Introduction

Like the rest of my commentaries, this is mainly intended to be a spiritual commentary on the first book of the Bible. I entirely omit some of the controversial topics here because I have discussed them under the section on “Hard Topics…” anyway. The spiritual intensity of Genesis from is truly staggering. While it sets the tone for the rest of the Bible at a standard that takes one by surprise, the rest of the Bible responds to these themes and unfolds in ways that are also unexpected. That for me is the beauty of the Book which Christians consider the only true revelation of the deity.

Creation, the Fall, Adam and his sons

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:

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…” (26-28, 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 devil’s plans in this 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.

Joseph rejects Potiphera’s advances, stating that he is not to “sin” against God (חָטָא) by betraying his master. The word for sin is חָטָא (chatah, 238 occ.), and also the almost identical חַטָּאָה (chatach, 294 occ.). So overall the first use is “sin is crouching at your door” (Gen.4:7).

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: Noah

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

Noah and his Sons- what happened!

The story of what happens with Noah’s sons particularly where Ham “saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside” (9:22) as been interpreted by some commentators as euphemistic language for rape. I think the point in favour of the “bold” interpretation is v.24 “Noah awoke…and knew what his youngest son had done to him…” The “done to him” sounds like something active, rather than something passive and accidental. Also its not very clear at all how someone can just wake up and know that someone has done something etc., but forget that for now, we know these accounts can be extremely truncated in detail. Also the severity of the retaliatory curse indicates something significant.

But going against the “bold” interpretation is the fact that the other two sons reverse the offence by walking backwards so that they cannot “see their father’s nakedness”, which seems to indicate its just the offence of sight and his other son’s do the exact opposite. Also one would think there might be a physical retaliation to such a serious offence were it the case. In fact there is actually zero even mention of Ham in relation to the incident, rather all the consequences are directed to his son Canaan and his descendents. Note, the curse is only to Canaan’s descendents (possibly his first born- 9:18), not to the descendants of Ham’s other offspring- Cush, Egypt, Put (10:6). There is neither antecedent not precedent of anything like such an offence in the entire Bible.

Lastly, I have to conclude against the “bold” interpretation. Are we really to conclude that the short verse (9:22) it is meant to denote the entire disagreeable sequence of Ham r***ing his unconcious father in a tent, then also strutting out to tell his two brothers “outside”. In particular, if indeed the assumptions of the proponents of the theory are true, that such an act is seen in that society as a sort of political power play, extremely unlikely in the absence of any corroboration from literature in the region, and also implying that fathers might never sleeps securely, yet there is no notion of Ham boasting to his brothers or of him actually making a power play, nor is this to be inferred from the reaction of his brothers nor even from the victim of the act, his father. The Jerome makes no attempt any any such alternate reading of the incident.

chapter 10 of Genesis “the generations of Noah’s sons”, and thinking- all of these nations which Israelites later have to fight and even destroy, they’re all descended from Noah (the whole of humanity). Do they all just forget their ancestor’s relationship with the Lord? I say “relationship” because Noah never receives a set of laws from God, so it probably can’t be said that nations disobeyed God’s laws. I’ve seen Jews (and Messianic?) refer to the “Noahide laws”. You can see some prohibition against sin and against murder in the story of Cain, for example. I”l just list the direct descendents of Noah are listed (10:2,6,22).

I discuss the story of the Nephilim in Nephilim and “sons of God”- Who are they?

Chapter 11: 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

Chapters 12-23: Abraham

Divine- Human interactions in Genesis

The Jerome observes: “Overall the modes of divine interaction with people show something of a progression from a natural coexistence of the human and the divine (the garden of Eden in Genesis 2), to an interpersonal visit of the divine with the human, (the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis 18), to a problematic interaction between the human and the divine (Jacob wrestling and Genesis 32). Afterwards, such interactions with the deity in human form are displaced by angelic visitations. After Jacob there’s no such interaction involving God’s human-like body, suggesting that this particular experience of the Divine was seen to have occurred in the distant past and only with famous figures of that past…”

Trinitarian foreshadowings

The Lord “appeared” to Abram (Gen.12:7, 17:1,18:1), his “word…came to Abram in a vision” (15:1,4). The angel of the Lord appeared to Sarai (16:7), but the referent is certainly divinity “the Living One”, “God who sees me” (16:13,14). We examine the passage also under the section on the Angel of the Lord.

Yahweh is one of the three “men” that appear to Abraham in Genesis 18, as we already saw, who ate and drank with Jacob, for three portions of meal are prepared and eaten. The passage begins with these incredible lines. It is the first time since Adam that anyone has seen God (v.1,2):

“The Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him.”

A little further on from here the text states: “The Lord asks Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh?”, announces the birth of a son to her (v.14) , and says to Sarah as a direct response to her denial “Oh yes, you did laugh” (v.15). Following this the “men” set out from there along with Abraham accompanying them (v.16).

