Presence Ministry

Credibility is most certainly (and quickly) gained through physical presence. The old saying is quite true, quote it with me, “People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.” As cliché as it is, it still holds true. In parenting, many parents have bought into the lie of quality time. This is sad, because what kids need (and are formed by) is quantity time. Time with a person is both formation and instructional. The only way to get to know a person is by spending time with them, and in a variety of settings and experiences. It is true in parenting as it is true in ministering.


The ministry of presence can speak more to a person than words. This is especially true in crisis and grief situations. Within the first few months of coming on staff at my church, the father of one of my teens suddenly died from a massive heart attack. I had very few words to offer to this teen for comfort. In fact, she really didn't need any more words. She needed to know I was there for her. I stayed with her and the family as much as possible (and as was appropriate for the situation).


Looking at the example of Jesus, the disciples spent almost all their time with Jesus. As disciples and under-studies, they knew the way to truly know the teacher was to commit to time with him. Even though they scattered during the crucifixion, the results speak for themselves when their fear and mourning turned to furious, faithful zeal after the resurrection. What they knew about Jesus was fueled by their faith.


Physical presence gains credibility because of what it says to the other. It effectively says, “I have no better place to be than here right now.” It conveys value and worth to the other by saying, “Being with you is well worth my time and effort.” It distinguishes the other by affirming them and saying, “You are important to me; you are loved.”


Our role as a shepherd, then, is one of solidarity with the people. This is different than being “one of them;” instead it is “one with them.” Our people need to see us around them, doing things with them, and being one present with them in the Spirit.

Study of the importance of barley in the Bible

Barley

Barley (se`orah) is one of the most important of the cereal grains in the Bible. It is also the hardiest of them all. In the Bible (as in modern times) the failure of this crop was a national disaster (Joel 1:11). The Israelites successfully practiced agriculture in Palestine, so they grew it as a primary food product. The land lent itself for barley growing and was described as "a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey" (Deuteronomy 8:8). Barley was and still is used as an ingredient for bread, second only to wheat. It was usually the food of horses, cattle, and/or donkeys (1 Kings 4:28). However, barley was frequently baked into a bread used for food for the poor, common people – especially in country districts (Judges 7:13; 2 Kings 4:42). It was also a valuable grain (as barley millet) that was useful for making malt, from which beer, ale, and whisky could be made.

This bread was the principal basis of food among the Hebrews. Meat, vegetables, and liquids served only to supplement the meal. As the chief food of the poor, this primitive bread was unleavened and was called "mazzot." The shape of the bread was commonly a round, circular loaf which would be conducive for traveling. It was with five barley loaves and two fish that Jesus fed the five thousand (John 6:8-13).

Barley bread is mentioned seldom in the Bible, especially when compared to the more refined wheat bread. Wheat bread was the superior product, but as barley bread was the food of the poor, wheat was not always affordable or available. As a result, the most commonly occurring form of bread was made from a mixture of both barley and wheat, especially the latter, “spelt” or "kussemet," being particularly used in special cases (Ezekiel 4:9). In ritual, barley flour seems to have been used exclusively for the meal Offering of Jealousy (Numbers 5:15).

Several varieties of barely were grown in the area of Palestine. It was sown in the autumn, after the "early rains." Later in the year, the harvest was a well-marked season, corresponding with the month of Nisan (April), the time of Passover. On the second day of Passover, the Hebrews offered a sheaf of barley as the first-fruits of the harvest of the year. Also, the unleavened nature of the bread made it able to be used during the Passover ritual as the “bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3).

Originally the ears of barley or wheat were simply roasted. However, in order to make barley bread, the earliest and most simple way of preparation was by crushing the grain. This consisted of pounding it in a mortar until it produced coarse flour. In order to obtain finer flour, the grain was often pulverized and ground between two stones in a mill. As far back as can be traced, the Israelites used a mill for preparing this finer flour. Furthermore, each household prepared its own flour. This helps to explain the prohibition against taking a hand mill in pledge from the poor (Deuteronomy 24:6). Consequently, the work of grinding was the task of the women, the female slaves (Isaiah 47:2; Matthew 24:41), and/or of captives. The women were also the ones who baked the bread.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that barley bread serves to represent the hardness of the Old Testament (Old Covenant) Law – especially as it has a role in Holy Communion. Taking into account the hardness of the bread and the hardiness of the flour, the bread seems to represent the incredible burden of keeping the Law and the hardness of the peoples’ heart, who are still led by carnal desires. This would certainly be a worthwhile comparison to the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

