Joseph's Dreams

Story: Joseph’s Dreams

Passage: Genesis 37:1-11

Characters: Jacob, Joseph, Joseph’s brothers

Summary: Joseph brought a bad report of his brothers to Jacob. Jacob loved Joseph and gave him a colorful robe. His brothers hated him. Joseph had a dream where they were binding sheaves and his sheaf stood up and his brothers’ bowed down to his. His brothers hated him more. Then he dreamt that the sun and moon and eleven stars bowed down to him. His father rebuked him, but he kept the dreams in mind.

Notes: The passage contrasts the previous chapter in that while Esau settled far away, we read that Jacob lived in his father’s land. Joseph was seventeen during these events. I found it interesting that he brought a bad report to his dad of his brothers. His brothers probably deserved it, but still this was probably a major contributor to the tension between Joseph and his brothers. No one likes a tattle tale. Jacob’s dysfunctional favoritism continues as he favors Joseph, his second youngest more than anyone else. This robe he gave Joseph is significant not because of the colors, but because of the length of the robe and it’s sleeves. This was a long sleeved robe reaching to Joseph’s ankles. This signified that Joseph was not a working man, but that he was privileged and favored. It was Jacob’s way of saying that Joseph had his birthright. His ten older brothers were obviously jealous of this favor their younger brother was receiving. It only gets better though. Joseph seems a bit oblivious to me! His brothers instantly knew the meaning of the first dream. They knew it implied he would rule over them. I don’t think they doubted this at first, they just despised it. They knew Jacob was giving Joseph whatever he wanted and he would become powerful, but the brothers were not happy about this. This dream also involved wheat. This is interesting since Joseph’s later interactions with his brothers would revolve around food. His second dream had the same meaning with an important difference. This dream included his mother and father. Joseph showed even less wisdom and more pride in sharing this dream. He knew how awesome this revelation was for him, but didn’t think about how it would sound to others. What God had told him did come true and it was real, but it would have been wiser and more humble for him to keep it to himself. This is not the first or last time the sons of Israel are represented by stars. Ever since Abraham, his descendants have been compared to stars, and we see the imagery again in revelation. You might have noticed that Rachel should be dead at this point, but she is still present in Joseph’s dream. It is possible that we have backtracked a bit here. It is possible that when the passage said these are the generations of Jacob that Jacob’s own account ended and Joseph’s began. However, Joseph’s dreams also included 11 other sheaves and stars implying that Benjamin was born, which would imply that Rachel was indeed dead. This story begins the long story of Joseph’s struggles. We will find that he never loses his focus even in the midst of incredibly unfair affliction. We can learn a lot from Joseph’s example, just not in this passage.

Questions: Why did Joseph tell his family his dreams? Did Jacob not see the negative effect his favoritism was having? Was Joseph oblivious or prideful? Remember he was only seventeen.

Lessons: If God tells you something, you need to evaluate how important it is for the general public to hear. If it is specifically for you, it might be wise to keep it to yourself and a select few friends or family members. You do not want to create jealousy or discouragement in others. Sometimes, if someone hears how God is doing something awesome for you, they might be disappointed that a similar thing isn’t happening to them. It is important to use wisdom when God does something in your life when you choose who to tell. If pride is your motivation, keep it to yourself. IF the edification of the church is your motivation, go for it.

Esau's Descendants

Story: Esau’s Descendants

Passage: Genesis 36

Characters: Esau, others

Summary: Here we see a list of Esau’s descendants and where they lived. Esau moved far away from Jacob.

Notes: There is not too much here other than names. We do read that both Jacob and Esau had so many possessions they had to move far away from each other to sustain themselves. Esau was the one who moved. He left the land which God had given Abraham which left the land to only Jacob. We read that Amalek came from Easu. We will read more about the Amalekites later. It looks like there is also a list in this passage of the sons of the kings of the land Esau moved to. Four women are mentioned in this list. Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, the firstborn of Esau. She bore Amalek. We also hear of Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, daughter of Mezahab. I don’t know the significance of these names, but I suspect people of the time did. This passage also mentions a man named Anah who found hot springs in the wilderness as he pastured his father’s donkeys. Apparently this was a well known story. I love the way the Old Testament is so grounded in history. People’s names, historical events, and known locations were all utilized in the writing of this book.

