What was the proof that Joseph forgave his brothers?

This post is built on one of the points in Christopher Wright’s sermon, Joseph: The hopeful believer.

The first thirty years of Joseph’s life were quite dramatic. He spent seventeen of them as a pampered son (and detested brother) and the remainder as first a slave then as a prisoner. Humanly speaking, the cause of his misery could be traced back to his brothers. When he first revealed himself to them years after they’d sold him into slavery, he wept over them, kissing and embracing them (Genesis 45:14-15).  Yet seventeen years after that first reconciliation, at their father’s death, we see the brothers wracked with guilt and still fearing retaliation  (Genesis 50:15-18).  Joseph’s response is summarised 50:19-21.

How could the brothers know they were really reconciled? Was it Joseph telling them not to be afraid (v. 19)? No, those could just be words. Was it Joseph pointing to God (v. 20)? Well, he could just be spouting theology. What was it then? It was when Joseph said he would care for them and their children (v. 21).

Some months ago we were studying the topic of forgiveness at Bible study. The leader asked how we could know that we’d forgiven someone. I answered something to the effect of, “When you stop wishing they’d slip on the stairs and fall, or similar thoughts.” Today my answer would be different. Not retaliating—in thought or in deed—is a necessary step, but it isn’t sufficient. True biblical forgiveness also involves doing good to the people who wrong us (as far as is possible).

Joseph promising to care for his brothers and their families was a practical, undeniable demonstration of love in action. He was obeying Jesus’ teaching in Luke 6:27-28 centuries in advance. Joseph was also pointing forward to Jesus himself, who called them ‘ brothers’ those who had deserted him less than 72 hours before (John 20:17 and Mark 14:50 respectively). He was pointing forward to the One who died for His enemies (Romans 5:6-10).

In Romans 5:5 Paul tells us that God has poured out His love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. And it is only through that divine love working in us that we can not only refrain from harming those who have hurt us, but also actively seek to do them good. (I’m glad I serve a God who enables me to obey His commands!)

 


Puzzling over Hagar and Ishmael

Any brilliant thoughts in this post aren’t mine but from Christopher Wright, in particular his sermon titled Abraham, father of the wrong family (length 35:56). Do have a listen to it!

A couple of weeks ago I was reading from the section of Genesis that contains the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael, and some of it left me somewhat perplexed. We’re introduced to Hagar in chapter 16 when Sarai suggests that Abram may do well to sleep with her. Hagar becomes pregnant and looks down on barren Sarai; Sarai retaliates and Hagar flees to the desert.

Then came the first of my furrowed-brow experiences. The first appearance of the angel of the Lord was to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-12). To an Egyptian slave. Not only that, but He gives her a promise on par with the one Yahweh had previously given Abram: of descendants too numerous to count. Wait, what???! Equally surprising is that Hagar obeyed the command to return to the ill-treatment under Sarai. She delivers her son and gives him the name the angel of Yahweh instructed her to.

The next time we run into Hagar is in chapter 21 when Sarah tells her husband to get rid of Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham’s reluctant to do so but Yahweh tells Abraham it’s okay saying, “I will make the son of the maid-servant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:13). Okay, fair enough.

So Hagar and Ishmael are sent off, but they run out of water in the desert. Yahweh finds Hagar again and repeats His promise. And then He provides an entire well of water! Genesis 21:20 says that God was with Ishmael as he grew up. Later in chapter 25, we read that God kept his promise to make him a great nation by giving him 12 sons. In fact, as Wright points out in his sermon, Isaac and Ishmael are blessed in identical ways except one.

What’s the point?

So why should we care what happened to the progenitor of the Arabs four millennia ago anyway? Answer: This account teaches us something of God’s unchanging character.

  1. God shows compassion to Hagar and Ishmael, because He delights to show compassion to the disenfranchised (Deuteronomy 10:18)
  2. Hagar named the place of her first encounter with God “the well of the one who sees me” and was instructed to name her son “God hears”.  This picture of a  God who sees and hears is an anticipation of the next book in the Bible (Exodus 3:7).
  3. God is determined to keep His promise moving, in spite of human error. His promise was to bless all the nations of the earth through Abraham’s seed (Genesis 12:3). All nations, including Ishmael’s descendants. Including you and me!

Joseph, Daniel and Jesus

I’d have loved to have been present when Joseph and Daniel first met. The stories they must have exchanged! Both were torn away from  home as young men; they both had a God-given gift of interpreting dreams (Genesis 40:8,41:16; Daniel 2:27-28) that saved lives and saw them rise in the power structures of a pagan land (Genesis 41:41-43; Daniel 2:48, 5:29). Their love for God’s commands led them both to go against the current (Genesis 39:9, Daniel 1:8). And they were both good-looking :D (Genesis 39:6-7; Daniel 1:4).

