Isaac Makes a Request of Esau -- Genesis 27:1-4

Now it came about, when Isaac was old and his eyes were too dim to see, that he called his older son Esau and said to him, "My son." And he said to him, "Here I am." Isaac said, "Behold now, I am old and I do not know the day of my death. "Now then, please take your gear, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me; and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat, so that my soul may bless you before I die."

Isaac is now old and his eyesight is failing. Our senses have a way of doing that as we get older. For many, it is loss of vision. Perhaps for even more it may be our hearing that fades. Seldom is it our sense of smell, touch, or taste or if it is, these fail in a much less noticeable manner. Others of us will be hit with the loss of memory or the ability to think straight. I remember several times in my life being involved in a discussion as to which faculty one would rather lose if one had to lose any. For me, I still think it is the sense of hearing. While there are still many melodious sounds to hear, like birds and sound of cascading water and the comforting words of loved ones, the overwhelming ‘noise’ of this modern world I can do without. The words of loved ones can be written down on paper or like love letters in the sand, or etched with their fingers on my open palm as little children do with their mothers. And the beauty left to see in the world, as God created it, is still so great.

So recognizing his age, Isaac calls his eldest son, Esau, to come to him. We should point out here that sometimes we think we are going to die. One meaning of the Hebrew word used here for age is that of “showing great age visibly”. Yet, God may well have plans for us to live a long time. He does not want us to give up for the timing of our deaths is in his hands, not ours. Earlier today I read about a study that indicates Christians and their families do more in terms of delaying death during terminal illnesses than those that have no particularly strong faith beliefs. It is possible that our belief in the dignity for live gives us an instinct to fight for it, even to the point of resisting death to the extent possible, and leaving the timing of its actual arrival totally in the hands of God, despite all we may try to do.

Isaac calls Esau even though Esau and his wives were a sense of sorrow to Isaac and Rebekah, Isaac still held on to the tradition of the rights of the “firstborn”. These were both the ‘birthright’ and the ‘blessing’. Remember that Esau had sold his birthright to Jacob by now. And like a good son, Esau replies, “Here I am.” Regardless of how he felt about his parents, Esau knew what was expected of him as both a son and the eldest. He knew this time of blessing was coming.

Isaac explains to him why he called him, telling him that he was old and could die at any time and then proceeds to make a request of Esau. He tells him to get his hunting bow and some arrows and go hunting some game for Isaac. Then he asked Esau to prepare a tasty meal for him with whatever he caught and to take it to him so Isaac could eat it. Once he did that, he would then bless Esau with the blessing bestowed upon the eldest son, and then die.

There is a phrase there that we should not miss and it is, “a savory dish for me such as I love”. The request was specific. Isaac asked for something to be done with excellence, especially for him, and it was to be something that Isaac loved. I believe there is inherent in a parent, especially as one approaches the end of their life, the desire to see some evidence or assurance of their offspring returning the feeling of love and care that they have had for all these years from the parent. Such was Isaac’s desire. Such is the desire of all of us who have children. As I write these words, I have the satisfaction of knowing how my wife, children, and I took care of my father in the later part of his life until he died in his early nineties. This morning my wife is out taking her mother shopping and to the drugstore as it is senior’s day where she can get great discounts for the items she needs. My wife and I consider ourselves already blessed in a very special way that is rare these days in North America. We just recently moved into a new home that our second daughter’s family and us built together and this morning as I work on my devotions in my study, Esther made and brought me a savory breakfast, just for me, and such as I love. That is my particular joy of living, to the best of my ability, in obedience to what I believe God wants for me. Your experience and circumstances may be different. You may not be able to move in with your children and grandchildren. God may have for you a very different way of interacting with them so that in some manner (perhaps a special trip together, or by their providing for you in some other means), He will see to it that you get your “savory dish, just for you, and the way you will appreciate”.

And when that happens, your “soul will be able to bless them” as Isaac intended to bless his first-born, Esau.

Join others following Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Esau Marries Two Girls -- Genesis 26:34-35

And when Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and they made life miserable for Isaac and Rebekah.

Esau stayed single until he was forty years of age, the same age as his father Isaac. We can update our timeline as follows:

• 3311 Isaac, at age 40, marries Rebekah (Genesis 25:20)
• 3331 Isaac, at age 60, becomes father to Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:26)
• 3346 Abraham died at age 175 (Genesis 25:7,8)
• 3371 Esau marries Judith and Basemath (Genesis 26:34)
• 3394 The death of Ishmael (based on his birth in 3257 and Genesis 25:17)

Both Judith and Basemath were Hittites who descended from Heth, one of Noah’s great-grandsons. (Noah-Ham-Canaan-Heth). They lived among the Israelites. Abraham had purchased the family burial-plot from them. There is no direct reference as to their worship habits and whether or not they believed in, and served, God, as Abraham and his direct ancestors did, although most likely they did not.

This is the only place in scripture where the name Judith is used. Its root word in the Hebrew however is used one other time later in scripture with reference to the transliteration of “sanctuary”. As a name, it means “Jewess” or “praised”. Interestingly, she was neither. The name Basemath is translated as “spice”. She indeed did add spice to Isaac’s family but perhaps not the kind they had hoped for. The actual name is also given to one more person in scripture many, many years later.

Was Esau foolish in marrying Canaanites? The evidence indicates he was. For starters, they were not part of the blessing to Abraham. It also must have been heartbreaking to Isaac and Rebekah for Esau to marry without asking, as was typical, for his parents’ blessing. Isaac you will remember had a father who insisted that he marry among his own people.

Without going into a discussion here as to the pros and cons of marrying outside one’s faith, we will just note that Esau did just that. The phrase that is most troublesome, however, is the next one: “and they made life miserable for Isaac and Rebekah.” Do we know anything about the reason for that? Well, for starters, we know it was a significant misery that was evident to others or why else would the story go on for generations until it had been written down for us to read. The word used for ‘grief’ is also translated as ‘bitterness’. It is likely that the different customs, culture, and religions (worshipping different gods) of the two daughters-in-law were the source of the heartbreak both girls were to Isaac and Rebekah. Whatever it was, the problem was constantly on their mind. Family fellowship was indeed lacking once they joined, but admittedly that may have started with Esau’s earlier rebellion or at the time he made the decision not only to marry one Canaanite, but two. This was clear indication that he neither cared for the blessing, nor feared the curse of God in his life.

From personal experience, I assure you children sometimes rush into marriages that end up being hurtful to them and to their families. The problem is not always one’s faith. It may the degree of sincerity one may have in his/her faith and the amount of desire they have to put God first in their life. My friend William Troth has written about that very thing in his book, The Milk and Honey Man. He talks about Christians being saved but carnal vs. the Spiritual man or woman who has truly let God be on the throne of their lives. For the Christian parent, I would recommend four things if you are in this situation: First, ask God to show you what He wants to teach you, not your son or daughter, or their spouse, in this situation. Second, continue to pray both parties feel God’s presence in a clear and strong way so that His will is done. Third, support your son or daughter in his plans subject to them being moral and godly. Four, love him or her and their spouse no matter and unconditionally forever.

Join 60 others following Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

“We see the Lord has been with you!” -- Genesis 26:26-33

Then Abimelech came to him from Gerar with his adviser Ahuzzath and Phicol the commander of his army. Isaac said to them, "Why have you come to me, since you hate me and have sent me away from you?" They said, "We see plainly that the LORD has been with you; so we said, 'Let there now be an oath between us, even between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you, that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the LORD.' " Then he made them a feast, and they ate and drank. In the morning they arose early and exchanged oaths; then Isaac sent them away and they departed from him in peace. Now it came about on the same day, that Isaac's servants came in and told him about the well which they had dug, and said to him, "We have found water." So he called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day.

Even though Isaac has resettled in Beersheba, Abimelech apparently kept a close watch on his progress. Eventually, he makes a trip to Beersheba from Gerar to see Isaac, and he brings along two of his key people, an adviser named Ahuzzath and his army commander, Phicol. You may remember the proper noun Phicol from Genesis 21:22,32. As the chances of this being the same person from the days of Abraham is not likely, we can assume that Phicol is most probably, like Abimelech, a title given to all army commanders of the Philistines. The word used for advisor, merea, is translated as a companion or confidential friend, yet the actual word Ahuzzath is translated as ‘possession’. One could suppose that the king’s friends were indeed his possessions. To this point in scripture, the word used here for commander, sar, is translated as either commander or in the case of Genesis 12:15 as ‘official(s)’. In either case, it is one or more people assigned to be close to the king and to represent sources of strength, force, or protection, as required.

