We've seen great faith in Abraham in chapter 15 but in the very next chapter he's back to serious doubting again.
Up until now, the women in the story have played a background role but in chapter 16 of Genesis Abram's wife Sarai takes a hand. She doubts God and thinks this idea of a son by normal means is ridiculous so she comes up with a plan B. Sarai gives Abram one of her female slaves, an Egyptian named Hagar to sleep with. When Hagar becomes pregnant, it seems the problem is solved.
Except it isn't. In the ancient Middle East, a woman's status depended on her ability to produce a son. Sarai has just promoted Hagar from being her personal slave, to being the mother of the heir. She has created a dangerous rival.
We don't know what relationship these two women had before but, from this point on, it is poisonous. Hagar taunts Sarai mercilessly and Sarai retaliates with such brutality that Hagar flees into the desert to escape. This is Abram at his worst, he has the power in his household, but does nothing to help. Effectively he tells Sarai to do whatever she wants to the other woman and washes his hands of all responsibility.
With no kindness from any human being in her life, the pregnant slave flees into the wilderness. That's where she encounters the angel of God and something remarkable happens. The angel blesses her with the same sort of blessing that Abraham has received. He tells her what to name her son and what kind of man he will be and says that Ishmael's descendants, like Abram's, will be a huge multitude.
It's another story that shows God's compassion for someone who is powerless, despised, and vulnerable. Unfortunately this story also reflects the dark reality of ancient times. Rather than setting Hagar free from slavery, the angel tells her to go back to her abuser and put up with the situation.
So . . . what do we do with this story?
I've heard some people try to justify God's words in this.
"It's okay that God sent her back because God was going to bless Ishmael."
"It's okay that God sent her back because God had a greater plan for her."
"It's okay that God sent her back . . . just because. We aren't supposed to question things like this."
"It's not really an issue because this is not a literal story."
There are a lot more reasons like this that can be offered, but I don't think they serve us very well. If we try too hard to justify this story then we can use it (as many have) to justify terrible things. This passage, along with the New Testament Letter of Philemon were used by preachers in the old South as "proof" that runaway slaves should be returned to their masters. It is still used by some socially conservative churches to justify sending abused wives back to their abusers.
Part of what this chapter does is to remind us that God, and not the Bible, has to be the center of our faith. If we are going to be faithful to the teachings and example of Jesus we cannot accept a story like this uncritically as a moral example. We have come a long way from the culture of slave owners and women used as property and cannot afford to return to it.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Coming to Faith: Genesis 15
I have to confess, I don't enjoy the story of Abram/Abraham as much as I do most of the other Genesis stories. The story seems choppy to me and the main human characters are hard to like. Tradition makes a great deal of what a great guy Abraham was and the New Testament refers back ot him as a man of profound faith--a real role-model.
I can't see it. There are passages where Abram comes across as wise, kind, brave and faithful, but they're scattered in with a lot of bad behavior. His wife, Sarai, isn't much of a treasure either. Granted, as a woman, she has less choice about her life than her husband, but she is still less than likable. In fact there's nobody in this story it's easy to like.
In Chapter 15 we find Abram doubting God. He has the blessing but he doesn't have a son to leave everything to. In Abram's time, and really through the whole of the Old Testament, there is no real idea of an afterlife. There is heaven, shere God and other celestial beings live, but there's no belief that humans go there when they die. Humans, good, bad, and anything in-between, all go to Sheol. This Hebrew word is sometimes translated "Hell" but it's not a place of judgment, punishment, or reward. It was just conceived of as a place where all people lingered fter death. With no belief in an afterlife, the ancients thought that the only form of immortality open to them was having male heirs.
Theologan Walter Brueggemann in his commentary on Genesis says that this is perhaps the most important chapter in the Abraham story. God promises blessing, Abraham challenges the promise as impossible, God reassures Abram, and Abram believes. In this passage, he suggests, Abram learns to trust enough that he can have hope in a hopeless situation, and this is what faith really is.
This is what make makes Abraham a role model. It's not his courage, because he sometimes acts like a coward; it's not his wisdom, because he sometimes shows awful judgment; it's not his compassion, because he often treats others badly. But Abram has something wonderful in spite of his many flaws. He has faith and this allows him to keep hope, even in hopeless situations. This more than positive thinking because it is seen in his actions. Positive thinking is a good attitude to have, but having hope and basing your decisions on it, even in situations that seem hopeless, is even more important. It is a quality that helps us to be better people, doing the things that are compassionate, just, and true even when it would be much more practical not to. It pushes us beyond out limits as we choose to trust in God's limitless grace.