The LORD speaks of his plans for Abraham(v.16-21) and his concerns about Sodom and Gomorrah (v.20,21). The “men” then go down to Sodom and Gomorrah while Abraham remained standing before the LORD (v.22) and has a dialogue with Him, pleading mercy for those cities in which he identifies Him also as “the Judge of all the Earth (v.25). Following this the text narrates that the LORD “went his way, and Abraham “returned to his place” (v.33), while the “TWO ANGELS” carry on forward toward Lots house (Gen.19:1).

Lot addresses the them as “lords” (plural) (v.2). The rest of famous events of these verses unfold (vv.3-23) until “the LORD rained down sulfur and fire from the LORD out of Heaven” (vv.24,25) and Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt (v.26).

Early the next morning, Abraham went “to the place where he had stood before the Lord the next morning”, to look upon the destruction the Lord had wrought upon the cities (v.27), and finally, keeping his word, it is the LORD who “dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah as he had promised” (Gen.21;1)

Abraham’s Sacrifice and reflecting on the significance

Abraham’s call to sacrifice his son is certainly one of the most evocative and recognisable if not puzzling and even arguably disturbing stories of the Bible. The last of those, it can be disturbing because we know well from the rest of the Bible that we will face tests of faith in our walk with the Lord. But we have never been called to do something that is objectively wrong for our faith. Even when others like King Solomon is asked to slaughter the women and children among his enemies, at least there is the angle of some association however trivial seeming with the enemies of Israel. But here we have the son and promised heir of Abraham of his old age. There seems to be no redeeming factor in this request. Yet Abraham does not question it nor even object.

Bear in mind, this is the same Abraham who laughed at God’s promise of Isaac’s birth (17:17), yet why does he does not seem to shed a tear faced with the prospect of his death? The key to moralisation with much of the similar violence of the Old Testament in contract with the New Testament has got to be the fact that in the most part, these peoples were given direct evidence of the existence and presence of God, of the kind that atheists typically dream of today. That’s the symmetry-breaker, that of course, and the revelation of Jesus Christ. Thus if you have cenrtainty, of the type that even precludes faith, that the directive is from God, then there really is no room for questioning. But of course, there is also the trust that whatever is being requested, God will administer justice in his own time and after his own manner. Further, Isaac is a pure gift from God, and Abraham must certainly realise this. Given that, were God to request that gift back from him, Abraham would have no reason to withold it. In other words, Isaac was a gift come from God, and this act of sacrifice would be one of entrusting him back to God.

This kind of expanation might seem to run contrary to the commentary by the author of Hebrews (11:8,9,11 “by faith Abraham obeyed…because he considered him faithful who had promised”. First, in Genesis “faith” is not used, rather in commending Abraham the Angel of the Lord says “for now I know that you fear God (ki yere יְרֵ֤א elohim)”. But further it is not incorrect to hold that there is a qualitative difference in faith before and after Christ, and this too is not controversial and also not unknown to that same author (eg. Heb.11:40). Thus we can appreciate that the circumstances of the faith of abraham were not quite the same as ours, and the situation in which he was called to sacrifice his own son to the deity, not unlike the practices of pagan nations that the Bible itself calls detestable is not something that we will encounter in our own waks of faith. Abraham is after all not above the events of the OT, his story is one of them. Again we can look at St Paul’s writings in this regard (eg. 2Cor.3:7-11). Take this passage as another example of the argument that there is indeed a qualitative difference in morality between the two testaments: “Abraham took another wife, whose name was Ketu′rah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Mid′ian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshu′rim, Letu′shim, and Le-um′mim. The sons of Mid′ian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abi′da, and Elda′ah. All these were the children of Ketu′rah. Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.” (Ex.25:1-5)

The angel’s words to Abraham are “for now I know that you fear God…and have not withheld your son, your only son from me” (22:12,16). In other words, this event that is quite unique to anything in the Bible and even in religious literateure in general, and just when you think that every myth has been told and retold several times over in human history is only the beginning of the lesson we are to receive. That is precisely the reason for the discomfiture that accompanies the event, it is because that even event only contains a partial teaching, in this respect, not unlike most of the OT.

And all of that might yet be missing the point. First, Isaac is not, after all, sacrificed, so this is not really the bloodthirsty kind of relationship that it might initially be made out to be. After all God has said to Abraham “do not be afraid, Abram…(al tira abram אַל־ תִּירָ֣א אַבְרָ֗ם)” (15:1) and goes on to assrure him further “I am your shield and you reward shall be great”. But with the coming of Christ, God himself is intimately and personally involved in an event which is a near mirror image of the first, and again, he himself is its initiator, it is nothing that humans have demanded or requested or even theorized about.

Once again we are told of another Father that does not withold his son, his only son. Thus through that lens of Christ, we no longer see a father called to kill an innocent to satisfy an irrational demand by a false deity, something that has been repeated far too many times in history, rather we see someone to whom the true deity has appeared, many times at this point (12:7, 17:1,18:1), seemingly in the form of a man as we discuss next when we look at the appearance to Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre, who has received palpable signs from that deity. In additional from multiple “appearances” to him, we have two such “miracles”. First, when Abraham in response to God’s promises expresses the fact he has no heir (15:1-3), he sees the fiery acceptance of his sacrifices (17:17) and he also sees it in the living proof of God’s keeping that covenant, the palpable proof, visible sign and constant reminder of the occurence of the impossible, because his ninety year old spouse is always before him (17:17, Abraham himself is 99 and Ishmael 13-17:24,25).