Language in Scriptural Interpretation

(Engaging the book "Treasure the Word: A Layperson's Guide to Interpreting Scripture," Joseph Coleson, ed. (Wesleyan Publishing House, 2009))

In his chapter “Language,” David Thompson relates the various ways language and culture are interconnected. In order to understand and intuitively interpret the language used in Biblical writings, the student must pay careful attention to the meanings of the terms. These terms, however, cannot be divorced from their social and historical context. In his first two sections, “Language and Intentional Interpretation” and “Playing by the Rules: Language Games,” Thompson deals with these exact issues arising in Biblical language.

The ability to read Biblical text in its original language does not mean a person is intuitively interpreting it. By having a whole host of resources, history, and other information (especially stored in our minds) helps a person to gain mastery over the text. Thompson says that “the extent of our capacities to enter the thought-world of the text” better enables a person to intuitively interpret in ways faithful to the original intent and to the original culture (pg. 162).

The broader the gap between the culture of the text and the culture of the reader, the more difficult the process can be.  This is particularly true when referring to the study of words. Thompson refers to the “game rules” each culture has in its language. Each culture has its own way of relating words to the things or concepts to which they refer. These language rules are typically learned in childhood and include pronunciations, composition, sentence structure, and how certain terms are differentiated from other terms. By analyzing terms, language rules, and the culture within which they are established, a person is able to more clearly understand the language.

This section of Thompson’s chapter is critically important to the study of Biblical text. In fact, it is some of the most difficult work required for intuitive interpretation. This is why it ought to capture our attention. For many who desire to understand Biblical passages, there is a temptation to jump straight to the summaries regarding the contemporary meaning and applications of the text. This is a great error. Looking at the terms alone misses the critical import of the cultural context within which the terms are used. Since words have meaning, and that meaning is culturally derived, a critical study of the words should not be performed without a critical study of the culture. This can lead the student to rather unfortunate misinterpretations. The result of developing a more clear understanding of the original language and culture will help the student to more faithfully interpret the text. It is from a faithful interpretation of the text, then, that the student is then able to draw more faithful applications when relating the text to a modern day audience. Therefore, this is work that should not be skipped when attempting to interpret Biblical text.

Thompson takes the reader through this process within the chapter by focusing on interpreting Deuteronomy 6:5 and comparing it to Mark 12:30, which has a slightly different interpretation of the same verse. By first addressing the terms used (love, Lord, God, heart, soul, and strength, along with the repeated qualifier “with all”), he shows the importance of understanding the terminology of each.

These terms also exist within a contextual framework – a time, place, purpose, and people. He helps the reader to understand that Deut. 6:5 serves as a general summary of the ten commandments given at  Horeb and a reaffirmation of the covenantal history between Yahweh and His people. At the same time, however, it serves to anchor the forthcoming future exhortations by Moses in Moab.

Without a proper understanding of the book of Deuteronomy being written as a political treaty between the suzerain king Yahweh and His vassal people Israel, a student would wrongly interpret terminology within Deut. 6:5. Specifically the word love, has the biggest potential for misinterpretation. The sense in which it is used here is in keeping with the political/covenant setting that means to preserve the treaty. To love, then, involves faithfully keeping the covenant without any other political allegiance.  It is a love that is obedient and can be commanded. This is a very different understanding than our contemporary usage of the word. This word “love” is then applied to loving with all the heart, soul, and strength.

When love is applied to the “heart” here, it refers to the obedience of a person’s thinking, planning, and reflecting, amongst other intellectual matters. It also includes attitudes, emotions, and feeling. The inclusion of “mind” in Mark 12:30 would help to explain and differentiate between another culture’s understanding of the heart as being primarily emotional and attitudinal versus the mind being primarily cerebral or intellectual. The term in Deut. 6:5 includes both aspects whereas our contemporary culture would separate them. For Mark, then, this seems to be a necessary distinction to make.

