Would You Rather?: Marriage vs Singleness

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather be single your whole life or married to an unfaithful spouse?

Answer: It's complicated

Backstory

Paul

Many of God's people never took a spouse, but Paul is perhaps the most famous. He even gives us reasons why singleness can be a good thing.[1]

Hosea/Christ

Hosea was called to married a prostitute—scholars debate whether he married a woman with a promiscuous past who was now faithful or if she remained promiscuous after their marriage. Either way, this marriage was symbolic of God's relationship with Israel and is symbolic of Christ's marriage to the Church. Both Israel and the Churhc struggle to be faithful to God.[2]

Rationale

This is a hard question for me because I have a "logical" answer and a "heart" answer. When I think about the question in it's totality, there are spiritual ramifications, and yet I feel like I would choose the one with negative spiritual consequences (singleness).

As Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7, there are benefits to being single. Most of the drawbacks are external. If you stay in community with your fellow believers, you should not be lonely and if you do not listen to the world's definition of success or happiness, you shouldn't feel incomplete without a spouse.

As someone who is single and has never been married, I am content in my current state and I don't think it would be "the end of the world" if I never married. This is why I lean toward this option.

I say to the unmarried[e] and to widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am.1 Corinthians 7:8 CSB

Many people in our society have experienced infidelity and based on conversations I've had with married people, I actually believe most couples work it out and remain married. Of course a one time slip up is very different than a serial cheater.

For this question, I imagine the relationship between Christ and the Church or God and Israel, where the spouse is continually breaking the covenant. In this case, of course pride drives me to think I wouldn't want that—if the other person doesn't respect the marriage covenant, why be married? On top of that, in our fallen world, such behavior can quickly get messy. From side babies and baby momma drama to incurable STIs/STDs, not being faithful can have consequences other than just hurt feelings!

The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord. Hosea 1:2 KJV

Of course, the catch here is that God always takes us back. God loves us to the point that He's willing to take on whatever baggage we pick up in the world while we're out doing our own thing without Him. This is extremely profound from a spiritual perspective and exemplifies the meaning of true unconditional love.

There is a Bible verse that says forgive so that you can be forgiven (Luke 6:37) and by choosing remain single, I feel like I'm walking on thin ice... If I can't forgive a cheating spouse, why should I expect God to forgive me for all the things I've done? This is why it's complicated. I want to to choose be married to an unfaithful spouse, but in my heart I'm sure I would choose be single.

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. 1 Corinthians 7
2. Hosea 1:2

Would You Rather?: Ask or Disobey

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather risk your life approaching a king to request salvation for your people or risk your life disobeying a king and refusing to worship his idol?

Answer: Approach to request salvation

Backstory

Esther Approaches the King

After Esther rose to the position of quuen, a hateful man close to the king convinced the king to issue a decree that would cause all the Jews to be put to death. Esther's people were in danger, and she was the only one with access to the king; they needed her to convince the king to overturn the decree. However, in Persia, no one was allowed to approach the king without permission, not even the queen. If a person approached the king and he did not hold out his staff to acknowledge or accept the person, they could be killed![1]

Meshach, Shadrach, and Abed-Nego Refuse to Bow

Most people are familiar with the story of Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's gold statue.[2] Nebuchadnezzar issued a decree that everyone was to bow when the music played or else they would be thrown into the fiery furnace. These 3 young men stayed true to God's word despite the threat of death.

Rationale

In both of these situtation, the person (or people) had to risk their lives, just under different circumstances. When I first thought of this question, I leaned toward refusing to bow to the idol, mainly because these three gentlemen had each other for support. Having close friends standing beside you as you make difficult life decisions definitely takes the pressure off. Ultimately, however, I decided that I would rather take on Esther's situation.

¹⁶Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. ¹⁷If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. ¹⁸ But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”Daniel 3:16-18 NKJV

The reason I settled on Esther's situation is because I feel like it would have been an easier decision to make. Although Esther didn't have two friends at her side ready to die with her, she didn't have much of an option. Had Esther chosen not to approach the king, the decree to kill the Jews would have caught up to her eventually, and she still would have died. Knowing this, I think, would make it easier to make the decision. Also, because Esther wasn't quite put on the spot, she was able to fast and pray going in to the action, whereas Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego didn't have time to think about it.