However at his initial call all we are told it “the Lord said to Abraham, “Go…” (…) so Abraham went…” (12:1,4) it does not seem he had received any other sign at this point, other than this appearance, and we are also told nothing more about Abraham. What we know about Abraham’s character is the picture that we will build in the unfolding of the Biblical story itself. In other words Abraham is not called righteous at the outset, but as in St. Paul’s words, “his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom.4:12), we are given a description of what righteousness is in the story of Abraham’s walk of faith in the Lord.

But of this man, with such a seemingly unique relationship with the deity is made a seemingly unique request, the demand for the sacrifice of a son who was received miraculously in the first place, but who is the only heir of the union of himself with his spouse and the fulfillent of God’s promises to his progeny. That the sacrifice itself never happens only tells us that it is never meant to happen.

In the immediate, it is meant to test the kind of relationship that Abraham has with God, while in the longer term it serves as a sign for the readers of the Bible but one that is not completed until the Biblical story itself has come full circle. This “test” (22:1 nasah נָסָה), as Christians will already appreciate is never a means to reveal the mettle of Abraham to God, but rather in the manner of any trial that we might face- it grows our own faith and reveals faith to ourselves. And at the end of that story we have God who is himself “called” to sacrifce his Son, his only Son whom he loves, not in a manner that the Son’s existence of extinguished, but rather in the manner of enduring bodily suffering of the magnitude capable of ending physical life, with the loving purpose of salvation toward his creatures.

Not long after in the 29- 30th chapters we have the account of the birth of Israel’s 12 sons. It is difficult to reconcile these events to a Christian understanding of sexual and marital morality. we recount this later. The very birth of the 12 tribes of Israel seem to be out of a competitiveness between Jacob’s two sibling-wives, spousal partiality, neglect (29:30,31; 30:15) and envy (30:1) related to the societal shame of female barrenness (29:32,33,34; 30:20,23). Slaves are used as child-bearing concubines or even surrogates (it is unclear what the eventual parental rights of Bilhah and Zilpah are, if any, Bilhah reappears in 35:22). Leah “hires” the sexual attentions of her husband (30:15,16,18). There is no explicit endorsement or instruction here from God and neither reproach, and perhaps some co-operation as denoted by the author (30:22), particularly towards the under-favoured of the two wives (29:31. 30:17).

Promise to Abraham by his “Seed”, and through Isaac

God, in his promise to Abraham states:

“and by offspring (seed) shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.”

The NETBible footnote explains that “blessing” is in the Hitpael or reflexive form, hence “gain blessing for themselves” seems apt (ESV/NRSV), or “all the nations of the earth “will pronounce blessing on one another” (NIV/NETBible). ESV uses “in your offspring”.

The author of Hebrews makes a point of underlining that fact that “seed” is used in the singular, and indeed this is the case with בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ ḇə-zar-‘ă-ḵā (plu. zar-e-ka, with tsere yod, LXX ἐν τῷ σπέρματι en to spermati, Vul. in semine tuo) . In English “seed” is used for both sing. and plu., but not in the case of Heb./Gk.. The concept of every single person alive, past, present or future being blessed by name or actions of some single person, is only present in the Christian theological understanding. Not surprisingly, Jewish translations use “descendants”, thus avoiding the ambiguity of seed/offspring, which the English translations conveniently use. Were those English translations really committing themselves, they would use “descendent”. However one feels that although the Hebrew is singular, the singularity of the descendent is not being particularly stressed in the passage as a whole, thus seemingly allowing for this ambiguity. Desmond Alexander, MHBP states zera is the same sing./plu. in Heb., which I don’t agree with, although I’m not Hebrew scholar, I’m not aware of any Heb. words following such a rule, further Biblehub parses it sing. masc. construct form- msc. Robert Alter makes no comment while translating it “through your seed”. The NRSV-CBSB comments at Gal. 3:16 (p.2066, also JBCTFC p.1655) that “seed” can be taken also as a collective noun, thus permitting the plural sense, but Paul uses the Jewish interpretative technique of using the sense that best suits the argument, as they do when ascribing the status of the single seed to Isaac.

In Genesis itself we are told that it will be a single person that will be a blessing for all nations. True it does not say that this includes those persons past as well, but there does seem a reasonable inference that this blessing extends into the future rather than terminate at some point. Of course, it could also imply that the Israelites will be a blessing for all the nations.

The Bible is clear that the son of the Promise is Isaac and not Ishmael, that is, God’s promise to Abraham will be fulfilled through Isaac and not Ishmael “…for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you” (Gen.21:12). This is significant, because Abraham has other children too. Abraham receives the promise definitively in Gen.22 right after the great event of being demanded the sacrifice of his son:

“by myself I have sworn…by your offspring shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves…” (22:15, 18). These words are already spoken earlier in the text, seemingly unbeknown to Abraham at this point: “…seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him…” (Gen.18:18,19).

