Wannabe Disciples
As part of our read-through-the-Bible series this year, we are looking to make the experience more interactive.
When people post responses or questions about the readings in the comments of the Facebook videos, Denise will address some, if not all, of those responses.
Check online for a video version of her response on the WannabeDisciples feed or her written reaction below.
You can print a download of this year's Bible reading plan from here.
​Weekly Responses
Join us again next week...
January 1: Creation day one light but sun, moon, and stars are not created till day 4. What is the light before the sun? Also plants created on day 3 also before sun? How do plant survive before creation of the sun?
First, let's start by reminding ourselves of what the Bible is (or is not). The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It's purpose was not to explain how things work in the world. Rather, it's a story about God and God's relationship with the world God created - and specifically with the human beings God created and loves.
​
This is difficult to fathom, because our 21st century, American minds often want the Bible to be something that it was never intended. Instead we need to remember the genre of what is written and the people to whom it was originally written by and for. Genesis 1 is a beautiful, lyrical (almost poetical) account of God in God's role as creator... the repeated uses of phrases such as "And God said...", "And there was evening and there was morning...", as well as "And God saw that it was good." We're meant to delight, along with God, in all that God created and wonder, too, that God created us to be - not just part of God's creation - but in the very image of God (Genesis 1:27).
​
But let's jump ahead in the story... or rather to the very end. In describing the New Jerusalem, the author John offers us these two insights. "And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb." (Revelation 21:23, NRSV) "And there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." (Revelation 22:5, NRSV)
​
If these verses describe God as the source of light for the New Jersualem, surely we can trust that God is also the source of all the light needed in Genesis 1.
​
To end, I'd like to share a brief poem by Roy Lessin.
If our greatest need had been information, God would have sent us an educator.
If our greatest need had been technology, God would have sent us a scientist.
If our greatest need had been money, God would have sent us an economist.
If our greatest need had been pleasure, God would have sent us an entertainer.
But our greatest need was forgiveness, so God sent us a Savior.
​
Thank goodness, God knows our greatest need better than we do!
January 1: So one thing I always wondered was the reaction to John's gospel at the time it was written. It's obviously no accident that John says "in the beginning" as a clear callback to Genesis. And I assume that John used that because the incarnation of jesus is SUCH a big deal tht it is worthy of describing it as a new creation. However, what I wonder is how that was received at the time? Were people offended by the language? For example, if i started off a sermon with "I have a dream..." and then proceded from there, I think people would rightfully be suspect and offended. What was the reaction to John's gospel at the time it was written?
Unfortunately, we have no firsthand accounts of people's reactions to John's gospel when it was written. No one chronicled for us John's ministry beyond Luke's account of Peter and John testifying to the word of the Lord and then returning to Jersualem in Acts 8.
​
What we can glean from our knowledge of Jewish thought in the first century is that the phrase "in the beginning" was less upsetting than the idea that Jesus was co-eternal with God the Father, which would have struck strict Jewish readers as a blasphemy against monotheism.
​
John's use of "the Word" would have had meaning for both Greeks and Jews at that time. In the Greek, logos was a concept that a rational principle governed the universe, or even that a creative energy generated everything in the universe. While in the Hebrew, "the Word" was recognized as an agent of creation. The beginning of Psalm 33:6 says, "By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made." It may have even been that the adherence to monotheism ultimately brought Christian thinkers, such as John who loved Jesus and recognized him as the ultimate revelation of God, to develop the trinitarian understanding of God that we know today. Some scholars even posit that the introduction to John's gospel was to counter heresies in the early church, including one which came to be known as Arianism and believed that Jesus was a creation of God, not that he co-existed with God from the beginning. (That was ultimately settled at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and a little bloodshed as St. Nicholas "bopped" Arias in the nose during a moment of great tension.)
​
In response to another part of your comment, you mentioned the potential suspect and offense if you were to begin a sermon with the phrase, "I have a dream...", which Martin Luther King, Jr. used to such powerful effect in 1963. Rev. King used a lot of scripture in his sermons and speeches throughout his lifetime, including Amos 5:24 "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everlasting stream" in the "I have a dream" speech. His use of the Scripture was so powerful that it was strongly associated with his ministry, and at the Civil Rights Memorial Center in Montgomery, Alabama it is engraved into the stone outside with the attribution made to Martin Luther King, Jr. - not Amos.​
​
But is it wrong? I would challenge instead, while Rev. King did not originate the phrase (which bucks against our ideas of creative acknowledgement and copyrights), that perhaps all pastors should begin their speeches with "I have a dream..." For it's only in having shared dreams that justice and righteousness will prevail in the world that we can hope to achieve that dream together.
