Genesis 50:22-26, Exodus 1 #eebc2018

Genesis ends with the death of Joseph, but not before he saw his great-grandchildren and had his descendants swear to take his bones from Egypt and bury them in the Promised Land. Worth considering here is that, apparently, some change had occurred in Egypt and the surrounding areas that prohibited Joseph from being buried like Jacob was--directly transported to the land of Canaan (remember, it's not Israel yet) and buried. Exactly what the problem may have been is not certain, but there's something going on here.

That's how Genesis wraps up--from "In the Beginning, God..." to a temporary burial in Egypt. It's a narrowing scope.

Exodus then begins with a reminder of who came down to Egypt. Then the news turns bad. The new Pharaoh does not "know" Joseph. There are a couple of meaning points here. First is the obvious one: Joseph is dead, so the Pharaoh does not know Joseph--he's never met him, like you've never met George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

But using the same illustration, if you're American, you should "know" Washington and Jefferson, because you should know the heritage they left in this country. You should know the benefits received for what they had done.

The Pharaoh in question does not know Joseph in this way, either, and that is what makes him dangerous. He has power over the lives of those in his land, and he sees this group of Israelites who have maintained their separate culture, kept their identity, and because of those differences he sees them as a threat. He does so with complete disregard for the centuries the Israelites have lived in Egypt and not been problems...

He then sets out to destroy the Hebrews (used as the broader term for the descendants of Jacob here) through infanticide. Well, first he tries forced labor, then goes on to infanticide. As a side note, while one must be careful arguing through slippery slope claims, history (including this history) bears it out more often than not. First it's one thing, then a worse thing--here it's forced labor, then more forced labor, then it's infanticide, and then it's throwing babies into the Nile River.

Had Pharaoh simply decided at the outset to throw the Hebrews out of his country, the outcome would have been better.

A few other notes here: we have no name for Pharaoh, but we do for the midwives. It's probable that Shiphrah and Puah were the top midwives, because two midwives wouldn't be enough for the population. Or, the direct efforts of Pharaoh were aimed at Hebrew leadership and these were the midwives to the nobility, such as it was.

All told, there's a lesson here about judging people's value--midwives, foreigners, Hebrews, etc., and it's this: rather than being afraid of who they are, pay attention to who they are and what they do. Live and let live, as much as possible. Please note, though, as you look at 'policy' in light of this, that the Hebrews had no intention to overthrow Egypt or go on murderous rampages within it.

The Hebrews don't start trouble, the Egyptians do. The Hebrews finish it, though.

Matthew 10:40-11:24 #eebc2018

This segment of Scripture goes from good to bad, in just about 30 verses. We start with the positive, cheerful idea that those who support and encourage a ministry or a follower of Jesus are rewarded just as those who are encouraged and keep on in their good works. Then we finish with the idea that judgment day will be better for Sodom and Sidon than for the cities that rejected Jesus...

That's a mood shift in your daily Bible reading for you. Let's take the pieces and put it together:

First, there is a unifying theme in these segments: the work of spreading the message of the Gospel. The first section deals with those who encourage the messengers, the second with the discouraged messenger, and the last with those who ignore the proclaimed message. The thread of messages and messengers tracks across this set of passages.

So, what about it? First, to recognize that some people are charged with spreading the message--the opening section deals with prophets, righteous people, and little ones. In this context, each of these terms deal with those fulfilling a responsibility in a religious context. (Other places, "righteous people" is a general term and "little ones" is more about children/younger folks.) Here, though, you should these as people serving God. Some are well-known, easy to see, like prophets. Others have distinguished lives, like righteous people. Others are simply those walking humbly through life--the little ones. (Mostly derived from: Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992.)

Jesus is pointing to the idea that these folks cannot fulfill their tasks without support, and the supporters are equal partners in the work. A side note would be the counter-condemnation that the supporters of those who do evil, down to simply offering a cup of cold water to aid those doing evil, should expect the same reward as the ones doing evil.

Then we see the twelve disciples sent out to preach, but Jesus does not leave their hometowns untouched. Instead, He goes and preaches there. This is a direct pushback against the mindset that we do not need to do missions because there are plenty of needs here: both need to be done, and God is sovereign and capable of meeting the needs here if we go there.

John the Baptist gives us an interlude, as he struggles with his time in prison. He's not entirely sure Jesus is who John thought He was, but then Jesus uses that to highlight the work of John.