God has made his promise to Abraham even earlier in the narrative:
“ I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. ⁸ And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.” (Gen.17:7,8)

and again, it is asserted that God that the promise will be through Isaac, and not Ishmael:
“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.” (Gen.17:17-22)

A look at the parallel narrative in Islam

The Qur’an states that Isaac and Jacob (Isaac’s son) were given to Abraham, and were “guided”, as were the prophets of old also guided by God. The concept of “rightly guided” is very significant in Islam as would be known by anyone who has studied it even a little. For example the first four caliphs of Islam are called “rightly guided ones” because their governance is felt to have been exemplary and in line with Muhammed’s teachings. They had all been Muhammed’s close companions and associates in his life and therefore great reverence is given them.

Thus we see how Isaac is mentioned as “guided” by Allah, and mentioned alongside the greatest prophets of old, while Ishmael is not even mentioned in these verses, although he is born before Isaac. Surah 6:84-86 is strange because Ishmael instead of being mentioned among the sons “given to” Abraham is mentioned later in the list instead among descendants instead:

“And We gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all [of them] We guided. And Noah, We guided before; and among his descendants, David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the doers of good.”… (Q 6:84)

Once again, the Qur’an states that prophethood is through the line of Isaac and does not even mention Ishmael! “And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous.” (Q 29:27)

Once again in 37:11, we are told of the “glad tidings” of Isaac’s birth announced beforehand and that he would be a prophet and one of the Righteous. Abraham and Isaac are blessed with no mention of a blessing of Ishmael who is already born: “and we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet and one of the Righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. But among their descendants is the doer of good and the clearly unjust to himself.” (Q:37:112,3)

And another confirmation, that it is the line from Abraham coming down to Imran (who the Qur’an believes to be Mary’s father) is the one that is distinguished from all others: “Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds. Descendants, some of them from others. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Q 3:33,34)

Chapter 24- 36: Isaac, Jacob

In 26:29 Isaac is called “blessed of the Lord” (barukh בְּר֥וּךְ Yahweh Ex.24:31), mirrored by Jesus’ expression “blessed of my Father” (eulogomenoi tou Patros mou, Mt.25:34). We can look at some other titles of God here. We see the first use of “Mighty one of Jacob” (avir Ya’akov אֲבִ֣יר יַעֲקֹ֔ב), the “Shepherd, the Rock of Israel roeh even Yisrael רֹעֶ֖ה אֶ֥בֶן יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (49:24)”. The title “Mighty One of Jacob” is only five other times (Ps.132.2, 132:5; Is.1:24 [of Israel] 60:16; Eccus.51:12), Shepherd of Israel one other time (Ps.80:1), “Rock of Israel” (2Sam.23:3; Is.30:29).

In the story of Jacob and Esau, the former seems to have deceived the latter out of the inheritance due a firstborn. child He is folowing what his mother advised in this and further, when Isaac finds out, he does not withdraw his blessing, even though he loved Esau “because he was fond of game” (25:28,”but Rachel loved Jacob”). Even God is very obviously with Jacob down the storyline and in concord with Isaac’s decision. So the whole incident seems to be intended to have a broader theological significance over and above considerations of individual moralities. Any blessing obtained through deceipt should ordinarily rather incur a curse, but Isaac doubles down on the blessing instead “…and blessed he shall be”. Further Esau has already sold his birthright to Jacob when he offered him the broth, so it seems it was technicaly not his to keep anyway.

To ascertain the theological import of the story, we can go to St. Paul, who makes the conclusion “”Esau I (God) hated” (Rom.9:13) and goes on, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Rom.9:6-8). In other words, not all Christians are saved, but those who keep faithfully to the covenant. It seems a narrative depiction of “no salvation outside the church”, really, and Protestants might take that to mean the whole of Christianity. But the fact that Jacob’s lineage receives the promise through no other reason than he is chosen comports to this conclusion and also to the manner in which Israel as a nation is chosen out of all the nations of the world even though it has no particular merit of its own in comparison to all the rest.

At the deepest level it is might be quite a profound reflection to questions that are asked much later as in the modern day, like “why did Christ appear only to the Jews?” and so on. It is an admonition to those who reject truth, like Esau who “despised his birthright” (Gen.25:34), although it was available to all, not just to Israel or Jacob, for a pittance. Esau, who seems to have given it away for some hot broth, unable to bear hunger, he probably exaggerates its effect on him “I am about to die” (25:32), just like those who are unwilling to take up and accept their struggles and sufferings.

The surface reading on the other hand, rather like the story in the Garden does not yield satisfactory character sketches, for Esau’s actions do not seem inherently evil, nor to Jacob;s inherently virtuous, so also judgements of right and wrong are not always of our own making and might sometimes God’s commands might seem to run contrary to our own intuitions. In the rage of realization of Jacob’s deceipt Esau plans to kill him (26:42), however at their encounter he harbours no feelings of ill-will (33:4,9).