January 2: I really made note for the first time that when Eve was tempted it wasn't just that the forbidden fruit looked delicious but that she wanted the wisdom it would give her. She wanted the wisdom.
This is such a great observation! According to the NRSV "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, emphasis mine).
​
I can completely understand that mindset. So much of my life has been spent wanting to KNOW. Whether that's wanting to know facts and figures or being able to understand other people. And yet, there's a downside to knowing too much at times, and I've found that sometimes I wish I could go back to an earlier time in my life where maybe I didn't know so much about the sorrow in the world because of our sinfulness.
January 3: What does "their days will be a hundred twenty years" refer to in Genesis 6:3?
Can you explain the Nephilim reference in 6:4?
What would be some examples of clean vs. unclean animals taken on the ark?
We have no lack of great questions here! Hopefully, we'll have one or more responses that are helpful!
​
There is no definitive answer to the question of what the "hundred twenty years" refers to. Some say it's an expectation of lifespan, and yet others think it refers to the time period between this verse and the coming flood. Most agree that "lifespan" makes more sense, especially since there are some equivalent passages found in the Sumerian and Mesopotamian annals. One such story defines 120 years as the ideal lifespan for humans. On the other hand, it may be attributed to the theme that God has the power over all aspects of our lives - including how long we can live.
​
The Nephilim has long been the subject of speculation, and the phrase "sons of God" is known even in Canaanite literature of the same time. Perhaps it was the cultic practices of pagan priests who would organize prostitution as part of worship to promote fertility - thus forcing girls into prostitution. Whatever the specific action, these 'marriages' between the sons of the gods and humand girls have indeed provoked a strong divine reaction that God determines the flood is a necessary step.
​
Regarding the clean and unclean animals - the first occurrence that there is a difference is mentioned here in Genesis 7:2-3. It may have been that there were considered acceptable animals for sacrifice throughout the known world at that time. The Israelites will receive a specific list when God hands down the law through Moses in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:4-20. Some of the clean animals at that time will include sheep and goats, while pigs and camels will be considered unclean.
January 4: Why was Canaan cursed after Ham saw Noah naked, and not Ham?
Following the flood, we have this odd and disturbing event in Genesis 9:20-27, in which the man whom God found righteous makes wine and gets drunk. When Ham finds him in naked in his tent, he goes out and tells his two brothers. Considering that children were expected to cover up their parents' faults, not blab them abroad as Ham did, it's not such a big surprise that Noah is a bit ticked. But why curse Canaan?
​
A clue may be found in the "table of nations" that lists the descendants of all Noah's sons in Genesis 10. Shem becomes the ancestor of the Israelites, who will be the "heroes" of our story beginning with Abraham in Genesis 12. Ham's descendants are listed as the peoples who make the large empires of the ancient Near East: Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon - all of whom will take part in oppressing the Israelites at different stages. And among them, particularly, are the Canaanites who will constantly be a threat to the Israelites' fidelity to God.
​
So Noah's curse in chapter 9 may be less prophecy as much as it is the author's explanation for how the origin of these nations explains the judgment that will ultimately come to them from God.
January 6: This could be my favorite part - God's mission statement is to bless the whole earth through Abram's actions. How can we live that out today? I think this is still God's plan for us. To bless the whole world through those God has called.
I can't agree more! Whenever I mention the covenant God made with Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, I'm always drawn to the promise that all of the nations of the earth will be blessed through him and his descendants.
​
Of course, first and foremost is Jesus Christ, the descendant of Abraham who is the Messiah of the whole world. But I also keep this promise in my mind as "blessed to be a blessing." Those of us who are the recipients of God's love, grace, and mercy have a role in bringing these same blessings to others as we share Jesus' salvation and live out our lives according to the principles Jesus taught to us, his followers.
January 6: When Abram told Pharaoh that his wife was his sister he showed that he would lie if he thought it would keep him safe. His grandson Jacob played around with the truth as well. I wonder if Go was disappointed in the man he had chosen.
This is the kind of story that makes us questions some of God's choices! The fact is that Abrahm and Sarai use this "scam" twice (once here in Genesis 12:10-20 and again in Genesis 20), and their son Isaac and his wife Rebekah do the same in Genesis 26:6-11. So what gives? Why should we consider Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who, as you pointed out, lives up to his calling as a deceiver pretty much his entire life) persons worth revering?