More important than the things they had in common is how their lives foreshadowed that of Jesus of Nazareth, similarities which came to me after reading this blog post on Daniel and listening to a sermon series on the life of Joseph:

  • All three were exiles/sojourners in a foreign land (Genesis 39:1; Daniel 1:3-7; John 6:38)
  • All three experienced God’s lasting presence (Genesis 39:2, 21, 23; Daniel 2:23; John 8:29)
  • All three did their work with excellence (Genesis 39:8-9, 22-23; Daniel 6:4; John17:4)
  • All three were conspired against (Genesis 37:18-20; Daniel 6:4; Matthew 26:3-4)
  • All three were falsely accused (Genesis 39:16-18; Daniel 6:4-14; Luke 23:1-2)

The difference is that while Joseph and Daniel survived the false accusations and died peacefully (Genesis 50:22-23; Daniel 12:13), Jesus Christ did not. And because of His sacrifice, we who are sojourners in this world (Philippians 3:20) can face opposition without losing heart (Hebrews 12:3)!


Genesis 1 is subversive

What questions does Genesis 1:1-2:3 seek to answer? Should we ask of it 21st century questions regarding the chronology and mechanics of creation? Examining the opening chapter of Genesis in light of its historical context, it emerges that it is a piece of ‘subversive theology’, poking holes in the pagan conceptions of God, creation and humanity held by the peoples of the Ancient Near East. This isn’t surprising considering the Old Testament often denounces pagan religion.

Enuma elish

In the early 1850s, archaeologists working in Mosul in Northwest Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia) discovered seven clay tablets on which were written a Babylonian account of creation which came to be known as Enuma elish, after its opening words. These tablets, narrating the violent adventures of the original family of gods, predate the biblical account by several centuries.

Similarities between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Enuma elish

In addition to similarities in literary structure, they contain the following similarities in content:

  • Both Enuma elish and Genesis begin in the first paragraph with a watery chaos at the dawn of time.
  • Both stories proceed in seven movements: seven days in Genesis 1and seven scenes written on seven tablets in Enuma elish.
  • The narratives share the same order of creation, beginning with the heavens, then the sea, then the earth, and so on.
  • Both accounts climax with the creation of men and women, which occurs in the sixth scene or day in both accounts.

This has led scholars to speculate that Genesis borrowed the pagan accounts, purged and adopted them. However, deeper study of the Genesis account reveals that its theological function is to serve as a parody or a polemic of pagan cosmology and theology. This comes out in the differences between the two accounts. Read the rest of this entry »


Making the most of it

These are my notes on a sermon by the same name, based on the opening verses of Genesis 39 and preached by Alistair Begg. Listen to the entire sermon (length 49:05).

There is no ideal place to serve God except where He has set you.

A. Joseph was protected
1. Joseph was protected by the presence of God. He was kept alive from the time his brothers threw him in a pit until now he’s in Potiphar’s house. While he wasn’t protected from the circumstances, he was protected in the circumstances. God often changes our attitudes to our circumstances instead of changing them. In this case, God was dealing with Joseph’s character— pride amongst other things.
2. Joseph was protected from man’s perversity. The silent killers of resentment, self-pity and bitterness didn’t get a hold of him.
3. Joseph was protected for a special purpose.

B. Joseph was prospered
In Potiphar’s service he was diligent, obedient, reliable, industrious and conscientious. He didn’t have to tell Potiphar that there was blessing on his life, Potiphar saw it for himself (Gen 39:3)

C. Joseph was promoted
Gen 39:4. A result of God’s being with Joseph.

Lessons Alistair learned from Joseph’s story:

  • When you shun trials, you miss blessing
  • When all you have is sunshine, all you get is desert
  • More spiritual progress is made through failure and tears than through success and laughter

2 thoughts on Genesis 3:8-10

1. It is not God who is hiding from man. The apostle Paul would centuries later say, “[God] is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27)

2. It is not man who is looking for God. Otherwise Jesus would have told the parable of the lost shepherd, not that of the lost sheep.

Both these points go counter to what contemporary culture tells us, that man is on a search for a God who is difficult to find.

Source: A sermon by Dick Lucas, via David Jackman


Reflections on February’s readings (1)

I’m reading through the Bible in a year, and every month I (try to) post about what I’ve read.

This post is rather late… I really should quit procrastinating. However, by God’s grace, I’m not doing the same with my daily readings. In February, I completed the books of  Esther, Mark, Romans and Genesis (in that order); I started on Job, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Exodus.

Esther: I read only the last chapter in February. See last month’s post for my profound thoughts.

Mark: The gospel of  Mark is known for unique details that other gospel writers don’t mention, for example, James’ and John’s nickname (3:17), Jesus sleeping on a pillow (4:38), the green grass (6:39). Read the rest of this entry »


Reflections on January’s readings

I’m reading through the Bible in a year, and every month I (try to) post about what I’ve read.

So far, so good… I’m still on track with my Bible reading programme, having covered Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Acts, most of Esther and part of Genesis in January. Here are some thoughts, most of which I’ve gleaned from others over time:

Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book, and they tell the story of two walls: Nehemiah’s was a physical wall and Ezra’s a spiritual wall (separating the Israelites from the peoples around them). As far as I can tell, neither gets a mention in the NT. However, the work they (unknowingly) do in preparing for the coming of Messiah is irrefutable: He was prophesied to come to Jerusalem and to the Temple, so both needed to be present at His coming.

