Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 48-50.

My thoughts on this passage are scattered, just as they were last year.  First, the obvious explanation for Jacob adopting Ephraim and Manasseh is that by doing so he gave Joseph two shares of his legacy.  This fits Jacob since Joseph was the eldest son of Rachel, the only woman Jacob wanted to marry.  However, it always seems to me like there is more to it than that.  I am not sure that there is, but every time I read this passage I expect to see some meaning there that I have not seen before.  Then we have Jacob’s blessings of his twelve sons.  Many scholars see this as an indication that this was written after the Israelites conquered Canaan.  However, I see this as being Jacob interpreting his sons personalities and predicting how and where their descendants would choose to live.  I also believe God’s Spirit gave Jacob a bit of insight into what was to come for his sons descendants.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 45-47.

Many people hold a grudge against those who have wronged them, even after the end result of the wrong is something markedly better than anyone could have imagined happening to them without the wrong first occurring.  Joseph did not.  When Joseph’s brothers discovered who he was, they were terrified.  They were sure that he would use his position to get revenge on them for the wrong they had done him.  However, Joseph looked at what they had done and realized that God had used it to get him to where he was.  Instead of seeking revenge against his brothers for what they had done to him, Joseph praised God for putting him into those bad circumstances in order for him to be in the position to do good things later.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 42-44.

My first thought when reading this was, “Why did Joseph choose Simeon as the one to keep as prisoner until his brothers returned with Benjamin?”  I did an Internet search to see if anyone remembered a passage which explained this choice.  I found the suggestion that Joseph chose Simeon because of his role in extracting revenge for Dinah’s rape, which I suppose is possible, but seems unconvincing to me.  Others suggested that Simeon was the brother who suggested killing Joseph before Reuben convinced them to put him in the cistern (so that he, Reuben, could release him later), but that is just speculation, as the Bible does not attribute that to a specific brother.  My conclusion is that the Bible does not contain an answer to that question, which means that Joseph’s reasons for choosing Simeon are not important.  Initially, I intended to leave my comments about Joseph choosing to imprison Simeon there. but I was reminded about one of the rules for spotting “urban legends.  The rule tells us that when we hear a story which fails to mention the names of key participants, or other information which can be used to either corroborate the story, or falsify it, from other sources that suggests that the story might be an urban legend.  So, the fact that this account identifies Simeon as the brother who was imprisoned by Joseph, and that later we are told that Simeon was reunited with his brothers when they returned with Benjamin.  While the reference to Joseph imprisoning, and later releasing him, does not provide conclusive proof, it does lend support to my faith that this story reflects an event which actually happened (and that this account accurately describes that event).

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 39-41.

I usually try to avoid writing a blog which goes over the point which has been made time and again about a passage, but today’s passage contains a basic, obvious point which is too important not to talk about again.  Joseph’s life went terribly, but he never saw it as a reason to live as a victim.  His brothers planned to kill him, then decided it would be better to sell him into slavery, where they thought he would be worked to death, but Joseph did not allow it to stop himself from doing the best that he could.  That work ethic resulted in him rising to a position of power within the household of one of the most powerful men in Egypt, although he was still a slave.  Then, when everything was going well for him, he was imprisoned on false charges.  Once again, he refused to retreat into despair, but instead did the best he could and rose to a position of some standing, although admittedly still a prisoner.  Then, after the cupbearer was released, he remained a prisoner for two more years.  Yet, he appears to have continued to do his best throughout that time.  If at any time Joseph had given in to despair, he would not have been in the position where God could use him to save his family.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 36-38.

Ordinarily, my eyes glaze over when I read genealogies such as those in this passage.  However, today as I read over them some things caught my eye.  I am not sure that any of these things will change my understanding of Scripture, but they do reveal some aspects of biblical history which I never thought about before and make me wonder about what those who composed this passage knew that we no longer have any record of.  First, I noticed that Amalek was the son of Esau by his concubine, Timna.  Amalek was the forefather of the Amalekites, whom the Israelites fought later (this is interesting because before today, I thought all of Esau’s descendants were Edomites, members of the nation of Edom).  A little later in these genealogies we learn that Timna was the sister of one of the Horite chieftains who lived in the area where Esau settled.  Which led me to do a little searching to discover who the Horites were.  I found that the Hebrew word translated as “Horite” means “cave dweller”.  I also found that some translators think that Horite was not meant to indicate a nation of people, but merely that these people lived in caves.  To me the passage seems to say that Esau and his descendants became integrated with those who had been living in this region in much the same way that Shechem had tried to make happen with Jacob’s family after he had raped Jacob’s daughter (although Esau’s descendants came to rule this area, which was not what Shechem had in mind).  The other thing of interest I found in these genealogies was that the first listed king of Edom was the “son of Beor”, which makes me wonder if this Beor is the same Beor who was the father of Balaam who was called on to curse the Children of Israel in the Book of Exodus.  If so, this would lead me to interesting thoughts about the worship of God among the Edomites.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 33-35.

