Krissi

How does the realization that God is El-Olam, the Eternal God, effect you? How does it alter the way you live your life? I cannot conceptualize eternity. It's too much for me. Too big an idea. I'm stuck in time, awakening by the clock, watching the rising sun, then doing these studies as a part of my morning devotions. I'm very time-bound. So, in the way I live my life, my actual daily existence, God's eternality doesn't impact me much. Knowing that God has always been and will be, that He's the same God yesterday as today, makes interpreting the stories in the Bible a bit easier, oddly. At one point in my life, I thought that the God in the NT was more gentle and kind than the God of the OT, but eternality and timelessness makes him the same God, then and now. It is wrong to think that our revelation about Him has expanded, so we think differently in the NT times -- no, He's the same then and now. Abraham's God is my God.

Some monks take a vow of silence to tame the tongue, just as monks take a vow of poverty and chastity. I wonder what it would be like to never speak. All my thoughts would circulate within, circling my mind without the corrective and stabilizing effect of having other people respond. I think, though, I would find this silence and solitude spiritually invigorating as it would focus all my thoughts on Him. The tendency to run to get counsel from other people is very strong in some Christians. Taming the tongue isn't just about gossip, but about the tendency to turn to others and not God. As pastor Ralph wrote, anytime I do things for other people that has no personal benefit, I can be certain that my motives are pure. Kudos received from others destroys the stainlessness of the gift. Thus, I should give money secretly and anonymously; give my time to those who take and take and never give back; quietly work in the shadows to correct relationships between people, etc. The point is to be separated, publicly, from the "good deed" done as well as to do things that no one will ever be able to trace back to me.

I'm trying to put myself in Abraham's place. I can't imagine, really, how he'd feel after knowing he had born a child from a slave after being pressured by his wife to have sex with her, and then forced to deal with the consequences of that mistake. Too, there were other mistakes and pains in his life -- the Lot fiasco, leaving his homeland, the stupidity of calling his wife his sister, etc. I'm sure, at this moment, Abraham felt crushed by his own poor decisions as well as by circumstances. Yet God comforted him by telling him that Ismael would be taken care of, that for all the wrong reasons, Sarah had spoken rightly by asking him to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Isaac wasn't blessed at the time of his half-brother's explusion, as he was just a toddler and unable to understand the machinations about him, however later in life he was blessed by not having to deal with his belligerent and out-of-control half-brother. As I wrote a few days ago, I believe Isaac would have been killed by Ismael -- fratricide -- had they remained in the same household. The trends were certainly going that way. Where was God in all this? Good question. God could have prevented Hagar's pregnancy and all the other cascading, additive sins that followed Abraham for the rest of his life, but He didn't do this. He didn't protect Abraham and Sarah from themselves, from their own poor decisions. Free will and choice are not unmitigated blessings. God does step in, at times, to prevent someone from making a very poor decision, but He doesn't seem to do this often. In this case, He let events unfold. The fact that God doesn't engage in more preventive actions troubles me. He's always mopping up, rarely intervening to avert or forestall sin. I'm begging God, right now, to protect me as I enter a new situation -- after reading this, I wonder if that's how He operates or if he just lets me stumble and fall as did Abraham.

What is this "perfect law" that James mentions? How would you define it? How does it relate to the "royal law" (2:8)? In what sense does it bring liberty? I am utterly confused. I'm sorry. Perhaps further study will help me. I have no idea of the difference between perfect and royal law -- at times, they seem synonymous, at other times, they seem to reflect loving God and loving others. I can see how loving God and accepting His love would be liberating. Though I'm a mature Christian woman, I have difficulty with God's love and frankly the concept of love in general.

Sarah rightly was looking at the situation of the two boys, the elder so much larger and stronger than the younger, and worrying that a Cain-and-Abel circumstances would arise: “Let us go out into the field…” What started as mere mocking, then, would have escalated, in her eyes. After decades of Hagar’s insubordination -- which Ismael absorbed in his own attitude toward Sarah and Abraham -- I rather doubt that this could have been resolved with words, amicably. Sarah couldn’t watch him all the time. She also couldn’t protect him – she was very, very old and feeble. Frankly, given the situation, I think it makes sense to banish Ishmael and his mother. Abraham concurred because it made sense. He, too, wanted the Isaac protected. Thus, I don’t see either of their actions as sinful. He set them free. He was not, knowingly, sending them to their deaths.

