Genesis 41:1-42:38

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 14

In Genesis 41 we read of the third cycle of two dreams in Joseph's story. This time the dreams belong to the Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Troubled by nightmares, Pharaoh asks his magicians, seers, and sages to interpret them. When they are unable, Pharaoh's cup-bearer remembers the prisoner who, two long years earlier, had correctly interpreted his dreams. Pharaoh sends for Joseph in prison.

Before he is presented to the king, Joseph stops to shave, and we must imagine that he shaves his entire head in the Egyptian style

According to Joseph, Pharaoh's dreams portend 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine. Impressed by this interpretation, the king elevates Joseph to the position of number 2 in all of Egypt. His authority is subject only to Pharaoh himself. Joseph is given charge of laying up a supply of grain during the 7 prosperous years to provide for coming famine.

Because he is faithful and favored by God, it seems that Joseph cannot help but get ahead. One day he is a slave in prison, the next day he is wealthy and powerful beyond imagining. On television today we have an array of preachers who promise their virtual flocks that God will reward their faithfulness with prosperity. Do you think this is true? Does it fly in the face of Jesus' preaching and experience? (As a Lutheran I'm pretty well committed to the theology of the cross, as opposed to the theology of glory.)

Joseph marries an Egyptian woman and has two son, Manasseh and Ephraim. These two will become the ancestors of two tribes of the nation Israel. If you have been counting, there are now 13 tribes of Israel: 11 of Jacob's own sons and two of Joseph's. We speak of the 12 tribes, however, because the tribe of Levi will not own land in Canaan.

Chapter 42 begins back in Canaan where the predicted famine has struck. I love Jacob's question to his sons. "Why are you sitting there looking at each other?" sounds like something my father would say.

Ten of Jacob's sons go down to Egypt to buy grain. Not coincidentally, these are the ten who sold Joseph into slavery. Benjamin, Joseph's full brother, and the youngest of Jacob's offspring, stays behind with his father.

When Joseph meets his brothers, they do not recognize him (probably because of that Egyptian shaving thing), or realize that he speaks their own language. He treats them harshly. Even straight-arrow Joseph can't help but mess with these guys, but when he overhears them talking ruefully about how they treated him, he weeps. Joseph is actually a pretty weepy guy. This is only the first time we hear about him shedding tears.

Joseph accuses his brothers of spying. He takes one of his brothers as a hostage, putting Simeon in prison and demanding that the others return with their youngest brother, Benjamin. Joseph sells grain to the rest but puts the money they paid into the sacks with the grain.

There is a prison in the town where I live. I know a few of the guards. One of the unusual features of this prison is that the prisoners are given a key to their cell. They can lock other prisoners, though not the guards, out. When prisoners are transferred in from other facilities, they often balk at taking their key. They think the guards are setting them up.
When the brothers find their money in the grain sacks, they think they are being set up.

When they get back to Canaan and report the situation to Jacob, he is reluctant to send Benjamin to Egypt with them. Who can blame him? He thinks that he has already lost two sons. His statement, "I am the one you have bereaved of children. Joseph is no more. Simeon is no more. Now you would take Benjamin away from me!" is layered with ironies. Jacob doesn't know that the sons before him are in fact responsible for Joseph being gone. Nor does he know that Joseph and Simeon are, in fact, just fine.

This is good storytelling.

Notice, too, that the eldest brother, Reuben, is the one who is ready to take responsibility. This completely in keeping with his character.



Next: Genesis 43-45.

Genesis 38:1-40:23

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 13

The three chapters in today's reading remind us that the Bible is not children's literature. Its content is sometimes frankly and explicitly sexual.

In Genesis 37 we saw the start of the story of Joseph. Now in chapter 38, there is an interlude. We leave Joseph for a short while to hear the sordid story of one of his older brothers, Judah and, perhaps more importantly, a woman named Tamar.

Judah has three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er marries Tamar. We don't know exactly what Er did to tick God off. We're just told that he is "wicked" and so God smites him.

We have already noted that in biblical times  women were dependent upon men and  vulnerable in ways that are hard to imagine. Women belonged to men all their lives: first their fathers, then their husbands, and, if widowed, they depended on their sons for support. Women could not own property. A woman on her own had few options.

There was a practice called "levirate marriage." Levirate comes  from the Latin word levir, meaning "brother-in-law." In levirate marriage a childless widow was married to her husband's brother. It was the brother-in-law's duty to have a son with the widow. The son was considered the offspring and heir of the woman's first husband. This had more to do with inheritance and propagation of the family line than anything else, but it provided some measure of social security for the widow. She would be supported by her brother-in-law, and, it was hoped, have a son to support her later.

When Er died, Tamar was married to his younger brother Onan. We know what Onan did to tick God off, but it might not be what you think.

Onan spilled his seed upon the ground.

Onanism is an old fashioned word for "masturbation." It comes from a misunderstanding of this passage. Onan was not masturbating. In fact, I don't know of a direct biblical prohibition against masturbation. If you do, please cite me chapter and verse so I can find what I've overlooked.

What Onan was doing was practicing coitus interruptus. To be blunt, he was withdrawing before ejaculation so as not to impregnate Tamar. I guess he didn't mind the sex, he just didn't want the consequences.

But, I don't think it was the use of a (highly ineffective) method of birth control that bothered God. Rather it was the fact that Onan was shirking his responsibility to his brother, refusing to have children on Er's behalf. What might motivate Onan to do this? Greed. Er's offspring would get a larger share of the inheritance. If Er had no offspring, it was money in Onan's pocket.

So, God smites Onan, too.

Do you think God works this way?

Now, Judah is not too keen on having his sons smitten. He suspects that being married to Tamar is not good for their health, and so he sends her back to her own father's household to "live as a widow" until, he says, Shelah grows up. We have good reason to suspect that Judah never intended for Shelah to marry Tamar. After all, Shelah reaches marriageable age, and Tamar is left sitting in her widow's weeds. No one ever sends for her.

In order to assure her future, Tamar takes matters into her own hands. What she does is bold and desperate, but she had, as we have noted, few options. Long story short, Tamar, in disguise, prostitutes herself to her father-in-law.

That Judah bought sex from a woman he believed to be a cultic prostitute, a functionary of the worship of a foreign god, goes without comment. Soliciting sex is apparently not a problem here. He is convicted, rather, of failing to keep his word to Tamar.

When Tamar is found to be pregnant, Judah is ready to burn her to death as, I suppose, an honor killing. When Tamar reveals that she is carrying Judah's own offspring, he is convicted of his unrighteousness.

Tamar has twin sons. They are remembered as the ancestors of two of the clans within the tribe of Judah.

There are Christians today who say that we ought to live according to biblical principles of male-female relations. Specifically they say that men ought to take leadership positions over women. I have to ask whether granting doctrinal authority to the Bible requires us to recreate its culture. Reading about the horrific treatment of Tamar, and the desperate steps she had to take, makes me glad that I don't live under a patriarchy like that.

In chapter 39, we return to the story of Joseph. No matter how bad things get for Joseph, he is always faithful. God is with Joseph and, in the worst of circumstances, he prospers.

As a slave, Joseph serves in the house of an Egyptian officer named Potiphar. Under Joseph's stewardship Potiphar's fortune increases. But Potiphar's wife takes a shine to Joseph and attempts to seduce him. Rebuffed, she takes revenge by framing Joseph. Joseph is tossed into prison. This is about the lowest point that Joseph can reach, but even in prison, he prospers. The warden basically puts Joseph in charge of the place, and everything goes smoothly for the warden.

In chapter 40 we meet two of Joseph's fellow prisoners. They are the Pharaoh's cup-bearer and baker. Both have displeased the Pharaoh. Both have dreams which Joseph is able to to interpret. The cup-bearer's dream bodes well; he will be restored. Joseph asks the cup-bearer to remember him. The baker's dream predicts bad fortune; he will be put to death. Of course, Joseph's interpretations prove true.

But the cup-bearer forgets Joseph.

Compared to his ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph is a boy scout. Do you think that God favors Joseph because he is morally upright? Why do you think God chose scoundrels like Abraham and Jacob?

