Having A Go At Genesis

Webers.Home · Oct 24, 2020

.
• Gen 37:5-8 . . Once Joseph had a dream which he told to his brothers;
and they hated him even more.

. . . He said to them: Hear this dream which I have dreamed. There we
were binding sheaves in the field, when suddenly my sheaf stood up and
remained upright; then your sheaves gathered around and bowed low to my
sheaf.

. . . His brothers answered: Do you mean to reign over us? Do you mean to
rule over us? And they hated him even more for his talk about his dreams.

Considering the already hostile mood fomenting among his brothers, Joseph
really should have kept the dream to himself. There wasn't any real need for
the others to know about it anyway. It's said that silence is golden. Well,
sometimes silence is diplomatic too.

• Gen 37:9-11 . . He dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers,
saying; Look, I have had another dream: And this time, the sun, the moon,
and eleven stars were bowing down to me.

. . . And when he told it to his father and brothers, his father berated him.
What; he said to him; is this dream you have dreamed? Are we to come, I
and your mother and your brothers, and bow low to you to the ground? So
his brothers were wrought up at him, and his father kept the matter in mind.

As the family's prophet, Jacob's inspired intuition instantly caught the
dream's message; though he was a bit indignant. However, Jacob didn't
brush the dream off because his prophetic insight told him there just might
be something to it.

Jacob interpreted the moon in Joseph's dream sequence to be Rachel; so
one might ask: How could she be subject to Joseph while deceased?

Well; the mother element of the family of Israel at that time was a
composite unity consisting of four biological moms-- Rachel and Leah, and
Bilhah and Zilpah --not just the one. So the logical conclusion is that the
moon's identity wasn't restricted to Rachel; there were still three moms
remaining alive to represent the moon and thus fulfill Joseph's dream.

• Gen 37:12-14a . . One time, when his brothers had gone to pasture their
father's flock at Shechem, Israel said to Joseph: Your brothers are pasturing
at Shechem. Come, I will send you to them. He answered: I am ready. And
he said to him: Go and see how your brothers are and how the flocks are
faring, and bring me back word. So he sent him from the valley of Hebron.

A guy like Joseph is every supervisor's dream. When asked to do something,
his response was; "I am ready."

Hebron (a.k.a. Hevron, a.k.a. Al Khalil) is still on the map. It's about 18½
miles west of the Dead Sea, as the crow flies, and about 20½ miles south of
Jerusalem.

Shechem (a.k.a. Nablus) is still on the map too. It's about 48 miles north of
Jerusalem; ergo: 68½ miles north of Hebron.

So Joseph had a long ways to go. It's amazing that people pastured their
herds so far from home in those days; but then it wasn't unusual for out
west cattle barons during America's 1800's to pasture cows that far; and
even farther.

The Prairie Cattle Company once ranged 156,000 cows on five million acres
of land. At 640 acres per square mile; that factors out to something like
7,812 square miles; viz: an 88⅜ mile square; which really isn't all that big
when you think about it. It's a lot of area; but 88⅜ miles is really not all that
great a distance for an automobile; though the distance around the
perimeter would be something like 353½ miles. At 55 mph it would take
roughly 6½ hours start to finish-- quite a bit longer on a camel and/or a
donkey's back.

Personally, I would have been concerned about Joseph's safety more than
anything else; but apparently nobody interfered with Jacob's family in those
days (Gen 35:5) so they pretty much had carte blanche to graze wherever
they liked in those parts.

• Gen 37:14b-17 . .When he reached Shechem, a man came upon him
wandering in the fields. The man asked him: What are you looking for? He
answered: I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are
pasturing? The man said: They have gone from here, for I heard them say
"Let us go to Dothan". So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at
Dothan.

It's interesting that the man isn't on record asking Joseph who he was nor
who his brothers might be. Probably everybody around Shechem knew
Jacob's family personally because they had all lived around there for some
time before moving south. In America's olde West, people knew each other
for miles around because, quite simply, there just wasn't all that many
people to know.

Dothan has yet to be precisely located. Some say it was about 12 miles
north of Shechem; but that's really only an educated guess. Years later,
Dothan became the stage for a pretty exciting event. (2Kgs 6:8-23)
_

Webers.Home · Oct 25, 2020

.
• Gen 37:18a . .They saw him from afar,

It's unlikely they would recognize Joseph's face from a distance but that coat
of his probably stood out like a semaphore flag.

• Gen 37:18b-20 . . and before he came close to them they conspired to kill
him. They said to one another: Here comes that dreamer! Come now, let us
kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we can say a savage beast
devoured him. We shall see what comes of his dreams!

The brothers' display of intended cruelty to their own kid brother Joseph is
shocking coming from the sacred patriarchs of the people of Israel.

I seriously doubt the brothers were intent upon ending Joseph's life only so
his dreams wouldn't come true. That was just bombastic rhetoric. Truth is:
they just hated him; simple as that.

Isn't it odd that when people hate someone they want them dead? How
about maybe a beating instead? Why not throw hot coffee or scalding water
in their face, or maybe singe their back with a hot steam iron while they're
sleeping? Why death? Because death is all that will truly satisfy the human
heart's hatred. Maybe nobody reading this will ever actually murder
anybody; but that doesn't mean they aren't a murderer. Wishing somebody
would die, is the wish of a murderous heart.

"Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer" (1John 3:15)

The Greek word translated "brother" in that passage is adelphos (ad-el-fos')
which refers to one's kin rather than to one's neighbor.

Hatred for one's kin doesn't make the hater guilty of murder; it's only saying
that someone harboring hatred for their kin has the nature of a murderer
and were conditions favorable, they would definitely act it out.

For example if a lion never ate meat even once in its life, it would still be a
carnivore because lions have the nature of a carnivore. In like manner, even
if someone's hatred never drove them to lethal violence; they would still be
a murderer because they have a murderous nature. In other words: people's
nature-- their longings --defines them just as much as their conduct.

"Out of the heart come murders" (Matt 15:19)
_

Webers.Home · Oct 26, 2020

.
• Gen 37:21-22 . . But when Reuben heard it, he tried to save him from
them. He said: Let us not take his life. And Reuben went on: Shed no blood!
Cast him into that pit out in the wilderness, but do not touch him
yourselves-- intending to save him from them and restore him to his father.

The suggestion to murder Joseph was apparently discussed in private among
only some of the brothers at first. When they attempted to bring Reuben in
on it, he balked. Reuben, the eldest son, seems to be the one dissenting
opinion in Joseph's case-- so far. Exactly why, is not stated; but even though
he messed up by sleeping with his father's concubine; that doesn't mean
he's okay with murdering his own kid brother.

No doubt Simeon and Levi had no reservations about ending Joseph's life on
the spot; having already displayed malicious tempers and made their bones
while handling their sister's scandal back in chapter 34. Reuben's balk seems
honestly motivated by a sincere concern for his dad's paternal feelings.
Reuben already hurt Jacob's feelings once before by sleeping with his
concubine. I don't think he wanted to do that again.

• Gen 37:23-24 . .When Joseph came up to his brothers, they stripped
Joseph of his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he was wearing, and took him
and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

Some of the brothers would have sorely loved to burn that "despicable" coat
to ashes since it fully represented their kid brother's lording it over them.

The Hebrew word for "pit" is bowr (bore); and means a hole (especially one
used as a cistern or a prison). Bowr is variously translated cistern, well,
prison, dungeon, and sometimes a pit as bottomless; viz: an abyss.

The "pit" may have been one of two widely-known natural water tanks in
that area. Some commentators believe the word "Dothan" means two wells,
or two natural tanks; like the Terrapin Tanks in the 1948 western movie
"The Three Godfathers" with John Wayne and Ward Bond. I seriously doubt
that experienced drovers like Jacob's sons would have dropped Joseph in a
tank with water because if he were to die in there; his putrefying body would
have contaminated it; thus rendering the precious resource unfit for drovers
and their herds. Natural water sources were essential to the safety of both
man and beast in those days.

Ancient Jewish commentators made the tank home to some lethal critters.

T. And when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his garment,
the figured garment that was on him, and took and threw him into the pit;
but the pit was empty, no water was therein, but serpents and scorpions
were in it. (Targum Jonathan)

• Gen 37:25a . .Then they sat down to a meal.

Would you be comfortable sitting down to a meal while listening to
somebody weeping and sobbing in the background? According to Gen 42:21
that's what Joseph's brothers did. He spent some of his time down in that
tank begging for his life; and they just kept right on dining like he wasn't
even there.

I read a story of the torture and mistreatment of captives in Sadaam
Hussein's pre-invasion jails. This one poor Iraqi man was forced sit down
upon the jagged neck of a broken glass pop bottle; and while the bottle filled
with blood from his torn bowel, Iraqi police played a game of cards.
_

Webers.Home · Oct 27, 2020

.
• Gen 37:25b . . Looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from
Gilead, their camels bearing gum, balm, and ladanum to be taken to Egypt.