Why are we so easily fooled into thinking that listening to Bible teaching means that we are living out righteous lives? What is the nature of the self-deception? I'm not so sure that a Christian who is listening to the Bible, studying it intently and praying over it's meaning isn't becoming more righteous. What a Christian imbibes becomes who he or she is. If he spends a lot of time in the word, then the word will seep into him and change who he is ... he will become more righteous. Not less. The problem may be when he confuses the relationships he has in church with the one he has with God. Church relationships won't make him righteous. He can rub up against righteous people in church, but that is qualitatively different than spending time in the word or inviting the Holy Spirit to change him inside. I still think that studying the Bible is a transformative experience, almost necessarily. I have known scholars of the bible who studied it as literature or philosophy and who were not Christian and therefore not transformed or righteous, but for a Christian to study the bible and hear it in church, isn't the Holy Spirit involved in those words AND in that Christian's heart, so that the words feed the heart and change his character and love of the lord?

Several posters upthread compared Sarah's first laugh (when she first heard she would have a child) to her second laugh (after she had the child). This was quite helpful to me. No one mentioned Hagar, however. Did Hagar laugh? Did she join in the celebration of the birth of Isaac? In my life, His long delayed answers to prayer made His eventual response all the sweeter. My second laugh was deeper and more grateful because of the pain and suffering caused by His delay. Sarah's first laugh was one of sadness and disbelief. She felt God had forgotten her. Her unanswered, heart-rending prayers gave her a bitter, biting laugh, not one of joy. As the years ticked on, God seemed far and His answer impossible. It was difficult for her to be joy-filled. Note that God understood Sarah's anguishing wait, yet did not cut the time shorter. He let her wait in humiliation and suffering as she matured in her faith. Sarah's second laugh was out of pure joy and gratitude. God answered her prayer in His time and way, and when this happened, Sarah's joy was "complete." God came through, finally. He really did answer her prayer. He vindicated her and restored her station in life (above Hagar.) Sarah's mustard-seed faith, though it had been halting and doubting, had grown into a big, joy-filled faith. I don't think this reveals God's humor as much as it tells us about His delayed answer to prayer. Isaac's naming is a reminder of our own before-and-after laughing, the long wait so many of us endure and His eventual answer to our prayers.

In what sense are we given spiritual birth by the "word of truth"? What does spiritual life have to do with the Word? This question is difficult for me. The "word of Truth" is the past and ongoing revelation of God, w the which includes the bible. All words are heard or read. All give knowledge. Our spiritual lives are contingent on knowing God which means knowing and hearing His word.

Why did Lot's daughters turn to incest? What does this tell us about their values? About their faith? Why does Lot turn to intoxication? What does this incident tell us about his faith? His hope? His influence? His choice of residence? What lessons should we learn from this story? Abraham was told to leave his family, not take them: “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you." Because of Abraham's disobedience to God's explicit command, Lot was dragged along. Had Lot remained behind, he would have lived out his days there, fading from Bible history, but since he was part of Abraham's entourage, he was put in situations he did not have the character or moral stamina to handle. Yes, Lot chose to live in Sodom. He is responsible for that choice. The consequences of that short-sighted, faithless, selfish and materialistic decision followed him to his death. Yet, I don't see Lot as a bad man, but a weak one. My hunch is that Abraham loved Lot because he had "redeeming qualities" which is why Abraham took Lot with him, originally. Lot ends his life as a drunken old man living in a cave with two shallow, self-involved daughters, bereaved of his wife and probably pining for the urban wealth and lifestyle left behind. His daughters remind me of the Valley girls of my Cali youth -- they had money, were shallow and oriented to the exterior, obsessed with youth and appearance, and morally ignorant because untaught. I feel for them just as I have compassion on Lot's daughters. (There, but for the grace of God go I ...) They operated out of their own limited understanding of morality and God. Yes, incest is repulsive, but ... well, they weren't alone. How did Lot not know what was happening to him? This seems impossible to me. My hunch is Lot willingly participated, too drunk to recall what happened the next day. Lot is a weak man: morally and spiritually weak. Frankly, I think he's like most men today, even in the church, though exaggeratedly so. And, his daughters are like most women, even in the church, though exaggeratedly so. The sins of Lot and his daughters are so common that their exposure stuns us. We'd rather shut this chapter than look squarely at our own values and tendencies. How many of us choose to "live in Sodom" rather than live a simpler, more obedient life, and justify our Sodom-attraction by claiming that Sodom is where the best jobs are, or Sodom is where my wife's/husband's family is from ... etc. I can see how Lot's decisions snowballed into his fate, but still think Lot is "Everyman," not an exceptionally horrible man. He was too weak and faithless to crawl back to God after the disaster of Sodom. His fate was NOT written in stone. He could have changed. God would have taken him back and worked to restore the rest of his life. I do think the consequences of our stupidity, weak character, sinful tendencies and bad choices haunt us, but not forever. God redeems our pasts. He plucks us out of our Sodoms. He gives us second, third and fourth chances. But ... we have to have the character and gumption to crawl to him in humility; Lot seems not to have done this.

