question that Mark asked.  He was listening to a radio talk show discussing the changes  being brought about by what Pope Francis is saying and doing.  He wanted to know based on what the Pope is saying and doing, is the culture changing the church or is the church changing the culture.

Most of the group thought that it wasn’t either / or.  Michael felt that the church has to change with the culture if it expects to reach the people in the culture they actually are living in.  Tim, Faryl, and Ken expressed in different words that the church has both to change with the culture but also to change the culture.   While they spoke in rather general terms, Rosemarie was quite specific.  She felt that the culture is almost always attacking the basic beliefs of the church as exemplified in issues such as same sex marriage, abortion, ordination of women, the Health Care Mandate.  She believes strongly that the church has to fight these attacks. Her take on Pope Francis though is that he is urging us to focus on the poor, to become a church of the poor.  In this way, the truth teachings of the church will be manifested. Heber wondered if Rosemarie was opposed to married priests.  She gave her understanding of why we have a celibate priesthood and favored it from one point of view but was not opposed to married priests.  There was a financial issue that would have to be resolved.

At this point I am inclined to stop to give you who are reading this, time to reflect and I would encourage you to respond with a question, an observation.”

Background to today’s our readings.

In a sense we pick up the narrative from chapter 28.  Much has happened but the conflict between Jacob and Esau remains unresolved.  We learn in this passage that Jacob is first to meet God and that meeting prepares him for his meeting with Esau.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 32:01 – 09: Jacob prepares for his meeting with Esau and turns to God in prayer.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/32

Discussion

We begin with asking who are the characters in the passage; more to  help us stay focused.  Ken mentioned “messengers.”  True enough but the word is used twice and it refers to two different characters in the passage.  A review  of the notes for the Gen. 32: 01 – 02 are illuminating on this point.

[32:1–22] Jacob’s negotiations with Esau. Laban kisses his daughters and grandchildren good-bye but not Jacob. On leaving Mesopotamia, Jacob has an encounter with angels of God (vv. 2–3), which provokes him to exclaim, “This is God’s encampment,” just as he exclaimed upon leaving Canaan, “This is the house of God, the gateway to heaven” (28:11–17).

The notes affirm that the first messengers are “angels of God.”  This is the third time that Jacob has been visited by “angels.”  You may not believe it but this one word “angel” resulted in a half hour conversation.  Let me reiterate, we can’t see angels; even though they have been depicted in art and thus have contributed to our having an image of them in our imagination.  The word has a meaning and we learned rather quickly that we don’t all share the same meaning for the word.

Ken reflect on how people can get bent out shape if their meaning of angel is challenged.  He thought that angel is more a function or role that people can play in the lives of others without necessarily denying the spiritual reality of angels.  I mentioned that growing up I was taught that we all have “guardian angels.”  So our 2000 year history comes to light in us differently.  Rosemarie spoke of the nine choirs of angels.  For her angels are spiritual beings that God uses help us, prompt us.  But, and this was very important for Rosemarie, we have to be “tuned in“ in her words.  Being “tuned in” was a function of praying every day.

Eventually we were to return to the passage at hand.  I wanted to point out the significance, meaning, of God’s messengers coming to Jacob.  The author / editor is telling us in his own way that in Jacob’s life [and thus the life of all of us] there is presence of God and the presence of the world; sometimes working in concert, sometimes working in opposition.  But it is God’s encampment that matters.

Before I knew it the hour and an half had passed almost in mid-sentence but that is how it goes.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Covenant between Jacob and Laban – Held on Sunday, October 13, 2013

Posted on October 16, 2013 by Dick

Reflections on Last Week [10/06/13] – the first 30 minutes of our conversation.

Last week we incidentally mentioned two Councils in the Roman Catholic Tradition: The Council of Nicea in 325 CE and the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563 CE.  This afforded me an opportunity to link these two councils with events of our own day.

The preaching of Arian at the time of Nicea raised a question which can roughly be expressed as, how are we to express faithfully the one God who is both Father and Son. There is one God, how can the Fathers and the Son both be one God.  The word that was used to express this relationship was a Greek one, homoousious, translated, the same essence, the same being.  The Greek word was then translated into Latin, transubstantialis. In 2011 the Roman Catholic Church issued changes to the liturgy.  One of those changes was from the previous vernacular translation of the Greek “homoousious “ as “One in Being” to the present one translation as, “Consubstantial,” which is actually a transliteration of the Latin translation of the Council of Nicea’s Greek word, homoousious.  All these words or phrases are an effort to explain how what St. Athanasius expressed in a sentence is true; namely, “All that is said of the Father is also to be said of the Son, except that the Son is Son, and not Father.”

As you might notice the Council of Trent lasted for quite some time [18 years] and occurred in a totally different historical context than that of Nicea, separated as they are by more than 1200 years.  In reaction to the Second Vatican Council, some Roman Catholics have wanted to continue to celebrate what is now termed, the Tridentine Mass; the Mass as it was celebrated prior to Vatican II.  However, the Council of Trent did not mandate that the Mass be celebrated in Latin.  What it did state is that it is permissible for the Mass to be celebrated in Latin.  As a consequence of the Reformation, Latin became an identifying difference between Roman Catholics and the Reformers; so it became the norm until the Vatican II from 1962 – 1965.  Again history has something to say on our perspective.  The actual and the desired relationship between the Reformer churches and the Roman Catholic Church today are vastly different than they were in the 16th c.  A lot has happened over the past 400 years.

It is important for the Church, not every member, but the Church as a whole, to know its history and to view events of today in light of that correctly understood history.  Only then can we discern the direction we are taking and be capable of deciding whether that direction is to be embraced or resisted.  Only when we decide correctly [embrace or resist] do we promote the Kingdom of God on earth.

Background to today’s our readings.