When they reach Isaac, he meets them head on with a most fitting question – “Why have you come to me, since you hate me, and had sent me away?” I am not sure if Abimelech’s entourage was prepared for that, but they certainly responded in a most interesting manner. In simple terms, these men were saying, “Isaac, we can see now that the Lord has been with you, and if that’s the case, we can’t afford to be at odds with you. If you ever decide to come after us, with God on your side, we don’t stand a chance. So let’s be allies. Let’s swear an oath and make a covenant between us that you won’t hurt us just as we didn’t hurt you when we sent you away. You are now blessed of God an we can’t deny that or fight it.”

What was Isaac’s biggest secret to his success? Simply this – he allowed God to deal with his enemies, choosing not to fight, but to always seeking peace, and if necessary, moving on. When one would expect Abimelech and the world to view such action as a weak defensive retreat, God saw to it that Isaac became the one to fear and the oppressors sought a treaty with him. Some of you may have experienced something similar in your own life. People that once fought you tooth and nail, and who you released from you life long ago, somehow come back to ask for your help and friendship – either because the chips were down for them or because they realized God was on your side.

At this very juncture in time, Isaac has a choice to make (as we all do when this happens to us). Does he extend a hand of agreement or does he send them back without it? The Bible says, “he made them a feast, and they ate and drank” and spent the night within his dwellings. Not only did he agree to the covenant but celebrated with them and accepted them into his household. That is a beautiful picture of what true reconciliation should look like – both between non-believers and us and between believers themselves. Oftentimes, when members of a local church are at odds with each other, they pay lip service to a treaty or they accept an apology, but are never really prepared to “celebrate” it and act accordingly as Isaac did here with Abimelech. With very rare exceptions (one example of which follows), it behooves us to go that extra step.

There are times, however, that one can accept the apologies of another party (and extend apologies in return) as to the hurt that has been caused, but may believe it is inappropriate to continue the relationship. One such example is two partners going into business together and one hurts the other or both hurt one another. Apologies are extended and accepted by both parties. One wants to continue working together; the other does not because it is now clear the approach of the parties to both business and relationships are indeed very different and incongruent. There would be no point in working together from then on. It is sufficient to make peace, bless each other, and go your separate ways.

The last part of this small portion of scripture is also of interest with respect to its timing. It says “the same day” that Abimelech and his party left Isaac’s household having made a peace covenant with him, Isaac’s people reported finding water from the well that they had dug earlier. Do the right thing and the blessing of God may well be instant – if not materially, certainly within your spirit. There is great joy and often tangible blessings as well in being a peacemaker.

Isaac then names that well Shibah, meaning ‘an oath’ and to this day the place is called Beersheba, meaning ‘the well of the oath’. Some may feel there is a conflict at this point with the content of Genesis 21:31 where Abraham names this location Beersheba as well many decades earlier. Remember that we are talking about a small town, later city, that was built around a well and in this case a well named because of an oath that had been made there. The fact remains that in Genesis 21:31, Abraham and a previous Abimelech had indeed made an oath at that very well. And yes, Abraham named the place Beersheba. The Philistines fill the well up and it dries. Decades later Isaac’s men re-dig the well while a later Abimelech and Isaac are making another covenant. The men then find water from this well (God allowed it to flow again) and Isaac also names the well Shibah and renames the town that has grown around it Beersheba. There is a great parallel here between the life of Abraham and the life of Isaac, his son. The latter is certainly very conscious of honoring the actions of his father by keeping the names Abraham had assigned years earlier.

Join 58 others following Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Meeting God at Beersheba -- Genesis 26:23-25

Then he went up from there to Beersheba. The LORD appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you, and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My servant Abraham." So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants dug a well.

As I read this Scripture portion, I understand it to say Isaac had moved to Gerar (Genesis 26:1), then moved to the valley of Gerar (26:17) and then moved within that valley again (26:22). Now in verse 23 we read that Isaac goes from ‘there’ to Beersheba.

Beersheba you will remember is where Hagar went after Abraham and Sarah had sent her away (Genesis 21:14). In Genesis 21:33 we learned that Abraham had planted a grove there and had called on the name of the Lord there. In Genesis 22:19 we read that this is where Abraham went to and dwelt after Isaac was spared by God from being sacrificed. And now here in Genesis 26:23 Isaac comes to Beersheba once again. Why he went there and exactly how far Beersheba was from where he last dwelt, is not clear. We do know that Beersheba was at one end of the country in Biblical times, the southernmost part. Given how God had used Beersheba in the past for Hagar and then Abraham, perhaps God wanted to take Isaac there, as a means of Isaac reconnecting with the Almighty as we see in this section. Sometimes God, even though we may feel ‘we’re finally home’ as Isaac did in verse 22, wants us to be totally reliant on Him and thus He moves us again and meets us where He takes us. The secret of a victorious life under His care is to be ready to pack up just when you think He’s allowed you to settle.

What happens at Beersheba? God does indeed meet there with him too -- just as the angel of God called to Hagar there when she was desperate and fearing that Ishmael was dying and just as God met there with Abraham his father. In many respects, Beersheba becomes the place where Abraham’s family meets alone with God.

Notice the text says the “Lord appeared to him the same night”. Those of us that are Type A personalities are often teased and sometimes ridiculed because of our “action- and goal-oriented” approach to life. Yet, throughout Scripture, I detect incidents where God acts very much like a Type A. This is one of them. He didn’t give Isaac a chance to settle in and get comfortable in Beersheba. That same night Isaac arrives there, God appears and tells him who He is. He assures Isaac of His presence with him and thus no need to fear. And He goes further, assuring him of being blessed and that his own descendants would be multiplied. But again, as we noted earlier, God is doing all of this for the sake of His servant Abraham. Never underestimate what God will do for your family and your descendants – grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and beyond – because of your relationship with Him. As I live my life and watch my grandchildren mature, this very thought of a blessing for them from God alone is, admittedly, a major driver in my desire to have a close and Holy relationship with God. I pray it may it be yours as well.

Isaac accepts the words of the Lord and in response he builds an altar there and he too calls upon the name of the Lord, just like his father did. Then he pitched his tent to stay there awhile, long enough that it was necessary for his servants to dig a well for them to have water. When God comes and meets us somewhere, we need to recognize His visit. Somehow, we need to establish a means whereby we give Him praise for that and then we need to stay awhile and cherish His words given to us there. We don’t build altars today as they did in Bible days, but we can identify a locale or a specific item in that vicinity that we will always remember as the place where God spoke to us, and we’ll want to visit there often. We’ll want to share that place with our children and grandchildren so they know that God had met us there and be open to His calling them, perhaps in the same spot.


Join 58 others following Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Letting Go and Starting All Over -- Genesis 26:18-22

Then Isaac dug again the wells of water which had been dug in the days of his father Abraham, for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham; and he gave them the same names which his father had given them. But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of flowing water, the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with the herdsmen of Isaac, saying, "The water is ours!" So he named the well Esek, because they contended with him. Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over it too, so he named it Sitnah. He moved away from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; so he named it Rehoboth, for he said, "At last the LORD has made room for us, and we will be fruitful in the land."

In his new location, Isaac found the wells that had been dug when his father Abraham inhabited the area. After Abraham had died, the Philistines had made them non-functional, likely by filling them in. Perhaps this was for purposes of safety or in order to save the underground water allowing it to flow more readily towards their own wells. Isaac’s servants dug the wells again and he named them by the same names that his father had used. What an act of respect and honor to his father’s memory and to the family history.

My wife and I, along with my second daughter, her husband, and three children just moved in to our new combined house on the very property where my father and mother’s home was built in 1953. Almost fifty-six years later, I find myself looking out on views I used to see when I was five years old. I can still picture in my mind my father and mother working around the house and in their huge vegetable garden. I can see my father climbing the fruit trees to prune them. I can see my mother hanging out the washed clothes to dry (something we would not think of doing with today’s modern clothes dryers). As a family, we are doing what we can to keep the memory of my parents alive for us their children, and for their grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Isaac was doing likewise.