Doubting Thomas, here. When I hear or read these passages in James my heart sinks because I know I'll always have some doubt. In my Christian life there has never been a moment when my faith was completely pure, whole-hearted, absolute, committed, single-minded, sinless ... without doubt, that is. Is it even possible to be mature enough to pray without a smidgeon of doubt? -- Pastor Ralph put forth three ideas and asked us to connect them -- 1) the promise to be given wisdom, without fault, for the asking, 2) the condition or prerequisite, that our asking must be doubtless 3) and the means of getting that doubtlessness, which is via trials, during which our asking is honed and intensified. -- I don't often beg for wisdom until I need it. Thus, trials precede asking for wisdom. When I need his solution and am desperate for it, my prayers are more intense, focused and unwavering. I have a goal, after all, which is to get through the suffering or trial. Still, my mind never completely stands still ... there's always self-consciousness or wavering. Always doubt. If it is the case that prayers have to be doubtless, God will not answer my prayers. Thus, that little clause, "without finding fault," could be crucial. Does God not see the fault in us? This can't be the case because in this passage, he's pointing out doubt as the sin he won't tolerate -- he sees doubt! Perhaps our motives are pretty good, but even motives are not completely unmixed. NOTHING we do, think or pray is untinged by selfishness and sin. So, how can we claim this promise? Yes, the blood of Christ blinds God to my sin, but that's not what's at issue here -- we're not talking about salvation, but sanctification. In my very limited understanding, the promise (to be given wisdom if there is no doubt when asking) seems to hinge on the meaning of the phrase "without finding fault."

After nearly being delivered, why did Lot's wife stop and gaze rather than escaping? What was in her heart? I just finished reading through the responses. Student answers to the question, 'Why did Lot's wife look back?" fall into these categories: 1) Desire for the past to continue into the present, to not change. The angels suddenly compulsed her and she hadn't had the time to absorb what they were telling her to do. She was having one more look at the past. 2) Curiosity about what was going on behind her. She obediently left and then wondered what had happened to the city and the people she knew there. 3) Disbelief in what the angels had told her would happen. Unbelief. 4) She was grieving the loss of the people and life she had had and longing for what was. She had loved her life in Sodom even though she was not from Sodom -- it was not her hometown. Her family was now dead. 5) She was materialistic and had been living a life with a lot of material perquisites and was already pining for this stuff as she trekked through the desert. -- Have you ever struggled with this in your heart? Honestly, no. I have always lived more for the future than the past. I love change, perhaps too much. My problem is sticking to a circumstance or place, not leaving it. Someone upthread made the remark, "Being saved is not like being almost saved." So true. There is no "near deliverance." This is my take-away from this passage, that my obedience has to be entire and complete with no strings to the past and no additions from an imagined future. When God sends me somewhere, which He's in the process of doing, I need to pack lightly, leave everything and not try to fill in the missing pieces in my imagination.

