Category: Bible Study

In chapter 40, we stay with Joseph, who is in prison based upon the accusation of Potiphar’s wife that he had tried to seduce her (the opposite being true, of course). There are a few considerations as to where Joseph is kept. He may have been put in Pharaoh’s prison simply because Potiphar has access to it (although he isn’t likely the same captain of the guard mentioned at the start of this chapter). But that wouldn’t have been particularly common, either captivity (Joseph was a slave, he could’ve been killed for the offense and no one would have batted an eye) or, if a prison, Pharaoh’s prison, which wouldn’t have been a Hilton but wasn’t likely Riker’s Island, either. 

So why there? It’s possible Potiphar was hesitant to believe the accusation against Joseph. Unless he’s a fool it’s unlikely that his wife’s character hadn’t come into question up to this point. And she does make a point to insult him as part of her diatribe against Joseph, “…the Hebrew servant, who you have brought among us…” Also, it says his angered burned but it doesn’t say against whom. In either case, it’s possible Joseph ends up both not dead and not in a pit somewhere because Potiphar retained doubts as to the veracity of the claim against him. 

In either case, as God remained with him in prison Joseph does the work there and interacts with other prisoners, including two fellas who have recently taken up residence there for offenses against Pharaoh. Both the cup-bearer and the baker have dreams and lament to Joseph at their inability to get a proper interpretation of them. Joseph declares that interpretations belong to God and, being God’s man in the area, he can tell them. 

Now, although we can certainly see where God has been with Joseph so far in his life, as a dream interpreter he’s not been wrong but not also been impressive. His previous dreams were so obvious that his brothers were well aware of the insult. Regardless, Joseph has no hesitation that the Lord will provide the right interpretations to the dreams. (Room to grow, fellas.)

And, true to form, he provides interpretations for both. For the cupbearer, his dream about a vine with three branches, bunches of grapes, and Pharaoh receiving wine from the grapes meant that after three days the cupbearer would be restored to his position. Knowing what was to come, Joseph pleads with the cup-bearer to speak to Pharaoh on his behalf, to make the case the he was stolen out of his country and does not belong there. For the baker, his dream of birds eating out of the three cake baskets on his head means that Pharaoh will have him executed and birds will eat his flesh. That’s rough.

The text is kind of odd here as Joseph uses similar language for both, “lift up your head”, but it obviously means different things for each fella. The odd bit is that Joseph uses it like a cliffhanger, “Pharaoh will lift up your head…off your body cuz you gonna die! Huzzah!” It’s unclear whether the underlying Hebrew supports the suspense-creating dash that is in my Bible for this story.  

In the end, the interpretations are realized just as Joseph said: cup-bearer is restored, baker is hanged. Unfortunately, the cup-bearer neglects to tell Pharaoh about Joseph so he’ll remain in the prison for at least two more years.

Chapter 35 starts with a message from God for Jacob to go to Bethel and live there. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One, it means the defiant protest of Simeon and Levi that it was better to have wiped out the Hivites then permit their sister to have been treated like a prostitute, is allowed to stand without additional rebuttal from Jacob. They have learned nothing.

Also, it highlights something we expected anyway, the return to Bethel. Jacob has been a bit dodgy here with his choice of locations. First he promises Esau that he will follow him to Seir and then intentionally lags behind and goes elsewhere. Then, he decides to stop at Shechem and buy land. When the Lord told Jacob in chapter 31 to leave Laban and go to the land his fathers, we kind of expect that to be Bethel (where Abraham ended up in Canaan and a one day journey from Shechem), not a town 20 miles to the north of there where land has to be purchased. 

Perhaps a hint as to the possibilities, Jacob’s first instruction in obedience to God’s direction is to tell his household to put away their foreign gods. We kind of knew this was a thing, his wife had heisted Laban’s god and used the excuse of it being lady time to allow her to not get up and be caught with it. It seems odd that Jacob had let it persist, though. In either case, Bethel is a fresh start. He buries the gods (and their earrings? Or the ladies earrings? It’ unclear), and has everyone change their clothes and purify themselves (it’s unclear exactly what that entails as well). Jacob rightly acknowledges that this altar he will make to God is to the, “…one who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.” God does not exclusively live in Bethel, he has been with Jacob in all the places he has gone. 

The actions of Jacob’s sons in Shechem have the effect Jacob is concerned about. The towns on the path between Shechem and Bethel want to pursue them but it is only through God’s protection that those cities become afraid and do not attack. This is sad. We have seen many examples so far of foreigners interacting with Abraham et al and it being obvious that there is a clear blessing upon them. Now, because of the action of Israel’s children, instead of being a light that shows God’s blessing to the surrounding cities, they must be protected from them (which, ironically, is also God’s intervention). 

