Tag: torah

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 8

God had laid out how to ordain the priests for service back in Exodus 29. Here, Moses executes on those instructions. The Lord tells Moses to grab Aaron and his sons along with some animals to sacrifice and the special clothes that were created for the priests and head to the tent of meeting, that’s where it will all go down. In addition, the congregation is to be gathered to witness all of this (this isn’t everyone, they all wouldn’t fit, most likely the elders of the people are here representing everyone).

First, Moses washes the fellas. This is something the priests were to do prior to starting priestly service, but they weren’t priests yet, so Moses does it for them. This will persist, things that the priests will be responsible for Moses will handle as part of their initiation. Then Aaron is dressed in all the action, the shirt, the cloak, the sash, and that sweet breastplate with the gems representing the 12 tribes and a spot for the Urim and Thummim (those items used to determine the will of the Lord). We don’t think much of uniforms, they seem stuffy. But it’s not about the person, it’s about the position. You could pick the High Priest out by the sweet gear he had on, and it was a reminder of the who he’s in service of (Yahweh, of course), the important work he did (securing atonement for the nation) and the role of each individual to be part of the “kingdom of priests”, the calling of God’s people from Exodus 19.

Then Moses breaks out the oil, instructions from Exodus 40, and uses it to consecrate the tabernacle, the altar and Aaron and his boys. They are being identified for God’s service. That’s followed by the sin (or purification) offering. This isn’t for the the fellas themselves, it’s for the tabernacle, it had to be purged from sin’s pollution, specifically those introduced by the priests themselves. The blood is smeared on the altar to purify it (necessary, as this will be followed up by the actual burnt offering which needs a purified altar, otherwise it will be tainted).

The ram is sacrificed for the burnt offering, this is for their personal sins. The burnt offering allows them to reconcile with God by offering up a ram in their place as a ransom for their sins. Then there’s the ram of ordination. The blood of the animal is touched to Aaron’s right ear, right thumb, and right toe. This is a merism, parts that represent the whole. What’s the purpose? Likely a few things. This identifies the role of the priesthood explicitly with sacrifice. Also, it could be a kind of peace/confession offering, where Aaron is confessing God’s mercy for choosing him as high priest.

Finally, they are to stay in the tabernacle for 7 days, repeating the burnt offering every day. Although it only takes a moment to defile yourself, the sanctification of that is generally a slower process. We see similar instructions of avoiding normal social contact when demonstrating cleansing from disease and upon life events that caused someone to become unclean. They are to keep the instructions of the Lord under penalty of death.

Broad takeaway in this chapter is the reminder of the pervasiveness of sin, even for those chosen to be in the highest service of the Lord. These men who are in service to God brought pollution in with them so a sacrifice had to be done to cleanse the place so the burnt offering for their own personal atonement could be made. Even their skin and clothes have to be sprinkled and purified. And the sacrifices must be done more than once because sin is deep-rooted and often recurs. In the light of Jesus, our need for daily forgiveness does not go away. However, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, rendering the sacrifices and ritual we find in Leviticus no longer necessary.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 5

As we move into chapter 5, it’s probably appropriate to try and make distinctions, where possible, among the sacrifices over the last few chapters and into this one. Although often called the “sin” offering (a reasonable translation but perhaps not exactly the concept as we normally think of it), chapter 4 should be more appropriately referred to as the purification offering. The whole point is purify the tabernacle so they can even enter to be able to offer the burnt offering that is actually for atonement. The presence of sin defiles God’s sanctuary so it must be purified. sin doesn’t happen in a vacuum, it pollutes things around it. So this offering addresses that. God is not endangered by this pollution of course, but man certainly is. We know when unclean and holy attempt to occupy the same space, holy wins and unclean is destroyed.