Finally, Jesus points out the condemnation due those who reject the message. He highlights the amount of mercy shown to the cities He has visited and how other places would have responded with repentance had they seen what the current cities experienced. That raises this question: of all the blessings we have received, have we met the Lord God in repentance for our sins?

Or do we hold on those sins? What judgment will we face for embracing the very sins God has condemned?

Genesis 47:20-49:33 #eebc2018

Jacob and family are now settled in the land of Goshen. For the time being, it is their salvation from the famine and the place where their family will build its identity. Eventually, it will become something far worse. That's a truth worth considering: sometimes a place is good at one time and bad at another. It may go from bad to good, or do what occurs here and go from good to bad.

But remember that one's life should not be welded to a geographic location. Instead, the relationships you have with God and with others are what should define you.

During the famine, Pharaoh acquires all the land of Egypt, turning the economy to more of a serfdom-based system than it was before. After this time, the people of Egypt are not free to do as they wish, but instead must work land belonging to Pharaoh. The exceptions? The priestly groups of Egypt and...that small Hebrew family that just moved into Goshen. Their land was on loan from Pharaoh, but the flocks were their own. And their food came from Joseph's power and authority, not Pharaoh, so they remained free.

Jacob, though, knows his death is at hand. Since that is the case, he requires a promise of Joseph to bury him back in the land of Canaan (it's not Israel yet) and Joseph promises. Further, Jacob essentially claims Joseph's first two sons as his own, replacing Joseph in his family tree. This is why there is no "Tribe of Joseph" in the further narratives of Israel.

In a recent reading, an author made much of the decision of Jacob to bless the younger son over the older, claiming it was an intentional and designed to reset the whole of economic ideas. I think it's simpler than that: Jacob was the younger brother, and here he chooses to bless the younger brother. I would suggest to you that blessing belongs to the one who is giving it, and they have a right to make the decision about who and how they bless.

Jacob then goes through and prophesies over his sons, telling what he believes will happen to them in the years to come. A noteworthy moment is Genesis 49:10, which some interpreters hold as a messianic promise. (After looking in several commentaries, the books I have tend to list that as a "possible" understanding and cite other sources, including Gerhard von Rad, on this. I will punt...) If there is an implication of the Messiah here, then we have Genesis wrapping up with a promise similar to the one near the beginning in Genesis 3:15.

After speaking over each of his sons, Jacob dies. Take note that he wishes to be buried with Leah and not with Rachel, perhaps because Leah is the one buried in the family tomb with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah. The terminology for dying, "he was gathered to his people," is a comforting one. It is from this idea that we structure our belief in family reunification after death--for those who know Jesus.

What do we do with this?

Take a look at the prophecy over each of the sons. I think there's something to Jacob's understanding of who his sons were, how they would behave, and how they would raise their children. He knew that his people were a large enough group, and an isolated enough one, to not have to intermarry too much into Egypt. He knew that his family would not fully assimilate and become Egyptian, that's why he made them promise to bury him back home!

And so he could predict, easily, what they would become. Some flashes of insight seem to have come from beyond his ability, but he is 147 years old at this point. Most of this is his wisdom and understanding.

So the question comes to you: what would someone say is your future? The future of your children?

Based on who you are now? Based on your current actions?

Take heart, because there is grace enough even for that picture. There is time, even now, to turn our hearts more toward God and more into the ways He has given us. Because no future is completely sealed--God in His grace may give you a better one. Turn your heart to Him, and your ways to His ways, and see what He does.

Genesis 46:8-47:19 #eebc2018

This passage opens with the lineage of Jacob, showing his sons and their sons. One of the purposes here is to establish a total number: seventy people. This includes Joseph, Asenath, and their two sons. It's not a huge number of people, which is the point. This is not an invasion force, it's just a family.

Next we see Joseph guide his family to settle in the land of Goshen, which is in the Nile Delta area. It is less reliable for farming, but still excellent as a grazing land. A fringe benefit? The family does not have to get all the way into Egypt, down amidst the temples and government. (There is no archaeological evidence that Joseph wanted to be far  from On, where his mother-in-law lived.)

Where does this fit in Egyptian history? That's a great question. One major theory puts it during the Second Intermediate Period, during the ascendancy of the Hyksos. I prefer a date in the Twelfth Dynasty, placing these events in the Middle Bronze Age of Egypt.

Joseph settles his family, then takes his father and five of his brothers to meet Pharaoh. His brothers report on their occupation and little else.