And Mordecai told them to answer Esther: “Do not think in your heart that you will escape in the king’s palace any more than all the other Jews. Esther 4:13 NKJV

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Esther 4-5
2. Daniel 3

Would You Rather?: Betray or Deny

This post received a comment suggesting that this question should not be asked. I would like to clarify that the answer to this question is not to suggest that you should actually betray or deny the Messiah—though we do both in our lives whether we are ready to admit it or not—but to recognize the potential to do either in ourselves. To realize just how much like the people of the Bible we truly are. By understanding the motives and the possible reasoning behind their failures and identifying where we align with these motives and reasonings, the hope is that we can avoid their pit falls. I would also like to clarify that "equal desiring" means "equally not wanting" in this case, in other Would You Rathers it could mean "equally wanting."

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose between two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather betray Jesus or deny Jesus?

Answer: Deny

Backstory

Judas Betrays Jesus

Judas, one of the 12 disciples, makes a deal with the authorities to turn identify and turn over Jesus in exchange for money.[1]

Peter Denies Jesus

Peter, also one of the 12 disciples, denies that he knows Christ three times the night that Jesus is taken by the authorities.[2]

Rationale

Depending on how you look at it denying your friendship with a person can be a betrayal, but I think actions boil down to two factors: motivation and consequence.

Judas' motivation for betraying Jesus isn't explicitly given in the text. Some believe it was solely out of greed to get the 30 pieces of silver, others believe it was to "force" Jesus in to taking over the kingdom—remember many thought the Messiah would overthrow Rome and restore Israel to is David-era glory. Because there was money exchanged, I believe his motivation was greed (the love of money is the root of all evil!). Judas was ready to jeopardize his friendship with Jesus, the freedom of the disciples, Jesus' life, and all they had worked for, for a handful of silver. That is the Spirit of covetousness. When we stop caring what happens to those around us just because something seemingly benefits us, we're crossing a dangerous line. A large-scale, modern example of this is covered in The Devil We Know, a documentary about DuPont sabbotaging the water supply around the world in order to continue profitting from Teflon.

Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Matthew 27:3 NASB

Peter's motivation was likely fear. I imagine Rome had a "guilty by association" type of system, as many modern countries still operate this way. For instance, if you're at a party where drugs are present, you can be arrested too. If you have knowledge of a crime and don't report it, you're considered an accessory. By modern definition, the disciples would have been considered accessories to Jesus' "crime" and likely would have been arrested too. After Jesus was taken and made it clear that He wasn't gong to put up a fight, Peter and the rest of the disciples went into survival mode. In Peter's case, he sought to put distance between himself and Jesus to avoid the same fate. The most modern example I have of this (where its not just in jest) occurred in my family during my grandfather's era (so early 1900s). There was a portion of my family that was born light enough to pass for white and some of them chose to do so to reap the benefits of being white in the Jim Crow era. In order to do so, they had to deny everyone in the family who could not or would not pass.

Of course neither of these motivations are good, but Peter was forced into survival mode by a situation he had no control over. Judas created the situtaion. I feel that Judas was more deliberate in his action; he thought it out enough to approach the authorities, make the deal, and actually carry out the plan. Judas' actions were premeditated.

⁵⁶But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. ⁵⁷And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. Luke 22:56-57 KJV

The second aspect I mentioned was consequence. I had a friend once tell me he'd rather have someone intend to shoot him but miss than to have someone who loved him but accidentally shot him. In this way, we can have harmless intentions but create very harmful situations. The consequence of Judas' betrayal was the death of Christ. The consequence of Peter's denial was...nothing.

Judas' betrayal doesn't just end with Christ being captured, Christ is tortured and murdered. It doesn't end there either though. In the aftermath of Christ's death, Judas kills himself. Absolutely nothing good comes from his actions (well, minus the fact that we all have enteral salvation now but that was going to happen anyway). On the other hand, Peter eventually repents of his actions, and goes on to become a prominent figure in spreading the gospel.

Ultimately, we make mistakes all the time and in a way, each time we sin we betray or deny God. However, it is our motivation and our willingness to change that ultimately matter. So at the end of the day, I would choose to be a flawwed human who learned from my mistakes and caused little harm over a flawwed human that let my choices be the death of me and another person.

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Luke 22:1-48
2. Luke 22:54-62
3. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Megan of Church Leaders

Would You Rather?: Famine vs. Plagues

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather live through a famine and live through the 10 Plagues of Egypt?