In our day, the Ishmaelites would be driving diesel trucks loaded with flat
screen TVs, 501 Levi jeans, Nike sports apparel, Apple iPhones, and Doritos.

The gum may have been tragacanth, or goats-thorn gum, because it was
supposed to be obtained from that plant.

The balm (or balsam) is an aromatic substance obtained from a plant of the
genus Amyris, which is a native of Gilead. In point of biblical fact, Gilead was
famous for its balm (Jer 8:22, Jer 46:11). Balms were of medical value in
those days.

The ladanum was probably labdanum, (possibly myrrh), a yellowish brown to
reddish brown aromatic gum resin with a bitter, slightly pungent taste
obtained from a tree (esp. Commiphora abyssinica of the family
Burseraceae) of eastern Africa and Arabia.

Gilead was located in the modern-day country of Jordan-- a mountainous
region on the east side of the Jordan River extending from the Sea of Galilee
down to the north end of the Dead Sea. It's about sixty miles long and
twenty miles wide. Its scenery is beautiful; the hills are fertile and crowned
with forests. It was on Gilead's western boundary that Jacob confronted
Laban in chapter 31, and also on Gilead's western boundary where Jacob
grappled with the angel in chapter 32.

The land of Gilead connected to a major trade route (spice road) from
Turkey and Mesopotamia to Egypt; and all points in between. Quite possibly
the Ishmaelites were following a track that would eventually take them right
down the very road that Hagar had taken towards Shur on her flight from
Sarah back in chapter 16.

The Ishmaelites were a blended people consisting of the families of Ishmael
and Midian, who were Abraham's progeny (Gen 16:15, Gen 25:2). The two
ethnic designations-- Midianites and Ishmaelites --are interchangeable (e.g.
Gen 37:28, Jdgs 8:24, Jdgs 8:26). Since the Ishmaelites were Abraham's
progeny, then they were blood kin to Jacob's clan; ergo: blood kin not only
to Joseph, but also to all the rest of the people of Israel.

• Gen 37:26-27 . .Then Judah said to his brothers: What do we gain by
killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our
brother, our own flesh. His brothers agreed.

Judah's alternative made good sea sense. There was always the risk that
somebody might rescue Joseph out of that tank and he would then high-tail
it for home and tattle on his brothers for what they did to him. With him an
anonymous slave, miles and miles away in Egypt, everything would work out
just the way most of them wanted, and the brothers would get a little
something in return for Joseph's hide.

• Gen 37:28 . .When Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out
of the pit. They sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmaelites,
who brought Joseph to Egypt.

The money in this instance isn't by weight as it had been in the purchase of
Sarah's cemetery back in chapter 23. This money is by the piece; of which
the precise nomenclature and value are currently unknown. They could have
been any size and worth; depending upon international merchant
agreements in those days. Joseph was sold at a price that Moses' Law later
fixed for juveniles. (Lev 27:5)

Incidentally, Christ was sold out for thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:15) about
which the Bible says was a "lordly" price. (Zech 11:12-13)
_

Magenta · Oct 27, 2020

Webers.Home said:

30 pieces of silver was also the penalty price for killing a slave,
and this Zechariah passage foreshadows Judas' betrayal of Christ.

Webers.Home · Oct 28, 2020

.
• Gen 37:29-30 . .When Reuben returned to the pit and saw that Joseph
was not in the pit, he rent his clothes. Returning to his brothers, he said:
The boy is gone! Now, what am I to do?

Precisely where, and why, Reuben wasn't present when his brothers sold
Joseph isn't stated.

Reuben wasn't privy to his brothers' scheme to sell Joseph so he innocently
"informs" them of their kid brother's disappearance. Imagine his dismay to
discover that they, of all people, sold their own blood kin into slavery! How
in blazes is he supposed to explain that to his dad!?!

Reuben is so disturbed that he can't think straight; so his brothers, in their
characteristic cold, calculating way, devise yet another nefarious scheme.
They will stain Joseph's ornamental garment with blood and let their dad
draw his own conclusions about it.

• Gen 37:31-32 . .Then they took Joseph's tunic, slaughtered a kid, and
dipped the tunic in the blood. They had the ornamented tunic taken to their
father, and they said: We found this. Please examine it; is it your son's tunic
or not?

So without any explanation, nor details of the circumstances leading up to
Joseph's disappearance, they let Jacob jump to his own conclusion. That is a
very, very common, and very, very human way of perpetrating a lie.

• Gen 37:33-34 . . He recognized it, and said: My son's tunic! A savage
beast devoured him! Joseph was torn by a beast! Jacob rent his clothes, put
sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days.

This is the very first mention of sackcloth in the Bible. It's a rough, coarse
material like burlap commonly used for packaging grain in bags. Though an
inexpensive fabric, it's prickly and chafes the skin so it's not really suitable
for undergarments. Exactly where Jacob got the idea to abuse himself like
that is unknown; but it's common in the Old Testament: mostly donned as
an outer garment rather than under.

If Joseph was "torn" then why was his tunic still in one piece? It's not
uncommon for carnivorous beasts like grizzly bears to devour a portion of
people's clothing right along with their flesh.

Well . . poor Jacob is so overcome with grief over the loss of his favorite son
that his logic chip just simply overheated and crashed. People who are
gravely upset sometimes have trouble finding their car keys even if they're
right inside their own pants pocket.

• Gen 37:35a . . All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him

"sons and daughters" is somewhat ambiguous and can indicate not just
Jacob's progeny, but every man, woman, and child in the whole family
regardless of age with himself the paterfamilias of the whole bunch.

• Gen 37:35b . . but he refused to be comforted, saying: No, I will go down
to the grave mourning for my son.

The Hebrew word translated "grave" is sheol (sheh-ole') and this is its first
appearance in the Bible.

Sheol is sometimes translated grave, sometimes hell, sometimes
netherworld (a.k.a. the world of the dead; viz: the afterlife) and sometimes
not translated at all but left as-is in Hebrew; presumably to avoid
controversy.

The New Testament equivalent of sheol is haides (hah'-dace) which is an
afterlife place where all the dead go, both the good dead and the bad dead,
and the young and the old regardless of age, race, religion, and/or gender.

The prophet Jonah went to sheol at some time during his nautical adventure
(Jonah 2:2) a place that he described as the roots of the mountains (Jonah
2:6a). Well; the mountains aren't rooted in the tummies of fish; they're
rooted down deep in the earth (Jonah 2:6b).

According to Ps 16:8-10 and Acts 2:22-31, Christ spent some time in
sheol/haides while waiting for his body to be restored to life.

According to Matt 12:40, sheol/haides is in the heart of the earth. Well;
Christ wasn't buried in the heart of the earth; he was buried on the surface
in a rock-hewn tomb. So in order for Christ to be on the surface of the earth
and simultaneously in the heart of the earth, he and his body had to part
company.

• Gen 37:35c . .Thus his father bewailed him.

Sometimes it's really best to leave people alone and let them grieve through
their loss. Many a well-meaning "comforter" has only succeeded in making
matters worse by attempting to talk friends out of their grief with good
intentioned, but nevertheless; tiresome philosophical platitudes.

And people who stifle their grief are only forestalling the inevitable. One day,
possibly when they least expect it, and quite possibly inconveniently, it will
catch up to them.

• Gen 37:36 . .The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, a
courtier of Pharaoh, and his chief steward.

Although slavery normally isn't regarded a blessing, in this case Joseph
couldn't have been sold into a better situation. Potiphar was well-connected
instead of just another plantation owner who would work Joseph to the
bone; undernourished, inadequately housed, and poorly clothed.

Courtiers were typically royalty's personal assistants and performed a
variety of duties. Potiphar was "chief steward". The Hebrew words means
boss of the butchers; an ambiguous term which implies not just slaughtering
and/or cooking animals for food, but also supervising capital punishments,
and/or supervising Pharaoh's personal bodyguards along with the oversight
of his own private jails; especially jails for political prisoners.
_

Webers.Home · Oct 29, 2020

.
• Gen 38:1a . . About that time

Joseph was 17 when he arrived in Egypt (Gen 37:2) and 30 when he
became prime minister (Gen 41:46). When he went to work for Pharaoh; a
14-year period began, consisting of two divisions-- seven years of plenty,
and seven years of famine. After 9 of the 14 years had passed-- the 7 years
of plenty, and 2 of the years of famine --Joseph summoned his dad to Egypt
(Gen 45:6-9) which would add up to a period of only about 22 years or so.