So Isaac’s men are digging out the old wells and perhaps some new ones. In the process, they find a strong-flowing artesian well. The well’s potential was soon realized by the herdsmen of the area and they fought with Isaac’s people for possession, claiming the well and its water as theirs. Because of this argument, Isaac names this well Esek, transliterated as Eseq in the Hebrew and translated to mean ‘contention’ in English.

Although the text at this very point does not say so, it appears from verse 22 that Isaac would rather ‘switch than fight’ and he had his men dig a second well, conceding the one named Esek over to the Philistine herdsmen. But they did not seem to be satisfied, arguing over the second well as well. As a result, Isaac calls this well Sitnah, translated from the Hebrew to mean ‘strife’.

There come times in our lives when we do experience both contention and strife even though we are doing what we believe is well within our understanding of what we can and are indeed to do as we follow and serve God. Unfortunately, others will not always see it that way, or even care about our desire to serve Him. So, contention and strife arises. Sometimes, it is necessary for us to do what Isaac did – to move away from the situation. Sometimes we need to put the quarreling behind us, let the issue go, and move on. Isaac moves away from that area of the valley and he starts all over again, digging yet another well. This is very similar to how his father Abraham dealt with the issue that arose between him and Lot. Abraham was always a peacemaker, not a compromiser. And Isaac followed that model. There were no quarrels over this third well. He named it Rehoboth (Rechobowth in Hebrew), meaning “wide places or streets”.

Isaac had finally got the desired freedom he had sought. God had finally made room for him and his household, providing him with a large expanse of land in which he could be successful. That should be the dream of every believer – not so much that we should own land necessarily, but that we should be free to succeed in our service and life for God. Admittedly, that can look very different for each of us. For some of our brothers and sisters, that could mean having great wealth and power and influence. For others, it could mean spending years in prison for their belief in God. What really matters is what we do with what God blesses us with.

Join 59 others following Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Dealing with the Envy of Others -- Genesis 26:15-17

Genesis 26:15-17: Now all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines stopped up by filling them with earth. Then Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are too powerful for us.” And Isaac departed from there and camped in the valley of Gerar, and settled there.

The opening of this small section of scripture seems to answer a question we had raised earlier with respect to how Isaac got the land he farmed in Gerar. Here we learn it was indeed the same land that his father Abraham had settled in when Abimelech let him choose whatever land he wanted. In fact, the Philistines had now plugged up the wells that his father’s servants had dug. This was envy acted out. The only way they could stop Isaac’s success was to cut off the source of water for his flocks, herds, and household.

This is an excellent picture of man in his true nature. When someone else is doing well, we try to knock him down rather than aspire to climb up to where he may be. It is easier to destroy the works of others than to work hard to achieve similar things ourselves. That was human nature in the days of Isaac and it has not changed at all, for most, right up to today. Man not only reacts this way to man, but if we watch carefully, we see human nature reacting this way towards God. We criticize His world, His achievement, and even His gift to mankind. We blame Him for all our woes. And many in the world today try to do whatever they can to “plug up God’s wells of living water”. They block prayers in the schools, they stop preachers from telling the truth about things God does not condone, and prohibit the teaching of anything that looks like or sounds like creationism, and so on. In fact, they pursue the ultimate act of saying they too can be gods and that God Himself is nothing special – nothing man cannot be.

Now here’s the next interesting thing that occurs in this story. Abimelech, the King, sides with his own people against Isaac and chooses to send him away. The reason? Well, the King says, “you are much mightier than us”. Perhaps this meant they could not defeat him because of how big his household was or they could not compete with him in day-to-day commerce. It is also possible that they may have seen God’s blessing on him and they started to fear for their own position. Perhaps God could bless him enough to make him able to take over the ruling of the Philistines and Abimelech would lose his influence, power, and means of wealth. One would think one would want people who had received the blessing of God around, for some of it might well rub off on them. But when evil and fear and jealousy or envy gets in the way, we cannot expect people to be thinking straight. Let us hope that we ourselves do not succumb to such feelings lest our thinking go astray.

Verse 17 tells us that Isaac departed from where he dwell and camped in the valley of Gerar. Two points worthy of mention. First, Isaac did not argue for his rights. You will remember that this same Abimelech that was sending him away was the same one who in verse 11 of this same chapter charged all the people that they were not to touch this man (Isaac) or his wife, for if they did they would be put to death. Isaac had the law of the King behind him. He could have used that in his defense but chose not to. Instead he put his rights aside and moved away from the area that he had cultivated and developed, likely close to where the King himself lived, and had to settle in another, perhaps less fruitful part of the country the Bible refers to as the “valley of Gerar” as compared to Gerar itself. Not only did he not stand up for his rights, but he was willing to give up his comfort also to avoid a fight or argument. What is the lesson for us?

Earlier this morning I spoke with a pastor who believes he was truly wronged by his staff, his church board, and his superintendent. The ramifications are significant on many counts -- ministry calling, emotional, social, spiritual, and financial. His legal advisors indicated he has sufficient evidence to pursue large damage claims. He does not want that, preferring instead to do everything in accordance with New Testament teaching. My dilemma as a counselor is how exactly to help him and his family heal, and to be reconciled with his church so that the work of the Lord may continue and be flourished there. We are both concerned about the possibility of this type of hurt, interference, and lack of support be repeated over and over again with other pastors in that particular denomination. In that instance, I believed that he had a responsibility to find a way by which he could lovingly and openly share his side of the story and then leave it totally up to God to work out all things for God’s own glory. In Isaac’s case there was likely no point in doing that perhaps. And that may also be the case most of the times when we are wronged. We must simply move on and trust God to replenish our loss a hundredfold. But I believe there are situations when we must have the courage, often at a great cost, to stand up meekly and without malice, state our position, and entrust the matter to God.

Second, one can, (whether one should or not I will not debate here) ask the question as to whether or not Isaac should have left. After all, in verse 2 of this chapter, God had very clearly stated, “stay in the land of which I shall tell you.” And between verses 2 and 17, there is no reference to God telling him to move on out. Only Abimelech told him to do that. I only point this out for as we study scripture together we learn from what has gone on ahead. Earlier in Genesis we were made aware of disobedience to God’s exact instructions and the consequences thereof. Simply put, Isaac obeyed Abimelech and not God at this juncture of our study. Our knowing of whether or not the consequences will be significant will have to wait for a point later in our study.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Isaac’s Success and Wealth -- Genesis 26:12-14

Genesis 26:12-14: Now Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. And the Lord blessed him, and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy; for he had possessions of flocks and herds and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.

The first thing we notice in this passage is that Isaac, remaining in the land of Gerar, went to work sowing the land that he had somehow obtained or rented. It is also possible that Isaac inherited the land from his father. You will remember that Abimelech had bestowed many gifts on Abraham in Genesis 20, and said to him, “Behold, my land is before you; settle wherever you please.” (Genesis 20:15). That land included Gerar.

Success always follows work. Fame and fortune may come without work, but success implies that someone tried and worked at something in order for him/her to ‘succeed’ at it. Sometimes, especially when we see others succeeding, we want that same kind of success but without any work. I can think of countless times when each of my children marveled at what they saw another child achieve – in music, skating, etc. But when we reviewed with them the cost in terms of work and practice and sacrificing of other things (like television, playing excessively with their friends, or just being lazy) that accompanied this success, they soon realized that they weren’t really ready to pay that price.

When we do work however God does bless. The text says in that same year that Isaac sowed the land, he reaped a hundredfold. That sounds like a bumper crop year to me. And it was so because God wanted to bless Isaac. Through the success of his sowing and the reaping accompanying it, God allowed Isaac to become richer and richer until he was very wealthy. He had lots of flocks, herds, and a large household of servants.

Isaac’s story is sufficient to stop all those who claim, “you can’t be a servant of God and be wealthy”. That is just not true. The issue is not our wealth. The issues are: who we believe is the giver of our wealth, our relationship to our wealth, our dependence on it, our ownership of it, and what we do with it. Genesis 26 clearly indicates that the ownership of land and livestock, other possessions, and even those who serve as employees or servants under your care (business or household), are not a sin. The Bible says, “the Lord blessed (Isaac)” in all these things. With that established, later throughout scripture we will be given further insights as to how we relate to wealth and what we do with it.

