Genesis 40:15, 41:14 - The Pit

The Pit of Despair

(For all those "Princess Bride" fans).

The word “dungeon” or “pit” (bor) is used twice in chapters 40-41 (40:15; 41:14). However, these are not the first instances of the word in Joseph’s narrative. More than that, it is a word and a metaphor that has come to characterize much of Joseph’s life experiences.

The narrator uses “dungeon” to describe the prison-like life experiences Joseph has been through so far. It is the same word used for the ‘pit’ into which his brothers threw him. Then, from this same pit, he was removed when he was sold into slavery (a different form of ‘prison’ or imprisonment, though not explicitly dealt with in this text). Arnold notes that “from the pit in Canaan, to Potiphar’s house, to this prison, Joseph is innocent and has been treated unjustly“(pg. 339). How ironic it is that the pit becomes a symbol of innocence in Joseph’s life.

Joseph would have to wait for his freedom for another “two whole years” after the cupbearer was released and given freedom. One day, however, Joseph is brought up from the pit and ushered into freedom. To be presentable before the king, he is shaved and exchanges his prison clothes for new ones. This symbolizes his new life and freedom from the prison. His old life of imprisonment was over; he is now starting a new life. Arnold notes that his transformation from “Hebrew slave and prisoner to clean-shaven Egyptian courtier” is an important distinction. It will come later in the narrative when Joseph’s brothers will not recognize him.

So that the title is not misleading, I don’t see any indication within the text that Joseph actually did despair at all in the pit in chapters 40-41. Given the prior knowledge that “the Lord was with” Joseph would be an indicator that he would not need to do so.

Genesis 39:5 - "The Blessing of the Lord"

Gen. 39:5

“The blessing of the Lord”

“…the blessing of the LORD was on all that he had, in house and field.”

Arnold briefly points out the “blessing of the Lord” is a subjective genitive. This means that the Lord is “the subject of the act of blessing others” (pg. 331). Another way to read this would be that Joseph receives ‘the Lord’s blessing.’ For Joseph, it can be understood that he receives from the Lord a variety blessings. But what does the blessing of the Lord mean? What does it include?

In verse five, it states that all Joseph “had” (both in house and in the field) received the blessing. Noticing this, apparently, Potiphar place everything he “had” under Joseph’s charge. As a result, Potiphar “had” no concerns because everything that Joseph “had” received the Lord’s blessing. As it says earlier in v. 5, “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” But what exactly is this blessing?

I think we are given the answer to “what” the blessing is at least indirectly in v. 2 – “The Lord was with Joseph.” It is the presence of the Lord himself that is the blessing. The “Lord’s blessing” is the Lord. What greater blessing could there be? The subject is the Lord, the word "blessing" is a noun (not a verb). So it must be a noun-something of the Lord. The evidence within these verses suggests the possible answer is the Lord's presence.

The first five verses follow this way: “The Lord was with Joseph” (verb, v. 2, v.3), “The Lord caused…” (verb, v. 3), “The Lord blessed…” (verb, v. 5a), and finally the culmination is “The Lord’s blessing was on all…” (noun, v. 5b). Whatever it may be that is blessed or whatever may be the result of the blessing is a result of the presence of the Lord with Joseph. This has later implications when the recurrence of the Lord's blessing, causing Joseph to prosper also in prison, to build his confidence in the Lord.

Genesis 32:22-32 - Peniel

Peniel

Arnold writes about the etiological interest of the author to explain why certain things are the way they are. This text specifically notes Peniel (or Penuel). He suggests that Peniel (and Mahanaim on the other side of the Jabbok River) defended the last likely crossing-point of the river. In 1 Kings 12:25, Penuel becomes a military outpost for Jeroboam I (cf. pg. 279).

Likely a redaction to fit Israel’s monotheism (cf. pg. 284), Jacob names the location “Peniel,” which literally called “the face of God.” This gives the reader the reason behind the name “Peniel” – because Jacob wrestled with “the face of God” there. Etiologically speaking, we may note a “defensive” thread at Peniel. Jacob wrestled and defended himself there, and later that location was to become a military outpost.

The fact it is recorded that Jacob “saw the face of God” and lived would have been miraculous to the first audience. It was a popular assumption of ancient culture that no one could see God and live. However, instead of death, Jacob gets a blessing. Jacob was at that location preparing to meet Esau face-to-face, fearing his death. In fact, it appears that he waited until the very last possible moment to cross the river of inevitability. Instead of death, however, he saw God’s face and yet lived! What a cause for celebration and remembrance! If God is for Jacob, who can be against him?

