The story of Noah in brief

Listening to: St Matthew Passion: JS Bach (Leonhardt)

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth" (Gen 6:5)

The LORD said "I have seen that you [Noah] are righteous before me", so the LORD saved him, his household and all those animals he takes with him (Gen 7:1)

"the waters prevailed...but God remembered Noah...and God made a wind [or 'Spirit'] blow" (Gen 7:24f)

"The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma" of Noah's sacrifice and made a covenant never to curse the ground again and to bless Noah and his sons (Gen 8:20ff).

God gave the sign of the rainbow so that when Noah was no longer around he would "see it and remember the everlasting covenant"

Fulfilled in the righteous man who drowned in God's wrath, was remembered by the Father, was saved by the Spirit, made an pleasing sacrifice to the Father who then gave us the sign of baptism which he sees and remembers the covenant he made with his Son.

... or something like that.

Meetings at the well

Genesis 24: Abraham's servant and Rebekah

The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Then the servant ran to meet her and said, "Please give me a little water to drink from your jar." She said, "Drink, my lord." And she quickly let down her jar upon her hand and gave him a drink.

Genesis 29: Jacob and Rachel

While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep, for she was a shepherdess. Now as soon as Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, Jacob came near and rolled the stone from the well's mouth and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.

Exodus 2: Moses and Zipporah

Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and drew water and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. The shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up and saved them, and watered their flock.

John 4: Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." ... The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."

I've some detailed thoughts on the connections between John 4 and Genesis 24 here.

Today I'd just like to note that Jesus begins by testing the Samaritan Woman, as Rebekah was tested by Abraham's servant. Through that test Rebekah was shown to be worthy of being Isaac's wife and the Samaritan unworthy of being a member of Jesus' bride. As well as this moral worth, Rebekah is physically beautiful. The Samaritan woman has had 5 husbands, and it is probably fair to speculate that she was past her prime by this stage.

However, Jesus doesn't reject this woman. Like Jacob and Moses before him he acts as a saviour. They provided water from the well, but Jesus provided living water.

Prohibition and provision in paradise

As Bruce Waltke describes it, Satan distorts the perspective of our first parents by emphasizing God's one prohibition, not his provision:

Adam and Eve are surrounded by wonderful trees and provisions in the garden, including the tree of life, but all Eve can see is the one tree of which they cannot partake. Once Satan can get our eyes on what we cannot do, we are sure to do it.

The garden is Paradise: if humanity fails in this ideal setting, then there is no hope for humanity to keep faith anywhere else... In contrast to much sociological thinking, namely, that the way to improve humans is to improve their environment, humanity at its best rebels in the perfect environment. Sodom and Gomorrah, where humanity sunk to the lowest levels of violence and sex, was at the time like the "garden of the LORD" (Gen. 13:10). Our modern world is no better.

(pp. 31-32, Kelly M. Kapic, With Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity, citing p102, 101, Bruce Waltke with Cathi Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary)

The illusion of safety in numbers

At the heart of the Babel narrative is disobedience to the command to Adam and Noah to fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; 9:1). The reason that the people of Babel give for building the tower is "lest [they] be dispersed over the face of the whole earth" (11:4). In verse 8 and 9 it is repeated twice that the God's action in response to their building was that he "dispersed them over the face of all the earth."

Why was dispersal so important that people went to such lengths to avoid it, and God went to such lengths to ensure it happened?

God wanted people to spread so that they could image him to the whole earth - not just one corner of it. He wanted his name to be great.

The people of Babel were more concerned with making a name for themselves than God. Spread out across the world they were weak, and desperately aware of their dependence on the grace of God. They felt a safety in the numbers of a city, and their eyes could be filled with their achievements covering God's masterpiece with a thin crust of human ingenuity.

So did God just begrudge people growing up and finding their independence? Did he want to keep us weak so that he was needed, and he was the only strong one? That motivation could be seen to lie behind his statement that "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them" (v. 6).