But for now let us simply be aware that God can and does bless people physically and financially and with possessions if He so chooses. And let us also be aware that when one has received such blessings, there will always be some that will envy them. The text says that because of all his possessions, “the Philistines envied him.” I am reminded a little bit of the envy that is sometimes expressed towards some hard-working immigrants to North America who do well because God has blessed their hard work. Such envy often comes from those that are nationals in the immigrants’ new country. And unfortunately, those that express such envy are those that have chosen not to work as hard or sacrifice as much so that their labor would be successful.

Finally, for the Christian, such envy may sometimes come from within the Body of believers and that is very hard to understand or accept. It hurts, especially when the person with the wealth is doing so much for the Kingdom with his/her finances and influence. Suffice it to say, there are no easy answers to this attitude save and except the indwelling of the Holy Spirit both in the believer with the wealth and in the believer without it.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

"Been There, Read That." -- Genesis 26:7-11

Genesis 26:7-11: When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful." It came about, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah. Then Abimelech called Isaac and said, "Behold, certainly she is your wife! How then did you say, 'She is my sister'?" And Isaac said to him, "Because I said, 'I might die on account of her.' " Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us." So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death."

As one reads this passage, several thoughts and questions come to mind. The first will likely come to someone who has been with us in this search for gems in Scripture from Genesis 1:1 to this point. It is this: “Have I not read this story before, perhaps more than once?” We have read two similar accounts. The first was in Genesis 12 and it related the story of Abram and Sarai traveling to Egypt. They decided to lie about their relationship because Abram feared the local men would kill him in order to have his wife.

The second account of a similar story was provided in Genesis 20. It took place in exactly the very town Isaac and Rebekah currently find themselves. Abraham and Sarah (their new names given by God) again had decided to lie about their married relationship. The reasons for doing so are discussed in Volume 1 of this series. Suffice it to say there were ulterior motives at play.

The second thought that comes to mind is that Isaac, in this current passage, is using the same rationale for his lie as his father used in Genesis 12. If we are totally honest with ourselves, we must admit that while reading about such a plot-line once is easily believable, reading it a second time in Genesis 20 starts to raise some questions in our mind, and reading it here a third time in Genesis 26 (this time about Abraham’s son) may well cause us to rethink the credibility of the author. I will admit that was the case for me. What saved me from rendering these accounts as conveniently construed fiction was first my basic assumption that I am reading the Word of God and it is Truth. [You may wish to refer to the section entitled What is the Bible and Why Study It? at the beginning of Volume 1 for rationale on this position.] The second reason is the fact that each one of these accounts, while starting off the same (i.e., a lie in order to deceive for some kind of personal gain), the story unfolds very differently in each case. In Genesis 12, Pharaoh ends up taking Sarai and rewarding Abraham well for her. But then God starts to inflict Pharaoh with plagues of various kinds until he discovers his wrong-doing and returns Sarai to Abram, gives him more gifts, and has his men escort him away from the land. In Genesis 20, Abimelech takes Sarah and then has a dream that he is ‘a dead man’ because of what he has done, taking another man’s wife. He returns Sarah, along with gifts, makes a covenant with Abraham, and Abraham ends up praying to God to end the barrenness of Abimelech’s wives that started with the taking of Sarah.

In this current Genesis 26 account, the story takes on yet a different course of events. We are led to assume that Isaac initially was able to convince the men of Gerar that Rebekah was his sister and he was allowed to live in peace with her. But after some time (we do not know how long), the text says that Abimelech, the king, saw Isaac caressing Rebekah and we assume the caressing was of the nature engaged in by husband and wife, as compared to brother and sister. In fact, the Hebrew word employed is transliterated as tschaq which is translated for us by Strong’s as laughing, mocking, playing, jesting, toying with, and sporting with. Abimelech then calls for Isaac and tells him off for lying. He points out what may have happened if he or one of the men had taken Rebekah. The outcome is that Abimelech issues a charge that anyone who touches Isaac or Rebekah will be put to death.

What we have in these accounts is three very different series of events; all of them stemming from a similar lie. I have to believe therefore that the desire of men to take as their own any beautiful woman that comes to stay in their land was a common practice in the days of Abraham and Isaac.

The third thing I notice about this story, especially as I compare it with the earlier accounts in Genesis chapters 12 and 20, is this. Regardless of the lies being told, the key characters in each (Abram/Abraham in the first two, and Isaac in this one) seem to end up either rewarded, blessed, or protected as a result. How is that? Is God rewarding lying? I don’t think so. God carries out His plan for our lives in spite of our sins. The lesson to be learned is that God takes care of His own, and not that it is okay to lie or sin. It is a lesson of forgiveness and God’s protection once we are committed to Him. It speaks of our humanity and God’s grace. It shows me that a relationship with God, like life itself, is a journey where we vacillate back and forth between our dependence on Him and trying to do things our own way. Thus, in a way, all those of us who have such a relationship, are embarked on our own unique ‘pilgrim’s progress’.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Isaac in Gerar -- Genesis 26:1-6

Genesis 26:1-6: Now there was a famine in the land, besides the previous famine that had occurred in the days of Abraham. So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. The LORD appeared to him and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham. I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." So Isaac lived in Gerar.

In this section we read of a famine in the land where Isaac and his family lived. The Bible is very careful to point out that this had happened before in the times of Abraham partly to distinguish the current famine from that one and perhaps partly to set the stage for Isaac’s actions that were in some ways learned from his father’s experience. In Genesis 12:10 we read about Abraham going down to Egypt in order to escape the famine in his own country. Likewise, Isaac goes to Gerar. This is a lodging place or town south of Gaza. Gerar, a Philistine town, had been mentioned previously in Scripture. In Genesis 10:19 we learn that this was were the Canaanites settled, Canaan being the son of Ham who was the son of Noah. In Genesis 20:1 we learn of Abraham and Sarah lying to Abimelech, the king at Gerar, about their relationship.

So Isaac journeys there and the land is still ruled by an Abimelech. This title implying “father king” was a common title given to the kings of the Philistines over a considerable period of time. Thus we do not know for certain from this passage that his father had dealt with the same identical person although that is a real possibility. It was there that the Lord appears to Isaac and tells him not to go to Egypt but instead to remain in a place that God will tell him. And then God proceeds to tell him to stay in Gerar and that God would be there with him and bless him. In fact, God, for the first time, goes so far as to share His covenant to Abraham with Isaac, personally. He tells him that He will give all these lands to him and his descendants. God restates His promise to Abraham and tells Isaac that He’ll bring it about for him. He reiterates the details of the Covenant He made with Abraham.

But most importantly, God explains why He will do all this for Isaac and his descendants. God lays it out very clearly, “…because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.” Perhaps the only word that may need some explaining is the word ‘charge’ or in Hebrew mishmereth, which is translated as guard, function, obligation, service, watch; a keeping or preserving; an office or ceremonial function (as in the priesthood).

It seems to me that this is the foundational formula for success in the life of any child of God’s. We are to obey Him, serve Him by looking after what He has entrusted to us, and keeping His commandments, statutes, and laws that are still applicable to us in accordance with the work accomplished by His Son, Jesus Christ. That is a pretty complete formula in that it entails all of what we are to do.

The section ends by simply telling us that Isaac dwelled in Gerar. He could count on God to “establish” His oath that was made with his father. What a joy that must have been to realize that God’s favor on one’s life is partially due to the relationship that one’s father had with God. What an incentive that is for us who are parents as we live our lives today. The very thought of knowing that God may very well bless my daughters and son and my grandchildren partially on the basis of how well I obey Him, serve Him, and keep His commandments, is reason enough to do so. Finally, what a reason that provides for us to lead our children to a personal relationship with God in order that this blessing will continue in the generations that come after them. Besides our personal relationship with God, that is the greatest responsibility of any parent.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

A Birthright for Lentil Stew Genesis 25:29-34

Genesis 25:29-34: And when Jacob had cooked stew, Esau came in from the field and he was famished; and Esau said to Jacob, “Please let me have a swallow of that red stuff there, for I am famished.” Therefore his name was called Edom. But Jacob said, “First sell me your birthright.” And Esau said, “Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?” And Jacob said, “First swear to me”; so he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

We do not know what the relationship of Esau and Jacob was as they were growing up, given their different characteristics. I am sure that their household would be most exciting at times as the two young boys kidded, fought, argued with, supported, and avoided each other at different times. They eventually learned to co-exist and go about their own preferences and responsibilities.