CeeSue -- You made me laugh. If I'm remembering correctly "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down" were the ad lyrics? Yours is a wonderful illustration of how we wobble less after every trial. -- How do trials help cure us of “doublemindedness”? Doublemindedness is the state of wobbling between trusting ourselves (our own assessment and solutions to the problem) and trusting God (blindly letting Him solve the problem in ways we can't predict.) During periods of doublemindedness, God forces the issue. He coerces a decision. The decision we have to make is not necessarily between this or that solution but between two ways of coming to the solution. Do I first turn to God as the way of solving the crisis or trial or do I first turn to myself? I may, logically, arrive at the same conclusion or solution as the one God eventually chooses, but if I do my own contriving first, I failed the trial. Thus, trials force me to prioritize, in time and before logic, God. In my life, most trials have to do with learning to pray first. I must pray that God will solve the problem it in His way and time and not jump in front of His parade. How do trials help us grow in faith? I hate trials but know that they create a state in which spiritual growth occurs, often rapidly. Horrible trials (tribulations?) drop me to my knees in questioning, anger and, eventually, resignation. Then, comes faith and the submission He was looking for all along. (Why I keep fighting this process ... I don't know. Sin nature, I guess. Submitting to HIs outcome is very difficult for me.) The only "joy" I count from trials is the hope and expectation that I'll be both more usable and used afterward, that God is making me go through this for reasons only He knows. I pray it is true that God builds character in His children not for the fun of it, or as an end in itself, but because He wants to use us in a particular way, to send us on an assignment.

Why did Lot and his family hesitate? That fatal glance backward -- remembering the past as rosier than it really was; the allure of the imaginative retelling; dashed pride when recalling old accomplishments and glories -- I think we all look back, at times. We hesitate before the unknown future, then hopefully plunge ahead. Have you ever hesitated when you should have been fleeing a danger? Of course I've hesitated instead of fleeing danger. All sin is dangerous. I do think, though, that God has put me in increasingly difficult environments as I have grown in Him, and my hesitation is my fear I'm not up to the task He has called me to do. God doesn't always call me to safe situations. Hesitation can also be that moment when I suddenly see the starkness of the choice in front of me. That moment of insight that gives me pause. Someone upthread wrote that God protects us from ourselves. So true. There can be a moment, however, when we realize He had reached down, like Lot's angels, to pull us out of a mess. What is the lesson for us ? The lesson is probably different for all of us -- is it not amazing that we all read the same verses and extract different lessons? For me, the lesson is that it's often necessary to take a step away from where I am before He gives me my next assignment. Unless I leave the old, I won't reach His new and better. This may be an odd lesson to take away from the story of Lot, but it seems that cities are dangerous places, more so than the countryside where Abraham camped. To go into a city -- in particular, to live in one -- is to court danger. Sin masses in cities like population density. (I'm planning on spending three months in a foreign capital next autumn. I know God is calling me there though I don't know why. Reading this has been a warning to me to e careful and willing to leave on a dime.)

To say that God does not tempt, as James did, is to doubt God’s omnipotence and omniscience. This neither blames God for our sin, or absolves the self from responsibility, but does defend God’s many-faceted character which includes the power to control and manipulate all circumstances. -- If I watch my child fall and do nothing, my love for that child should be questioned. -- If I can’t stop the child from falling, my power over that child should be questioned. That’s the problem of evil and sin – it crashes on the shoals of either doubting God’s love or doubting God’s power or agency. When Jesus prayed, “Lead us not into temptation,” he was talking to God about people. He asked God to NOT lead people into temptation. He didn’t say, “Help me not lead myself into temptation … or keep me from weakness so I don’t fall into sin,” but rather asked God to NOT lead into temptation. The meaning is overt and clear, but we don't want to face it because we're afraid of questioning God's love. We cling to His love more than His power. Yet God’s power is such that He controls everything. God is more powerful than sin itself yet sin exists ergo He permits it. Jesus’ death overcame sin at the same time God was and is sovereign. All things are from Him. I agree that God’s motive is to strengthen and confirm our faith – of this I have no doubt – but I also believe that God tempts us by putting us in situations in which we had no culpability. He also allows terrible undeserved pain in our lives. Adults are responsible for our response to the situations in which we were put. Adults are responsible for their sin. But God both tempts us and lets us be put into situations that can hurt or kill us. To doubt this is to doubt His power.