But, no. God wasn't being a parent who can't let go and stunts his children as a result. In ripping away the comfort and security of the city from these people, he was showing love. The comfort of the city was a false comfort blinding them to reality as it really is. They may have felt closer to God, more important and safer because of their city and tower, but that was just a mirage in the desert.

Only in Jesus Christ could they not just come close to God but be invited into the divine communion of the Trinity. Only in Jesus Christ could they judge angels and rule the earth as Adam was destined to do. Only in Jesus Christ could they be safe from death and the wrath of God.

God was pushing them out of a false fortress so they would find a refuge in the wilderness in him alone.

• Where do you feel safe? If it is because you have your health and savings you're living in Babel.
• When do you feel worth something? If it is when people think much of you you're thinking like the people of Babel.
• Why do you feel close to God? If it is because of anything you have built you've got an understanding of God (up there, just out of touching distance) which you share with the people of Babel.

PS An interesting application would be to the distribution of church congregations. Tim Chester in a recent talk quoted statistics showing that in Australia the numbers of congregations has fallen slower than the number of Christians (I'd bet it is the same here - Christopher Ash thinks so anyway). This means as Christians we are increasingly huddling together in our medium to large churches, avoiding the 'weakness' of having to rely on God alone in little churches dispersed across the country as "communities of light" (Tim Chester's phrase).

A little note on the Noahic covenant

There are three aspects to the Noahic covenant:

1. God promises to hold back from exercising his authority. God will "never again... curse the ground because of man" however evil they are.
2. God delegates the rights and responsibilities of his authority to humanity:
• Man is to be fruitful, and fill the earth;
• Man is to eat of every creature on the earth, in the sea and in the air.
• Man is to judge any man or animal that kills another man.
3. This is bought at a price - a price that continually needs to be paid:
• The Noahic covenant is founded on sacrifice, because it is given in response to Noah's sacrifice on the altar he builds in 8:20.
• The Noahic covenant requires continual sacrifices - that is the implication of the seemingly strange command not to eat the blood in animals. The reason being that "the life of the flesh is in the blood, and ... it is the blood that makes atonement" (Lev 17:11).

God didn't give up on this promise to delegate authority to humanity, even though "at present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to" man (Hebrews 2). He has already given it to "a man whom he has appointed" who "will judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31) and share his power to judge with his brothers (1 Cor 6:2).

We can now eat meat with blood in it. Not for some arbitrary reason, but because the blood of Jesus was the one sacrifice for all time, God demands no more sacrifice as the price of the promise.

Jesus received the promises of delegated authority given to THE image of God, THE man (Adam). He received those promises because he paid the full price in blood. Graciously he shares the promise of delegated rule (and, to a degree, the cost) with those united to him by faith.

[Aside:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image." (Gen 9:6)

I have always assumed that the "image of God" in this passage refers primarily to the person who is murdered, but I think it is more likely to be the person who executes the murderer. As I've long been convinced - "image of God" is more functional than ontological.]

Jesus as the Second Adam in Colossians 1

In Colossians 1 Jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" (vv.15-18).

He images God, just as Adam did. He is the firstborn of creation, like Adam was. He is the head of a family, just as Adam was. His family will multiply and increase to cover the whole earth too, and according to verses 4-5 this happens as the gospel spreads over the whole earth and the church grows in numbers, good works and knowledge ( "the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing", cf. v.10).

Lines could be drawn to Acts 6:7; 12:23; 19:20 where the word of God increases, Romans 6, the Great Commission, and all the 'new Adam' figures in the OT who also receive their own mandate/promise of increase (i.e. Noah, Abraham, etc - Gen 9:1, 6-7; 12:2; 17:2,6,8; 22:17-18; 26:34,24; 28:3-4; 35:11-12; 47:27; Ex 1:7; Lev 26:9; Ps 107:38; Is 51:2; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:10-11, 29-30)... anything else?

All credit to Greg Beale.