As we follow the story of Jacob, he works for Labaan a full 14 years just for his love of Rachel, and then a further 6 years in his employ. In the next chapter he recounts all that he endured and it is possible that Laban has not been a fair employer and taken advantage of him, as he also recounts to Rachel. As a result the angel of the Lord appears to Jacob in a dream and advises him regarding the “animal husbandry” practise throught which he will outwit his employer. Jacob is Israel. “he who struggled with God”, which 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 what we want, after all. we are told in the very name of Isra-el after whom the whole Church is 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.

Chapter 29,30

The account of the birth of Israel’s 12 sons can be hard to reconcile with a Christian understanding of sexual and marital morality. They seem to be born out of competitiveness between Jacob’s two sibling-wives, spousal partiality, neglect (29:30,31; 30:15) and envy (30:1) and most the underlying societal shame attached to female barrenness (29:32,33,34; 30:20,23) and the possible vulnerability of a woman that lacked issue. In that story, slaves are used as child-bearing concubines or even surrogates (it is unclear what the eventual parental rights of Bilhah and Zilpah are, if any). In another instance we see Leah “hires” the sexual attentions of her husband (30:15,16,18). There is no explicit endorsement or instruction here from God and neither reproach, and perhaps some co-operation as denoted by the author (30:22), particularly towards the under-favoured of the two wives (29:31. 30:17).

Chapter 34,35

The story of the rape of Dinah daughter of Leah and Isaac is sad, and one cannot help and feel a sense of pity for the rapist, Shechem son of Hamor the Hitite whose intentions might actually have been noble in whatever ancient near-eastern sense of morality, or at least he might have felt himself to be acting nobly and this sort of forcible taking of women might have been the unfortunate cultural norm at least for that people, who knows. But even by today’s norms, the ensuing retaliation by Israel, the sack of their entire nation is the quite the other extreme, again even by today’s standards.

But all those issues aside, we have another interesting point, which is that we are given a clue that prostitution might be looked down upon by Israel. Now the whole issue of a man forcibly laying with a woman is not inherently punishable under ancient Israelite law, though this will only be codified for them much later at the time of Moses, we see this controversial issue discussed in Deuteronomy 22 and is discussed here Fornication and Rape laws.

However at this stage in Israel’s history, his sons deem the sin to be unforgivable, probably enhanced by the fact that it is inflicted by a foreigner. But they make the reason clear, ““Should our sister be treated like a prostitute?” (34:35), and this is the last word on the incident. That is the first use of the word זָנָה zanah,translated as “To commit fornication, to be unfaithful, to play the harlot” (Strong’s 2181), and it will go on to be used at total of 93 times in the Hebrew Bible.

Chapter 37-49: The Story of Joseph

When Joseph tells his dream to his brothers, the narrative does not tell us that he is being particularly pompous or boastful over and above the obviously grandiose content of the dream itself. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, if a young boy has a dream, who is he to tell it to but the persons that he trusts the most, his father and older brothers in this case. Also, we are not told at this stage about the divine origin of the dream itself, but we can extrapolate from Joseph’s later revelation, first to Pharaoh’s officers (40:8) and then to Pharaoh himself (41:16,25).

As the story infolds it becomes clear that in the fulfilment of this dream, the lives of Joseph’s family as well as the nations (ha-eretz) are saved. We can infer as spiritual fruit that submitting to God’s authority in our lives might seem difficult but in it our lives too are saved. It is hardly surprising that we should find it difficult, since saving a life isn’t easy. Submitting to Joseph was difficult for his family to swallow and yet it saved them. But we can note that while Jacob too is “taken aback” at the dream like the rest, yet he “keeps the matter in mind” rather than fall into evil like the others did.

Chapter 38

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. Perez, one of Tamar’s twin sons born to Judah will be in the genealogy of Jesus himself, as is of course, Tamar.

Chapter 39

“Chesed” – word study

The Psalms are suffused with this word Chesed (Strong 2617). It does not just signify “love”, which as we know can mean a range of things in English from the trivial to the profound. Rather chesed is the 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 “from for this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (Eph. 3:15). God’s promise to Abraham, remember, is not just that his descendants will be as “numerous as the stars” or “as the grains of sand..”, but also “I will be their God” (v.17:8, 21; 15:4-5).”

Chesed first appears in Gen.19:19 then on to 247 occurences in the Hebrew testament. Strong’s entry states the meanings as “checed: Lovingkindness, mercy, steadfast love, loyalty, faithfulness, goodness“, and goes on to describe:

“Usage: The Hebrew word “checed” is a rich and multifaceted term that encompasses the ideas of love, kindness, mercy, and loyalty. It is often used to describe God’s covenantal love and faithfulness towards His people. In human relationships, it can refer to acts of kindness and loyalty that go beyond duty or obligation. “Checed” is a central theme in the Hebrew Bible, reflecting the character of God as compassionate and faithful.

