IntraText #6 - Genesis 39 part II

Ok, so you're up on Genesis 39 read in the context of Genesis 3?  Schweet.

Joseph's story is converse to Eve's in a couple more ways: in terms of (1) what he had and (2) what he didn't grasp at.

(1) Joseph felt like he had everything as Potipher's overseer, so at first it doesn't look like he's rewarded for his wisdom.  He goes to prison.  Yet the author is so keen to make sure we don't mistake this for curse from God that sticks in three verses of caveats right away:

But athe LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love band gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. And the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph's charge, because the LORD was with him. And whatever he did, the LORD made it succeed. (Gen 39:21-23 ESV)

As if he couldn't wait until the next chapter when we'd get to find this out for ourselves.

In fact, as a result of his trust in God's goodness, looking at the everything given rather than the one thing withheld, Joseph goes from 2nd in charge of Potipher's household, to 2nd in charge of the whole flipping Egyptian nation.  Eve distrusted that God was good, looking at the thing supposedly withheld, and in grasping for it she lost it.  (I suspect that there's some interesting work to be done here with respect to seeing God's new methodology to bring blessing somehow in and through curse and negative things, but that's a whole different trajectory in Genesis.)

(2) Also, as a result of his right dealing with women, Joseph ends up with a woman.

And Pharaoh ... gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. (Gen 41:45 ESV)

Now I'm not sure if Potiphar and Potiphera are related.  But even if they're not, surely we're told this to make us connect the two characters in some way.  So as a part of the blessing for refusing to fornicate with Potipher's wife, Joseph ends up with Potiphera's daughter as his wife.

Eve had grasped at the fake, believing God to be stingy, and lost the real thing.

But Joseph refused to obey the tempter offering the fake, and so he gained the truly good thing that the fake thing looked so much like.


Amazingly crafted, these narratives, aren't they?  I think the point that all this literary art is driving at is God's positive disposition towards humanity despite human sinfulness.  God just seems determined to bless us, despite our self-destructive and world destructive and anti-God tendencies.  Determined to bring about life, even when the curse of death has been brought down upon us.

He's pretty awesome.

Instances of Gen 3 - #5 - Genesis 39

One part of what I've been doing as I've been working through Genesis has been to see whether Genesis 3 (with my particular reading of it) could be acting as a type-scene against which many of the subsequent events of Genesis can be set.

I think Genesis 39 is also such a scene. Let's look for some parallels.  (Not because parallels are cool in and of themselves, but because they point to the author trying to see one scene in the light of another, which enables us to better understand what the author is trying to do.)

Firstly, both scenes involve a woman desiring something forbidden to her. Secondly, they both involved a man who has been given absolutely everything, and has been forbidden only one thing.*  Third, that man is responsible to rule and care for all those things.  Fourth, we get Yhwh's blessing and increasing that sphere of influence.

Here's one which may be a long bow, but let me know what you think.  Have a look at verses 6 & 7.

So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, "Lie with me." (Gen 39:7 ESV)(Gen 39:6 ESV)

Why did he mention food and eating?  Completely irrelevant detail!  Just coincidence that this story juxtaposes something that's desirable to the eye with food and eating?  ^raised eyebrow^

Sixth, Joseph does not 'listen to her', the act of Adam that Yhwh cites as the reason the ground is cursed.

Convinced?  No?  That's ok.  But indulge me a moment.

If I'm right to read ch39 in the light of ch3, then a very interesting thing happens to the main point.  Have a look at how Joseph resists the temptation to sin. (I'm assuming it's not just that Potiphar's wife is fugly)

But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge.

He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:8-9 ESV)

What was Joseph's weapon of choice against the temptation to take?  To remind himself of what he'd been given.  Joseph's weapon, was thankfulness.  Gratitude.

Which, if you'll recall, is the opposite of Gen 3 where the serpent turns the generosity of Yhwh in giving all things into the stinginess of God in withholding the one.

When faced with the choice to sin or not to sin, to take that which God has said not to take, thankfulness is a great weapon.  And I mean this in two ways.

Firstly, it reminds you of the fullness you already have.  How could you sin against the one who has given you everything?  Literally!  Is that other thing you want worth so much?
Secondly, it recalls the goodness, the generosity, of the giver.  The one who is reminded of just how much he/she has been given by God trusts that God will continue to do the right thing by them: both in giving, and in withholding.


To be continued...


* Yes, that conjunction is definitely meant to be 'and' and not 'but'.  The serpent would have used 'but', but.