The Theme of the Pentateuch by David Clines

I've just read David Clines's influential work, The Theme of the Pentateuch (1978). It is well worth the read. Short, well written and very persuasive it has a substantial and important point to prove, and you can see why it had the impact it did.

Overview of the Pentatuach

He summarises his proposal (p.29) as:

The theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfilment - which implies the partial non-fulfilment - of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs. The promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where human initiatives always lead to disaster and a re-affirmation of the primal divine intentions for man. The promise has three elements: posterity, divine-human relationship, and land. The posterity element of the promise is dominant in Genesis 12-50, the relationship element in Exodus and Leviticus, and the land-element in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

On Genesis 1-11 he concludes that in isolation it could be considered to have one of two themes: "(a) Mankind tends to destroy what God has made good", whether God responds in judgement or grace sin continues inextricably to spread; or "(b) No matter how drastic man's sin becomes, destroying what God has made good and bringing the world to the brink of uncreation, God's grace never fails to deliver man from the consequences of his sin" (p.76). However, he concludes that the genealogy of Abram makes it impossible to isolate Genesis 1-11 from the rest of the Pentatuach and read in the light of the whole "The patriarchal (or, Pentatuachal) narratives can then function as the "mitigation" element of the Babel story, and what is more, the divine promise to the patriarchs then demands to be read in conjunction with Genesis 1 - as a re-affirmation of the divine intentions for man" (p.78)

Clines concludes by reflecting on the theological function of the Pentatuach and argues that it functions as both story and promise.

Pentatuach as Story

As story it:

1. "highlights the freedom of action enjoyed by men and gods"
2. does not make a "distinction between the real and the unreal. Everything that happens really happens (whether we believe it or not)"
3. "moves through time" but doesn't reach a conclusion instead it "presses beyond itself to a goal that lies still in the future even when its story is over"
4. "is often played out in spatial as well as temporal terms".

Like many stories he explains that the Pentatuach is a travel story where "everyone seems constantly on the move". But it is a travel story that seems to fit with so many other travel stories that spring "from the desire of the unsettled to be settled, and of the settled to be unsettled". We all desire "to be running away and [at the same time] to be heading towards".

The Pentatuach reveals this same tension. In one sense it is a "a homecoming, tortuous and wearisome and rich in experience [to] the land of their fathers (Gen. 48:21; cf. 31:3), the land of the Hebrews (Gen. 40:15)." But at the same time it "is a land that has never really been their own. 'Land of the fathers' it may be called once or twice, but overwhelming it is 'the land of the Canaanites'...which at the return will have to be fought for as if it had never been Israel's at all"

However, in another sense it is "a laborious search for a new home". "But Israel...tells its primal travel story not as a tale of an abandonment of home under the divine impulse to search out a new home... but as the story of an escape from a home that was not a home in order to make for a home that had never been a home. Israel were 'sojourners', and so truly homeless.. They are unsettled in pursuit of the unobtained."

But, Clines asks, "Who wants, in short to view one's own life as neither moving towards a comfortable homecoming nor moving out towards heroic adventure?" "The Pentateuch offers us an unattractive option for our self-understanding... where 'you never reach the promised land; you only march towards it'".

Pentatuach as Promise

As promise it:

1. "binds man to the future";
2. "is more than hope" because it is "the word of the God of the fathers";
3. "indicates that the expected future does not have to develop within the framework of the possibilities inherent in the present, but arises from that which is possible to the God of the promise";
4. "creates a sense for history [because] it binds him to the past"
5. "speaks of what is not now but is only yet to be, the interval between the promise and its redemption is one of tension"
6. will not be exhausted in its fulfilment "because the God of the promises is greater than any fulfilment that cannot be expected" instead "there always remains an overspill

Clines, like the Pentatuach, does not tell us the end of the story, but leaves us there looking forward in anticipation. Thank God, that though we are in still in the midst of the same story longing for the fulfilment of the same promise in us, the future has already been revealed in Christ.

