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.

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.

Genesis intratextuality

I started out a set of observations from my reading through Genesis here and here.  The idea is essentially this:

There's a pattern emerging through Genesis where certain characters grasp at something that they already have, whether in actuality or by promise of Yhwh.  The result of the grasping tends to be the loss or spoiling of that which they have grasped for.  The prevailing theme is faith, or lack of faith, that Yhwh has given them that good thing.

For Eve, that was the knowledge of good and evil. Though she possessed it, she was tricked into thinking God had been stingy and so she grasped for it, and lost it, in the eating of the fruit of the tree.


For Sarah, it was having a son.  Though Abraham had received the promise of a son, she grasped at it by giving Hagar to Abraham, and ended up causing Isaac and his descendants the problem of their relationship with Hagar's son, Ishmael.

Now we come to Genesis 22 and the great test of Abraham's faith.  Will he give his only son back to God?  The one through whom God's blessings were promised to flow?  Or will he grasp at him, attempting to keep that which God has said he must give up?

It seems utterly impossible for Abraham to believe that Yhwh will provide for him an heir through Isaac.  The very act that Yhwh asks of him inherently destroys any hope of this.  Yet in a complete reversal of our previous scenes, Abraham trusts Yhwh in the impossible situation.  He freely gives up that which Yhwh had given him and in whom the rest of Yhwh's promises will stand or fall.  He entrusts himself to Yhwh's goodness in spite of all human logic.  (It thus makes sense that Hebrews 11:19 ascribes to him a divine wisdom that affronts all human experience and common sense.)

This scene is the ultimate example of trust in the providence of Yhwh, against all his human experience of possibility.  It is also the polar opposite of the actions of Eve and Sarah in grasping at that of which Yhwh had already assured them.  It is an anti-type-scene in every conceivable way.

The author sets Abraham's insane trust in the providence of Yhwh against the grasping of Eve and Sarah, whose lack of trust had varying degrees of "understandability".

There is so much pastoral application in these chapters that is really huge for our generation.  No time for it here, but perhaps I'll rant about it in another post.  This series is about establishing a pattern of scenes in Genesis, which in turn may enhance the case for my project's slant on Genesis 3.

Next stop, Genesis 27, where the scene reverts to type...

Intertextuality #2: the fun part

I posited here an argument for a strong thematic connection between Genesis 3 and Genesis 16.  While that's fun in itself, it was the possibilities that this connection unearthed that began to pique my interest.

I have suggested in some detail here that Genesis 3 is perhaps best understood as Eve grasping for something that she already possessed.  If this is right, then might that pattern also be repeated later in Genesis?

Indeed, it's worth asking why women are the focus in so much of the, if you'll excuse the pun, patriarchal narratives.

Genesis 16 is a case in point.  In what sense could Sarai be described as having grasped at that which she already had?

Well, if we understand Yhwh's promise that Abram would have countless descendants in its most natural sense (ie, that he would bear them through his wife), then in effect Sarai had already received the child she was grasping for: by promise.  The thematic links are strengthened somewhat in perceiving that lack of trust in God's word is a key operative in both cases.

Eve failed to trust that God had been good to her in what he had spoken to her.  Could we perhaps suggest that Sarai did the same?

The journey through Genesis should be interesting.  I'm holding out some hope that these intertextual links will provide some support for my reading of Genesis 3.



NB.  Feminists, don't get too agitated too quickly about where I'm going with this.  We'll get to Tamar who provides some narrative counter-balance and nuance.

Is there an 'inter' in this texuality?

I'm reading through the Bible cover to cover at the moment (much closer to one cover than the other) and am noticing some interesting things upon reading Genesis afresh.  For example, Genesis 16 seems to follow a familiar pattern.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
 3 So, after Abram ahad lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.
 5 And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May athe LORD judge between you and me!"
 6 But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Gen 16:1-6 ESV)

Seeing anything yet?