One thing I’d never noticed is how the prayer of the Levites in Nehemiah 9 is anything but original. It contains passages from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, the Psalms… all without sounding cliché-ridden. Read the rest of this entry »


How did that happen?

Ever wondered how, in Genesis 22, Abraham got Isaac on the altar? No? Me neither. Let me back up a little and explain.

The Bible doesn’t tell us how old Isaac was when this happened, though we do have something to go on. Verse 6 tells us that Abraham put the wood for the burnt offering on Isaac. Being able to carry the wood would put his age at a minimum of 13 or 14 years. Some Bible scholars place him in his thirties. Whatever. The point I’m making is that Isaac was an able-bodied fellow when this took place.

So back to the question: How did Abraham get Isaac on the altar? Option one: he wrestled him on. Isaac was 100 years younger than his father, so this was an unlikely occurrence. Option two: Isaac got on willingly. This second option may lead us to infer that Isaac’s faith was Abraham’s faith (or the other way round, if you prefer).  As we read in Hebrews, “Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.” Isaac, who undoubtedly was not ignorant of the circumstances of his birth, may have believed the same as well.

So what do I think? (Not that it matters much). I think Isaac got on willingly, just as another Son who likewise carried the wood for His sacrifice got on willingly. This Son was raised to life, and now I can be right with God through His sacrifice. Wow.

HT: Alistair Begg


Beauty and the Bible

This is a post I’ve been ruminating on for close to two months now, but as they say, “Better late than never!”

The wheels in my brain started turning when I heard a conversation between two of my lady friends, K and N (obviously not their real names :) . N was going to her home country for a visit and was asking K for beauty tips–N would be seeing her husband for the first time in a year. K was really excited, and said something to the effect that married women should look physically stunning (I know for sure that she mentioned stiletto heels). At this point I jumped into the conversation, totally uninvited. I said that it wasn’t necessary for married women to undergo a complete transformation to the extent that the husband wonders “Who is this woman?” There were no men present to comment on my comment. There were two other ladies present, though, one of whom has been married over five years. I turned to her and asked her to verify my claim. She just smiled enigmatically. I continued doing what I’d been working on as K and N went into territory unfamiliar for me–my idea of dressing up is putting on earrings. But I wondered to myself what the Bible had to say about this issue of beauty.

Later that week or the next week, I don’t recall, I was listening to a message given at a women’s conference in which the speaker pointed out that any time beauty is mentioned in the Bible it is almost always associated with trouble (why didn’t I have that ammo to throw at K and N some days prior?).  I made a mental note to check out that statement, not so much to test its veracity as to learn firsthand.

My research yielded another message given at another women’s conference in which the speaker looked briefly at the lives of women in the Bible described as being beautiful. That meant I had only to look up the men, who were thankfully not many. So here follows my “research”, entirely from the Old Testament:

Eve: There isn’t a direct reference to her beauty; however Genesis 1:31 tells us that God looked at everything He had made, and it was very good. It can therefore be reasonably concluded that she was a belle. Trouble: she fell for Satan’s lie.

Sarah: Twice her husband passed her off for his sister, fearing that he’d otherwise be bumped off unceremoniously.( Gen 12:11-13, Gen 20:2)

Rebekah: She was very beautiful (Gen 24:15-16), and dutiful. Trouble: she played favourites with her children, and ended up deceiving her husband.

Rachel: Her sister Leah had weak/delicate eyes (whatever that means), but she was lovely in from and beautiful (Gen 29:17).

Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel were all beauteous– and barren.

Moses: His mother saw he was “a fine child” (Exodus 2:1-2). No word on whether he grew into a fine-looking man.

Saul: He is described as “an impressive young man…a head taller than any of the others” (1 Sam 9:2). Trouble: his pride got him booted out of the kingship.

David: “He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.” (1 Sam 16:12) Trouble: Bathsheba, his children (see below).

Abigail: “She was an intelligent and beautiful woman.” (1 Sam 25:3) Brains plus beauty! Trouble: that husband of hers, Nabal.

Bathsheba: “She was very beautiful” (2 Sam 11:2-3). Trouble: she got caught up in King David’s schemes, which led to the deaths of her husband and child. However, it was her son, Solomon, who was chosen to succeed David as King.

Tamar: 2 Sam 13:1-21 records her story. Trouble: her half-brother Amnon lusted after her and raped her. Her brother Absalom kills Amnon.

Absalom: He was highly praised in all Israel for his appearance (2 Sam 14:25). Trouble: In addition to fratricide, he organised a coup against his father. He died a bizarre death when his hair got tangled in thick branches. He had a daughter named Tamar (like his disgraced sister),  and “she became a beautiful woman” (2 Sam 14:27).

Esther: She underwent twelve months of beauty treatment– she has my respect and admiration! Esther 2:17 says “Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women.”

The Shulammite woman in Song of Songs and her lover: Like any respectable lovebirds, they tell each other how beautiful/handsome the other is. A case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder? Maybe, maybe not…

And that’s it for the Old Testament.  Typing this out has taken longer than I thought, so next time I shall wrap things up, sharing some of what I learned from the aforementioned messages from women’s conferences.