I can't see it. There are passages where Abram comes across as wise, kind, brave and faithful, but they're scattered in with a lot of bad behavior. His wife, Sarai, isn't much of a treasure either. Granted, as a woman, she has less choice about her life than her husband, but she is still less than likable. In fact there's nobody in this story it's easy to like.
In Chapter 15 we find Abram doubting God. He has the blessing but he doesn't have a son to leave everything to. In Abram's time, and really through the whole of the Old Testament, there is no real idea of an afterlife. There is heaven, shere God and other celestial beings live, but there's no belief that humans go there when they die. Humans, good, bad, and anything in-between, all go to Sheol. This Hebrew word is sometimes translated "Hell" but it's not a place of judgment, punishment, or reward. It was just conceived of as a place where all people lingered fter death. With no belief in an afterlife, the ancients thought that the only form of immortality open to them was having male heirs.
Theologan Walter Brueggemann in his commentary on Genesis says that this is perhaps the most important chapter in the Abraham story. God promises blessing, Abraham challenges the promise as impossible, God reassures Abram, and Abram believes. In this passage, he suggests, Abram learns to trust enough that he can have hope in a hopeless situation, and this is what faith really is.
This is what make makes Abraham a role model. It's not his courage, because he sometimes acts like a coward; it's not his wisdom, because he sometimes shows awful judgment; it's not his compassion, because he often treats others badly. But Abram has something wonderful in spite of his many flaws. He has faith and this allows him to keep hope, even in hopeless situations. This more than positive thinking because it is seen in his actions. Positive thinking is a good attitude to have, but having hope and basing your decisions on it, even in situations that seem hopeless, is even more important. It is a quality that helps us to be better people, doing the things that are compassionate, just, and true even when it would be much more practical not to. It pushes us beyond out limits as we choose to trust in God's limitless grace.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Thrilling Adventures of Abram's Nephew, Lot: Genesis 13 and 14
Chapters 13 and 14 of Genesis move away from the central story of Abram and Sarai. The story of Lot is not as well known as the story of Abram and Sarai, and you might call it a less-successful spin-off. It's kind of the biblical equivalent of "Joannie Loves Chachi."
The story starts with Abram returning to the Negeb a rich man with lots of flocks and herds. The problem is, Abram's extended family had gotten so big and wealthy that the land can't support them any longer. There is limit to how big a group of nomadic herdsmen can get before they start to run out of water and grass. It soon becomes clear to Abram and his nephew Lot that they have to part company for the good of everyone involved. As the head of the family, Abram has the right to choose the best land for himself. In an act of generosity he lets Lot make the choice and trusts in God to survive. Lot settles on the plain by the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah and Abram moves to the Oaks of Mamre.
War breaks out and the complicated alliences call for Lot to fight on the side of Sodom and Gomorrah. Things go badly and Lot is taken prisoner, along with treasure and women. With the kings defeated, it's up to Abrtam to save the day. He and his servants defeat the enemies, and rescue Lot, the treasure, and the women. Abram humbly refuses any reward and the mysterious King Melchizedek of Salem shows up to bless Abram with bread and wine, and the story ends on a happy note. Abram, model of faith and courage that he is, has saved the day.
There are a number of questions that this story raises. I'll answer as many of them as well as I'm able.
1. What's Up With Abraham? You may have noticed that Abraham seems like a different person than he did in Chapter 12. There he was a coward and a swindler while here he is a strong and brave, the very model of faithful living. And this won't be the last time it happens; through the rest of his story Abraham switches from wise hero to paranoid con-man with alarming regularity. If this was a literal story we'd have to suspect mental illness.
What's actually going on is that there are several stories about Abraham that have been woven together. Just how many stories and who wrote them is a very difficult question because this section of Genesis is one of the most difficult for scholars to sort out. The result is that it's impossible to say what Abraham was really like. It's tempting for believers to pull out the nice passages and say he was a great guy, and it's tempting for non-believers to pull out the nasty passages and say he was a monster. Doing either of these things says a lot more about us than it does about Abraham.
2. Does God Love Country Folk Better than City Slickers? That's obviously not the case since God loves all people, but this story certainly puts city folk in a bad light. When Abram and Lot split, Abram keeps the life of a nomadic herdsman and settles near the Oaks of Mamre whole Lot throws in with the cities on the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah which are known for their (unspecified) wickedness. This is the first hint of something we'll see a lot in the Old Testament. The worship of god begins among the nomads but keeos drifting into the cities where the rich and powerful try to appropriate it for themseleves. That leass a number of the writers to have a healthy mistrust of cities and the people who live there.
