Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Muslim Reading the Bible: Genesis 47-Exodus 12

We left off last time in the story of Joseph during the drought and famine. We can see how Pharaoh acquired all the land, and the people as slaves as they sold off their property and themselves as the famine continued. I found it interesting how often worshiping was mentioned with someone putting their face to the ground, but I don't know of barely any modern Jew or Christian that worships that way. Also, Jacob blesses his sons in Gen 49: 1-27, and I feel like there was supposed to be a lot of historical significance that translates into modern times, but the meaning escapes me.

Curiosities:

What is the significance of vowing with your hand under their thigh? Gen 47:29
Why and how are Joseph's sons considered Jacob's? Gen 48:5
What does this mean? Especially the couch part? Gen 49:4
Exodus brings us to the story of Moses and things have felt pretty predictable to me while reading this in terms of what happens next in the story. I was a bit surprised in Exo 4:16 that God said Moses is like God to these people; it just seems like an awfully strong statement! I also noticed that a few times it said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I've noticed this type of language in both the Qur'an and the Bible now, which can be hard to swallow. I mean, why would God harden someone's heart? Does that contradict our picture of a Merciful God? I have my own thoughts on this, but I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts. 

I noted at Exo 12:15 that as far as I remember, this is the first direct command from God. As a Muslim, we believe that there were scrolls from Abraham to guide people to God's way. I'm just curious what the Jewish/Christian view is.

Also, in Exodus 11, God tells Moses that Pharaoh will let them go but it seems in Exodus 12:33-36 that Pharaoh isn't involved at all. That confused me a bit.

Curiosities:

I thought his father in law was Reuel? Did Moses marry again and it wasn't mentioned?  Exo 3:1 vs Exo 2:18-21
Israel (Jacob) is God's first born son? I don't originally have a problem with the term. What catches me is when I read the Gospels (you can see this here), the term doesn't seem to be different. I am getting ahead of myself a bit, but how is Jesus seen as a literal son of God, and everywhere else it is mentioned, it is figurative? Exo 4:22-23
What is this about? I'm totally lost. Exo 4:24-26
What does the term uncircumcised lips mean? Exo 6:12
He married his aunt? Were there not guidelines for this type of stuff yet? Exo 6:20
Is this still practiced? Exo 12:5-6

It's amazing to me to read stories such as this, and whether one believes it is truth or fiction, that people remain the same throughout time. We measure Truth based on what we already know, and things that do not agree with our existing "wisdom" must be false. I'm even finding myself falling into such a trap. My, it is convenient.

Well, I'm in Exodus 34, but I'll leave with this. Reading is not hard to do, but sitting at the laptop uninterrupted is challenging. Alhamdulilah for my Kindle, otherwise the reading would be impossible to complete!

6 comments:

  1. Nice to see your notes, and, yes, I'm glad you are able to read thanks to Kindle.:) I'll try to read and reply tomorrow as it's getting towards ten and I'm a bit tired. Hope your day is going well!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another long comment:

    I found it interesting how often worshiping was mentioned with someone putting their face to the ground, but I don't know of barely any modern Jew or Christian that worships that way.

    I'll have to leave it to Susanne for an explanation as to why many modern Christians don't prostrate in prayer anymore. If I had to guess, I would say that they'd argue it's because they are not God's servants, or slaves, that they don't worship out of fear (which is what, to many, the position of prostration brings to mind), but that they worship out of love. So they stand in order to honor God. Or it could just be a cultural problem. The Eastern churches still prostrate in prayer – it's only in the Western churches that it has gone mostly out of use.

    Also, Jacob blesses his sons in Gen 49: 1-27, and I feel like there was supposed to be a lot of historical significance that translates into modern times, but the meaning escapes me.

    I'm not certain about historical significance that continues into modern times. These passages are seen as prophecies for each sons life and the tribes that would form out of them. Parts of the passages are also seen as prophecies in relation to Christ.

    What is the significance of vowing with your hand under their thigh? Gen 47:29

    My understanding is that it's an ancient way of sealing the deal. Sort of like giving someone your sandal was. Only that would be performed between equals. The vowing with your hand under the other persons thigh was done when there was an inequality of power, such as between master and servant, or father and son. Which are the only two examples we get of this in the Bible. It's one of those ancient traditions whose origins are essentially lost to us.