So chapter 5 continues addressing situations where common folks require the purification offering. Note that the lay folk don’t bring as valuable an offering compared to the priest (a nanny-goat or lamb vs. a bull, or even pigeons, turtledoves or flour if they’re poor). Particularly, the examples are sins of omission, times when you are supposed to do something but intentionally choose not to. Broad point is that things that are sinful or that make people unclean are applicable in fact, even if we are unaware of them. You can be unclean and not know it or have committed a sin and not realized it (basically the opposite of walking into it willfully). Either way, it’s still true and still has impacts. And, as soon as you are made aware of it, regardless of how, it must be addressed. (Our tendency may be to figure that since it’s been some time and is separated from the event, it can just be ignored. That would be a mistake. As noted before, sin has consequences and impacts beyond the event itself.)

Then the discussion switches to discussing the guilt or reparation offering (reparation is probably a more appropriate way to talk about it as the core focus is on addressing those additional consequences of sin, more specifically violating God’s holiness. The examples include trespassing on God’s holy stuff (could be eating holy food, touching stuff dedicated for the priests, etc.) but done unintentionally. Once it’s realized, the reparation sacrifice must be made and a restitution must be made to make up for what was defiled.

The next example seems mostly the same although this one is likely pointed to someone who doesn’t know exactly what he defiled, he just feels a guilt. Basically, someone believes they have sinned against sacred property but aren’t sure how. So, they make the reparation offering, but there is no extra fifth to tack on for this one because he doesn’t know exactly what he infringed on. Although it moves into chapter 6, the first few verses that follow are of similar concept, someone infringes upon God’s holiness by swearing falsely (lying and using God’s name to seal the deal). The reparation offering must be made (in addition to the purification offering, to allow access to make the burnt offering for the sin itself).

So, up to this point, we have various sacrifices of offerings that describe the effects of sin and how to remedy it. The burnt offering focuses on the individual, a sinner who deserves to die and an animal dying in his place. God accepts the animal as ransom or covering for man. The purification offering uses a medical view, sin makes the world dirty so that God can no longer dwell in it (it’s unclean). The blood of the animal cleanses the sanctuary so God can still be present with his people. And the reparation offering sees sin as a debt that man incurs against God. The debt is paid through the offered animal.

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Chapter 1

The narrative coming out of Exodus continues and the Lord calls to Moses from the tabernacle (the new tent of meeting) and begins to tell him how various aspects of the worship related to the tabernacle should be undertaken. First up, the burnt offering.

Now, as we start to read and try to understand the offerings, we’ll often find that we don’t have as much information as we want. Some of these instructions have an assumed level of understanding or pre-existing communal knowledge that isn’t included in the text because everyone already kind of gets it. As such, we’re going to do our best to call out what we believe to be true according to the information we have and then be cautious and prudent with any speculation outside of that.

The first two things we learn about the burnt offering is that it is on behalf of an individual (vs. the whole group) and that what is being offered must come from the owner’s own herd or flock. This is interesting in that it means that the offering must cost the person something, you can’t just go snare a wild beast and bring him to the Lord as an offering. We see David echo this thought in 2 Samuel 24:24: “I will not offer a burnt offering to the Lord my God which cost me nothing.”

Further, the offering must be a male without blemish. Again, we’re speaking to something costly, as the males were more prized and it couldn’t be some kind of limp, bedraggled character that you’d be happy to be rid of anyway. Only the best is good enough for God. The Lord calls out Israel in Malachi for trying to get away with shifty behavior in this area, “‘You sniff at me,’ says the Lord of Hosts; ‘You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering. Shall I accept that from your hand?’ says the Lord”.

By the way, just so we don’t miss it, this expensive. It’d be something to sacrifice an entire young cow today, let alone in OT times when meat was a rare luxury for all but the very rich. Yes, the offering accommodates the variations of what people can afford (could be bull, sheep/goats, or birds), but it’s costly either way.

So, the animal is brought to the entrance of the tabernacle (tent of meeting), and the owner places his hand on the head of the burnt offering (and prays, those things are connected in Scripture) and it is accepted to make atonement (Hebrew word kipper – said “kip-air”, meaning “to cover” or “ransom”) for him. The guilt is acknowledged here, this situation is a consequence of action taken by the animal’s owner. Then he kills the animal, washes the dirty parts, cuts it all into pieces so it can be burnt on the altar. Note that the owner of the beast does all of this, it is handed off to the priests only to tend the fire that it will burn on (and also keep the skin of the animal).