One day Jacob had cooked a lentil (small bean common to Egypt and Syria as well as parts of modern Europe) stew that filled the air with a most inviting aroma. Esau on the other hand had been out in the field working or possibly hunting, and he was famished. From my own experience, I know that when one is famished, priorities and the value of certain things change drastically. Not only do dishes one would normally pass on become most desirous, but also one is willing to pay extraordinary prices for an item of food. A good example is paying an exorbitant price for a hot dog at the ballgame. Esau was in that situation on this particular day that Jacob had prepared lentils. Notice that Esau asks for “a swallow” of the soup. At first one may think he does not want very much, just one swallow. In fact, the transliteration of Hebrew word la’at implies ‘to swallow greedily, devour’. Esau was basically asking to devour Jacob’s lentil soup. The text continues to state that it was for this reason Esau became known as Edom, which literally means ‘I will praise him’, for Esau was prepared to highly praise his brother Jacob whose soup satisfied his hunger.

But Jacob who was more attune to assessing the opportunities of a situation given his thoughtful character realized that something could be gained in return for his lentil soup. The fact that he very quickly asked Esau to sell him his birthright suggests that Jacob had been reflecting long and hard on the fact that Esau, born just split seconds ahead of him, actually had the traditional ‘first-born birthright’ over him. What exactly that entailed we learn about later in scripture, but suffice it to say here that its privileges included becoming the family priest and ending up with a double portion of inheritance.

Esau was not at all bothered by this request. One would have thought his reply would be, “Are you out of your mind, Jacob? Do you think, as hungry as I am, your lentil soup, as good as it smells, is worth my giving up my inheritance? You have to be joking, Jacob.” Instead, Esau, perhaps fixated on his starving state, or not caring for his birthright, or simply not thinking, responded as follows: “Some day I am going to die anyway and what good will my birthright and its privileges be to me then?” There is nothing in the text to indicate whether Esau was referring to his potential imminent death from starvation or his eventual death as any other human being. I prefer the latter possibility for two reasons. First, Esau had not been long without food and secondly, it reflects the mind of one who lives for the moment rather than one who considers consequences of one’s action for the future.

One of the most important things every growing child must learn in order to succeed in life is the process by which he or she overcomes the desire for immediate gratification and replaces it with patience and thoughtful consideration of how a given decision will impact his or her life both now and in the future. That is learning that many people continue to have difficulty with well into their adult years, yet it is a critical one for the Christian.

Now Jacob heard Esau say that his birthright would not be any good to him once he died, but realized the statement only gave reason as to why Esau may consider his request without any evidence that he in fact would turn his birthright over for the soup he was about to eat. With that in mind, Jacob proceeds to get that assurance by asking Esau to swear to him that indeed his birthright was now Jacob’s. Esau complied and the birthright was sold to Jacob for some bread and his lentil soup.

This short episode ends with Esau eating and drinking what Jacob had to offer, and then rising and going on his way. But there’s an epilogue to this account. It is the same type of epilogue that can be added to any man or woman’s story after they have made a bad decision in a moment of weakness. Here it is simply stated as: “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” He wanted nothing to do with it. Perhaps because he saw no value in it and he was trying to justify his decision. It is also possible that he despised it for it represented a spiritual right as God’s priest for the family that he wanted nothing to do with. He was in essence rejecting his family’s spiritual inheritance. His character and his decisions confirmed God’s right choice of Jacob to rise in history as more powerful and ruling over his brother, Esau.


Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Isaac and Rebekah Had Favorites Genesis 25:27-28

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a peaceful man, living in tents. Now Isaac loved Esau, because he had a taste for game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.

As one may have thought, given Esau’s ruddy and robust appearance when he was born, he took a fancy to hunting and became very proficient in it. The Hebrew text yada implies that not only was he good at this but that he had studied and came to know it inside out, having perceived all aspects of it. Today, he probably would have hosted his own hunting show on television although the focus of the program would have been hunting for food rather than pleasure. He was likely the means by which the family was able to enjoy many good meals of game. The use of the word ‘field’ here may have one of at least four possible meanings, only one of which implies a ‘cultivated land’. The Hebrew word sadeh is also used to mean ‘a land that is a home to wild beasts’ and even a ‘plain type of land as opposed to mountains’.

Jacob on the other hand is reported to be a ‘peaceful’ man who lived in tents. It is not clear whether or not the text intended to imply that Esau was not peaceful. I think we can take it to mean that Esau was most restless and had to be out and about all the time, while Jacob was more content to stay at home, perhaps reflecting on life, listening to stories told by his elders, or helping his mother with the affairs of the home. Some Bible versions use the word ‘plain’ for the Hebrew tam rather than translate it ‘peaceful’. In either case, the word not only means an ordinary, quiet sort of man, but also implies a complete or perfect being, one who lacks nothing in physical strength, beauty, etc. It is used with reference to someone who is sound and wholesome, morally innocent, with integrity, and ethically pure.

Clearly these two twins were very different. We could safely assume that the phrase ‘kindred spirits’ could not be applied to them. And their parents noted their differences. Unfortunately, these differences formed the basis by which their parents identified preferences for one over the other. Isaac ‘loved’ Esau simply because he was more into hunting which we assume Isaac himself enjoyed. Today this could be equated to a parent who favors one male son over another if the former has a knack for hockey or some other sport while the other one is more comfortable with writing, music, or other art. Rebekah on the other hand, the text says, ‘loved’ Jacob.

The use of the word ‘loved’ to describe the feelings of both parents to their respective preferred child is most interesting. That a parent should love their child is natural and healthy and desirable. That a parent should love one child more than the other, as the context seems to imply, is none of those. In my own mind I have tried to explain this verse in some other way, but I cannot. Isaac’s choice was based primarily on the fact that his son Esau often satisfied his hunger for venison. Rebekah on the other hand may well have made her choice based on what God had told her about the youngest child’s future. In general, though, favoritism towards one child over another is not a way to parent properly. If one feels they must make such a choice, for whatever reason, it should reflect the choice we believe to the best of our ability God would have made (although I would never purport to assume we could think in any equivalent manner with God).

I also want to distinguish between loving someone and condoning their behavior. There comes a time when a child makes decisions and/or exhibits behaviors that are not in keeping with God’s desire for his/her life. When we detect evidence of this, it is appropriate for us not to condone their actions. We should, however, make that decision not based not on what we as parents think is right, but on what the Word of God clearly and unequivocally says. This is not an area where we disagree on matters of interpretation or cultural practices, but rather where there is clear-cut sin involved. In circumstances like that, I believe it is appropriate to indicate that we oppose such behavior. I am not convinced, however, that we can ever, even under those circumstances, stop loving our child. If that were the case, God would have stopped loving many of us years ago. We still have a responsibility to make countless efforts to help them get back on the right track, and at the very least, always keep the door unlocked for them to return.

Follow Ken on Twitter

Check-out AccordConsulting, SCA International, and Human Resources for the Church.

SUBSCRIBE TO EPISTOLI AT THE TOP OF THIS BLOG.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Esau and Jacob Genesis 25:25-26

Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.

When I come to think of it, I have not heard of two or more infants being carried by the same mother being born at exactly the same instant in time. One always has to come out of the mother’s womb first. And so it was in the case of Rebekah’s delivery of her children. One came out first and he was red, or as some versions state, ruddy. My understanding is that an infant is born red or ruddy when its blood is circulating well and is at the surface of his/her body. This seems to be a clear sign of a very robust child from day one. Rebekah’s first child was also very hairy and indeed looked like a garment or more precisely a cloak made of a fur or fine material when one considers the Hebrew translation. This boy was named Esau, a designation meaning hairy in Hebrew.

Right away he was followed by his younger brother who came out of Rebekah’s womb holding on to the heel of Esau. It was as if he was saying, “Hey, you can’t leave me in here; I’m right behind you and you can’t get away!” Isaac and Rebekah named him Jacob that is translated from the Hebrew to mean ‘heel holder’ or ‘supplanter’ according to Strong’s Bible Dictionary. A supplanter is someone who supersedes or replaces someone else. Interesting how these three things: what God predicted about the younger child, what the child was doing at birth holding on to his older brother’s heel, and his name all seem to be falling in line. How the story plays out is still to be discovered by us.