Jacob arrives and builds the altar. A seemingly unrelated story follows, telling us that Deborah, Jacob’s mom’s nurse, dies in and is buried under an oak tree in Bethel. I mean, his mom did say she would send someone to fetch him after originally fleeing from the anger of Esau, but that’s been 20 years. Deborah’s presence is surprising (was she with them in Shechem?) and the location of the news of her death is even more so. It does make two mentions of things being buried under trees in this chapter, but that doesn’t seem of any particular consequence. 

God appears to Jacob again and blesses him (this one freely given, just like when they wrestled before; it was the blessing Jacob needed all along instead of the one he connived out of his brother.) The affirmation of the name Israel appears again and the promise made to him to be fruitful and multiply echoes back to the beginnings of creation itself. And the promise of a nation and company of nations and the provision of land echo the earlier promises given to Abraham and Isaac. Jacob erects a pillar in commemoration of the event and pours out a drink offering on it (which is the only time we see something like that in Genesis. It’s also not dictated by the Lord, our notion of offerings pre-dates the laws that govern such a thing in books like Deuteronomy. Israel does this because he finds it appropriate.) 

As they leave Bethel but aren’t quite to Ephrath (Jerusalem, further south of Bethel by about 15 miles) Rachel gives birth to Israel’s final son, Benjamin. The labor was difficult and Rachel dies in the process. A pillar is created where Rachel, obviously the favorite of Jacob’s wives, is buried and it remains a place of prayer and attraction to this day (literally to this day (although the exact location remains disputed. Check out http://www.rachelstomb.org/capsulehistory.html, it’s interesting.) 

Then we get a two sentence diversion about Israel’s eldest son Reuben having relations with Bilhah, his dad’s concubine (and, you know, the mom of his brothers Dan and Naphtali. Hello Uncle/Brother Reuben.) We don’t get Israel’s reaction, just that he took it in. That’s weird. In any case, although it is not dealt with here, it will show up when it comes time for Israel to hand out blessings to his children before his death in chapter 49.

Jacob eventually arrives at Mamre to find ol’ Isaac still alive. Like his father before him, Isaac dies peacefully and full of days. And, despite Jacob’s slow-hand juke in not following Esau to Seir as promised, the brothers remain reconciled and are pictured together burying their father. Interestingly, even though this story (and the rest of Genesis that follows) is Israel-centric, Esau is still listed first, the proper place for the firstborn. 

Interestingly, right after Jacob has a direct encounter with Yahweh in which the promises of blessing to and through his generations to the rest of the world, he runs smack dub into his comeuppance. The deceit from his own hands to both his father and his brother will be revisited upon him by his shifty uncle Laban (perhaps not coincidentally, the focused male inhabitant of the “…land of the people of the east.”)

The basic details of Jacob’s arrival are pretty straightforward, he shows up and sees a well with a big stone on it. Once all the shepherds and sheep have arrived, the stone is removed, everyone is watered, and then they split. Jacob makes small talk, finds that these fellas know Laban and that all is well with him and that his daughter Rachel is heading up to water her sheep. 

Oddly, Jacob seems to think that these fellas (and I suppose Rachel included) are not doing their own daily routine correctly and should have watered their sheep and moved on already. The fellas protest saying they wait for everyone and then water the sheep. This is an odd interchange. I’m bent to think Jacob should have kept his fool mouth shut, this is not his business and has no right to start bossing dudes around on how they water their sheep. Matthew Henry, generally a decent commentary, casts it as everyone being neighborly and Jacob just trying to help, being a shepherd himself and all. Matt’s optimism has gotten the better of him here, Jacob is pretentious, he’s lucky they didn’t beat him and throw him in the well (they’re honorable folk and wouldn’t do that.) 

Rachel shows up and Jacob moves the stone and waters Laban’s sheep. This is an interesting turn as it was Rebekah, Laban’s sister who watered Isaac’s sheep and secured the relationship with the servant, while here Jacob waters Laban’s daughter’s sheep and gets a very similar outcome. Although, I’ll note that it appears he kisses her and weeps (it’s unclear why he’s crying except perhaps joy) before introducing himself. Rachel runs home and tells her dad and Laban receives Jacob joyfully. The line about “…surely you are my bone and my flesh” means more than what Laban intends. They also share a willingness to deceive family for their own gain. 

Jacob works for Laban and they begin to haggle on what he should get paid. Jacob agrees to work 7 years in exchange for marrying Rachel. I won’t post them here but there are quite a variety of translation differences in the description of the eldest daughter Leah. One has her blind, one has her having pretty eyes, one describes her as lovely. Either way, Jacob prefers Rachel, the younger, and Laban agrees. 

When the time comes, Laban throws a feast for the wedding and then sends in ol’ cataracts, likely in the veil in the night, to Jacob who, it seems, goes into her (side bar: who talks like that to the dad? (v.21). In the morning, he wakes to find he has done the deed with the older sister (I mean, that’s a shocker. That’s a heckuva deceit.) He complains to Laban who says that it isn’t custom to have the younger sister marry first (a detail that seems like it would have been relevant 7 years ago!) To fix the situation, Laban also offers Rachel if Jacob will finish out the marriage party week with Leah and then work another 7 years. Jacob agrees, also goes into Rachel and it’s clear he loves her more. 