Some commentators feel that chapter 38 is out of place chronologically; that
it really should have followed chapter 33 because there just isn't enough
time lapsed-- from Joseph's arrival in Egypt and Jacob's subsequent arrival
--for all the births; and all the growing-up time needed for the particulars in
chapter 38 to reach an age mature enough to sleep with a woman and father
a child (see Adam Clarke's Commentary for an analysis of the
circumstances).

"about that time" is so ambiguous, and so unspecific, and the above
mentioned time elements so narrow; that the phrase could simply indicate
that the events of chapter 38 happened not right after Joseph went to Egypt,
but most likely any time during the whole time Jacob was resident in
Canaan; in other words: any time between chapter 33 and chapter 47.
Joseph was 7 years old when Jacob returned to Canaan, and 17 when carted
off to Egypt. So, adding 10 to the 22, would make the period of "about that
time" equal to about 32 years total.

• Gen 38:1b . . Judah

Judah's saga is pretty interesting because it concerns the Israeli tribal head
chosen to perpetuate the Jewish line to Messiah (Gen 49:8-12, Heb 7:14).

Some people call this section in Genesis sordid; but I think it's actually kind
of humorous because a very resourceful Gentile girl is going to really get one
over on the "chosen people".

• Gen 38:1c . . left his brothers

One can hardly blame Judah for wanting to put some distance between
himself and the others once in a while. They were so cruel, so selfish, and so
thoughtless. People of cruelty generally make bad company what with all
their complaining, their sniping, their carping criticism, their tempers, and
their propensity to harm people. If those boys were hard hearted against
their own kid brother, just think how cruel they must have been with
animals.

Judah was no prize himself, that's true, but at least he wasn't a cold blooded
murderer at heart. I have no doubt he felt very bad at Josephs' sobbing and
begging for his life down in that pit. But I thoroughly suspect he felt that
selling his kid brother into slavery was the only way he could possibly save
the boy's life. Even if Joseph had escaped his brothers that day, they would
always be looking for another opportunity to finish the job.

• Gen 38:1d . . and camped near a certain Adullamite whose name was
Hirah.

The community of Adullum was roughly 12 miles northwest of Hebron, and
later apportioned to the tribe of Judah during Joshua's campaign. (Josh
15:35)

Some translations say that Judah "turned in" to Hirah; implying he lodged in
Hirah's home rather than set up his own pavilion. The Hebrew word is natah
(naw-taw') which simply means to stretch or spread out; which may indicate
that Judah was into a little independent ranching on his own in the area;
implying that Judah's spread neighbored Hirah's range land.

Natah is one of those ambiguous words with more than one meaning; which
only serves to accent a frustrating fact of life in the world of Bible
scholarship that it's pretty near impossible to translate ancient Hebrew texts
verbatim into the English language without making an inadvertent error here
and there.

• Gen 38:2 . .There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose
name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

From the spiritual aspect; Jacob's family was practically on an island in the
midst of a sea infested with caribes. The only viable option for spouses in
that predicament was either for a prospective Canaanite to be a God-fearing
person, e.g. Melchizedek (Gen 14:18) or sincerely convert to Jacob's religion
like Ruth did. (Ru 1:16, Ru 2:11-12)

Whether the daughter converted isn't said. And since there existed no Divine
prohibitions against intermarriage with Canaanites at this time-- Israel's
covenanted law doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction (Gal 3:17) --then
surely no one could possibly accuse Judah of a sin for marrying outside
either his religion or his ethnic identity. However, since two of Shua's boys
were incorrigible and ended up dead, slain by God, and none of her three
male children by Judah were selected to forward Abraham's line to Messiah;
Judah's choice doesn't look good.

Gen 38:2 is tricky because at first glance it looks like the girl might be the
daughter of a man named Shua. But in verse 12, the daughter's moniker in
Hebrew is Bath-Shuwa' (see also 1Chrn 3:5) which is the very same moniker
as Bathsheba's. (1Chrn 3:5)

NOTE: In Hebrew, a daughter is a bath; and a son is a ben (e.g. Uri ben Hur,
Ex 31:2).

Bath-Shuwa' (or: Bath-Shua) just simply means a daughter of wealth; which
isn't really a name at all, but a status. Exactly what the status of a
"daughter of wealth" is supposed to convey about a girl is hard to tell.
Perhaps it just means she's an eligible consideration for marriage-- like a girl
who comes of a good family; but that doesn't necessarily mean that a blue
blooded girl is the best choice. Things like education, breeding, and wealth
are no guarantee that maybe a girl from across the tracks wouldn't make a
much better wife and mother. (she'd certainly tend to be more frugal)
_

Webers.Home · Oct 30, 2020

.
• Gen 38:3-5 . . She conceived and bore a son, and he named him Er. She
conceived again and bore a son, and named him Onan. Once again she bore
a son, and named him Shelah; he was at Chezib when she bore him.

The community of Chezib (a.k.a. Achzib and Chozeba) has been identified
with Khirbet Kueizibah by somebody named Conder (Palestine Exploration,
Jan. 1875). The Talmud mentions that a plain is in front of Chozeba; so
Kueizibah has before it the valley of Berachoth (wady Arrub); which is a bit
southwest of Adullum. So although Judah moved away from Bath-shua's
parents, it wasn't far away.

• Gen 38:6 . . Judah got a wife for Er his first-born; her name was Tamar.

Ms. Tamar is a total mystery. Neither her family, her ethnic identity, her
age, her looks, her education, her material worth, nor anything else is
known about her. But she's the one through whom God will bring Messiah
into the world; so I think it's safe to say she was probably a much better
woman than Bath-shua.

• Gen 38:7 . . But Er, Judah's first-born, was displeasing to The Lord, and
The Lord took his life.

Er has the distinction of being the very first member of the people of Israel--
the chosen people --whom God personally clipped Himself. Er was only the
beginning because God's chosen people weren't chosen to be His pampered
pets; no, they were selected to be the number-one caretakers, and
propagators, of the knowledge of God. So then, of all the people in the
world, Jews have the least excuse for failure to comply with God's wishes
because they have always had that information at their fingertips while a
very large portion of the rest of the world; for many, many centuries, didn't.
Therefore, the status of God's chosen people isn't something to be proud of;
no, it's something to be afraid of.

"Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O children of Israel--
against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt --saying:
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: that's why I will
punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:1-2)

• Gen 38:8 . .Then Judah said to Onan: Join with your brother's wife and do
your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.

NOTE: This is the first mention of adoption in the Bible. Others are Moses'
adoption by an Egyptian princess, Manasseh's and Ephraim's adoption by
Jacob, and Jesus' adoption by Joseph.

According to Deut 5:2-4, the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with
God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy isn't retroactive.
So then Judah's directive wasn't a strict by-the-book legal requirement as
stipulated by Deut 25:5-6; but was nevertheless something that God
approved without it being a covenanted requirement.

The "duty" to which Judah referred was apparently a widely accepted
custom; not only in his own day, but in days preceding him. Some feel that
the custom had its origin in the early-day practice of purchasing a wife
rather than courting; so that she became a portion of the dead man's estate.

As such, she remained the "property" (and the responsibility) of the clan;
thus assuring widows of a livelihood, and of protection and security after
their husband's death. In that respect, being a "mail order" bride had its
advantages in an era when very few women had careers of their own outside
the home or were entitled to assistance programs.

• Gen 38:9 . . But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his,
spilled it on the ground whenever he joined with his brother's wife, so as not
to provide offspring for his brother.

It's been suggested that Onan's motivation for leaving his new wife childless
was to make sure Er didn't posthumously cause his own inheritance to be
reduced. As the firstborn, Er came in for a larger portion of Judah's estate
than Onan. But with Er dead and out of the way, Onan became the firstborn
by natural succession.

Actually, Onan didn't have to marry Tamar; but if and when he did, it was an
implied consent to try his best to engender a boy so the dead man would
have someone to carry on his name. But Onan chose instead to take
advantage of his brother's widow and use her like a harlot; and that was not
only a cruel thing to do, but a fatal error too.

• Gen 38:10 . .What he did was displeasing to The Lord, and He took his life
also.

Some have attempted to use this passage as a proof text that it's a sin to
practice contraception. But any honest examination of the facts testifies
otherwise. Onan evaded his obligation, and married his brother's widow
under false pretenses; apparently with the full intention of protecting his
own inheritance rather than that of his dead brother.

That was unforgivable because it's all the same as fraud and breech of
contract; not to mention deplorably uncaring about a widow's predicament
(cf. Luke 7:11-15). Tamar had a legitimate right to a baby fathered by
Judah's clan, and it was their moral, if not sacred, duty to make an honest
attempt to provide her with not only a baby, but also a man by her side to
take care of her too.