There are other aspects of Thompson’s work with Deut. 6:5 that help the reader better understand and interpret. It was a fascinating work to follow, and, as he admits, a still incomplete process toward a fully orbed understanding of the Shema. The paraphrase he constructed was enlightening and clearly empowers the reader to be able to make a well-informed bridge from Biblical text to contemporary culture. 

Effective Leaders

For a long time I have believed the statement that success is very tolerant. Many people find success in a variety of ways – just look at infomercials. One fitness program works better for one person than it does for another. Or we may look at business and Network Marketing industries. Some people succeed very well in one company or industry versus others. These success stories come in all varieties of shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and strategies. One of keys, I believe, are implementing the behaviors consistently. People can find success in both Zoomba and Chuck Norris’ Total Gym because of the set of behaviors they have committed to in order to get the results they desire.


In terms of the effectiveness of pastors, I do not see any difference. Pastoral leadership requires a definitive and unique set of behaviors. As a result, to achieve ‘success’ or to be an effective pastor means we must commit to employing those sets of behaviors.


I think it is important to remember from the research that the information gathered in the table are averages. The average age of the effective pastor was 42. This means there possible would be some very effective leaders in their 50’s or 60’s as well as in their 20’s or 30’s. We should not think that we have to wait until we are in our 40’s that we will somehow attain effectiveness. In similar fashion, we ought to consider the other elements contained within the table (tenure, years of experience, etc.).


In the business world, I have met some effective leaders of every age and background. One of the basic mantras I have heard is “Know what works; do what works.” This speaks directly to skills and behaviors. We have to know what skills it takes in order to be successful and effective in our particular realms of vocation. We then have to commit to the behaviors – to work the plan, so to speak.

Effective Pastors vs Less Effective Pastors

Yes, I think it is very healthy to talk about the differences between effective pastors and less effective pastors. First, it at least causes self-reflection and introspection. From reading this article, I must ask myself, “Am I being an effective leader?” and “How many effective behaviors am I employing?” Asking these questions of ourselves is important for our own personal and professional growth.


Secondly, it is challenging. Though it may sting to think of ourselves as being less effective, it ought to reveal those places where our leadership is weak(er) and need to be addressed. Inviting others to judge our effectiveness is never easy, but necessary. I recently went through my first annual review at my new church. Those who were impacted by my areas of ministry responsibility were involved and they confirmed some things that I already knew were lacking. It also exposed a couple of areas that I did not realize needed to be addressed. Even more, it helped me to further define and clarify what the people I am leading and working with need from me.


Thirdly, and closely related to challenging, it ought to be humbling. The intent is not humiliation, but rather a sober judgment that none of us is perfect, that we all have blind spots, and we all can and should be willing to grow. My recent review was not enjoyable – they never are for me. I realize, however, that they are at the same time helpful. I was able to see that I was not performing to the best of my ability and make the best utilization of my team. We will, of course, do best when we serve within our strengths and empower others to serve within their strengths – especially when they complement our weaknesses.


This distinction doesn't necessarily concern me. Like anything, humans are capable of misusing and abusing. There will also be opportunities for manipulations and power-plays. However, I believe there is more good to come from this than there is evil.

Genesis 3:16-17; 5:29 - "Issabon"

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain” in 3:16, 17 and 5:29. Coleson defines the word as “arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards” (Coleson, ph. 137). It is a word connected to God’s announcement of the curse upon the woman, “I will greatly multiply your pains/toil,” and “with labor/toil you shall produce children” (emphasis added). There is an interesting juxtaposition between the issabon of the pronounced consequences here and the work God had blessed in the garden. It stands in contrast to the satisfying and rewarding work God had appointed them in the garden (cf. 1:28; 2:15).

This term, additionally, is assigned to the man in verse 17. The relationship the man will now have with the ground will be “arduous toil” (emphasis added). It will be an increased labor with diminished returns. Where before the man’s and woman’s work “tending the garden” had not been toil, that all now changes. Both will have great pain, anxiety, and labor in their work.

It is clear that God is showing culpability in these two announcements of the curses. They both share in similar “pain.” Both have an equal stake to claim in their fall. With the introduction of the issabon, we see a fracturing of the created order and of relationships. The woman’s relationship in child-raising will become toil and anxiety-filled, and her pains will be multiplied. The man’s relationship with the ground has become fractured. What once would have been pleasurable, temporary work is now toil daily unto death. I’ll develop this further in the other forum.