A couple things. First, we want the sacrifice to be accepted because the general goal of it is peace with God (or right relationship). It is to be a “soothing aroma” to God, it is done in worship as something that pleases Him. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this, recall that Noah makes a burnt offering to God after the flood and God reacts to it saying that it is a soothing aroma and promises to never flood the earth again (Genesis 8).

Further, the clearest identification of the purpose of the sacrifice comes from the word atonement. Although it debated among folks whether to consider it this way, I think this clearly is an offering in reaction to sin (with some differences from the upcoming purification and sin offerings). This is an atonement, an action taken as a “cover” or “ransom” for sin that created a lack of peace between a person and God. In this situation, God has agreed to accept this sacrifice, where the sin is seemingly passed through to the animal on behalf of the owner, and then killed and entirely consumed by the fire. Why does this work? Well, the basic answer is because God said it does. Perhaps more specifically, Leviticus 17:11 tells us that the blood of the animal represents its life and God is willing to accept its blood instead of yours. (Yes, we should certainly see Jesus in this, this is exactly what he does completely and finally on our behalf).

The one thing that should jump out clearly here, fellas, is that in a reality where Jesus has already come and died for us, we run the risk of not recognizing the cost of our sin. If you were an Israelite at the time of Moses, you didn’t forget because you had to haul one of your beasts up there in the presence of sin in your life and it died on your behalf (in fact, you did the killing). Folk saw you bring it up, it took a decent effort to kill, clean and cut it up, and you had to do it all over again the next time.

Conceptually, the same thing happens with Jesus, we just don’t have to live it out physically. He dies because God wants peace with us and He provides a sacrifice so that it can be (as noted in the introduction, the absence of this concept either denies that broken relationships are actually broken or creates a world where we can never have peace with God). Your sin put the nails in His hands, the crown on His head, and the spear in His side. But you weren’t physically there. Your sin is bundled with millions of others into that crown and into those nails and your part doesn’t get re-enacted over and over again. That is an amazing mercy, let us not forget it by treating are sin with nonchalance.

Dig on this tune, which has relevance to what we were just talking about:

Chapter 1 continues with how to handle the burnt sacrifices for either sheep/goats or birds, reflecting what people actually have available to them to sacrifice. Nothing significantly differs in the process for the other animals, just enough to accommodate distinctions that inherently exist in differences between say birds and bulls.

It’s worth noting that burnt offerings do not appear to be exclusive to atonement. Primarily, it brought reconciliation between God and man but also expressed faith in God and obedience to his law and could be offered in fulfillment of a vow. Either way, of all the sacrifices, this one is all encompassing; the entire animal is consumed in the fire and none is shared or left for either the original owner or the priests (again, except the skin).

Categories
Bible Study Leviticus

Leviticus | Introduction

Entry 3 of the 5 part narrative that kicks off the Old Testament, Leviticus picks up where Exodus leaves off. The Israelites are still camping in Mt. Sinai and have just completed construction and consecration (cleansing) of the tabernacle where God is to live among them. The thing is built, the question is how the people are to interact with it and how to live in right relationship with the God who dwells there.

The name “Leviticus” comes from the Septuagint (a pre-Christian Greek version of the Old Testament) and means “relating to the Levites”. The Hebrew title, just like with Exodus, is the first word of the book and means “And he called”. The Septuagint name makes sense as much of the book deals with priestly matters, those who are drawn from the tribe of Levi in particular service to the Lord.

However, it would be a mistake to think of Leviticus as primarily about priestly functions as it is often more concerned with the role non-Levites are to play in worship. The instructions for the Levites then follow in consequence. For example, in the first 5 chapters we will see what the general population must do for offerings and sacrifices. Chapters 6 and 7 provide instruction on how the priests are to handle those sacrifices. 0nly chapter 21 and 22 focus exclusively on rules that are only for the Levites.

Broadly, recall that the identity given to the Israelites in Exodus is that of “…a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Leviticus will help them with pressing questions related to that very identity. By preserving the purity laws, they are able to stay in right relationship with Yahweh and act as a witness to His presence in the world.

