Chapter 1,2: Creation of the Universe and Man

I have discussed the literality/non-literality here: Creation Account- Literal or Metaphor?. The creation of humans is towards the end of this passage:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply…” (RSV)

And then again in Chapter 5:
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. ² Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.“

The derivation of the name of Adam is interesting. I’ve presented the RSV translation which is more literal, while the NRSV uses “humankind” instead of just man, which is the understandable implication where the very next line implies this in “male and female he created them”. Thus if the first “adam” did not signify “mankind/humankind” rather than just Adam himself, then that phrase would be out of sync with the second clause “male and female he created them”. The first “Adam” is therefore probably taken as a collective noun.

The layers of obscurity is increased in that “Adam” is really the word for the earth (adamah) from which Adam is formed, which comes to be Adam’s first name, used throughout the rest of the Bible as well as “mankind” in these passages. We see that God himself “named them Adam” in 5:2. However I am not aware that Adam is used as a collective in Hebrew usage for mankind. But this interchangeability can be seen in the first three verses of chapter 5, where English translators have to move from Adam in verse 1 to “humankind” in the next verse then again bck to Adam for the genealogies. Either that, or I guess it can be argued that it is “Adam” throughout, especially when one considers that Adam does not persist as a collective noun for humanity elsewhere. The point of using Adam in the latter case should not be taken as an attempt to exclude women because this is not the sense of the verses, rather it is merely being used as representative for both “male and female he created them”.

Where we come to the passage about Adam calling his wife it is “ish” for man and “isha” for woman, the Hebrew terms for those. “23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones; and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman,[b] because she was taken out of Man.”[c]” (2:23 RSV). Eventually “The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.”. So we can visualize Adam looking at his wife and surmizing “Hm…she will be the mother of all the living…”, which is quite an insight, if you think about it. Eve is from the Hebrew Havah which is from the root for living.

The NETBIble states: “The Hebrew word is אָדָם (ʾadam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ (אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.”

The first five chapters of Genesis is the story of our creation and who we are. We can see that it is an extremely loving and honored creation. There is no attempt to denigrate or intimidate us. Though we are creatures, we are not created as caricatures, rather as children, for is it not the children that bear the image of their parents? How could the Image-bearers of God not be also his children, indeed that is the reason we were created, if there ever was one, that is was God’s good pleasure to have sons and daughters.

And so are called to love each other because, we are all made in that Image, not as servants or slaves but sons and daughters of God, and thus brothers and sisters ourselves. God loves us sacrificially as being willing and able to give himself for our sake. As a result we can define the human person from this, as that which possesses the dignity of bearing the image of the Deity and the emotional value of being it’s child, while the Deity is that which was generous enough to create beings to bear his own exalted Image, and to love them in giving himself for them. This is that from which originates the moral dimension in the Universe- a Deity of Love that creates in Love, it is not a morally ambivalent event.

At the same time we have what is for me, the most scary passage of the Bible – “sin is waiting at your door, his desire is for you”, the witch in Hansel in Gretel peering hugrily through the sugar candy- gingerbread windows. What was the sin of Kane? In having his offerings rejected, Kane suffered no loss, other than the loss of pride. This is the same in the case sf his parents “you shall be like Gods”– they too gained nothing from eating the tree, for all of Paradise of lain open to them already.

Terah’s sons were Abram, Nahor and Haran. Haran died, and Nahor marries Haran’s daughter (Nahor’s niece). Lot is Haran’s son and therefore Abram’s nephew.

Chapter 3: The Fall

The Story of Sin

The story of sin and the fall is one of the most specatular renditions in the entire Bible and so inspite of all the ancient conceptualizations of cosmology that don’t really hold up to modern science, I am always astounded at the sophisticated moral theology in the very first pages of the Bible among these arcane sounding scenes, hidden in the dialogue between the characters. This of course is the Garden of Eden story. I can hardly overstate the import of this, and the theology of marriage is not only central to Pope John Paul II in his magisterial “Theology of the Body” which has been a major influence to myself an many others, but is also utilised by Jesus himself in the only place that he teaches about marriage.

