The amazing thing about Joseph is not that God empowered him to interpret dreams, but that he expected God to empower him to interpret dreams! When the cup-bearer and baker shared their dreams with him, seeking interpretation, Joseph said "Interpreting dreams is God's business. Go ahead and tell me your dreams." It almost sounds cocky, the confidence Joseph had in his ability to do this! And yet, according to verse 41:16, his confidence is not in his own ability but in God's. When Pharoah himself asked Joseph to interpret a disturbing dream, his response was, "It is beyond my power to do this, but God can tell you what it means and set you at ease". So Joseph had total confidence that God would equip him to carry out the task set before him. This is the part that amazes me. He expected God to come through for him. He accepted the assignment without hesitation because he knew God would give him the ability to accomplish what had been asked of him. Had he been me, he'd have never offered to interpret the dreams, because he'd have feared that God would not show up and he'd wind up looking like a fool. Oh, and he'd have rotted in jail instead of preserving the future of the nation of Israel by preventing their starvation. Joseph exhibited the kind of faith I aspire to. I want to approach God with that kind of confidence in my prayer life and in my service to Him. To think of the things I might attempt and the things I might pray for if I had real confidence that God would show up!
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 42-45:15
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Joseph; Judah and Tamar
What a change from yesterday when the reading was a little dry and uneventful! I don't know where to start! I'm actually not going to focus on Joseph, as his story is one that most of us are very familiar with and one that raises few questions or conflicts. It is fairly obvious why he is disliked by his older brothers. He is clearly the favorite, he tattles on their wrong-doings, and brags about his "visions of greatness". Fortunately, there was at least one voice of reason in the lynch-mob of brothers who sought to kill him, otherwise we may not have the stellar example of faith and perseverance, trust and patience, that we see in Joseph's story. As we leave him today, Joseph has been sold into slavery and then wrongly accused of a crime by his master's wife. The real meat of his story is found in tomorrow's reading.
The story of Tamar... Remembering the lengths to which Lot's daughters were willing to go in order to have children, sheds some light on Tamar's situation. In this ancient patriarchal society, a woman's highest aspiration was having children. Inheritances and land were allotted to a man's children, not to his wife. If a woman was widowed without any children, she had no means of support, nor did she own any land. Her husband's estate reverted to his brothers. Unless a woman died before her husband, being childless meant eventual destitution. After witnessing the destruction of their entire town (and all eligible bachelors within), Lot's daughters were desperate to get pregnant for this very reason. After marrying two men who refused to father children for her and waiting in vain for a third marriage opportunity, Tamar was also desperate.
After the death of Er, Onan stood to inherit the "double portion" allotted to the firstborn and probably did not want to produce an heir for his dead brother, thereby handing over the inheritance bonus back to that child. Shelah was not offered to Tamar in marriage because Judah had begun to associate Tamar with the deaths of his two sons and feared the same fate may befall his third son, (vs. 38:11). She wore widow's clothing for YEARS while waiting for Judah to make good on the promise of this third marriage. It was this type of situation that brought about the Levirite marriage law, which stated that a widow's brother-in-law must marry her to provide an heir for the deceased man, in order that his share of the land allotment would be secured. I was troubled that God could require a man, potentially a married man, to take an additional wife, under any circumstances . I can see how the arrangement protected women who had no inheritance rights at that time, but still, it just doesn't fit with God's desire for purity in marriage. Though the text does not specifically say so, it is possible that the requirement applied only to unmarried brothers of the deceased. But that felt like massaging the text to make it say what I wanted it to say. So I did some research and found the following explanation...
"What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.
Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it) and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this doesn't mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations (e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).
A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.
Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:
Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).
What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more "principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g., permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy (discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness (e.g. hardness of heart). "
In short, God does permit some things that he does not endorse. God tells us what we should do, but deals also with what we actually do. Polygamy was a culturally accepted institution, much like divorce has become in modern times. While the Scriptures call for marriage to be a life-long commitment between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24), the hardness of our hearts causes us to go in the opposite direction and God defines the conditions for that scenario. It's similar in concept to the sacrificial system. God does not want us to sin, but He knows we will, so makes provision for that eventuality. This does not endorse sin, but deals with the reality of sin. The sin of polygamy is never without consequence, even if we do not see it immediately. In each of the patriarchs, polygamy results in tremendous family discord. The Bible warns against Kings taking many wives and later in the new Testament, church leaders are required to be the "man of one wife".
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 40-41
The story of Tamar... Remembering the lengths to which Lot's daughters were willing to go in order to have children, sheds some light on Tamar's situation. In this ancient patriarchal society, a woman's highest aspiration was having children. Inheritances and land were allotted to a man's children, not to his wife. If a woman was widowed without any children, she had no means of support, nor did she own any land. Her husband's estate reverted to his brothers. Unless a woman died before her husband, being childless meant eventual destitution. After witnessing the destruction of their entire town (and all eligible bachelors within), Lot's daughters were desperate to get pregnant for this very reason. After marrying two men who refused to father children for her and waiting in vain for a third marriage opportunity, Tamar was also desperate.
After the death of Er, Onan stood to inherit the "double portion" allotted to the firstborn and probably did not want to produce an heir for his dead brother, thereby handing over the inheritance bonus back to that child. Shelah was not offered to Tamar in marriage because Judah had begun to associate Tamar with the deaths of his two sons and feared the same fate may befall his third son, (vs. 38:11). She wore widow's clothing for YEARS while waiting for Judah to make good on the promise of this third marriage. It was this type of situation that brought about the Levirite marriage law, which stated that a widow's brother-in-law must marry her to provide an heir for the deceased man, in order that his share of the land allotment would be secured. I was troubled that God could require a man, potentially a married man, to take an additional wife, under any circumstances . I can see how the arrangement protected women who had no inheritance rights at that time, but still, it just doesn't fit with God's desire for purity in marriage. Though the text does not specifically say so, it is possible that the requirement applied only to unmarried brothers of the deceased. But that felt like massaging the text to make it say what I wanted it to say. So I did some research and found the following explanation...
"What must be understood is that God's allowance of something and even His requirement of it in exceptional circumstances is NOT incompatible with it being "wrong" in the vast majority of cases.
Obviously, polygamy was 'authorized' (the Mosaic law specifically refers to it) and 'demanded' (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this doesn't mean that it is something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations (e.g., the provision of a supportless-widow of kin, in a specific society tied to a genealogically-based land inheritance economy).
A good way to illustrate this is from a very similar marital topic--divorce.
Divorce was "authorized" in the Mosaic Law (Deut 24), and "demanded" in the case of the returned exiles (Ezra 10). But it is crystal clear that divorce is:
Hated by God (Mal 2.16)
Prohibited by Jesus, except in extreme situations (Matt 19).
Permitted by God because of human failings (i.e., hardness of heart--Mt 19.8).
What this means for OUR discussion is that one must look at the more "principle-like" statements about a topic, for guidance as to what the will and heart of God is about a subject, rather than the exceptions in history (e.g., permissions, extreme circumstances). The statements of principle about polygamy (discussed above)--like the statements of principle about divorce-- indicate the behavioral norm that we are to follow. The exceptions in history to those overarching statements of principle and life are just that--exceptions, called forth by either extreme situations or called forth by our own moral weakness (e.g. hardness of heart). "
In short, God does permit some things that he does not endorse. God tells us what we should do, but deals also with what we actually do. Polygamy was a culturally accepted institution, much like divorce has become in modern times. While the Scriptures call for marriage to be a life-long commitment between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24), the hardness of our hearts causes us to go in the opposite direction and God defines the conditions for that scenario. It's similar in concept to the sacrificial system. God does not want us to sin, but He knows we will, so makes provision for that eventuality. This does not endorse sin, but deals with the reality of sin. The sin of polygamy is never without consequence, even if we do not see it immediately. In each of the patriarchs, polygamy results in tremendous family discord. The Bible warns against Kings taking many wives and later in the new Testament, church leaders are required to be the "man of one wife".
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 40-41
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Esau's descendants
An excellent question was posed in the comments section that I wanted to respond to. After such a heart-warming reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, why does Jacob again deceive his brother? Jacob says that he will follow Esau to his home in Seir but heads in another direction instead. It could have been that Jacob was still afraid of his brother, but I think a better answer is that Seir is not where God had told him to go. God had told Jacob to return to his homeland, which had been Beersheba, which was located on the "promised land" side of the Jordan river. Seir, the land of the Edomites, was on the opposite side of that river. The reconciliation, while significant, was of secondary importance to getting the nation of Israel into the Promised Land. Now, could Jacob have used better methodology than a lie? Absolutely. But old habits die hard.
After reading the genealogy of Esau, I was coming up completely blank for anything "interesting" to pull from the reading. Knowing that the Edomites were prominent in Israel's history, I decided to google, "what became of Esau's descendants?" What I found in a seminary student's essay, was more insightful than anything I would have come up with, so I decided to cut and paste it below.
"... Edom and Israel do not simply represent two families, or even two nations. They represent, as Cain and Seth and Ishmael and Isaac before them, the only two peoples that exist in the world, the only two nations that have ever existed in this world: the kingdom of this world, of the devil, and of unbelief on the one hand, and the kingdom of our God and of his Christ on the other.
From the very beginning of the book, in chapter 4, we have seen this division of mankind into the communities of faith and unbelief. Already at the beginning of human history, right after the fall, men in rebellion are found seeking to build the city of man and men who have faith in God are found building his city in the world. The story of Genesis, and so the story of the world and all of its history as it unfolds, is, primarily, the story of God calling a people out of rebellious and fallen humanity to be his very own, bearing with that people through all of their ingratitude and disobedience, and using them to bring light and life to the rising generations until finally God's people as a whole will be regathered in the paradise from which they were driven by sin. But alongside of that story is its mirror-opposite, the story of the kingdom of man -- born in rebellion against God, marked by violence, pride, and, at last, futility. They build their towers of Babel, but always in the end, God frustrates their hope to find peace and life apart from him. They trouble the saints, they carry out their rebellion against God by seeking the harm of his kingdom and people and city. But God is seen, through it all, protecting his people and securing them in his salvation. This was, as you remember, the great theme of the toledot of Isaac, the story of Jacob and Esau.
Consequently, all through the book, the challenge of this divinely inspired author to his readers is this question, over and over again: to which line, to which nation, to which kingdom, to which people, do you belong? And though it puts it in the terms appropriate to its time -- Esau and Jacob; Edom and Israel -- the question is exactly the same today."
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 37-39
After reading the genealogy of Esau, I was coming up completely blank for anything "interesting" to pull from the reading. Knowing that the Edomites were prominent in Israel's history, I decided to google, "what became of Esau's descendants?" What I found in a seminary student's essay, was more insightful than anything I would have come up with, so I decided to cut and paste it below.
"... Edom and Israel do not simply represent two families, or even two nations. They represent, as Cain and Seth and Ishmael and Isaac before them, the only two peoples that exist in the world, the only two nations that have ever existed in this world: the kingdom of this world, of the devil, and of unbelief on the one hand, and the kingdom of our God and of his Christ on the other.
From the very beginning of the book, in chapter 4, we have seen this division of mankind into the communities of faith and unbelief. Already at the beginning of human history, right after the fall, men in rebellion are found seeking to build the city of man and men who have faith in God are found building his city in the world. The story of Genesis, and so the story of the world and all of its history as it unfolds, is, primarily, the story of God calling a people out of rebellious and fallen humanity to be his very own, bearing with that people through all of their ingratitude and disobedience, and using them to bring light and life to the rising generations until finally God's people as a whole will be regathered in the paradise from which they were driven by sin. But alongside of that story is its mirror-opposite, the story of the kingdom of man -- born in rebellion against God, marked by violence, pride, and, at last, futility. They build their towers of Babel, but always in the end, God frustrates their hope to find peace and life apart from him. They trouble the saints, they carry out their rebellion against God by seeking the harm of his kingdom and people and city. But God is seen, through it all, protecting his people and securing them in his salvation. This was, as you remember, the great theme of the toledot of Isaac, the story of Jacob and Esau.
Consequently, all through the book, the challenge of this divinely inspired author to his readers is this question, over and over again: to which line, to which nation, to which kingdom, to which people, do you belong? And though it puts it in the terms appropriate to its time -- Esau and Jacob; Edom and Israel -- the question is exactly the same today."
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 37-39
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Jacob wrestles with God
Jacob moves on from his treaty with Laban seeking the same with his brother Esau. He is now sandwiched between the two people he has been most deceitful with, and is filled with fear and anxiety. Even though he recognizes that a band of angels is with him, he is still afraid of what man (Esau) can do to him. After he has appeased Esau by sending lavish gifts ahead of his family, he is still terrified. Alone in the camp the night before he meets his long, lost brother, Jacob learns that his real struggle is not against man (Esau or Laban) but against God. He has been wrestling with everyone, and before God can really use him as the father of the Israelite nation, Jacob must undergo a heart-change.
Enter the odd encounter with the "man" at Peniel. Who was the man? Was he a mere mortal, an angel, or another appearance of a pre-incarnate Jesus? Was the encounter a dream, an allegory for a spiritual battle, or an actual physical encounter? Farther into the Old Testament, the prophet Hosea reflects upon the life of Jacob, saying "Even in the womb Jacob struggled with his brother; when he became a man, he fought with God. Yes, he wrestled an angel and won. There at Bethel he met God face to face, and God spoke to him..." It seems clear from scripture that we are to interpret this "man" as God Himself. Remembering that Jesus has existed since before the creation of the world, why wouldn't this be possible? Maybe we have a hard time with the concept of God physically wrestling with a human. It definitely is strange. But to say that the battle was only spiritual and not physical discounts the fact that Jacob was left with a physical wound...a permanent limp. Did any of you think it weird that God couldn't defeat Jacob, and had to resort to handicapping him in order to get released from the encounter? I read a great commentary on-line that explained that the "man" matched Jacob's strength but did not overpower him, so that the struggle could continue. Though God could obviously defeat Jacob at any time, the extended battle was somehow important to Jacob's spiritual development. When at daybreak the "man" is ready to discontinue the wrestling match, he simply touches Jacob's hip and it is over. How often are we in the midst of a struggle and praying for God to end it, (with "one touch"), only to find that He allows the struggle to continue? If you've been in this kind of a battle, you know that it is in the trenches that the greatest growth occurs and the most fruit is borne. This is why God allowed Jacob to wrestle all night and why He leaves us in our trials, often far beyond what we think we can tolerate. But in His mercy, he does eventually reach down, and with "one touch" end the struggle. The fact that we may bear a scar, as Jacob did in his resulting limp, serves to remind us of His rescue and provision.
When at last the wrestling has subsided, the "man" asks Jacob what his name is. Of course He knew what Jacob's name was, but Jacob needed to come to terms with what his name meant. When he states his name, which means "the grasper" or "the deceiver", he is admitting who he is. His name is then changed to Israel, which means "he struggles with God" or "God prevails". He has had a fundamental shift in his relationship with God and in his concept of himself. He is ready to move into the Promised Land and into his role as the father of God's holy people.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 36, 1Chronicles 1:43-2:2
Enter the odd encounter with the "man" at Peniel. Who was the man? Was he a mere mortal, an angel, or another appearance of a pre-incarnate Jesus? Was the encounter a dream, an allegory for a spiritual battle, or an actual physical encounter? Farther into the Old Testament, the prophet Hosea reflects upon the life of Jacob, saying "Even in the womb Jacob struggled with his brother; when he became a man, he fought with God. Yes, he wrestled an angel and won. There at Bethel he met God face to face, and God spoke to him..." It seems clear from scripture that we are to interpret this "man" as God Himself. Remembering that Jesus has existed since before the creation of the world, why wouldn't this be possible? Maybe we have a hard time with the concept of God physically wrestling with a human. It definitely is strange. But to say that the battle was only spiritual and not physical discounts the fact that Jacob was left with a physical wound...a permanent limp. Did any of you think it weird that God couldn't defeat Jacob, and had to resort to handicapping him in order to get released from the encounter? I read a great commentary on-line that explained that the "man" matched Jacob's strength but did not overpower him, so that the struggle could continue. Though God could obviously defeat Jacob at any time, the extended battle was somehow important to Jacob's spiritual development. When at daybreak the "man" is ready to discontinue the wrestling match, he simply touches Jacob's hip and it is over. How often are we in the midst of a struggle and praying for God to end it, (with "one touch"), only to find that He allows the struggle to continue? If you've been in this kind of a battle, you know that it is in the trenches that the greatest growth occurs and the most fruit is borne. This is why God allowed Jacob to wrestle all night and why He leaves us in our trials, often far beyond what we think we can tolerate. But in His mercy, he does eventually reach down, and with "one touch" end the struggle. The fact that we may bear a scar, as Jacob did in his resulting limp, serves to remind us of His rescue and provision.
When at last the wrestling has subsided, the "man" asks Jacob what his name is. Of course He knew what Jacob's name was, but Jacob needed to come to terms with what his name meant. When he states his name, which means "the grasper" or "the deceiver", he is admitting who he is. His name is then changed to Israel, which means "he struggles with God" or "God prevails". He has had a fundamental shift in his relationship with God and in his concept of himself. He is ready to move into the Promised Land and into his role as the father of God's holy people.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 36, 1Chronicles 1:43-2:2
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Jacob and Laban
The dysfunction between Jacob and Laban, which has festered over 20 years, finally comes to a head in this chapter. Jacob receives the first direct revelation he has had from God in those twenty years, and he is told to go back home. This fits perfectly with what Jacob was already feeling in his spirit and lines up circumstantially, in that both of his wives are in agreement. In order to make himself "financially secure" before he makes his move, Jacob goes through some bizarre measures to ensure his flock will increase. Having the animals mate in front of the striped branches and later in front of the striped flock, seemed ridiculous until I got to chapter 31. There we read that an angel spoke to him in a dream, telling him that God has seen Laban's mistreatment and that He is responsible for the striped and speckled animals. What seemed to be the work of Jacob's effort and cunning, was God all along. This is so much like us. We are quick to think ourselves very clever or talented; somehow the authors of our own good fortune. And all along, it is God who works in and around us to give us the successes we claim as our own.
Once Jacob leaves, he is pursued by Laban. Probably not for the reasons he gives (wanting to throw them a going-away party), but because he realizes that he has prospered because of Jacob's presence. When he catches up to them, he reports the theft of his household gods, which we learn was Rachels' doing. Why did Rachel steal the idols? Why did Laban have idols? Later on, in verse 31:53 Laban calls upon the God of his ancestors, "the God of your grandfather Abraham and my grandfather Nahor" (Abraham's brother). So was he a follower of God or a pagan idol worshiper? Remember that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. When their father Terah left Ur for the land of Canaan, he took Abraham and Lot, Haran's son. Haran was dead, but Nahor stayed behind, with no reason given in the text. This was the land of Babylon and a very pagan culture. It seems logical that Nahor and his son Bethuel and his grandson Laban, were steeped in paganism. He may have given lip service to God, but if he had household gods, he was a pagan. Just because you know a believer, doesn't make you a believer! Just like being raised in a Christian home doesn't make you a Christian.
So what about Rachel? I have read a few different opinions on why she stole the idols. There is some evidence of a cultural practice in that region connecting the possessor of the household gods to the family inheritance. She may have been protecting herself or Jacob in that regard. However, it is more likely that she took them because she placed value in them. In chapter 35, Jacob tells everyone in his household to "get rid of all your pagan idols", so the problem must not have been isolated to Rachel. From this evidence, it doesn't seem like Jacob has been a strong spiritual leader in his household. His character and witness are still somewhat questionable. But he is about to have an encounter with God that will change everything.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 32-35
Once Jacob leaves, he is pursued by Laban. Probably not for the reasons he gives (wanting to throw them a going-away party), but because he realizes that he has prospered because of Jacob's presence. When he catches up to them, he reports the theft of his household gods, which we learn was Rachels' doing. Why did Rachel steal the idols? Why did Laban have idols? Later on, in verse 31:53 Laban calls upon the God of his ancestors, "the God of your grandfather Abraham and my grandfather Nahor" (Abraham's brother). So was he a follower of God or a pagan idol worshiper? Remember that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. When their father Terah left Ur for the land of Canaan, he took Abraham and Lot, Haran's son. Haran was dead, but Nahor stayed behind, with no reason given in the text. This was the land of Babylon and a very pagan culture. It seems logical that Nahor and his son Bethuel and his grandson Laban, were steeped in paganism. He may have given lip service to God, but if he had household gods, he was a pagan. Just because you know a believer, doesn't make you a believer! Just like being raised in a Christian home doesn't make you a Christian.
So what about Rachel? I have read a few different opinions on why she stole the idols. There is some evidence of a cultural practice in that region connecting the possessor of the household gods to the family inheritance. She may have been protecting herself or Jacob in that regard. However, it is more likely that she took them because she placed value in them. In chapter 35, Jacob tells everyone in his household to "get rid of all your pagan idols", so the problem must not have been isolated to Rachel. From this evidence, it doesn't seem like Jacob has been a strong spiritual leader in his household. His character and witness are still somewhat questionable. But he is about to have an encounter with God that will change everything.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 32-35
Monday, January 10, 2011
Jacob, Rachel, and Leah
Reading for January 10
Are you beginning to see some familial patterns here?!!! Just as Jacob deceived his father and brother to get what he wanted, Laban resorts to the same methodology in his dealings with his future son-in-law. The saying "what goes around comes around" seems to apply. Jacob is tricked into marrying the less desirable Leah before he is able to wed his true love, Rachel. So as in the home of his father, and his father before him, favoritism abounds with all the ensuing dysfunction. With Abraham and Isaac, the favoritism concerned the children (and that is to come with Jacob as well), but initially the family drama here revolves around the two sisters. Leah knows that she is not loved by her husband and feels understandably insecure. Rachel is unable to produce children, and also feels understandably insecure. It is interesting to note that the first three of Leah's children are named according to her quest for Jacob's love. Her fourth son, however, is named Judah, meaning "Now I will praise the Lord!" And it is into the tribe of Judah that Jesus will be born. At this point, hand-maidens (concubines) get in on the child-production competition (sound familiar?). Finally, Rachel gives birth to Joseph, who will become his father's favorite. That is another story for another time, but one we will all recall from Sunday school. It is the classic illustration of favoritism gone bad.
Something else I found interesting was that the wives of all three of the patriarchs experienced infertility. Was it so that the patriarchs themselves would not be able to take any credit for the lineage they were producing? Was it so that the formation of the nation of Israel would be totally dependent on God and not man? Was it because they needed to trust him to carry out this most basic function of building a family/nation? I don't know, but I do think it has to be more than coincidence that all three of these families went through almost identical struggles.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 30:25-31
Are you beginning to see some familial patterns here?!!! Just as Jacob deceived his father and brother to get what he wanted, Laban resorts to the same methodology in his dealings with his future son-in-law. The saying "what goes around comes around" seems to apply. Jacob is tricked into marrying the less desirable Leah before he is able to wed his true love, Rachel. So as in the home of his father, and his father before him, favoritism abounds with all the ensuing dysfunction. With Abraham and Isaac, the favoritism concerned the children (and that is to come with Jacob as well), but initially the family drama here revolves around the two sisters. Leah knows that she is not loved by her husband and feels understandably insecure. Rachel is unable to produce children, and also feels understandably insecure. It is interesting to note that the first three of Leah's children are named according to her quest for Jacob's love. Her fourth son, however, is named Judah, meaning "Now I will praise the Lord!" And it is into the tribe of Judah that Jesus will be born. At this point, hand-maidens (concubines) get in on the child-production competition (sound familiar?). Finally, Rachel gives birth to Joseph, who will become his father's favorite. That is another story for another time, but one we will all recall from Sunday school. It is the classic illustration of favoritism gone bad.
Something else I found interesting was that the wives of all three of the patriarchs experienced infertility. Was it so that the patriarchs themselves would not be able to take any credit for the lineage they were producing? Was it so that the formation of the nation of Israel would be totally dependent on God and not man? Was it because they needed to trust him to carry out this most basic function of building a family/nation? I don't know, but I do think it has to be more than coincidence that all three of these families went through almost identical struggles.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 30:25-31
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Jacob and Esau
Reading for January 8, 9
Today's reading was pretty short, so I read ahead and will combine my thoughts on both readings in this post. (For those following along in your regular Bibles, Saturday's reading will be Genesis 26:27-28:5). So, there will not be a post on Sunday morning. It seems that there are about 50 people who are going back through the blog in 2011, so I will proof and then re-post each blog so that they are easier to access.
Isaac and Rebekah now have twin boys, Jacob and Esau. Another set of brothers, like ishmael and Isaac, where the older is prophesied to serve the younger. In this instance, it is not their parentage that differentiates the two, so why does God choose Jacob over Esau? Since God is all-knowing and looks at the heart, He was able to see the type of man Esau would become. Esau's fatal flaw was that he treated the things of God with indifference...even contempt. He sold his birthright, which entitled him to a double portion of the inheritance and the coveted ranking as patriarch of his father's household, for a bowl of stew. He was impulsive, short-sighted, and completely driven by the desires of the flesh. But was Jacob any better? He took advantage of his brother's weakness. Later, he blatantly tricks his father into bestowing upon him the blessing he had intended for Esau. Was he, like Abraham, trying to "help" God fulfill the promise he had made to Rebekah? Maybe, but that still doesn't excuse it. I couldn't find a good answer for why God would favor either of these "undeserving" men over the other. But that's the beauty of being God. He is completely sovereign and can exert His right to choose such things. Jacob was the one he wanted to become the father of the Israelites. God sees a big picture that we can't and we must always bear that in mind. In the first chapter of the reading on January 10th, we learn that Esau marries one of Ishmael's daughters. Again, Ishmael is the root of the Islamic religion, which stands in direct opposition to Christianity today. God knows what he is doing!
And then there is the crazy story of Isaac deceiving Abimilech (same guy!!!) in the same manner his father had. Odds are strong that Abraham had shared his methodology with his son and the apple did not fall far from the tree. But God uses this foible for good. Abimilech had already been tested in this way and God knew how he would respond. Remember that he sent Abraham and Sarah away with gifts of livestock and servants, 1000 pieces of silver, and the claim to any piece of land he desired in the territory. Abimilech was desperate to wash his hands of any wrong-doing. When faced with the same predicament with Isaac and Rebekah, he issues a proclamation to the people in the land, saying "anyone who touches this man or his wife will be put to death." This protection, gained by Isaac's deception, preserved the lineage of Christ! We read that the Philistines do become jealous of Isaac because of his success and begin to act on their anger by filling up his wells. But they did not harm a hair on his head! This is not an endorsement for lying, but an illustration of how God "works everything together for good for those who love God and are called according to his purposes" (Rom.8:28)...even our sins and shortcomings.
Sunday's reading: Genesis 28:6-30:24
Today's reading was pretty short, so I read ahead and will combine my thoughts on both readings in this post. (For those following along in your regular Bibles, Saturday's reading will be Genesis 26:27-28:5). So, there will not be a post on Sunday morning. It seems that there are about 50 people who are going back through the blog in 2011, so I will proof and then re-post each blog so that they are easier to access.
Isaac and Rebekah now have twin boys, Jacob and Esau. Another set of brothers, like ishmael and Isaac, where the older is prophesied to serve the younger. In this instance, it is not their parentage that differentiates the two, so why does God choose Jacob over Esau? Since God is all-knowing and looks at the heart, He was able to see the type of man Esau would become. Esau's fatal flaw was that he treated the things of God with indifference...even contempt. He sold his birthright, which entitled him to a double portion of the inheritance and the coveted ranking as patriarch of his father's household, for a bowl of stew. He was impulsive, short-sighted, and completely driven by the desires of the flesh. But was Jacob any better? He took advantage of his brother's weakness. Later, he blatantly tricks his father into bestowing upon him the blessing he had intended for Esau. Was he, like Abraham, trying to "help" God fulfill the promise he had made to Rebekah? Maybe, but that still doesn't excuse it. I couldn't find a good answer for why God would favor either of these "undeserving" men over the other. But that's the beauty of being God. He is completely sovereign and can exert His right to choose such things. Jacob was the one he wanted to become the father of the Israelites. God sees a big picture that we can't and we must always bear that in mind. In the first chapter of the reading on January 10th, we learn that Esau marries one of Ishmael's daughters. Again, Ishmael is the root of the Islamic religion, which stands in direct opposition to Christianity today. God knows what he is doing!
And then there is the crazy story of Isaac deceiving Abimilech (same guy!!!) in the same manner his father had. Odds are strong that Abraham had shared his methodology with his son and the apple did not fall far from the tree. But God uses this foible for good. Abimilech had already been tested in this way and God knew how he would respond. Remember that he sent Abraham and Sarah away with gifts of livestock and servants, 1000 pieces of silver, and the claim to any piece of land he desired in the territory. Abimilech was desperate to wash his hands of any wrong-doing. When faced with the same predicament with Isaac and Rebekah, he issues a proclamation to the people in the land, saying "anyone who touches this man or his wife will be put to death." This protection, gained by Isaac's deception, preserved the lineage of Christ! We read that the Philistines do become jealous of Isaac because of his success and begin to act on their anger by filling up his wells. But they did not harm a hair on his head! This is not an endorsement for lying, but an illustration of how God "works everything together for good for those who love God and are called according to his purposes" (Rom.8:28)...even our sins and shortcomings.
Sunday's reading: Genesis 28:6-30:24
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