Keep in mind as we approach today’s readings first the remote context of God’s promise to Abraham of both progeny and land and near context of Jacob being told by God to return to Canaan.  The fulfillment of the promise of progeny has taken another turn with the birth of the eleven children; the promise of the land must take its turn.  God is at work even though the characters in our stories are not always aware.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 31:38 – 42: Jacob and Laban in Gilead and then 31:43 – 55: The covenant.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/31

It was obvious that both characters, Jacob and Laban, are assumed by the larger context of this passage.

Mark immediately wondered out loud about v. 42 “If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been on my side,”  Did that meant in this argument, or the story as a whole.  Tim pointed out that rest of the verse, “you would now have sent me away empty-handed. But God saw my plight and the fruits of my toil, and last night he reproached you” certainly implies the story as whole.

I wanted to point out that what mattered in Tim’s response is the fact that he referred back to the text to help us arrive at the best interpretation.  His response was, as it were, evidence based, meant to convince others.  But it did prompt me to ask a question that was to occupy us for the next forty minutes or so.

In fact I asked a couple of questions.  Is God on your side?  Do you have to be on God’s side for God to be on your side?  Kai was quick to respond.  Yes and No.  You asked two questions and to the first the answer is yes.  God will remain faithful to his promise; then he added a sentence that would continue the conversation.  No God’s promise is independent of what we do?

I responded, does it matter what we do?

Jodie, well yes and no.

Ken offered the example of football teams praying to God.  Is God only on the side of the winner?  Kai offered a similar but more serious example, both Generals in the Civil War prayed to God, but only one in fact won.

To get at this back and forth, I suggested that we focus on the concrete fact that we 12 are in this room.  [This question could be extended to anyone who is reading this post.]  Does it matter, make a difference?  I recalled what Tim, among others, had to say last week.  Because he has been in this group, he now has many more questions, and a different frame of reference, when he listens to / reads the Scripture.  That is obviously a difference and in this case has caused Tim to do things that he otherwise might not have done.

Kai reminded us that Jesus said when two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst.  That is true not matter what we do afterwards.  Furthermore, Jesus said that his Kingdom is not of this world. All the prayers about things, don’t really mean anything, we can’t take them with us.

Tim reflecting on his own life was quite aware of being thankful for unanswered prayers.  Sometimes going through tough times helps you to become the person you were meant to be.  God is a loving parent, who is on your side; who sees the big picture.  How we react to what happens matters.  In conclusion he asked another interesting question, is God controlling me or am I controlling myself.

I wanted at this point to come back to “on your side.”  I suggested that there are two ways we might think of God being on our side; as a privilege or as a calling, a responsibility.  Growing up I used to have the image of the church as a boat, and life as the sea.  My job was to get on and stay on the boat.  The boat would surely transport me over the sea of life with all of its turmoil and danger.  If I did what I was supposed to the boat would drop me off in heaven.  It was a pretty one side image that was in need of some serious transformation which occurred, not without some pain and confusion,  as I grew older.

But if God loves everyone, and God does, then what can the question, God is on my side mean, especially in a multi-religious world, a world of Jews, of Christians, of Muslims, of Hindus, of Buddhists, of atheists … For God intended us to be members of that multi-religious world.  And we are the answer even though the answer is yet to be clearly formed.  We are being called, invited, summoned …

How would you talk about it?  This and more was part of our conversation.  If these kind of questions, dialogue, conversation interest you, join us in person or online.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Jacob and Laban in Gilead – Held on Sunday, October 06, 2013

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Dick

What impact, if any, has scripture study had on our image of God?

Some background to the question that occupied our group for nearly the first hour of our conversation on Sunday, October 06, 2013.  We have been studying Genesis for more than two years now and I wondered what impact, if any, the time spent had had on our image of God.  As adults we come to the Bible with already formed images and understandings.  Our study could either affirm or challenge that formation.  The question is something like has the forest changed because we have been studying the trees.  Or maybe, have we missed the forest because of studying the trees.  I was anxious to know.  Below then is a summary of the conversation that took place.

The conversation began with my sharing a few observations about understanding the scripture in general.  Scripture is an extraordinarily rich library of the human and divine drama manifesting itself in the history of the people of the Bible.  But there is not one understanding but many of that history.  Jesus, for Christians perhaps, best exemplifies this diversity of understanding.  The messiah that his disciples thought he was prior to the resurrection and the messiah that Jesus lived out were not only different images and understandings; they were at times opposed.

Jesus wasn’t the messiah that many contemporaries of him expected.  Even though the early church was to find many elements in the Jewish Scripture that they [the early church] identified as portraying the Jesus they came to believe in; one of the most significant of these passages was the Servant Songs of Isaiah.  Having different images, understanding emerge from the Bible is common; oppose images and understandings commonly emerged too.  It is learning how to be faithful to one’s own understanding and open to the other that summons the adult of today.  Neither an easy journey nor one that always feels good.  Risk is inherent in the journey.

It didn’t surprise me that Ken started it off.  He was aware that it wasn’t only studying scripture but life itself that has brought about some changes in him.  Primarily he feels that his perceptive on God, religion, life is broader, more encompassing.

When I asked him could he be more specific, it was Tina who responded.  She remarked that prior to coming to the study group she understood the bible to be a history book; but a history book she had a hard time understanding and accepting.  All those numbers … Now she thinks of the bible as an account of people, somewhat like her both doing good and failing.  God loved them, God loves me, not because of the good I do but despite the failures that I have committed.

Tim realized that his horizon has grown.  Once clear example occurs  when he listens to the scripture during the liturgy.  Many more questions occur to him.  What is the author trying to say?  Who is his audience?  What in going on in his world?  What is the meaning of the passage?  He recognized as well that studying has perked his interest.  He is studying on his own.  He has come to realize that change is a constant in the life of the church.

I remarked that the word “change” is ambiguous.  As Tim said, change is inevitable.  At the same time we evaluate the change.  Some change is good but other change is bad.  And the real difficulty is that what one person evaluates as a good change, development, growth; another person evaluates as a bad change, decline, mistaken.  One change is to be embraced fostered and another is to be resisted, reversed.  Thus conflict.