In this narrative, we see Jacob trying to take every human measure to appease and change the heart of his brother. What he didn’t know is that God’s plan was to change Jacob. He did not need to defend himself based on his own strength or cunning. Instead, he needed to trust the relentlessly saving God. So, to commemorate his new life (as Israel) and his seeing the face of God, he names the place Peniel. His last-resort, fear of death defense has been turned into a blessing whereby he saw God’s face and experienced new life.

Genesis 22 - The Akedah

[In Judaism, Genesis 22 traditionally is titled, "The Akedah," "The Binding (of Isaac)"; it is a particularly important text in Judaism and Islam, as well as in Christianity. (In the Quran, as you know, the binding is not of Isaac, but of Ishmael.) Because it is of such great importance, Genesis 22 will be the sole focus of our forum discussions this week.]

Rite of Initiation

Arnold refers to the argument that views Gen 22 in light of an ancient rite of initiation, which involves the symbolic killing of a child (Arnold, pg. 209). This is a very profound way of looking through cultural lenses into the Akedah. As Arnold notes, this is a very convincing viewpoint. It does, however, hold its limitations, which will not be discussed here. However, two thoughts came to my mind in reading this section:

First, students of leadership will be acquainted with the phrase that goes something like, “in leadership, it gets lonely at the top.” Perhaps this is the grass roots inspiration for the phrase. The binding and offering of Isaac was just as much for Abraham as it was for Isaac. Both needed this experience in order to grow and fulfill the plans God had for them. It was a means for them both to become the leaders God had intended. In this way, the two leaders, having satisfied the requirements of the initiation (so to speak), needed to part ways in order to each prosper. Their positions of leadership had changed dramatically. For Abraham, “his future rests only with the ‘voice’ he must follow” and not in his promised son (pg. 209). For Isaac, he now embarks on his own journey toward becoming a patriarch in his own right and “ancestral promises of his own (26:1-5)” (pg. 209).

Second, some of Arnold’s treatment of the Akedah dealt with the foreshadowing of Christ. From the wood on Isaac’s back, to the walk up the mountain, to his binding, and his being Abraham’s “only son,” there are certainly many connections that we can make today. My thinking in this same vein turns to Jesus’ words in Mark 10:29-30 (see also Matthew 19:29), “I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.” This verse reminds me of Abraham. God commanded him to “Go” in Gen 12:1, so he left his homeland. In 22:2, God (and the writer) uses the same word to go offer his son. In verse 19, we read that Abraham and Isaac part ways. After parting, God confirms the promise of Abraham that he will indeed be a father or many nations; that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars and sand. Abraham is surely blessed for his obedience.

Three Insights from Genesis 12:1, 15:1, and 17:1

12:1 – “The Lord said to Abram” marks the beginning of divine speech.  This is God’s word to Abram that is designed to grasp a hold of our attention and take notes. This should be true of anytime God speaks, but this certainly held a special bookmark for writer’s audience. God’s command to Abram is to “Go.” He is to leave three things (collectively understood to mean ‘homeland’), and to go to one thing: “The land that I will show you.”

As Arnold notes, this is the “first of several lexical links between Gen 12 and 22, the first and last times Yahweh speaks to Abaram” (pg. 130). These “bookend” chapters serve to tell the story of Abraham to show the importance of “divine command followed by radical obedience” (pg. 130). The life and legacy of Abraham reveal the faithfulness of God. God’s plan is to create a new “family,” a new “household.” The obedience and dependence of Abram to “go” makes possible the fulfilling of God’s promise.

15:1 – “The word of the Lord came to Abram….” Arnold notes how this phrase is used in prophetic literature and is only found here in all the Pentateuch. He then describes the intent to show Abram as a prophet. I have never thought about Abram/Abraham as a prophet, but Arnold draws some very interesting (and convincing) connections. Again, Arnold notes that God’s words to Abram are prophetic because they are not only just for him, but for his promised children, and the whole nation of Israel.

Prophecy is understood in a dual sense of both saving and judging. I think the vision given to Abram includes both elements. I would suggest:

God says to him, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield, your very great reward.” The shield is a defensive weapon and is understood metaphorically for protection (saving?). God says he is a “very great reward.” The reward for Abram’s faithfulness and obedience is the fulfilling of the promises of God.