The Bible says Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to Esau and Jacob. We now return to our timeline (which started at creation) and insert the birth of these twins:

• 3311 Isaac, at age 40, marries Rebekah (Genesis 25:20)
• 3331 Isaac, at age 60, becomes father to Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:26)
• 3346 Abraham died at age 175 (Genesis 25:7,8)
• 3394 The death of Ishmael (based on his birth in 3257 and now Genesis 25:17)

The timeline helps us see that grandfather Abraham lived another fifteen years after his grandsons Esau and Jacob were born. I wonder what his influence until his death was on the boys who at that time were fifteen years old. Grandparents certainly have a great opportunity to influence the lives of their grandchildren, as they stay involved with them, regardless of age differences. There was 160 years difference between Abraham and the twins.

Follow Ken on Twitter

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Two Nations

Genesis 25:22-24: But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If it is so, why then am I this way?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger.” When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

I do not know exactly why the author of Genesis used the phrase “struggled together within her” to express the physical feelings that Rebekah was having while she carried her twins. The actual Hebrew word is ratsats and it indicates that a sense of crushing was involved. Perhaps the twins were large and Rebekah small, causing her to feel each movement of one of them as ‘crushing’ against the other. In any case, the action and perhaps the pain associated with such movement over the pregnancy were sufficient to cause Rebekah to wonder why she was experiencing this conflict within her body.

Oftentimes things happen to us and we wonder why we are feeling the way we are. Many of us just keep on wondering. Some of us ask our friends while others take the next step and visit doctors and other specialists, but not Rebekah. She knew God had created her and all that was within her. She likely knew the twins were an answer to Isaac’s prayer. With those facts, Rebekah first inquires about her condition “of the Lord”. And God answers her. If we are truly seeking His answers, He does address our concerns.

God tells Rebekah that the two children in her womb represent two nations from which will come two peoples. One of them will be stronger than the other; and the older child and nation stemming from it will serve the younger child and peoples stemming from it. How does a young mother deal with such words from the Lord? Although the Bible does not tell us how Rebekah reacted, we can be sure it was with some anxiety as to what all that would look like in the years ahead. Sometimes we ask God a question and He gives us an answer that we only partly comprehend. The rest requires patience and trust, as well as, the necessary obedience.

Rebekah waited until it was time for her to deliver and sure enough, she gave birth to twins.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and Your Health

Newswise recently reported yet another interesting study. Bottom line is that divorce and widowhood have a lasting, detrimental impact on health, even after one ties the knot again. The study found that married people that were previously divorced show worse health on all dimensions, over those married and never divorced. And worse still, those divorced or widowed who don’t remarry are even worse off. University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite co-authored the study with Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The subjects were 8,652 people aged 51 to 61. This is the first study to examine both marital transitions and marital status on a wide range of health dimensions, according to Newswise.

Previous research has shown that the transition to marriage tends to immediately improve the health benefit ‘stock’ for both men and women – men because they start to live and eat healthier, women because their financial well-being generally improves. This continues to be the case throughout marriage for most couples. But divorce or widowhood undermines these benefits and a drop in our ‘health stock’ is experienced after either occurs. The authors cite drop in income and increased stress over a number of issues including shared child care as reasons.

Other findings include:

• Divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block.

• People who never married have 12 percent more mobility limitations and 13 percent more depressive symptoms, but report no difference in the number of chronic health conditions from married people.

• People who remarried have 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more mobility limitations, but no more depressive symptoms, than those who are continuously married.

Here’s how the authors explain the findings? Prof. Waite says the impacts of marriage, divorce and remarriage on health are based on the ways in which the various illnesses develop and heal. She says, with my comments in brackets, “Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly [negatively after divorce or widowhood; positively after remarriage] to changes in current conditions. In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health [as compared to mood] is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries.”

Okay, that explains it, but here’s what I think is really more important, all else being equal of course:

1. Marriage on its own is good for you – health stock improves both after one’s initial marriage or any subsequent marriages.
2. Divorce is generally bad for you – health stock stays impaired even after remarriage.
3. Divorce has a bigger negative impact on your health than marriage has a positive one.
4. Remarriage does not eliminate all the negative impact.

Thank you professors Waite and Hughes, but wait a minute – haven’t I read that somewhere else before this study was ever thought of? I’m sure I did. Seems to me my pastors have been teaching these lessons from the Good Book for years. Oh well, some people will never believe something unless a PhD. gets to say it. And sometimes, not even then.

Anyway, that’s how this Presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking, and don’t forget to follow me on www.twitter.com/pappou .

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Christianity Under Fire I

This is the first in a new series of blogs under the title Christianity Under Fire (CUF) – a term shared, I’m sure, by many other authors who feel that indeed our Faith is Under Fire. While we scour all sorts of media for our topics and examples, admittedly it’s very difficult to find such articles from liberal sources. And unfortunately, we have to sometimes rely more on the conservative media to get them to us. Although, in my opinion, they do cry “Wolf” a little too often, they are still providing accounts of situations that the mainstream media would rather you not know about.

Our first such CUF topic was an item written by Bob Unruh and posted by WorldNetDaily (WND) on June 19, 2009. It was called “City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest; Judge won't let ministry deliver tracts on sidewalks”.

Here’s the bottom line: A federal judge allowed festival organizers in Dearborn, Michigan to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks. Dearborn is 30 percent Muslim according to WND. The celebration of the city’s Arab International Festival followed later that weekend.

Judge Nancy Edmonds’ decision, however, did not intervene with the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective (ACP) group by both the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.

ACP workers and volunteers have attended the same festival five previous years without any disruption of the public peace. But this year Dearborn police warned ACP their people would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot. Negotiations prior to the lawsuit being filed failed to resolve the issue. Why this year, why this group?

Here’s what the president of the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson, had to say: "It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks". Again why this year, why this group?

Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who argued for the Christians' rights before Edmonds said, "This case involves an important constitutional question regarding the government's ability to prohibit peaceful speech activities". I repeat, “why this year, why this group?”

Finally Mary Landroche, director of the city's department of public information, said the judge's ruling agreed the city had the right to establish rules for maintaining order. "[She – judge Edmonds] did agree with the city we have an interest in controlling the crowds," Landroche told WND. She added the city's rules are "content-neutral," but she could not provide information about any other group impacted by the change. She also said the city just decided the public sidewalks are "part of the festival grounds." You know what’s coming – “Why this year, why this group?”

All this took place because the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn filed a complaint saying “we do have to think about the safety of everyone” as the Detroit News quoted there spokesperson. The AACC in Dearborn also indicated there was "no problem" with the Christians being at the event. So, somebody please tell me, “Why this year, why this group?”

And then according to the WND, the complaints cited a police statement that the Christians would be classified among "political parties and protesters," and would be limited to a single location. So, who made Christians a political party to be defeated or fought against? Who labeled us as ‘protesters’ in today’s sense of the word? I promise this is the last time I’ll ask it: “Why this year? Why this group? Why Christianity?”

Might it just have something to do with the fact that people of all kinds, of all faiths, of all nations, of all political agendas, etc., really sense a change in America that is becoming more and more evident since the big event in Washington on January 19th, 2009? Is it possible that Washington with what they say or don’t say, with what they do or what they leave undone, is signaling the fact that it is time to forget the “faith of our fathers” and accept “the faith of our brothers”? Time to forget Christianity and embrace other faiths, not the least of which is Islam? (Remember the trouble Jacob got into when he agreed to Laban’s idea of marriage.)

I remember back in the days when I worked in government. One of the big pressing issues at the time was the political agenda of the feminist movement. This movement knew that the time to make progress on all their causes was during the terms of liberal governments that were sympathetic to their goals. I see a clear parallel now in the United States. The country has a government that wants to embrace the world at the expense of what are clearly strong American values and belief systems – including those that espouse the family and Judeao-Christian tenets. If it continues in this course, I believe, its citizens will ultimately lose the very freedoms they celebrated last July 4th.

Anyway, that’s how this Presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking, scan the media for more CUFs, and don’t forget to follow me on Twitter

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Looks, Money, and Fame Just Don’t Cut It

Last May Newswise reported on a study that demonstrated an inverse relationship between good looks, lots of money, and the admiration of others on the one hand and one’s sense of happiness on the other. Really? Yes, really.