The driving tension involves a husband, a wife and Yhwh.  The tension is brought to a head as the wife becomes convinced that Yhwh is stingy and has short-changed her.  This is stated in a way that contains a certain amount of factual truth, while misrepresenting the character of Yhwh's actions.
The wife perceives a means by which she may gain that which Yhwh has allegedly withheld from her.  This course of action seems good to her, despite seeming obviously flawed to the reader.  And so the wife takes, and gives to her husband.  The husband, passively and without a reported word, listens to his wife and receives that which is offered.

Then the negative consequences become all too apparent to the man and wife.  Each party shifts responsibility for the situation to the other.  The final result, is that someone becomes an exile.

Sound familiar?  If there isn't significant reference to patterns set up in Genesis 3 I'll eat my exegetical hat.  Which is easy.  Because it's imaginary.  Unless you buy me a real one.

Implications for exegesis?  Probably lots, I'd have to think about it.  Or get you guys to tell me.  It really casts the Genesis 16 event in terms of the nature of Adam and Eve's sin.  It proceeds again from a wrong view of God and ends in a failure to trust his predictive word.

Now something that is also interesting to me is the fact that there are, perhaps, particular resonances with Genesis 3 when read as I have in my project.  I'll post on that soon, God willing.

They were like us

It was suggested by Doug Green that a possible alternate translation to Genesis 3:22 was perhaps more correct than the traditional one. Traditionally, it reads something like:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- ESV

However, the Hebrew verb rendered there as 'has become' allows for a certain degree of ambiguity in terms of tense. It is simply Hebrew perfect tense of the verb 'to be'. Given the ambiguities of Hebrew, the verse could thus be read as:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man was like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--

On this reading, the original state of humanity is 'knowing good and evil' and it is only upon the eating of the fruit that their minds were 'scrambled' and that they could no longer distinguish the good from evil.

So, is there any possible way that this could be a good translation? Well, from my admittedly limited Hebrew knowledge, I'd say these two examples make it possible.

Firstly, in the immediate context, you have the same word being used in what appears to be a past tense.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field (Gen 3:1 ESV)"

And yet, this isn't so satisfying because you could argue that it's a past-tense of narration, where the language is describing something that was true at the time of the events being described. So what we really need is an example where it occurs in direct speech, as it does in Gen 3:22, and is still rendered as a past state of being. Interestingly, there's one even in Genesis:

They said, "We see plainly that the LORD has been with you." (Gen 26:28 ESV)

The same verb, translated as a state of being that was true prior to the actual speaking of the words.

If Doug's thoughts are right, then the irony of the situation is that the serpent who deceived Eve in telling her that she would become 'like God, knowing good and evil' has in a sense deceived a lot of translators over a lot of years. :P As Doug pointed out, pehaps Eve's response should have been,

"But I'm already like God. I'm in His image. And I know good and evil, God told us what that is."

More thoughts to come...

Hanging by a thread

I'm only this time reading through realising how heavy this sentence is. It's literally a death sentence.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Imagine the increasing tension in listening to that sentence as it was first uttered.

...

Also, something of the weight of that sentence dawned on me too. The consequences of the fall here are un-creation. The un-doing of the last 2 chapters. Not only that, but the un-making of something that is the image of God!

Everything that was set up in the last 2 chapters now seems like it's hanging by a thread. What next?

Bigger verse than I had realised before.

An interesting question to ask

From Genesis 3:

He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

What an interesting set of questions!

Firstly, why did God ask "Who told you? instead of something like "How do you know?"? (Note the correct use of question marks) The question doesn't even confirm Adam's statement that he's naked. What exactly was God anticipating in asking which person made the assertion? What is the answer to it?

Secondly, how does the first question give rise to the second? What is the necessary link between the two? If you play the imaginary mind-game that God didn't know what had happened, why is this the obvious second question after asking the first?

I'll post some thoughts in the next couple of days.