How can Christians keep balance on the issue of homosexuality in our day? Is it really possible to be loving and compassionate toward practicing homosexuals at the same time as you condemn the sin? Should the church be silent about homosexuality? If not, what should we be saying? Where should we be saying it? I’m not sure that “balance” should be our response. Homosexuality is a cut-and-dry sin issue. If by “balance” you mean “loving the sinner and hating the sin,” you’ve somehow split the person from his/her actions in a way that doesn’t fit reality. Actions and words come from our hearts. They’re not imposed on us – we choose to do these things and say these things because they’re in us. They come from within us. So, there’s no way to love the sinner and hate the sin. In reality, we hate the sinful aspects of people … including ourselves. I hate sin in me. I don’t hate myself as a whole but hate it when I do things that are sinful or wrong. When I say I hate my deeds, I know I am hating what I am, my sin nature. I had a daughter who got caught up in the homosexual life as a teenager. When she “married” her partner in a church ceremony, I refused to attend. We have not spoken to each other for many years because she insists, as a precondition for having a relationship, that I openly accept and laud her sin. I will not do this. After praying for her salvation and the end of her homosexual relationship, God ended her marriage a year ago and now she’s living with a man she’s soon to marry. Her bitterness toward me for not approving of her homosexuality, however, has not dissipated. Now, I’m praying about this and know that God, in time, will reach into her heart and soften it. During this experience with my daughter, I learned that homosexuality’s long tentacles reach into all parts of life. It’s not something that can be bracketed or boxed and put on a shelf. If you steal or lie or covet, for example, you can stop these behaviors far more easily than you can stop those primal, deep sexual urges. This may be why God destroyed Sodom. Once homosexuality and unrestrained heterosexuality take over an individual’s mind or a culture, it is hard to reverse course. It snowballs into worse and worse perversions. Do I love my daughter but hate her sin? No. I love my daughter, but my love for her substantially changed when she changed. It’s not the same love. There’s no abandonment and very little trust. Love generally grows, with time – my love-feelings have diminished. I think mine is a godly response. I am at peace with this. The church’s waffling on this issue is disgusting. Recently, Methodists have split over this issue. The half that have held the line on homosexuality in the pulpit will slowly increase in number and the ”sexularists” will slowly wane in number. This has happened in every American denomination so far. Homosexuality is not compatible with the church – neither is pastors having affairs or abusing children. The church jettisoned its cultural witness when it didn’t stand against obvious sin. The church doesn’t need to be aggressive but does need to respond to cultural attacks against it’s stance on homosexuality with pointed and carefully parsed statements. This has not happened. The church either avoids this issue or has come off as weird and out of touch. There IS a way to be firm and strong without appearing bigoted and weird. We have neither done this nor done this well.

What value have trials had in your life? Have you let Satan destroy you with those trials? Or allowed God to refine you? How have you changed? I've suffered greatly the past few years and am climbing out of a dark valley now. I can see His light again. At no time during my trials did I praise God. I never "counted it all joy" but begged Him to end the trials. Though I admire people who are able to face trials with a smile, I am not one of them. In my experience, trials are indescribably painful. They draw blood. Every trial becomes a marathon "hanging on" until it's over. At one point I had nothing of value left in this world -- nothing! Without any of life's props, I clung to God angrily and desperately. Since He had scraped my life raw, I had nothing to lose, or so I felt. I begged to die. Death would have been a welcomed relief. I thoroughly doubted God's love yet never doubted His power. I knew He controlled everything. When in the darkest period of the trials, God didn't "feel" loving. In fact, I remember thinking God hated me. In retrospect, I can see how God took away everything I valued -- put me through a Job-like experience -- to make me quickly and intensely focus on Him and not myself. Controlling my thoughts ... no, channeling them, became the biggest hurdle I had to face as I crawled out of the valley of despair. Trusting Him was the key to controlling run-away thoughts. It wasn't, and isn't, easy. I still don't know why He put me through these trials but do sense He had ongoing reasons and purposes. Yet. I will know someday. If this gives any reader hope, I want to emphasize that trials actually end. They don't last forever. Either death or victory results. Even the deepest, most severe trial eventually ends. Remember that!! And remember to be patient for most trials don't end suddenly but slowly and imperceptibly. As the dimmer switch gradually and haltingly rotates, the light goes on, and as the light gets brighter, you will see how you have been radically changed during the trial. In the dark, He changes us. Less in the light.

On what ground does Abraham so boldly address God? Do you think God desires us to do the same? Why or why not? Why do you think Abraham's intercession pleased God? What will it take for us to please him in our prayers? This is incredibly helpful to me. I have often wondered why we bother to ask God to do anything when He has perfect foreknowledge, a plan in place, and never changes. Here, I learn that He does change, not essentially, but in His will. The best part is that I can beg Him for change. I have not looked up the other verses given in the three points about what God was teaching Abraham but will do so now. I hope and pray that these other verses show places where God seemed to respond to prayers to change His mind. The assumption I make is that the God relates to me the same way He related to Abraham, that His nature is so consistent that I can depend on Him to be what He was ... now. So His unchanging nature is the ground that I have to approach God to beg Him to do for me what He did for Abraham. I have no idea if this is what God desires of me, but it is what I'll do until shown otherwise. I have no idea if my prayers please God. I hope so. The assumption is that God likes our communication and love for Him, but perhaps we're anthropomorphizing God, making Him like us. I would like to please Him in prayer, but am afraid that this may mean I never ask for anything, just speak to Him my praise and thanksgiving.