Jacob appears to have more a conversation with Pharaoh. Pharaoh asks his age, and Jacob laments that his life has been (and will be) shorter than his ancestors. Now, in comparison to Pharaoh, his 130 years were probably longer, but compared to Abraham or Noah? Jacob's still quite young.

Then you get the difference in what happens to the Egyptians and what happens to the family of Israel. Joseph, by way of his position,  provides for his family. Meanwhile, many of the Egyptians find themselves deeding over their lands and their freedom to the central government to survive the famine. This provides some insight into how Egypt's economy operated at the time.

What do we see here?

First, help your family if God has given you the ability. It sounds simple, but some folks miss that point.

Second, consider what your testimony would be if you stood before the most powerful government official you've ever known. Has your life been short and bitter? If so, what can you do today to start changing that?

Third, are you willing to go wherever it is necessary to follow God's commands? To live out that which you are supposed to do? Even if it means a sojourn in Egypt?

Matthew 8:28-9:17 #eebc2018

The Pharisees were convinced they knew Scripture well. And they did, many of them having dedicated their whole lives to the study and practice of the Word of God. Yet they did not fully understand the facts that they knew, they did not grasp the implications of the words.

This is why Matthew 9:13 records Jesus pointing them back to Hosea 6:6. The Pharisees had facts, but those facts were empty. They did not understand how the Word of God was given to them so that they could treat others differently, treat others with the mercy which God had for both the Pharisees and everyone else.

The problem echoes in the question of John's disciples about fasting. The disciples of Jesus did not fast enough, did not mourn, did not weep, but instead were generally joyous and celebratory. Why the difference?

It is the difference in those who know about God and those who know God. It is the difference of a life in a relationship compared to a life lived at a distance. Consider the difference in reading about being in love and actually being in love.

Or the difference in seeing food on television and seeing food in your own kitchen. One may give you knowledge, the other brings nourishment and joy. (Well, hopefully joy.)

So what are you doing with your knowledge of God? Is it changing your life?

Are you more joyful, no matter what comes your way? I know that some difficulties pull you down from exuberance, but there's a substantial gap between exuberant and peaceful joy through Christ. It is in Christ we have peace, we have joy, and we find a relationship with God that is real.

Remember that we have a relationship with the living Christ--guided through His Word, certainly, but our relationship is with the Living God.

Let Him transform you, within and without.

Sermon Recap for Easter Sunday

We didn’t record the Sunrise Service because, well, that was one more complication that I wasn’t up for. Here is the sermon from this morning:

Book: Readings in Historical Theology

While this is a somewhat older book (for Internet reviews), the content is fairly stable. It was a gift from Kregel Academic back in January. I’m running behind on book reviews.

Before you dig into Robert F. Lay’s Readings in Historical Theology, it’s worth understanding what “Historical Theology” is. Historical Theology is the study (basically) of what the church has believed about certain things during various times. For example, tracing the understanding of what has been believed about the return of Christ in different eras is a function of “Historical Theology.” This is compared to “Biblical Theology” which examines what specific sections of Biblical texts (individual books, Old Testament, New Testament, Paul, John) teach about an issue or “Systematic Theology” which takes the whole of Scripture and sees what it teaches about specific subjects.

Usually, one uses the categories from Systematic Theology to organize the other disciplines, but also uses the Bible to define the categories and consults the wisdom of those who have gone before to formulate an understanding. In other words, these are interdependent concepts.

Now, if you’re still awake, you’re going to be interested in this book. Why? Historical theology is heavily concerned with others have said about what the Bible says. The best way to study this is from the primary sources, from the documents and writings of history themselves. But which ones? And is it possible to get the critical materials all in one place?

That is the purpose of Lay’s work here. He has provided English translations of important documents from the first century through the nineteenth, with a brief intro to each item, giving its dates and origin. Certainly, one could quibble about some items that were left out but there must be a limit somewhere. From reading here, one can see what Arminius and Calvin actually taught rather than reading what other people say that they taught.

A further benefit here is the CD that contains more material. I know that some of us are working with computers that don’t have media drives anymore, but it’s worth borrowing one to upload to your computer. There are extended versions of the documents as well as some that are not included in the print edition.

As a student of Christian History, I cannot recommend this book enough. We need to understand our roots as Christians and reading what has been said in the past is a crucial part of that.

At my request, Kregel Academic sent me this book in exchange for the review.