Here, Jacob’s chickens have come home to roost and see some similarities (and clear irony) when comparing what is happening between Jacob and Laban and things Jacob has done in the past (we see similar descriptions and motifs). When Jacob steals Esau’s blessing, we see Isaac eating a meal but due to darkness (his failing eyesight) he thinks he is blessing his older son but instead he blesses the younger. Now Jacob eats of the feast given by Laban, and because of darkness (and maybe a veil on Leah’s head) he thinks he is getting close and comfy with the younger daughter but instead is marrying the elder daughter. 

Similarly, where Jacob subverted local custom in stealing Esau’s birthright and tricking his father into blessing him, Laban asserts local custom in tricking Jacob into marrying Leah first. As we’ve seen in other instances of polygamy in the OT, although not directly condemned, it will cause problems with this family, especially in the quest for children. 

In fact, in v.31 we are told that the Lord sees that Leah was hated (this may be as strong as it would imply or it could be just mean “did not prefer”. Given the deceit that lead to their marriage, I’d say either are in play. In either case, God steps in to bless those who are cast aside. In fact, in the same sentence, we learn that Rachel is barren. (We should start to draw connections here to Abraham and Sarah, and they will continue.) 

Leah’s descriptions of her children’s name are sad. Reuben’s name reflects a depressing hope that his birth will convince Jacob to love her. When Simeon is born, things haven’t changed, Leah still describes herself as hated. Levi’s birth, same thing. Finally, when Judah is born, the tenor changes, Leah’s relationship with Jacob is not references, and instead the reference of the name is a praise to the Lord. 

Just for technical reference, don’t think of these descriptions as actual meanings of the names, they are her commentaries on her situation when the names were given. Often times these types of references come from similar sounding words (think of Jacob and deceiver) not necessarily an accurate lineage or lexicon. 

end of chapter 29 (bad chapter division between 29 and 30, by the way) 

Chapter 25 is a transition chapter, one that ties up some loose ends with the life of Abraham and of Ishmael so that we can transition the focus to the next generation of sons who belong to Isaac. At the start of the chapter we find that Abraham has another “wife” (concubine, per the text, but this term isn’t a bloated reference for side piece. The father of a concubine was considered a father-in-law to the dude so even though it isn’t “wife” per se, the relationship is still a formal one.) So Abe is propagating with at least Hagar, Sarah and Keturah, if not more (v.6 may be implying there are further children from further ladies). 

Just for note, the text doesn’t comment on the morality of multiple wives here. Although this was not uncommon in the surrounding cultures, the Old Testament narratives are more implicit than explicit when it comes to rejecting polygamy. Note both Adam and Eve’s exclusive creation for each other. Also, perhaps in response to the complications in his own father’s life, Isaac will only take a single wife. His son Jacob, however, will find himself with multiple wives and trouble along with it. (We also saw a negative association with polygamy in the life of the pretentious braggart Lamech, the Cain-Lamech, in chapter 4). 

In the midst of all these children, certainly still to be seen as a collective blessing to Abraham, Isaac is still the one to whom the most favor lands. In fact, everything Abraham has goes to Isaac, the rest of the children are sent east with gifts (it is unclear whether these are paltry gift certificates of significant investments, it’s not really the point.)

The eastern direction is ominous, but the point likely isn’t so much that the rest of Abraham’s children were heading east but specifically that Isaac was not heading east. It’s the same sentiment in Abe insisting his hired man not allow Isaac to move to Mesopotamia to the potential wife’s location. God’s promise lay in the land of Canaan, to move away from it would be a rejection of that promise. Abraham’s other children aren’t being sent away because they suck or because he doesn’t love them, they are simply not integral players in the promise of blessing to the rest of the world. Note, though, that they are not just being sent away from Canaan, they are being sent away from Isaac. Isaac settles in Beer-lahai-roi, which is about 100 miles south of Salem/Jerusalem (I assume he chose this spot for some distance from the shadowy Melchizedek but that’s pure speculation).

Abraham dies and is buried in that over-priced cave with his wife. It’s a glowing description of him, he dies at 175 (“…a good old age, an old man full of years”). Isaac and Ishmael are both there to bury there father and it is the last time we will see the brothers together. As the text details in v.12 and onward, Ishmael ends up with 12 princes (a fulfillment of the promise made in chapter 17). Ishmael lives to 137, certainly a healthy number of years but is not given the same romanticized description as Abraham in his old age. 

v.18 is difficult, especially the phrase, “He settled over against his kinsman.” The translation of this is unclear, see the variations in the options below:

KJV: 
And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren.

NIV: 
His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt, as you go toward Ashur. And they lived in hostility toward all the tribes related to them.