3. what About Melchizedek? There is a mysterious priest/king called Melchizedek who blesses Abram with bread and wine. There are some interesting traditions about this man, but very little that we actually know. first he is the priest of El Elyon or "God Most High." This might be a reference to God but that name was also used for the high god of the Canaanite people. It's not clear whether "Melchizedek is a name or a title, and it's not clear what it literally means. He's said to be the king of
salem and there's a rabbinic tradition that Salem might be another name for Jerusalem, but it's not at all certain that this is correct.
The name Melchizedek shows up in other scriptures, but it's pretty mysterious there too. It appears in Psalm 100 and verse 4 of the Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 5 where Jesus is called a priest of the order of Melchizedek. The idea there is that, while Jesus is not a priest in the usual tradition of Israel (you have to inheirit the role from your father) he is still the kind of priest that Melc hizedek was: one appointed by God.
There are more questions than answers in this section of Genesis, which may be one reason we don't read it as often. :-)
The story starts with Abram returning to the Negeb a rich man with lots of flocks and herds. The problem is, Abram's extended family had gotten so big and wealthy that the land can't support them any longer. There is limit to how big a group of nomadic herdsmen can get before they start to run out of water and grass. It soon becomes clear to Abram and his nephew Lot that they have to part company for the good of everyone involved. As the head of the family, Abram has the right to choose the best land for himself. In an act of generosity he lets Lot make the choice and trusts in God to survive. Lot settles on the plain by the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah and Abram moves to the Oaks of Mamre.
War breaks out and the complicated alliences call for Lot to fight on the side of Sodom and Gomorrah. Things go badly and Lot is taken prisoner, along with treasure and women. With the kings defeated, it's up to Abrtam to save the day. He and his servants defeat the enemies, and rescue Lot, the treasure, and the women. Abram humbly refuses any reward and the mysterious King Melchizedek of Salem shows up to bless Abram with bread and wine, and the story ends on a happy note. Abram, model of faith and courage that he is, has saved the day.
There are a number of questions that this story raises. I'll answer as many of them as well as I'm able.
1. What's Up With Abraham? You may have noticed that Abraham seems like a different person than he did in Chapter 12. There he was a coward and a swindler while here he is a strong and brave, the very model of faithful living. And this won't be the last time it happens; through the rest of his story Abraham switches from wise hero to paranoid con-man with alarming regularity. If this was a literal story we'd have to suspect mental illness.
What's actually going on is that there are several stories about Abraham that have been woven together. Just how many stories and who wrote them is a very difficult question because this section of Genesis is one of the most difficult for scholars to sort out. The result is that it's impossible to say what Abraham was really like. It's tempting for believers to pull out the nice passages and say he was a great guy, and it's tempting for non-believers to pull out the nasty passages and say he was a monster. Doing either of these things says a lot more about us than it does about Abraham.
2. Does God Love Country Folk Better than City Slickers? That's obviously not the case since God loves all people, but this story certainly puts city folk in a bad light. When Abram and Lot split, Abram keeps the life of a nomadic herdsman and settles near the Oaks of Mamre whole Lot throws in with the cities on the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah which are known for their (unspecified) wickedness. This is the first hint of something we'll see a lot in the Old Testament. The worship of god begins among the nomads but keeos drifting into the cities where the rich and powerful try to appropriate it for themseleves. That leass a number of the writers to have a healthy mistrust of cities and the people who live there.
3. what About Melchizedek? There is a mysterious priest/king called Melchizedek who blesses Abram with bread and wine. There are some interesting traditions about this man, but very little that we actually know. first he is the priest of El Elyon or "God Most High." This might be a reference to God but that name was also used for the high god of the Canaanite people. It's not clear whether "Melchizedek is a name or a title, and it's not clear what it literally means. He's said to be the king of
salem and there's a rabbinic tradition that Salem might be another name for Jerusalem, but it's not at all certain that this is correct.
The name Melchizedek shows up in other scriptures, but it's pretty mysterious there too. It appears in Psalm 100 and verse 4 of the Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 5 where Jesus is called a priest of the order of Melchizedek. The idea there is that, while Jesus is not a priest in the usual tradition of Israel (you have to inheirit the role from your father) he is still the kind of priest that Melc hizedek was: one appointed by God.
There are more questions than answers in this section of Genesis, which may be one reason we don't read it as often. :-)
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Abram and Sarai: Genesis 12
Chapter 12 of Genesis introduces of to Abram and Sarai, the parents of one of the most dysfunctional families ever.
This story is much more important than the stories that come before it. You can see that in the fact that it is about as long as all the earlier stories in Genesis put together. There's an important shift here. Up until now we've seen God dealing with the whole world. We've also seen, in story after story, from Adam and Eve, ot Cain and Abel, to the World before the Flood, to the Tower of Babel, the world has been rebellious and unresponsive to God's call. It's been a difficult relationship and the old methods haven't worked so now we see God try something different.