[Additional Development]

“Issabon” is the word used for “toil” or “pain.” It occurs three times in Genesis chapters 3-5: 3:16, 17; and 5:29. In fact, these are the only instances the word issabon occurs in the Hebrew Bible. Coleson points out that issabon “refers to arduous, anxious, even anguished, toil for much diminished or uncertain rewards.)” (Coleson, pg. 137). So, again, we see that what was once pronounced by God as good, that which was blessed and approved, and all that was intended to be fulfilling for humanity has become perverted. Actually, it is humanity’s relationship with them that has become perverted.

Fast forward to Genesis 5:28-31. The name of Noah comes from the root nuah, which means rest. Lamech’s statement in v.29, “this one will bring us relief,” uses a similar root naham, which means comfort (bringing relief). Lamech’s hope was that Noah (rest) would bring relief from their work – their toil (issabon).

Since the fall, humanity’s work has been frustrated. The use of issabon has a consistent connection referring back to the curses imposed by God on humanity. As we will remember from that fall, humanity’s desire has been misplaced. The man and woman both desired something other than God. Now with the curses imposed, we see that humanity will always be conflicted in its desires. In one way, we will seek the desire for relief from the curses. This can, and at many times does, conflict with our desires for God.

Additionally, as a result of the fall, our relationships have become fractured and perverted. Our desire for relief from issabon competes with our desire to be intimately connected with God. Our relationship with the ground has become fractured. Our desire for fruitful and enjoying work competes with our issabon work for survival. Also, our relationships with each other have become fractured. The joys and blessings of child rearing now compete with their own issabon.

What is the relief from the issabon? I would suggest on-going covenant faithfulness to God through Jesus Christ would be the starting point.

Genesis 40:15, 41:14 - The Pit

The Pit of Despair

(For all those "Princess Bride" fans).

The word “dungeon” or “pit” (bor) is used twice in chapters 40-41 (40:15; 41:14). However, these are not the first instances of the word in Joseph’s narrative. More than that, it is a word and a metaphor that has come to characterize much of Joseph’s life experiences.

The narrator uses “dungeon” to describe the prison-like life experiences Joseph has been through so far. It is the same word used for the ‘pit’ into which his brothers threw him. Then, from this same pit, he was removed when he was sold into slavery (a different form of ‘prison’ or imprisonment, though not explicitly dealt with in this text). Arnold notes that “from the pit in Canaan, to Potiphar’s house, to this prison, Joseph is innocent and has been treated unjustly“(pg. 339). How ironic it is that the pit becomes a symbol of innocence in Joseph’s life.

Joseph would have to wait for his freedom for another “two whole years” after the cupbearer was released and given freedom. One day, however, Joseph is brought up from the pit and ushered into freedom. To be presentable before the king, he is shaved and exchanges his prison clothes for new ones. This symbolizes his new life and freedom from the prison. His old life of imprisonment was over; he is now starting a new life. Arnold notes that his transformation from “Hebrew slave and prisoner to clean-shaven Egyptian courtier” is an important distinction. It will come later in the narrative when Joseph’s brothers will not recognize him.

So that the title is not misleading, I don’t see any indication within the text that Joseph actually did despair at all in the pit in chapters 40-41. Given the prior knowledge that “the Lord was with” Joseph would be an indicator that he would not need to do so.

Genesis 39:5 - "The Blessing of the Lord"

Gen. 39:5

“The blessing of the Lord”

“…the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field.”

Arnold briefly points out the “blessing of the Lord” is a subjective genitive. This means that the Lord is “the subject of the act of blessing others” (pg. 331). Another way to read this would be that Joseph receives ‘the Lord’s blessing.’ For Joseph, it can be understood that he receives from the Lord a variety blessings. But what does the blessing of the Lord mean? What does it include?

In verse five, it states that all Joseph “had” (both in house and in the field) received the blessing. Noticing this, apparently, Potiphar place everything he “had” under Joseph’s charge. As a result, Potiphar “had” no concerns because everything that Joseph “had” received the Lord’s blessing. As it says earlier in v. 5, “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” But what exactly is this blessing?