ESV: 
They settled from Havilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria. He settled over against all his kinsmen.

So, given the variations, either Ishmael just died in the presence of his family or he was hostile to them, or settled against their wishes. At this point, I can’t find a scenario in which it matters but I’m open to your thoughts. 

After we’ve effectively killed off Abraham and Ishmael from the story, Isaac remains. The hope at the end of the last chapter is interrupted with the news that Rebekah is barren. Apparently learning from the past, no one schemes to find another female interloper to produce children, this time Isaac prays for his wife. (This promise thing is never as clear as we want it to be. Things will occur exclusively at the Lord’s provision, in His timing. It’s His blessing, seems reasonable really. We must remember that the point is bigger than this family. They are blessed, yes, but they are being used as a blessing to the world that surrounds them.) 

The Lord grants the prayer and Rebekah becomes pregnant (with twins, mucho blessing!) Even so, there is struggle even in the womb with these two. Rebekah notes that her children are battling already and wants to know what to make of it. Again, she entreats the Lord who provides an answer that what is going on in the womb will continue throughout their lives and the animosity will carry through their descendants as well. 

Also, there is a twist, the older shall serve the younger. This is certainly against expectation, the first born son would generally be the one to whom all that followed were subservient to. Yet, as in the case of Isaac and Ishmael, it is the second son whom the favor will be bestowed. God makes no apologies and provides no further explanation for jacking with human traditions or expectations (or perhaps just prophesying about what was to happen?) Either way, that is what is to be. 

When the boys are born, Esau comes out hairy and red (his name means “hairy” or “rough”) and Jacob follows just after holding on to Esau’s heel. Jacob’s name translates as “heel holder” which has a few different connotations. His parents likely didn’t mean to imply something negative, an alternative translation might be, “may God protect”. However, the “tripping up” aspect of heel holding does indeed seem to fit Jacob well, neither of the two interactions to come between Jacob and Esau cast Jacob in a positive light. 

It’s important to reiterate that the way God chooses to bring blessing to the world is not generally by just crowing the man who rises to the top. In this case, Jacob isn’t chosen because of his character but in spite of it. Jacob is a scandal, a usurper who causes trouble in the womb, takes advantage of his older brother and takes part in a successful plot to steal the blessing from his dad. And yet, it is through this man God’s blessing will not only be seen but will be charged to be sent forth to spread further into the world. This is grace. Scandalous, powerful grace that goes to and through those who do not deserve it. (There is context to this still. Abraham’s obedience remains a crux, see chapter 26). 

As the boys grow, they turn into different types of fellas. Esau is a skilled hunter and his dad digs on this so prefers Esau. Jacob tends to stick to the tents, his mom digs on this so prefers Jacob. (The word for “love” here is extremely varied. Could be sexual, could be marital love, could be just preference – see Leviticus 19:34 for usage in reference to how to treat a stranger.) 

We see these distinctions played out in a story of Esau selling his birthright. Esau comes in tired from hunting and asks for some red stew, which garners him the name Edom (red = adom). Jacob asks for Esau’s birthright in exchange for the stew. This is a terrible agreement. Certainly we would expect Esau is aware of the promises made to his lineage and the special status the first born has in such a family (although one wonders how much Rebekah has shared with the boys concerning what the Lord told her.) In this moment, however, Esau is over-dramatic and is willing to part with whatever future promises may exist to be satisfied with some bloody pottage. Both boys act inappropriately, for sure, Jacob’s deceit (and lack of hospitality to his brother) and Esau’s flippant trade of birthright for something so temporary. In reaction to his own decision, Esau comes to hate his birthright, not only that Jacob has it but likely as a reminder that he was so foolish with it. 

The efforts expounded in chapter 20 to protect the clear lineage and source of this promised “seed” of Abraham finally bear out their importance with the arrival of Isaac in chapter 21. This laughable promise that God has made to not only provide a son for the 100 year old Abraham through his equally aged wife, but also to establish the line through which God will bring blessing to the world, comes true in Isaac, whose name literally means “he laughs”.

This name is no coincidence, of course, as both of Isaac’s parents indeed laughed at this promise when God made it. Abraham unsuccessfully tried to pass off his muffled laughter as if it was worship and Sarah got kind of an awkward, “I don’t know what’s so funny” moment from the Lord who had come to visit when she overheard the angels (and the Lord among them) talking about it with Abraham. Sarah claims to have not laughed (apparently unnecessary and ridiculous falsehood runs in the family,  this is about as practical a lie as the sister/wife debacle with Abe and the Pharaoh and Abe and Abimelech.) God calmly corrected that situation with a “No, but you did laugh” which no doubt had an extremely long and awkward pause afterwards, potentially with eyebrows raised and some blinking. 