Such conflict has occurred from the very beginning of Christianity.  Maybe one of the most significant conflicts occurred when gentiles became followers of Christ.  Were these gentiles to follow the Jewish customs?  Some Jewish Christians, Peter, initially thought yes; other Jewish Christians, Paul, thought no.  Christians came to believe that Jesus was both God and Man.  Within a few hundred years, some Christians had one understanding on what it meant for Jesus to be both God and Man and other Christians had a different and opposed understanding.  This conflict was resolved at the Council of Nicea in around 325 CE.  It was this Council that used a Greek word, homoousios; that was translated in Latin and transliterated into English, consubstantial, which was recently inserted “back” into the Nicene Creed which we recite at Mass.

Mark wanted to make the point that many basic understandings haven’t changed at all.  He still fears God, loves God, trusts God, knows that God is a forgiving God, and that he is a sinner. But when it came to understanding the Bible, well then change has occurred.  In fact, this is the basic that I keep coming back.  It seems like there is always more to learn and I am drawn to that learning more.  He brought forward the challenge he experienced in understanding the meaning of heaven not as an astronomical but a theological one; what can it mean that God is outside of time, without a past or future but an eternal now.

For Rosemarie, her understanding is focused on what the Bible means to her now.  She recalled that Jesus spoke in parables and they are hard to understand; of course it doesn’t help that our minds are limited.  Jesus challenged his disciples.  He asked them who do you say that I am?  It is clear to her that we need to continue studying.

The different understanding that I had mentioned when we began our conversation found a resonance with our church today.  As in the past, so today there are different and even opposed understandings.  This is the world that God has given to us to live out.  This is the world we are being invited to respond to in the light of the Father, the Son, and their Spirit.

Without realizing an hour had gone by. We had intended to cover the story of Jacob and Laban in Gilead but time would not permit that.  Fortunately the story contains two distinct episodes and we were able to focus our attention on the first episode, Gn. 31: 25 – 37.

We are reminded as we listen to the reading to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 31:25 – 37: Jacob and Laban in Gilead.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/31

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jacob’s Children – Held on Sunday, September 22, 2013

Posted on September 28, 2013 by Dick

Summer Events

It’s hard to believe but we are in our third year of “reading’ Genesis.  We began our first session by sharing some of the highlights or memorable events that occurred during the summer.  We learned about both the highs and lows, the joys and sorrows that make up our life, the summer was no different.

I was excited to share the good news of the birth of my fifth grandchild, Salome, Swahili for peace.  There was also my two week stay in the Holy Land.  Without going into a lot of the details, I mentioned first the geographical impact that the visit had.  Being in the land allows one to know first hand the terrain, the distances, the mountains, the plains, the desert, the plant life, the river, the valley, etc.  The bible assumes all of these facts without ever mentioning them, they simply form the backdrop, what the writer and the reader / listener take for granted.  Being there allows me to read / hear these details in a new, more concrete way.  I hope to share that as they emerge in our study.

Besides the geography, there were the people.  I mentioned the story of just one, Stephanie, who is a Christian, mother of two, living in the Old City of Jerusalem.  My hope is that I will be able to connect with her via Skype and she could share her story with our group.  That’s the plan, more as it develops.

A New Image of Scripture Study

          Me         You      The Text

Imagine yourself as the center of exhange

between [in this case] me and the Biblical Text

I attended a seminar that introduced me to a new image of what is going on when we study the bible.  The center of the study is you, you are in the middle and on either side is the presenter in this case me and on the other side is the text, in this case Genesis.  Of course, this occurs not online as type this image but in a live group.

What matters is what is happening inside of you.  We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [all three] are with us, in us.  Attending to what is happening within us is the first step to discerning God’s will for us.  Ultimately discerning God’s will is reason for attending to what is happening within us.

There are only a limited number of events that can occur within us, either we will attend or we won’t.  It is highly unlikely that we will attend the entire time, so we might catch ourselves drifting, thinking of the concerns of our life, day dreaming, etc. But when we catch ourselves, that very act is asking us to return to the now of our studying.  Attending might lead to a question or not.  If not we might be assuming that we understand what is being read / listened to, studied.  If we do have a question, then we either express it or we don’t.  Either way there was the movement of a question and our response.  During the course of our time, our question may be answered or our understanding challenged.  But we are not satisfied with that.  We want to know if what we understand, the answer to our question is true.  The answer to that question can be a simple yes or no but it might also be, I don’t know, maybe, etc.  But each of these is also some event within us.  It can also occur when we do reach a yes, what we understand is true, we are prompted to ask, well what are we to do now.  And that is also an event occurring within us.  Along with this back and forth, we may notice as well the feelings that accompanying these events.  Such in the most general terms are the categories that help us define the events within us.  These movements are a potential source of discerning God’s will for us.

The reason for asking our Who, What, When, Where questions is to help us to attend, to wonder, to search.  The image I attempted to describe, along with the probable type of events that occur within us, are meant to help enrich our hearing of the scripture, to discern God’s will for each of us, individually, uniquely.

The Context of Today’s Passage.

Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis Interpretation, offers an outline of the literary unit running from 29:01 – 31:55, p. 249

29: 01 – 04: – preliminary meeting – a kiss of meeting

29: 14 – 20: – meeting with Laban and the contact

29: 21 – 30: – deception of Jacob by Laban

29: 31 – 30: 24: – The Offspring

30: 25 – 43: – trick of Laban by Jacob

                                                  [31: 01 – 16: – a theological reflection]

     31: 17 – 42: – meeting with Laban and dispute

31: 43 – 55: – covenant and departure – a kiss of departure

From Brueggemann’s outline, it might be easy to recognize that “The Offspring” is the central focus of the entire unit.  And the focus of “The Offspring” section is the very last paragraph in which our author reminds in 30:22 “Then God remembered Rachel. God listened to her and made her fruitful.”