I think we are given the answer to “what” the blessing is at least indirectly in v. 2 – “The Lord was with Joseph.” It is the presence of the Lord himself that is the blessing. The “Lord’s blessing” is the Lord. What greater blessing could there be? The subject is the Lord, the word "blessing" is a noun (not a verb). So it must be a noun-something of the Lord. The evidence within these verses suggests the possible answer is the Lord's presence.

The first five verses follow this way: “The Lord was with Joseph” (verb, v. 2, v.3), “The Lord caused…” (verb, v. 3), “The Lord blessed…” (verb, v. 5a), and finally the culmination is “The Lord’s blessing was on all…” (noun, v. 5b). Whatever it may be that is blessed or whatever may be the result of the blessing is a result of the presence of the Lord with Joseph. This has later implications when the recurrence of the Lord's blessing, causing Joseph to prosper also in prison, to build his confidence in the Lord.

Genesis 32:22-32 - Peniel

Peniel

Arnold writes about the etiological interest of the author to explain why certain things are the way they are. This text specifically notes Peniel (or Penuel). He suggests that Peniel (and Mahanaim on the other side of the Jabbok River) defended the last likely crossing-point of the river. In 1 Kings 12:25, Penuel becomes a military outpost for Jeroboam I (cf. pg. 279).

Likely a redaction to fit Israel’s monotheism (cf. pg. 284), Jacob names the location “Peniel,” which literally called “the face of God.” This gives the reader the reason behind the name “Peniel” – because Jacob wrestled with “the face of God” there. Etiologically speaking, we may note a “defensive” thread at Peniel. Jacob wrestled and defended himself there, and later that location was to become a military outpost.

The fact it is recorded that Jacob “saw the face of God” and lived would have been miraculous to the first audience. It was a popular assumption of ancient culture that no one could see God and live. However, instead of death, Jacob gets a blessing. Jacob was at that location preparing to meet Esau face-to-face, fearing his death. In fact, it appears that he waited until the very last possible moment to cross the river of inevitability. Instead of death, however, he saw God’s face and yet lived! What a cause for celebration and remembrance! If God is for Jacob, who can be against him?

In this narrative, we see Jacob trying to take every human measure to appease and change the heart of his brother. What he didn’t know is that God’s plan was to change Jacob. He did not need to defend himself based on his own strength or cunning. Instead, he needed to trust the relentlessly saving God. So, to commemorate his new life (as Israel) and his seeing the face of God, he names the place Peniel. His last-resort, fear of death defense has been turned into a blessing whereby he saw God’s face and experienced new life.

Genesis 22 - The Akedah

[In Judaism, Genesis 22 traditionally is titled, "The Akedah," "The Binding (of Isaac)"; it is a particularly important text in Judaism and Islam, as well as in Christianity. (In the Quran, as you know, the binding is not of Isaac, but of Ishmael.) Because it is of such great importance, Genesis 22 will be the sole focus of our forum discussions this week.]

Rite of Initiation

Arnold refers to the argument that views Gen 22 in light of an ancient rite of initiation, which involves the symbolic killing of a child (Arnold, pg. 209). This is a very profound way of looking through cultural lenses into the Akedah. As Arnold notes, this is a very convincing viewpoint. It does, however, hold its limitations, which will not be discussed here. However, two thoughts came to my mind in reading this section:

First, students of leadership will be acquainted with the phrase that goes something like, “in leadership, it gets lonely at the top.” Perhaps this is the grass roots inspiration for the phrase. The binding and offering of Isaac was just as much for Abraham as it was for Isaac. Both needed this experience in order to grow and fulfill the plans God had for them. It was a means for them both to become the leaders God had intended. In this way, the two leaders, having satisfied the requirements of the initiation (so to speak), needed to part ways in order to each prosper. Their positions of leadership had changed dramatically. For Abraham, “his future rests only with the ‘voice’ he must follow” and not in his promised son (pg. 209). For Isaac, he now embarks on his own journey toward becoming a patriarch in his own right and “ancestral promises of his own (26:1-5)” (pg. 209).