Stairways to heaven

Listening to: Bob Dylan: Blood on the Tracks

The people of Babel said to themselves "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens" but YHWH saw the ladder they had created and said "Come, let us go down [it?] and there confuse their language" (Gen 11).

At Bethel Jacob dreamed of "a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!" God stood at the top and blessed Jacob below (Gen 28).

Samson's father, Manoah, made a burnt offering to YHWH and "the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar" (Judg 13).

Centuries later Jesus promised his disciples "you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man"

Jesus, by his sacrificial offering of himself, is a ladder down which God's ministering spirits come to serve God's people (Heb 1:14). If we build alternative ladders angels will use those to come to us as well, but they may not be coming to serve.

Thirsty camels and hard women

Abraham's servants took 10 camels to find Isaac a wife. After a few days without water they could each drink about 25 gallons of water (p.56, John Walton et al, The IVP Bible Background Commentary). In which case when Rebekah watered the servant's camels until they stopped drinking she must have drawn up to 250 gallons of water from the well.

I would give up after about 20 gallons.

I think she could take me in a fight.

The Jacob/Judah/Joseph Story

Genesis 37-50 is the 'account of Jacob' (Genesis 37:2 NIV). Nevertheless when the writer of Genesis heads a section 'the account of...' he actually tends to tell the story of the children of that person. So 'the account of Terah' is about Abraham and Isaac, 'the account of Isaac' about Jacob (and Esau), etc. So who is Genesis 37-50 about?

Most preachers would answer Joseph. There are some fairly obvious reasons for that but I think there is actually a case that it is primarily about Judah.

Controversial maybe, but here are my reasons:

1. There is a development in Judah's life which is not present in Joseph

Joseph doesn't really change in the story. He is definitely a good guy, but he has his flaws. He is an arrogant and insensitive twit when he has dreams about his brothers, and he toys with his brothers and father when they come to Egypt. Judah however, while shown in a bad light always has a few redeeming features which grow over the narrative.

Judah first suggests that the brothers do not kill Joseph but instead sell him into slavery (better than most of the brothers if not ideal). In Genesis 38 he acts disgracefully toward Tamar but repents of not giving his son Shelah to Tamar. Judah then pledges the security of Benjamin to his father(43:9). When the cup is found in Benjamin's sack he offers that all the brothers be Joseph's servants (44:16). When that does not satisfy he offers to be Benjamin's substitute (44:33).

2. Judah seems to take over the leadership of the brothers

In Genesis 43-44 he is the only one of the brothers mentioned by name speaking to Jacob or to Joseph. He speaks a lot, and wisely.

In contrast Simeon and Levi's leadership in Genesis 34 over Dinah is depicted negatively, and they never take leadership again. Reuben lays with his father's concubine in Genesis 35:22, and while he tries to protect Joseph in Genesis 37, in Genesis 42:37 he says Jacob can kill his sons if he fails to bring back Benjamin! A stark contrast to Judah.

It is not unimportant that these four who are so prominent in the narrative are the first four sons of Leah (Genesis 35:23). Judah is forth in line, but those before them disqualify themself. That certainly seems to be how Jacob views it in his 'blessings' of Genesis 49:3-12.

3. Genesis 38 makes no sense as part of a story about Joseph

The account of Judah and Tamar is large interruption of 'the Joseph story'. It serves no purpose as part of that story, where as all the narrative about Joseph is necessary to understand Judah's story.

4. Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49 singles out Judah

Jacob's blessing of his sons is the climax of the narrative. Joseph does receive great blessing from Jacob but it is Judah who shall have the sceptre and the ruler's staff. Joseph may have been served by all his brothers, but that is not an indication of the future glory of his line. The seed goes Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah... David... Jesus. Joseph's line is ultimately forgotten.