Even so, this birth obviously brings great joy to Abraham’s house. They know that God keeps promises, even crazy ones, and Sarah is certainly right that this wild story will bring laughter (think joyous laughter) when it is told. The child is circumcised (just as Ishmael was) and when Isaac stops nursing a great feast is thrown (unlike Ishmael, notably.)  We then get this perspective of Sarah seeing Ishmael laughing and in reaction wants him and his mother sent away. 

A few things to note here. First, all Ishmael can be tagged with at this point is laughing. Some translations will use “mocking” here but the verb that makes up that word is the same as Isaac’s name so laughter is the more reasonable way to see it. The point isn’t what Ishmael is doing, it’s who he is. You see, he remains Abraham’s first born and is due to the inheritance, regardless of whether he was born of Hagar. Sarah’s request is to ensure that that which is due to the first born actually goes to Isaac. 

This is tough for us to swallow but it is indeed a necessary means for this lineage to be blessed. The harshness of Sarah’s request, though, doesn’t escape Abraham, who was very displeased by it. He doesn’t want to do it. But, God tells him to go ahead and Abraham follows this with the assurance that God will yet make a great nation out of Ishmael. God was behind the promise to begin with, He can be trusted to follow it through (as Isaac’s existence certainly bears out.) 

This isn’t the last time we’ll see circumstances circumventing the supposed order of things to accomplish things God has decreed. In fact, this isn’t even the last time a conniving mother is the inertia behind this re-ordering. 

Even with God’s promise, we can recognize that Abraham’s provision for Hagar and Ishmael as they are sent away is certainly insufficient. We just had an image of Isaac’s big feast to celebrate this relatively minor life event while Hagar and the boy are sent out with prison rations. As these run out,  Hagar desperately abandons the boy, hardly able to stomach the thought of watching him die. She then weeps and cries out.

Hagar has been an innocent pawn this whole time, an unknowing participant in a grand story. She finds her lot tied to the whims of Sarah and Abraham as they struggle to react appropriately to God’s promises. And now, she’s on the other side of one of those promises that was made to someone else, a promise that leaves her child with no food or water, left to die in the bushes.

But God made promises to her, too. The last time she left (chapter 16) it was near a well that she ran into God. That God promised to multiply her offspring and told her Ishmael would grow to be a wild ass of a man. Wild ass men don’t die in bushes. This time in the need of water instead of near it, an angel shows up to Hagar. The promise is still good, grab the child, get it some water from this well that seems to have popped out of nowhere. God promises to be with Ishmael and we learn that he grows up, is skilled with the bow, lives in the wilderness and gets married to an Egyptian woman. 

Then the story turns oddly back to Abimelech over some sort of dispute over a well. Perhaps there’s a tie here, God gives Hagar a well, Abraham is still fighting for control over one that he dug in a land that is supposed to be his. The point in this story is likely Abraham’s relationship to those around him. Abimelech and his commander tell Abraham that “God is with you in all that you do.” In this, we see that there God’s blessing upon Abraham is evident even to those who did not witness the promise being made. 

They resolve this by agreeing to deal fairly with each other and the well is turned over to Abraham. The number seven plays a prominent role here, with seven ewes being part of the covenant (Beersheba means “well of seven”) as well as both Abraham’s name and Abimelech’s name appear 7 times. This isn’t something that jumps out to us but just note that sevens tend to show up in important events, kind of as a way to call attention to things. Just keep an eye out for them. 

13 years pass between the events of chapter 16 and the start of chapter 17. This is a good reminder that we’re not getting a diary or all-inclusive history here, we’re getting highlights that have some importance in understanding God, His promises and His interactions with His creation. Abram is 99 and God appears to him bearing commands and promises. Interestingly, God uses the name “El Shaddai” to describe Himself, translated in the ESV as “God Almighty” and likely meaning something close to “He who is sufficient.” In response, Abram falls on his face in submission and reverence.

The commands are to “walk before me” and “be blameless”. Although there’s room for debate on exactly what it is to mean to walk before God, certainly the connotations is one of loyalty or fealty. The command to “be blameless” is a little more interesting because the implication is that, whatever that standard is, Abram is not currently hitting it. I doubt it is a coincidence that we find this command happening directly after Abram has gone along with his wife’s plot to craft a human outside of the proper bounds as well as his subsequently absolving himself of the matter and turning Hagar over fully into the hands of his jealous and irritated wife.

Regardless, being blameless reflects the types of folks God wants to worship and serve him (or to go before him.) This same description is given to Noah. Broadly, we shouldn’t miss that God makes demands upon his people on how to conduct themselves in His service. As we’ll see throughout the Biblical story, our faithfulness doesn’t seem to hinder God from keeping His side of the promise, however we do see Him continually calling His people into righteousness and sometimes forcing the matter where His people have become blind and rebellious. 