Questions: Why were these specific women mentioned? Who was Anah? Did Esau mix with the people in the land he moved to?

Lessons: The biggest lesson I see here is that God promised Jacob the land, and here we see Esau leave it and let Jacob live in it alone. God’s plan is slowly working itself out. We need to remember that we may not immediately understand what God is doing, but He is slowly working us towards the land He has promised us, where we get to live in His presence forever.

The Deaths of Rachel and Isaac

Story: The Deaths of Rachel and Isaac

Passage: Genesis 35:16-29

Characters: Rachel, Benjamin, Jacob, Reuben

Summary: Rachel went into hard labor. As she was dying, she named her son Ben-oni, but Jacob named him Benjamin. Rachel died and was buried on the way to Bethlehem. Jacob set a pillar over her grave. Reuben slept with his father’s concubine and Jacob found out. Jacob came to his father in Hebron. Isaac dies at 180 years and Jacob and Esau buried him.

Notes: Rachel’s death is tragic. No longer do you sense joy and pride in a son being born. Her name for Benjamin, Ben-oni, means son of sorrow. This was not a victory for Rachel, this was a defeat. I find it interesting that the competition which she seems to have based her life upon ends up costing her her life. How wrong she was when she told Jacob “Give me a son or I’ll die!” I also think her tragic death could be a result of the curse Jacob placed on whoever had stolen Laban’s idols. The pillar over Rachel’s tomb is still there at the time of the writing of Genesis. I find it interesting that this must have been a well known landmark. If Moses indeed wrote Genesis like people think, he never entered the Promised Land. So his knowledge of landmarks came from hearsay. Two sentences describe Reuben’s sin, but it is big enough to forfeit his rights as firstborn. Is it any surprise we see sexual sin from Reuben though? Look at the family he grew up with. We even read he was involved in finding mandrakes for his mother. Reuben was sucked into this struggle his parents were involved in and he never got a good idea of how marriage should look. His actions are not excused, but they are more understandable. Either way, Reuben’s sin and Simeon and Levi’s violent actions from a few chapters ago have made them unfit for God’s redemptive plan. The torch is now passed to Judah. It is interesting that Isaac now dies. If you remember, Jacob stole the blessing from Esau over twenty years before this when they thought Isaac was going to die! Esau and Jacob buried their father together. They were opposed to each other at their birth, but united at their father’s death.

Questions: Did Rachel’s death fulfill the curse Jacob placed on the idol thief? Did Rachel understand the futility of her struggle with Leah before she died? Were they on good terms? Are Jacob and Esau getting along at this point? How messed up were Reuben and his brothers as a result of the struggle between their mothers?

Lessons: It is important as a parent to be a good role model for your children. If they don’t see you following certain morals, they will have no reason to. This is what we saw happen in Reuben’s life. We also can learn a lesson from this passage about the futility of pursuing anything but Christ. Rachel wanted children, and it became the death of her. Anything of this world we pursue will ultimately fade away and be worthless. Only Christ is worth our efforts and passions.

God Blesses and Renames Jacob

Story: God Blesses and Renames Jacob

Passage: Genesis 35:1-15

Characters: God, Jacob

Summary: God told Jacob to return to Bethel and live there. Jacob told his family to purify themselves and get rid of foreign gods. As they journeyed, God terrified the people around them and they did not pursue Jacob. Jacob came to Bethel and built an altar. Rebekah’s nurse died. God appeared to Jacob and renamed him Israel again. He repeated the promise of nations coming from him. God gave him the land around him. God left and Jacob poured oil and a drink offering on the pillar and called the place Bethel.

Notes: I suspect that God wanted Jacob to go to Bethel in the first place instead of Shechem. That would explain why Jacob’s time in Shechem was so bad. Jacob shows he had completely turned to follow God when he had his family get rid of idols. They willingly did so which shows how when the head of a house follows God, the family does too. Jacob built an official altar to God in bethel and called it God of Bethel. Bethel means house of God if you remember. We know nothing else about Rebekah’s nurse, but she must have been important to be named in the passage. They obviously mourned for her. I wonder if they picked her up in their group while with Laban. God appeared and reaffirmed His covenant with Jacob now that Jacob was back in Bethel. This was the place Jacob’s spiritual journey had begun and it was where God planned on it ending. God officially named Jacob Israel here. Jacob poured out a drink offering. Drink offerings were usually wine. By pouring that out on the altar, Jacob was giving even his possessions to God and showing that God was his utmost priority.