5. Jesus Christ

If all the bible is about Jesus Christ, the descendent of Judah, shouldn't we be a little surprised if Joseph gets more airplay than Judah? Especially if Judah is the fourth child of an unwanted wife who offers himself as a substitute for his brothers, and Joseph is a powerful ruler of Egypt?

Animals that could be sacrificed in the OT

Peter Leithart (who is on good form at the moment) observes:

Biblical sacrifices were confined to clean animals, and, more specifically, to domesticated clean animals. No wild animal ever ascended to Yahweh's altar?

What does it say about Israel that it offered only domesticated animals? What does it say that Israel detached the cult from the hunt?

I don't know the answer to that question although I have ideas. These sort of questions are going round my head a lot while reading Leviticus at the moment. Would birds count as domesticated animals though?

One passage that includes all the animals that could be sacrificed in a slightly different context is Genesis 15:8-10 when God makes a covenant with Abram:

But he said, "O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

Of course there were non-animal offerings too (e.g. grain and wine) but I think that only cultivated crops were offered. A particularly interesting omission is fish.

Rebekah and the Samaritan Woman

There are some remarkable parallels between Rebekah in Genesis 24 and the Samaritan Woman in John 1:1-45.

The descendants of Nahor were part of Abraham's family but somewhat removed, geographically and by faith. Terah, Abram and Lot left Ur of the Chaldeans possibly leaving Nahor with idolatry (Josh 24:2), but certainly leaving him behind in their journey to the promised land. The Samaritans were also the awkward family members to the Jews in Jesus' day, related but with their own land, and their own faith.

They share several other literary connections:

• Both involve a man alone on a journey in a land of the estranged family.
• Both men meet a woman at her local well and ask her straight out for a drink (Gen 24:17; John 4:7).
• The reactions of each of the women differ markedly. One is defensive and suspicious, and one is gracious and open.
• Both men have offer something wonderful to the women.
• The reaction of both women is finally to run back to town and describe what has just happened.
• The town welcomes Jesus and ask him to stay with them for two nights. The city of Nahor also welcomes Abraham's servant and persuade him to stay with them for a night.

In addition both narratives are concerned with marriage, and a marriage into the covenant line, with the promised seed of Abraham.

The Samaritan woman is not just another individual but representative of Samaria, and all the nations. She has had many husbands and not accepted that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. Jer 3:8; Hos 4:15 etc). If you see that then the women's next response to Jesus ('Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship') becomes not just a random theological riposte to try and gain the offensive, but illustrative of exactly how she has had different husbands. Jesus points her beyond the covenant with the old Jerusalem, to himself as the new Jerusalem where the nations will flood too (e.g. Jer 3:17). She has had many husbands, but he is the bridegroom that will really satisfy, as John the Baptist has only just declared (John 3:29).

Do you think I'm drawing lines which are not there?

I really don't think I am, but realise I haven't explained it as fluently as it deserves. Hopefully you get the picture though.

Who is the covenant with?

In Genesis 16 Sarai deals harshly with Hagar. Hagar is seen and heard by YHWH. She is also told to go back to her Sarai and submit to her!

In Genesis 17 YHWH declares that the covenant that he has with Abram is that 'every male shall be circumcised' and it is made clear that this includes Ishmael first through the emphasis in vv.12f on how everyone under Abram is to be circumcised, and secondly in vv.24f where we are told that Ishmael was circumcised. However, God also states that the covenant will be established with Isaac vv.18-22 and definitely not with Ishmael.

There is a tension here. After all God is giving the sign of the covenant to those whom he is not going to establish the covenant with and helping the Egyptian servant looks with contempt on his chosen people! God is overflowing in his love and is not the property of Abram. However, Abram and his chosen line is given the pre-eminent rule, and special blessing.

Few things have changed. Abramham's Seed is still the one with whom God establishes his covenant. He is the one to who we should submit, so that we can share in his blessing.

[I ought to read Dumbrell's Covenant and Creation again, because I cannot remember the technical meaning of 'establishing a covenant'.]