In the Anglican liturgy, “It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should …” is spoken by the congregation directly after we praise God, “lift up our hearts” and “give thanks unto the Lord.” In some denominations (Lutheran) or in later editions of the liturgy, the meet/right/duty is reduced to “just and right” which is it's meaning. I think of the words" just," "meet," "right" and "duty" as synonymous, having to deal how we relate to other people more than how we relate to God. In essence, we keep our relationship with God open and transparent by treating people justly and dutifully. Duty is a forgotten and neglected concept. It shouldn't be. Duty is prior to transformation. It is how we act in the absence of real love and affection -- we don't love everyone straightaway. Love grows. But until love is fully actualized, duty carries us forward by sheer force of the will to obey and treat people honorably. I don’t think duty is a bad thing. Character changes are initiated dutifully, by coercing the self with the agency of the holy Spirit to behave toward and treat people in ways better than we feel or want. God puts people in our path to test us. Keeping the way of the Lord has to do with people who are difficult. We keep the way of the Lord when we dive deeply into the Holy Spirit to gain the strength to treat difficult people honourably. Of course this is difficult. Disciplining the self with the will to obey is probably the most difficult thing a mature adult Christian can do. It’s only easy when the people are loveable and task is light.

How can fathers and husbands strike the right balance -- of being godly, caring leaders without being dictators? How can mothers and wives strike the right balance -- of being submissive and at the same time being open about their needs and desires? I'm divorced so should probably not answer this question as I was married to an unbeliever who told me that acts kindness and attempts to submit were "signs of weakness."

In your own words, how would you explain why circumcision is now obsolete for Christians and that baptism is now sign of the covenant? Pastor Ralph neatly equated old covenant with circumcision and new covenant with baptism. This may be true, but I’m not sure. I had thought Jewish ritual bathing was the parallel to baptism, not circumcision. Orthodox Jews take ritual baths for reasons of spiritual uncleanness such as accidently touching something dead or menstruation – men and women bathe separately – as well as conversion to Judaism. It is a spiritual ceremony, not one that physically cleanses. No soap, in other words. In fact, women (presumably men, as well) wear a white robe during their bath and repeat some ritualized phrases. John the Baptist … what did his baptisms mean to his followers? It could mean conversion to Judaism, but were not most of the people being baptized Jews “recommitting” their hearts to Judaism, perhaps in anticipation of the Messiah? I’m also not sure baptism is the sign of the covenant … for that matter, I’m not certain there are any signs of the covenant.

The more I think about this question, the less I understand. After reading through the responses, I've concluded that circumcision means everything from sincerity to blood/cutting away sin. It's best to be quiet until He gives me understanding. -- The outer expressions of religion or faith is a function of my inner self which can be impure and weak, at times. It's difficult to keep up appearances when the force within is squelched. The outer eventually reveals the inner, in most cases. Hypocrisy slowly "outs" itself. -- Faith has to be exercised just like the body. The secret to a strong faith is the time and effort we put into getting to know Him and learn of His ways. We have to exercise our faith: to put ourselves on a schedule of discipline. Even our prayers, though unceasing in a way, have to be focused or channeled by discipline.

