August 28, 2011
Genesis 11
Genesis 11:1-9 is the story of the Tower of Babel. (We tended to pronounce it with a long A, as in Babe-L; but short A is also common.)
Perhaps this can be understood as a search for security. The class noted that the passage has “let’s stay together,” “let’s make a name for ourselves,” and a strong sense of “let’s build something for ourselves.” While exclusivity is not specifically mentioned, it is a reasonable assumption that the people wanted to set themselves apart from others.
What are our common sources of security? Good grades, paid-off loans, money so that we won’t be caught off-guard by circumstances, normalcy, food, and relationships were all mentioned.
Security may be defined as a lack of worry. As life progresses, the items we worry about change, but the underlying search for security continues. We are more secure when we know what to expect and can be prepared. (In side discussion, it was noted that some people carefully consider the bad things that can happen; do they also consider the good that could come?)
There is a spiritual dimension to security. In some cases, security lessens our awareness of God’s help. [Not noted in class, but Deuteronomy 6:10-12 foresees this possibility.] Increased education and wider experiences can cause us to reconsider what constitutes security for us. And the various phases of life involve changes to our perceived security.
Why did the people in Genesis 11 built the Tower for security? “Don’t mess with Texas” may be a similar attitude. There might have been a military component to the Tower; certainly such structures in that time had many purposes, and military was one. The people wanted to be significant, certainly in their own era and perhaps historically. If they could build it themselves, they’d feel secure, based upon being able to do it themselves.
Today, if we are in control, we tend to feel more secure. But God is the true security. Sometimes we seem to have more fear of other people than to have a (properly understood) fear of God.
Insights and applications:
A focus on security is a focus on a nebulous future. It removes the emphasis from today. Matthew 6:28-34 applies.
Normalcy, while helping with a feeling of security, is not necessarily good. Some things that are normal are actually bad. (Abusive situations were cited as examples.)
Our world has several ways to focus on security, but they have positive and negative sides. Medical advances are wonderful for us, but they can lead us to rely too much on “wonder drugs” (and maybe on “access to care”) rather than on common sense or alternative methods of taking care of our bodies. Technology allows us to be much better informed, but may be discouraging actual face-to-face encounters.
Security itself is not an evil. But it is possible to seek security in illegitimate ways.
There is a theological concept called “eternal security.” We didn’t get into this in detail, but one comment was made by a class member that this world doesn’t offer such a thing in any other aspect of life.
Next week, we will focus on pride itself. In Mere Christianity¸ C. S. Lewis has a chapter on pride, titled “The Greatest Sin.” We will pick up with these five statements:
- Pride is the complete anti-God state of mind.
- Pride is essentially competitive.
- Pride is the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.
- As long as you are proud, you cannot know God.
- Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.
August 21, 2011
Genesis 6-9
Handout: Genealogy: Noah & Abraham
Last week, the basic applications we found in the Biblical account of the Flood were these: Sin is serious; God rewards faithfulness.
But there are other topics covered, and the class was invited to raise its own questions. Dale shared an Illustration from his early days as a Christian. While speaking of his own conversion experience to other young adults who had known him in high school, Isaiah 53 was mentioned (along with Jesus Christ: Superstar, The Passover Plot, and The Late, Great Planet Earth. One of his friends questioned the dating of Isaiah, since some scholars thought it wasn’t pulled together as a book until maybe 150 B.C. rather than 500-600 B.C. when Isaiah lived. While even 150 years can count as prophetic (Isaiah 53 describes Christ’s role in the crucifixion), it is sometimes awkward to be hit with biblical questions that have never been discussed with other Christians.
So, even though some passing references in the Bible aren’t worth struggling with as applications to our lives today, it might be helpful to at least mention them in passing.
The questions that were raised:
- Time frames/ages of people
- Sons of God married daughters of men
- The Nephilim
- How widespread was the flood?
- And, related to this, where did the “other people” come from that Cain was worried about?
- God was grieved
When?
A common time frame for the Flood, by those who take biblical years at face value, is in the neighborhood of 2500 BC. However, the term translated “begat” in the King James and “became the father of” in the NIV does not necessarily mean “had a child named this.” A timeline of post-Flood ages was distributed. According to today’s Hebrew text, Noah would have still been alive when Abraham was an adult. However, closer study of older texts (and even cross-references within the rest of the Bible) shows that at least once “became the father of” meant “became a father, and eventually that child had a descendant named.” This would be like saying Melvin Jones was 22 and became the father of Mark Jones, even though when Melvin was 22 Dale was born, and Mark wasn’t born for another 26 years. But dating Mark’s age in reference to Melvin’s would omit 26 years of history.
So that understanding of “became the father of” is necessary if we want to date anything before the time of Abraham. And what it means is that at least that many years elapsed, and maybe hundreds or thousands more.
Where?
Archaeogical evidence for the flood in the Middle East does exist, but it seems to have occurred much earlier than 2500 B.C., anywhere from 500 to 5,000 years before.
While there are flood tales in many cultures, even in the Americas, there is less archaeological evidence for such a flood. Geology shows that most land areas have been underwater, but other theories are given for this, such as plate tectonics and drifting continents. In the Book of Acts, Jews from “every nation under heaven” were at Pentecost. But no mention is made of China (which was a distant trading partner of Rome at the time) and certainly the Americas were not included. So a “known world” theory of the flood is acceptable for many Christians.