God’s promise remains one pertaining to “seed” and “land” and the promise is both for Abram and his offspring (v.7). God still proclaims Abram will be the father of many and great nations, kings will come from his line and the world will be blessed. Further, the land of Canaan will be given to them and God will be with them. This all sounds great, but at this point certainly it’s getting harder to believe. Abram (now Abraham) is nearly 100 years old, he’s heard these promises before. They keep getting grander and grander and the hope that they will come true gets farther and farther away. 

As a sign of this covenant, Abraham and his male descendants, as well as any other male who works for/belong to him must be circumcised. You don’t do it, you break the covenant. 

God continues and makes the promise that Sarai, now Sarah, will be blessed and will provide Abraham with his own son. Similarly, nations and kings shall come from this chosen line. Abraham, in his first act of fealty under his new name, falls again to his face, but this time to hide the fact that he was laughing at God’s promise because, given Sarah’s age, it is an outlandish one. The verb for “laughter” is spelled the same way as the word that will be the name of this promised son, Isaac. 

Abraham asks that Ishmael might “live before you” or “before your face”. It’s not quite clear what Abraham is getting at in the context of the conversation. It seems like he is trying to transfer these great promises to Ishmael in correction to God’s confusion and the age of both he and his wife. This is silly, of course, coming specifically off of a clear and distinct affirmation of Sarah being the mother of these promised nations and kings. 

God rejects this foolishness, restates the promise and provides the name of the son. However, like with Hagar, God has not forgotten Ishmael, he will indeed be blessed and will father 12 princes (instead of kings). However, this big promise, the chosen line through which God will work in the world, will be through Sarah and Isaac and it will occur a year from then. 

Abraham obeys and cuts penis on all the dudes in his family, including Ishmael even though his line was not the chosen one. I find this interesting. I might have further thoughts on this. Carry on, though. 

In chapter 14, the narrative shifts from the peace that comes from the parting of ways between Abram and Lot and zooms out to a conflict between 4 Mesopotamian kings, ring-led by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (henceforth known as Cheddar and the Gang) and the 5 king alliance (henceforth known as the Dead Sea Alliance) that make up the various city-states that surround the Dead Sea. Fed up with these foreign rulers, the Dead Sea Alliance (kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) decide to rebel. This works for a year until Cheddar and the Gang come rolling in from the east to put things back in order (always ominous action from the east.) 

A massive battle takes place in the Valley of Siddim, located just south of the Dead Sea. In what certainly is an embarrassing turn of events, this battle ensues and the Dead Sea Alliance breaks apart, the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah bail and their men follow. They stink even at retreat and a good number of them fall into tar pits. In reaction, Cheddar and the Gang easily haul off with the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, generally speaking, we don’t care about any of this.  These types of alliances of kings are pretty common and it’s a bit of the way of the world where strong kings from foreign lands dominate those who are weaker. None of this has anything to do with God’s selected line of focus, Abram, as the land that belongs to the kings of the Dead Sea Alliance are not part of Abram’s promised land, this fight isn’t his business. However, Cheddar and the Gang take more than just the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, they take Abram’s nephew Lot. And this brings the trouble. (It’s certainly intentional that this story follows directly after Lot’s choice of land where he and Abram part ways.) 

Abram is told the news that Cheddar and the Gang have stolen Lot. Although we see that Abram has some buddies in the area (Mamre, Eshcol and Aner), he seems to be able to supply his own men for the mission of retrieving Lot, 318 of them to be exact. And these aren’t run of the mill herdsmen or general laborers who Abram has convinced to join, we’re told they’re trained men. Gotta appreciate Abram’s style here. 

So Abram and his continental army head out and chase Cheddar and the Gang north all the way up to the city of Dan (about 175 miles, give or take a mile.) Then he splits his forces, they attack at night, and Cheddar and the Gang are defeated and are chased even further out of the area, all the way north of Damascus (another 30 miles.) This is no small feat. Although we don’t have a sense of how many men were involved in the Dead Sea Alliance, it certainly is crazy to see Abram’s boys haul up north and over the course of a single night evict Cheddar and the Gang not only out of the Dead Sea area but completely out of the land promised to his heirs. (There’s no indication in the story that that was a motivation, but it’s interesting.) 

Not only that, but Abram returns with Lot and all of his possessions as well as the possessions of Sodom and Gomorrah (which includes other folks besides Lot.) This wasn’t just chasing a raccoon away with a broomstick, Abram cleaned house, took names, and road home with heavier carts than when he arrived. 

Upon Abram’s return, he encounters one of the most enigmatic folk in Scripture, Melchizedek, king of Salem. He also runs into the king of Sodom, who seems to have made his way back home after literally heading for the hills when he was supposed to be defending his own land. We’re likely supposed to contrast these two fellas and their reaction to Abram. 

Up until now, we don’t know anything of this Melchizedek. He is not part of the Dead Sea Alliance and his land (Salem, possibly Jerusalem, possibly not) is not part of the disputed territory. His name means “My king is righteous” and he is described as a “priest of God Most High” as well as a king.  This is one interesting dude, especially to show up out of the blue as having an office of sorts in service to YAHWEH. He greets Abram bearing gifts, bread and wine to be exact. He also becomes the first human in Scripture to recognize the blessing upon Abram, crediting God’s influence with Abram’s victory over Cheddar and the Gang. 