The story of Abram is the story of God forming a special relationship with one person, one family, and one people. This isn't with the idea that Abram and Sarai are somehow better or more deserving than other people. The idea seems to be that God has to start somewhere. But that doen't mean that the blessing is only for Abram and his descendants. From the very first the story makes it clear that this blessing, all the people of the world shall be blessed.
Abram is an odd choice for a hero. He isn't particularly strong, brave, wise, or anything of the sort. The one thing that sets Abram apart is his faith. when he is called out of his ancestral home by God, he goes. Abram's trust in God will falter fairly often in during his story and he often misunderstands what God is calling him to do. Still, this deeply flawed man always holds on to this relationship to God and that becomes his one saving grace.
If God is shown to be reliable in this story, Someutes his wife in this chapter is proof of that. Perhaps the only praiseworthy thing about him is his faith.
We are told that Abram is 75 years old in this story. By implication, Sarai would be 65. The age here isn't literal; it goes to underscore the idea that the couple are barren. They comes from a culture where there is no idea of an afterlife. The only kind of immortality they are aware of is the kind where your family and good name continue after you die. A childless couple in this culture is as good as dead and dishonered. Only a son could save them, and the scribes putting this story down want to make sure we know, a son is impossible.
It's no wonder Abraham is willing to grasp at any little bit of hope. When God offers him a son, numberless ancestors, and an honorable name that will last forever, that is literally everything that matters to a man who has nothing.
Abram and his family head out into the unknown based in faith in a promise from a God who he hasn't known accepts for what may be selfish reasons but, by accepting he becomes the first to participate in this new relationship.
While Abram is faithful, he's still not a very good man. When the family heads to Egypt, Abram effectively prostitutes his wife to the King of Egypt. Aram's excuse is that Sarai is so beautiful that Pharaoh would kill him and take her if he didn't do this. There is a hidden agenda, though, as we can see in verse 16.
This sounds like a con game that Abram is running on Pharaoh, and one that he will repeat several times. It also sounds like God is complicit in this operation, and punishes Pharaoh for something that was clearly Abram's fault. That's hard for modern Christian readers to take and rightly so. It reflects a primitive, tribal understanding of God that is not consistent with what Jesus reveals to us about God.
In ancient times, the idea was that God only cared about the chosen people. This is an idea that the Gospels clearly reject in Matthew 3:7-10 any other places. God cares about all people and insists that his followers practice the kind of justice that honors this fact. That's something that the writer of this part of Abram's story didn't seem to understand.
Still, the bottom line of the Abraham story is still true. God is faithful to people, even when the people don't really deserve it.
This story is much more important than the stories that come before it. You can see that in the fact that it is about as long as all the earlier stories in Genesis put together. There's an important shift here. Up until now we've seen God dealing with the whole world. We've also seen, in story after story, from Adam and Eve, ot Cain and Abel, to the World before the Flood, to the Tower of Babel, the world has been rebellious and unresponsive to God's call. It's been a difficult relationship and the old methods haven't worked so now we see God try something different.
The story of Abram is the story of God forming a special relationship with one person, one family, and one people. This isn't with the idea that Abram and Sarai are somehow better or more deserving than other people. The idea seems to be that God has to start somewhere. But that doen't mean that the blessing is only for Abram and his descendants. From the very first the story makes it clear that this blessing, all the people of the world shall be blessed.
Abram is an odd choice for a hero. He isn't particularly strong, brave, wise, or anything of the sort. The one thing that sets Abram apart is his faith. when he is called out of his ancestral home by God, he goes. Abram's trust in God will falter fairly often in during his story and he often misunderstands what God is calling him to do. Still, this deeply flawed man always holds on to this relationship to God and that becomes his one saving grace.
If God is shown to be reliable in this story, Someutes his wife in this chapter is proof of that. Perhaps the only praiseworthy thing about him is his faith.
We are told that Abram is 75 years old in this story. By implication, Sarai would be 65. The age here isn't literal; it goes to underscore the idea that the couple are barren. They comes from a culture where there is no idea of an afterlife. The only kind of immortality they are aware of is the kind where your family and good name continue after you die. A childless couple in this culture is as good as dead and dishonered. Only a son could save them, and the scribes putting this story down want to make sure we know, a son is impossible.
It's no wonder Abraham is willing to grasp at any little bit of hope. When God offers him a son, numberless ancestors, and an honorable name that will last forever, that is literally everything that matters to a man who has nothing.
Abram and his family head out into the unknown based in faith in a promise from a God who he hasn't known accepts for what may be selfish reasons but, by accepting he becomes the first to participate in this new relationship.