Questions: How many idols did Jacob’s family have? How willingly did they get rid of them? What made Deborah so important? Was Jacob initially supposed to go to Bethel?

Lessons: The main lesson I see here is the importance of being a spiritual leader. As in the importance of being a spiritual leader if you are a leader in general. Jacob was the head of his family and when he committed to God, his family did. If you are a husband or a father, your spiritual example has a huge impact. If you are a political leader or a manager at work, your example makes an impact. It is important to always conduct yourself in such a way that people can see Christ through

Horrid Red Things

Horrid Red Things

This is an article from God in the Dock called Horrid Red Things. This article discusses the conflict between observable science and the supernatural aspects of Christianity. My thoughts on this article are given in italics at the end of my summary.

Lewis addresses the thought that the conflict between science and religion is over. He claims that if this is true, it is only with the very learned. The conflict is very real for the common man. According to Lewis, the people see a fundamental difference between Christianity and the picture of the universe they get from current scientific knowledge. Lewis says that when people hear that God has a “son”, they picture a physical son. When that son “came down” to Earth from Heaven, he dropped down like a skydiver, when he later descended to Hell, he went somewhere beneath the surface of Earth and later He ascended into the sky and sat down in a fancy throne next to His Father. This implies, according to Lewis, a material, local heaven, a flat earth, and many other misconceptions. Basically we put spatial, material, physical elements to these words and it can cause confusion. Most Christians know we need to interpret scripture differently and put aside those differences, but that doesn’t cut it for most people. They assume we can allegorize and spiritualize these metaphors and it works, but if the authors of scripture had current knowledge of science, they would have written the stories differently. This is the argument which Lewis is now going to discuss.

Lewis says that there are two things Christians can do to convince this modern man that there is no issue here. First, they must make it clear that even after any explanations and interpretations, the scriptures will still be completely supernatural and miraculous. No matter what, we have to believe in a spirit world which can invade the physical observable universe. What Christians cannot do is imply that they have their myths for ignorant listeners, but when we encounter an educated person, we can explain everything away through science and logic such that no one would ever deny your claims. Lewis warns that there are theologians who do this and we need to disassociate with them at all costs! If Christianity can be boiled down such that it is explainable through our logic without “Christian” language, then we should abandon Christianity altogether. The miraculous supernatural element of Christianity is very real and is crucial to our beliefs.

The second thing Lewis says Christians can do is teach about the difference of thinking and imagining. While it is inaccurate to say that early Christians all believed in a flat Earth or a physical heaven somewhere in the sky, some did. In fact, some would not be able to separate their faith from this imagery in their minds. Lewis attempts to distinguish the core of belief from this imagery. He gives an example of a child told not to take too much aspirin or she could die. The child replied, “But why? If you squash them you don’t find any horrid red things inside them.” Lewis says that this child has associated poison with “horrid red things”. This is obviously wrong! Not all red things are poison and not all poison is red. However, this error does not affect her thinking. She still understands that an overdose of aspirin would kill you. If this child warned you that something in her house you were about to drink was poison, you would be dumb not to listen to her because she has an incorrect view of poison. Later in life, when she learns that poison does not have to be red, her view of poison will not change. She will still know that if you drink poison, you will die. Her imagery of poison drops away but the thought remains unaffected. Say a Christian believes that there is a physical heaven at a certain altitude in the sky with two physical chairs on which the Father and Son sit. When He learns that this is not how heaven works, the essentials of his beliefs will remain unchanged. He would still know that Christ, who was once crucified, is living and is now the supreme ruler of the universe. The imagery does not change that thought and belief in his mind. Lewis discusses whether the imagery is even necessary in the first place. He points out that we cannot use words to describe God that do not imply spatial imagery. God is outside of our spatial universe and thus Lewis says we cannot find words to describe Him more literally than what we already have.