The story begins with the “crafty” serpent questioning the law of God, at a time when that entire law was no more than a single sentence: “And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (2:16,17). Clearly in the innocence of love, there is no other necessary law, because all else flows from it (Mt.7:12; 1Cor.13;1-30. That law is really a law against pride, because it cannot be a law against greed, since if the Garden is truly a Paradise, then it is hard to see a context for green with only a single representative of each sex, and two of the entire species. The serpent introduces pride “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (3:4,5). Thus this is an intellectual pride, that of not desiring a state when wherein God’s moral judgement might overrule one’s own. It’s devil’s plan of introducing moral relativity. Of course from the devil’s perspective even he is not evil, he’s simply relativised morality so that the question has lost it’s relevance with respect to him.

Next we are told of the things that draw us into this pride (3:6) – firstly, utility or expediency: “good for food”, second being aesthetic appeal “pleasing to the eyes” (cf.1Jn.2:16 “lust of the eyes/ lust of the flesh”), and thirdly intellectual pride: “desired to make one wise” (cf.1Jn.2:16 “boastful pride of life”). The incredible thing is that the woman makes the initial choice to eat and then “also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate” (3:6), rather than an indictment of woman, this seems a pertinent psychoanalysis of the sexes wherein the woman’s motivation is more of a “nest-building” variety, one that in a sinful state might be accomplished at the expense of the nests of others, while for the man the motivation is the woman herself. The sin that might accompany the acquisition of a mate is a secondary consideration. The man’s weakness is the woman, the woman’s weakness if the nest, and the serpent knowing this, being crafty as it is, exploits it in that order “he said to the woman” (3:1). The immediate fallout is sin.

It is salient here that God indeed expresses his clear intention for marriage so early in the narrative. Let us examine for example Genesis 2:24-25: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” These verses contain the first marriage of man “..he clings to this wife”, its meaning: “for this reason…” and the statement of its indissolubility “..they become one flesh..”. It is the state of what has been called “Original Innocence” that makes this possible “…they were naked, yet not ashamed”.

When Eve is created from one of his ribs, Adam exults joyously “At last! This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones” He rejoices in this oneness as a mother or father would exult in adoration of their newborn child of their loins, that is in a non-competitive manner. To divorce one’s wife it seems in God’s eyes, would in a sense be akin to divorcing one’s child or one’s mother- one’s “flesh of flesh, bones of bones!”

Thus when we see two unmarried persons have children today, we are left with a curious situation: the parents are related to their children, yet remain ostensibly unrelated to each other since they have not affirmed any bond yet. Adam could deny if he chose, his love for Eve, but not his bond with her. There are two relationships that God has taken care to lay down in His very first words to us: our relationship with Him and with our spouse, and both are stated in no uncertain terms and in plain sight in the undefiled earthly Paradise. If there is any purpose indeed of this story of man in his unsullied state, it for an emamination and example of these two.

Because it is the closest relationship, it fulfils the work of the kind that most closely mirrors and participates in the creative work of God. God has specifically sanctified it and it is the work of the rest of the community “humanity” through their very relationships to protect it. In this, the preservation of the family as its primary goal, do all other societal units whether local councils or national and international policy makers find their purpose. Humanity finds salvation, by finding that it is really a family. Thus the fruits of marriage and the relevance of this discussion on it extend way beyond the married couple, enveloping the whole world for thus is explained the principles of human relationships and human sociology.

By negating the lust of women other than the wife the devil’s entire design with the cycle of marital jealousy that leads to extra-marital adultery is negated. Along with that is largely eradicated the cycle of children born in broken homes or abandoned by their parents with the resultant psychological trauma, cycle of rape and incest so on and so forth. It is hard to overstate the moral import of having strong family values, even while at the same time it is hard to fully describe as we have lost that view of original innocence. Along with this the possibility of competitivenss between famlies and family units that is the reason for the other problems which humanity faces, and the devils plans in thsi regard, are negated by the knowledge of our dignity before God.