A reward is given to those who faithfully and obediently fulfill some type of expectation. The converse of reward is punishment…or judgment. Therefore, I don’t think it is too far of a stretch to see the prophetic within this verse. In fact, looking at the verse this way gives more strength to Arnold, who has little to say in regard to “reward.”

17:1 – The opening verse of chapter 17 is an extremely important verse. It reveals much about the nature and character of God as well as His expectations for those who would follow after Him. As Arnold notes, the writer opens this chapter by referring to God as “Yahweh.” This makes the point that the same God who revealed Himself to Moses and the Israelites at the giving of the covenant is the same covenant-making God with Abram. God is revealing Himself to Abraham as He similarly was revealed to Moses. Arnold says that God is “pulling back the curtain on himself as it were, allowing himself – even presenting himself – in theophanic certainty. How does God reveal himself to Abram? As El Shadday, “God Almighty.” Here, we see the connection between Yahweh and El Shadday is the same God of the Israelites, the covenants, and all of Israel’s ancestors. “God Almighty” was a special revelatory name understood by Israel’s early ancestors and Yahweh is God’s revealing name about Himself to the Israelites. The writer connects them here, signifying God’s nature and identity.

Putting the writer’s and God’s words together to make Yahweh, God Almighty, is helpful in communicating and understanding the majesty and transcendence of God. (This is only a helpful insight; nothing more.) It gives Abram assurance of God’s promises and covenant. Thus, how God reveals himself to Abram is almost as important as the mandate (imperative) that is given to him.  God says, “walk before me, and be blameless” (v. 1). What else should we expect from such a Holy God? That God would say ‘walk blamelessly before me’ (pg. 169) seems a minimal expectation for Yahweh, God Almighty. Yet, El Shadday demands that we live our lives characterized by “unobjectionable acceptability” (pg. 169). In this way, we constantly live for God by gratefully (and graciously) accepting His will while maintaining the highest integrity with how we conduct ourselves. I believe this establishes a precedent in scripture. I don’t believe this was imperative meant just for Abram/Abraham, but for all of Abraham’s descendents and all who would become believers.

Genesis 11:8-9

Gen. 11:8-9

I wonder if it may be beneficial to note a few similarities between God splitting up humanity and the animals after the flood (Gen. 9:2) and the dispersing of humanity at the tower of Babel. Ultimately, in both situations, God had the best in mind for all parties. It is out of His grace that He causes division.

In causing “fear and dread” among the animal kingdom, God separates Noah from the animals he and his family have been taking care of for the past year. In my speculation, this may be a protection against complacency and dependence of the animals upon the humans (as in domestication). So God causes a division among them so that both may be able to fulfill their original blessings in Gen. 1.

The scattering at the tower of Babel sneaks of some similarities, I think. Here, God confounds/confuses the language of the builders, which causes division among them. This is out of grace that God does this. For sure, without such a gracious action humanity would again find itself in a Gen. 6:1-2 scenario. With such pride (hubris), nothing would stop humanity. Therefore, God confounds their language and scatters them. Dr. Coleson notes the repeating of the adverb “there” twice in verse 9, “because there Yahweh confused the speech of all the earth, and from there Yahweh dispersed them across the face of all the earth” (Coleson, pg. 294). Similarly, as God caused a protective separation of humanity and animals, here God is protectively separating humanity from itself. In fact, by doing this God is further enabling humanity to fulfill His blessings to Noah and his sons instructed at the departure of the Ark.

Coleson also notes that “the place that generation had refused to leave became the place to which most of them never again returned” (Coleson, pg. 294). Perhaps we can take into consideration that the speculation of God dividing humanity and animals after the flood was to protect the animal kingdom from complacency. Perhaps, then, we may be able to draw a line here to show that similarly God is protecting humanity from such a similar complacency within itself. Perhaps humanity would become too proud and contented with its own existence that it would once again push God out into the margins.

Genesis 2:7 - 'enzer kenegdo

“The adam first needed to learn what could not be ‘ezer kenegdo in relation to him…” (Coleson, 103). I am finally justified before my wife regarding why I need to find every other solution to a problem other than her suggestion! Apparently, it is a design issue with how men are created! All kidding aside – and to the best of my knowledge I have never actually experienced the aforementioned scenario – it is very interesting to consider the reasoning behind God’s actions. I do have difficulty in deciding whether or not to take into consideration all my beliefs, biases, and science behind the study of male thinking, processing, etc. I’m not sure whether to think if that has any validity prior to the fall or not…or whether it matters at all. Developmental theories and social sciences have had a lot of good to say about why and how people act the way they do. On the other hand, they are not God.