In reaction, Abram gives Melchizedek 10% of everything he got from Cheddar. This probably shouldn’t be seen as a voluntary gift, it’s more of a matter of honor, acknowledging the station and superiority of Melchizedek in relation to Abram. 

In contrast, the cowardly king of Sodom bears no gifts or form of hospitality and opens the conversation with a curt direction to Abram to give back the persons and keep the goods for himself. Obviously, the king’s reputation isn’t good as it is conceivable to Abram that to accept this offer had the potential to lead to false boasting and perhaps an ill-advised association with him. Abram wants nothing to do with that and rejects the king’s offer, returning all the spoils of war he gained in the process of re-acquiring Lot except what the soldiers have eaten and whatever belongs to his buddies in the area. 

A couple notes. The point of this is likely to demonstrate that God’s blessing is with Abram, certainly in contrast with Lot (who finds himself kidnapped) but also with the inept Dead Sea Alliance as well as the seemingly super-powerful Cheddar and the Gang. No odds are too great when you are faithful to the Lord. 

On Melchizedek, he pops up again as a reference in Psalm 110 as well as in Hebrews as a figure that seems to help us understand both David and Jesus. In fact, it’s been suggested that Melchizedek might be a Christophany, an appearance of Jesus on earth in human form prior to being born to Mary (there will be another example in Genesis.) However, I think the reference is most likely to point to the unique position (line) of being both priest and king. This is a different type of office than just being the king or just being the priest. David seems to have some duties that would allude to this and, of course, Jesus is the ultimate Priest and King combo. 

After his excursion of faithlessness into Egypt, Abram heads back to Canaan with Sarai and his nephew Lot in tow. Both he and Lot have considerable wealth, an unfortunate point of contention that will cause unnecessary disruptions in the family. We get a bit of a reset point, here, as Abram makes his way up through the Negev north to Bethel, the place he originally landed in Canaan and the location of the altar he built for the Lord. (Bethel is just north of modern-day Jerusalem). It failed when Abram tried to rely on his own cunning and wisdom to navigate the situation in Egypt, his return to Bethel and call upon the name of the Lord appears to be a good sign. 

Yet, the bounty that both Lot and Abram possess has caused a problem. When Abram left Canaan the first time it was in the midst of a great famine. God’s promises were difficult to understand. Now that they’ve returned, there is concern whether the land that God has given Abram is yet still insufficient in that it is not big enough for the herds of both men. Remember, one of the things we are to look for in Genesis is comparison, the putting of two folks side by side to see and learn from the differences. We see it here with Abram and Lot. 

Abram attempts to resolve the conflict by pointing out that there is plenty of land, let’s not all try to grow radishes in the same spot. He offers for Lot to choose where he wants to go and Abram will take the other direction. This is an unnecessarily conciliatory act, Abram has Lot beat in age, this is the land God promised him, and it seems that Lot’s good fortune can be tied to Abram’s good fortune. Abram’s gesture for peace is admirable. This reset seems to be good. (It’s worth noting that the Canaanites and Perizzites still inhabit the general area.)

In antiquity, folk generally faced east to orient directions (towards the morning sun). Thus, to the right and left here would indicate moving north or south. However, Lot looks around and picks neither, looking east, attracted to the apparently well-watered fields of the Jordan Valley (an understandable choice with the knowledge of the recent famine in the area). This area was not likely part of God’s promise to Abram and was not an area he had walked through during his previous time in the area. Also note that, so far, “east” hasn’t necessarily been a good direction, often indicating movement away from God. The gate out of Eden heads east, the direction Cain heads after killing Abel is east, and it from the “east” where the Babel conspirators had come from. 

For contrasts, note that we are told “lifted up his eyes” and chooses his own land based upon its physical appearance (a deceit in retrospect, given the subsequent judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah.) Abram, however, is instructed by the Lord to “lift up your eyes” and see in all directions the land which God will give him. Lot chooses his land, God chooses Abram’s. Lot will head east to the soon nefarious lands of Sodom. Abram will remain with the Canaanites, who at this point are not under God’s judgment. 

God’s previous promise (main Genesis focus items of land and descendants) is reiterated here, making it clear that this promise is not just for Abram but for his family and future generations as well. Abram moves slightly north and pitches his tent again. And as before, he does so in the presence of another altar he constructs to acknowledge the faithfulness and dominion of the Lord God in this area. 