Abraham's journey of faith

Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.

Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you."

(Genesis 11:27-12:1)

Abraham was not just called by God to the promised land. He was chased there!

I was struck by that after reading Genesis 11 on a day when I dealt with a death claim at work for a father who had recently lost his daughter. The worst death claims to me are those where a parent is dealing with their children's death.

Terah is having a merry old time in Ur when one of his three sons dies in his presence. Another son is finding it impossible to have children. Perhaps he is thinking that this is not such a good place to live after all. He decides to emigrate and find a better life. Nahor is doing alright so he decides to stay put, but the rest of the clan follow.

Nicely settled in their new home in Heran, Terah is quite happy and the family acquire lots of people and possessions (12:5). But then Terah dies and there is nothing forcing the rest of the family to stay. Perhaps, if they head further west, life will be even better.

It was still doubtless by faith that Abram decided decided to head God's call. Nevertheless God made it easier by burning some bridges as he went.

The age of the Patriarchs

OK I'm a boring geek, who actually finds graphs really interesting.

I am also unsurprisingly being led to read Genesis in January by my Bible reading plan.

I had always made an assumption about the ages of the humanity declining at a fairly steady pace from Adam onwards. But no! Slightly more careful reading has made me realise that the decline in ages only really starts following Noah.

What do you think the significance of that is?

My feeling is that we are being told that Ham/Noah cause a second fall. And being more subtle perhaps Babel is then a third fall ('the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided'). The genealogy of Genesis 5 relates the affects of the Fall by the refrain 'and he died'. The genealogy of Genesis 11 relates the affects of the second major fall (I think there are several further falls in Genesis 4) by the drop off in ages.

Here are the ages according to the ESV:

Adam: 930 years
Seth: 912 years
Enosh: 905 years
Kenan: 910 years
Mahalalel: 895 years
Jared: 962 years
Enoch: 365+ years
Methuselah: 969 years
Lamech: 777 years
Noah: 950 years
Shem: 600 years
Arpachshad: 458 years
Shelah: 433 years
Eber: 464 years
Peleg: 239 years
Reu: 239 years
Serug: 230 years
Nahor: 148 years
Terah: 205 years
Abraham: 175 years
Isaac: 180 years
Jacob: 147 years

Obedience of faith

I've been away on holiday in the Lakes so sorry for the lack of posting. I have not got much to post right now but the books I ordered on peoples recommendations have arrived so I'll start having a go at them soon.

While I'm here though I'd just like to note down a parallel before I forget it.

A much disputed phrase in modern Pauline studies is the phrase 'the obedience of faith' which is particularly important as it appears at the beginning and end of Romans (1:5 and 16:26):

Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations

...Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

I've just realised that Paul seems to be seeing in his ministry the fulfilment of Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49:10:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Who says Paul doesn't talk about the Kingdom of God?

No hero but Christ

So you are doing an overview of the bible. The covenant with Abraham has to be one of the first events you choose to tick off. Perhaps you will start with Genesis 12:1-9 where he is called to the promised land, to be made a great nation, and to be a blessing to the whole world. Would you then carry on to look at verses 10-20?

Session 4 of The World We All Want does go on to look at those verses, and I am now convinced that you should do. Not only do you see the first partial fulfilment of God's promise that 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse', but you see the sin of his people, and the overcoming grace of God. Great stuff!