God’s plan is to nurture babies, by the nurturing of families, and the responsibility for this is placed upon all of society, as part of the family of humanity. The responsibility of the care of the weakest members is placed upon the strongest members to use or abuse, and this is Free Will that brings Heaven or Hell as reward.  But herein lies the key to Eternity: not at the bottom of some ocean whirlpool, nor at the top of some snow-topped peak nor upon a distant star. It’s only in some of the very first words of the Bible.

Shame vis a vis the Joy of Sexual Union

Is the best time of one’s life, the time that one is courted, when intentions always seem to be declared as pure, unconditional and eternal? Does anyone remember what it was like for someone to have a girlfriend, or even enjoy the attentions of the other sex when in school? The individual was instantly propelled to the status of a demi-god among his peers. The only appropriate emotion toward such an individual would be envy. Having a girlfriend, at least from the perspective of those who did not, (like myself!) would be like having as one’s acquaintance a famous actor or footballer, or having a superhero for a dad. In the insecurity of adolescence, one’s entire instinct is trained inward, on how one is perceived by the external world. The addition of a girlfriend therefore considerably elevates that perception. Slights to this mental image of how one is viewed by the world can be devastating in the teenage years and this is why cyber-trolling and revenge-porn can lead to suicide, though it would have far lesser effect in the adult years. Was there not a time in your life when you would give everything that you had just to have a girl by your side? You would readily accept a girl’s friendship even if there was no possibility of sex. This ethereal state of innocence can be hard even to remember or acknowledge precisely because it is likely to have been terribly brief and increasingly distant.

”…his or her reduction to a mere “object for me”, should mark exactly the beginning of shame” (TOB 17:3). “Your desire shall be for you husband, but he will dominate you”… For the first time the man is defined here as “husband”…30:3 after the breaking of the original covenant with God, man and woman did not find themselves united with each other, but more divided or even set against each other because of their masculinity and femininity …they are no longer called to only union and unity; but are also threatened by the insatiability of that union and unity, which does not cease to attract man and woman precisely because they are persons, called from eternity to exist in “communion”…” (TOB 30:5)

“…Adam’s words in Genesis 3:10 “I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” seem to express the awareness of being defenseless, and the sense of insecurity about his somatic structure in the face of the processes of nature that operate with an inevitable determination.

Concupiscence also casts doubt on the fact that each of them is willed by the Creator “for himself”. The subjectivity of the person gives way in some sense to the objectivity of the body. TOB 32:6

Certainly one should not look at sex purely as a means of procuring this pleasure, for sex forms forms an intricate part of the tapestry of human life and relations at various levels, only one of which can be said to be sensual pleasure. We are well aware that the pursuit of any human desire in exclusion of its harmful effects is detrimental, and the same goes for sex, however much we might wish this were not the case. There is one way in which to derive benefit from your food, and this is a “balanced diet”, so similarly there is one way to derive benefit and pleasure from sex, and this is what we must discover.

What then is the pleasure of sex? Why its everything I’ve described in Part I. The Joy of sex is that thing which the Joy of Sex video doesn’t tell you: love. How can it be otherwise, could the joy of a loving act not be related to loving and being loved? There are those that reject the Church’s teaching because they think that they will have less sex for it, an erroneous assumption based on some vague largely male premise that individual happiness increases in direct proportion to the availability of sex.

In the sexual act one’s body is given not just as a gift, but as a treasure; for a gift is given, but a treasure is entrusted. The joy of sex then is the knowledge of being treasured. One feels truly treasured when one can close one’s eyes and feel one’s entire life cared for, and not just the next few minutes. The entire body language of the sexual act assents to this, and rejoices in the pleasure of it. As one runs one fingers over a new set of jewels, lays on the grass in one’s new house or as a footballer or tennis player dances when they hold aloft a trophy, so also is the sexual act a dance of ecstasy-the joy of treasuring and of being treasured.