    Why and how are Joseph's sons considered Jacob's? Gen 48:5

    They sort of replaced Reuben (who was technically first born, but definitely out of favor, due to his sins) and Simeon, as Jacob's sons.

    What does this mean? Especially the couch part? Gen 49:4

    My Bible translates the verse as this: “Unstable as water in your insolence, you went up to your father's bed; then you defiled it.” As for the meaning, it is cross-referenced to Gen 35:22 “So it happened, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went in and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine. Israel heard about it, and it was evil in his sight.” and 1 Chronicles 5:1 - “Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel. He was indeed the firstborn, but his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, the son of Israel, because Reuben climbed into his father's bed, so that the genealogy is not listed according to birthright;”

    I was a bit surprised in Exo 4:16 that God said Moses is like God to these people; it just seems like an awfully strong statement!

    But that's not what it says. The verse, even in the ESV, reads: “He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God to him.” Which makes sense if you read the rest of the passage. This is Moses trying to beg out of his role as prophet by arguing that he is not glib of tongue, that he will not be able to convince anyone of anything, let alone his people that he is sent by God, or the pharaoh to set his people free. God is saying, essentially, that Aaron will be to Moses as Moses is to God and vice versa. That's all it means.

    ReplyDelete
  3. why would God harden someone's heart? Does that contradict our picture of a Merciful God?

    It is not God who hardens or softens anyone's heart, any more than it is God who decides who makes any decisions for us. That's the whole point of free will. Pharaoh chose his own path. The phrasing is due to a habit of Scripture to term God's permission, His allowance of actions (due to free will, of course), as His action.

    As a Muslim, we believe that there were scrolls from Abraham to guide people to God's way. I'm just curious what the Jewish/Christian view is.

    A written word? No. I am unaware of any Christian tradition that says Abraham left written words. It would have been hard, seeing as how the evidence points to the Jewish peoples (and essentially all nomadic people, really) lacking a written language that far back. The first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are attributed to Moses – they are the written versions of oral traditions.

    Also, in Exodus 11, God tells Moses that Pharaoh will let them go but it seems in Exodus 12:33-36 that Pharaoh isn't involved at all. That confused me a bit.

    Ex. 12:30-32 “So Pharaoh rose in the night, he, all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in all the land of Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead. Then he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said, 'Rise, go out from among my people, both you and the children of Israel. Go and serve the Lord as you said. Take also your sheep and oxen and go, and bless me as well.'” The pharaoh ordered Moses and Aaron to take all their things, all their people, and go. The Egyptian people wanted them gone too, but the Pharaoh did order them to leave.

    I thought his father in law was Reuel? Did Moses marry again and it wasn't mentioned? Exo 3:1 vs Exo 2:18-21

    Reuel and Jethro are the same person. It is believed that Reuel was the more formal name, while Jethro the familiar one. Which would make sense, since when he is first mentioned it is the formal name that he is called by, and then the familiar, after Moses has been living and working with him for years.

    Israel (Jacob) is God's first born son? I don't originally have a problem with the term. What catches me is when I read the Gospels (you can see this here), the term doesn't seem to be different. I am getting ahead of myself a bit, but how is Jesus seen as a literal son of God, and everywhere else it is mentioned, it is figurative? Exo 4:22-23

    This isn't referring to Jacob-Israel, but the nation of Israel, the Jewish people. As for the term being different from those in the OT who are referred to as sons of God and Christ being the Son of God – it is not one thing the leads to the difference. It is the weight of the prophecies, the miracles, and His own testimony as to who He really is.

    What is this about? I'm totally lost. Exo 4:24-26

    Okay. So this is one of those passages that is widely debated. The thing that I find amusing about it is that 'feet' is often used as a euphemism for the genitals. So it's not entirely clear whether Zipporah threw her sons foreskin at someones feet or at their genitals. Moving on...the explanation that I've read is that Moses failed to have his oldest son circumcised, as was commanded in the covenant. This is why he was attacked – he had failed in his promise to God. There are a couple of explanations as to why, ranging from a promise to his father in law that the first born would be allowed to remain in the old religions to God allowing Moses to wait to circumcise his son until after they'd entered Egypt, but then Moses didn't get on it right away. Either way, Zipporah, in the act of circumcising the son, completed the covenant and saved Moses' life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. last bit...