Answer: the 10 Plagues of Egypt

Backstory

Famine

There are several famines mentioned in the Bible. We see them as early as Abraham's lifetime and they continue even until today. Israel experiences a few famines as a nation as well. Two of the worst famines (in my opinion) that occured in Israel's history are the one that lead them to Egypt[1] and the one that occured during the siege on Jerusalem in 70ad. The former lasted for 7 years and was eased by God's revelation through Joseph to the Pharaoh of Egypt. The latter was much shorter but so extreme that people resorted to cannibalism.[3]

The 10 Plagues

When God delivered Israel from Egypt, He did so by striking the land of Egypt with 10 plagues.[2] The plagues were as follows: water to blood, frogs, lice, flies, disease on the livestock, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, death of the first born.

Rationale

I know you're thinking, "why on earth would you pick the plaques!?" Hear me out...

As mentioned earlier, several famines occured during Biblical times. My thought process stems form the famine that brought the Israelites to Egypt in the first place (I feel like it's the one that would come to people's mind first, especially juxtaposed to the plagues of Egypt). It lasted 7 whole years—that is a long time to have a food scarcity. Thanks to God's revelation through Joseph, Egypt was able to stockpile food, but they still had to ration it to make sure it lasted the 7 years. Best case, that's 7 years of dieting; worst case, there's riots and cannibalism...

And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. Genesis 47:13 KJV

The Bible doesn't tell us how long the plagues took, but the key here is that God's people only suffered the first three plagues (turning the water to blood, frogs, lice). After the first 3 plagues, the Israelites were simply spectators, watching God reveal His glory. There were at least 7 days between the water and the frogs, though it doesn't say when the plague on the water stopped. Between each of the other interactions Pharaoh has with Moses, he requests the plagues to end and Moses does so. With this in mind, each of these would last for a relatively short period of time. The worst of the three mentioned, in my opinion, is the water to blood. It would be like a famine during that time because you couldn't get water to drink, cook with, wash with, etc. The frogs would be more of a nuisance than anything else and hair grease will protect your scalp from the lice.

And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth. Exodus 8:22 KJV

Most importantly, this show of power was done to remind Israel who their God is and what He can do, whereas famines are usually punishment. To me living through the plagues as a child of God, is akin to living through the great tribulation at the end of days. It's a badge of honor that comes with a great reward: the promised land (or a respected seat in God's kingdom).

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Genesis 41
2. Exodus 7-11
3. Larry Holzwarth. "Episodes of Cannibalism throughout History". History Collection; September 5, 2020
4. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Megan of Church Leaders

Would You Rather?: Feed vs. Heal

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather be able to feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish or heal someone’s blindness?

Answer: be able to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish

Backstory

Feeding the 5,000

There are two occasions where Jesus feeds a large multitude, but the one one we're focusing on today is when he fed 5,000+ people with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish.[1] The disciples were worried, as they knew they didn't have enough food to feed the multitude, but Jesus made the food stretch and we are told that everyone was satisfied. Something people often miss in the narrative is that the number 5,000 only applies to the men present, there were also women and children who ate!

Healing the Blind

Jesus also spent a lot of time healing. One particular instance of Him healing is when He restores sight to a man who was blind from birth.[2] On lookers were shocked that Jesus was able to heal someone who had always been blind. In fact, many did not believe and it caused a bit of a contraversy. This miracle actually led Christ to affirming His divine nature.

Rationale

Based on personal experience, I had a hunch the number of people starving in the world is much greater than the number of people who are blind. In 2016, 10.7% of the world was suffering from undernurishment; this amounts to 815 million people.[3] In contrast, about .52% of the population was blind (about 39 million people) in 2010.[4] Feeding those without access to food seems to be the better choice as I could help more people.

However, as I thought about it, I realized there is more to it than just how many people could be helped. Being blind is unfortunate, but you can live a long and healthy life in that condition. In Biblical times, disabilities such as blindness doomed you to poverty. If a person was born blind there may be gossip about the sins of the parents causing the blindness and other manner of supersition (e.g., John 9). The result was that those born blind or who went blind during those times (and up until recently) had no income and were pariahs in society. This made it much more difficult to survive. Today, fortunately, there are tools to aid those who are blind and help them still be able to function in our society. While it's not ideal—I don't think anyone wants to be blind, it's not life or death. (Disclaimer: I recognize that since I am not blind and have not had anyone close to me that is blind, there may be a lot more to this than I think. For those who are closer to the situation, I would love to hear your perspective in the comment section!)