Much more than merely trading pleasures, sex means entering into the life of the other person. This is what the daily routine of married life consists of anyway, and it is in a sense ritualized and thereby reinforced in the sexual act, just as it is in a kiss or in the holding of hands, or in an arm around the shoulders, or a pat on the bottom. Or like the New Zealand All-Blacks doing the Haka before a game. The sexual act is a sensual expression of affection for one’s spouse that is pleasurable. The pleasure is derived from the heightened realization of mutual affection and not merely from friction of the act.

Can one experience beauty and love without sex? Of course, the strongest human bonds, like that of a mother and child is completely non-sexual as are those with one’s father and siblings. In fact the love of a sexual partner is probably the weakest human bond. It requires constant maintenance, frivolous spending, lip-service, sexual acts, and inspite of this, has a 50% failure rate! So its a complete misconception that sex produces the strongest human bonding in and of itself, one mainly given rise to by popular music and literature. But one rarely finds the need to serenade their own mother and father, apart from on the quarter-century anniversaries!

If sex cannot provide love, then what is it that can increase the love in a relationship. It is spirituality, that is growing closer to God, because only Jesus brings love. The thing that you get in the absence of this is nothing but “emotional bonding”, which is more or less taken as the definition in love for the purpose of research papers. Without God all one achieves is “laboratory love”. Further, children freely received enhance the love in a relationship as does the mutual and lifelong commitment to love and respect each other’s families.

However if you read the questions being asked of the agony aunts, it is never ‘teach me to love him more’. If it was, then all the aunt would have to say would be ‘learn from Jesus’. Usually when a partner realizes they are not in love, they are advised head for the door, not open one’s Bible. Sex does NOT remedy relationships.

Sex is a nuptial act of total mutual self-giving, in the presence of God. The presence of God much more than embarrassing, is guaranteed. There is an adage that men want power so that they can get sex, while women give sex so that they can get power. God seems to have made woman infinitely enticing to man who always has sex on his mind as an end, never power. He has made power infinitely enticing to women, who never has sex on her mind as an end, but power. Both pursuits are pleasure-seeking.

In a Christian marriage, man and women are called to curb these concupiscent instincts. Man must limit sex to a single woman for his whole life, cannot substitute her for an imaginary mistress, or perform a sexual act in the absence of a woman. The truth is that affection cannot be summoned up out of the void. Love cannot be found anywhere but at the Font of Love which is God.  Commitment is a road that will lead a believer certainly to Heaven, but will also enable an Atheist to escape the deleterious effects of antagonizing his basic instincts. Contrary to popularly held belief, man’s basic instinct is not sex.

In fact apart from perverted humans, there is no animal whose basic purpose is sex. Man’s basic instinct is love and sacrifice. He cannot help it whether he is theist or atheist. God has put it there, right in his hormones. The pleasure of sex is related to the sexual act. The joy of sex is the care and love expressed in that most vulnerable moment, right after the act- the loving embrace, which can only last longer the more a couple is in love.

For everyone who has a sex-life, is there not the frustration that it is not as good as he thought it would be in his head? Or that the partner does not look more like someone else, or that they are not available to them when expected, or often enough? Or that they do not love them enough? The answer to all of these you can see, is love. Sexual frustrations are not caused by the absence of sex in one’s life, but the absence of love in one’s sex.

Love in one’s life is really the remedy for every frustration, not just that of the sexual type but also the existential type. In fact love prevents one from viewing life as the frustrating and impossible search for fulfilling sex, or sex that matches up to impossible expectations. The absence of love is the frustration of life.