Cultural and Historical Background: In the ancient Near Eastern context, “checed” was a significant concept in covenantal relationships. Covenants were binding agreements that required loyalty and faithfulness from both parties. “Checed” was the expected behavior within these relationships, emphasizing steadfast love and mercy. In Israel’s history, God’s “checed” was seen in His unwavering commitment to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel, despite their frequent unfaithfulness.”

Biblehub also presents a synopsis from the BDG, which I condense here. The contemplation of this word will be a fruitful reflection on an important Biblical theme. As per the BDG, these are the contextual instances of the use of chesed.

I. OF MAN

1 kindness of men towards men, in doing favours and benefits: 1 Samuel 20:15; 2 Samuel 16:17; Psalm 141:5; Proverbs 19:22; Proverbs 20:6; Samuel 20:14 the kindness of ׳י; compare אלהים ׳ח 2 Samuel 9:3; ׳תּוֺרַתאח Proverbs 31:26 instruction in kindness, kindly instruction עָשָׂה חֶסֶד עִמָּדִי do or shew kindness (in dealing) with me Genesis 20:13; Genesis 40:14 (E), 1 Samuel 20:14; 2 Samuel 10:2 (עִמִּי in “” 1 Chronicles 19:2); with עִם Genesis 21:23 (E), Genesis 24:12,14; Joshua 2:12 (twice in verse); Judges 1:24 (J), Judges 8:35; 1 Samuel 15:6; 2 Samuel 2:5; 2 Samuel 3:8; 2 Samuel 9:1; 2 Samuel 9:3; 2 Samuel 9:7, 10:20a = 1 Chronicles 19:2a, 1 Chronicles 19:2b 2Chronicles 24:22; with עַל 1 Samuel 20:8 with לְ 1 Kings 2:7; לפני ׳נשׂא ח obtain kindness before Esther 2:9,17; ׳היטיב ח Ruth 3:10.

2 kindness (especially as extended to the lowly, needy and miserable), mercy: Proverbs 20:28; Job 6:14; אישׁ חסד merciful man Proverbs 11:17 (opposed to אַכְזָרִי); ׳מַלְכֵּי ח merciful kings 1 Kings 20:31; ׳עשׂה ח Psalm 109:16; in this sense usually with other attributes (see also below II.2); “” אמת Hosea 4:1; Isaiah 16:5; ואמת ׳ח Proverbs 3:3; Proverbs 14:22; Proverbs 16:6; Proverbs 20:28; ואמת ׳עשׂה ח Genesis 24:49; Genesis 47:29; Joshua 2:14 (J; RV gives thse under 1); “” צדקה Hosea 10:12; ׳צדקה וח Proverbs 21:21; “” משׁפט Micah 6:8; ומשׁפט ׳ח Hosea 12:7; “” חוֺנֵן Psalm 109:12; ורחמים ׳ח Zechariah 7:9; Daniel 1:9. — (On Hosea 6:4,6 see 3 below)

3 (rarely) affection of Israel to ׳י love to God, piety: נְעוּרַיִךְ ׳ח Jeremiah 2:2 priety of thy youth (“” love of thine espousals to Yahweh); possibly also חַסְדְּכֶם כַּעֲנַןבֹּֿקֶר Hosea 6:4 your piety is like a morning cloud (fleeting), and כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלאֹזָֿ֑בַח Hosea 6:6 for piety I delight in and not in peace-offering (“” דעת אלהים, compare 1 Samuel 15:22); — so Wü Now Hi (1Samuel 15:4) Che; Ke Hi (1 Samuel 15:6) al. below 2 (or 1); — נַנְשֵׁי חֶסֶד men of piety Isaiah 57:1 (“” צַדִּיק); plural pious acts2Chronicles 32:32; 35:26; Nehemiah 13:14.

4 lovely appearance: כָּלחַֿסְדּוֺ כְּצִיץ הַשָֹּׁדֶה Isaiah 40:6 all its loveliness as the flower of the field (so Thes Hi De Che Di and others; but δόξα ᵐ51Peter 1:24 & gloria ᵑ9 favour an original reading הוֺדוֺ Lo or כְּבֹדוֺ Ew, see BrMP 375; Du הֲדָרוֺ).

II. OF GOD:

kindness, lovingkindness in condescending to the needs of his creatures: He is חַסְדָּם their goodness favour Jonah 2:9; חַסְדִּי Psalm 144:2; אֱלֹהֵי חַסְדִּי God of my kindness Psalm 59:18; in Psalm 59:11 read אֱלֹהַי חַסְדּוֺ my God with his kindness ᵐ5 ᵑ9 Ew Hup De Pe Che Bae; his is the kindness Psalm 62:13; it is with him Psalm 130:7; he delights in it Micah 7:18.