Reading: Gen. 29:31 – 30:24: The Offspring.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/29

At the heart of this passage, its central message is God’s fulfilling his promise that began with Abraham, the promise of offspring.

There were many comments by our group.  Here are a few that caught my attention.  Ken was quite first that the families that make up the story are very ordinary families in a lot of ways; that they are far from perfect, in fact dysfunctional in our terminology.  But that this fact reveals that God power is manifest in our weaknesses.

We had this wonderful conversation about who knows what.  Again Ken brought out that Rachel doesn’t know the rest of story about Joseph.  I pointed out the author / editor does know though and that it is the author / editor who is inspired not necessarily the characters in the stories that he tells.

Michael then said something that has a lot of significance.  He listened to the story but he also knew in advance the “rest of the story” as it were.  He knew about Joseph and that knowing shaped how he heard the story of his birth.  But it is not only knowing the story of Joseph that shapes how we hear, it is also, as Christian, knowing the story of Christ, that shapes, gives meaning, to the stories we read / listen to, as well as to our life.

Finally Tim pointed out how time is factor.  After all Jacob worked for more than 14 years to “earn” first Leah and then Rachel.  When we are caught up in the struggles of our life, we find it very difficult to see these events in the context of God’s Kingdom which encompasses the entire universe from its beginning to its conclusion.  Such a vision changes everything but being open to that vision itself  is a gift from God.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Birth of Jacob’s Children – Held on Sunday, May 05, 2013

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

With this post I conclude our Sunday Scripture Study for the 2nd year on Genesis. During the summer months some of our group and others will meet to discuss Evangelization at my place.  The first gathering will take place on Thursday, June 13th from 7:00 to 8:30 pm.

Review:

Because of the Bible’s enormous richness, and the limit of our capacity to understand its meaning, achieving a balanced understanding of the Bible’s meaning is a life time of reflection, action, reflection, etc.  I offered a couple of pointers to assist in that balanced understanding.

The first point requires us to distinguish between the history that happens and the history that is written about.  The bible is history in the first sense but not in the second sense.  It is literally impossible for any human constructions not to be historical in the first sense.  And the Bible is a human construction, not only human but human none the less. One major consequence of this fact is that not everything written in the bible actually occurred although every act of writing its content actually occurred in history.  At the same time it is equally not true to conclude that nothing written in the bible actually occurred.  It is simply a mistake to assume either an all or nothing mind set.  Both are mistaken.  If this paragraph is confusing, your questions, observations, etc. would be more than welcomed.

A second point requires us to make the following distinction.  Imagine drawing a circle that  represents the entire world, universe, or universes; whatever actually exists.   Then draw a line dividing the circle in half and naming the top half “Objective” and the bottom half “Subjective.”

Now let’s make a few observations.

  • The actual existing world, universe [s] is prior to the distinction between Objective and Subjective.
  • Only human beings make this distinction and they make the distinction by asking questions and answering them.
  • If their answers are true, then that answer is part of the objective world.

As I write this, I become aware of the complexity that I am attempting to write about and that I have not given it the time that the reader deserves.  That having been said, I will stop at this point to allow any questions, etc. 

The underlying point of this distinction, however, is to make clear that for the Christian, Jesus is the Savior of the world.  Since the Christian thinks his beliefs are true, it is simply a fact that Jesus is the Savior of the world.  On the other hand, for that to be a reality for an individual, it can be so only if that individual comes to believe.  This is the fundamental requirement of evangelization.  The very meaning of human life, its origin, and goal are different for the believer.

Mark was to ask a question about all of this.  If intelligent life is found on other planets, how would we understand the role of Jesus then; a question by the way that could only have been asked in our modern era.  I don’t know of anyone who has written on this question but it certainly is one of a multitude of questions that would pour out of humanity and presumably the other examples of intelligent life.  I simply can’t imagine intelligent life that is not capable of asking questions.

Background: Gen. 29: 11 – 30:24: The Birth of  Jacob’s Children.

Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis Interpretation, offers an outline of this literary unit running from 29:01 – 31:55, p. 249

29: 01 – 04: – preliminary meeting – a kiss of meeting

29: 14 – 20: – meeting with Laban and the contact

29: 21 – 30: – deception of Jacob by Laban

29: 31 – 30: 24: – The Offspring

30: 25 – 43: – trick of Laban by Jacob

                                                     [31: 01 – 16: – a theological reflection]

     31: 17 – 42: – meeting with Laban and dispute

31: 43 – 55: – covenant and departure – a kiss of departure

As I wrote last week, from Brueggemann’s outline, it is fairly obvious that “The Offspring” is the central focus of the entire unit as a whole.  It probably represents an independent unit that may well have been an amalgam of authors expressing interests and perspective from the North and the South.

The Reading: Gen. 29: 31 – 30:24. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/29  and http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/30

A continuing story of the how God works with us as we are to fulfill his promise.  A story filled with characters marred by envy, deception; family life that we would term dysfunctional.  A story that ends with the birth of Joseph through whom the promise will continue.  A story that can be the source of hope.  If God can work with the likes of these to achieve his goal, why not with us.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, New Evangelization, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob’s Arrival in Haran – Held on Sunday, April 28, 2013

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

Sunday, May 5th is our last session for this school year.  We will meet to discuss Evangelization at my place on Thursday, June 13th from 7:00 to 8:30 pm.

Review:

In preparation for our discussion on Evangelization I argued that there has been a growing tension, if not alienation, between the Catholic Church and the Modern World which has a near 800 year history.  I then listed the major Western dislocations that have occurred.

  1. The Renaissance and Reformation – moving to separate throne and altar
  2. The Scientific Revolution – totally revolutionizing our very understanding of the natural world and universe in which we live
  3. The French Revolution – radically changing the very notion of government and the world of politics
  4. The German Historical Mindedness – introducing critical thought into human studies, philosophy, and theology; changing how we understand the very Bible of people of faith.