Sensuality and emotionality are both enjoyable to human beings. But sensuality is not necessarily enjoyable without the attendant emotions, while emotions might be enjoyable yet in the absence of sex. A prisoner can experience the joy of the news of freedom though he be yet in a dank dungeon. On the contrary, every sensual pleasure is empty in the absence of love. This is why a condemned man cannot be said to really enjoy his last meal. Is the gratification of sex really linked to the pleasure of the act just consummated?

Any such gratification only lasts so long as the act is being consummated. This very act which then lives and is hidden away carefully in the memory as a cherished treasure to be pulled out in quiet moments and admired gloatingly, is sullied, and decayed and distorted when to it is added any of angst, disrespect, malice or plain rejection and disinterestedness. At least that necklace set you keep pulling out to admire cannot hate you even though it fade.

The pleasure of sex is the joy of one’s flesh being cherished, and with it the joy of being cherished themselves, if only for that moment. It is in that moment the spouse looks beyond all perceived physical blemishes and personal resentment, and everything is pushed aside for only those few moments when words are no longer required. In fact the successful completion of the sexual act from the point of arousal demands that such perceptions and resentments are banished if just for those moments, and all one’s being is focussed upon the beauty of the person for what and who they are.

The pleasure felt of hormones and the rush of the orgasm is only secondary to this felt conviction. It’s why you will hear persons in one-night stands swearing undying love and affection, or at least trying to make the person feel special even if is it empty promises. This is why sex pursued apart from the above, results in guilt and resentment, that of the guilt and resentment of having cherished, and being cherished for the sake of the flesh alone. There is exactly as much emotional pleasure in that than as a cut of top rump might feel at your local mall. The entire body language of the sexual act is one of rapturous love. The mind cannot lie to the body, excepts in the intentional dissociation which is to be found in the performing arts. 

That which is most desirable and even beguiling in the weaker sex is its very weakness and vulnerability. The male protective instinct makes him yearn to throw his arms and wrap himself around such a fragile and timorous flower. This is the very thing that is violated by the use of force, and lost to the abuser of it. Thus the most powerful authoritarian regimes could obtain little sexual pleasure from their conquests, because they destroy the beauty in the which is their very vitality which they cherish. The joy of family can be only obtained in one way, that is within that very family. Any violent use of power in the sexual relations is a frustrated and infuriated attempt to quell the fire of man’s desire for a family by destroying its very source: the family again.

Original Sin

This can be a confusing issue, and I’ve discussed it here Original Sin

Chapter 6- 10: Story of Noah

I’ve discussed the flood account here The Flood Account and other “unlikely” incidents,

and the Nephilim Nephilim and “sons of God”- Who are they?

Chapter 11: The Tower of Babel

[There are some key verses here in Gen 11: #4: …let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” and the Lord says “this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”

The message of the tower of Babel for me (you might disagree), is how it is relevant in the world today, when we are, through the dissemination of technology, literally tampering with the machinery of life in our genetic research and experimentation much of which crosses the fine line of what can be considered ethical, for example with surrogacy, designer babies, cloning, animal-human chimeras and the like. Personally i would think this is the time either for another “Tower of Babel moment”, or for the end. But no one knows the Hour, so we carry on as usual.

Also this gives us an insight perhaps as to why God allows the strife that exists between nations. If all the world worked together as one in scientific research and the free exchange of technology, we would probably create more problems for ourselves. God does not create the strife, but this is to show how everything has its purpose, if that makes sense.

Note from 10:11 the descendants of Canaan are some of the destroyed nations, in keeping with the curse: Sidon, Sodom, Gomorrah, Canaan itself, the Hivites…

Here we see Melchi-Tsadiq, Melech Shalem- Translated literally it comes out as “King of Righteousness, King of Peace”. “Meleck” (like the Muslim name Malik) is king, and Tsadiq, (like the Muslim name Sadiq, or Siddiqui) is righteousness. It is also the first time el-Elyon is mentioned. Melkhizedek is King of Salem and High Priest of El- Elyon, translated as “God most High”.
Although we do not know the exact derivation of this name

Here Yahweh says to Abraham “I am El-Shaddai” translated as the Almighty, though the derivation of this seems uncertain. “Walk before me and be blameless” is the command God gives him. God’s covenant marked by male circumcision and will be fulfilled through Isaac, not Ishmael.

