Grains of Sand

Google Images The family is gathered in the lawyer’s office. The will is about to be read and each person present is eagerly waiting to know who gets what. Some have huge expectations. Others have few expectations but since they were told to appear for the reading, they have complied. Perhaps there will be a token from a dead man left behind for them. We’ve seen the scene on television: the thwarted heir, the surprised butler, the dog that got it all. When we come to Genesis 49 we find Israel on his deathbed. He has some final words to say to his children. These words have to do with their inheritance but really don’t concern wealth or land or who gets the silverware. He gathers his sons around him to prophecy as to their futures after he is gone. We are not told how these revelations came to him. We can only assume that God whispered in his ear. Some of what Israel pronounces over his sons is not pleasant—a little like finding out that the deceased didn’t leave you a cent in spite...

Google Images Lies and deceit. That’s what Genesis 27 is about. The fact that the Bible records the shameful deception of an old man and the breakdown of a family, causes some people to believe that God gives at least tacit approval to bad behaviour. They fail to see the bottom line. The Bible acknowledges that men are sinful. It clearly shows the devastating consequences of those sins. It makes no attempt at a cover-up. At the same time, it speaks loudly about a God who takes even the sinful actions of men and works out His purposes despite those sins. In Genesis 27 we are told how Jacob, at the instigation of his mother, deceived Isaac and won the blessing that belonged to Jacob’s older brother, Esau. It’s not the first clue we have to just how dysfunctional this family was. In Genesis 25 we find parents who play favourites, and we discover how little Esau thought about his privileges as the eldest. He sold his rights as firstborn to Jacob for a bowl of stew—that was Jacob’s pric...

Google Images We always revert to what we know. When I look back at our beginnings in Venezuela I am reminded of how true that statement is. We wanted to do something uniquely Venezuelan, to make the church we were trying to establish be different, be Venezuelan. In the end it was uniquely North American. That wasn’t a bad thing—Venezuela is very pro-all-things-North-American. My point is that it just became too complicated to be different and much easier to go back to what we knew. After the resurrection, after Jesus’ appearances in the upper room and on the Emmaus road, the disciples were still “on hold.” What was the next step for them? They weren’t entirely sure and it was futile to speculate and too frustrating to plan. When we get to John 21 we discover Peter and some of the others reverting to what they already knew to do—fishing. They were sitting on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, waiting for no-one-knew-what. Peter suddenly announced, “ I’m going out to fish... ” (21:3)....

Canadian Armed Forces Reserves—Google Images We don’t tend to hold much in reserve. If we have it we spend it, use it, give it away, or protect it so that it isn’t useful to anyone! If forced, we might consider sacrificing a little of what we have held back to ease the stress of the moment. I would think that facing everything He knew about the cross would have tempted Jesus to let loose the heavenly reserves. “‘ Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him [Peter] , ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?’ ” (Matthew 26:52, 53) The crowd had gathered to arrest Jesus. One of the disciples (identified in John 18:10 as Peter) was wearing a sword. He drew it and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest. Gut instinct. That Peter was carrying a sword in the first place was odd. A fisherman carrying a sword? The disciple of an itinera...