Excluded from the generations

It is easy in some ways to see the structure of Genesis as the author kindly provides us with section headings (although slightly confusingly when X is in the title it is the children of X and not X himself in focus):

1. the generations of the heavens and the earth [about humanity as a whole and climaxing in God's curse of humanity]
2. the generations of Noah [about Noah but climaxing at the end with his blessings/curses for his sons]
3. the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. [about the children of Noah's son's (the nations) and climaxing with God's judgment of them at Babel]
4. the generations of Shem. ['just' a list of Shem's descendants]
5. the generations of Terah.[about Abraham and Isaac closing with Abraham and God's blessing of Isaac]
6. the generations of Ishmael [a short list of his descendants]
7. the generations of Isaac [about Jacob and climaxing with his blessing and renaming by God]
8. the generations of Esau [a short list of Esau's descendants]
9. the generations of Jacob [about Joseph and Judah and climaxing with the blessing of both]

Lot's to think about in this structure but I've been thinking about Judah and Tamar again due to Peter Dray's prompting. Gordon Wenham comments on this episode that:

If scholars had taken more seriously the editor's title in 37:2, "This is the family history of Jacob," they might not have been so wont to write off this chapter as irrelevant. Chaps. 37-50 are not just the story of Joseph but the story of Jacob's family. Therefore, to have sections entirely devoted to other sons of Jacob should not be surprising.

However when you think about that there is a further problem which jumps out at you. Why are what are perhaps the most significant stories about some of Jacob's children (Simeon, Levi, Dinah and Reuben) in the wrong section? Why are they in Genesis 34 and Genesis 35:22 when naturally they belong in Chapters 37-50? The answer seems to come in what I think is the climax of Genesis: Jacob's blessing of his sons. Jacob starts with considering his eldest sons:

"Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. Unstable as water, you shall not have preeminence, because you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it—he went up to my couch! "Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords. Let my soul come not into their council; O my glory, be not joined to their company. For in their anger they killed men, and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel."

Not much of a blessing! In fact it is clear that Jacob is excluding his 3 eldest son's from the promise because of their behaviour in the other section of the book. Then, In a way that seems difficult to hold together Jacob blesses both Judah and Joseph in very strong terms which in one breath give prominence to Judah and in another to Joseph. It is clear how Joseph justifies these high blessings but the story of Judah and Tamar hardly seems to make Judah fit for "the ruler's staff". In a way this is of course typical of God, for he is a God of grace, but yet there may still be a reason for it. Wenham again:

There is a glaring contrast between Jacob's inconsolable grief over the "death" of Joseph, described at the end of chap.37, and the absence of any mourning by Judah when two of his sons died, as described in 38:7-10. Judah seems to be a hard and callous man. [...] In this story, he not only fails to mourn the death of his two sons but he summarily orders his daughter-in-law to be burned. Yet what a different Judah we meet in 44:18-34. Here he appeals for Benjamin's release with great warmth and tenderness [...] Clearly, Judah is a changed man, and this story shows the beginning of the transformation when he admits "She is in the right, not I" (38:26). [...] in its biographical sketches, character change is what Genesis is all about: Abram becomes Abraham; Jacob becomes Israel.

So Genesis 38 is a turning point in the life of Judah. Here he repents of sin which contrasts with Simeon and Levi in Genesis 34:30-31 who they are defiant in their own righteousness in the face of a stinging rebuke from their father. Wenham mentions Judah's new tenderness later in Genesis but there he also seems to take the role of the leader amongst the brothers in Joseph's absence. In Genesis 43:1-10 Judah speaks on behalf of his brothers in conversation with Jacob and pledges for Benjamin's safety. In Genesis 44 we also read of "Judah and his brothers" where Judah again acts as spokesman for his brothers when talking to Joseph.

So perhaps the key to Genesis 38 comes in its final verses:

• Judah repents
• The line of the Seed is continued with the birth of children.
• The younger ousts the older to be pre-eminent.

Those are just some thoughts to keep me going anyway.

Judah and Tamar retold

"may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman." (Ruth 4:12)

A strange blessing to give a couple considering Judah and Tamar were as far from the perfect couple as you could imagine. However, perhaps this was important to the author of Ruth as the story bares some striking similarities to the story in Genesis 38. In addition the story ends with "the generations of Perez" giving a genealogy beginning with Perez and ending with David.

After some reflection I think I may go so far as to say that Ruth is the recounting of what the faithful people of God act like in contrast to the cautionary tale of Judah and Tamar. Here are some of the similarities I spotted.