​
At the beginning of this year, I mentioned that while there are a lot of people whose life stories are recorded in the Bible, the first and foremost "character" of Scripture is God. This is God's story, and so perhaps we can reshape the question to ask "why did God use these imperfect people to fulfill his purposes? Let's remember God's character... the One who is love, who is omniscient, and who is full of grace.
​
No matter whom God may have chosen, all humanity is sinful and going to sin/make mistakes. Over and over. But living with God and abiding by God's principles is a life-long formative process. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, described this in terms of God's grace. Prevenient grace defines that time when God loves us even though we don't know or recognize God in our lives. Justifying grace is that point in time when we see who God is and accept God's covenant of love and salvation for ourselves. But the rest of our lives is spent in a period of sanctifying grace in which God is at work in us through the Holy Spirit to make us into the people who love as God loves. It's a lifelong process, and as we witness this same formation take place in Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, we read about the highs and lows in quick succession even though they would have taken place over years.
​
Maybe the best thing we can do is look at the person in the mirror and offer the same grace to the patriarchs that God extends to us.
January 8: Who are the "three men"? A physical incarnation of God?
I know the lines of incest were definitely different in biblical times. Was Lot's daughters preserving their lineage through their father immoral? Is there a point in Scripture where the morality of incest changes from what is show in the earlier books?
Your assessment of who the men who came near Abraham's tent in Genesis 18:2 tracks with the understanding most scholars have. Even as you continue to read in that story, the text indicates that one of the men is indeed the Lord when the other two begin their trek toward Sodom (Genesis 18:22).
​
Scripture does not specifically say anything about there being prohibitions against incest until Leviticus 18. And the reasons given that it is prohibited for the Israeites is that "I AM the Lord your God" - whereas incest was common among the egyptians and Canaanites, Israelites were to stand out as different from the cultures around them. (Of course, we also now know that there are biological reasons why incest is not a good practice.) Yet, while these prohibitions were not in place at the time Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father (Genesis 19:30-38), the sons born of these pregnancies will become the ancestors of the Ammonites and Moabites - both groups will be in conflict with the Israelites and looked down upon, in part, for the shameful origin of their ancestors.
January 8: What was the nation that grew from Ishmael?
When Sarah finally gives birth to Isaac, she becomes jealous of Abraham's older son Ishmael born to her handmaden Hagar and so forces Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Though Abraham is distressed over this situation, God assures him that Ishmael will be cared for and God "will make a nation of him also" (Genesis 21:13), which God repeats to Hagar (Genesis 21:18). It's not until after Abraham's death that we learn Ishmael's fate as recorded in the Hebrew Bible. In a parallel to the 12 sons of Jacob who become the ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel, Genesis 25:12-18 lists Ishmael's 12 sons who become the chieftans of tribes who live in the Arabian penninsula. Traditionally, from these people come Mohammed, the founder of Islam, which recognizes Abraham as the father of their faith.
January 10: I have heard that if something is mentioned more than once we should pay attention. Abraham and Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah telling the same lie.
Patterns and repetition are an important part of Scripture - especially to drill important lessons for those hearing these stories. I offered some thoughts and insights regarding the first occasion when Abram had Sarai say she was his sister when they went into Egypt. So here, I thought I'd offer an interesting "nugget" related to Isaac and Rebekah's story in Genesis 26:6-11.
​
As in the Abraham-Sarah stories, Isaac goes into an area where he is a stranger and tells people that his wife is his sister for fear that otherwise they might kill him because Rebekah is attractive. However, in verse 8, we're told that after they've been there a long time, the king looks out his window and sees Isaac and Rebekah together. The NRSV translates it as Isaac fondling his wife, but the Hebrew actually means laughing with. If you remember that the meaning of Isaac's name is "laughter," then the verse basically says 'Laughter was laughing with'. Regardless of the physical evidence that the king witnessed from his window, it is clear that Isaac was at his most comfortable while spending time with his wife.
January 11: Jacob has a lot of "ifs" in his vow that the Lord will be his God.
Such a good observation! The NRSV translates Genesis 28:20-21 as follows...
"If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, then the Lord shall be my God."
​
That's certainly a far cry from the response of Abraham to the covenant God offers him! And we feel uncomfortable with Jacob's ambivalence toward God - as we should. But this response is not as strange or unlikely as we might like to think. In my own life, I have some friends who are hard pressed to commit to spending time together. They'll hem and haw. "That sounds good. Let's see how that works out." But what they're actually saying is, "I'd like to get together, but I'm going to wait and see if something better comes along."