While Abram is faithful, he's still not a very good man. When the family heads to Egypt, Abram effectively prostitutes his wife to the King of Egypt. Aram's excuse is that Sarai is so beautiful that Pharaoh would kill him and take her if he didn't do this. There is a hidden agenda, though, as we can see in verse 16.
Because of her, Abram got along very well: he accumulated sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, men and women servants, and camels.
This sounds like a con game that Abram is running on Pharaoh, and one that he will repeat several times. It also sounds like God is complicit in this operation, and punishes Pharaoh for something that was clearly Abram's fault. That's hard for modern Christian readers to take and rightly so. It reflects a primitive, tribal understanding of God that is not consistent with what Jesus reveals to us about God.
In ancient times, the idea was that God only cared about the chosen people. This is an idea that the Gospels clearly reject in Matthew 3:7-10 any other places. God cares about all people and insists that his followers practice the kind of justice that honors this fact. That's something that the writer of this part of Abram's story didn't seem to understand.
Still, the bottom line of the Abraham story is still true. God is faithful to people, even when the people don't really deserve it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Tower of Babel: Genesis 11
Chapter 11 continues the genealogy of Noah's sons, but not before a quick detour into the story of The Tower of Babel. This is the last of what are called the "pre-history" stories of the Bible. Up until not everything has happened in a long-ago and far-away that can't be identified with any historical time place. That will change as we get into the story of Abraham.
The story is pretty straightforward; all the people of the earth live in one place and speak one language. They decide to build a tower that will reach into heaven and proceed to build it. God sees their effort, doesn't like it, and says: "One people, one language; why, this is only a first step. No telling what they'll come up with next - they'll stop at nothing!.
God takes away the ability to communicate and scatters them across the face of the earth. This provides a (fictional) explanation for the fact that there are so many different languages in the world. As short as the story is, it raises a number of questions in our minds.
1) What was the Tower?
There have been a number of searches for the tower, especially in the 19th Century when archaeology was in its infancy and most people assumed that this was a literal story. One attractive possibility was that it was inspired by the Etemenanki which was 7 story ziggurat devoted to the god Marduk that stood in the city of Babylon. The Jews would have been seen it during the Babylinian exile when they lived as captives in Babylon.
It's impossible to know if this was the inspiration for the Tower of Babel, but it seems likely that the Tower is supposed to make us think of ziggurats. These were high places or artificial mountains created in the pagan religions of the ancient Near East. The idea was that mountains were sacred places where the earth rose up to touch the heavens. When you built a city, you would construct an artificial mountain, or ziggurat, as a central place of worship. This sounds very much like the reason the people gave for building the Tower of Babel.
2) Why did God object to the Tower?
It's not made clear in the story, though Jewish tradition suggests that it was the pride of the people. Failing to trust God, they decided to reach up to heaven on their own terms and built the Tower. This answer is similar to the story of Adam and Eve where the humans don't trust God and try to gain divin knowledge on their own terms. In both stories, falling out of harmony with God produces a disaster.
There is also a very good chance that this story was written either during the exile in Babylon or soon after. If that is the case then the Tower could represent the powerful enemies of the Jews and the ziggurats where they worshipped their gods. The story serves as a reminder that, no matter how powerful their enemies appear to be, God is in control.
3) Why did God scatter the people and give them different languages?
Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann has a wonderful insight on this in his commentary on Genesis. The Tower of Babel is a story of people who are great because of their cookie-cutter sameness. The people of Babel all speak the same language and (presumably) eat the same food, wear the same kind of clothes, and belong to the same culture. You can accomplish a great deal in a homogeneous culture but only at the expense of diversity. Brueggemann suggests that God scatters the people to show them a better way. The unity God wants for the human race is diverse people drawn together by common faith and values, not a sterile sameness.
In other words, God doesn't object to the tower, per se, but to the way it's being built. Human beings should aspire to more than being builder-ants. The many languages and the scattering are not a punishment, but an opportunityu to live up to a much greater potential.
The story shifts back to genealogy with verses 10-32. I won't touch on these other than to say that they carry us to the story of Abraham.
The story is pretty straightforward; all the people of the earth live in one place and speak one language. They decide to build a tower that will reach into heaven and proceed to build it. God sees their effort, doesn't like it, and says: "One people, one language; why, this is only a first step. No telling what they'll come up with next - they'll stop at nothing!.
God takes away the ability to communicate and scatters them across the face of the earth. This provides a (fictional) explanation for the fact that there are so many different languages in the world. As short as the story is, it raises a number of questions in our minds.
1) What was the Tower?
There have been a number of searches for the tower, especially in the 19th Century when archaeology was in its infancy and most people assumed that this was a literal story. One attractive possibility was that it was inspired by the Etemenanki which was 7 story ziggurat devoted to the god Marduk that stood in the city of Babylon. The Jews would have been seen it during the Babylinian exile when they lived as captives in Babylon.