Second, some of Arnold’s treatment of the Akedah dealt with the foreshadowing of Christ. From the wood on Isaac’s back, to the walk up the mountain, to his binding, and his being Abraham’s “only son,” there are certainly many connections that we can make today. My thinking in this same vein turns to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:29-30 (see also Matthew 19:29), “I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” This verse reminds me of Abraham. God commanded him to “Go” in Gen 12:1, so he left his homeland. In 22:2, God (and the writer) uses the same word to go offer his son. In verse 19, we read that Abraham and Isaac part ways. After parting, God confirms the promise of Abraham that he will indeed be a father or many nations; that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars and sand. Abraham is surely blessed for his obedience.

Three Insights from Genesis 12:1, 15:1, and 17:1

12:1 – “The Lord said to Abram” marks the beginning of divine speech.  This is God’s word to Abram that is designed to grasp a hold of our attention and take notes. This should be true of anytime God speaks, but this certainly held a special bookmark for writer’s audience. God’s command to Abram is to “Go.” He is to leave three things (collectively understood to mean ‘homeland’), and to go to one thing: “The land that I will show you.”

As Arnold notes, this is the “first of several lexical links between Gen 12 and 22, the first and last times Yahweh speaks to Abaram” (pg. 130). These “bookend” chapters serve to tell the story of Abraham to show the importance of “divine command followed by radical obedience” (pg. 130). The life and legacy of Abraham reveal the faithfulness of God. God’s plan is to create a new “family,” a new “household.” The obedience and dependence of Abram to “go” makes possible the fulfilling of God’s promise.

15:1 – “The word of the Lord came to Abram….” Arnold notes how this phrase is used in prophetic literature and is only found here in all the Pentateuch. He then describes the intent to show Abram as a prophet. I have never thought about Abram/Abraham as a prophet, but Arnold draws some very interesting (and convincing) connections. Again, Arnold notes that God’s words to Abram are prophetic because they are not only just for him, but for his promised children, and the whole nation of Israel.

Prophecy is understood in a dual sense of both saving and judging. I think the vision given to Abram includes both elements. I would suggest:

God says to him, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield, your very great reward.” The shield is a defensive weapon and is understood metaphorically for protection (saving?). God says he is a “very great reward.” The reward for Abram’s faithfulness and obedience is the fulfilling of the promises of God.

A reward is given to those who faithfully and obediently fulfill some type of expectation. The converse of reward is punishment…or judgment. Therefore, I don’t think it is too far of a stretch to see the prophetic within this verse. In fact, looking at the verse this way gives more strength to Arnold, who has little to say in regard to “reward.”

17:1 – The opening verse of chapter 17 is an extremely important verse. It reveals much about the nature and character of God as well as His expectations for those who would follow after Him. As Arnold notes, the writer opens this chapter by referring to God as “Yahweh.” This makes the point that the same God who revealed Himself to Moses and the Israelites at the giving of the covenant is the same covenant-making God with Abram. God is revealing Himself to Abraham as He similarly was revealed to Moses. Arnold says that God is “pulling back the curtain on himself as it were, allowing himself – even presenting himself – in theophanic certainty. How does God reveal himself to Abram? As El Shadday, “God Almighty.” Here, we see the connection between Yahweh and El Shadday is the same God of the Israelites, the covenants, and all of Israel’s ancestors. “God Almighty” was a special revelatory name understood by Israel’s early ancestors and Yahweh is God’s revealing name about Himself to the Israelites. The writer connects them here, signifying God’s nature and identity.

Putting the writer’s and God’s words together to make Yahweh, God Almighty, is helpful in communicating and understanding the majesty and transcendence of God. (This is only a helpful insight; nothing more.) It gives Abram assurance of God’s promises and covenant. Thus, how God reveals himself to Abram is almost as important as the mandate (imperative) that is given to him.  God says, “walk before me, and be blameless” (v. 1). What else should we expect from such a Holy God? That God would say ‘walk blamelessly before me’ (pg. 169) seems a minimal expectation for Yahweh, God Almighty. Yet, El Shadday demands that we live our lives characterized by “unobjectionable acceptability” (pg. 169). In this way, we constantly live for God by gratefully (and graciously) accepting His will while maintaining the highest integrity with how we conduct ourselves. I believe this establishes a precedent in scripture. I don’t believe this was imperative meant just for Abram/Abraham, but for all of Abraham’s descendents and all who would become believers.

Genesis 11:8-9

Gen. 11:8-9

I wonder if it may be beneficial to note a few similarities between God splitting up humanity and the animals after the flood (Gen. 9:2) and the dispersing of humanity at the tower of Babel. Ultimately, in both situations, God had the best in mind for all parties. It is out of His grace that He causes division.