We should recognize immediately that we share in these same ends today so should be cautious of believing that these laws and rituals have no relevance to us. Certainly, Jesus changes much of the function of some of these things, but the heart and will of God remains at the core of them. The principles underlying the Old Testament are valid and authoritative for a Christian, but the particular applications found in the Old Testament may not be (Wenham 35).

One of the most foreign concepts to us is the sacrificial system that Leviticus spends so much time discussing. At its core, it is a means of restoration. Where sin or other situations of uncleanness have caused broken relationships between people or between people and Yahweh, God has provided a means for those relationships to be restored. Without such a thing, either we would have to lie about the impact of sin (meaning acting as if a relationship wasn’t broken when it really was) or live in a world where a single transgression would separate us from God forever (because there are no means of possible restoration).

The laws that are in Leviticus, as noted above, function similarly. These are the means to be holy, with the various individual laws demonstrating what that means in different situations. As we read, we should take in the words relative to God and His holiness. This chart should help:

So, in this we see the comparisons between holy and common and clean vs. unclean. Holy characterizes God Himself and all that belongs to Him, common is everything else. Within common, things are either clean or unclean. Think of clean as being similar to “pure”, or as it was intended to be. So a person can be clean, non-polluted by sin, but still not be able to serve God in the tabernacle because they have not been sanctified, specifically allocated and cleansed as something holy to the Lord. Heading the other direction, something can be holy but be profaned and require sanctification again. For example, a Levite wasn’t supposed to go near a dead body. If they were, they were profaned and no longer holy, they had to go through the sanctification process again. That didn’t make them unclean, it just made them common and common folk can’t be in service to the Lord. In this type of situation, sanctification happens through actions like the anointing of oil (note the sanctification of the tabernacle at the end of Exodus).

Cleanness is the natural state of most creatures. Holiness is a state of grace to which men are called by God and it is attained through obeying the law and carrying out rituals such as sacrifice. Uncleanness is a substandard condition to which we descend through bodily processes and sin.

We’ll develop this more as we go but the core concepts will be helpful at the outset so we approach it correctly as we get there.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Chapter 1

Exodus opens with the names of the sons of the man Israel. This is important for both historical and literary reasons. To history, we’ll come to find out that it’s been a few hundred years since this family first came to settle in Goshen, within the territory of the Egyptian pharaoh. They had now spent many years in pagan surroundings. During that time, we get a sense that many of them have given up on the thought of a God that cares for them. As that iterates through subsequent generations, it’s quite possible that they know very little of the promises God has made through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From a literary perspective, it reminds us, just like them, that this story isn’t in isolation.

The names of Israel’s sons are listed in birth order. We’re told the whole family is 70 strong, same figure given in Genesis 46, and that Joseph was already there. These are important to set the scene as both have relevance to the problems that are to come. We will go from an invited Israelite family who aren’t very big to an exceedingly strong nation that has been fruitful and greatly increasing (if we remember from Genesis, this is blessing language). The situation has changed.

As is prone to happen, Egypt eventually has a different leader than the one who was in charge and permitted Joseph’s family to settle there. It’s not super clear who this new pharaoh is, but it’s likely a native Egyptian who deposed the last of the Hyksos pharaohs. The Hyksos were, for all practical purposes, invaders from Asia who had settled in Egypt and taken the throne by force. After a couple of hundred years they are chased out. If this happens to be the right scenario, it’s easier to understand the threat that the new pharaoh potentially sees from the Israelites in Goshen. This is compounded by the general fear/mistrust Egyptians had of foreign peoples (driven likely by a sense of superiority).

The rendering of the pharaoh’s concern in v. 10, though, doesn’t make a ton of sense. The way it reads it sounds like he is concerned that the Israelites may get in league with an invading army and escape. Given that they don’t particularly care for this group that is blessed and massive within their borders, the fact that they might leave doesn’t seem like a problem. In fact, it’s probably a good thing in their eyes. A similar phrase is used in Hosea 1:11 and the NRSV recognizes it as “…and they shall take possession of the land, for great shall…”. That same type of rendering makes the most sense here as well. So, the concern is likely that Israel will join with an invading army and take over the land, not flee from it.