• Gen 38:11a . .Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar: Stay as a
widow in your father's house until my son Shelah grows up

At this point, Judah did the unthinkable: he disowned his daughter-in-law.
That just wasn't done. When a girl married into a clan; she became one with
that clan. I can scarce believe Judah sent Tamar back to her father; and I'm
honestly surprised Tamar's dad didn't march her right back to Judah's front
door and get in his face about it and demand he fulfill his obligations to one
of Israel's own widows.

• Gen 38:11b . . for he thought: He too might die like his brothers.

No doubt Shelah's mom Bath-shua was by this time up in arms and
protesting vehemently against any more marriages of her own sons to this
"toxic" female.

I've a pretty good notion of what Judah had in mind. He had no intention of
letting Tamar anywhere near his one and only surviving male heir. As far as
he was concerned, Tamar was nothing less than a Black Widow-- one of the
those venomous spiders in the American southwest that eats her mate for
dinner after the poor hormone-driven slob fulfills his one and only purpose in
life.
_

Webers.Home · Oct 31, 2020

.
• Gen 38:11c . . So Tamar went to live in her father's house.

Sending Tamar back home, as an unattached girl, Judah no doubt sincerely
hoped she would meet somebody in her own neighborhood; maybe an old
boyfriend or two, and remarry before Shelah got old enough; thus, his last
son would be safe from Ms. Black Widow. But as it turned out, Tamar had
more grit than Mattie Ross of Darnel County. Judah's clan owed her dead
husband a baby boy, and that was that.

You can hardly blame her. Jacob's clan was very wealthy, so that any
children Tamar should produce by them, would have all the best that life had
to offer in early-day Palestine; plus her grandchildren would be well taken
care of too. Since nothing is said of her origin, Tamar may not have been a
blue-blooded girl like her mother-in-law, but could have easily come from a
low income community on the wrong side of the tracks. What would you do
in the best interests of your children in that situation?

• Gen 38:12a . . As time went by, Judah's wife Bath-shua died.

This event left Judah single, and eligible to remarry; so that Tamar and
Judah are now both single adults; however, Tamar is betrothed, and that
makes things a little complicated.

• Gen 38:12b . . After he got over her passing, Judah went up to Timnah to
his sheepshearers, together with his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

Timnah-- a.k.a. Tibneh: a deserted site southwest of Zorah, and two miles
west of Ain Shems --was roughly 11 miles northwest from ancient Adullum
towards Bethlehem.

• Gen 38:13-14a . . And it was told Tamar, saying: Look, your father-in-law
is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep. So she took off her widow's
garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an
open place which was on the way to Timnah;

The Hebrew words for "open place" are weird. They mean "an open eye".
One of those words-- the one for "eye" --can also mean a spring or an
artesian well (e.g. Gen 16:7). A wayside rest, like as can be usually found on
many modern Federal highways, would probably qualify as an example of
the "open place" to which Gen 38:14 refers.

Tamar's rest stop likely included a source of water, not for cars, but for the
animals that men either herded, rode upon, or used for pack animals when
they traveled up and down the primitive trails and roads of ancient Palestine.

Sheep-shearing occurs sometime in the spring, so the weather in Palestine
at that season was sunny and warm.

Veils weren't an eo ipso indication that a woman was loose, since Rebecca
had worn one upon meeting her spouse-to-be Isaac (Gen 24:65). Although
the text says that Tamar's veil covered her face (vs. 15), it likely not only
covered her face, but her whole body, because veils were more like a burqa
than the little mask-like nets that women sometimes wear to funerals;
except that burqa's are cumbersome and ugly, whereas Tamar's veil was a
lightweight wrap, and likely quite colorful and eye-catching; and conveyed
an altogether different message than a woman in mourning.

• Gen 38:14b . . for she saw that Shelah was grown up, yet she had not
been given to him as wife.

Actually, Shelah wasn't the one who owed Tamar an Israeli baby; it was
Judah, the head of the clan, and that's why he's the one she's coming after
rather than Judah's son. Tamar is a scary girl; and one you wouldn't want to
trifle with. Not many women would have had the chutzpah to do what she
did. To begin with, for a lone woman to sit out along a remote road,
unescorted, like she did, was inherently dangerous, and could have led to all
sorts of mischief.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 1, 2020

.
• Gen 38:15a . .When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute,

The particular kind of prostitute in this episode is from the Hebrew word
qedeshah (ked-ay-shaw') which isn't your typical working girl, but rather a
devotee raising money for an established religion (Gen 38:21) typically a
pagan kind of religion centered upon the worship of a goddess like Ashtoreth
(a.k.a. Astarte). So one might say that a qedeshah's services were for a
worthy cause.

• Gen 38:15b . . for she had covered her face.

It's just amazing how difficult it is sometimes to recognize familiar people
when they turn up in places we least expect them. Take Jesus for example.
When he revived after his ordeal on the cross, people didn't know him right
off: close friends like Mary Magdalena didn't recognize him at first even at
close proximity (John 20:13-16). Another example is when Jesus came out
to his followers' boat during a storm on open water. At first they thought he
was a ghost, and Peter wouldn't believe it was Jesus until he gave him the
power to walk on water himself (Matt 14:25-29).

• Gen 38:16-17 . . Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went
over to her by the roadside and said: Come now, let me sleep with you. And
what will you give me to sleep with you? she asked. I'll send you a young
goat from my flock; he said. Will you give me something as a pledge until
you send it? she asked.

The Hebrew word for "pledge" in that passage is 'arabown (ar-aw-bone')
which means property given as security-- viz: collateral --as in a pawn shop
or a bank loan. This is the very first place in the Bible where that word is
used. In the usury business, an 'arabown is forfeited if the borrower fails to
repay his loan; i.e. make good on his promise. This is a very important
element in the divine plan.

"In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Eph
1:13-14)

The Greek word for "pledge" in that passage is arrhabon (ar-hrab-ohn')
which means essentially the same as the Hebrew word 'arabown except that
the Greek word indicates a little something extra.

Real estate transactions usually involve a sum called the earnest money.
Although it may be applied towards the purchase price of property, earnest
money itself serves a specific purpose of its own in the real estate business.
In some quarters; this is also called good-faith money.

When the contract, and all the other necessary documents are submitted to
Escrow, the buyer is required to also submit a token amount of the purchase
price. It's usually a relatively small number of dollars compared to the full
price of the property. I think ours was just $1,000 back in 1988 on a
$74,000 home. When the buyer follows through on their intent to purchase
the property, the good-faith money (minus some Escrow fees of course)
goes towards the purchase.

However, if the buyer decides to renege, then they forfeit the good faith
money. No doubt that's done to discourage vacillating buyers from fiddling
around with other people's time and money.

So then, since God's Spirit is the earnest depicted in Eph 1:13-14; then,
according to the principles underlying the arrhabon, should God betray a
believer's trust by reneging on His promise to spare people who hear and
believe the gospel, then He forfeits; and the believer gets to keep the Spirit
regardless of their afterlife destiny.

But of course God won't renege because doing so would not only embarrass
Himself, but embarrass His son too as Jesus has given his word that
believers have nothing to fear.

"I assure you, those who heed my message, and believe in God who sent
me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they
have already passed from death into life." (John 5:24)

There are people who actually believe the Bible's God can get away with
reneging on His promises. A belief of that nature of course eo ipso insinuates
that He lacks integrity, i.e. the Bible's God is capable of dishonesty and can't
be trusted to make good on anything He says.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 2, 2020

.
• Gen 38:18a . . He said: What pledge should I give you? Your seal and its
cord, and the staff in your hand; she answered.

The items that Tamar required for a pledge were akin to a photo ID or a
thumb print in those days. Judah's staff wasn't just a kendo stick or a
walking cane or a shepherd's crook. It was more like a king's scepter,
specially made just for him, and served the express purpose of identifying
him as the head of his tribe. Staffs were made of either wood or metal, and
usually capped with a masthead. The quality of the staff would of course
depend upon the material wherewithal of the person ordering it.

Judah's seal could have been a small, uniquely engraved cylinder, or
possibly a ring (e.g. Jer 22:24) but wasn't always worn on a finger. Way
back in Judah's day, seals were sometimes worn around the neck with a
necklace; or attached to personal walking sticks and/or staffs with a lanyard,
and forced into wax or soft clay to leave an impressed "signature". The
whole shebang-- seal, cord, and staff --was often a unit; and there were no
two alike.

The staff, with its cord and seal, was, of course, quite worthless for a shrine
prostitute's purposes. In dollar value, it was nothing, as it couldn't be sold or
traded. However, its value to Judah was why it was a good pledge item. He
would certainly want it back.

• Gen 38:18b-23 . . So he gave them to her and mated with her, and she
conceived by him. After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow's
clothes again.