    What does the term uncircumcised lips mean? Exo 6:12

    My translation reads as this: “Moses then spoke before the Lord, saying, 'The children of Israel have paid no heed to me. How then shall the Pharaoh heed me, for I am not eloquent.'”

    He married his aunt? Were there not guidelines for this type of stuff yet? Exo 6:20

    Wow. I really don't think much of the translation you're using. It is the ESV, right? I wonder what original text they used...ah...the Masoretic text. Okay. That'd be why it's so odd. Rather in line with the KJV. According to my text, which is a translation based on the Septuagint, it is his cousin he married. “Now Amram took as his wife Jochebed, the daughter of his father's brother; and she bore him Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister; and Amram lived one hundred and thirty-seven years.” Still meh-y by modern standards, but cousins married all the time until relatively recently in all cultures. They still do in some.

    Is this still practiced? Exo 12:5-6

    The Passover? Yes. If you're speaking of the specific details of the rite here listed, no. After the destruction of the Temple all sacrifices are impossible to perform.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amber, interesting that Eastern churches still prostrate. If I remember right, original sin is something that is only found in Western churches as well, but I could be wrong. I know there is something else of pretty significant importance….

    Thanks for the cross reference regarding Gen 49:4. That's one thing I'm missing with reading from the Kindle is the notes and cross references. There are some, but I'm not using them right now because it feels inconvenient.

    Ahhh, I see. I typically look for context, but I guess I missed it this time. I know from the Qur'an especially that context is of the utmost importance! My apologies. :)

    How in the world did I miss Exo 12:30-32. Okay, seriously, big duh!!

    And yeah, I'm using the ESV. You are saying it is similar to the KJV? I wanted to find the RSV (and the PTV and the SRV… just kidding… just sounds odd with all the acronyms with V's. Anyways….) but the Kindle doesn't have it. As I stated before, the only reason I'm able to read this at all is because it is on the Kindle and I can hold it while feeding my little one. Otherwise, this would be a decade long project. hehehe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. *nods* They do, and the Catholic, Lutheran (high church), and I think some Anglican communions kneel, which is their version of prostration. Mainly because of the pews, I think. Also, Catholic priests do full prostration in certain more solemn services, like the Good Friday Mass.

    The original sin question is more complicated than that. It's called 'ancestral sin' in the Orthodox church and the understanding of it is different than what is commonly held in the Western churches. How it works, basically, is that Adam and Eve sinned. The sin is theirs, but because all of humanity is descended from them, we still suffer the effects of their sin. So the personal responsibility for the sin is not ours, but we still have to live in the world that that sin created.

    The best metaphor I've seen is this: You have a baby born to alcoholic parents. While the mother is pregnant with the baby she drinks, drives and kills someone in a crash. The baby is born and has to live with the consequences of the parents actions. It may be born with birth defects, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, etc. It will likely have to be placed with relatives or foster care. The child has to live a life shaped by the choices that its parents made, but the guilt of those choices (the death, for example) is not the childs.

    In the same way we are born into a world where we have to live with the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve - the consequence in this case being the human propensity toward sin. But we don't carry the personal guilt of it. A baby is born sinless, for example.

    Apparently the ESV is an updated version of the KJV. I don't use any of those, mainly because the Protestant Bibles are missing books from the Old Testament. For your purposes it's not going to make any real difference. That was just me wondering why the translations were so far apart. Basically it's because the KJV/ESV used a more modern source text, the Masoretic text. The Bible I use uses the Septuagint for the source text for the OT, which predates the Masoretic by about a thousand years. I prefer the older texts, obviously. But the ESV seems to be one of the better translations available, from what I've read.

    The Kindle is an amazing thing, isn't it? It's made my obsessive reading much easier!

    ReplyDelete