To combat this, the pharaoh decides to put heavy burdens on the Israelites. This is about population reduction, so the labor must be hard enough to kill the weak, weaken the strong, and likely reduce the amount of free time they have for the types of activities that produce more Israelites. This fails, and not just out of happenstance. The blessing that God shows here in multiplying the Israelites is proportionate to how much they were oppressed. This is in a sense difficult because it’s these blessings of God that actually lead them into further trouble with the Egyptians. We shouldn’t be surprised that there will be conflict when powerful humans try to exert control to suppress those things that God has designed for blessing.

Since the initial attempt at degrading their status and reducing their population didn’t work, pharaoh takes the next step and tries to enlist the Hebrew midwives to kill the male children as they are born and let the female children live. Obviously, things have escalated, now we’re talking straight up genocide. The fact that the midwives are named in the text is a strong testament to their bravery. They not only ignore pharaoh’s instructions but straight up sass him when asked why they aren’t doing it (Hebrew ladies don’t mess, they get the job done, unlike Egyptian ladies who seem to take their sweet time.) This was talking to a man who has commanded genocide. Who knows why he let them live (perhaps it’s implied God intervenes here), but they serve God above men, even in the face of danger. God blesses them in return.

Given that he can’t trust the midwives to enact his demands at the time of birth, Pharaoh changes the decree to not killing at birth but to throwing the male babies in the Nile after they are born. This is not only kind of a clean way (and one that can’t be argued with for access, even today 90% of Egypt’s population live within 5 miles of the Nile. Also, with the belief in the Nile as one of the gods, if the child is “received” by the water, it is more seen as a judgment of the gods than a blame on the person who put the child in there.) The stage is also set for the introduction of one of those babies who will somehow yet live as God continues to intervene for His people of promise.

Categories
Bible Study Exodus

Exodus | Introduction

Entry two of the 5-part narrative that kicks off the Old Testament, Exodus is a continuation of the story that began in Genesis. This is no surprise, as we saw predictions and promises made by God to families in Genesis that have yet to come to complete fruition (a return to the land of Canaan as promised to Abraham being chief among them.) The opening of the book certainly focuses on tying things together, with the first six Hebrew words being exactly the same as those in Genesis 46:8, a reiteration of the family last in focus for these promises, the man Israel and his sons.

Our English title of the book is actually a Latin word that comes from the Greek word Exodos, the title given to it when it was first translated from Hebrew into Greek (that translation is called the Septuagint). The word “exodos” means “exit” or “departure”. Interestingly, this isn’t the Hebrew title of the book, which is simply titled “These are the Names”.

Although exactly what to call the two sections is a matter of some debate or preference, it’s generally safe to see Exodus as having two parts that split at chapter 20. The initial setting is Egypt, where we last left Joseph and the gang after the death of his father Israel. Since that time (around 400 years), that original group of 70 “…were fruitful and increased greatly, they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.” That language sounds like blessing if you’re an Israelite, it kinda sniffs like an invasion if you’re an Egyptian.

This wasn’t an issue for the pharaoh who brought Joseph on board as his right hand man. But as new leadership takes over, they scan the land the notice a wild group of shepherds likely a million strong just lingering around Goshen. In fear, they decide to capture them as slaves. When this slavery includes restricting the ability of the nation to properly worship Yahweh their God, the trouble begins. Ultimately, God dominates, the people are set free, and they set out to Mt. Sinai, eventually en route to the land God promised (they won’t make it there in Exodus. This book remains just a part of a grander narrative that encompasses the entire first 5 books of the Bible.)

This leads us to the second half of the book, the year at Mt. Sinai. There is a transition here that this nation must go through. They are not just moving out of Egypt and away from servitude of Pharaoh, they are moving into their rightful place as covenant members of God’s kingdom, recipients of God’s provision, His law, and most significantly, His presence (albeit limited). How then shall they live? What are they to do with their freedom? What does God expect from them and how would they know it? God will give this to them.