​
Or sometimes it looks like making a bargain with God. "If you'll do x... get me out of this jam, make me healthy, give me... then I'll y... become a missionary or at least a better person, I'll go to church regularly..." It's a trope found in entertainment over and over where circumstances change and the bargainer celebrates that they don't have to follow through because ultimately, from their point of view, they didn't need God's intervention.
​
It's easy to look at Jacob and judge his ambivalence. I know I have and sometimes still do. But I've also faced the person in the mirror and recognized she's just as guilty of the same behaviors and motivations. Thank goodness for God's mercy and grace!
January 14: I didn't notice this after my initial reading, but once I did some research on Dinah's story, one point I found interesting was the absence of God in chapter 34. He isn't mentioned. It's definitely a thought-provoking story, as both sides are seen as "in the wrong."
First, a big "gold star" for doing some research on your own. My hope is always that the desire to know will cause us to not wait, but look for answers as best we can.
​
Back to the story... Now that Jacob has resettled in Canaan after having left the employ of his uncle Laban, it might seem like life should go pretty easily. But that's definitely not the case. Here we find that a local prince covets Jacob's only daughter Dinah, seizes her, and rapes her. Now that alone would make this story one that would be very upsetting to us as 21st-century Americans (both, I hope) men and women. But this story doesn't focus on Dinah's response to this event in her life, because in this time period, women were not seen as having individual autonomy. Instead, the focus is on her brothers' anger because their honor has been violated when this outsider steals and defiles their sister.
​
And so, the brothers take a page from their father's journal and the lifetime of deceit that has woven throughout the events of his life. They convince the prince that they will allow him to marry Dinah and create a union between their two families, but only if he and all the men of his tribe will be circumcized - the sign of their covenant with God. Of course, their intent is to leave the men in too much pain to fight back and give themselves the advantage to take their bloody revenge.
​
It is very telling that God is not mentioned in this story as God's counsel is not sought out, but rather the brothers turn to the example of the deceit in their father's life as the guide to their actions.
January 15: I think Potiphar's wife was a sinful woman, but God used her actions to further His plan. I taught part of Joseph's story a couple of weeks ago to our grade 1-4 Sunday school class. The theme of the lesson was God has a big picture through ups and downs.
In Genesis 39, we see Joseph - having been sold into slavery by his brothers - in a prominent position within the household of the captain of the guard. Though still a slave, this is a pretty decent position to be in. He's trusted by his owner and has a lot of freedom. It might have been easy to become "comfortable" and accepting of his condition in life. If only Potiphar's wife hadn't set her sinful sights on our poor Joseph! Now, despite his innocence, he's thrown into worse circumstances (prison!) through no fault of his own.
​
There are times in life when we lament that we're in trouble or not where we want to be. But sometimes, we might find ourselves accepting a "less than best" circumstance, because things could be worse. Our motivation to try to make things better might be tempered by our desire to avoid further hardship. And so, Potiphar's wife - despite her selfish motivation and false accusations - actually does Joseph (and the Israelites!) a favor by forcing him out of the status quo he could very well have become mired in the rest of his life.
​
Even when we find ourselves in less-than-ideal circumstances or even downright awful ones, we can trust that God does indeed have a bigger, better plan in mind. While God does not initiate evil, God is not above turning those circumstances to achieve God's own better purpose. The slogan on my t-shirt in the video says, "Watch God turn it for good," which is a paraphrase of Genesis 50:20. After Joseph's father and brothers and extended family come to Egypt to survive through the remaining time of the famine, Jacob dies, and Joseph's brothers fear that he will finally take his retribution on them for having sold him into slavery so long ago. His response, in this verse, is "What you intended for evil, God intended for good."
​
Indeed, even in the worst circumstances, God is with us and working behind the scenes to bring about God's will for us.
January 17: Why do the Egyptians despise shepherds?
Here's a case where I have more of a "response" to offer than an "answer." There does not seem to be a definitive explanation among scholars about the Egyptians abhorrance of shepherds.
​
One theory is that most shepherds of that era were nomadic tribes of outlaws who would use the confusion of their flocks traveling through an area as an opportunity to steal and create havoc in a community.
​
Another theory is that the Egyptian idolatry found the practice of raising and eating animals, such as rams and oxen, an affront to the gods they worshiped who were represented by those animals.
​
We may never know the answer to this question, but it's interesting to consider how the expectations we have about people because their practices do not align with ours can keep us from getting to know one another and getting along. Wouldn't we all do well to look beyond the things that separate us and find the things we have in common for the good of all?