Some time ago I came across an article which claimed that the account of what happened to Dinah, Jacob’s only daughter*, indicates that the Patriarchs treated women worse than the society around them.  The logic being that because the account tells us that Shechem fell in love with her after raping her and spoke tenderly to her, her brothers were brutes who killed the man she loved and forced her to be a servant in their households.  But the passage says nothing about what Dinah felt for Shechem and can be read to suggest that she was a prisoner in Shechem’s household until her brothers freed her.  The passage clearly tells us that Shechem took advantage of his position as son of the local ruler to take advantage of Dinah sexually while she was visiting with the women of his town, and her brothers were not nearby.  Then he attempted to use the fact that she was defiled as leverage to bring Jacob and his sons under his father’s control, which would eventually mean under his control.  The passage makes it clear that Jacob found Shechem’s behavior unacceptable, but also thought his sons, Simeon and Levi, went too far in seeking vengeance.  On the other hand, the passage also makes it clear that Simeon and Levi felt like they had no other choice.  Once again the writer does not approve of what was done, but sees God’s plan being fulfilled through the actions of flawed humans.

Jacob was frightened about the possible repercussions to his sons actions.  As a result, he rededicates himself, and his household, to God.  Up until now, Jacob has tolerated  his sons and wives (or, at least, Rachael) worshiping idols.  However this incident made Jacob realize that his family needed to dedicate themselves to serving God if they were to survive in this land.  In response to Jacob’s renewed dedication to God, God renewed the promises He had made to Abraham and Isaac.  We see here the final step in the progression of Jacob’s worship of God.

*At least, the only daughter which the Bible tells us about, it is possible that Dinah’s birth is only recorded because of her role in this account and that Jacob had other daughters…my inclination is to believe that Jacob had no other daughters.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 31-32.

I wanted to base my writing today around Rachel stealing her father’s household gods.  I really had trouble understanding how it fits into the story here, and I am still not sure that I do.  The first thing I will note is that passages like this one are part of why many scholars claim that the Patriarchs and early Israelites were polytheistic.  However, as I read this, it appears to me that the expressions used here to refer to God differ from those used to refer to Laban’s household gods in a way which indicates a category difference.  That is, the words used suggest that God is a different category of being from Laban’s household gods.  I am unable to say whether that category difference belongs to those who take part in these events (Jacob, Laban, Rachel, etc) or only to those who composed the account (I say “composed” here because I believe these accounts were compiled into something close to what we read here long before they were written down).  If I remember, I will touch on this theme from time to time as it crops up in the passages I read this year.  In this case, I think that Laban believed that God was supreme, but felt that He was too powerful and important to call upon, making it necessary for a mere human like Laban to call upon lesser ‘gods’ (somewhat like the view many Roman Catholics have of God and the official Catholic Saints).  Jacob seems to have had a similar understanding, but with a growing awareness that God will respond to his prayers and requests.  Or, perhaps, they all viewed the “household gods” as beings who could be manipulated and/or coerced into serving the interests of the individual, while God would only serve His interests.  In a way, the account in Genesis of Jacob is about Jacob coming to realize that as he aligned His interests with those of God, God would look out for him.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  Genesis 29-30.

I find it interesting that Rachel was herding her father’s sheep, apparently by herself.  We know from tomorrow’s passage that Laban had sons, why was Rachel with the sheep and not one of her brothers?  Perhaps Laban’s sons were younger than Rachel and not yet old enough to be herding the sheep.  Of course, then one must wonder why Leah was not with Rachel herding the sheep? Or, perhaps Leah was herding a different flock.  I am going to guess that Laban’s sons were still too young to be tending the flocks when Jacob arrived (or, that older sons had died), and that the comment made later that Leah had weak eyes (or delicate eyes, whatever that meant) explains why she was not tending the flocks.  This leads me to suspect that Laban was in a relatively weak position locally when Jacob arrived.  Which led me to another thought.  It seems likely that the other shepherds present when Jacob arrived were young.  The passage tells us that it was early in the day for the flocks to be gathered, but that they needed to be there when someone arrived who could roll the stone off of the well.  Since none of them objected to Jacob rolling the stone aside, it seems like they were waiting for someone who could do so.  So, Jacob’s arrival seems to have immediately strengthened Laban’s position.  Laban was no longer dependent upon others in order for his sheep to access water.  Now that I have noticed how odd it was for Rachel to be tending Laban’s flock, it surprises me that I have never heard anyone comment on it before.  I did find one commentator who noted that the way Jacob addressed the other shepherds about having their flocks gather so early suggests that those other shepherds were young.

The significance of the Rachel tending the sheep indicating that Laban was relatively weak and not wealthy comes from the contrast to where he was more than fourteen years later when Jacob first considers leaving. By the latter time, Laban’s sons have grown and are able to tend his flocks for him, but Laban appears to be unsure if they can manage them as well as Jacob has done.  If I am correct in my interpretation, at this point Laban’s sons would have been young men, not grown men established in their knowledge of life as Jacob would have been when he arrived.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.