This historical overview allowed me to remark on what Annette, Heber and Mark had to say in our session held on Sunday, April 21st.  I had stated the obvious that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection did not change the natural world in any way.  Yet something was radically different on earth afterwards for the believer.  What is that difference was the question I had asked.  Annette responded that it was an awareness, something that happens in us.  The difference can most easily be understood as a change in meaning.  But there is a problem; meaning is shaped by our worldview, by what we are before we understand something.  The problem exists if our worldview and the world as it actually is don’t mesh.

Heber and Mark identified the problem and its nature.  Heber said that in his opinion the ladder in the story of Jacob’s dream was why we think heaven is up, the ladder goes up.  In the story, however, the messengers on the ladder were going up and down.  And God wasn’t presented as even being on the ladder.  No, God was standing by Jacob’s side.  Heber’s remarks reveals the difficulty in hearing more than what our worldview will allow us to hear.

A clue to the reason for this was given by Mark.  He stated that he grew up with an Italian father and a Lutheran mother.  He was taught that heaven was up and, most telling, not to believe anyone who said anything different.

The problem with “heaven” is not the word but its meaning.  It is not an astronomical term; it is theological one.  To the extent that “heaven” distracts us from the coming of the Kingdom it doesn’t mesh with the actual world. To argue the case, I went on to offer a different take on the basic Christian message than one of “going to heaven. ”

  1. Jesus taught us one prayer in which we pray
    1. Our Father– so I leave you with a question, who is the “our.”  Only followers of Jesus?  Well yes and no.  Maybe only Christian pray the Our Father but Jesus’ Father is the Father of all human beings, period.
    2. Who are in heaven – is “heaven” in this prayer an astronomical term? Not really, “heaven” simply means that God is beyond us, in theological terms, transcendent. God is a spirit and is not in space or time; space and time are in God.
    3. Thy Kingdom Come – God’s kingdom [reign] is a presence coming to us, all the time, is at hand, etc.  We aren’t going to it; it is a presence wherever we are. The Christian scripture is filled with images attempting to help us become aware of the presence of God’s reign in our life on this earth.
    4. We all die and our bodies will return to dust.  Yes that is true.  We are not mere bodies though.  We are also immaterial and because of that we too in our death will be neither in space nor time.  However, we also believe in the resurrection of the body, on the last day.  More on this later.
    5. At every mass, if we attend to the Eucharistic Prayer, we can recognize that the prayer is addressed to the Father.  At every mass, in that Eucharistic prayer we pray in Christ, through Christ, and with Christ.  Those prepositional phrases define a relationship that is enriching of our spiritual life.

Background: Gen. 29: 01 – 30: Jacob’s Arrival at Haran,

Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis Interpretation, offers an outline of this literary unit running from 29:01 – 31:55, see p. 249

29: 01 – 04: – preliminary meeting – a kiss of meeting

29: 14 – 20: – meeting with Laban and the contact

29: 21 – 30: – deception of Jacob by Laban

29: 31 – 30: 24: – The Offspring

30: 25 – 43: – trick of Laban by Jacob

                                                     [31: 01 – 16: – a theological reflection]

31: 17 – 42: – meeting with Laban and dispute

31: 43 – 55: – covenant and departure – a kiss of departure

From Brueggemann’s outline, it is easier to recognize that “The Offspring” is the central focus of the literary unit as a whole.  It probably represents an independent unit that may well have been an amalgam of authors expressing interests and perspective from both the North and the South.

The Reading: Gen. 29: 01 – 30. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/29.

Vv. 01 – 04: – These few verses simply set a context of journey for the whole unit.  Like his father, Isaac, before him, Jacob is to go to Haran.  There to find a wife and produce offspring out of which the promise will continue.  The characters are Jacob and shepherds overseeing three droves of sheep.  Jacob berates the shepherds for their poor work ethic.  The huge stone over the well plays a bit of a role for Jacob in the next seen.

Vv. 05 – 20: – Ken remarked that Jacob single handily removing the stone over the well might symbolize his “miraculous” powers.  It definitely was meant to impress Rachael.  The initial meeting with Laban seems friendly enough but first impressions are deceiving.  Laban doesn’t want Jacob to work for free; Jacob asks for his younger daughter as payment for seven years of service.  They both seem to agree but Laban can’t be trusted.  Seven years later, and the morning after the wedding feast, Jacob awakes to the fact that he has been duped.  But what comes around goes around and Jacob intends to get even.  But that’s for next week maybe.

Ken found this passage comforting in an odd way.  The passage reveals God working with characters that are less than honorable.  They seem to be more like us than we might like to admit. This fact was comforting, gives us hope.  Ken also pointed out that God seems more to nudge persons than to overwhelm them with his presence.  His observations appealed to me so I thought I would ask the rest of the group what they thought of Ken’s perspective.  But try as I might, no one really expressed an opinion one way or the other.

It seems that Jacob is presented sometimes as a person without much uprightness – deceiving his brother and his father and sometimes as a person with character – his willingness to live up to his contract with Laban even though he had been duped. This inconsistency in Jacob’s character raised a question of maturity.  I wondered when do we [in our modern age] reach maturity.  Ken though that there were different levels of maturity seemingly over ten year periods or spans of time in our life.  Tim thought we should define maturity first then we would be in a better position to identify the age of those who reach it.  Roseann thought that maturity was a function of responsibility. Carol agreed with her.  Kai concluded our conversation by making two observations.  He didn’t think responsibilities were a function of maturity so much as one’s response to the responsibilities that come our way.  Secondly, since the prefrontal lobe is not fully developed until age 24 or 25, he thought that would be the age at which maturity would begin.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob’s Dream at Bethel – Held on Sunday, April 21, 2013

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

It’s hard to believe but we’re nearing the end of our 2nd year of reading Genesis, completing today chapter 28.  Keep in mind that there are 50 chapters in Genesis.

Background: Gen. 28: 10 – 22: Jacob’s Dream at Bethel

Jacob is on the run from Esau who wants to kill him and heading to Haran, the homeland of his ancestors, in search of a wife.  As night approaches he finds rests in place unknown to him.