January 20: I like the reminder that this whole book is about God. God comes first. I need to remember that always. We sometimes forget.
Amen, sister. I know that I frequently find myself focused on me, myself, and I. When I re-focus and put God first, it's amazing how everything appears much clearer than it did before!
January 21: I have always found reading Job to be a "trial" for me. I think because as you pointed out I go there thinking I will find answers that the book does not provide. I will try reading it this time with hopefully a different perspective.
Perspective makes a big difference in just about everything. But I think in recent (20+!) years, that people have tried to sell Job as the answer to the questions of why bad things happen to good people. (And don't get me started on how that questions can skew our perspective as well!) Ultimately, we have to let Scripture speak for itself and tell us what it has to tell us without trying to expect something more.
January 22: Something I noticed for the first time: Job 9:32-35 Job wishes that there were a mediator between him and God, someone to bring them together that he wouldn't live in fear of God's punishment. Maybe a foretelling of God sending us His Son as our Savior?
Most Christian commentators have definitely linked this Scripture as referring to Jesus Christ, as he is our Redeemer and the one who bridges the gap between our sinful selves and our holy God. I have to wonder whom Job may have been envisioning or how this was interpreted by the people who originally read/heard these stories.
January 23: Miserable comforters
LOL Indeed! And I know I (and others) have given Job's friends a hard time after reading these chapters. But in retrospect (and with some grace), I have to say they probably are friends to Job. When the tragedy first strikes, they come and sit with him in silence for seven days - just standing witness and trying to offer comfort. But then they do what we've probably all done at one time (or more) with friends and family. We try to explain. We try to help by offering "correction" or advice in loving ways. And when they don't hear us or ignore our advice, we get a little more specific/strident in our opinions. Perhaps we need to lend Job's friends (and ours and even ourselves) a little mercy, even as we learn from their example how not to offer comfort.
January 23: What is Job's belief about what happens after death?
This is a great question for which I do not have a definitive "answer," so let me offer a response and some perspective instead.
At the time this was written/recorded (and some scholars believe this is the oldest writing in all of history) and if Job was indeed a contemporary of Abraham, then none of the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures had been written yet. So we don't have any codified theology for this time period.
​
On the other hand, the Sadducees (contemporaries of Jesus in 1st century Palestine), who represented the priestly upper-class of Jewish society, only held the Torah or Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) as being Scripture. They did not believe in life-after-death, because there was no reference to it in the Torah.
​
If, perhaps, Job understood that the life he was living was the only life he had to look forward to, the suffering he was enduring for "no reason" (or at least through no fault of his own) must have seemed significantly harsh indeed. Unlike those of us who believe in life-after-death, there was no particular hope of heaven in the presence of our God.
January 23: Job 16:11-it seems Job knows he had been turned over to Satan.
Perhaps he did. This verse in the NRSV reads...
"God gives me up to the ungodly, and casts me into the hands of the wicked."
​
Does Job mean Satan? Since the events in the beginning of the book might best be described (at least by insurance agents) as "acts of God" with no human origin, it seems unlikely that Job would suggest that God has thrown him "to the wolves." Then again, there doesn't appear to be a supernatural element to this verse. Wouldn't it be great if we could have the original source explain this to us in modern English?
January 24: This is my first time reading through Job. This graphic in my study Bible has really helped me pick apart what they’re saying, especially in this poetic style. Just wanted to share with others!
Thanks! Aren't study bibles the best!? Another great resource that offers an overview of the books of the Bible is found at the Bible Project. Check out their video on Job!
January 25: Reading Job 24 makes me realize even more so, how things have not changed. When people talk about things of today, I think of past scripture I have read, and think we have not changed since the beginning of time.
I think this is one of the most powerful reasons why it is valuable and important for us to read Scripture. Even though the exact circumstances may have changed, our language and customs are wildly different, the truth is that people are people are people whose basic needs, actions, and reactions remain the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
​
Fortunately we are loved by a God is merciful and gracious toward us just as God was with Job, his friends, with Abraham, etc. May we reflect the same love, mercy, and grace towards others in our own lives.
February 3: One theme I’ve noticed reoccurring through these first books is the idea of “I am God and you are not.” It brings up the question of why God “allows” bad things to happen. In these chapters of Exodus you see God hardening pharaoh’s heart, in Job you see him continually inflicted with suffering, and in Genesis you see him allowing Eve to be manipulated by the serpent. Yet God knew all these things were to happen and knew their purpose. Reading chronologically has me wading through the message of God as I imagine it was trying to be understood so long ago!