Lewis concludes by saying that the difference between explaining and explaining away is simple. Anything that concerns the unincarnate God, operating outside of our senses and universe, must be taken with the imagery which we have, even if it is not totally true. He basically argues that the imagery may not be literal, but it does not matter or affect things. In fact, we have no choice but to accept the imagery given us in scripture. However, we cannot use this with miracles. Miracles occur within our observable universe. They are recorded and can be described literally. When it comes to miracles, you must either take it or leave it literally.

This article confused me a little bit. It is hard for me to grasp not taking the imagery in the Bible literally and I immediately put up some walls when reading this. In reality though, any language used to describe God or Heaven involves wrapping a concept that transcends our senses and the laws of our universe and fitting into the framework of language which forces it to be described using those laws and observations which we can explain. We are forced to explain and describe the creator through His creation. When I thought about this, I realized that this is an imperfect way to describe God. The imagery in the Bible is most likely not able to be literal because we are limited by our universe in describing God. However, the imagery is inspired by God and therefore, while the imagery might not be literal, it is the correct imagery to use. God chose the words of scripture and that is what we must go with until we are with Him in glory and can understand more fully.

Myth Became Fact

Myth Became Fact

Myth Became Fact is an article written by C.S. Lewis in the collection of Lewis’ writings called God in the Dock. I plan on occasionally posting reviews of these articles when I have time as they are very interesting and thought provoking. You do not have to agree with what he wrote. I do not always agree with what he wrote, but he was a very smart man and there is much we can learn from him. Please comment if you have any thoughts on any of these! Without further ado, Myth Became Fact.

Lewis addresses a claim by a friend of his that there are no Christians at all. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is believing a modern system of thought while using the language and emotions from Christianity. This compares it to the kingship in England. The form is there, but it means nothing in reality. Lewis argues that this is false. He starts by assuming his friend was right. Assume that Christianity is a system in which the names, rituals, formulas and metaphors persist while the motives behind it changes. Lewis says that one would have trouble explaining why these things persist. Why would these modern Christians choose to express their thoughts through an ancient m? Before I continue, let me define what a myth is according to Wikipedia. A myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past. Myths are generally regarded as being true. Legends are also considered true, however legends generally take place in more recent times and involve humans. Myths tend to involve the supernatural and take place when the world was a much different place. Back to Lewis now! If this modern view is correct, then we should be very willing to cut any ties to these ancient dead myths and replace them with something as modern as our thoughts. In fact we should be quick to do so. However, we see that when presented with that choice, very few people are willing to completely cut off the Christian myths. This would make more sense if it was profitable to hold to Christianity, but in general it is not. It is actually more difficult. Lewis acknowledges that it would be easier to cut away the myth in much the same way it would be easier for a man to divorce his wife to marry someone more suitable. The only issue with marrying someone more suitable is that you abandon the very point of marriage. In the same way if England were to get rid of the kingship, they would get rid of the thing that carries British values. These ancient institutions trickle into modern thought and customs.

Lewis argues that what matters in Christianity are the myths even if they are purely myths, which he does not think. This modern view wants Christianity to move with the times, but the times always move away. Christianity shows something which does not move. What is called a myth remains while what is called “modern thought” always fades and is replaced. Philosophies against Christianity disappear but the “myths” that they attacked remain. The myth outlives defenders and attackers. It is this so called myth which gives life to Christianity.
Lewis then explores myth. He explains that human thought is incredibly abstract. However, the realities we experience are concrete. We cannot understand and experience simultaneously. The more we think, the less we experience and vice versa. For example, we cannot study laughter while we are occupied with laughing. But in reality, when else can you understand these concepts? This is something which myths can partially solve. In myths, we can understand something abstract through something that is concrete. When abstract concepts are interpreted through the concrete framework of a myth, we have a common ground between reality and thought. Myth does not have to be created to carry these principals because it inherently will carry universal principals according to Lewis. When you begin to analyze a myth you enter the abstract world of thought again. Only when you listen to the myth do you experience the abstract principal. Lewis distinguishes between truth and reality. He says that, “truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is.” Myth communicates reality not truth and thus myths create many truths at the abstract level. Myth is the connector between thought and experience. It belongs to neither but it shares characteristics of both.