Not a blog post on Genesis 25

Well, I did promise that I was going to post on Esau despising and selling his birthright to Jacob in Genesis 25, but I think that there's more in that chapter for Doug's 'beastial' de-humanised humanity idea than the angle I've been running with. So, I'll leave it for him.

A naked preacher?

My lovely friend Anna posted a vulnerable, self-aware and in-process piece on theological writing just the other day.  It made my soul smile.

It echoed the thoughts of Billy Coffee's one-time lecturer on the subject of writing, who said of writers:

“Don’t simply tell me that faith saves you, tell me how it almost failed you, too. Don’t tell me about love, speak of your passion. Don’t tell me you’re hurt, let me see your heart breaking. I don’t want to see your talent on the page, I want to see your blood. Dare to be naked before your readers. Because that is writing, and everything else is worthless crap.”

And for writing, I agree.  Writers who genuinely say something say what they mean.  Which is what they deeply and utterly believe.  And so are naked before those who would laugh, mock and critique that.

Thus, genuine writers:

“People write because they must. Because there is a story inside them that is meant to be shared with the world. But having that story inside you doesn’t make you a writer. How you tell that story does. And you tell it through honesty.”

A question for me, then, is to what extent preaching is 'writing' in this sense?  For we do not tell our own story, though that story is equally "inside us and meant to be shared with the world".

On the side of the naked preacher, I would say that if the person doesn't preach, but only the text is preached, then the duty of plunging the sword of the spirit into oneself before plunging it, with your own blood still afresh on it, into your hearers has been neglected.

On the other hand, when does the preacher's nudity become a distraction from the preacher's work of exposing the naked word of God, in all its glory and implications, to the congregation?  For even if we have a story to tell in Christ, a sermon is not a testimony.  It is the story of Another,

Of course, the answer is not a blank yes or no. (sorry if that's what you were going to say.  Let me introduce you to Graeme Goldsworthy if you were.)  But I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the field of "in what sense ought the preacher be naked, and in what sense ought no-one be looking at the preacher to have noticed?"

Your thoughts?  I'd value them dearly.

Grasping in Genesis #4

I've been blogging through Genesis since finishing my project, and it's been fascinating seeing some themes emerge so strongly.  Particularly, seeing that Gen 3 isn't the only place where find a character grasping at something God's already given or promised them.

So, we're up to chapter 27, and the theme reappears.  But first, some background:

Isaac prayed to Yhwh on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. Yhwh answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of Yhwh. Yhwh said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older[Esau] will serve the younger[Jacob]."

 Rebekah came to love her younger son, Jacob.  Isaac came to love the older son (and the meat he hunted), Esau.  Now Rebekah is in a fantastic position here, because she's had a direct word from Yhwh that her favoured son will end up on top.  He'll rule over Esau, so there's no reason for her to fear losing contact with her son.  She already has, in promise form, what she's come to desire.  And so when she hears Isaac promising this same thing to Esau instead of Jacob, she fails to trust God's word and decides to take matters into her own hands.

"Go to the flock and bring me two good young goats, so that I may prepare from them delicious food for your father, such as he loves. And you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies."

The context gives us a whole bunch of clues that we should be thinking of Genesis 3.  Firstly, the great desire for food is once again present.  (as it is at the end of chapter 25, to which we'll return; it's heaps interesting)  Second, the repetition of competing voices which ask to be obeyed ("heard").  Third, the dichotomy of blessing and cursing, as Rebekah (willingly) brings curse on herself.  Fourth, the sending away of Jacob out of the presence of Isaaac for fear of death, as Adam and Eve were from the presence of Yhwh (the phrase is repeated so you don't miss it).  Fifthly, the repetition of the covering with animal skins.

And lastly, of course, the very thing she wanted, and had, she ended up losing.  She sends her son away for fear he might die.  In effect, she loses both her sons. (cf. 27:45)

There are a few more connections, of varying strength.

Of course, as striking as the similarities of the scenes are the distinctions between them.  This is the art of Hebrew narrative, as expectations are set up and then twisted, added to or totally subverted.  A subtlety often foreign to the characteristically one-dimensional storytelling of Hollywood.

Ultimately, what happened?

Rebekah saw what she wanted.  She already possessed a promise from Yhwh that she would have that thing.  She took action designed to get it.  And, though God subverts the previous paradigm by keeping his promise to bless Jacob, Rebekah herself loses that which she grasped for.

 Thus Isaac sent Jacob away. (Gen 28:5 ESV)

And she never saw her son again.

Hard yakka

It requires far more courage, energy and sometimes unusual circumstances to face yourself than is commonly admitted.