I think you're right in that there are a lot of benefits to reading through the Scriptures chronologically to see themes that occur over and over. One of the biggest is "Who will you trust?" When you consider that God created us in God's image (which is not about physical similarity, but our ability to think/reason/create), then we were never intended to mindlessly obey God. Everything we do is a choice in Who do we trust and Who we obey. God or ourselves. And life is full of opportunities to test what our answer is going to be.
​
In Genesis 3, the serpents presents Eve with a choice: trust God and obey the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge OR to trust the serpent that God does not have Adam and Eve's best interest at heart.
​
In Job, God boasts to Satan that Job is a righteous man, but Satan counters that it's only because Job enjoys the blessings of God in his life. When Satan is given the opportunity to remove those blessings, Job has the choice to "curse God and die" as his wife suggests in Job 2:9 or to trust God despite his circumstances.
​
Here in Exodus, though Pharaoh has moments where it seems he will relent and allow the Israelites to go worship in the wilderness, I think "God hardens his heart" represents those moments when he finds himself asking "do I trust this God that the Hebrews claim?" Consider the fact that there is a pantheon of Egyptian gods that he has worshiped from his childhood AND that, as pharaoh, he himself is considered "divine." Is he willing to give up that claim and humble himself before the God of Creation?
​
Even today, we find our attention drawn to wealth, fame, possessions, or even drugs/alcohol or relationships. In all of these circumstances, we need to ask ourselves "who do we trust?" That will answer the likelihood that we will be obedient to God or follow our own desires.
​
February 5: In Chapter 18 Moses' father-in-law tells Moses to delegate some of the work he was doing. God must have been ok with that because he didn't tell Moses not to do it. Sometimes we get overwhelmed by everything we are trying to do but are reluctant to ask for help.
One of the greatest gifts God offers to us is mentors, especially those who have experience in living faithful lives of obedience to God. (Remember Moses' father-in-law is described as a priest of Midian in Exodus 2:16.) And many of the lessons we learn in life do not come directly from the mouth of God. (Can you imagine a math textbook that said, "God says 2+2=4?") Here, Moses benefits from the lifetime of wisdom from his father-in-law in how to delegate some of his responsibilities.
​
Consider the mentors God has brought into your life and praise God for them!
February 8: I noticed for the first time, chapter 25 verse 15. The carrying pole must stay in the gold rings and never be removed from the Ark.
When we find ourselves bogged down in the detailed descriptions of the Tabernacle and its furniture, we can forget its ultimate purpose: to serve as a place where God will dwell among God's people. The ark, in particular, will reside in the Holy of Holies - reserved for God alone, with only the High Priest making a once-a-year visit to offer the blood sacrifice on the Day of Atonement. Thus, the ark is not like the other furniture in the Tabernacle, but basically serves as God's throne. It will be infused by God's holiness and take on that same holiness in itself.
​
There are very specific prescriptions to protect people from the pure holiness of God, and one of those is the poles left in the rings on the legs of the ark for its transportation. We see how important this is in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 when David has the ark moved to take its place in Jerusalem, the new capital of the kingdom of Israel. First, they make the mistake of transporting the ark on a wheeled cart instead of using the poles to have Levites move the ark to its new location. When the oxen shake the cart, a man reaches out his hand to steady the ark to keep it from falling. He's done absolutely nothing wrong, but his imperfect presence touches the pure holiness of God infused in the ark, and he dies.
​
It's another story in which we may consider God's actions unfair, but we must remember that God's' holiness sets God apart from us, and there is reason why we require a Redeemer to save us from our sinfulness so we can be reconciled with the holy and perfect God.
February 8: Just wondering about the difference between the words tabernacle and temple. Here in Exodus God refers to His holy sanctuary as tabernacle. Later on Solomon builds a permanent structure where they will worship God and it is called a temple.
It's pretty simple. The Tabernacle is a tent-like structure that serves as a temporary home for God's glory so God may live among the Israelites while they travel. It's meant to be an impermanent structure.
​
The temple Solomon builds is similar to the temples built for false deities in the many other nations of the earth - a permanent (as much as any structure that can potentially be destroyed or torn down is) for the purpose of worshiping God.
February 8: For me a picture really is better than a thousand words sometimes so I went online to see what the tabernacle looked like which helped me pay better attention to the details in today's reading.
I think most of us can agree that a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. Hopefully this one will help!