Conversly, not having the propper nurishment is life or death. Difficiencies in minerals and vitamins can even lead to blindness (as well as many other illnesses). A person can only live about 40 days without food (provided they have great water consumption)![5] Thinking back to images of the food shortage in Venezula[6] and reading about the starvation that claimed many lives in North Korea during the 90's,[7] I can see so much benefit to being able to feed a large amount of people on very little.

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Matthew 14:13-21
2. John 9
3. Crystal Lam. "2018 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics". World Hunger Education. May 25, 2018
4. "Global data on visual impairment". World Health Organization; visited August 28, 2020
5. How Long Can You Live Without Food?". Healthline. January 17, 2018
6. Stephania Taladrid. "Venezuela’s Food Crisis Reaches a Breaking Point". The New Yorker. February 22, 2019
7. Paul Chisholm. "The Food Insecurity of North Korea". NPR. June 19, 2018
8. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Stephen Pepper of Youth Workin' It

Would You Rather?: Rahab vs. Mary

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather be the prostitute that saved the Israelite army or the virgin who birthed the Messiah but had her reputation ruined?

Answer: be the prostitute that saved the Israelite army

Backstory

Rahab saves the Israelite Army

Rahab was a prostitute living in Jericho when the Israelite army approached. She knew that God had proclaimed victory for the Israelites and hid the spies that were scouting Jericho before the attack. In return, the Israelite army spared her and she became part of the their nation, evenutally ending up in the lineage of Jesus.[1]

The Virgin Mary

Mary, mother of Jesus, was a young virgin girl who found out she was having the Son of God even though she'd never had sex. Initially, her betrothed (Joseph) was going to call off the wedding, but God revealed to him the identity of the child and the true nature of the situation.[2]

Rationale

I picked this would you rather because it's particular to being a woman. I didn't see any suggested would you rather questions about the men in the bible and their sexuality. An example may have been: would you rather have a wife who's unfaithful (Hosea) or have so many wives you can't keep track of them all (Solomon)? Or even mentioning the option to have no wife (Paul). Women have always been judged harder for the choices they make regarding sex. I think any woman who answers this question, answers based on how she will be received by society, not by the actual scenario.

Both women accomplished something important in Israelite history and both contributed to the birth of the Savior, regardless of what people had to say about them. I could live with being either of these women from a scenario based decision. My choice to be Rahab is based on society.

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace. Hebrews 11:31 NASB

There are a lot of people pushing for liberation of women's sexuality such that Rahab continuing to be a prostitute would be completely fine. I'm not one of those people. I don't think men or women should be sleeping around (1 Corinthians 6:12-20). However, I wouldn't look at Rahab any differently than I look at Adam (disobedient), Noah (drunk), Abraham (liar), Jacob (deceiver), Moses (short tempered), or David (murdering adulterer). Whatever she did before she gave her life over to the God of Abraham is between her and God. The whole point of Rahab's story is that we all have the capability of leaving the world and entering the kingdom. At the end of the day, Rahab was a hero!

Now, we'd be naive to think the women of Israel welcomed her with open arms. She was both a prostitute and a foreigner. I'm sure there were whispers and rude comments made to and about her for quite awhile—hopefully nothing worse (we all know humans can be very evil). The men might not have respected her and may have tried to relegate her back to the position of prostitute. However, Rehab didn't let that get to her.

For me, there's something very different about hearing people gossip about me, when there is actually a scandal to be gossiped about versus something that is completely false—especially if I've made peace with whatever it is I did. In a weird way, I can actually see hearing those whispers as motivation to continue on my trajectory—trying to prove to society or myself that I have changed—and a constant reminder of what God brought me through.

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. Matthew 1:19 NASB

On the other hand, Mary listened to God and was waiting patiently for her wedding to have sex. Can you imagine trying to convince someone that yes, you're pregnant, but no, you've never had sex? In bc time period!? Even Joseph wasn't so quick to believe her. Only 40-50 years ago, becoming pregnant out of marriage was grounds for exile. Girls were sent to live with relatives in remote places and basically hidden away in shame. Their child would have been mistreated and called illegitimate (among other things). Family members would disown their relatives for such an offense. Mary would have experienced all of this for no reason.