While pursuing goals generally has a positive impact, this is not true for all goals according to the study’s author Edward Deci, professor of psychology and the Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester. Chief among the goals that don’t result in positively contributing to a satisfying life are those of attaining wealth and fame.

The research paper appeared in the June issue of the Journal of Research in Personality (you can get all the details about methodology there). Here’s the bottom line of what it found while tracking 147 alumni from two universities during their second year after graduation. The study confirmed that the more committed an individual is to a goal, the greater the likelihood of success. But unlike previous findings, this analysis showed that getting what one wants is not always healthy. This is contrary to the historical psychology theory that says if you value goals and attain them, wellness will follow. That’s not the case if you consider the content of the goals according to lead author Christopher Niemiec, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University.

He says the study shows reaching materialistic and image-related milestones actually contributes to ill-being; despite their accomplishments, individuals experience more negative emotions like shame and anger and more physical symptoms of anxiety such as headaches, stomachaches, and loss of energy. Wow. The wisdom found in the Old Testament book of Proverbs wasn’t wrong after all. But wait, there’s more, the authors go on to say that by contrast, individuals who value personal growth, close relationships, community involvement, and physical health are more satisfied as they meet success in those areas. This latter group experiences a deeper sense of well-being, more positive feelings toward themselves, richer connections with others, and fewer physical signs of stress. Wow. Again the Old Testament Solomon and the New Testament Jesus had it exactly right.

Of course, the researchers feel their findings support the Self-Determination Theory developed by Deci and Richard Ryan which states that well-being depends in large part on meeting one’s basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In their opinion, “intrinsic aspirations seem (Niemiec’s word) to be more closely related to the self, to what’s inside the self, rather than to what’s outside the self.” Well, we’ll take issue with that another day. For now, let’s be thankful for their finding that striving for wealth and praise does little to satisfy deep human requirements.

The authors also suggest that for this younger set of career people, time devoted to extrinsic pursuits, like working long hours, often crowds out opportunities for psychologically nourishing experiences, such as relaxing with friends and family or pursuing a personal passion. They say craving money and adoration can lead to a preoccupation with “keeping up with the Joneses”. And what’s wrong with that? Well, behind this striving to ‘keep up’ are upward social comparisons that breed feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. Really. Solomon and Jesus both hinted at this, but you’ll have to find that out for yourself as you dig into their works.

Finally, the researchers indicate that the benefits of caring relationships and hard-earned skills are lasting while the thrill of extrinsic accomplishments fade quickly. As they would ask, “do you still rave about your last salary raise or promotion?” I hardly think so.

My advice – get smart, and pursue what really counts in life. Anyway, that’s how this presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking and don’t forget to follow me on www.twitter.com/pappou .

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

For Men (& the Women Who Love Them)…Please Reduce Your Colorectal Cancer Risk

Three months ago Newswise communicated the findings of a simple UK study reported in The European Journal of Cancer Prevention, published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, pharmacy and the pharmaceutical industry. Here’s the bottom line:

The study led by Professor. Donald Maxwell Parkin of Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics, and Statistics, London, identified five lifestyle factors that researchers believe would reduce colorectal cancer in UK men substantially (26% overall including 31.5% in men and 18.4% in women) over the next two decades plus. Here are the lifestyle changes that make the difference as reported by Newswise:

• Consumption of red and processed meat - no more than 80 or 90 grams per day.
• Consumption of fruit, vegetables, and fiber - at least five portions per day.
• Exercise - at least 30 minutes on 5 or more days per week.
• Alcohol consumption - no more than 21 units per week for men, 15 units for women.
• Overweight and obesity - reduced to rates of 20 years ago.

The greatest reductions would be in those age 50 or older. However, the proportional reduction in risk would be larger at younger ages.

Colorectal cancer is a major problem in not only the UK, but also in Canada and the United States. I know, I had it and maybe still do. When first discovered, the doctors wanted to surgically remove a good portion of my colon and reconnect me – assuming they could do it successfully, but without any guarantees. When they said this was to prevent future recurrence, I opted to go for the drastic life-changes above. Two of my three specialists were skeptical that would make any difference. It did. Six months later during my second colonoscopy, they only found a normal polyp and removed that easily. Next month I go in for my regular six-month colonoscopy (I guess if they can’t operate, they’ll see to it that they keep me visiting twice a year which is better than an operation as far as I’m concerned.)

For me, it was a matter of faith – they told me they thought I was 95% cured when they removed the cancerous polyp. I told them 5% probability of not being cured is not sufficient reason to cut me up. They reluctantly agreed when I told them that they themselves learned that ‘just noticeable difference’ in statistics was about 15% and that I believed my faith in God covers me 100%, not just 95%.

For you, your reasons may be different as to why you should try to reduce your risk of cancer. But whatever they are, just do it. Sure, I miss the steak and the pork chops and the hamburgers – but there are great alternatives out there and I still enjoy my fish, especially small ones. Life could be a lot worse.

By the way, there’s a new video on YouTube that is getting a lot of attention – it’s about Ted Blair and his cancer experience. Well worth it if you have cancer or if someone you love has it. You can catch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQqPNl87RIM .

Anyway, that’s how this presentologist sees it. In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking and don’t forget to follow me on www.twitter.com/pappou .

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Religious People Don’t Want to Die

Back in March 2009, Newswise reported that a new study of terminally ill cancer patients who draw on religion to cope with their illness are more likely to receive intensive, life-prolonging medical care as death approaches –– treatment, by the way, that often entails a lower quality of life in patients’ final days. The study was by researchers at Dana-Faber Cancer Institute (a comprehensive cancer centre and an affiliate of Harvard Medical School). Earlier studies had shown that more religious patients often seek aggressive end-of-life treatment and this study shows they actually get it.

We also know from other research that religion and spirituality do provide great comfort and support for those actually dying due to a terminal illness.

The latest research contributed two basic findings: positive religious ‘copers’ had three times the odds of actually receiving life-prolonging care in the final week of life and they also were less likely to have completed living wills or do-not-resuscitate orders in advance.

So, here are my questions: Why is it that religious people (and by that we must include evangelicals and/or born-again Christians) prefer not to have to deal with death even when it is inevitable? Why do they not help make matters easier, especially for their families, by agreeing in advance to instructions that would make aggressive treatment less prominent just prior to the end of their lives? Why do their family members, even if they know their dying loved one has received eternal salvation, continue to seek and endorse such aggressive treatment to keep them alive? And why does this group do that to the extent that there is such a strong significant difference between them and the non-religious people? These are hard questions that we often do not think about. Yet the research data suggests we do just that. I don’t know about you, but it makes me wonder if there is some element of hypocrisy between what we say we believe and what we actually do. [Don’t respond to that – I may not like hearing the truth, but then again….]

I lost my mother at age 64 from an angina attack. She was in a coma. The doctors had asked what my dad and I wanted done. We replied, “Watch for any signs of improvement, take moderate measures, do not let her suffer unnecessarily, and if necessary, let her go.” Mom died that night. Nearly three decades later, I lost my father, in his early 90’s, to cancer. Again, we had the same choice and our family was around his bedside as we watched him die, struggling. The doctors had explained that if they pursued aggressive treatment measures, we would be delaying the inevitable by a day or two, not much more. As much as we loved him, we had to let him go. Those experiences, first of seeing my mom in a coma with all sorts of tubes going into and coming out of her body, and then watching my dad gasp for his last few breaths of air as he tried to reach out with his hands, pleading the doctors present for help, helped me form my current views concerning man’s desire to cling on to life.

It was in those moments, and it continues to be today (whenever I think about this topic) that “the rubber of my actions hit the road of the faith I had chosen”. If I believed then and believe now in the power of the resurrection and life after death, which I did and do – then I had/have no reason whatsoever to delay what God has ordained.

Having said that I know that there are others who would strongly disagree. I know there are others who may tell me exactly why they would do all they could to stay alive themselves and/or to keep their loved ones alive, under similar circumstances. There may even be some who can identify some scripture that may help all of us in this matter. Admittedly, I have never been in the situation of having to make such a decision where a child or a grandchild is involved (and I pray I never have to). I’m particularly interested in hearing about those situations too because I believe I can learn a lot from others who have gone through that valley.