Perhaps one thing to take away from all of this is that, when we find that God’s promises don’t always work out as we expected, the best course of action seems to be to keep walking faithfully within them until we get our bearings. Yes, you can try to take things into your own hands (ahem, sell your wife in Egypt), but you’re not going to be able to keep God’s promises your way, has to be his. That’s not easy, and even though we see Abram with a nice reset, the unknown’s in his life are far from over. Time and time again both he and his descendants will be faced with trying to understand God’s big promises in light of their faithful/faithless steps within them. 

As we leave the ark, it’s as if Creation as begun again. And like Eden, God’s blessing’s have returned in the form of multiplying and filling the earth. However, things aren’t quite the same. No longer is there a seemingly harmonious relationship between man and beast, who have now become part of the food chain (where previously everyone appeared to be a vegetarian). As such, their relationship now contains fear and dread. (If folk started eating me I suppose it would change my perspective of them.) 

Further, God deals with the consequence of taking the life of a human, whether by man or beast. God is the giver of life and it is His exclusive domain. Further, humans are created exclusively in His image and likeness so are in a category all their own; to kill a human is to require the murderer’s life in return. I’ll note two things here. One, this is a stricter punishment than what existed before, we’ll note that Cain escapes with his life after the murder of Abel. Also, this seems to also apply to humans that aren’t walking with God (as the distinction is their creation in His image and likeness, not their current faithfulness.) 

The gut reaction here may be to jump to applicability of this section to things like the death penalty or war. This isn’t the right text to debate the veracity of a”just war” theory, however I’ll note that what God says here is, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed…” God isn’t exacting direct justice upon the murderer, it sounds like man is responsible for regulating the justice on God’s behalf. If and how Jesus impacts this is a reasonable discussion, but at stake is correct understanding the principles of the value of human life (in one hand) and God’s justice when that life is taken unnecessarily (on the other hand). 

Note that God’s covenant for the rainbow is not just with Noah, it’s with the creatures as well. Consider the next time you meet a rabbit that it’s not outside the realm of possibility that God is doing business with that rabbit in some way or another. The sign is a rainbow, which doesn’t imply that there was never a rainbow before that point, it’s just something that happens when it rains that God is using as a reminder to humanity (and the rabbit, I suppose) that He’s not going to flood the place again in judgment. 

Here’s as good a place to note as any, there’s a bit of a Moses vibe going on with Noah. We think of those two folks being a long way apart, and they are, if you’re digesting the first 5+ books of the Bible as a group, and recognize they were likely written around the same time, the parallels add some depth to the story. For similarities, note that both “found favor in God’s sight”, both are saved by an ark (Moses’ tiny boat thing he sent down the Nile in is described with the same word as Noah’s boat, a rare word in general), both are prophets, have a priestly role (sacrifice) and both lead building projects with really specific guidelines given by God (ark and tabernacle). Both also are given laws in the context of the covenants God is establishing either with them or, in Moses’ case, the people he is leading. 

On the back half of chapter 9, the prime point seems to be to tag Ham with the curse of Canaan. This is an interesting curse in that it comes from a human, not from God. Still, it will come true eventually when the God’s people are freed from Egypt (where they were slaves, I might add) and take the “promised land” from the Canaanites in the process. It’s worth noting here that the curse is exclusive to the Canaanites (not all of Ham’s descendants), which makes any foolishness related to the subjugation of the offspring of Ham as a whole (who settled in Africa/Arabia) even more untenable. 

The story that brings the curse on is kind of an odd one. Noah is man of the land (this is good) but then he grows grapes and passes out drunk in his tent (the text isn’t clear that Noah has sinned here). Ham’s sin is also not clear besides potentially the fact that he ignored his father’s shame and neglected to do anything about it. (If we think that’s a reasonable extrapolation, and I think it is, it should certainly inform how we look at the world and those who need help. The fact that you didn’t strip a man nude and laugh at him doesn’t mean you’re not on the hook for leaving him that way once it came to your attention.) 

In either case, the two other brothers take extensive measures to protect their father’s honor and cover him. Note here also the similarities to Eden in Noah’s story as well. We get the combo of blessing, nakedness and cursing. Just like in Eden, the nakedness is covered by a 3rd party (God for Adam and Eve, his sons do the job for Noah)  Again, ours is not a work of convenience but of labored necessity to protect the honor of those created in the image and likeness of God, even if they got in their shamed position by passing out drunk in the nude. Consider that next time you spend your time in judgment of someone’s shameful circumstances instead of finding ways to reduce that shame. We’ve got a lot of work to do, boys. 

For follow up: there’s pretty strong and reasonable evidence to believe that Ham’s sin here is related to having sex with his mom, which here is referred to as Noah’s nakedness, see Leviticus 18. This also makes the curse of Canaan make much more sense, because Canaan is the product of Ham’s relationship with his mother, and possibly an attempt to usurp Noah’s lineage and to having the family line be elevated through Canaan.

[The Naked Bible Podcast] Naked Bible 159: Noah’s Nakedness, the Sin of Ham, and the Curse of Canaan #theNakedBiblePodcast
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/131004895 via @PodcastAddict