. . . Meanwhile, Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in
order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. He
asked the men who lived there: Where is the shrine prostitute who was
beside the road at Enaim? There hasn't been any shrine prostitute here;
they said.

. . . So he went back to Judah and said: I didn't find her. Besides, the men
who lived there said there hasn't been any shrine prostitute here. Then
Judah said: Let her keep what she has or we will become a disgrace. After
all, I did send her this young goat, but you didn't find her.

It might seem silly that Judah was concerned for his tribe's honor in this
matter, but in those days, cult prostitutes did have a measure of respect in
their community, and it wasn't unusual for every woman in the community
to be expected to take a turn at supporting their "church" in that manner; so
cult prostitution wasn't really looked upon as a vice but rather as a sacred
obligation.

Judah's failure to pay up could be construed by locals as mockery of their
religion's way of doing business, thus insulting those who believed and
practiced it; so he emphasized his effort to find the woman and make good
on his I.O.U.

This appears to me the first instance of religious tolerance in the Bible; and
the circumstances are intriguing: to say the least.

• Gen 38:24 . . And it came to pass, about three months after, that Judah
was told, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot;
furthermore she is with child by harlotry.

At this time, Tamar was living with her dad; so Judah wouldn't have known
she was expecting unless a rumor mill brought the news around.

The word for "harlot" in Gen 38:24 is zanah (zaw-naw'), and the word for
"harlotry" is zanuwn (zaw-noon') and both mean adultery. Tamar is accused
of adultery because at this point, she's assumed betrothed (though not yet
married) to Shelah. (cf. Matt 1:18-19)

• Gen 38:24 . . So Judah said: Bring her out and let her be burned!

Since there were no Federal, nor any State, nor any Municipal laws in
existence in primitive Palestine, local sheiks like Judah were the Supreme
Court of their own tribes. Though Tamar was living back at home with her
dad, she remained under Judah's jurisdiction because of her past marriages
to two of Judah's sons.

NOTE: I suspect Judah saw this turn of events as a golden opportunity to
save his last surviving son from marrying Ms. Black Widow.

• Gen 38:25a . .When she was brought out,

It's odd to me that Judah didn't attend Tamar's execution: possibly because
he couldn't look her in the eye for reneging on his promise to give her
Shelah. However; Judah was in for a very big jolt to his nervous system
because Tamar produced a surprise witness.

• Gen 38:26 . . she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man to whom
these belong, I am with child. And she said: Please determine whose these
are-- the signet and cord, and staff. So Judah acknowledged them and said:
She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah
my son. And he never saw her again.

Actually, neither Judah nor Tamar were "righteous" in this matter. His
comment was relative. Though both had behaved rather badly; Tamar held
the high moral ground. It's like movies today. The good guys and the bad
guys are no longer distinctly moral and immoral and/or scrupulous and
unscrupulous. Often both sides of the equation are immoral and
unscrupulous; with the "good" guys just being more likable.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 3, 2020

.
• Gen 38:27-28 . . And it came about at the time she was giving birth, that
behold, there were twins in her womb. Moreover, it took place while she was
giving birth, one put out a hand, and the midwife took and tied a scarlet
thread on his hand, saying: This one came out first.

According to modern medicine, a baby isn't really born until it's head is
outside the womb; so that it's legal (in some states) to kill babies with a so
called "dilation and extraction" abortion; which is a term coined by Ohio
abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell for an abortion method in which he removes a
baby's brain while it's head is still partially within the womb, and then
completes the delivery by extracting the corpse. But in Tamar's day, even
the exit of so much as a hand was counted birth: thus baby Zerah became
Tamar's legal firstborn son.

• Gen 38:29 . . But it came about as he drew back his hand, that behold, his
brother came out. Then she said: What a breach you have made for
yourself! So he was named Perez.

Perez's name indicates that he forced his way to the front of the line.

• Gen 38:30 . . And afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet
thread on his hand; and he was named Zerah.

Zerah's name sort of refers to dawn or morning twilight, viz: like when the
sun is coming up; i.e. a new day, or something like that.

Well . . regardless of Zerah's primo-genitive prerogatives, God bypassed him
in Judah's line to Messiah; which, by Divine appointment went to Perez, the
second-born. (Matt 1:1-3)

NOTE: You'd think holy propriety would demand that the sacred line to
Messiah be pure. I mean, after all, a child of adultery and incest hardly
seems like a proper ancestor for the King of Kings. But no, an ancestry of
adultery and/or incest makes no difference to Christ.

In point of fact, in time a famous harlot from Jericho named Rahab produced
yet another male in the line to the lamb of God (Matt 1:5). And let's not
forget Ruth who descended from Lot sleeping with one of his own daughters
in a cave. (cf. Gen 19:36-37, Ruth 4:10, and Matt 1:5)

According to Rom 8:3 Christ didn't come in the likeness of innocent flesh;
no, he came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and his ancestry certainly proves
it.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 4, 2020

.
• Gen 39:1-3 . . Now when Joseph arrived in Egypt with the Ishmaelite
traders, he was purchased by Potiphar, a member of the personal staff of
Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Potiphar was the captain of the palace guard.
The Lord was with Joseph and blessed him greatly as he served in the home
of his Egyptian master. Potiphar noticed this and realized that The Lord was
with Joseph, giving him success in everything he did.

The identity of the Pharaoh during this moment in history is a total mystery,
and even that fact is a mystery in itself because Egypt was normally quite
meticulous in recording its accomplishments, and the names of Egypt's
dynastic successions are recorded practically without a break thru the Old,
Middle, and New Kingdoms, clear on back to 3,000 BC. But for some reason,
so far unexplained, a blank occurs in its history between 1730 to 1580 BC.

This absence of information puzzles Egyptologists; and thus far has only
been satisfactorily explained by the conquering-- and subsequent dominance
--of Egypt by an ancient people called the Hyksos; who were Semitic tribes
from Syria and Canaan. The Hyksos were of a different mentality than the
Egyptians and apparently weren't inclined to keep a meticulous record of
their own accomplishments as had their vanquished predecessors before
them.

Not only is there a dearth of documents from that period, but there aren't
even any monuments to testify of it. If perchance Joseph was in Egypt
during the Hyksos, that might explain why there exists not one shred of
archaeological evidence to corroborate the Bible in regards to its story of
Joseph in Egypt.

Joseph's success was, of course, in regards to his proficiency, and in no way
says anything about his personal prosperity because as a slave, he had no
income, owned no property, controlled no business ventures, nor maintained
some sort of investment portfolio.

Joseph's success was, of course, in regards to his proficiency, and in no way
says anything about his personal prosperity because as a slave, he had no
income, owned no property, controlled no business ventures, nor maintained
some sort of investment portfolio.

• Gen 39:3-6a . .So Joseph naturally became quite a favorite with him.
Potiphar soon put Joseph in charge of his entire household and entrusted
him with all his business. From the day Joseph was put in charge, Yhvh
began to bless Potiphar for Joseph's sake.

. . . All his household affairs began to run smoothly, and his crops and
livestock flourished. So Potiphar gave Joseph complete administrative
responsibility over everything he owned. With Joseph there, he didn't have
a worry in the world, except to decide what he wanted to eat!

This was all idyllic for Mr. Aristocrat; but unfortunately, there was a fly
poised to plop itself into the ointment.

• Gen 39:6b-7 . . Now Joseph was young, well built, and handsome. After a
while, his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said; Sleep with me.

The apparent overture wasn't a request. Since Joseph was a slave, it wasn't
necessary for Potiphar's wife to seduce him. She only had to give him an
order, and he was expected to obey it.

It's not uncommon to find women who feel trapped in an unfulfilling
marriages. Henry David Thoreau once wrote that the mass of men lead lives
of quiet desperation. Well; some of that "mass of men" includes women.

Potiphar's wife (call her Anna for convenience) was an amorously active
woman married to the wrong man. No children are listed for her husband so
it's very possible Potiphar was a eunuch; a distinct possibility in ancient
palaces. He might have been an older man too, maybe a bit too old.

Anna probably didn't marry for love; but for security. That's understandable
since women of that day didn't have a lot of career options, nor a minority
status, nor retirement benefits, nor entitlements like Medicare and Social
Security. For women in Anna's day, marriage was often a matter of survival
rather than a matter of the heart.

She was obviously still lively and maybe would have enjoyed dinner out and
salsa dancing once or twice a week; while Potipher probably barely had
enough energy left to plop down and fall asleep in his La-Z-Boy recliner after
working 12-14 hours a day in the palace and just wanted to be left alone in
his man cave with a can of beer and CNN.

There are women who prefer older men; sometimes much older. But there
are other women, like Anna, who prefer the young ones; however,
sometimes life just doesn't give them any options.