It's impossible to know if this was the inspiration for the Tower of Babel, but it seems likely that the Tower is supposed to make us think of ziggurats. These were high places or artificial mountains created in the pagan religions of the ancient Near East. The idea was that mountains were sacred places where the earth rose up to touch the heavens. When you built a city, you would construct an artificial mountain, or ziggurat, as a central place of worship. This sounds very much like the reason the people gave for building the Tower of Babel.
2) Why did God object to the Tower?
It's not made clear in the story, though Jewish tradition suggests that it was the pride of the people. Failing to trust God, they decided to reach up to heaven on their own terms and built the Tower. This answer is similar to the story of Adam and Eve where the humans don't trust God and try to gain divin knowledge on their own terms. In both stories, falling out of harmony with God produces a disaster.
There is also a very good chance that this story was written either during the exile in Babylon or soon after. If that is the case then the Tower could represent the powerful enemies of the Jews and the ziggurats where they worshipped their gods. The story serves as a reminder that, no matter how powerful their enemies appear to be, God is in control.
3) Why did God scatter the people and give them different languages?
Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann has a wonderful insight on this in his commentary on Genesis. The Tower of Babel is a story of people who are great because of their cookie-cutter sameness. The people of Babel all speak the same language and (presumably) eat the same food, wear the same kind of clothes, and belong to the same culture. You can accomplish a great deal in a homogeneous culture but only at the expense of diversity. Brueggemann suggests that God scatters the people to show them a better way. The unity God wants for the human race is diverse people drawn together by common faith and values, not a sterile sameness.
In other words, God doesn't object to the tower, per se, but to the way it's being built. Human beings should aspire to more than being builder-ants. The many languages and the scattering are not a punishment, but an opportunityu to live up to a much greater potential.
The story shifts back to genealogy with verses 10-32. I won't touch on these other than to say that they carry us to the story of Abraham.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
More Genealogies: Genesis 10
The genealogies of Genesis 10 bring the story of Noah to a clost. it is likely that the hypothetical priestly source or P wrote this because P loved lists.
Modern people have a lot less to gain from this kind of thing than the ancients, so I'll just touch on it. Basically, this list answers the question 'where did all of these people come from?' It provides a bridge between the story of Noah and the populated world that the Jewish people were familiar with.
This chapter (like the stories that have come before it) is not historical. it's a story that served to remind the Jews that God wasn't just their God but the one who created and ruled over the the whole world. That was important, because in the time this story was written, the kingdom of Judah had beed conquored several times and reduced to the status of a privince in the Persian Empire. The Jewish people feared that they were nothing more than a footnote in another culture's history. This genealogy was meant to remind them that this was not the case.
We really don't learn much anything about the people in this chapter except for their names and where they settled. The only exception to this is Nimrod, who is described as the first man on earth to become a mighty warrior. He is also described as a mighty hunter. Reading this you get the impression that Nimrod may at one time have been the hero of his own story which is now forgotten. There are Jewish traditions that suggest he was the Great King of Babylonia, that he built the Tower of Babel, and that he had at least one meeting with Abraham. However, none of this shows up in the Bible.
FOOTNOTE: If you've been reading this blog, you may have noticed that I refer to the people who wrote it by several different names. Sometimes I say "Hebrews", sometimes "Israelites", and sometimes "Jews." There is a method to this madness that has to do with the history of Israel.
The word "Hebrew" appears to come from the Egyptian word "apiru" or "habiru" which refers to foreigners (often slaves) living in Egypt. Historians believe that the Habiru were a mishmash of different Semitic peoples who were united by the worship of God to become one people when they left Egypt.
When the Hebrew people settled in the Promised Land they named the place "Israel" after their ancestor Jacob, and the people were called the "Israelites." After the death of King Solomon the nation split into two. The northern kingdom kept the name of Israel while the southern kingdom was took the name "Judah" and its people were called "Jews." Eventually, the northern kingdom was conquored and destroyed by the Assyrian Empire leaving only Judah and the Jews to carry on the faith.
When I refer to "Israelites" in this study, I'm referring to writers from the northern kingdom, and when I use "Jews" I am referring to writers from the southern kingdom.
Modern people have a lot less to gain from this kind of thing than the ancients, so I'll just touch on it. Basically, this list answers the question 'where did all of these people come from?' It provides a bridge between the story of Noah and the populated world that the Jewish people were familiar with.
This chapter (like the stories that have come before it) is not historical. it's a story that served to remind the Jews that God wasn't just their God but the one who created and ruled over the the whole world. That was important, because in the time this story was written, the kingdom of Judah had beed conquored several times and reduced to the status of a privince in the Persian Empire. The Jewish people feared that they were nothing more than a footnote in another culture's history. This genealogy was meant to remind them that this was not the case.
