Meanwhile...
Read Genesis 38:1-11.
Oh, it's THAT story. It's the story you don't hear many (if any) sermons on. It's the story all the kids' Bible storybooks skips over. It's the story that will inspire teenagers to read the Bible (especially when you tell them NOT to read this chapter). It's the story of one thing that happened in the thirteen years Joseph was in slavery and prison in Egypt. There were still things happening back home.
I always wondered about this story. Why, for instance, is it put in the middle of Joseph's story? Well, for one, it might be that chronologically, this is when it happened. But Genesis (and other books of the Bible, for that matter) doesn't adhere to an absolute strict chronology, so this story could have been told elsewhere in the text.
Why even include this story? To my thinking, it does nothing to enhance the story of Joseph, or explain anything in his story. He's not even in it! It's all about Judah, one of his half-brothers, and Tamar, a woman who (as the chapter explains) is willing to do anything to get her way. What inspiration could there possibly be here? Many people jump over Genesis 38 in their rush to continue to the rest of the story of Joseph.
But I think there are things for us here, even as the story deals with an archaic cultural practice. It was understood, in that day and time, that there was an order to marriage. It was also understood that one of the primary purposes of marriage was producing children. So, if a tragedy took the husband away (or, as in this story, God took his life away), it was the wife's responsibility to still produce an heir. She was to do this by marrying the next brother in line—and if the same thing happened (as it does here), on down the line until an heir is produced for the first husband, to carry on his name. Now, we can debate the merits of such a practice (and the morality), but that's not the point of the story. All the story is telling us is that this is what was done. This is what was expected, whether we like it or not.
Judah has left his family and set out on his own. Was it because of what happened with Joseph in Genesis 37? Was he embarrassed? How long was he gone? Apparently, not forever, because later on in the story, he is back with his brothers. But here, he is separated from his community, from his tribe, out in a place where he and he alone can make decisions about what is right and what is wrong. Problem is, he's forgotten (apparently) that he is not the final decision-maker. God is. (That's going to get him in trouble here.) He needs to remember this: he may have left his family behind, but he hasn't left God behind.
No matter where we go, God is there. No matter what we do, God's principles still apply. And no matter what we think, God's ways are still higher than ours. Joseph is learning that, off in Egypt, and Judah is learning it (slowly) here in Canaan.
Oh, it's THAT story. It's the story you don't hear many (if any) sermons on. It's the story all the kids' Bible storybooks skips over. It's the story that will inspire teenagers to read the Bible (especially when you tell them NOT to read this chapter). It's the story of one thing that happened in the thirteen years Joseph was in slavery and prison in Egypt. There were still things happening back home.
I always wondered about this story. Why, for instance, is it put in the middle of Joseph's story? Well, for one, it might be that chronologically, this is when it happened. But Genesis (and other books of the Bible, for that matter) doesn't adhere to an absolute strict chronology, so this story could have been told elsewhere in the text.
Why even include this story? To my thinking, it does nothing to enhance the story of Joseph, or explain anything in his story. He's not even in it! It's all about Judah, one of his half-brothers, and Tamar, a woman who (as the chapter explains) is willing to do anything to get her way. What inspiration could there possibly be here? Many people jump over Genesis 38 in their rush to continue to the rest of the story of Joseph.
But I think there are things for us here, even as the story deals with an archaic cultural practice. It was understood, in that day and time, that there was an order to marriage. It was also understood that one of the primary purposes of marriage was producing children. So, if a tragedy took the husband away (or, as in this story, God took his life away), it was the wife's responsibility to still produce an heir. She was to do this by marrying the next brother in line—and if the same thing happened (as it does here), on down the line until an heir is produced for the first husband, to carry on his name. Now, we can debate the merits of such a practice (and the morality), but that's not the point of the story. All the story is telling us is that this is what was done. This is what was expected, whether we like it or not.
Judah has left his family and set out on his own. Was it because of what happened with Joseph in Genesis 37? Was he embarrassed? How long was he gone? Apparently, not forever, because later on in the story, he is back with his brothers. But here, he is separated from his community, from his tribe, out in a place where he and he alone can make decisions about what is right and what is wrong. Problem is, he's forgotten (apparently) that he is not the final decision-maker. God is. (That's going to get him in trouble here.) He needs to remember this: he may have left his family behind, but he hasn't left God behind.
No matter where we go, God is there. No matter what we do, God's principles still apply. And no matter what we think, God's ways are still higher than ours. Joseph is learning that, off in Egypt, and Judah is learning it (slowly) here in Canaan.
Comments
Post a Comment