תָּמִים, this is “blameless” – “Tamin”. before this Noah is called “righteous and blameless” Tsadiq and Tamim (Gen 6:4). Following from here, “tamim” occurs 91 times, usually in relation to the lamb for the sacrifice “without blemish”- tamim

Also a note about the Melchizedech story: Melchizedek the King of RIghteousness, King of Peace, brings offerings of bread and wine. Psalm 110 states “You are are priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” referring to Jesus. Finally in Hebrews it states “Melchizedek, without beginning and without end…”

and without genealogy… its hard to know why St Paul is stating this other than that this is a reference to Jesus and the Eucharist, and Jesus’ priestly sacrifice

I couldn’t help reading the next chapter as well, just to try and understand whats going on between Jacob and Labaan. Remember already we are struggling with Jacob’s character, because he seems to have deceived Esau. But at the same time he is doing what his mother advised, and further, when Isaac finds out, he does not withdraw his blessing. So something is going on here at a higher level, than just petty politics. We all know that a blessing if got through deceipt will rather incur a curse, but Isaac does not curse Jacob, he’ snot even cross with him, rather he says “…and blessed he shall be”, he doubles down on the blessing.

further Esau has already sold his birthright to Jacob when he offered him the broth, so it was not his to keep anyway, nor should he have been angry as he was with a murderous hatred.

As for the story of Jacob and Laban, its hugely impressive that Jacob works for him for a full 14 years just for his love of Rachel, and then a further years in his employ. In the next chapter he recounts all that he endured and it seems that Laban has not really been a fair employer. As a result the angel of the Lord appears to Jacob in a dream and advises him regarding the “animal husbandry” that he is about to venture on, in order to strengthen his own position at the cost of Laban. It’s cunning, but Laban has incurring the disfavour of God in this regard. That’s how I see it anyway. Praise the Lord. Its obviously useful to have the right impression of Jacob, because, after all, he is Israel. “he who struggled with God”, is in a sense, I would take as reflective of our own spiritual journeying, where a part of us is always struggling with decisions, and we are always battling spiritual lethargy. If we place ourselves in God’s hands through Faith, God always wins. Which is a good thing

Chapter 34

[11:43 am, 02/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: this is a really emotional, sad and confusing story, its difficult to know how to analyse it
[11:46 am, 02/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: as we know later on it is given in the Law of Moses, that one who forcibly lays with a woman must then also marry her and assume responsibility for her. One can only assume that in the context of that ancient society, this would be the best option, as aggravating as it seems. It seeks to prevent the woman from becoming destitute, one would think.
[0:39 pm, 02/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: I think in those days “love” between the sexes is seen as a man “desiring” a woman, and that desire is synonymous with him, provided there being no obstacles, to making that woman his wife, and the same possibly with another few women, and then actually being responsible for them and their children. From the woman’s part it would require the father’s permission. I am not aware of any clear examples in the Bible of a woman’s choice in all this (I assume she could convey her thoughts to her father, of course). But if a man forcibly lays with a woman, the subsequent course of events is still the same.
[0:39 pm, 02/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: So its really difficult no doubt, but contrast that with today, a man can consensually lay with a woman, and then leave her to raise the child, with little personal responsibility. In developed countries they would have to pay maintenance, but that’s just throwing money at the issue, as though it were an adequate substitute. We’ll come to all of this in Deuteronomy, of course