I would love to hear from parents, from doctors, from pastors, from anyone who has some thoughts on this topic. You’ve read how I see it – now, it’s your turn to tell me how you see it. Leave us a comment now.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments on topics that concern the Church today. You can also follow me on Twitter at Twitter and get notifications that way.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting at Accord Consulting.

In the meantime, keep on ortho-thinking.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Do Our Churches Need Body Guards?

On March 9, 2009, CNN ran a story titled “Churches Need Security Plans, Experts Say”. This was in response to the story of an attacker who, the day before, had walked into a church in Illinois and began firing. The pastor was killed. There were also reports that the church had security plans in place. Although two men subdued the gunman involved, clearly the plans weren’t sufficient. In the last year or so the Christian Security Network (CSN) has been around more and more churches are getting help in this area and some tragedies have been averted. CSN also keeps track of security events in churches around the country (in January and February 2009 alone, over 140 acts of violence to churches were tracked by the Network). CNN reports that CSN spoke of one incident that an unknown visitor overdressed for the warm weather and acting odd was taken aside and questioned by church officials only to discover he had two machetes tied to his back. His excuse? The devil had told him to cut the pastor’s head off. With the rise of drug use (America has all but given up the battle against drugs according to Foreign Policy magazine and the visible evidence around the country) as well as the increase of mental illness due to depression, economics, loss of job, family breakdowns, etc., this type of incident is bound to rise. Executive Pastors and those in charge of church facilities would be wise to check out CSN’s services to its members.

As recent as May 20, 2009 the FBI and New York police busted four locals who had planned to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx, not to mention shooting another plane out of the sky. CNN reported that the suspects were three U.S.-born citizens and one immigrant. Three of the four had converted to Islam in jail and were angry that Muslims were dying in Afghanistan. To top it all off, they saw the Jews as the cause of all of America’s problems.

So, do our churches need bodyguards, visible or discrete, and, with or without, armed weapons? [According to CNN, a bill to allow concealed weapons in churches didn’t get past the state’s Senate committee in February.] Last I checked schools have armed guards in some parts of the continent. And if we think we need them in our churches, how do we balance our need for a secure place to worship and still be a place of worship, open to all? More people need a place of comfort these days than ever before, but do we make them go through a security machine as if they were about to travel by plane just to get in? If not, how do we help provide the sense of security many others need that taking one’s family to church is not considered a potentially dangerous activity?

I’d like to hear your take on this pastors and worshipers? What do you think? Provide your comments below.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments on topics that concern the Church today. You can also follow me on Twitter and get notifications that way.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting

Until next time, keep on ortho-thinking!

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Why Some Ideologies Attract True Followers

The well-known author, Solzhenitsyn, in explaining why many of Shakespeare’s villains only murder a small number of people rather than become mass murderers, indicates it is because of the their lack of ideology. More recently, historian Jamie Glazov in his book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror suggests that wherever "believers" in a religion that purports to save others gather, there is an appetite for revolution. I must admit that as a carnal human being, I understand exactly what he may have in mind. As a Christian believer, I find myself often empathizing and totally understanding Peter as he drew his sword to cut off the ear of one of the High Priest’s slaves just before the arrest and trial of Jesus (John 18:10). I understand that is not Christ’s approach to resolving issues.

But Glazov should be heard a little further. He points out “The less brutal an ideology is, the less interest the average believer has in it.” In fact, those following Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot always grew significantly in number when the leaders mass murders peaked, according to Glazov.

Barbara Kay, writing in the April 22nd edition of the National Post points out something interesting about the left’s infatuation with Islam replacing communism as its driving ideology. She indicates following Marxism meant pursuing a utopia of many enlightened ideas. But why is the Western leftist now courting Islam? Kay seems to say this is very puzzling for the West is atheistic (well, certainly the leftist West is), sexually egalitarian, and obsessed with social justice. Islamists, she contends, are theistic (Allah is their god), patriarchal (not sexually egalitarian at all) and shariah-bound (which pursues cultural justice more than social justice). [The preceding and following bracketed parts are all mine.]

As if to answer Kay’s well thought out questions, Glazov takes us on what Kay calls “the believer’s totalitarian journey”. In a moment we’ll see how all this relates to the Christian, but for now, please stay with me.

In Glazov’s experience and observation, most believers in anything that looks like an ideological cause, normally start out with “an acute sense of alienation from (their) own society (and associated faiths, beliefs, religions, etc.),” says Kay. Even though they are secularists, they still seek some kind of redemption in their lives and are easily drawn to something like the “seculiar shariah” that comes along in the Islamic faith. There, suggests Kay, they don’t have to worry about being estranged from society as individuals, because individualism doesn’t exist.

This kind of believer isn’t really after truth, she says. He/she is more interested in a movement they can “submit” to. And, to get into this new ‘vast community’ that will adopt this ‘cultural orphan’ Kay says, he/she is willing to sever any of his ‘emotional ties’ to his rejected society or culture [or in my thinking, give up his/her independent thinking and rationality].

Of course, the new society the believer joins is not just satisfied with his/her joining it, but requires the new recruit to actually blame his/her old society for all the ills of the world. And by the way, don’t even think about quitting the new community – you’re dead meat. Doesn’t it make sense, Kay hints, that under these conditions the new recruit stops thinking? When asked to take certain actions as part of his/her responsibilities that most of us would find rife with logical or moral problems, the new recruit blindly misses them. For example, Kay suggests blindness to suffocation of free speech, arbitrary imprisonment, terror bombings, stonings, etc. Perhaps, I would add, even female genital mutilation and rape, as punishment.

Okay, so we figured out how the leftist orphan feels and thinks as he/she joins this newfound adoptive agency called Islamism. But what does all this have to do with Christians? Good question. The answer is several things.

First, I think we, as informed Christians, need to be aware of how the Devil works. More specifically, we need to be aware of what attracts men (and some women) to movements that are outside their original society. Secondly, we need to be aware, once they get inside their new movement, of how they think and behave in relation to truth, illogical thinking, or injustice in certain aspects of life. I say this because we cannot neglect the fact that we too are being accused of not pursuing justice in other parts of human life, in their view.

Thirdly, is there anything in the process of their slowly becoming disillusioned with their own society and being drawn to an alternative society that we can learn from? For example:
a. Can we learn from the fact that ‘true followers’ are more interested in a movement they can ‘submit to’ rather than search for the truth. Now don’t get me wrong, Jesus Christ is the Truth and the Truth makes us free. But perhaps we have been more interested in presenting the Christian faith as one having the small-t ‘truth’ rather than more diligently promoting the concept of total submission to Him as Truth.
b. Since true followers are prepared and want to give up their independence in order to join a new ideological community with a cause, how can we encourage Christ followers to keep their independent thinking among us but at the same time be prepared to fight for the cause of Christ? It appears to me that our independence in thinking creates more and more factions amongst us to the point where we are ‘divided and conquered’ by the Enemy.
c. Do we demand enough of our new recruits? How many times have you heard pastors say from the pulpit when preaching on tithing, for example, “the majority of you are getting a free lunch”? Many people accept Christ, get baptized, join the local church, and then sit back in their pews demanding to be entertained or at best, fed. Having observed many organizations in my lifetime, I must admit that no other type of organization consistently carries as much dead weight as the local church.

I have avoided talking a lot about how some religious bodies have great expectations and requirements of their members. The reason I did this is that they also tend to be those groups that have adopted doctrine that is not conducive to what most of us believe is scripturally based. For example, Jehovah Witnesses’ expect their members to either do so much door-to-door canvassing each week or stand at the corner holding up their Awake magazine. Failure to comply is heavily frowned upon, or used to be. Mormons are expected to give everything up for two years and serve as missionary elders. I’m not suggesting we become like that, but I think we let the ‘service’ baby slip right out of the ‘faith’ bathtub. Pardon my awkward analogy. I believe we need to rethink what it costs ‘church-wise’ to be a true follower of Jesus Christ (because the local church is indeed what God ordained to be the means He would use to reach the world for Him – there is no back-up plan). I think it is time for us to expect more of our members now. Instead, we seem to have taken the easier road of letting Christ do the pruning later.

At least that’s the way I see it. You may choose to differ. If so, please comment.

Please join our website list for automatic notifications of new blogs or comments. You may also follow me on Twitter.

Order my new book, Human Resources for the Church: Applying Corporate Practices In a Spiritual Setting.

Until next time, keep on ortho-thinking!

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.