In causing “fear and dread” among the animal kingdom, God separates Noah from the animals he and his family have been taking care of for the past year. In my speculation, this may be a protection against complacency and dependence of the animals upon the humans (as in domestication). So God causes a division among them so that both may be able to fulfill their original blessings in Gen. 1.

The scattering at the tower of Babel sneaks of some similarities, I think. Here, God confounds/confuses the language of the builders, which causes division among them. This is out of grace that God does this. For sure, without such a gracious action humanity would again find itself in a Gen. 6:1-2 scenario. With such pride (hubris), nothing would stop humanity. Therefore, God confounds their language and scatters them. Dr. Coleson notes the repeating of the adverb “there” twice in verse 9, “because there Yahweh confused the speech of all the earth, and from there Yahweh dispersed them across the face of all the earth” (Coleson, pg. 294). Similarly, as God caused a protective separation of humanity and animals, here God is protectively separating humanity from itself. In fact, by doing this God is further enabling humanity to fulfill His blessings to Noah and his sons instructed at the departure of the Ark.

Coleson also notes that “the place that generation had refused to leave became the place to which most of them never again returned” (Coleson, pg. 294). Perhaps we can take into consideration that the speculation of God dividing humanity and animals after the flood was to protect the animal kingdom from complacency. Perhaps, then, we may be able to draw a line here to show that similarly God is protecting humanity from such a similar complacency within itself. Perhaps humanity would become too proud and contented with its own existence that it would once again push God out into the margins.

Genesis 2:7 - 'enzer kenegdo

“The adam first needed to learn what could not be ‘ezer kenegdo in relation to him…” (Coleson, 103). I am finally justified before my wife regarding why I need to find every other solution to a problem other than her suggestion! Apparently, it is a design issue with how men are created! All kidding aside – and to the best of my knowledge I have never actually experienced the aforementioned scenario – it is very interesting to consider the reasoning behind God’s actions. I do have difficulty in deciding whether or not to take into consideration all my beliefs, biases, and science behind the study of male thinking, processing, etc. I’m not sure whether to think if that has any validity prior to the fall or not…or whether it matters at all. Developmental theories and social sciences have had a lot of good to say about why and how people act the way they do. On the other hand, they are not God.

 In Genesis 2, we see God bringing all the animals before the lone adam, yet nothing suitable was found. Dr. Coleson points out that adam needed to first experience aloneness and all the things that were not ‘ezer kenegdo, before he could fully appreciate who it was. In order to fully appreciate the presence of another, it was necessary for the lone human to experience solitude (Coleson, 102). In order to fully appreciate the one who was a perfect match, adam needed to experience all the things that were not a match.

Leaving the sciences behind and dealing with the text itself, it is apparent that God had a plan, a method, and a purpose for doing those things He did. That should brings us a great deal of comfort and confidence. From this story we see an extension of the grand creation picture that God can take something where there is a void, fill it, bless it, and call it good.

---

What is the premise? God knew all along who would be adam’s created equal.  God knew because God had it all planned out. Adam needed to fully experience God’s plan. To me, verse 20 stands out from among the surrounding verses. Before I read the commentary, this verse sparked my interest and I was glad that it confirmed my suspicions about the reading of verse 20 of adam as the better subject. Surrounding this verse, there is a picture of God’s activity surrounding adam. In verse 18, in fact, God tells us that He will make the ‘ezer kenedgo. Whether or not adam knew is a different story, but we see later that it is not likely that adam knew. Again, though, in verse 19, God is credited with the creation of ‘forming’ and takes the initiative to bring the creation to adam. In verse 20, however, the subject changes and adam is credited with as the subject of activity. I get the sense from 20b that adam was actively looking for the satisfaction of his aloneness with each animal. That none was his equal is significant in the plan of God. Then, verse 21 picks up immediately with the activity of God to report His planned solution to this dilemma.

From these short verses, we can clearly see that God’s plan was to create an equal of, for, and with adam. Again, we see that the plan of God has a process and organization. We know that this plan is going to be for adam’s benefit and blessing (being prefaced by six “good’s” and one “very good”). What started out as being incomplete would soon be made complete.