Lewis claims that as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. Christianity is a myth which is also fact. The myth of the Dying God became fact without ceasing to be a myth. While other myths have their gods dying, Christ comes to earth and is crucified under Ponitus Pilate in a historical place, on a historical date, with historical consequences. Lewis argues that the miracle of Christianity is that the myth becomes fact but retains the myth. Lewis suspects that some people get more from the myths they disbelieve than the religion they claim to follow. Lewis argues that to be a Christian means to hold to the historical fact while receiving the myth, though it is now fact.

Lewis concludes by saying that we can learn from these modern thoughts in that it reminds us that what became fact was a myth and still carrys the properties of a myth as well as fact. God is more than a god and not less. Because of this, we should expect parallels and Christ figures in other pagan religions and cultures. They should be there. What makes Christianity beautiful though is, as Lewis says, “the marriage of heaven and earth: Perfect Myth and Perfect Fact: claiming not only our love and our obedience, but also our wonder and delight, addressed to the savage, the child, and the poet in each one of us no less than to the moralist, the scholar, and the philosopher.”

I found this article very interesting. While I have never defined myth like he did, he really captured the importance of the wonder of the Bible which requires faith, and the logical historic fact of the Bible which we can evaluate with our reason. Christianity really does encompass both abstract thought and concrete reason and experience. Christianity is not against science, it just goes beyond science. But we will hear more from Lewis on this subject in the future.

The Defiling of Dinah

Story: The Defiling of Dinah

Passage: Genesis 34

Characters: Shechem, Hamor, Jacob, Simeon, Levi, Dinah

Summary: Dinah went to see the woman of the land. Shechem, the prince of the land saw her and slept with her. He loved her and spoke tenderly to her and wanted her as his wife. Hamor, his father went to negotiate with Jacob. Jacob’s sons were horrified. Hamor wanted to intermarry with Jacob’s family. Shechem asked what the bride price would be and Jacob’s sons said that the Hivites must circumcise themselves. They did just what Jacob’s sons asked. While they were still sore and weak, Simeon and Levi killed all the males in the city. Abraham was worried that they were now a stench to the inhabitants of the land. Simeon and Levi justified their actions by saying that their sister should not have been treated like a prostitute.

Notes: This is another ridiculous story. First of all, Dinah was visiting the women of the land. It is possible she was developing relationships with the native women. This might have been unwise of her, but she could not have seen the results coming. The Hivites did not follow God and thus their morals were not very good. Shechem saw someone he wanted, so he took her before worrying about the formalities of marriage. Hamor wanted to intermarry because he wanted to absorb Israel. If they intermarried, they would become one people and Israel’s possessions would be his. Hamor was motivated by greed, but it appears that Shechem was madly in love with Dinah. Jacob’s sons were deceitful and honestly cruel! Their plan for revenge was awful! They claimed they wanted the Hivites to be circumcised and set themselves apart like them. Shechem gladly obliged and he and his people went through this painful process. They basically temporarily disabled every man in the city for a few days. Simeon and Levi were sons of Leah and thus sisters of Dinah and I suspect they were the masterminds of this plan. They went in and killed every male in the city. God wanted the gentiles cleared from the land eventually, but that was not the motivation on Simeon and Levi. They did not kill the Hivites to keep from mixing with them. They killed them out of hatred for what was done to their sister. They plundered the city of Shechem taking everything, including their wives. This makes me wonder if they did intermarry after all. Either way, Jacob was well aware that the people in the land were not going to be very friendly anymore. But the brothers had a fierce devotion to their sister and they felt like their actions were justified.

Questions: Why was Dinah visiting the women of the land? Did Shechem truly love Dinah or was he just attracted to her? Was the only motivation of Simeon and Levi revenge for their sister? What did the other people in the land think of this incident? How did Leah react to this?

Lessons: We can learn from Simeon and Levi’s devotiong to their sister. While their reaction was way too much, we see how important their sister’s honor was and they were obviously willing to fight for her. Any males out there need to have this attitude for their sisters. In Song of Solomon we see that the beloved’s brothers were responsible for protecting their sister’s honor and purity. Women are treasures belonging to God. God entrusts them to their father and brothers for the beginning of her life and then entrusts the treasure to their husbands. Ultimately though they belong to God and as a male, our job is to keep that treasure safe for God. While this does not mean slaughtering a city for your sister, it does mean being active in her life and willing to fight for her.