The encounter with God in a dream has a clear structure to it.

  1. Vv. 10 – 11: set the dream in the context of his journey
  2. Vv. 12 – 15: the encounter with the Lord [Yahweh]
    1. V. 12: the visual experience
    2. V. 13 – 15: the narrative section
    3. Vv. 17 – 22: the response of Jacob
      1. V. 17 – 19, 22: the cultic response
      2. V. 20 – 21: the covenantal commitment

The Reading: Gen. 28: 10 – 22. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/28.

I had mentioned that the journey merely sets the context of this dramatic encounter with the God of his ancestors, the God of Abraham and Isaac.  It is the dream and its impact on Jacob that is paramount.

I asked the group to review just the visual aspect of the dream identifying the elements of that one aspect.  The first element identified by Ken was the stairway to heaven.  Heber wanted to point out that for him the image of a stairway seemed to justify the notion that “heaven” is up.  His remark began our first half hour of discussion in a series of questions and comments.

I asked the group first is the “stairway” going up.  Jody recognized that the “stairway” has messengers going up and down.  The symbol actually is connecting heave and earth; bridging the chasm.  So often, however, what we hear or read is understood in the context of our own worldview.  Many, if not most, Christians imagine heaven being up which is fine  as long as they know that it is their imagination at work.  In the dream the “stairway” is a symbol but so too is “heaven.”  To take either literally is to flatten out the meaning of the symbol and rob the symbol of its power to communicate multiple meanings.

As Christians the greatest news is that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ.  God has entered into human history.  Mark wondered if God came down, where did he come from?  Much later in our group discussion Mark mentioned that for a good part of his life, heaven was up, and hearing me saying something different raises questions for him.  In his and many other’s worldview are fundamental assumptions.  One that seemed obvious to me was the assumption that God is somewhere, in a place.  Inherent in this assumption is thinking that God is a body.  But God is not a body.  God is not in a place.

God is not anywhere.  Everywhere is in God. I suggested that the word that might more adequately reveal God to us is the notion of presence.  We are always present to God even though God may not always be present to us.

When adults hear something that conflicts with their existing worldview, the implications can be quite significant; especially if the conflict is about what is central to, meaningful in that worldview.  And often God, life’s meaning, purpose, end are central and meaningful.  For many Heber’s and/or Mark’s observations, questions are not theirs at all and for many others, they identify with Heber’s and Mark’s worldview.  In a radically true sense we live in different worlds.  These different worlds matter and bridging them seems quite significant, important to me.

To move the discussion forward, I asked the group to focus on the narrative portion of the dream.  What is the first thing that is communicated?  Tim assumed that God would have been pictured at the top of the stairway.  Such was not the case; the Lord stood beside Jacob.  What is value in that simply observation?  What does it mean, if anything?

Tim went on to say that the first thing that God did was identify himself.  Since God is one and we are many, again it seemed obvious to point out that we have many different names for God, in many different traditions and languages.  God nonetheless is one.  The names mediate different meanings but God being mediated by the different meanings is One.

To probe that observation a bit, I asked to whom do we pray in our Liturgy, a question I have asked hundreds of times.  Typically, and our group was not exception, we answer God.  Although certainly we pray to God but that isn’t the common name that is used in the Liturgy; nor is it the name that Jesus taught us to use when we pray.  Hopefully by now you might guess that in the Liturgy we pray to God the Father.  Again a simple distinction but what difference does it make?  Ask yourself do you have a different relationship with God than with Father?  I do.  Since we pray to the Father, well what about Jesus?  Well nearly every prayer in the Liturgy ends with through Christ, with Christ, in Christ but not to Christ.  Now that is not an all or nothing comment.  We tend to blur these differences but they are what set us apart and what we have to offer to the global conversation.

I made many other observations about assumptions that either are consistent with one God or are not.  God loves all human beings because God is love; it’s sort of what God does.  Now we human beings are a very motley crowd. We differ in our religions.  The vast majority don’t believe in Jesus.  We differ racially.   We are not all Europeans.  We have developed different cultures, etc. etc. etc.

Although you might wonder how all this fits into the story of Jacob’s dream, well that is where our discussion took us. We talked about political differences; conservatives and liberals.  We talked about world issues, terrorists.  I pointed out that there are good and evil in our world; human beings do awful things.  However, only God is all good and only sin is all evil.  Everything else and everyone else, at least as long as they are alive, are not all good nor all evil.

In conclusion to this part of our conversation I offered a personal observation.  I want to respect Tim.  I want to be upset with myself every time I fail to respect Tim.  And I often want Tim to think like I think, especially when I think I’m correct.  That’s life, isn’t it?  Not on a global scale but on our own individual scale.

I would like to wrap our discussion by going to v. 15.  In this verse God says to Jacob, [to the Israelites, to Christians, to …]

  • Know that I am with you –  take a few minutes to wonder what is God saying?  What is the meaning of these words spoken by God.
  • Or … I will protect you wherever you go

Place these two phrases in the context of your life as you actually experience it; in the context of the life of your family, your community, your country, your church, the world as it actually is.  Struggle with these words from God.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, New Evangelization, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Isaac, Esau, and the Blessing – Held on Sunday, April 14, 2013

Posted on April 19, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

Our summer program gained some determination as we agreed to discuss the topic of Evangelization on a once a month basis.  At present nine members have committed to gather.  Today’s post of Sunday, April 7 gathering leaves us with only three more sessions.