Do you think that God communicates through dreams?

  



Next: Genesis 41-42

Genesis 35:1-37:36

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 12

Genesis 35 begins with Jacob's return to Bethel where he establishes an altar for the worship of God. Bethel will be an important site of worship later in the story of the nation of Israel.

Jacob also orders the members of his household to dispose of their "foreign gods." Presumably this includes the idols that Rachel purloined from her father. Why they also get rid of their earrings is a mystery to me. Perhaps earrings had something to do with the worship of other gods.

In verse 8 we learn that Rachel's nurse, Deborah, has died. Though we've never heard of this woman before, her demise provides us with the origin for another place name.

As long as we're naming things, there is a doublet here (from another source?) for Jacob's name being changed to Israel. After Abram and Sarai's names were changed, the text consistently referred to them as Abraham and Sarah. Israel is still sometimes referred to as Jacob even after this point in the story. Later the nation of Israel will sometimes poetically be called "Jacob."

Rachel has one more son but, sadly, dies in childbirth. Jacob's 12th son is named Ben-Oni (Son of My Sorrow) by his dying mother, but renamed Benjamin (Son of the South or Son of My Right Hand) by his father.

The chapter ends with a notice of Isaac's death. As Isaac and Ishmael cooperatively buried their father, Abraham, now Esau and Jacob reunite to bury Isaac.

Chapter 36 is concerned with the genealogy of Esau's descendants. Once again a genealogy marks a turn in the narrative. We are now wrapping up the story of Jacob. Beginning in chapter 37 our attention is focused on Joseph.

Joseph is associated with dreams from the start. We will see his dreams come true as his story progresses. For now, Joseph's dreams annoy his older brothers as, I suppose, does his father's obvious favoritism, represented by the gaudy coat Isaac gives him.

The brothers conspire to kill Joseph. Reuben, his eldest sibling, tries to save his life. Judah, another brother, convinces the rest not to kill Joseph, but to sell him as a slave to a passing caravan of Ishmaelites. Or are they Midianites? These take him to Egypt and sell him to an army officer named Potiphar.

In the meantime, Joseph's brothers take his fancy coat, smear it with goat's blood, and use it to convince Jacob that Joseph has been killed. Jacob is heartbroken.

These are our ancestors in the worship of the Lord.



Next: Genesis 38-40

Genesis 32:1-34:31

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 11

Chapters 1-11 of Genesis were set in a mythic prehistory.They described the origins of the universe, the earth, the human race, sin, languages. The focus of these stories was broad. The characters in these stories were said to live impossibly long lives, less than 1000 years, but not a lot less.

Chapters 12-36, from which we are currently reading, have a narrower focus. They tell the story of the origin of Israel and its neighbor nations. They explain the names of  places, tribes, and nations. Often these names are said to have come from an individual. These chapters tell the stories of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Though their lives are long, they don't have the longevity of the mythic characters of the early chapters. They live to be less than 200 years old, but not a lot less.

Chapter 32 begins with a short, strange story in which Jacob, having just left his uncle Laban, encounters some "angels of the Lord." Jacob, saying that this place must be the Lord's camp, names the place "Mahanaim" which means "two camps." Odd.

Next Jacob sends his own angels (in both Greek and Hebrew the word translated "angel" simply means "messenger") to try to curry favor with Jacob's brother Esau. When we last met Esau (in chapter 28) he was still threatening to kill his conniving little brother. The messengers return with distressing news. Esau is coming to meet Jacob and he has an army of 400 men with him. Jacob divides his caravan into two halves, hoping that at least one half will survive should Esau attack. He then sends a series of lavish gifts to Esau, hoping to soothe his brother's temper. It isn't clear from what follows whether these gifts were effective, or whether Esau's temper had already cooled.

At night, Jacob camps alone at a ford of the river Jabbok. River crossings are traditionally dangerous places. This became clear to me when I read Larry McMurtry's novel Lonesome Dove. In that book bad things happen when the cowboys have to drive their cattle across rivers.

Jacob is attacked in his camp and wrestles all night with a man. This story is often called "Jacob wrestling with an angel." It becomes clear, however, that Jacob's opponent is neither man nor angel, but God himself, anthropomorphic once more. In the end, Jacob hangs on and receives a blessing. God gives him a new name, Israel, which means "strives with God." Jacob is also left with a hip injury that causes him to limp.

This is a story describing a national name. Jacob's descendants will collectively be called by the name Israel. Is it also an origin story for a nation's character? Is the nation of Israel a nation that contends, wrestles, and strives with God? Is Israel, the people, both blessed and wounded by its struggle with God?

In chapter 33, Jacob goes alone to meet Esau. His concubines, wives, and children follow him in groups that indicate their ranking in Jacob's favor. Jacob approaches his estranged brother with frightened obeisance. Esau does not attack Jacob, but runs to greet him with a brotherly kiss. There is hugging and weeping.

Today in church we read the Parable of the Prodigal Son from Luke 15. I am struck by the similarity in the way the father greets his returning son in that story to the way that Esau greets Jacob here.There is also a parallel to the way that Joseph is reunited with his brothers in Genesis 45. There are distinct themes that run through the Bible. Family reconciliation is one of them.

Jacob urges Esau to accept the gifts he had sent ahead. Esau, at first demurs but, when Jacob insists, Esau acquiesces. I find myself wondering if the whole thing is a pretense, an example of the exaggerated kind of middle eastern politeness that we saw when Abraham invited the strangers to dinner, and again when he argued with God over the fate of Sodom.

I also wonder whether the gifts actually had their intended effect of placating Esau's anger.

Jacob and Esau part with Jacob saying that he will come to Esau's home in Seir. He doesn't follow through. Instead he goes first to Succoth (with another place name origin story) and then to Shechem.

Chapter 33 is ugly. Much of the narrative here is based in concepts of honor and shame that are foreign to my culture.

In Shechem a man named Shechem rapes Jacob's daughter, Dinah. He professes to love her and the narrator of the story seems to think that rape and love are not incompatible. In Bible times rape was actually a way that a man could acquire a wife (cf. Deuteronomy 22). The idea is repellent to me.

Jacob seems remarkably unconcerned about the violence done to his daughter. This may be another indication of women's lack of status in biblical times. Ditto the fact that Dinah's voice is never heard in this passage.

Somewhere in all of this, Dinah is taken or sent to live in Shechem's house. Shechem wants her for his wife.

Lying that they want to establish friendly relations with the people of Shechem, Dinah's brothers convince all the men of the city to be circumcised.While the men are recovering and still in pain, Dinah's brothers enter the city, kill all the men, plunder the place, and rescue their sister.

Like I said, it's ugly.

At the end of the chapter Jacob, still self-serving, expresses his fear that the other peoples of the region will attack and destroy him and his family.

While I love the story of Jacob wrestling with God (much the way I love the story of Abraham arguing with God), and while stories of family reconciliation seem right and godly to me, I find the whole of chapter 34 abhorrent. Is there anything good in it?

What do you say?



Next: Genesis 35-37.

Genesis 30:1-31:51

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 10

At the end of chapter 29, Jacob's unloved first wife Leah presented him with four sons in rapid succession. Here in chapter 30 we find Leah's little sister, Jacob's beloved Rachel, wanting, but unable, to have children, too.

So, Rachel gives Jacob her maid, Bilhah, to serve as her surrogate. On Rachel's behalf, Bilhah has two sons with Jacob. They are named Dan and Naphtali.

Leah, in the meantime, has quite giving birth, but uses her maid, Zilpah, as a surrogate. With Zilpah, Jacob fathers two more sons, Gad and Asher.

Then comes an odd little story. Jacob's oldest son, Reuben, picks some mandrakes for his mother, Leah. Rachel wants the mandrakes which, I've read, were thought to be an aphrodisiac and perhaps to increase fertility. The name for mandrake in Hebrew literally means love plant. We are in the realm of folk medicine here and possibly folk magic. There is a lot of sex and magic in this chapter.