As I mentioned in reference to Rahab, it's one thing for people to gossip about me over information that has some truth to it, but the allegations against Mary were completely false. From a spiritual perspective, Mary was not in the wrong. However, I feel like for me, personally, it's easier to be in the wrong and have to seek God, than to be right and have others telling you you're wrong. Put in Mary's shoes, I feel like I would have become angry and bitter at the people around me. That's why I would choose to be the prostitute who saved the day instead.
Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Joshua 2
2. Matthew 1
3. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Jamie Cody of At Home With Jamie

Would You Rather?: Fatherly Treatment

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather deceive you dad to receive a blessing or have your dad think you have been killed?

Answer: Deceive my dad for a blessing

Backstory

Jacob Deceives Isaac

Jacob and his twin brother Esau had a rocky relationship to say the least. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25), however, I'm not sure if included the blessing or not (technically the blessing was the right of eldest, so a birthright). Regardless, when the time came for their father to deliver the blessing, Esau was notified and made plans to receive his blessing. Meanwhile Jacob went in to action to deceive the father into thinking he was his brother Esau—he even received the help from his mother. In the end Jacob receives the blessing through deceit, since his father believes him to be Esau during the bestowing process.[1]

Joseph's Death Faked

Joseph also had a poor relationship with his brothers. Joseph is the favored son by Jacob, and by telling on his brothers when they do wrong, he cements his elder brothers' dislike for him. The relationship becomes so strained that the brothers decide to sell him into slavery. After getting rid of Joseph, they need something to tell their father, so they concot a story about him being killed by animals. They even shred his coat as evidence of the attack.[2]

Rationale

This would you rather is hard; I'm not really sure which scenario is worse. Jacob is an active participant in what happens, but Joseph's situation is more painful for the father.

One thing to consider about Jacob's actions is that he deceived both his brother and his father. I am of the mindset that in selling his birthright, Esau technically sold the blessing and God's instructions told Isaac to bless Jacob (the younger son), which means Jacob with "right." Still, I think there is something to be said in how you handle these types of deception. Despite Esau verbally accepting Jacob's apology, the ramifications of this brotherly fued lasted through their descendents leading to the rift between the Israelites (descended from Jacob) and the Edomites (descended from Esau). We do not see how it affects Jacob's relationship with his father other than the fact that he is sent away to save his life.

And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. Genesis 25:23 KJV

Joseph, on the other hand, is almost blameless in his situation—I say almost because perhaps he could have been more self aware of the favoritism he was shown and sympathetic to his brothers' feelings, which may have kept them from getting quite as angry with him. Regardless, the concoted lie and Joseph's absence were all the fault of Joseph's brothers.

³¹And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; ³²And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son's coat or no. Genesis 37:31-32 KJV

From a self-responsibility standpoint, I would want to be Joseph. However, from a consequence standpoint, things get much trickier.

While Jacob's action did lead to him fleeing for his life, there doesn't appear to be an distress placed upon Isaac as a result. If Jacob hadn't fled, he wouldn't have met his wives, so something good did come from the event. The worst consequence is the fighting between Israel and Edom, but God prophesied that before the twins were born. Esau sold his birthright, so Jacob was always going to come out on top. I think Edom would have been at odds with Israel even if Jacob had gone about collecting the blessing in a more acceptable manner.

Joseph's situation had much larger consequences (for better and for worse). No parent wants to bury their child. I can only imagine the anguish Jacob felt upon being led to beleive that his second-youngest son, the miracle child of his most beloved wife, was dead. While the brothers may have been in less trouble than if they had outright confessed to selling him into slavery, I imagine Jacob lit into them for not protecting their little brother. Thus, the brothers had to live with the guilt of knowing what they did and still didn't gain favor in the father's eyes. Meanwhile, Joseph was enslaved. It may have worked out for the better in the end, but he spent a considerable time as a slave and a prisoner! Of course, if Joseph hadn't been sold into slavery, no one would have survived the famine, including his family.

I don't have siblings to steal from, but if I'm being honest, I probably have already misled my parents about sometihng to get what I wanted. I can't think of anything, but I definitely went behind my mom's back and convinced my grandmother to buy me a set of pens I wanted. It seems likely I would have said I needed something for school when I didn't or inferred I would do more chores if they bought something I wanted only to never do said chores. So, since I've probably already done that, I think I'm going to say I'd rather deceive my dad, even though Joseph's situation is the more noble of the two. (I asked my dad the inverse of this question after writing my response, and he said he would rather be deceived that to think his child was dead, so we're on the same page!)