Preview

As I listened to the discussion of April 7, one of St. Augustine’s memorable quotes came to mind, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee.” We are on the move, restless, and only God can quite that restlessness.  We are made that way.  Those who gather, gather in part because they are searching, wondering which is a critical example of that restlessness in who we are.  All the answers to our searching only cause to search more …

Background: Gen. 28: 30 – 40: Isaac, Esau, and the Blessing

This episode begins as does the previous one, only it is Esau not Jacob who prepares the meal, approaches his father for his blessing.  Again Isaac asks who is it that approaches him; he learns that Jacob has deceived him and for the first that time that Jacob has obtained the birthright from Esau.  The blessing once given though cannot be withdrawn.  Esau is beside himself, and incessantly asks for a blessing.  Isaac ultimately relents and blesses Esau, though the nature of the blessing is ambiguous, more so in the Greek than the English.  It is critical to recognize that in the story Esau is the progenitor of the some of the non-chosen.  Inherent in selecting Jacob, there is a non-selection of everyone else.  It is this fact that dominated our discussion, more in me perhaps than in the group.

The Reading: Gen. 28: 30 – 40. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/28.

Once again Ken began our discussion with keen observation.   He recognized a theme in the selection of the younger brother over the elder brother and wondered first if that was true and, if true, what it might mean.  The theme is definitely true.  In some ways God’s selection of the Israelites themselves is similar to his choice of the younger and resonates with me at least in Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 26:29

 

”Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God.”

 

For me Ken’s observation raised a fundamental question that I thought was addressed in this story of the blessing of Esau.  An hour later, and reflecting on what transpired during the ensuing week, left me knowing that the issue certainly was more mine than the groups.  The question that I had, what does it mean to be “chosen” by God especially in relation to the “non-chosen.” 

 

I began by offering some simple statistical facts of the world as it exists today.  These numbers are roundings; Google “World population of …” to get the most up to date figures.  There are 7 billion of us on the planet; about 2 billion are Christian of whom 1.2 billion are Catholic.  Another 2 billion are Muslim and a mere 13.3 million, Jews.  If all of these people of the Book, think in some way or another that they are chosen, none are a majority.  But there is only one God and He/She is God of all, of the entire universe [s].  All that is, simply put.

 

So is being chosen a privilege and thus the non-chosen are thus not privilege.  Or perhaps being chosen is a responsibility.  In the midst of our lengthy conversation, Ken pointed out that the blessing of Jacob within the story is much preferred over that of Esau.  Compare the two blessing and there is no question, Ken is correct.  But the historical facts raise a further question for me at least.  Take for example, Jacob / Israel was blessed with an abundance of grain and wine.

 

May God give to you

of the dew of the heavens

And of the fertility of the earth

abundance of grain and wine.

 

But historically is that true?  Was Israel blessed with an abundance of grain and wine?  I think that the answer is no.  And that the “no” allowed the Israelites to keep searching, an utterly unique feature of the chosen people.  In other words the Promise is something more.  The question remains is the Promise, whatever its fulfillment is, meant only for the chosen people whether those chose be the Jews, the Christians, the Catholics, the Muslims, the whoever. 

As the conversation developed I asked what for me was a follow up question, what makes Christians, Christian.  After considerable back and forth, Annette pointed us in the right direction when she said that it is what we believe.  The natural follow up though is well what do we believe.

There was a host of answers; Jody even went into the church to get the Missalette, to focus attention on the Nicene Creed.  But to each of their responses, I would counter with the question, well what does that mean.

1 Jesus saves us from our sins – well what does that mean?  Keep in mind that after Jesus’ death and resurrection the world in a fundamental sense was no different and in another fundamental sense, will never be the same again.  What difference did Jesus make?

2. So we could go to heaven.  Well certainly we all want to go to heaven, yet such a goal is not expressed in the Nicene Creed.  If fact, it states that we await the resurrection of the dead.  What does “go to heaven” actually mean, especially to those who don’t believe – the majority of human beings?

I concluded that Esau was blessed, he wasn’t cursed.  The chosen were then, and continued through the scripture, told to treat the foreigner well.  Being chosen is more responsibility than a privilege.  The Promise is the fulfillment of our hopes and dreams and as Christians we believe that such fulfillment has been realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Well enough for my ramblings which represent pretty well what happened last week.  We just never know what happens at our gather until it is over.  Remarkable in itself.

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Scripture | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Jacob’s Deception – Held on Sunday, March 24, 2013

Posted on March 29, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

We will gather next on Sunday, April 7th so our next post will be no later than Friday, April 12th.

Background: Gen. 26: 34 – 28: 09: Jacob, Esau, and the Blessing

Our editor / author weaves together material from both the J and P sources.  He uses the P [Priestly] to bookend, as it were, the material from the J [Yahwist] source. In both chap. 26: 34 – 35 and chaps. 27: 46 – 28: 09 the Priestly source provides content that revolves around the wives of the two sons, the contentious wives of Esau and Jacob in search of a wife.

The remainder of the story told by the Yahwist has as two poetic pieces vv. 27 – 29 and vv. 39 40 that serve to focus.  Scholars are uncertain of the origin of this material but it could be reflective of the later relationship between the Israelites and the Edomites.

As you read the various episodes in this story, see if you can notice that the author / editor keeps the characters separated both in terms of the content and in terms of internal communications.  Rebekah never talks to Esau.  Jacob and Esau never appear in the same scenes.

Because of the length of this passage, we will deal with it in a series of related episodes.

This episode sets the context for what follows.  Esau, without parental consent marries two “foreign” women and these marriages are a source of embitterment between them and both Isaac and Rebekah.  Esau continues to be painted in a less than admirable manner.  As you will read though, none of the characters are presented other than as flawed human beings.  It is this simple fact that enables us to identify with it.  We know something of this cunning and devious behaviors.

Here are some of the questions that our group engaged in.

  1. What meaning do these two verses contain for you?
  2. Do they affirm a negative impression of Esau?
  3. What is the significance that the embitterment includes both Isaac and Rebekah?

Isaac in his old age [despite the fact that his death is not announced until 35: 29] makes plans to fulfill his special blessing on his eldest son, Esau.  Keep in mind Isaac doesn’t know that Esau sold his birth right.  Also scholars don’t necessarily agree that the birthright and this final blessing are one and the same thing.  As we read later, this special blessing has a determined ritual content to it; that is why a meal has to be prepared.