So then, what's a desperate housewife to do when her husband is old and
boring, and here's this strapping, virile young slave guy around the house
with you all day long? Well . .you're either going to drink a lot, get witchy,
take pills, or make a move and see what happens. Unfortunately, Anna isn't
going to be a very good sport about it.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 5, 2020

.
• Gen 39:8-18 . . But Joseph refused. Look; he told her; my master trusts
me with everything in his entire household. No one here has more authority
than I do! He has held back nothing from me except you, because you are
his wife. How could I ever do such a wicked thing? It would be a great sin
against God.

. . . She kept putting pressure on him day after day, but he refused to sleep
with her, and he avoided her as much as possible. One day, however, no
one else was around when he was doing his work inside the house. She
came and grabbed him by his shirt, demanding: Sleep with me! Joseph tore
himself away, but as he did, his shirt came off. She was left holding it as he
ran from the house.

. . .When she saw that she had his shirt and that he had fled, she began
screaming. Soon all the men around the place came running. My husband
has brought this Hebrew slave here to humiliate us; she sobbed. He tried to
rape me, but I screamed. When he heard my loud cries, he ran and left his
shirt behind with me.

. . . She kept the shirt with her, and when her husband came home that
night, she told him her story. That Hebrew slave you've had around here
tried to humiliate me; she said. I was saved only by my screams. He ran
out, leaving his shirt behind!

Joseph's situation parallels a case in a novel by author Harper Lee titled
"To Kill A Mockingbird" wherein a promiscuous woman accuses an innocent
man of rape in order to cover up her own indiscretions.

• Gen 39:19-20a . .When his master heard the story that his wife told him,
namely; "Thus and so your slave did to me" he was furious. So Joseph’s
master had him put in prison, where the king’s prisoners were confined.

I've no doubt Potiphar didn't believe a word of his wife's story or otherwise
he would have put Joseph to death rather than in a cushy jail where political
prisoners were kept, but what was he to do? Stick up for a slave over his
wife? Not happening. So Joseph was sacrificed to keep peace in the home.

• Gen 39:20-23 . . But while Joseph was there in the prison, Yhvh was with
him; He showed him kindness and granted him favor in the eyes of the
prison warden. So the warden put Joseph in charge of all those held in the
prison, and he was made responsible for all that was done there. The
warden paid no attention to anything under Joseph's care, because Yhvh was
with Joseph and gave him success in whatever he did.

A trustee's lot in prison is much more agreeable than regular inmates.
Joseph was very fortunate to have the Lord in his corner otherwise he might
have been neglected; but as a trustee, he could roam about the cell block
like as if he were one of the guards.

Joseph had quite an advantage. His management skills weren't due to a
natural aptitude, rather, they were due to providence; just as his grandpa
Abraham's wealth and success were due to providence.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 6, 2020

.
Joseph was 17 when he arrived in Egypt, and 30 when he became prime
minister. So 13 years of his young adulthood were wasted in servitude and
prison; and all that time without even so much as a date or a girlfriend.
More than a full decade of the best years of his life went by with no female
companionship whatsoever.

A modern man's libido peaks in the years between 18 and 24, then begins
tapering off as he gradually gets older. Since there is no record of Joseph's
association with a special girl back home in Palestine, I think it's safe to
conclude that he had never cuddled with a girl in his entire life till he got
married sometime in his thirties. So you can see that Joseph was not only
robbed of the best years of his life, but totally missed out on something
that's very important to the psychological well being of the average red
blooded guy.

As Joseph got older, and began to realize that life was passing him by, and
that his youth was ebbing away, he no doubt began to wonder if maybe his
current situation wasn't permanent; and as the days and years continued to
go by one after another, he must have become frightened, depressed, and
desperate as he saw no plausible way to remedy his predicament and get his
life back.

We used to joke among ourselves as professional welders that adverse
conditions in the workplace build character. (chuckle) Like as if any blue
collar skull needs "character" for anything. However, people destined for
greatness can benefit immensely from character-building experiences that
serve to temper their success; for example Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was
immensely privileged and harbored a horrid superiority complex. Polio really
humbled him, and in time, Roosevelt's handicap made him a much better
man and a much better leader.

I've seen people's leadership and responsibility handed to them on the silver
platter of privilege; resulting in their treating lower ranking employees with
thoughtless contempt. If those managers had only started out laboring in
construction, selling luggage, shackled in slavery, or convicted of crimes
they didn't commit; then maybe they would have developed a sensitivity
that would have made them, not just managers, but great managers.

Under normal circumstances, Joseph's alleged crime was punishable by
death. So then, since he wasn't executed, but instead put in a prison
normally reserved for political prisoners, his circumstances tend to support
the opinion that Potiphar didn't believe his wife's story at all.

• Gen 40:1a . . Some time later,

Exactly how long Joseph had been in prison prior to this next section is
uncertain. However, his age would have been near 28 since it will be just
two years afterwards that he's released (Gen 41:1).

• Gen 40:1b-4a . . the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt gave
offense to their lord the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry with his two
courtiers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, and put them in custody,
in the house of the chief steward, in the same prison house where Joseph
was confined. The chief steward assigned Joseph to them, and he attended
them.

The "chief steward" was Mr. Potiphar (Gen 39:1).

Exactly what these two muckity-mucks did to warrant being placed under
arrest isn't said, but since both men's functions were directly related to
Pharaoh's nourishment; it's reasonable to assume their offenses most likely
had something to do with the King's table. Perhaps the beverages, as well as
the food, just happened to be tainted both at the same time, thus
suggesting a conspiracy to poison their master. Since they weren't
summarily executed, it's apparent that they're just suspects at this point,
and being held without bail until Potiphar's secret service completed an
investigation into the matter. It's entirely possible that some of the lower
ranking members of the kitchen staff are being held too, though not in the
same place.

Cupbearers weren't just flunky taste testers, but were savvy advisors: thus,
in a position of great influence. They were also saddled with the
responsibility of supervising the King's vineyards in order to ensure their
potentate received only the very best beverages deserving of the rank. So
cupbearers were very competent men who knew a thing or two about not
only diplomacy, but also the wine business. Egyptian documents testify to
their wealth and power (cf. Neh 2:1).

Although the baker wasn't up as high as a cupbearer, his duties were still
critical. He didn't just make cookies and coffee cake, and/or supervise the
kitchen staff, but did the shopping too. He sniffed all the meats, fowls, and
fishes, and nibbled all the vegetables before they were ever brought inside
the castle. Without the benefit of refrigeration, his responsibility was very
great since his master could easily become gravely ill, and quite possibly die,
from eating spoiled foods.

To be placed at the service of these two high ranking courtiers was really an
honor, even though they were just as much locked up as Joseph. However,
he was a slave and they were courtiers; so there was a big difference in rank
even behind bars. But the two men had it pretty cushy. They weren't treated
like common convicts; no, they each had a very competent, fully
experienced butler with impeccable references at their service-- Mr. Joseph
ben Jacob.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 7, 2020

.
• Gen 40:4b-8a . . After they had been in custody for some time, each of
the two men-- the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were
being held in prison --had a dream the same night, and each dream had a
meaning of its own.

. . .When Joseph came to them the next morning, he saw that they were
dejected. So he asked Pharaoh's officials who were in custody with him in his
master's house: Why are your faces so sad today? We both had dreams;
they answered, but there is no one to interpret them. Then Joseph said to
them: Do not interpretations belong to God?

Actually, in the literal, Joseph said: Aren't interpretations with the gods?
Because the word for "God" isn't Yhvh, rather, it's 'elohiym (el-o-heem')
which isn't one of the creator's proper names, but a nondescript plural noun
for all gods, both the true and the false, i.e. the real and the imagined.

• Gen 40:8b . . Please tell me.

There's no record up to this point of Joseph ever interpreting a dream, not
even his own. He dreamed in the past (e.g. Gen 37:5-7, Gen 37:9) but at
the time he didn't know what his dreams meant; and in this particular
instance, I seriously doubt he believed himself able to interpret a one. I
think he was just curious. Jail is boring; what else was there to talk about?
So what's going to happen next was probably just as big a surprise to him as
it was to them.

Incidentally, there's no record of God ever speaking one-on-one with Joseph.
He believed God was providentially active in his life, but was given no
apparitions of any kind whatsoever to corroborate his confidence other than
the fulfillment of his interpretations of people's dreams; which aren't eo ipso
evidence of God at work. (e.g. Acts 16:16)

People's dreams normally don't stick in their memories for very long; but
these two men's dreams seemed (to them anyway) to be of a mysteriously
symbolic significance, and so disturbing that they can't get the details out of
their minds.

In psychoanalysis, dreams are of interest because they're often expressions
of subconscious anxieties and inner conflicts rather than portents and/or
omens.