This should serve as a reminder that God can and should be trusted when we don’t understand the process. I’m not suggesting adam doubted, especially since I don’t think that is evidenced in the text. What is in the text is that we are surrounded by the activity of God – God who is not distant; rather, intimately connected to and concerned about every aspect of our lives.

1.) Is it significant that the narrator also used the verb yatsar ("form/fashion/sculpt") in v 19, as well as here in v 7?

It is certainly significant. This parallelism shows us several things to consider. First, and most obvious, it shows our connectedness to sharing the ground with the animals as part of the earth of God’s creating. It is a tri-symbiotic relationship of sorts – earth, animals, humanity. There must be a delicate balance maintained between these. By using yatsar, the writer is helping to show we are co-created from God, from the earth.

The word yatsar also connotes the formation of clay on a potter’s wheel. We know from before (Gen. 1:26-7) that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. In this way, we have been specially and specifically sculptured. Though we may share the potter’s wheel, no other creation was “formed” in God’s likeness nor given His breath. In this way, yatsar shows both commonality and distinctiveness, but I think it is more so to show our distinctiveness. Arnold notes that “Yahweh God” is designated as forming. In one way this speaks against Near Eastern theology, but on the other hand it is to display the importance of humanity as the climax of God’s creation story; which as he says is  “more powerfully and philosophically stated than any others” (Arnold, 57). So, yatsar should give us pause to consider that we are “remarkably and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Another parallel is where the forming comes from. We are formed from the ground –the clay. What is more important to note than just the clay in common is the connotation of how God formed us from the clay. Arnold speaks in regard to the careful creativity of humanity. He says that being formed as a living being means that we are “far from a divine afterthought” (Arnold, 58). We have been created with divine purpose.

Additionally, in verse 7, we read where God “formed” the adam (singular). In verse 19 we read the past perfect tense where God previously “had formed” animal life. Pages 103-4 of the commentary bring a salient point to light where this parallelism helps move us forward to God’s yet-to-be fulfilled conclusion. The result is to cause us to look forward to the “I will make…” of the ‘ezer kenegdo where we see God’s plan being fulfilled.

Therefore, it would seem that the use of yatsar is multi-purpose. It shows our connectedness with animals by being co-created from the ground. It shows our mutual connectedness to God, but even more it shows our distinct relationship with Him. It also shows that humanity is, ultimately, made for each other. God’s plan is for the adam and the ‘ezer kenegdo to delight in each other, in His creation, and in special relationship with Him. That’s a lot from one word!

Genesis 2:7

V7 – I really enjoy the literary devices already found throughout the beginning of Genesis. Here in verse 7, we see that Yahweh Elohim, who formed hā ʾādām from ādāmā, is forming/sculpting them from out of the earth/ground (ʾădāmā). What is more, God “breathes” His “breath” into humanity. As both readings pointed out, the play on words here is intentional.

This verse gives us a picture of the One, True Creator God who creates (almost) infinitely from the finite. From the primeval waters, God speaks and makes come forth the foundations of the heavens and the earth. From light, He creates the lights in their many kinds. From the water, He creates the marine world in all their various kinds. The same is true for the land. From the land comes the plant and animal kingdoms in all their various kinds. However, the crowning jewel of His creation, ʾādām (humanity), we now know that He also created from ʾădāmā (the earth/ground). It is from these finite entities (resources) of creation that God creates an almost infinite sustainability of life (they would be infinite until the world ends, I suppose, at His command).

In this verse, we see the writer weaving a theme through the creation narrative. The God who created all things in their various kinds, also created the ground from which humanity was created. However, from out of the ground only humanity was molded and crafted into His image and likeness – unlike any other creature or creation. Furthermore, what is especially distinct about this creation is the breath that God breathed into them.

The sense I get from what the writer is trying to convey in this verse is that we are intensely valuable. It is humankind that stands between the earth and the heavens (God). Our vocation is to enjoy our work on the earth; our calling is to delight in our Creator. While we are living (filled with the breath of life), we work as stewards of the earth. When we die (our finiteness ends), our bodies return to the earth, but our “breath” (soul) proceeds to infinity. There is a lot that is probably being drawn from to read into this verse (more than probably necessary), but it is certainly a crucial verse in the whole creation narrative.