1 specifically lovingkindness:

a. in redemption from enemies and troubles: Genesis 19:19; Genesis 39:21 (J), Exodus 15:13 (song), Jeremiah 31:3; Ezra 7:28; Ezra 9:9; Psalm 21:8; Psalm 31:17; Psalm 31:22; Psalm 32:10; Psalm 33:22; Psalm 36:8; Psalm 36:11; Psalm 42:9; Psalm 44:27; Psalm 48:10; Psalm 59:17; Psalm 66:20; Psalm 85:8; Psalm 90:14; Psalm 94:18; Psalm 107:8; Psalm 107:15; Psalm 107:21; Psalm 107:31; Psalm 143:8; Psalm 143:12; Job 37:13; Ruth 1:8; Ruth 2:20; men should trust in it Psalm 13:6; Psalm 52:10; rejoice in it Psalm 31:8; hope in it Psalm 33:18; Psalm 147:11.

b. in preservation of life from death: Psalm 6:5; Psalm 86:13; Job 10:12.

c. in quickening of spiritual life: Psalm 109:26; Psalm 119:41; Psalm 119:76; Psalm 119:88; Psalm 119:124; Psalm 119:149; Psalm 119:159.

d. in redemption from sin Psalm 25:7; Psalm 51:3.

e. in keeping the covenants, with Abraham: Micah 7:20; with Moses and Israel שׁמר הַבְּרִית וְ(הַ)חֶסֶד keep-eth the covenant and the lovingkindness Deuteronomy 7:9,12; 1 Kings 8:23 2Chronicles 6:14; Nehemiah 1:5; Nehemiah 9:32; Daniel 9:4; with David and his dynasty 2 Samuel 7:15 = 1 Chronicles 17:13; 2 Samuel 22:51 = Psalm 18:51, 1 Kings 3:6 (twice in verse) = 2Chronicles 1:8; Psalm 89:29; Psalm 89:34; with the wife Zion Isaiah 54:10.

2 חֶסֶד is grouped with other divine attributes:

חסד ואמת kindness (lovingkindness) and fidelity Genesis 24:27 (J), Psalm 25:10; Psalm 41:11; Psalm 40:12; Psalm 57:4; Psalm 61:8; Psalm 85:11; Psalm 89:15; Psalm 115:1; Psalm 138:2; ואמת עם ׳עשׂה ח 2 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 15:20 (ᵐ5, see Dr); with אֶתֿ Genesis 24:49; ואמת ׳רַב ח Exodus 34:6 (JE), Psalm 86:15; also “” אמת Micah 7:20; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 117:2; “” אֱמוּנָה Psalm 88:12; Psalm 89:3; Psalm 92:3; ׳אמונה וח Psalm 89:25; ואמונה ׳ח Psalm 98:3; “” רחמים Psalm 77:9; ורחמים ׳ח Jeremiah 16:5; Hosea 2:21; Psalm 103:4; ומשׁפט ׳ח Jeremiah 9:23; Psalm 101:1; “” צדקה Psalm 36:11; ׳טוב וח Psalm 23:6.

3 the kindness of God is

a. abundant: רַבחֶֿסֶד abundant, plenteous in kindness (goodness) Numbers 14:18 (J), Nehemiah 9:17 (Qr), Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 103:8 (compare Exodus 34:6 J E; Psalm 86:15); רֹב חַסְדְּךָ Nehemiah 13:22; Psalm 5:8; Psalm 69:14; Psalm 106:7 (ᵐ5 ᵑ9 Aq Targan, to be preferred to ᵑ0 חֲסָדֶיךָ); רֹב חֲסָדָו֯ Lamentations 3:32; Psalm 106:45 (Kt ᵐ5 in both to be preferred).

b. great in extent: ׳נֹּדֶל חִ greatness of thy mercy Numbers 14:19 (J); ׳נְּדָו֯וֺלחֿ Psalm 145:8; it is kept for thousands Exodus 34:7 (JE), Jeremiah 32:18, especially of those connected with lovers of ׳י, Exodus 20:6 = Deuteronomy 5:10; for 1000 Generations Deuteronomy 7:9; it is great as the heavens Psalm 57:11; Psalm 103:11, compare Psalm 36:6; Psalm 108:5; the earth is full of it Psalm 33:5; Psalm 119:64.

c. everlasting: לעולם חסדוֺ Jeremiah 33:11; 1 Chronicles 16:34,41; 2Chronicles 5:13; 7:3,6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11; Psalm 100:5; Psalm 106:1; Psalm 107:1; Psalm 118:1; Psalm 118:2; Psalm 118:3; Psalm 118:4; Psalm 118:29; Psalm 136:1 (26 t.); חסדךָ לעולם Psalm 138:8; מעולם ׳ח ועד עולם Psalm 103:17; עולם ׳ח Isaiah 54:8; אל כּל ׳ח היום Psalm 52:3.

d. good: כִּיטֿוֺב חַסְדְּךָ Psalm 69:17; Psalm 109:21; כי טוב חסדךָ מחיים Psalm 63:4.

4 plural mercies, deeds of kindness, the historic displays of lovingkindness to Israel:

shewn to Jacob Genesis 32:11 (R); but mostly late Isaiah 63:7; Psalm 25:6; Psalm 89:2; כְּרֹב חסִדיו Isaiah 63:7.