Dreams are both common and normal, and surely no one should try to
derive a message from God out of them. But these men's dreams defied
psychoanalysis because they were so weird and unnatural.

Had they been at liberty, they no doubt would have contacted one of
Pharaoh's astrologers, or an occultist or a diviner, or a highly intuitive wiz
kid to tell them the meanings. But for now they're stuck with Joseph-- a nice
enough young fellow; but a total unknown in their world regarding matters
of paranormal precognition.

• Gen 40:9-13 . .Then the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph. He said
to him: In my dream, there was a vine in front of me. On the vine were
three branches. It had barely budded, when out came its blossoms and its
clusters ripened into grapes. Pharaoh's cup was in my hand, and I took the
grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh's
hand.

. . . Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three branches are
three days. In three days Pharaoh will pardon you and restore you to your
post; you will place Pharaoh's cup in his hand, as was your custom formerly
when you were his cupbearer.

From whence Joseph got his interpretation isn't stated. Genesis doesn't say
he heard a voice, nor does it clearly say that God gave Joseph the
interpretation. For all Joseph knew, (and them too) he was just taking a wild
guess. It probably came right out of his head sort of like intuition or an
imaginative locution.

• Gen 40:14 . . But remember me when all is well with you again, and do
me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh, so as to free me from this
place.

Don't worry, he won't; nor did he promise to.

• Gen 40:15 . . For in truth, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews;
nor have I done anything here that they should have put me in the dungeon.

Joseph was telling the truth, but not the whole truth. He was in prison for
the crime of rape. Whether he actually did it or not is immaterial. And he
wasn't realistic: Joseph couldn't reasonably expect a courtier to take the
word of a criminal; and a slave at that.

• Gen 40:16a . .When the chief baker saw how favorably he had interpreted,

Apparently, for reasons unstated, the baker was somewhat reluctant to
share his dream with Joseph at first, but relented when the first dream had a
happy ending.

• Gen 40:16b-17 . . he said to Joseph: In my dream, similarly, there were
three openwork baskets on my head. In the uppermost basket were all kinds
of food for Pharaoh that a baker prepares; and the birds were eating it out
of the basket above my head.

Birds are usually an ill omen in Scripture; sort of like the connotation borne
by serpents. So, now it comes out why the baker was reluctant to tell his
dream. If Pharaoh ever suspected that his food was being picked over by
birds, he would be very disappointed in the quality of the care that a
potentate had a right to expect from his own personal team of cooks. Food
left uncovered, exposed and out in the open, is certainly not food fit for a
king.

The baker's dream may have been his subconscious at work reminiscing the
error of his ways. Up till now, the baker had no doubt insisted upon his
innocence; which was nothing less than feigned since he knew very well with
whom the real fault lay between himself and the cupbearer.

Apparently Pharaoh had actually gotten some sort of food poisoning, and the
investigation underway by Potiphar sought to find the source; and likely to
determine if it was in any way evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate
Pharaoh.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 8, 2020

.
• Gen 40:18-19 . . Joseph answered: This is its interpretation: The three
baskets are three days. In three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and
gibbet you upon a pole; and the birds will pick off your flesh.

It's lucky for the baker that he would be already dead before the gibbeting
because a common method of gibbeting in those days was impaling; which
was a grizzly spectacle. Wooden poles, about three to four inches in
diameter were sharpened to a pencil point and forcibly inserted into the
abdomen, up into the rib cage to catch on the spine in back of the throat;
and the pole was then set upright to suspend the victim above the ground
like human shish kabob.

I'm looking here at an impaling on an Assyrian stone relief-- in the
July/August 2006 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review --commissioned by
Sennacherib for his palace at Ninevah to celebrate the capture of Lachish.
The victims are three Israelites who still have their heads; strongly
suggesting that they were alive when the poles were run into their bellies
and up into their upper torsos.

Nobody could possibly survive an injury like that for more than a few
seconds. The pole would not only penetrate the stomach, but also the liver,
diaphragm, lungs, some large blood vessels, and the bronchial tubes;
resulting in almost instant death-- quite excruciating, and very bloody.

Public impaling was no doubt a very effective deterrent to insurrection; and
nobody in those days seemed overly concerned about executing criminals in
a "humane" manner. Cruel and unusual punishments were the norm; and
nobody dared stage an "Occupy Wall Street" protest about them lest their
days end in like fashion.

• Gen 40:20a . . Pharaoh's birthday came three days later, and he gave a
banquet for all his officials and household staff.

What really is the purpose of a birthday party anyway if not to celebrate the
continuance of your own existence?

For guys in Pharaoh's position (e.g. Kim Jong Un of N. Korea, Robert Mugabe
of Zimbabwe, and Thein Sein of Myanmar) life is good: better than what you
could ever hope to ask for; and of course that's cause for celebration. But for
the majority of their subjects, life wasn't all that good, and nothing to
celebrate. No doubt relatively few Egyptians in that day derived a significant
amount of pleasure from their own existence.

People normally count Job as one of the most righteous men who ever lived,
yet when he lost his health and wealth, Job cursed the day of his birth and
wished he was never born. (Job 3:1-26)

• Gen 40:20b-23 . . He sent for his chief cup-bearer and chief baker, and
they were brought to him from the prison. He then restored the chief cup
bearer to his former position, but he sentenced the chief baker to be impaled
on a pole, just as Joseph had predicted. Pharaoh's cup-bearer, however,
promptly forgot all about Joseph, never giving him another thought.

One might wonder how it was possible for the cup-bearer to not be
thoroughly amazed enough at the fulfillment of Joseph's predictions to begin
exclaiming his prison experience with such enthusiasm as to totally rivet the
attention of every single one of Pharaoh's courtiers and instantly secure
Joseph's freedom.

But if we take into account the hand of God in the glove of His people's
history, then it seems reasonable to conclude that God didn't want Joseph in
the limelight just yet; so he put a mental block in the cup man's head to
silence him for the time being.

No doubt when Joseph was apprised of recent developments by his friend
Potiphar, he was deeply disappointed, and probably a bit consternated too.
Joseph probably assumed-- and with good reason --that those successful
predictions were his ticket to freedom at last.

But even if Pharaoh had taken note of Joseph at this particular point in the
narrative, he was still Potiphar's property, and would have to remain in
custody because of his "affair" with Potiphar's wife. Dreams or no dreams,
does anyone seriously believe that Pharaoh would have taken the word of a
slave over one of his own trusted courtiers?

So even had the cup-bearer brought Joseph's ability to Pharaoh's attention,
it probably wouldn't have succeeded in gaining him the degree of freedom
he really wanted. In point of fact, it may have even resulted in his death
because Pharaoh would certainly want to know why Joseph hadn't been
summarily executed on the spot for rape. No; bringing Joseph to Pharaoh's
attention at this point would have caused problems for both the slave and
his master.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 9, 2020

.
• Gen 41:1a . .Two years later

Poor Joseph. He's now at the very threshold of his fourth decade of life and
still hasn't slept with a girl, nor does he even really have a life of his own. He
was under his dad's thumb for seventeen years as a kid, a slave in a foreign
country for thirteen; and thus far nothing to show for it.

• Gen 41:1b-7a . . Pharaoh had a dream, and behold, he was standing by
the Nile. And lo, from the Nile there came up seven heifers, sleek and fat;
and they grazed in the marsh grass. Then behold, seven other heifers came
up after them from the Nile, ragged and bony, and they stood by the other
heifers on the bank of the Nile. And the ragged and bony heifers ate the
seven sleek and fat ones. Then Pharaoh awoke.

. . . And he fell asleep and dreamed a second time; and behold, seven ears
of grain came up on a single stalk, plump and good. Then behold, seven
ears, shriveled and dehydrated by the east wind, sprouted up after them.
And the shriveled ears devoured the seven plump and full ears.

Pharaoh's dreams are all the more disturbing because they contain incidents
that are contrary to nature. Cows, as a rule, aren't carnivorous; and ears of
grain derive their nourishment from the stems of their own parent plant, not
dining upon each other.

The scenes in both dreams are extremely violent with the cows and the ears
not just sitting down to dinner, but literally attacking their neighbors with
desperate savagery, like ravenous caribes: eating everything-- flesh, hide,
hooves, bones, grains, chaff, and all --raw and uncooked.

• Gen 41:7b . .Then Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream.

The first dream was disturbing enough to wake Pharaoh from his sleep. But
the second was so vivid and so real that when he awoke, he was actually
surprised it was just a dream. And with that last dream, I'd not be surprised
he was very relieved to discover it wasn't a reality.