Who?
The marriages between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” were mentioned in Genesis 6 as one reason for the flood.
One theory is that angels (fallen or otherwise) intermarried with humans. This seems unlikely to some of us, based partly on Jesus explaining that angels “do not marry nor are they given in marriage.” But it has been a theory that some have put forth.
Another theory is that Seth’s line was regarded as godly and Cain’s was not. As Seth’s descendants intermarried with Cain’s, the godly influence was lost. This is defensible, but still a guess.
Others point out that kings were often regarded as divine, and perhaps this was a way of condemning the practice of kings having harems. Possible, but again not certain.
[Not pursued much in class:] One other possibility, alluded to in one theory of the Fall, is that Adam and Eve were the representatives of a human race that already existed. This seems to contradict language about Adam being first and Eve the mother of all living, but it does explain why there were others that Cain was worried about. In that case, their descendants would have been considered godly (despite the Fall) and the other humans would not.
In any case, the Nephilim were the children of these mixed marriages. While the word means “heroes,” it is taken from the Hebrew for “fallen ones.” The “giants in the land” in Numbers are said to be descendants of the Nephilim. Goliath is considered part of that group, for instance.
Essentially, we mentioned these various theories without endorsing any of them. Most of the positions are held by various Christians, and all of the positions are problematic. If God thought those details were important for us today, perhaps the meaning behind some of those phrases would not have been lost during the intervening millennia.
How can God grieve?
There is another phrase that gives some skeptics, and some Christians, difficulty: God was grieved. That is, He was sorry that He’d created. How can an all-knowing, never-changing, all-wise God do something that He would later regret?
When our definitions of God are contradicted by Scripture, our definitions may not yet be perfect.
There is good reason for describing God as all-knowing and absolutely good. But apparently He is also capable of doing something that later causes Him regret, or at least that’s how He has it described in the Bible. We need to guard against letting our definitions limit Him, and we need to keep from thinking we can describe Him adequately.
Covenant
A covenant is not exactly a contract. There were three types of covenant common in the Middle East, according to scholars of the time.
Some were Parity Covenants. These were between equals, much like a standard contract today. “You do this and I’ll do that.”
Some were Suzerainty-Vassal Covenants, similar to Feudal arrangements in medieval Europe. The King granted certain privileges to his dukes and earls, and they swore to support the king. The same was then done between the earls and the knights, and on down to the serfs. The person with the stronger position set the terms, but was generous (at least in theory) with the person in the weaker position.
Finally, there were Grants. Usually for services rendered, the king would turn over certain lands to someone else. The grant was permanent, so that the persons receiving it could leave it to their children. But it was understood that the one receiving, along with any descendants, would remain loyal to the king granting the property.
The covenant with Noah was of the Grant variety. God was not settling a contract with Noah, nor was He setting up requirements for this to be in place. There were commands, but no expectation that Noah was to affirm his side of the bargain.
This was not the first time God had given instructions to humans. In the Garden, the Covenant might have been phrased, “This is yours. Take care of it.” In that sense, it might have been the Feudal type.
Once Adam and Eve had disobeyed, the new agreement could be seen as a grant. “Here is the way your life will be.”
Even Cain got a sort of grant from God, though it is not usually considered a separate covenant. “I’ll commit Myself to protecting you.” Later on, Cain’s descendant Lamech decreed his own understanding of God’s agreement; but God never ratified it.
In Genesis 8 and 9, God’s covenant with Noah is primarily, “This is what I’m doing for you.” It does include some instructions, but there are no particular consequences listed. Some of the instructions, such as not eating blood, sound like a fore-runner (precursor, from today’s sermon) of the Law.
(Since eating meat is particularly mentioned here, some people have thought that humans were vegetarians to this point. The phrasing doesn’t really address this, and most people have not interpreted it that way. But that is one of the “side issues” that might be brought up.)
Back to the main point: Being faithful
Gen 7:16: God shut the door of the ark. This was not something that Noah was charged with. God determined when it was time to shut out those who were perishing. 1 Peter 3:20 suggests that there was opportunity for others to be saved during the time the ark was being built. Hebrews 11:7 says that Noah’s faithfulness condemned the world. In fact, it was the world’s behavior that condemned it. God pronounced judgment on the world, but found one family that was willing to follow Him.
But Noah’s righteousness did not mean that he was perfect. He became drunk after the flood receded. Some have suggested that this was the first time the grape juice had fermented, or at least that no one had tried drinking it before. But the drunkenness itself is not the problem so much as Noah’s behavior the next day. One of his sons apparently made fun of Noah in his drunken state, and Noah’s response was to issue a curse upon him and his descendants. This cannot be the sign of a truly righteous person. We would normally consider this spite and meanness. But somehow, Noah was regarded as a God-follower and is listed as an example of faithfulness for us today.
Apparently the faithfulness God prizes is not marked by perfect living. Abraham, David, and Noah all had lapses of judgment. But they remained aware of God and stayed focused on His plans for their lives. At one point, the discussion suggested that they “kept coming back” to God after they sinned. Perhaps better is “they remained close to God despite their inadequacies.” God was not someone who invited them to His store for a new supply of grace; He was a friend with whom they lived and from whom they drew the support they constantly needed.
Discussion pointed out that obedience to God involves listening for His promptings. We stressed that Christians have the privilege of learning directly from God. We strengthen our obedience by practice.