Chapter 35

[8:39 am, 05/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Here we see that prostitution “seems” to be looked down upon by Isaac’s clan while at the same time it goes on in the city. Tamar wants what every woman at the time wanted- a husband and children. It seems she feels betrayed when Judah does not give her his son as he had promised, and tries to find a route out of her predicament. She achieves her objective of bearing children by this extreme method, something Judah’s owns son’s could not give her, which again was seemingly was a result of their sinful ways. It is hard to judge Judah’s character, but he seems at the best- average. Perez, Tamar’s son by Judah will be in the genealogy of Jesus himself, as is of course, Tamar.
[8:51 am, 05/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: The incredible thing about Joseph’s dream is this: Joseph simply states his dream, there is nothing in the narrative that leads us to believe that he is being pompous. I’ve always felt like he is just telling what he saw to the persons that he trusts the most, his father and his older brothers. Israel is taken aback at first, but we see that later on that he “kept the matter in mind”, which immediately reminds one of Mother Mary, who “pondered these things in her heart”, of her Son who was her Lord. This is obviously the attitude of obedience that we are all called to adopt when we are faced with teachings that come from the authority of God that we might find difficult to instil in our lives. What is incredible about the story is that it is in the fulfilment of this dream that the lives of Joseph’s brothers, his parents and the nations are saved. Submitting to God’s authority in our lives might seem difficult and it saves our lives too. Its hardly surprising that we should find it difficult, since saving a life does not come easy. Submitting to Joseph was difficult for this brothers and father to swallow and it saved them. And joy comes in the morning. Praise be to God.

Chapter 39

[0:41 pm, 06/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Biblehub has a beautiful word study on Chesed (a throaty “Kh” sound, with a lot of “H” in it, so its also written as Hesed), which shows how the Psalms are suffused with this word. It does not just signify “love”, which as we know can be a number of things in English, like the “love you to bits” we keep hearing of in casual conversation, which really is just describing an emotional state. Rather here it is a specific love of “family”, the covenantal love of God by which he confers upon us the greatest honour of all- that of being called by his family Name, as it says in Ephesians 3:15 “from for this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name”.
[0:43 pm, 06/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: God’s promise to Abraham, remember, is not just the one that is easily remembered that his descendants will be as “numerous as the stars” or “as the grains of sand..”, but that “I will be their God” (v.17:8). Abraham’s descendants will be the family of God.
[0:56 pm, 06/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: And God confirms that his covenant will be fulfilled through Isaac, not Ishmael ““And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year”(Genesis 17:20-21).”
[0:56 pm, 06/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: and “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars — if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be”(Genesis 15:4-5).”
[0:58 pm, 06/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: I brought this up because its in the passage from today 39:21, of how God shows his love for Joseph.

Chapter 41

[5:01 pm, 09/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Just a few notes regarding Ch.41. Sorry skipped a day, am on night shifts this week, so just a bit up-side down! 41:16, Joseph says “it is not I, God (Elohim) will give Pharaoh a favourable answer”. In v.38 Pharaoh calls Joseph “One in whom is the spirit of God (Ruach Elohim)”. Also note that Joseph’s sons, who will be the heads of two of the great tribes of Israel, are borne of an Egyptian woman, Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. We see this name one more time in a list in Ch. 46, and then no more. So the 12th tribe of Israel, that of Joseph is divided into Manasseh and Ephraim, the so-called “half-tribes”. God bless you all abundantly.
[5:23 pm, 09/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Oh, finally let us just note how “all the world” came to Joseph, twice in v.57, and its the same words “kal ha-eretz”, which is a singular noun, which is why “world” is a good translation, rather than “nations” or “lands”. Perhaps “land” or “earth” can also be used. I mention this to compare with the Flood narrative where the same word is used, and also just lends credence to the possible interpretation of a local Flood. Just to put that out there 🙂
[5:37 pm, 09/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: and let us note how Joseph’s life parallels that of Daniel, the other great interpreter of dreams, and both of whom are steadfastly faithful to God who abundantly showers his favours and protection upon them. The slight difference in the Daniel, and something that I love, is that Daniel not only interprets Pharaoh’s dream, but also tells Pharaoh his dream! We also see Joseph has a strong moral compass when he with complete strength of resolve and self-mastery rejects the advances of Potipher’s wife, stating that he is not to “sin” against God (חָטָא) by thus betraying his master.