Historically, we must note that there is very little that exists to either corroborate or deny the historicity of the Exodus narrative. Many things are not clear, including the name of the pharaoh who was reigning and interacting with Moses and the actual date of when the Israelites left Egypt. The exact route of the journey and the location of Mt. Sinai are also debatable. For our purposes, we’re working off a timeline that has the exodus happening in the 15th century BC, with part of the purpose of the narrative being Moses’ intention to provide an adequate history to those about to enter Canaan, an event that will occur after his death.

This lack of “evidence”, if you will, is not particularly concerning. The age of the narrative  makes it difficult to imagine a substantive amount of corroborating documentation (certainly not from the Egyptians, who would not be keen to record for posterity the absolute domination of their leader and their gods at the hands of Yahweh, the God of the shepherd slave people whose women give birth too fast.) Additionally, although much is made by surface-level rejectors of the Bible about there being a lack of physical evidence for the exodus, the 3,000+ year gap between the event and when they decided to Google it makes it about as likely for there to be extant physical evidence as there is to find a copy of That Time We Got Owned by Yahweh: A Biography of Egyptian “gods” lying around in the ruins of Alexandria.

That said, although there is not much ground to invalidate the historicity of the events, there is just as little to straight out confirm it. The text itself is well-preserved, likely brought back from Babylon to Jerusalem in the mid-5th century BC. The NT treats it as a real event. And, if we are honest, if someone was looking to fabricate the story of how the Israelites came into existence, they would not likely have produced the text we have today (Stuart 26). We don’t have a smoothed out, fictionalized account. This is clearly written as a history, warts and all. The foolishness of God’s people in the face of His faithfulness is almost comedic at times. Certainly a nation that has someone available to craft a gold cow in a moment’s notice could have found at least one person capable of writing a fictionalized biography that didn’t make them look so ridiculous. Or, we can take it for what it is meant to be, a valid historical account.

Although we touched on this slightly already, Moses is most likely the author. Evidence points to this, not the least of which are the statements in the text that say as much and the New Testament references that affirm it. The in-text references are actually unique, often ancient writers would not have written themselves into the narrative as the author. Given Moses’ role with the people, it is perhaps a necessary inclusion to ensure that the authority that comes with the recorded information is well-preserved.

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 50

Jacob dies in Egypt and makes Joseph promise that he will be buried in the family cave back in Canaan. In the meantime, Jacob is to be embalmed (a rather expensive and time-consuming practice at the time) and everyone mourns for 70 days. Weeping now fulfilled, it’s time to move Jacob to the cave. 

But things get a little odd here. For starters, Joseph has to ask permission to leave to go bury his father. Now, that doesn’t seem crazy, we’re in the middle of a famine and your lead man needs to be away a bit, you’d certainly want to mention it. But there’s tension here in the way Joseph is asking. Notice he’s kind of laying it on thick, asking “…if I’ve found favor in your eyes…” and loading the request with the weight of him having sworn to his dad that this promise would be kept. Also note that he doesn’t ask Pharaoh directly, he goes through Pharaoh’s household to get the answer. 

Certainly, Pharaoh agrees readily, there isn’t an issue here, but there’s a hint that things may not always be this way. Tellingly, the next time we find the nation of Israel asking the Pharaoh of Egypt if it is ok to leave, that request will be rejected. 

Leaving the kids and the beasts behind, everyone heads out to put Jacob to rest, including some of Pharaoh’s servants. They stop in Atad (location unclear) for another extended mourning session. The mourning lasts for 7 days and the locals rename the place “the lament of Egypt” (hmm, again a foreshadowing that the nation of Israel runs a risk of losing their identity while in Egypt). They eventually  make their way to Machpelah, do the deed, and head back to Egypt. 

Now that Jacob is dead, we see there remains a schism between Joseph and his brothers (who obviously haven’t learned their lesson). They concoct a story that before his death, Jacob instructed them to command Joseph to forgive them for what they had done to him.  Deception bookends the Genesis story, as does the reaction of forgiveness, provision and care in response. Joseph weeps, although it is unclear whether it was in disappointment of his brothers’ obvious lie or perhaps frustration that they just can’t latch onto Joseph’s grace in the manner. 