• Gen 41:8a . .The next morning, as he thought about it, Pharaoh became
agitated as to what the dreams might mean. So he called for all the
magicians and wise men of Egypt and told them about his dreams,

Magicians in those days were not the same as the sleight-of-hand
entertainers of our own day. Those occultists were scary; they used dark
arts that actually worked, and they were really and truly in touch with
paranormal powers. The magicians who opposed Moses (Ex 7:11) were able
to duplicate several of God's miracles; so ancient magicians were
legitimately powerful sorcerers and to be seriously reckoned with.

I think it was mentioned previously that "wise men" were highly educated
men of extraordinary intelligence; sort of like ancient college professors and
wiz kids. Although Moses himself isn't stated to have been a wise man; he is
stated to have been educated in all that Egypt had to offer. (Acts 7:22)

Incidentally, although Genesis never mentions God directly in Joseph's life,
Stephen confirms that it was God's providence that made the young man so
successful, and protected him from mortal harm. (Acts 7:9-10)

• Gen 41:8b . . but not one of them could suggest what they meant.

No doubt the magicians and wise men would normally have guessed the
meaning of Pharaoh's dreams in an instant via their connections with the
dark world. But this time the dark world wasn't responsible for those two
dreams.

That had to be a very tense moment for the think tank. Potentates have
been known to execute brain trusts for failure to produce. (Dan 2:1-12)
_

Webers.Home · Nov 10, 2020

.
• Gen 41:9-13 . .Then the chief cupbearer said to Pharaoh: Today I am
reminded of my shortcomings. Pharaoh was once angry with his servants,
and he imprisoned me and the chief baker in the house of the captain of the
guard. Each of us had a dream the same night, and each dream had a
meaning of its own.

. . . Now a young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the
guard. We told him our dreams, and he interpreted them for us, giving each
man the interpretation of his dream. And things turned out exactly as he
interpreted them to us: I was restored to my position, and the other man
was hanged.

Why wait till now to talk about Josephs' abilities? Well . . first off, God more
than likely put a mental block in the cupbearers head to forget all about
Joseph; and that mental block could have been something as simple as a
very reasonable decision on the cupbearer's part. Pharaoh already had a
corps of magicians and wise men who were actually very proficient at their
jobs. What need was there to suggest taking on another one; and a Hebrew
slave at that?

No doubt during the performance of his duties over time, the cupbearer had
seen lots of dreams correctly interpreted, so Joseph's dog and pony show
was nothing new to him. The kind of mental block where people talk
themselves out of something, is quite normal and very common. But now,
circumstances are going to twinge the cupbearer's conscience, not just about
Josephs' ability, but the fact that Joseph had practically begged the man to
talk to Pharaoh and get him released as a return for the favor.

• Gen 41:14a . . So Pharaoh sent for Joseph,

Normally, Egyptians didn't associate with Hebrews (cf. Gen 43:32) and that
cultural barrier no doubt factored in to the cupbearer's mental block. But
Pharaoh was at his wit's end, and was favorably disposed to swallow his
pride for a matter that, to him, seemed of the utmost importance to not only
himself, but also to the welfare of his whole country.

• Gen 41:14b . . and he was quickly brought from the dungeon.

All this was done so that Joseph could appear in court that very day, not
some other time. Pharaoh was anxious.

• Gen 41:14c . .When he had shaved and changed his clothes,

Shaving for an Egyptian meant not only trimming and sculpting their beards
(by now, Joseph must have looked like Rumpelstiltskin) but also cutting their
hair; actually shaving their scalps bald like Vin Diesel. According to
Herodotus, the Egyptians had extreme care for cleanliness and would let
their hair and beards grow out only during periods of mourning.

• Gen 41:14d . . he came before Pharaoh.

Jiminy! Here's this no-account sheep rancher from the outback getting the
full-on attention of one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful,
monarchs in the world of that day!

You know, there comes a day-- and that day may never come for some
people --when you get that big break. It's at that moment when you better
have your ducks in a row and your peas in their pods because opportunity
knocks only for those who are prepared for it. For all others, it's bye-bye;
and don't call us; we'll call you-- or worse. If Joseph blows his big moment,
he could very well end up not just sent back to prison for life; but gibbeted
just like the baker. This is a tense moment, and somebody's life is about to
change.
_

Webers.Home · Nov 11, 2020

.
• Gen 41:15 . . I had a dream last night; Pharaoh told him; and none of
these men can tell me what it means. But I have heard that you can
interpret dreams, and that is why I have summoned you.

Potiphar of course would have been responsible for delivering Joseph, and
probably informed him of the purpose. But just to set his mind at ease, I'm
assuming Pharaoh himself personally informs Joseph of the reason why he's
there because when prisoners like Joseph were summoned to a Pharaoh, it
was more than likely for trial.

• Gen 41:16 . . It is beyond my power to do this; Joseph replied. But God
will tell you what it means and will set you at ease.

A verse like that is ambiguous since the Hebrew word translated "God" in
that verse is plural so that verse could just as accurately be read: "But the
gods will tell you what it means . . ." However, Pharaoh would have no
problem with the god being Yhvh because his land was literally infested with
gods and were a common part of everyday Egyptian life.

Although Mr. Pharaoh is probably not going to like what he hears, at least
he'll have the peace of mind of knowing what to expect. How many of us
really want our doctors to lie to us? No, we want the truth; even if it's
terminal cancer.

• Gen 41:17a . . So Pharaoh told him the dream.

Pharaoh is really grasping at straws here since Joseph had no credentials nor
could produce any references aside from the cup-bearer's to recommend
him and vouch for his skills; and he had only one successful interpretation to
his credit thus far; so you can see just how desperate Pharaoh really is.

• Gen 41:17b . . I was standing on the bank of the Nile River; he said.

The Nile River's role in the dream is highly significant since it was a major
factor in Egypt's economy; especially its agriculture. Every year the Nile
overflowed it banks; leaving behind a deposit of silt; which kept the land's
flood plain replenished with a nice new layer of fresh topsoil. Take away the
Nile's flooding, and eventually the soils would become depleted in an era
when hardly anybody knew anything about crop rotation.

Not only that, but winds coming in from the eastern deserts would not only
dry the soils out and blow them away, but in the process leave behind sands
that would eventually render the land unproductive like during America's
depression era when its croplands turned into dust bowls.

Lower the Nile's water level significantly, and it would make irrigation very
difficult in a time without pumps powered by internal combustion engines or
electric motors.

Joseph is going to predict a famine; and in those days, as even now, famines
were caused by insufficient rainfall. Reduced rainfall results in less natural
irrigation and less runoff, so that Egypt's worst fears will be realized: crops
will dry up, the Nile won't overflow its banks, and its levels will shrink.

Back in chapter 2, Genesis says that a flow welled up from the ground to
water the whole surface of the earth, and a river watered the garden of
Eden. River systems irrigate the subsoil and replenish aquifers. Lower a river
system too much, and see what happens.

I can recall an instance, I think it was somewhere in Australia, where the
natural aquifer below a farmer's land went down because a marsh nearby
was drained for commercial purposes. The aquifer was like a dam. When it
went down, salt water moved in to take its place and the stuff percolated up
and flooded the man's property. All his trees died and the land became good
for nothing. Tamper with nature too much; and nature will tamper with you.

• Gen 41:18a . . when out of the river

That is so perfect because the Nile was Egypt's source of life; so that
whatever happened to the Nile, or whatever the Nile produced, effected
Egyptian life in a big way.

During Moses' confrontation with Pharaoh in the book of Exodus, the Nile
was turned into blood (Ex 7:17-25), and subsequently Egypt's streams,
rivers, ponds, and their pools. Next, God made the Nile produce myriads of
frogs (Ex 8:1-6), so that the frogs were so thick, they became a serious
infestation. So then, the Nile, which ordinarily was a blessing, became a
superfund site.

• Gen 41:18b-24a . . there came up seven heifers, sleek and fat; and they
grazed in the marsh grass. After them, seven other heifers came up--
ragged and bony, I had never seen such ugly cows in all the land of Egypt.
The hideous heifers ate up the seven fat heifers that came up first. But even
after they ate them, no one could tell that they had done so; they looked
just as hideous as before. Then I woke up.

. . . In my dreams I also saw seven heads of grain, full and good, growing
on a single stalk. After them, seven other heads sprouted-- withered and
thin and dehydrated by the east wind. The thin heads of grain swallowed up
the seven good heads.

This second dream sounds like a redux of The Little Shop Of Horrors.

• Gen 41:24b . . I told this to the magicians, but none could explain it to
me.

Since Pharaoh's brain trust couldn't figure out the dreams, then they
certainly wouldn't be able to devise effective contingency plans to deal with
their meanings. It's always nice to know the future so you can get ready for
it; and certainly nobody likes to be kept in the dark.
_

Having A Go At Genesis

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member