 In Genesis 2, we see God bringing all the animals before the lone adam, yet nothing suitable was found. Dr. Coleson points out that adam needed to first experience aloneness and all the things that were not ‘ezer kenegdo, before he could fully appreciate who it was. In order to fully appreciate the presence of another, it was necessary for the lone human to experience solitude (Coleson, 102). In order to fully appreciate the one who was a perfect match, adam needed to experience all the things that were not a match.

Leaving the sciences behind and dealing with the text itself, it is apparent that God had a plan, a method, and a purpose for doing those things He did. That should brings us a great deal of comfort and confidence. From this story we see an extension of the grand creation picture that God can take something where there is a void, fill it, bless it, and call it good.

---

What is the premise? God knew all along who would be adam’s created equal.  God knew because God had it all planned out. Adam needed to fully experience God’s plan. To me, verse 20 stands out from among the surrounding verses. Before I read the commentary, this verse sparked my interest and I was glad that it confirmed my suspicions about the reading of verse 20 of adam as the better subject. Surrounding this verse, there is a picture of God’s activity surrounding adam. In verse 18, in fact, God tells us that He will make the ‘ezer kenedgo. Whether or not adam knew is a different story, but we see later that it is not likely that adam knew. Again, though, in verse 19, God is credited with the creation of ‘forming’ and takes the initiative to bring the creation to adam. In verse 20, however, the subject changes and adam is credited with as the subject of activity. I get the sense from 20b that adam was actively looking for the satisfaction of his aloneness with each animal. That none was his equal is significant in the plan of God. Then, verse 21 picks up immediately with the activity of God to report His planned solution to this dilemma.

From these short verses, we can clearly see that God’s plan was to create an equal of, for, and with adam. Again, we see that the plan of God has a process and organization. We know that this plan is going to be for adam’s benefit and blessing (being prefaced by six “good’s” and one “very good”). What started out as being incomplete would soon be made complete.

This should serve as a reminder that God can and should be trusted when we don’t understand the process. I’m not suggesting adam doubted, especially since I don’t think that is evidenced in the text. What is in the text is that we are surrounded by the activity of God – God who is not distant; rather, intimately connected to and concerned about every aspect of our lives.

1.) Is it significant that the narrator also used the verb yatsar ("form/fashion/sculpt") in v 19, as well as here in v 7?

It is certainly significant. This parallelism shows us several things to consider. First, and most obvious, it shows our connectedness to sharing the ground with the animals as part of the earth of God’s creating. It is a tri-symbiotic relationship of sorts – earth, animals, humanity. There must be a delicate balance maintained between these. By using yatsar, the writer is helping to show we are co-created from God, from the earth.

The word yatsar also connotes the formation of clay on a potter’s wheel. We know from before (Gen. 1:26-7) that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God. In this way, we have been specially and specifically sculptured. Though we may share the potter’s wheel, no other creation was “formed” in God’s likeness nor given His breath. In this way, yatsar shows both commonality and distinctiveness, but I think it is more so to show our distinctiveness. Arnold notes that “Yahweh God” is designated as forming. In one way this speaks against Near Eastern theology, but on the other hand it is to display the importance of humanity as the climax of God’s creation story; which as he says is  “more powerfully and philosophically stated than any others” (Arnold, 57). So, yatsar should give us pause to consider that we are “remarkably and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Another parallel is where the forming comes from. We are formed from the ground –the clay. What is more important to note than just the clay in common is the connotation of how God formed us from the clay. Arnold speaks in regard to the careful creativity of humanity. He says that being formed as a living being means that we are “far from a divine afterthought” (Arnold, 58). We have been created with divine purpose.

Additionally, in verse 7, we read where God “formed” the adam (singular). In verse 19 we read the past perfect tense where God previously “had formed” animal life. Pages 103-4 of the commentary bring a salient point to light where this parallelism helps move us forward to God’s yet-to-be fulfilled conclusion. The result is to cause us to look forward to the “I will make…” of the ‘ezer kenegdo where we see God’s plan being fulfilled.

Therefore, it would seem that the use of yatsar is multi-purpose. It shows our connectedness with animals by being co-created from the ground. It shows our mutual connectedness to God, but even more it shows our distinct relationship with Him. It also shows that humanity is, ultimately, made for each other. God’s plan is for the adam and the ‘ezer kenegdo to delight in each other, in His creation, and in special relationship with Him. That’s a lot from one word!