There is relevance to that second one for us. Often we are the foolish brothers who just can’t quite trust the forgiveness we’ve been extended, even in the face of our egregious sin against God and man. And so, we act as if our reality hasn’t been changed by that forgiveness and try to get that reality to bend in our direction through false means. We look as silly doing that as Joseph’s brothers do here. The depth and breadth of God’s kindness to us is difficult to comprehend, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The work here isn’t to earn the grace, it’s to constantly fight to not lose perspective and live boldly and confidently within it. 

Joseph lives 110 years (mentioned twice), a number that likely had relevance in the Egyptian context as that was the ideal age in Egypt. He reiterates the promise that God will remove them from this land and place them in the land promised to Abraham. He also makes them promise that when that time comes, they will take his bones with them. Interestingly, Joseph doesn’t seem to have the family cave in view, his body just awaits the time for God’s deliverance for the nation of Israel into that which God has promised. Note that at this point, they aren’t under any particular constraint, they aren’t captives (yet) in Egypt. But all that is soon to change. 

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 46

As the family of Israel prepares to leave for Egypt, there is an intentional stop in Beersheba where sacrifices are made to God. This is no particular surprise, Beersheba has been a place of covenants, confirmations that God is with Abraham and sons and their sons. What follows is a two-way conversation between Jacob and God where God assures Jacob that he should not fear going to Egypt. Not only does God promise to be with as he goes, but also that he will return from Egypt to Canaan a great nation. (A promise partially fulfilled in his body making its way back to Canaan but ultimately fulfilled through the return of the Israelites as a group into Canaan after the years of bondage in Egypt that are to come. The promise that Joseph will be with him when he dies is a touching and personal one, and obviously follows closely next to Jacob’s expressed desire to see Joseph again above anything else. 

The description of Jacob’s family and the list of sons and their offspring that follows is interesting in a number of ways. First, it’s not exclusive to the folks that are going to Goshen, as Judah’s sons Er and Onan are already dead and Joseph is in the list (as are his sons) and they never lived in Canaan. The counts are also iffy (note especially the count of 33 in v.15 attached to Leah, which has to deal with a daughter, Judah’s dead sons, and an Ohad in v.10 that doesn’t show up in other similar lists). Generally, the 33 shouldn’t be considered a complete list. 

The problem is compounded with the resulting sum in v.26. The total persons listed under each wife of Jacob comes to 70. The count in v.26 of everyone, minus the wives of the sons of Jacob, is given as 66. Combined, these difficulties are not easily resolved. My best guess is that 70, the total of the numbers given for each wife of Jacob, is likely symbolic, indicating a “complete” move from Canaan to Egypt (meaning they all went). As for the 66, even that varies among various manuscript evidence. It has no impact on the story, really, so I’m keen to just let it lie. One of the points of these numbers, at all, will be the relatively small group that enters Goshen compared to the size of the group upon their release from Egyptian bondage. The Lord will keep the promise he makes to Jacob at Beersheba to make this travelling caravan a great nation indeed. 

Judah is sent ahead to figure out from Joseph how to get to Goshen. This is intentional, Judah continues to take the role as the lead man in charge. The meeting between Joseph and his father is emotional, as expected. The same description of “…fell on his neck and wept…” was used to describe Joseph’s embrace of his brother Benjamin when all identities were revealed. Jacob is content to die at this point, although he holds on for another 17 years (likely from a rigorous exercise routine and a glass of lemon water each morning. For lack of both, I’m hesitant our collective Bible study group members will make it another 17 years.) 

Joseph gets them all set up and dispenses no particular instructions on how to get settled in the land, just to make sure that, if Pharaoh asks, to tell him that they are shepherds. Obviously, there’s something with Egyptians and shepherds, they don’t dig on them. I tend to read it as an intentional move to ensure separation between the Israelites and the Egyptian culture (it’s also true, of course), but it could be their bigoted anti-shepherd ways that Joseph’s protecting them from. Either way, they better get it right, because shepherds are an abomination. 

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 40

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.

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 35

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.