We really don't learn much anything about the people in this chapter except for their names and where they settled. The only exception to this is Nimrod, who is described as the first man on earth to become a mighty warrior. He is also described as a mighty hunter. Reading this you get the impression that Nimrod may at one time have been the hero of his own story which is now forgotten. There are Jewish traditions that suggest he was the Great King of Babylonia, that he built the Tower of Babel, and that he had at least one meeting with Abraham. However, none of this shows up in the Bible.
FOOTNOTE: If you've been reading this blog, you may have noticed that I refer to the people who wrote it by several different names. Sometimes I say "Hebrews", sometimes "Israelites", and sometimes "Jews." There is a method to this madness that has to do with the history of Israel.
The word "Hebrew" appears to come from the Egyptian word "apiru" or "habiru" which refers to foreigners (often slaves) living in Egypt. Historians believe that the Habiru were a mishmash of different Semitic peoples who were united by the worship of God to become one people when they left Egypt.
When the Hebrew people settled in the Promised Land they named the place "Israel" after their ancestor Jacob, and the people were called the "Israelites." After the death of King Solomon the nation split into two. The northern kingdom kept the name of Israel while the southern kingdom was took the name "Judah" and its people were called "Jews." Eventually, the northern kingdom was conquored and destroyed by the Assyrian Empire leaving only Judah and the Jews to carry on the faith.
When I refer to "Israelites" in this study, I'm referring to writers from the northern kingdom, and when I use "Jews" I am referring to writers from the southern kingdom.
Noah's Strange Drunken Interlude: Genesis 9:18-29
The story of Noah ends with an odd and disturbing episode which you can read in parallel versions here.
Early on we were told that Noah was a good and virtuous man but what we see in this strange story makes us wonder. Noah plants a vineyard and uses the grapes to make wine. Unfortunately, he overindulges, gets drunk, and passes out naked in his tent. Noah's son Ham happens to see his father in this state and tells his brothers. That might seem like bad manners to us but it's deadly serious to Noah.
That's something that's always puzzled me about the story. Seeing someone naked (especially a parent) sounds very embarassing, but it's hardly a crime. Why was Noah so upset that he insisted on punishment?
It probably has to do with the fact that the ancient Middle-East was dominated by a culture of honor. We think of honor as a man keeping his word and doing the right thing, but that's not what the word originally meant. In these cultures your standing in the community came from what people thought of you. If they saw you as someone who was smart, strong, and ruthless--someone they didn't want to mess with--you had a lot of honor. If you did something that made you appear weak or unreliable to the community, you lost honor.
Things get brutal in this kind of culture. If someone does something that harms your reputation, you have to take revenge to get your honor back. If someone insults you, you may have to fight a duel with them. If your daughter disobeys you and marries a man you don't approve of, or dresses inappropriately, or becomes the victim of rape, or otherwise embarasses the family, then an honor killing is called for. Honor is all about what people think of you, not the sort of person you actially are. In other words, the problem wasn't that Noah couldn't control his drinking, it was that there was a witness who knew how badly he had embarassed himself.
Noah's other sons, Shem and Japeth, do what loyal sons are supposed to do in the culture of honor: they covered things up, literally. They walked in backward so they could pretend that they had no knowledge of their father's embarassment, and covered him with a sheet so that nobody else could see him like that. They preserved his reputation, which in this kind of culture, is preferrable to telling the embarassing truth.
Under the rules of the culture, Noah had good reason to be angry with Ham, but that's not who he punishes. Instead, Noah proclaims that his Ham's son, Canaan, has lost his status as a member of the family. He and his descendants are to be the slaves of Shem and Japeth and their descendants.
It's not at all clear why Noah doesn't punish Ham directly. Other than that, though, the punishment fits the code of honor. Ham dishonered his father, now Noah dishonors Canaan by making his descendants slaves. It is disproportionate revenge, but that's what the code of honor calls for. It's a harsh thing to do, but that's not the point. In this culture, love is not the priority, reputation is. If you had to kill every single one of your children to restore your family's honorable name, you would would do it and the culture would praise you for it. (We can still see this dynamic in cultures that practice honor killings).
If I haven't made it clear yet; I believe that culture of honor is a terrible thing. Just because Noah lived this way is no reason to assume it is a good set of values, or that we are supposed to imitate him. As we move through the Bible one of the things you'll see is how God leads the people away from this unjust and brutal way of life into a culture of justice and compassion. For Christians the example for living needs to be the humility of Jesus, not the honor-obsessed brutality of Noah.