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Genesis 27
2. Genesis 37
3. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Megan Briggs of Church Leaders

Would You Rather: 377 Days in the Ark or 430 Days on Your Side

Would you rather is a fun game to play, particularly when getting to know someone. A person is asked to choose betwen two things of equal desiring—making it hard to decide and opening dialouge as to why the person chooses the option they choose. Recently I stumbled accross several versions of "Would You Rather?: Bible Edition" and found the questions quite intriguing. I've decided to answer one every Sabbath. Let me know your answer to today's "Would You Rather?" in the comment section.

Would you rather be couped in the ark for 377 days with the animals or lay on your side for 430 days?

Answer: Be couped in the ark for 377 days

Backstory

Noah & the Ark

If you follow the timeline outlined in Genesis 7-8, you can calculate the number of days Noah was on the ark. The flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month when Noah was 600 years old. However, Noah entered the ark seven days before it started to flood. So the beginning of his tenure in the flood was on the tenth day of the second month. Later we see that it is on the twenty-seventh day of the second month the next year that the Earth is dry and Noah is able to exit the earth. From the tenth of the second month to the tenth of the second month the next year is exactly one year (365 days by our calendar, but 360 days by the Israelite's lunar calendar). We can then add the time from the tenth day of the second month to the twenty-seventh day (17 days) to get a total of 377 days by the Israelite calendar. This is the duration of time that Noah remained inside the ark taking care of the animals.[1]

Ezekiel on His Side

In Ezekiel 4, God tells the prophet Ezekiel to take on the sins of Israel by lying on his side. First he was to lie on his left side for 390 days, representing the North Kingdom. Then, he was to lie on his right side for 40 days representing Judah. This adds to 430 days total that Ezekiel was meant to lay on his side.[2]

Rationale

This would you rather was pretty easy for me to deicde, but there are pros and cons of each once you stop to think about it.

I love animals, and beccause God didn't put fear of man into animals until after the flood, I'm convinced Noah could communicate with the animals he saved. Thus, for me the idea of being with these animals for a little over a year is kind of exciting. As a farm girl, I have experience with taking care of animals and its a very peaceful life—I imagine this is very close to God's original plan for man in the garden. We also know that Noah wasn't alone on this journey, he had his wife, his three sons, and his three daughters-in-law.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Genesis 6:13 KJV

The down side of choosing this option is that you also would see the death and destruction of the flood. I imagine people rushed toward the ship when they realized Noah had been right all along. Noah and his family probably lost friends during the construction phase of the ark, but there were probably people they tried to save up until the last moment. If you think about it from a spiritual aspect, we all have friends or family that don't believe. They love us and we love them, despite our differences of belief. If the Lord came back right now, those people would be lost. In Noah's time they probably didn't have this phrase but "survivor's guilt" may have been a major factor in his post-flood life (it also explains why he got drunk).

The upside of Ezekiel's situation is that there wasn't much work involved—the laziness in me appreciates that. However, that's really the only benefit I can see...

Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. Ezekiel 4:4 KJV

It's selfish, but I wouldn't want to take upon myself "the inquity of the house of Israel." It would be quite boring and tedious to lie on one side for such a duration. Also, there is no mention of a partner, so it's likely Ezekiel did this completely alone, almsot like an exile. During this time, God gave him specific requirements about what and how much he could eat. Nothing about this experience sounds plesant.

Of course it's the sacrifices like these that are the most important. Given the choice, many of us would not have suffered for mankind the way Christ did either. It takes a deeper level of compasion and love to take on the burdens of even one other person and sacrifice your own freedom. Just last night I was discussing "over-population" and the fact that there are people starving. Someone said we don't have enough resources to feed everyone, but the truth is, those of us in wealthy countries are hoarding food. Dirty Money on Netflix has an episode about the avocado business. These avocadoes are coming from places where the population is poor and in one place, the avocado trees are given priority when it comes to water. So, in order for all many of the people who promote vegan and healthy lifestyles to consume the number of avocadoes they consume, those people have to suffer. It is difficult for us to willingly restrict ourselves to a more bland but accessible diet. In this way, I admire Ezekiel because he did something I'm not ready to do yet: sacrifice himself for the good of the people.

Which would you rather do?

References and Footnotes

1. Genesis 7-8
2. Ezekiel 4
3. I found many versions of "Whould You Rather?: Scripture Edition"; this question was found in a version made by Megan Briggs of Church Leaders