3a; promised in the Davidic covenant

Psalm Isa 89:50; חַסְדֵי דָוִיד mercies to David Isaiah 55:3; 2Chronicles 6:42; mercies in General Lamentations 3:22; Psalm 17:7; Psalm 107:43f. — חֶסֶד in proper name, masculine ׳בןחֿ see below בֵּן. On Leviticus 20:17; Proverbs 14:34 see חֶסֶד below II. חסד.

II. חֶ֫סֶד noun masculine shame, reproach, only absolute: — הוּא ׳ח Leviticus 20:17 (H) it is a shame (shameful thing); לְאֻמִּים חַטָּאת ׳ח Proverbs 14:34 sin is a reproach to peoples.”

Chapter 41-44

Joseph says “it is not I, God (Elohim) will give Pharaoh a favourable answer” (41:16). Pharaoh calls Joseph “One in whom is the spirit of God (ruach Elohim)” (v.38). Note that Joseph’s sons, who will be the heads of two of the great tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh the heads of the two half-tribes, which is the 12th tribe of Israel), are borne of an Egyptian woman, Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. We see this name Potiphera one more time in a list in Ch.46, and then no more.

Reuben is the one mostly trying to save Joseph (37:21,22), and even now, he is rebuking the brothers for their fault (42:22). He had returned to the well to remove Joseph from it but it had been too late at the time. Judah had been instrumental in the sale, but also argues for not killing him and selling him instead.

It is reasonably obvious at least to a Christian, that Joseph’s story closely parallels that of Jesus. It is one of the most detailed biographies of the Bible, covering no less than 13 chapters at the end of the book of Genesis. We see how Joseph predicts his eventual exalted status through the telling of his dreams. He is hated both for this and for being the beloved of his father. Joseph’s suffering seems highly unjust because he is young and innocent, and it also seems cruel to his father for the one he loved most to be taken away from him so cruelly (see his reaction, 37:34,45). His brothers hate him, sell him for silver but ultimately change from their antagonistic stance, repent and bow down to him. All this we can see in the ilfe of Jesus.

But in the end the innocent, like a lamb, becomes the focal point of hatred, the scapegoat really, for those whose hearts are become so callused that they cannot stand vision of purity. But the Lord is with him (Gen.39:23) in all his trial, even in the dark depths of prison.

And the plan which God is about to execute through him and through his suffering is much greater than anyone can conceive, surely even greater than anyone reading the story for the first time could have guessed. God has simply outthought everyone else and their petty and immediate conecerns by orders of magnitude, for he has taken into account the entire nation and more, even the surrounding ones.

I find this to be a striking reply to any incredulity with which Jesus’ salvific sacrifice might be viewed. God might similarly also take a cosmic view of events that is inconceivable at first to humans, causing such a response. It would have been preposterous also to think that anything as mundane and senseless as the enslavement of a little boy could be for the literal salvation of all of the great nation of Egypt including Pharoah himself and also of the surrounding nations.

So we find that just as Caiaphus predicts that the one should necessarily die for the many (John11:10), so also does Joseph explain to his brothers “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.” (50:20).

Joseph becomes as it were, a focal point for hatred. Even Pharoah’s wife seeks to destroy what she cannot possess and corrupt, like Herod seeking the divine for entertainment (Luke 23:6-12). Finally even Pharoah who thought extremey highly of Joseph is unable to stand up for him, kust like Herod cannot stand up for John who he admired (Mark 6:20), or like Pilot cannot stand up for Jesus though he admits “I can find no wrong in this man” (Luke 23:4). They are betrayed by those closest to them and also by their rulers who stand in the name of justice.

But in becoming such a focal point for hatred, so also do they ultimately convict those who do hate them whether for repentance and eternal life or for death damnation. For just as in the case of Jesus, there is no other choice but to submit to Joseph, for he is their only saviour.

The reason that this might be said is because people might think it unjust that they are punished for rejecting a God they have never seen. But in condemning Jesus, who is perfectly pure, innocent and in this the very image of God, truly it can be said in the very words also of Reuben to his brothers, “there now comes a reckoning for his blood” (Gen.42:22). Jesus is the concretization of the divine choice for right and wrong that is presented to man. And just as a Hebrew slave will save the entire Egyptian nation, this poor crucified carpenter will save the world.

Judah gets the chance to redeem himself much later in the storyline (43:9) when he offers himself in place of his other brother Benjamin, seemingly so 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 (42:23-25), 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.

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 and Conclusions

We see tremendous over-arching themes that are introduced and addressed in the very first book of the Bible, which set the tone and standard for the rest of the book. Quite honestly, after the intensity of reading Genesis the reader might think it hard to conceive how such a standard might be maintained throughout such a vast book and I would propose that at no stage is this expectation disappointed, rather it is certainly exceeded and in ways that are surprising and unexpected, just as Genesis itself is surprising.

In the story of Creation we see God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence in that 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 given the messianic theme, one man to suffer for the many.