There's one more thing to say about this story and that is a note on how it has been misused in history. Before the Civil War, preachers in the South used to use this story to justify slavery. Canaan, they claimed, was black and became the ancestor of the peoples of Africa while white people were the descendents of Shem and Japeth. They pointed to Noah's curse on Canaan as "proof" that God meant for black Africans to be the slaves of white people.
i doubt that I need to go into all the reasons that this is a case of badly messed-up thinking, but I will, just to be complete.
1) The curse was from Noah, not from God. The action of a prideful man seeking to restore his reputation is not the same as God's will.
2) There is nothing in scripture that claims either that Canaan was black or that Africans are descended from him. In fact, the historical Canaanites were ethnically pretty much identical to the Jews, the only differences were religious and cultural.
3) The most important point: The story of Noah is not a historical story! As I've several times, this is a made-up story, like a parable. It's meant to teach us about God and humanity but it's not meant to be taken literally.
Early on we were told that Noah was a good and virtuous man but what we see in this strange story makes us wonder. Noah plants a vineyard and uses the grapes to make wine. Unfortunately, he overindulges, gets drunk, and passes out naked in his tent. Noah's son Ham happens to see his father in this state and tells his brothers. That might seem like bad manners to us but it's deadly serious to Noah.
That's something that's always puzzled me about the story. Seeing someone naked (especially a parent) sounds very embarassing, but it's hardly a crime. Why was Noah so upset that he insisted on punishment?
It probably has to do with the fact that the ancient Middle-East was dominated by a culture of honor. We think of honor as a man keeping his word and doing the right thing, but that's not what the word originally meant. In these cultures your standing in the community came from what people thought of you. If they saw you as someone who was smart, strong, and ruthless--someone they didn't want to mess with--you had a lot of honor. If you did something that made you appear weak or unreliable to the community, you lost honor.
Things get brutal in this kind of culture. If someone does something that harms your reputation, you have to take revenge to get your honor back. If someone insults you, you may have to fight a duel with them. If your daughter disobeys you and marries a man you don't approve of, or dresses inappropriately, or becomes the victim of rape, or otherwise embarasses the family, then an honor killing is called for. Honor is all about what people think of you, not the sort of person you actially are. In other words, the problem wasn't that Noah couldn't control his drinking, it was that there was a witness who knew how badly he had embarassed himself.
Noah's other sons, Shem and Japeth, do what loyal sons are supposed to do in the culture of honor: they covered things up, literally. They walked in backward so they could pretend that they had no knowledge of their father's embarassment, and covered him with a sheet so that nobody else could see him like that. They preserved his reputation, which in this kind of culture, is preferrable to telling the embarassing truth.
Under the rules of the culture, Noah had good reason to be angry with Ham, but that's not who he punishes. Instead, Noah proclaims that his Ham's son, Canaan, has lost his status as a member of the family. He and his descendants are to be the slaves of Shem and Japeth and their descendants.
It's not at all clear why Noah doesn't punish Ham directly. Other than that, though, the punishment fits the code of honor. Ham dishonered his father, now Noah dishonors Canaan by making his descendants slaves. It is disproportionate revenge, but that's what the code of honor calls for. It's a harsh thing to do, but that's not the point. In this culture, love is not the priority, reputation is. If you had to kill every single one of your children to restore your family's honorable name, you would would do it and the culture would praise you for it. (We can still see this dynamic in cultures that practice honor killings).
If I haven't made it clear yet; I believe that culture of honor is a terrible thing. Just because Noah lived this way is no reason to assume it is a good set of values, or that we are supposed to imitate him. As we move through the Bible one of the things you'll see is how God leads the people away from this unjust and brutal way of life into a culture of justice and compassion. For Christians the example for living needs to be the humility of Jesus, not the honor-obsessed brutality of Noah.
There's one more thing to say about this story and that is a note on how it has been misused in history. Before the Civil War, preachers in the South used to use this story to justify slavery. Canaan, they claimed, was black and became the ancestor of the peoples of Africa while white people were the descendents of Shem and Japeth. They pointed to Noah's curse on Canaan as "proof" that God meant for black Africans to be the slaves of white people.
i doubt that I need to go into all the reasons that this is a case of badly messed-up thinking, but I will, just to be complete.
1) The curse was from Noah, not from God. The action of a prideful man seeking to restore his reputation is not the same as God's will.
2) There is nothing in scripture that claims either that Canaan was black or that Africans are descended from him. In fact, the historical Canaanites were ethnically pretty much identical to the Jews, the only differences were religious and cultural.
3) The most important point: The story of Noah is not a historical story! As I've several times, this is a made-up story, like a parable. It's meant to teach us about God and humanity but it's not meant to be taken literally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)