I thought sacrificing animals was a bit odd, yet God found the odor pleasing; circumcision is even more strange. Since no one seems to touch this subject, it must be verboten. I'll just say ... 1) Pastor Ralph wrote that circumcision was common at that time so it could not have set the Israelites apart, at least physically. The idea that circumcision is a physical sign of an inward commitment has less significance because it was commonplace. Besides that, male anatomy is supposed to be hidden even from other males. So it doesn't function as a social signal, like a headdress or something easily visible. 2) Why this? Why not a tattoo or a pierced ear or any of the tribal markings, cuttings and scarification practiced even today? There is something about this particular sign that God honors. Still, it's odd. 3) God requires nothing of women. There is a female analog, as practiced in Muslim/African countries today, but God didn't require this. Why? Why didn't God require a sign from women? 4) Since circumcision is a hidden "branding," the covenant relationship between God and his people must have been secreted "in their hearts," otherwise, they'd be just another circumcised tribe in the area. It must have had special meaning to Abraham's followers. 5) The act of circumcision mattered to God. It was important to Him. This makes me think that our emphasis on the free gift of salvation in Christ, one that is utterly unmerited and deserved, perhaps has works as an unstated element. I know this is heresy but if God required something of Abraham and family as a part of "signing a treaty" or covenant with Him, does He require something of us, too? Our love? Obedience? Maybe something not so abstract? 6) The fact that Abraham obeyed promptly is inspiring. May we all do the same. If God speaks to us as clearly, even with a strange command such as this, I hope we don't overthink it, and just obey. 7) The fact that circumcision is done at such an early age -- 8 days? -- parallels infant baptism. The child must confirm his baptism/circumcision in a later ceremony, usually around the time of puberty. Thus, with circumcision, God instituted a two-step covenant -- first, the sign of circumcision; later, the ceremony "validating" it -- bar mitzvah for boys, bat mitzvah for girls. Note that in Judaism, girls have a ceremony without a prior "circumcision." 8) Ismael was circumcised even though he was not a child of the promise. Ditto, Abraham's household servants and slaves. So, circumcision wasn't a sign of lineage, though Christ's lineage came from those circumcised, but a sign of being a part of the group that produced the lineage.

The Bible's most obvious meaning should be preferred, so the command to Abraham to "walk before me" and "be blameless" is what is says -- follow him (without deviation) and be blameless (perfection). if God required this of Abraham, then God would enable Abraham to live both blamelessly and to follow blindly. The fact that we as sinful 21st century Christians cannot understand how God could require perfection of Abraham doesn't negate that this is what God asked. I'm grateful that God does not require my perfection but has given me a way of erasing my sins -- through Christ -- so I can, with hesitancy and error, follow him. What concerns me is Abraham's previous behavior. Obviously he had difficulty believing God and understanding Him. So to command perfection from Abraham must have meant a deep and thorough change in Abraham's character. Perhaps this change explains why the NT refers to Abraham's righteousness: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness" -- Blamelessness or perfection is required in several places in the NT, too, including Matt. 5:48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

What lesson is God teaching you out of Hagar's experience? Which situation that God is calling you to is most difficult for you to submit to? I can't help but think that Hagar gave birth to the man whose ethnicity and religion (eventually islam) has been a goad in the side of Israel (the chosen people). So, though God heard her prayer and her child was born, the consequences of Sarah's impatient sin and Abraham's compliance to her demand was NOT erased. The text only reads that Hagar bore a son which Abraham named. No more. There's nothing that exalts the child's future in that passage 16.15,6. So, did God use this mistake to work out his plans? I really don't know. I'd like to think so. Had Abraham not had a child by an Egyptian surrogate, Isaac would still have been born and Christ's lineage continued. I don't see how Ishmeal's lineage contributes to the biblical story or His plans as we know it. I agree that God calls us to suffering and that suffering is HIs will. It's not clear if Hagar's life was one of great suffering after her return to Sarah. Personally, I find it difficult to square my own suffering with God's love.

What is the significance of Hagar's name for God -- El Roi, the God Who Sees? What does it mean to a person who is discouraged and losing hope? What does it mean to you personally? Is it the case that "to see" means "to understand," as if eyes are equivalent to the mind? I really don't know if this is a contemporary and NT use of the word, or if seeing only refers to the physical sight of God. God saw her ... he understood her = God saw her ... he was watching her: one or both of these interpretations is what Hagar signified with the name, El Roi. I don't find much comfort knowing God is watching over me but like knowing that he understands me. As the duties of life drone on without hope, and the outlook is rationally discouraging, I hope that a God who understands will not only watch but do something about my circumstances. The myth about the all-seeing eye of God -- isn't it symbolized on US dollar bills? -- seems to have been around for centuries, if not millennia. Egyptians believed that God could see everything at once -- this was a common Egyptian myth. There are many examples of "the eye of Ra" in Egyptian art, decorative arts and calligraphic writing. Pastor Ralph suggested that Hagar was on her way home to Egypt when an angel sent by God intercepted her travels. If she was Egyptian, she would probably have been familiar with the common symbol of God's all-knowing, all-seeing eye. Thus, it makes sense Hagar named her vision of God/angels in the desert, El-Roi.