42

This is a beautiful sequence here, in case you missed it: “21 They said to one another, “Alas, we are paying the penalty for what we did to our brother; we saw his anguish when he pleaded with us, but we would not listen. That is why this anguish has come upon us.” 22 Then Reuben answered them, “Did I not tell you not to wrong the boy? But you would not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood.” 23 They did not know that Joseph understood them, since he spoke with them through an interpreter. 24 He turned away from them and wept; then he returned and spoke to them. And he picked out Simeon and had him bound before their eyes. 25 “

Chapter 43,44

[10:00 am, 12/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: You can see that Reuben is the one who tries to save Joseph, and even now, in Ch.43, he is rebuking the brothers for their fault. At the time he had returned to the well to remove Joseph from it but not found him there, because his brothers had already sold him. Judah had at the time, been instrumental in the sale (although one might add, Judah also decides to sell him rather than kill him)
[10:03 am, 12/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Here, Judah gets the chance to redeem himself somewhat, for he offers himself in place of his other brother Benjamin, and he does it seemingly that his old father may not be grieved. Joseph, as you can see, is probably only prolonging his brothers’ agony in order to test them, and to offer them the opportunity to reflect, rather than spring the truth upon them immediately, which would have meant at least two chapters less in the Bible. God is similarly patient, tests us, and gives us the time to reflect and the grace to do so, so that we are strengthened spiritually. Even though that may add 10 or 20 or 50 years to our sufferings.
[10:10 am, 12/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Look at how tight the storyline is (and Judah’s resolution is here): “6 Israel said, “Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man that you had another brother?” 7 They replied, “The man questioned us carefully about ourselves and our kindred, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?’ What we told him was in answer to these questions. Could we in any way know that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?” 8 Then Judah said to his father Israel, “Send the boy with me, and let us be on our way, so that we may live and not die—you and we and also our little ones. 9 I myself will be surety for him; you can hold me accountable for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever.”

CHapter 46

Here the language used in verse three “I am God, the God of your father…” is ” אָנֹכִ֥י הָאֵ֖ל אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ” (anokhi ha-el elohe avika). Ha-El is “the God”, Elohe, again “God”.

Chapter 49

Obviously don’t miss the prophesy to Judah in verse 10 and 11, from which line will come our Lord Jesus. The other brothers with the exception of Joseph have nothing particularly good about them, surprisingly also Benjamin, the youngest and beloved. It just goes to show that just because we have affections for someone does not mean that they are automatically gifts to all of humanity. Same goes for us, and we must always be careful to guard our virtue and let it flower. Praise God.

Summary

[7:59 pm, 27/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: Now in Genesis we saw the tremendous themes that are introduced and addressed in the very first book of the Bible.

In Creation we say God’s omnipotence, and omnibenevolence in the he gave to man the stewardship of all Creation and every pleasure of Paradise, in the story of the Fall we saw His omniscience, in that the Knowledge of Good and Evil is truly His alone, then we are introduced to the the nature of sin, the meaning of sex and marriage and of our bodies, we are told in the very name of Isra-el after whom the whole Church if named, that we as a people are those who “struggle with God”, and indeed, Faith will always feel like a struggle, and yet God is in complete control no matter how much we struggle and will continue to bless us as he did Jacob at the end of that same passage…
[8:02 pm, 27/03/2022] Sean Rodrigues: and as if that were not enough…we are given the messianic theme, which is the precursor of the form of out Redemption: One man suffers for the sake of the entire nation, and that man is exalted by God and given authority over the entire nation, not for their oppression, but that they might be blessed by him. Indeed does Caiaphas not echo this at Jesus’ trial: “you do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” John 11:50. Like Joseph and Mary will one day worship their Son Jesus, so Jacob and Rachel bow down to Joseph in the dream and he will be their saviour too.