Leah sells the mandrakes to Rachel at the cost of a night with Jacob.Sometimes I begin to feel a little sorry for Jacob, but then I remember that he is not the victim in this story. Bilhah and Zilpah are being used as incubators.

At any rate, Leah has another son, Issachar, and then another, Zebulun. She also has a daughter, Dinah.

Leah is the clear leader in this fertility derby. She has had 6 sons and a daughter of her own, and another 2 sons by her surrogate, Zilpah. Rachel, to date, has had no children, but her maid Bilhah has given birth to two boys on her behalf.

So far, the sons all bear the names of the Israelite tribes that their offspring will become. 

Finally, Rachel has a son of her own, a boy named Joseph. Maybe the mandrakes helped? Not surprisingly, Joseph, like his mother, is Jacob's favorite. His will be another case of God favoring the younger son.

Now that he has a family of his own, Jacob decides to leave his uncle Laban and return to Canaan, his native land. Laban would rather not lose his most valuable worker. He says that by divination (more magic!) he has learned that the Lord has given him prosperity through Jacob. The two strike a bargain: Jacob will stay if Laban gives him, as payment, all of the piebald goats and black sheep from his flocks.

Ever the schemer, and not afraid to rip off a relative, Laban removes all of the piebald goats and black sheep from his flocks before he leaves.

Jacob is not so easily put off course, though. Using still more magic (striped poplar wands) he induces the flock to produce more multicolored animals. Breeding judiciously, Jacob makes sure that his goats and sheep are the strongest ones. The monochrome animals, which belong to Laban, he breeds to be weaker.

And so Jacob enriches himself at Laban's expense.

Chapter 31 begins with Laban's sons angry at Jacob. Jacob decides that it really is time to leave now. Just as he departed Canaan when Esau was angry, now he exits Paddan Aram, when his cousins are fuming. Travel is presumably a more cumbersome process now, as Jacob has acquired multiple wives and children, as well as large flocks, great wealth, and a number of slaves.

As when Jacob left Canaan, God again promises to go with him.

So far Jacob has not shown himself to be trustworthy, and I have to wonder whether he is telling the truth when he describes the dream in which God told him about the striped animals.

Laban is not trustworthy either, and I have to doubt his sincerity when he complains that he didn't get a chance to kiss his daughters and grandchildren goodbye, that he wanted to send them off with fanfare and celebration.

The surprise in this chapter is that Rachel proves to be a thief and a deceiver in her own right. She steals her father's household idols. When he searches for them, she sits on them and then uses her menstrual period as an excuse to keep them hidden. Was she really menstruating?

Even though there is, at this time in the narrative, no prohibition against graven images there is certainly a sly mockery of idols retrojected into the story.

Laban and Jacob make an uneasy peace and erect a heap of rocks as a monument. Neither will pass that point in hostility toward the other. The marker is called Mizpah which means "watchpost."

Pictured above is a set of jewelry called a Mizpah Coin. The two necklaces are two halves of a pendant. Joined together they make the words "The Lord watch between me and thee while we are absent one from another" surrounded by hearts. Parted lovers are supposed to each wear one of the necklaces, thereby maintaining some sort of connection. It's a lovely romantic idea.

The irony is that these words were spoken by Laban when he and Jacob made their pact. They are words that express a deep, and perfectly justified, mutual distrust.



Next: Genesis 32-34.

Genesis 27:1-29:35

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 9

We are just over halfway through the book of Genesis.

Of the stories of the Patriarchs, I like the Jacob saga best. He is a trickster, and I find the stories about him highly entertaining. He also shows the most character development of the Patriarchs. Abraham is portrayed inconsistently; Isaac doesn't do much; Joseph (who probably doesn't count as a Patriarch, but whose story takes up a good deal of Genesis) is two-dimensional, he goes through a lot but does not change; but Jacob...Jacob grows.

Do you have a favorite Patriarch?

In Genesis 27 Isaac has grown old. His eyesight has failed, but his other senses are intact. He tastes savory food. He smells his son's clothes. He touches his his son's hand. And he hears his son's voice. Isaac's mind is still sharp, too. He is suspicious but, in the end, he is deceived.

Rebekah and Jacob take advantage of Isaac's blindness and trick him into giving Jacob a blessing that rightly belongs to Esau. Did I mention that this is a dysfunctional family?

There is some comedy in this story. To impersonate Esau, Jacob covers his hands and neck with goat skins. Esau is said to be a hairy man, but, come on, no one is that hairy!

So Jacob cheats Esau once more. Esau's despair is almost palpable as he cries out, "Didn't you save a blessing for me?" Isaac does his best, but the blessing he gives Esau sounds more like a curse. At least it puts a limit on Isaac's blessing. "You will serve your brother..." but one day you'll get out from under his yoke.

The Edomites, said to be the descendants of Esau, were enemies of Israel. Edom will be conquered by Israel's first king, Saul. Later, Edom will participate in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Esau swears that after their father's death, which is not far off, he will kill Jacob. This sets up a lot of the action to come.

Partly to get Jacob away from Esau, and partly to get him a wife who is not a Hittite woman, his parents send him away to visit Rebekah's brother, Laban. Jacob is about to meet his wily match.

Chapter 28 opens with a notice that Esau, in an attempt to please his parents, takes a third wife, this one an Ishmaelite, a descendant of Abraham.

Then we read the story of Jacob's ladder, or stairwell, or zigurat, or whatever it is. In a dream, Jacob sees angels ascending and descending from God in the sky. God, high above, makes promises to Jacob. He will receive the blessings promised to Abraham, and God will be with Jacob in his travels. Jacob names the place Bethel ("House of God") and promises to give God "one tenth of what you give me"--a tithe, though it sounds a little like a kickback.

When I wrote about Genesis 24, I mentioned a trope in biblical literature:
 
     the hero leaves home to find a wife;

     he meets a woman at a well;

     water is drawn;

     a marriage contract is made.

Here in chapter 28, we encounter that trope for the second time. As always, it tells us something about the hero. Jacob left home partly to find a wife, but partly to escape his brother's wrath. As the story plays out, Jacob's trickery comes back to bite him.

The woman Jacob meets at the well is the shapely Rachel, younger daughter of uncle Laban. Her older sister, Leah, has eyes. There's something about her eyes, though no one seems to be quite sure what. They may be "soft" and lovely. They may be "weak." They may even be crossed! It hardly matters. Jacob only has eyes for Rachel.

Jacob agrees to work for Laban 7 years in order to pay the bride price for his beloved. The years fly by. The wedding night comes and Laban sneaks Leah into Jacob's bed. In the morning, Jacob, rightly upset, is told that "We don't marry off the younger daughter before the older one in these parts." It just isn't done. And so the deceiver is deceived in a way that parallels the dirty tricks he played on his older brother.

It might be good to note at this point that women in Bible times were considered the property of their men. They belonged first to their father, then to their husband, and then, if widowed, to their sons who supported them.This does not mean that women were necessarily mistreated or unloved. It does mean, however, that women were vulnerable and dependent in ways that are hard to imagine today.

No one seems to have consulted Leah about this marriage to a man who had the hots for her little sister. What do you imagine she thought of it?

After a week (for the wedding festivities?) Jacob is permitted to marry his beloved Rachel, as well. Notice that uncle Laban has got himself out from under the responsibility of keeping two daughters and has rooked Jacob into working for him another 7 years to boot.

In addition to two wives, Jacob acquires two female slaves, Leah's maid Zilpah and Rachel's maid Bilhah. Let the games begin.

Rachel, like so many other women in Scripture is unable to have children. Unloved Leah is plenty fertile, however, and presses the small advantage that gives her by having sons for Jacob. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah will become the namesake ancestors of 4 of the twelve tribes that made up the nation Israel.



Next: Genesis 30-31

Genesis 25:1-26:34

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 8

Genesis 25 opens with notice of Abraham's second marriage. Whether he married Ketura before Sarah's death or after is not entirely clear to me. Whether he had other concubines is also in question. Among his children by Ketura is one Midiah, whose descendants, the Midianites will play a role later in the biblical narrative.

Isaac is Abraham's sole heir. His other children receive gifts from Abraham while he is alive, but Isaac alone inherits Abraham's property and God's promise.

It is notable that Ishmael returns and helps Isaac bury their father.

Like Sarah before her, Rebekah is infertile. Isaac's prayer is the instrument of her healing. Barren women and miraculous births make a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

Isaac and Rebekah have twin sons. The firstborn is named Esau which means something like "rough." He will be a red, rough, hairy man. The younger is born grasping his brother's heel. "To grasp by the heel" is an idiom meaning "usurp" or "supplant." He will live by his wits all his life and will take his brother's birthright and blessing.

Jacob is not a nice guy. God, seemingly, does not choose his people on the basis of their personal virtue.

Still, as YHWH tells Rebekah while she is pregnant, the older twin will serve the younger. This is another theme in Scripture. God seems to have a preference for younger sons. So far we have seen Abel approved over Cain and Isaac chosen over Ishmael. Now Jacob is accepted over Esau.

Being a younger son myself, I kind of like this.

Isaac, Rebekah, and their boys are a dysfunctional family group. The parents play favorites with their children. Rebekah will scheme with Jacob against Isaac and Esau. This is not a pretty domestic scene.

For about 10 years I served as chaplain to a home for troubled kids. It was during that time that I realized just how messed up the Patriarch's families really were. The children in our care came from family backgrounds like these. God, apparently, does not choose his people based on their family values.

When the boys are grown, and Esau, after a an unlucky day hunting, is famished, Jacob sells him a bowl of lentil stew in exchange for his birthright. The birthright is the elder son's larger portion of a father's estate. Even though Jacob callously takes advantage of Esau, it is Esau who stands the blame in the narrative. The narrator's voice tells us that Esau "despised his birthright."

In the story about the birthright, Esau is given another name, Edom. We are still dealing with the mythic stories of the origins of nations. Esau's descendants, the Edomites will feature in later stories. Jacob, of course, will be the ancestor of the twelve tribes of Israel.

In chapter 26, Isaac meets up with our old friend King Abimelech. Like his father, Abraham, Isaac plays the old "my wife is my sister" scam in Gerar. The acorn does not fall far from the tree. When the king discovers the ruse, there are no negative consequences for Isaac, though Isaac doesn't get the big payoff that Abraham did.

Still, Isaac prospers in Gerar. Enough so that he is asked to leave. There are some issues about wells and water rights. Abimelech and Isaac make a non-aggression pact, just as Abraham and Abimelech did. We are given another explanation for how Beer Sheba got its name. (The first one was back at 21:31).

Chapter 26 ends with a note about Esau's marriage to two Hittite women and his parents' disapproval.




What do you think? Do you like it that God works through dysfunctional families and disreputable characters? 

Next up: Genesis 27-29
Next up: 

Genesis 22:1-24:67

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 7 

Michael Douglas is a talented actor. He performed in a series of movies that, while technically well-made, I disliked intensely. Movies like Wall Street, Basic Instinct, and Falling Down. I found them unpleasant, manipulative, and cynical. Too cynical even for me. Then there was The Game.

The Game was the story of a Nicolas Van Orton, a bored, wealthy man whose brother enrolls him in a live-action game that he promises "will change your life." What begins as an entertainment becomes more and more real. Van Orton finds himself put in situations of escalating danger. He is unable to trust anyone. Spolier alert. (Skip to the next paragraph if you don't want the end of the movie spoiled). Van Orton winds up shooting his brother and leaping out of a window in a desperate, remorseful suicide attempt. Instead of dying on impact, he crashes through a glass ceiling and lands, unhurt, on an air bag. He finds himself at a party, surrounded by his friends. His brother is unharmed.  They were all, it was all, a part of the game. Van Orton has new and invigorated view of his life. As the credits rolled I thought, this guy really needs a new group of friends. The relief does not excuse the abuse. I would not continue in a relationship to people who treated me that way.

Michael Douglas redeemed himself for me with his self-parodying turn in One Night at McCool's.

Genesis 21 tells the story that the Jews call the Akedah, the binding of Isaac. This is a key chapter in the Bible. It is a key event in the saga of the Patriarchs. And I find it distasteful in the same way that I found The Game distasteful.

I know that the story can be spun in positive ways. Abraham can be held up as a paragon of obedient faithfulness. (Frankly, I wish that he'd argued with God the way he did back in chapter 18). It can be read as a definitive statement that God does not, after all, desire human sacrifice. (This point will become important later, in the period of the Kings). Christians can spin the story as a prefiguring of Jesus' crucifixion. (God himself does what he does not, in the end, ask of Abraham).

I don't care.

No matter how this story gets spun, an honest reading reveals that this is a tale of horror. God is capricious and cruel. It doesn't matter that God stops the whole thing at the last moment. The relief does not excuse the abuse. Abraham really needs to find another God.

But then, Abraham doesn't come off very well either. He is a liar and a child abuser. Someone should have called the authorities on him.

Let me be clear, if this were the only story I knew about God, I would have nothing to do with God. I would neither worship, love, nor obey a God like this. Such a God is unworthy of human veneration. I would go to hell first.

What about you? What do you make of this story?

Fortunately, this is not the only story that we have of God. It is not God's decisive portrait. That, for me, is Jesus. Jesus is kind of like God's One Night at McCool's.

But it will take us a while to get there.

The story of the Akedah ends with an odd note. Abraham goes to Beer-sheba. In other words, he does not go home to Sarah. Maybe he was afraid to face her after what he had done.

There is another genealogical note at the end of Chapter 22. These occur at points of transition in the story. This one introduces us to the name of Rebekah who will become important soon.

Chapter 23 tells of the death of Sarah. Abraham returns to Hebron to bury her. There is a delightful bit of haggling between Abraham and Ephron. Notice how delicately Ephron names the price of the burial plot.

In chapter 24 Abraham sends his servant to find a wife for Isaac. The servant swears an oath on Abraham's thigh. My study Bibles seem unanimous in the opinion that this is a euphemism for the "reproductive organs" (which is itself a euphemism). I seem to recall reading about an etymological connection between the words "testify" and "testicles."

     There is a trope in biblical literature that goes like this:

     The hero leaves home to find a bride.

     He meets a woman by a well.

     Water is drawn.

     A marriage contract is made.

This trope plays out in several Bible stories. Variations on the trope tell us something about the hero. Here the variation it is not Isaac, but a servant, who goes looking for a bride.

Among the Patriarchs, Isaac is the one who doesn't really go anywhere or do much of anything.

At any rate, the woman at the well is the previously mentioned Rebekah. She has a brother named Laban who will become important in the life of Jacob.

Rebekah's family sends her off with their blessings. She and Isaac are wed.



Next: Genesis 25-26

Genesis 19:1-21:34

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 6

The two angels who enjoyed Abraham's hospitality in chapter 18, now, in chapter 19, are treated to Lot's hospitality. The feast that Lot sets before these strangers is of lesser quality than Abraham's veal, cheese, milk. Everything Lot does is less than Abraham's deeds. But let's not be to hard on Lot. He probably insisted that the angels stay with him because he knew that it was not safe for them to sleep in the public square. He was concerned for the safety of strangers.

Let's be clear about this from the outset: the story of the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19 has nothing to do with consensual homosexual relations. The book of Leviticus has something to say on that subject, but that is not what's going on here. Unless we are credulous enough to believe that every male, young and old, in the city of Sodom was gay, then we must recognize that this is something else. What was happening at the door of Lot's home was attempted gang rape with the intent of humiliating the strangers harbored within. The men were not interested in the angelic visitors sexually. They wanted rather, to put these foreigners in their place, to dominate them, to brutally feminize them.

On the one hand, it is to Lot's credit that, at peril to his own safety, he refused to surrender the angels to the violent mob. On the other hand, I can't help but feel revulsion that he would offer his own betrothed virgin daughters in their stead. It probably says something about how women were  not valued in the culture that produced the book of Genesis.

At any rate, the angels rescue Lot by pulling him inside and striking the crowd blind. It should go without saying that the 10 righteous people for whom Abraham bargained were not found in Sodom. For Abraham's sake (as is made explicit in 19:29), Lot and his family are saved from the destruction of Sodom. Lot's sons-in-law, who were seemingly not in  the mob and not struck blind, refuse to believe that the city will be destroyed. The angels lead 4 people (Lot, his unnamed wife, and two likewise nameless daughters) out of the city by the hand and send them running to a little town with the unironic name of Zoar (which means "little"). Sodom, and all the other cities of the plains, are destroyed by literal fire and brimstone. Literal, that is, within the narrative world of the story.

Lot's wife looks back and becomes, we are told, a pillar of salt. Was this her punishment for disobeying a direct order from the angels? Was she looking back because she longed for her old home? Or did she simply hesitate a little too long and so was engulfed in the destruction?

The account of Sodom's destruction ends with Abraham seeing the conflagration from a distance. This is, after all, Abraham's story.

But we return briefly to Lot and his daughters for a sordid sequel to the Sodom story. Lot is afraid of the citizens of Zoar. Let's face it, city folk have not treated him well. So he takes the girls and moves to a cave. The daughters despair of finding husbands. Who, after all, would want to marry a cave-dweller? So they concoct a plan to get their father drunk and then impregnate themselves by his senseless self. The result, a pair of sons, who become the ancestors of two of Israel's lesser neighboring nations. This probably says more about how Israel saw Moab and Ammon than it does about historic events.

In chapter 20 Abraham once again gets the spotlight. Here we find him scamming Abimelech, the king of Gerar, with the same "Sarah's my sister" routine that he used on the Pharaoh. In spite of the fact that this is, once more, an act of lying cowardice, and shows incredibly little regard for Sarah, it once again redounds to his favor. Abimelech winds up not sleeping with Sarah, and giving Abraham sheep, oxen. slaves, and 1000 pieces of silver.

Something is not right here.

In return for all the riches, Abraham offers prayer for Abimelech whose wife and female slaves are all returned to fertility. They had lost the ability to bear children over this deal with Sarah.

At least we can be sure of one thing: since Abimelech pointedly did not have sex with Sarah, there will be no need for paternity tests when, soon after, she has a son.

The birth of Isaac, Sarah's first and only son, occurs in Genesis 21. It is the occasion of more laughter. In fact, Isaac's name means something like "laughter." Everyone can afford to laugh except for the slave-woman Hagar and Ishmael, her son by Abraham.

At Sarah's insistence, with God's complicity, and to Abraham's consternation, Hagar and Ishmael are sent away. Sarah will not have the first-born Ishmael take part in Isaac's inheritance. And so Hagar and Ishmael are sent out into the desert where they come to the point of near death. They are rescued by the miraculous appearance of a well of water. Ishmael grows up in the wilderness and becomes the "wild ass of a man" he was predicted to be in 16:12.

As chapter 21 comes to its close, Abimelech comes back on the scene. He and Abraham make a covenant of friendship. A dispute concerning a well is settled amicably. The repeated mention of wells is a reminder of the importance of water in a desert world.

Abraham calls upon YWHW by yet another name,  El Olam, "Everlasting God."



Next: Genesis 22-24

Genesis 16:1-18:33

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 5

I let it go by, in my last post, but we should probably take note of Genesis 15:6

"And [Abram] believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness." (NRSV)

This verse will become important in the New Testament, particularly in the debate about the roles of faith and works that takes place between the Apostle Paul and the author of James.

In Genesis 16, we find the story of Abram, Sarai, Hagar, and Ishamael.  Sarai has continued childless into her old age. Taking matters into her own hands, she uses her slave, Hagar, as a surrogate mother. Abram agrees with Sarai's plan and has sex with Hagar. As a result Hagar becomes pregnant.

Is it only me, or does anyone else think this is a bad idea from the get-go?

Once she is pregnant, Hagar begins to treat her mistress, Sarai, "with contempt." In previous readings, I have always thought that this meant Hagar took an attitude of superiority over Sarai. I'm pregnant and you're barren. Nanny nanny boo boo. This time through, I have seen another, maybe better, interpretation. Hagar is a slave. She is human property. She is probably deeply resentful of her status as a slave. She is now being used as breeding stock, a human incubator for Abram's offspring. Of course she is contemptuous.

In response to Hagar's contempt, Sarai begins to treat her harshly.  (Begin sarcasm) Because that's going to make things better. (End sarcasm).

Hagar runs away, but an angel of the Lord advises her to return and submit to her mistress. If I were Hagar, I'd question this advice. The angel tells Hagar to name her son "Ishamael" and prophesies that the boy will be the enemy of everyone, including his own kin. Hagar gives YHWH yet another name, "El Roi" (the God Who Sees). She then, in spite of my reservations, returns to Abram and Sarai and has her child.The well at which the angel met Hagar was, apparently, an actual place at the time that Genesis was written.

In Genesis 17, the Lord cuts another deal with Abram. Literally. God promises Abram that he and Sarai will become parents. Abraham laughs at this idea. He is only the first to laugh. Along with their new status, Abram and Sarai are given new names. From this point on they are known as Abraham and Sarah. The sign of this covenant is circumcision. Every male among Abraham's descendants, even the slaves born in their households, are to have their foreskin surgically removed when they are 8 days old.

If the covenant made by passing through the cut halves of animals in chapter 15 represented a self-curse (May this happen to me if I fail to keep my end of the deal) what is the significance of circumcision?

Despite his doubting laughter, Abraham circumcises all of the males in his household including his firstborn son, Ishmael. May I just say "ouch?"

Ishmael also receives, at Abraham's (perhaps unwitting) request, a promise. He, too, will be the ancestor of kings and nations. Muslims trace their ancestry to Abraham through Ishmael. Like the Jews, many Muslims practice male circumcision.

I think it is significant that Abraham and Sarah vacillate between faith and doubt. They are human. They are capable of heroism, but also of stupidity. They can be generous and they can be cruel. Sound like anyone you know?

Speaking of Abraham's generosity, in Genesis 18 he receives three visitors. One is the Lord, walking about once again as he did in the Garden of Eden. The other two are angels apparently. Whether Abraham recognizes them at first is not clear. He welcomes them with exaggerated middle eastern obsequiousness, downplaying his hospitality. He offers a little bread and water, but provides a banquet of veal, cheese, and milk.

One of the visitors tells Abraham that he will come back to visit again in a year. At that time, he says, Sarah will be a mother. Sarah, listening from the tent, overhears. Now it is Sarah's turn to laugh in disbelief. Women past the age of menopause do not have babies. But when confronted, Sarah denies having laughed.

When the visitors leave, Abraham walks along with YHWH for a time. The angels go on ahead. The Lord confides to Abraham that he has heard bad things about the inhabitants of Sodom and has come to investigate. In this portion of Genesis, God seems particularly limited. He is neither all-knowing nor everywhere present. Whether he is all-powerful is a question. By now we should have learned not to expect the Scriptures not to present a completely consistent picture of God.

Abraham, again almost comically obsequious, argues with God, and wins a serious concession. If God finds as few as 10 righteous people in Sodom, he will not destroy the place. Abraham holds God to a simple standard of justice: it is not fitting for the Judge of all the earth to destroy the righteous along with the wicked.

How often do we hear preachers, in the aftermath of some disaster, proclaim that God had sent punishment for some perceived offense as if the innocent who suffer and die are acceptable collateral damage?

Abraham wouldn't accept that kind of behavior from God.* Should we?



Next: Genesis 19-21.

*To be honest, I don't think the problem lies with God so much as with those preachers who serve the religio-political complex.

Genesis 12:1-15:20

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 4

So far in Genesis nothing that God has tried seems to have worked out very well. God called creation "good" and human beings "very good." But the first generation of humans was disobedient and had to be evicted from the garden. There was a fratricide in the second generation. Thereafter wickedness and violence increased to the point that God wanted to wash the the whole thing clean with the limited exception of one righteous man and his family. After the flood, Noah quickly got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. So much for the righteous man. This led to the cursing of one of his sons. Then the downward spiral began again. Next thing we knew, people were trying to build a siege works against heaven and God stepped in to scatter them and confuse their language. Things just weren't going God's way.

So now, in chapter 12, God tries a new strategy. So far, God has worked on a global scale dealing with all humankind. (Within the narrative world of Genesis, even Adam and Eve, and Noah and his kin represent the whole world's population). Now God is going to work with an individual, Abram (who will later be called Abraham), and his offspring.

I'm not sure why God chose Abram. The text doesn't say. He is not described as righteous. As the story unfolds, Abram will show some more savory character traits, and some less so. But, whatever the reason, God did choose Abram, telling him to leave his home and travel to Canaan. God promised to bless Abram so that Abram would be a blessing.

There were 70 nations listed in Genesis 10. (No, I didn't personally count them). Abram's offspring are to become a new nation. Today, Abram is regarded as the father of the three great monotheistic traditions. Jews and Muslims claim him as their physical ancestor. Christians regard him as their spiritual father.

By the way, there is an ancient tradition that says Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This is unlikely for many reasons. One of those reasons is found in Genesis 12:6. It says, "at that time there were Canaanites in the land." This suggests that at the time of Genesis' composition the Canaanites were no longer in the land. When Moses died, however, the Canaanites were still in the land.

When a famine struck Canaan, Abram relocated to Egypt. Here we find one of his less savory traits. Out of cowardice, and to save his own hide, Abram passes his wife Sarai off as his sister. As a confirmation student once said, "Abram pimped Sarai out to the king of Egypt." Oddly, Abram is rewarded for this deceitful behavior and it is the Pharaoh who suffers.

Did God punish the wrong guy?

In biblical times, women had few, if any, rights. No one seems too concerned about how Sarai felt about being married off to the king of Egypt. Or how she felt about being returned to the husband who had treated her so despicably.

To this point, Abram's nephew Lot has been traveling along with him. In chapter 13, Lot and Abram split amicably. With characteristic generosity (one of Abram's better traits) Abram gives Lot his choice of land to inhabit. Lot, rather stupidly as we shall see, chooses to settle in Sodom.

Chapter 14 is a strange one. It seems to come from a different source than what has come before. It presents Abram as a powerful warrior, head of an elite fighting force, and conqueror of kings and armies. When four kings from Mesopotamia go to war against 5 kings of Sodom, the Mesopotamians are victorious. The city of Sodom falls and Lot is taken captive. (I told you he'd regret moving there. He'll have reason for further regret soon). When Abram learns of it, he mobilizes his army, defeats the Mesopotamian kings and rescues Lot. He restores the city's goods to the king of Sodom, taking no reward for his deeds. (Didn't I say he was generous?) Then he encounters the strange priest/king Melchizedek. Melchizedek is a minor player, but much will be made of him in later biblical writings.

Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon (God Most High). Presumably we are to equate El Elyon with Abram's God, YHWH.

In chapter 15 God cuts a deal with Abram. Literally. In response to Abram's complaint that he has no heir (Eliezer of Damascus is mentioned only here) God makes a covenant with Abram. The covenant ceremony involves passing between the cut halves of slaughtered animals. A reference to this practice in Jeremiah 52:17 suggests that this bloody ceremony was a way to invoke a self-curse: May the same happen to me if I fail to keep my end of the bargain. Interestingly, it is only God who passes through the carnage and presumably invokes the curse upon himself. God's presence is represented here, as in the Exodus, by smoke and fire.

God predicts that Abram's offspring will not occupy the land until they have served 400 years of slavery. The Amorites (one of the tribes that occupies Canaan) apparently won't be booted out until they have sinned sufficiently (cf. Leviticus 18:28).

What do you make of this God of Genesis who fails and changes and grows and tries new things? What do you think of Abram, the Patriarch who sold out his own wife to protect himself?




Notes: Abram builds two altars in this passage, one in chapter 12, another in chapter 13.

Spell check didn't like the word Mesopotamians for some reason. One of the replacements it suggested was Minnesotans.

Next up: Genesis 16-18

Genesis 8:1-11:32

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 3

For me the first question that arises from this passage is whether God forgot the inhabitants of the ark. After all, Genesis 8:1 says that God remembered them.

A friend once told me that she had always been troubled by the story of Noah's ark until a friend of hers said, "It's just a story!"

"Do you believe it's just a story, Brant?" she asked me.

The answer, as is usually the case with me, was a little complicated. I don't think that the story of  Noah's ark is a factual record of historical events. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. Details in the story are far-fetched. The occasional claim that someone has found the ark always proves to be little more than wishful thinking. In short, it just didn't happen.

But that doesn't mean it's "just a story."

Once again what we are dealing with is narrative theology. Some of the theological assertions of the story include:

1. God is displeased with human wickedness and violence.

2. God acts to preserve creation.

3. Despite human sinfulness, God has hung up his bow.

Again, we are faced with an account that portrays God as changing, even repenting. This is not the picture of God that most of us hold.

Oh, and once again it seems that God is a carnivore. Or at least, God enjoys the smell of a good barbecue.

Genesis 9 begins with another assertion of human dominion over all other creatures. We are, after all, at the top of the food chain. How to ethically exercise that dominion is a question of constant, and growing, importance.

The statement that "those who spill human blood shall have their blood spilled by humans" seems to give divine warrant to the practice of capital punishment. Is it significant that humans--not God--are given responsibility for punishing those who spill blood?

Chapter 9 also marks the first covenant that God makes with humans. Never again will God destroy the earth, at least not by a flood. An old Gospel song notes the loophole:

God gave Noah the rainbow sign.
Won't be a flood, be a fire next time.

Having learned the story of Noah's ark as a child, I always took a certain comfort in seeing a rainbow. I took it as a reminder that God is kindly disposed to his human creation. Reading the text closely reveals that the sign is not for us. It is there to remind God of the covenant.

Again I wonder, is God forgetful?

Chapter 9 ends with a strange episode. Noah gets drunk and passes out in his tent. His son Ham sees him naked. (There is a strong aversion to nakedness in the Hebrew scriptures). For this Ham receives a curse.

Noah's three sons are portrayed as the ancestors of nations. Shem is the father of the Semites, including the Hebrew people. Ham is the ancestor of some of Israel's enemy nations, including, and especially, the Canaanites. Japheth's offspring become the people of the coastlands.

Chapter 10 details this genealogical information. It's childish, I know, but the name Nimrod  (v. 8 ff.) makes me giggle.

In chapter 11 we find the well-known story of the Tower of Babel. There is sarcastic humor in this passage. First the people say, "Come, let us make bricks...." Then, using the same formula, they say, "Come, let us build a city and a tower...." In response God mockingly says "Come, let us go down and confuse their language...."

This story provides a mythic explanation for the diversity of human languages. It also serves as a warning, as did the Adam and Eve episode, against the hubristic human desire to take the place of God. Then again, we might ask whether God is jealous of, or threatened by, human achievement

This view of God as changeable, growing, capricious, and possibly forgetful is only one of the Bible's views of God. I don't think it is the picture of God that most of us carry in our heads. It might be troubling for some of us. Others might find it comforting.

If God can change his* mind, then we can relate to God in direct and personal ways, perhaps even swaying God's opinions and actions. In just a few chapters we will read about Abraham arguing with God over the fate of Sodom. Abraham may not quite win that argument, but God is, in some measure, persuaded by Abraham.

Speaking of Abraham, the passage at hand ends with another genealogy. This one's formulaic recital traces a line from Noah's son Shem (ancestor of the Semites) to Abram (whose name will be changed to Abraham). Abram is the major player in the next section of Genesis. We are also introduced to his wife Sarai (who will become Sarah) and to the problem of her infertility.

I hate the word barren.

For Day 4, we read Genesis 12-15.

*God is neither male nor female. I use the masculine pronoun to refer to God because that is the biblical convention. I suspect that most of the biblical writers actually pictured God as male.

Genesis 4:1-7:24

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 2

One of the things I love about these early chapters of Genesis is that they operate on two scales. On the one hand, they are epic, cosmic, and universal. On the other hand, there is a humanity and realism about them. When God confronted Adam and Eve with their disobedience, they did what human beings naturally do. They shifted blame. Adam blamed Eve (and implicitly blamed God). Eve blamed the snake.

Now in chapter 4 we read a perfectly human story of sibling rivalry writ large. In the second generation of human life, Cain, jealous of the favor God shows his little brother, commits the first murder, a fratricide.

One of the things I don't love about these early chapters of Genesis is that they present God as anthropomorphic and capricious. Why did God accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? Is it because Abel offered his best and Cain gave a second-rate offering? That's a common explanation but by no means certain from the text. It seems just as likely that God is a carnivore. Or maybe God's reasons are God's own. I leave it to you, reader. Personally I don't want to move too quickly to let God off the hook.

That is not to say that God is in any way responsible for Cain's actions. Human sin rests on human shoulders. But in our conversation with God, it is fair, and I would say faithful, to hold God responsible for what God does.

The idea that God is unchanging, impassible, and utterly transcendent is a Greek notion. It doesn't factor into this early Hebrew text. Here in Genesis God seems to be growing and changing.

There are wonderful details in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain's famous question "Am I my brother's keeper?" presses us to ask just what responsibility we have toward other human beings. The image of Abel's blood crying out to God from the ground is powerful.

There are also questions that confront careful readers. Where did Cain get a wife? Where did all these people who might kill Cain come from? Explanations for these things must be drawn from outside the text. Perhaps it is best simply to say that these stories, while they beg to be taken seriously, should not be taken too literally.

Genesis 4 ends with mention of some of Cain's descendants. Many "firsts" are credited to them. Jabal was the mythic ancestor of all tent-dwelling goatherds, Jubal the primal father of musicians, and Tubal Cain the maker of the first metal tools. 

Let's notice, too, that Lamech is the first polygamist in Scripture. His multiple marriage is not judged negatively. Polygamy was normal in Old Testament culture.

On the subject of Lamech, did he kill in self-defense or for revenge? It isn't clear. I prefer to think it was self-defense since he invokes God's protection. What do you think?

In chapter 5 of Genesis we find the first of the Bible's genealogies, a family tree stretching from Adam, through Seth, to Noah. The incredible spans of life attributed to the individuals on this list again suggest that this is not a factual, historical account.

The authors or redactors of Genesis were careful story-tellers. Methuselah, the oldest human being recorded in Genesis, lived to the age of 969 years. If you want to do the math (I've done it) you will find that Methuselah died in the year of the great flood, presumably before the cataclysm.

The sixth chapter of Genesis begins with a note about the "sons of God," presumably some creatures from the heavenly realm, having sex with human women and producing a race of mighty warriors (giants?) called the "Nephilim."

God shortens the human lifespan to a maximum of  120 years. Then, in response to human wickedness and, in particular, violence, God proposes to destroy all life on earth with the exception of righteous Noah, his immediate family, and a pair of each of the animals.

Someone more cynical than I has said, "I love the part in the Bible where God gives everybody free will and then kills them for not doing what he wants."  Though I wouldn't go quite that far, I do find the actions attributed to God in this passage disturbing.  Again, God seems to change and grow through the course of these stories. Destroying everyone but Noah and his closest kin will not work out so well for God.

Chapter 7 begins the story of the great flood. There are details here that don't quite add up. Noah, for example, is told to take a pair of all the unclean animals, and 7 pairs of clean animals. The kashrut law that distinguishes clean from unclean animals is not articulated, nor put into effect, until God gives the law to Moses in the book of Exodus.

Scholars tell us that the story of the flood is a Hebrew response to the Gilgamesh epic, a story that was current among the Babylonians who conquered the Judahites and carried them into exile in the sixth century BCE. For the sake of brevity I will say no more about it here, but you may want to look into it for yourself.

A few final notes for today's reading. An "ark" is not a boat. It's a box. The vessel described in chapter 6 doesn't strike me as particularly seaworthy, but I may be wrong.

God himself closes the door of the ark. This is a nice touch.

The story of Noah's ark is frequently told to children. I suppose that this is because of the animals. Kids love animals. This is not a children's story, however. It is a tale of profound horror. In case you missed it, reread the Genesis 7:20-23 (emphasis added):

 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 

All. Flesh. Died.

Next up: Genesis 8-11

Genesis 1:1 - 3:24

THE YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY: DAY 1

Right out of the gate we are faced with the fact that we are not dealing with a literal, historical, factual, scientific account of the origins of the world, animal species, and the human race.

First, there is the external evidence of science which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.

Second there is the internal evidence. There are, clearly, two separate accounts of creation here and the two cannot be easily reconciled. In fact, I'd say they can't be reconciled at all.

The first account is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4.* It tells how God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, capped his work with the creation of human beings, and then rested on the seventh day.

The second account, which begins at 2:5 tells how God created the first man, Adam, from dirt and the first woman, Eve, from one of Adam's ribs.The man and woman were placed in the Garden of Eden, but exiled from it because they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is a talking snake in this story, which might be a strong hint that it is not intended as a factual account.  That snake, by the way, is not identified as Satan. That tradition arose later.

In the first century CE, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, noted that these are two discrete accounts and suggested that they represent two separate creations. The first creation was a spiritual creation of platonic ideal forms. The second creation was the creation of the material world. This, of course, imposes a Greek philosophical framework on a Hebrew text. It goes far beyond what we actually read in Genesis. I am not suggesting in any way that Philo was right. I only mention him to highlight the fact that Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5 ff. are two different creation stories.

A close look at some of the details of these two accounts shows that they do not reconcile with one another and were probably never intended to. For example, in the first account God creates animals first and then creates human beings. Men and women are created simultaneously. In the second account, the human male is created first, then the animals, and then the human female.

Why would the Bible begin with two divergent creation stories? The book of Genesis, in fact, the first five books of the Bible, are composite texts. The stories we find in them were collected, compiled, merged, and redacted. Surely the people who put Genesis into its final form were aware of the differences between these two creation narratives. But they must have felt that both stories were important and so they preserved them both.

Now, if Genesis 1-3 is not history or science, what is it?

I would say that these chapters are theology. In fact, I would call them narrative theology. They are stories that tell us something about God, especially in relation to creation.

Some of the positive assertions that I find in the first creation story (Genesis 1:-2:4) are:

1. God is creator.
2. Creation is good.
3. Human beings, female and male, are made in the image of God.
4. The human creation is "very good."
5. Cycles of work and rest, labor and sabbath, are built into creation.

I have an unresolved question about the first creation account. Is the repetitive structure of the 6 days of creation poetry? A mnemonic aid? A sort of legalistic (i.e. deuteronomistic) boiler plate? Or something else?

Theological assertions from the second creation account (Genesis 2:5 ff.) include:

1. Human beings desire human companionship.
2. There is a hubristic human tendency to wish to be gods.
3. Our life in this world is not all we might hope. This is not the Garden of Eden.
4. God continues to care for his human creation. God made clothes for the exiled Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21).

I believe that Adam (the name means "human") and Eve (which means "mother," i.e. the mother of us all) represent the whole human race. Their story is our story.

One last note: the notion of original sin is nowhere explicit in the story of Adam and Eve. I believe that all human beings are sinful and, to some extent estranged from God, but a doctrine of genetically acquired sin is no more intrinsic to this story than the creation of platonic forms is to Genesis 1:1-2:4.

What about you? How do you read?

Tomorrow's passage: Genesis 4-7.





*This is probably a good point to note that the chapter and verse divisions we find in our Bibles are not original to the text. They were added later and, while they make navigating the Bible simpler, they can also be somewhat misleading. The divisions are artificial and occasionally nonsensical. It would make much more sense if the first chapter of Genesis ended with the first creation account at 2:4.

A YEAR OF BLOGGING BIBLICALLY

It is my practice to read through the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, about once a year. With each reading I find things I hadn’t noticed before, things that inspire me, things that surprise me, things that disturb me.

This year I want to invite you to join me in reading the Bible.

Here’s the idea: We’ll follow the Blue Letter Bible canonical one year reading plan. This plan divides the Bible into 365 portions. Each portion should take about 10 or 15 minutes to read.

For the purposes of this blog, I’m defining a year as 365 days, but not necessarily consecutive days. I want to be able to take a day or two off each week. Technically that means that this year of blogging biblically will take more than a year.

I’m also defining Bible as the 66 books of the Protestant canon. This is the canon of my denomination. These books are considered Scripture by all Christians. I know that many Christians have a larger canon. I have read, studied, and appreciated the deuterocanonical books. By omitting those books from my year of blogging biblically, I don’t intend to exclude anyone. Neither do I mean to insult anyone else’s canon.

Each day, I will try to offer some remarks on the assigned reading. Your comments will also be welcome. You do not have to agree with me, or with anyone else. I only ask that you be concise and polite. Seriously, try not to write comments that are longer than my posts.

Regardless of your religious tradition, or lack thereof, you are welcome to join me in this venture.

I want us to take an honest look at the Bible, to see what it actually says, to recognize the good and bad in it, to enter into conversation with the Scriptures.



Come with me, won’t you? We’ll start tomorrow with Genesis 1–3.

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE...

I have a friend who teaches New Testament studies at the college level. He is intensely smart, intellectually rigorous, and steeped in knowledge of the Bible. Where God is concerned, my friend is pretty agnostic. I can’t share his position but, in his case at least, I can respect it.

He once told me that he wanted to begin a speech to the student body saying, “I don’t believe in the God of the Bible. There isn’t one.” He was being deliberately provocative. That’s one of the reasons I like him. He didn’t give that speech. That is another reason I like him.

So what did my friend mean by saying “I don’t believe in the God of the Bible. There isn’t one?” Just this: the various books of the Bible present different portraits of the God of Israel. The anthropomorphic God who walks in the garden of Eden in the cool of the evening (Genesis 3:8) is quite unlike the cosmic God of Isaiah’s vision, the hem of whose robe filled the Jerusalem temple (Isaiah 6:1). Is the God who commands Saul to annihilate all of the Amelekite men, women, children, and even their animals, (1 Samuel 15:2–3) the same God who is described simply as “love” in 1 John 4:16?

In brief, the Bible does not present a single, consistent depiction of God. The various writers of Scripture had different outlooks, different experiences of God, different theologies. To minimize or even ignore this simple fact does the biblical writers, the Bible, and even God a real disservice.



Don't get me wrong. I'm as monotheistic as the next guy--well, the next Trinitarian guy, anyway. I just recognize that the Bible's various writers didn't always see the one God of Israel quite the same way.

THE GOOD BOOK

 A parishioner called me one day. “I hope I’m not disturbing you,” she said.

I answered, “Not at all. I was just sitting here reading the Bible.”

“Ah,” she said. “The good book,”

“Well, yeah,” I replied. “Parts of it.”

Parts of the Bible are good. Parts are uplifting, inspiring, enlightening. But other parts can be dark and disturbing.

I own a copy of a book titled The Positive Bible, compiled by Kenneth Winston Caine. It has a lengthy subtitle, From Genesis to Revelation: Scripture that Inspires, Nurtures and Heals. It is a collection of Bible verses that, according to Caine, are “empowering, uplifting, helpful, hopeful, inspiring, and faith-building.” And what could be wrong with that?

Nothing, except that it misrepresents the actual Bible in some significant ways. For one, it ignores the negative parts of the Bible.

For another, it treats the Bible as a source of pronouncements that have no context. Let me show you what I mean.  Caine’s book includes Job 8:20–21 (quoted from the “King James Version Modernized”) as one of the Bible’s positive teachings:

God will not cast away a blameless man

neither will he help the evildoers:

He will fill your mouth with laughing

and your lips with rejoicing.   

The problem is that these words, in context, are spoken by Bildad the Shuhite, one of Job’s three comforters, of whom God himself says “You have not spoken of me what is right.”(Job 42:7 NRSV). In fact the very premise of the Book of Job is that God has “cast away a blameless man.”

To be fair to Kenneth Winston Caine, he is not the only one who uses the Bible as a verse mine.. All too often I hear believers assert “The Bible says” and then spout some words of Scripture that have been wrenched from any meaningful context, in order to “prove” a point. 


All Christians, and particularly Protestants, hold that the Bible is, in some way, authoritative. What I’m proposing is that we should, then, read the Bible in its entirety, both its positive and negative parts. And further, we should not treat the Bible as a collection of verses, but should always pay attention to context so as to understand what the Bible’s writers are actually saying.

FLANNELGRAPH SAINTS

Our Sunday School teacher sat on a folding chair, her ankles demurely crossed, an open book perched delicately on her knees. Beside her chair, an easel supported a sheet of plywood that had been covered with fuzzy cloth. She read us Bible stories that were suitably edited for our young age and, as she read, she placed paper cut-outs of Bible characters on the flannelgraph. They adhered almost magically.

Sometimes she would let us, her students, put the paper dolls, oh so carefully, on the flannel board.

There little David, armed only with a slingshot and great faith, faced off against the giant Goliath. There Jesus walked on water as casually as we might stroll down a sidewalk, but when impetuous Peter climbed out of the boat he fell into the sea with a mighty splash and had to be rescued. There Lot and his family fled the destruction of wicked Sodom but his disobedient wife glanced back and was turned into a pillar of salt.

My Sunday School teacher told me stories full of wonder, adventure, and  mystery. I am thankful. She helped to start me on a path of faith. She contributed to my life-long love of the Scriptures.

The Apostle Paul wrote: When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. (1 Corinthians 13:11 NRSV)

I left Sunday School long ago. I realize now that the Bible stories I heard back then were sanitized. They were simplified to teach unambiguous moral truths. They were purged of sex and violence inappropriate for young ears. I may have heard about the destruction of Sodom, but the sin (attempted rape) for which that city was punished went unspecified. Nor was I told the sequel: a sordid tale of drunkenness and incest (Genesis 19:30–38). These things had to wait until I was grown and had put an end to childish ways.

I know now that there are no flannelgraph saints.* The Bible’s patriarchs and apostles, prophets and disciples, are three dimensional. They are fallible. They are sinners. They live the full range of human experience. They feel the full gamut of human emotion. Their stories are not simple, sanitary tales with clear moral messages.

The Bible is messier, more adult, and more wonderful than that.

*Okay, I have to admit that there are a couple of characters in the Bible who might qualify as two-dimensional, flannelgraph saints. I’m thinking specifically of the Patriarch Joseph, he of the rainbow-colored coat. The guy seems a bit too good to be true. I sympathize with his brothers who were so annoyed by him, though, of course, I cannot endorse their selling him into slavery.

Daniel, too, is something of a Johnny One-Note, but since he is presented as a model of faithfulness for an oppressed people, it is probably appropriate.

I'm Back!

My long hiatus from this blog is at an end. Watch for new posts over the next few days and join me beginning March 1 for a Year of Blogging Biblically.

I plan to blog through the Bible in 365 bite sized chunks.

Details to follow.

This Blog Is Going on Hiatus

AND I'M GOING ON A SABBATICAL

I started this blog to add my voice to the conversation about human sexuality that was then current in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the wider church, and our society. The debates have not ended, not by a long shot, but the ELCA has made its decisions. We have paid some small cost for doing what I believe is the right thing. Our church body is now kinder, more inclusive, and more just. We have begun to move on.

I've derived a deal of satisfaction and pleasure from writing these blogposts. I've gone on some interesting side-trips dealing with biblical interpretation and translation. I had some fun with Harold Camping's failed Judgment Day prediction in May of 2011. I have interacted with some terrific people who read and commented on my blog. Some of them have agreed with me. Some have disagreed. Either way, I've enjoyed the conversation.

Now I'm thinking this blog may have run its course.

At the end of the month, I will be taking a sabbatical, an epic bicycle tour from Seattle back to my home in Illinois. I've started a new blog, Velocipedic Saturnal, to chronicle the trip. And yes, if you read the blog, I promise to explain what "velocipedic saturnal" means.

Thanks to everyone who has read this blog. If you are a subscriber, don't unsubscribe. I may choose to revive the blog after my return from Seattle.

God bless,

Brant