Rebekah overhears the conversation between Isaac and Esau, his son.  She turns to Jacob, her son.  The breakdown of communication in the family is evident.  Only she knows of the oracle that the Lord spoke to her and thus she adds to her retelling of the conversation, two critical words, “before Yahweh.”  This addition places her account in a theological, faith context.

It is this faith context that drives her to do all that she does.  She is not a passive player in fulfilling God’s will.  And this fact resulted in a considerable discussion among our group.  We ended up discussing questions such as these.

  1. How would you describe Rebekah’s behavior?
  2. What role does the fact that Rebekah is living in a male dominated, patriarchal society have to play on her behavior?  Is that fact something you even thought about?
  3. Why doesn’t doing “God’s will” free you from the demands of morality on your behavior?
  4. How can God seemingly accept and work with characters who are presented as conniving, lying, etc.
  5. How do you discuss this type of behavior with others who do not believe and can’t understand how God, “your God” seemingly approve of such behavior?
  6. What motivates Jacob to follow the directives of his mother?
  7. What does this motivation say to you of the character of Jacob?
  8. What appeals to you in this episode?

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Isaac and the Promise Renewed Part II – Held on Sunday, March 17, 2013

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Dick

Personal Note on Posting Timeline

We will be meeting on Palm Sunday but not Easter Sunday.  So I will post on “Good Friday” March 29th.  There will be no post on the week following East; the next post will be no later than Friday, April 12.

Review

See previous post for details.

Background: Gen. 26: 23 – 25: Isaac and the Promise Renewed

The whole of Ch. 26 is devoted to Isaac, the only chapter which does that.  In fact, Isaac is the least well know of the ancient patriarchs.  In these three verses God appears for the second time and renews the promise but there are important differences in the passage.

Let’s begin with a reading of the passage: 26: 23 – 25: – http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/26

Our Discussion

We quickly identified the characters, Isaac, God, Isaac’s servants, and a reference to Abraham.

A text that spoke to Mark raised a question for him.  He wondered what is the meaning and significance of blessings.  I have a quite limited understanding of the Jewish blessings.  What I do know is that we, Christians, tend to ask God to bless but the scriptures are more likely to ask the people to bless God.  As I understand this notion of blessing, it is to put into language that God is the giver of ever good gift.  I recite each day the following, “Blessed are you Lord God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and giver of every good gift.”  For me, to bless God is to thank God for the day and ALL that fills it, good, bad.  In fact if we only thank God for the good we think happens to us, we miss much of what fills our life that might be bad in the short term but ends up being good.

V. 23.  I asked if anyone could identify the “from there” location.  Ken was able to find out that the “there” referred to “Gerar.”  Although I don’t know the geography, the story implies that Isaac who had settled in Gerar now went north to Beer-sheba.  Because of what Isaac is to do there, Beer-sheba becomes a place of significance in the Israelite history.

V. 24.  As we had mentioned when the phrase, “… the Lord appeared to him [Isaac]” occurred in the previous passage, the scripture is affirming God’s involvement in the life of Isaac but it is not affirming the mode of that involving.  How else to communicate this, near mystical experience, but to put into words that the people could understand in their time and place.

There are two different terms being used for the same character as I have pointed out so many times that I have quite counting.  The English text has one word, God, which translates Elohim and The Lord, which translates YHWH, Yahweh, not pronounced by the Israelites.  However, there is an important description of who this God is.

Which is?  “I am the God of your father, Abraham.”  We can learn so much in this one single phrase.  Within the text, God is identifying who he is.  But from a different perspective the author is telling his audience who God is for them.  He is the God of our ancestors.  To get at this meaning, I suggested that we think of how “Hot Button” bumper stickers say a lot.  One bumper sticker says, “Right To Life,” another, “Pro Choice.”  These “symbols” speak volumes; a point of view, a value system, a mindset.  So what does “God of your father, Abraham” speak?

The Israelite God was not a God of Mountains, Water, Thunder.  He was the God of their fathers.  He was their God.  God had chosen them.  They were God’s chosen ones. This one phrase defined them and their relationship to their God.

Carol saw in this identification a message that God was one and what he had done for Abraham.  Ken brought out the fact that it also communicated what Abraham had done before God.  Both brought meaning into the lives of the Israelites then and to this day.

The God says, “Do not fear, I am with you.”  The verse doesn’t tell us any content of the fear.  It’s not saying Isaac don’t fear the Philistines?  Don’t fear Abimelech?  Don’t fear the famine?  Etc. Etc. Which raises the question of “fear” in our own lives?  And why fear, because I am with you.  Is it possible for us to believe that what is being communicated to Isaac in the story, was also being communicated to the audience of the author, and are we not also that audience?

Mark made another keen observation.  In this blessing there is both a present tense and a future tense.  And, of course, the promise is couched in future terms.  His observation reminded me of a similar structure that we recited in slightly different words at every liturgy.  After words of remembrance of Christ’s last supper, we announce its meaning to us.

Christ HAS died.  Christ IS risen.  Christ WILL come again.  I then commented that the last sentence always leads me to wonder if our vision of “going to heaven” is looking in the wrong direction.  Not that we don’t want to “go to heaven” but that “heaven” is coming to us.  A second phrase that emphasizes that point with me is in the prayer that our Lord taught us to pray, “… Thy Kingdom Come.”  God is coming to us much more than we are going to God.

Another phrase deserves our attention; the blessing is being given “for the sake of Abraham, my servant.”  Abraham has become God’s “servant.”  He has been faithful to God; done what God asked of him.  And now, for his sake, God blesses Isaac and his descendants.

For we Christians the “for the sake of” is Christ.  In Christ Jesus is our righteousness.  Powerful to those who believe and what is believed is the meaning of the proposition that the Father raised Christ from the dead reconciling the world with him in Christ.

There was more, but I leave that for further conversation if you should choose to enter into the conversation

Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment