Genesis 40

Genesis 40:15

For I was in fact kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and even here I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon."

This verse caught my attention in an unusual way. First, Joseph refers to the "Hebrews." At this time, I'm not aware of the term "Hebrews" having a meaning. In fact, I looked it up; this is the first time the word is ever used in the Bible. At this time, the people who would become known as Hebrews are a small tribe: an old man, his eleven sons, and their wives, living about two weeks distance. Would the cupbearer even know who the Hebrews were? Would anyone in Egypt besides the occasional trader have a reason to know who he was referring to, and where? Also, he he calls it "the land of the Hebrews," when at this point the only land they have is whatever areas are owned by the family. The nation we think of didn't yet exist in a large enough manner to be called a land.

Also, he doesn't refer to himself as a Hebrew; he merely says that's where he was taken from. Is he trying to separate himself from his family? Or is he hiding his lineage for some reason? I would understand why he might not be seen well if the Egyptians looked upon others with disdain, but they're already in jail. I realize later that he would use this detachment to his advantage, but he can't know that now. He claims a homeland, but not a people, and I can't help but wonder if it's because he has truly lost all hope of ever returning home. If so, I can understand at time how he feels. Being lost and alone hurts, and there's only so much you can take.

Genesis 39

Genesis 39:10

As she spoke to Joseph day after day, he did not listen to her to lie beside her or be with her.

This is a verse that impressed itself upon me earlier this year. As a kid, I remember this... incident only happening once. It wasn't until relatively few years ago that I realized that this was an ongoing issue, for who knows how long. Every day she would approach him, and every day he would refuse. I have to wonder if he started finding ways to avoid her, so that she wouldn't be able to try that day.

I used to think that this verse shows a real resiliency in his character, very unlike that of most people today when faced with major temptation. However, now I do wonder whether it was resiliency, or just that he wasn't susceptible in that area. If so, it may be a first among males, but I suppose it's possible. After all, there are certain areas where I have been frequently exposed to temptation, but never had a second thought against refusing; one example would be drinking, or for a more benign example speeding. However, I'd be lying if I said that this is an area I was pure in. If I had the opportunity, and if my musings are correct, I'd probably trade vices with Joseph in a heartbeat.

Genesis 38

Genesis 38:26

Judah recognized them, and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not have relations with her again.

I've always had problems when trying to figure out when one sin is worse than another. I don't buy into the "deadly sins" of Catholic teachings or any such, but I do believe there is some distinction of levels. The Jews understood that some sins required the person's death, while some merely required an animal be sacrificed in their place. While all required one death or another, the scale went from a bird to a cow, and ultimately to a person.

However, this one leaves me scratching my head. Maybe I'm just rusty on Leviticus, but I don't see how prostitution would be less than breaking a marriage promise. Perhaps I don't understand the culture and am missing significance, or perhaps my "moral scale" isn't matching God's on this. However, while I agree that both sinned by their actions (or lack thereof), I would disagree with Judah on his statement.

Genesis 37

Genesis 37:22

Reuben further said to them, "Shed no blood. Throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay hands on him" - that he might rescue him out of their hands, to restore him to his father.

My pastor has spent the last two weeks preaching on this chapter, so I'm trying to be careful to not mix my thoughts with his. However, this verse stood out to me, probably because of my comments on chapter 34.

Here, we see Reuben the big brother step up. He may have been MIA during Dinah's rape, but now, even though he hates Joseph like all the others, he knows that he cannot be a party to the murder of his own brother. His brothers lied to kill the town that raped their sister, he lies to his brothers to save a life.

Whether Reuben learned from Dinah's rape about protecting family, or if he didn't participate because he would not kill others, there is a telling trait here. As the oldest, he would be Jacob's rightful heir. But that has been given to Joseph, the oldest son of his "junior" wife. If Joseph's gone, Reuben again would likely become the heir. However, even with that temptation, he will not stain his hands with Joseph's blood. God uses him to preserve Joseph's life, and in doing so he will preserve them all.

Genesis 36

Genesis 36:31

Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

Okay, now I'm confused again. According to tradition, Moses wrote Genesis. However, there were no kings over Israel until well after Moses died (a couple centuries, I think). Critics would probably point to this as an example of the Bible being re-written after Moses, or being wrong, or having been written much later than claimed.

I think it's more likely a foretelling. After all, God knows that Israel will eventually have kings. He apparently revealed that to Moses here, a foretelling of the path Israel will take after he is there. If Moses saw this as I do now, he would have known that the people would stray from God, and go the way of the nations they came to conquer. That would have been a very depressing thought to Moses.

Genesis 35

Genesis 35:22

It came about while Israel was dwelling in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine, and Israel heard of it.

Last chapter, I asked the question of where Reuben was when Simeon and Levi took action. Since he was the oldest, one would think he'd be leading the charge. Now it appears that there may have been a reason he stayed out of it.

As I said last chapter, I don't condone what Dinah's brothers did. However, it appears that Reuben may have kept out of it because he had problems in this area himself. I'm not saying the text indicates he raped anyone, but he obviously had sexual struggles, and here he lost that battle. Sleeping with your half-brothers' mother? This family really had some problems, yet God used them all the same. Oh, that he would use me, in spite of my struggles.

Genesis 34

Genesis 34:25

Now it came about on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unawares, and killed every male.

This chapter is one I have to tread carefully through, given the (justifiably) strong feelings that rape causes in people. I have to say that while I don't condone their actions, I think I can understand why they did all this. This man had the despicable gall to come ask for Dinah to be his wife after he'd already raped her, and the townspeople went along with it. I'd personally be tempted to kill someone who tried that with my sister. At the minimum, I'd pull every resource I had to get him arrested and thrown in jail for the maximum possible sentence.

However, given that reaction, I do have to wonder where Dinah's other ten brothers were. Especially the other four who were her full brothers. For some reason, Simeon and Levi enacted a plan to take revenge, while Reuben (the oldest), Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were nowhere to be found. This is their little sister we're talking about! Why did only two brothers act, while the others dithered?

Genesis 33

Genesis 33:4

Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

I'm not sure I could be as forgiving as Esau. Granted, it's been something like twenty years since they last saw each other, so that may be a mitigating factor that I can't really relate to (especially since I'm only 28). But the last time they did see each other, Jacob had just committed a huge theft from Esau, stealing Isaac's blessing.

Yet in their entire conversation, Esau never once brings up the things that Jacob has done against him. He is so happy to see his brother again that he does not even consider that. Jacob even gives him great flocks as a gift, but Esau tries to turn it down. I hope to one day become as forgiving as Esau is here.

Genesis 32

Genesis 32:32

Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip.

Okay, this I don't understand. Why would the Israelites take up a custom like this? If they'd given a commandment not to eat it, that would be one thing. But why did they take that upon themselves? I'll admit I've never been one for customs without a direct purpose, even if it's just remembering an important event, but why remember a wrestling match with (a servant of) God where you are badly injured?

Also, who is "he?" I've never heard a good answer to that question. Some say it's a pre-incarnate Jesus, though the text seems to suggest that it's God Himself. Exactly how that distinction is made, especially to the Jews, is unclear. But whoever it was, he definitely had power, and came with authority. Changing a name is not something done lightly.

Genesis 31

Genesis 31:24

God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night and said to him, "Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad."

This verse confuses me. First, why did God speak to Laban? There's no evidence that Laban worshiped God, in fact quite the opposite. He was pursuing Jacob partially because Rachel had stolen his idols. However, it appears that Laban understood how powerful God is, for he heeded the dream. However, why did this get his attention?

Also, why not speak to Jacob either good or bad? Does this mean not to speak to Jacob at all? Does it mean to not bless or curse him? It can't mean not to speak, for he goes and does just that, and brings accusations against Jacob in the process. I'd call that speaking bad, personally. So if it doesn't mean to avoid accusations, and it doesn't mean to not speak at all, what does it mean?

Genesis 30

Genesis 30:2

Then Jacob's anger burned against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?"

Why does Rachel blame Jacob for her not conceiving? Jacob correctly identifies that he cannot decide whether or not she has children; only God has that ability. She blames him, when in fact he would be even more happy if she did have children.

Today we know about how genetics can factor into conception, but there is much uncertainty if any single attempt will result in a child. In the same way, we have a tendency to blame something that is readily apparent, and preferably not our fault, whenever we don't get our way. Oh, that we would learn to put our faith in God, and ask of him before trying to forge our own path.

Genesis 29

Genesis 29:20

So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.

Having absolutely zero romantic experience, I can't even imagine what Jacob's feeling at this point. I've heard many people describe their relationships this way, but usually those are the ones that end badly.

So, I will ask the question of anyone who happens to read this: is that how being in love really feels? Does time just fall away like this? Somehow, with my ADHD, I have a lot of trouble believing that I could ever feel this way. However, I am happy for Jacob, that he loved so strongly.

Genesis 28

Genesis 28:14

Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

That last phrase caught my attention. How is it that everyone will be blessed by Jacob's line? Is it that everyone will be related to him, somehow or other through the centuries? Is it that since they spread out, there will be one of his line nearby to help all?

I think this may be the first hint of Christianity. Hebrews explains that Christians are grafted into the line of Jacob (the Jews), and there are suggestions that all will hear the Gospel before the end times. Therefore all families will have the chance to be saved, and perhaps someone from every family will accept that salvation. I hope it is more than one per family.

Genesis 27

Genesis 27:13

But his mother said to him, "Your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, get them for me."

This confuses me a bit. From what Rebekah says, it sounds like curses can be transferred to other people, at least under some circumstances. Is this rhetorical, that she will take responsibility with Isaac before he can curse Jacob? Or is it literal, in that the curse will be upon her, not him? Or would it be shared by both?

Whichever it is, I think this is the first time that we find reference to someone else offering to take another person's punishment. The first example of sacrificial love, though very poorly displayed. It becomes the first display of what Jesus would perfect centuries later.

Genesis 26

Genesis 26:7

When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful."

Ah, the perspective of hindsight. One of those passages where you want to shout at the text and tell Isaac how stupid he is.

Apparently, one thing Abraham was not good at was warning his son about repeating his own mistakes. Abraham did this twice, and both times it turned out badly. Either Abraham never happened to mention those, or else he didn't do so with enough force to get through to Isaac that it had been a bad idea.

Also, it may show a lack of faith in God on Isaac's part. God had specifically told him to stay in the area, and that he would have many descendants. Either he was concerned that God would not spare him since he already had children, or he didn't trust God's word to be fulfilled.