Gen 38	Ruth
Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite	Elimelech moved away from his people to Moab
Judah and his son marry a Canaanite	Mahlon and Chilion marry Moabites
Judah's two sons die	Elimelech and his two sons die
Judah and Onan act unfaithfully as kinsman-redeemer	Boaz acts faithfully as kinsman-redeemer, the un-named redeemer of Ruth 4 does not act faithfully
Tamar faithfully seeks to continue the line	Ruth faithfully seeks to continue the line
Tamar offers herself as a prostitute to Judah	Ruth seeks to seduce Boaz in a way which could almost be considered entrapment
Judah dishonourable and seduced by Tamar	Boaz is honourable in his conduct to Ruth
Tamar is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of Boaz, David and Jesus	Ruth is included in the people of Israel and is an ancestor of David and Jesus

However, as I find Genesis 38 one of the more puzzling bits of Scripture perhaps I haven't helped myself understand Ruth any better.

The Table of Nations: another side of the story

Dave Bish has just written a great post about the seep and recurring problem with humanity as told through the genealogies of the bible, particularly the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

Anyway, this encouraged me to take up and read (as Dave Bish's blog has a habit of doing) and I felt like sharing a few random, and more positive, observations on Genesis 9-11.

I was just listening to some lectures by Bruce Waltke the other day. He observes that is the Table of Nations seems to be in the wrong place chronologically. According to Genesis 11 (part of) the reason for the dispersing of people and the different nations that result is the sin making a name for themselves. However by placing the Table of Nations before that Moses seems to God's call to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Genesis 9:1; 7). It is blessing and a reminder that Noah is a new Adam and the world has a new start.

Of course before we get going sin has creeped in again with Ham's dishonour towards his father in drawing attention to his naked father (unlike Dave Bish I'm not so sure Noah sinned as Ham is the one who is blamed). This leads to the cursing of Ham and the blessing of Shem and Japheth. However it is notable that the blessings of the brothers is not the same.

"Blessed be the LORD [YHWH], the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant." (9:26-27)

YHWH was the covenant name of God, the name that showed his special relationship to his people. Shem and Japheth both receive blessings but Noah gives a greater blessing to Shem by saying that God will be with his line.

This blessing is not just for Shem but for his decendents and the Hebrews in particular (Note the promanence brought to Eber, who gave his name to the Hebrews, in Genesis 10:21). And this is how we should make this passage ours today, for we are the children of Abraham (Romans 9:7) if by faith we unite ourselves with the one who was physically his child.

Nevertheless this blessing does not come in a straightforward way. Dave Bish can see the many examples of sin in genealogies. For me in Genesis this is shown as much as anything by the declining life spans of the people (see Genesis 11). As the author of Hebrews points out even Abraham who YHWH was especially close to still did not see much blessing and lived in tents hoping for something better (Hebrews 11:9). His 175 years was less than his father, and in the grand scheme it was not long before he fell under the curse of death.

Perhaps though in Genesis 7-11 we also see how God will bless his people when Sin and it's consequences reigns on the earth. In Genesis 7-9 God seems to be destroying the world to recreate it. The trouble is he doesn't complete the destruction as Noah and his family bring the pollution into the new world. In Genesis 11 God shows his determination to again bless the world despite the sins of humanity. He judges the world at Babel in order to continue the filling of earth he promised/commanded Noah, his mercy wins through again.

Peter and Paul recognised that this pattern of God blessing his covenant people, and judging the world to recreate it, reached its climax in Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham. God was merciful in the flood and held back his anger, as he had been merciful to Adam, Eve and Cain. On Jesus though the Father would pour out the full judgment on sin (cf Rom 3:25), but also bring to fulfilment the promise to his covenant people in Jesus' resurrection life. And this can be ours too. Not by birth into a line of promise, but by rebirth following death in baptism (Romans 6; likened to the flood in 1 Peter 3:18-22).