Verse 1: How long do you think “after these things” might represent, a long time or a short time? Why do you think we hear nothing further about Potiphar’s wife and what became of her?

Verse 2:

Note that “butler” is probably better translated “cup bearer,” and “baker” is probably better translated “royal scribe.”

These are important palace officials. Does that suggest anything about the prison director’s thoughts about Joseph? Why doesn’t the writer tell us anything about how they have made the Pharaoh angry? Are we supposed to see a parallel between the servants of Pharaoh who (literally) “sinned against their master” and Joseph who has refused to do so because it would be a sin against God (Genesis 39:9)? What do you make of the fact that in chapter 39 (22), Joseph was put in charge of all of the prisoners, but here he must wait on two of them? Has his status changed or does this say something about these two prisoners?

Verse 3: In whose prison is Joseph? Why is Potiphar’s name absent, but his title used?

Verse 5: The Egyptians believed that “sleep puts us in real and direct contact with the other world where not only the dead but also the gods dwell” (Vergote, Joseph én Égypte 48). How is this relevant to the butler’s, baker’s, and Pharaoh’s dreams? How does this explain their sadness or frustration (verse 6)? Why does verse 5 remind us that these men are in prison?

Verse 8: In response to the baker and the butler’s sadness at not having an interpretation of their dreams, Joseph asks, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” How does that compare to his response to his own dreams in Genesis 37:5-10? What does this tell us about Joseph?

Verse 15:

The word “dungeon” translates the same Hebrew word translated “pit” in 37:22, 24-25, and 29.

What are the parallels between the story of chapter 37 and the story of chapters 39 and 40? What do those parallels show?

Verse 16: What is the baker’s motivation for asking for an interpretation of his dream?

Verse 23: Do you think the butler forgot—indeed, “did not remember . . . but forgat”—Joseph after only three days?

Overall

Why would the butler and the baker have had any confidence in Joseph’s interpretation of their dreams? From this chapter, what do we see about life under the Pharaoh? Why did the Lord have Joseph interpret two dreams, especially when one was anything but good news? Notice the skillful use of language in this story: Pharaoh will lift the head of the butler (deal kindly with him—verse 13) and he will also lift the head of the baker (have him killed—verse 19). And this occurs in a story about a person, Joseph, who has been cast down (twice) and whose head will be lifted by God. The phrase “lift the head” can be seen as a summary of this part of the story and a foreboding of what is to come: if we didn’t already know the end of the story, we might well wonder, “In which way is Joseph’s head going to be lifted?” Treating this chapter as a story in itself, what does it suggest about hope? How did Joseph probably feel at the end? How is this experience of waiting for what will apparently not come to pass like that of previous patriarchs? Did Jesus later have experiences like that? Other prophets? So what?

Genesis 41

Verse 1: What does the phrase “two full years” tell us?

Verses 1-8: Why do the cows come up out of the river? Of what significance was the Nile river to the Egyptians? What did the number seven mean in Egypt? What did cows signify in Egypt? They were used more for plowing than for eating by the Egyptians as well as by the Hebrews, so they probably do not represent food themselves. How are the cows connected to the corn (grain) of the second dream? Pharaoh says that no one can interpret his dream, suggesting that some have tried or that some have been asked to and said they could not. (See also verses 15 and 24.) How would Pharaoh been able to tell whether an interpretation by one of his magicians was accurate?

Verse 9: What faults is the butler remembering? Why does he begin his story this way? Why not just tell the story rather than mention his faults? Why do you think he remembers Joseph at this point rather than earlier? How will doing so benefit him?

Verses 10-13: Many interpreters believe that “a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard” is disparaging, intended to show Joseph as insignificant? Why would the butler do that? What is the effect of having two different dreams interpreted, one positively and one negatively? Does that establish Joseph’s credibility? How so?

Verse 14: Of what significance is it that they called Joseph from the prison hastily? Is there a contrast here between the two years he waited (verse 1 of this chapter) and his summons before the Pharaoh? If so, what is that contrast for? what does it do? Hebrews were usually full-bearded and Egyptians were clean shaven. Why does Joseph shave? Why does the narrator think it important for us to know that Joseph shaved and changed his clothing?

Verse 16: Notice the similarity of Joseph’s reply to the Pharaoh and his reply to the butler and baker. Is Joseph’s reply somewhat confrontational, considering that he is speaking with the Pharaoh? If so, what might that tell us about him? How does Joseph know, before even hearing the dream, that the answer that Pharaoh will receive will bring him peace?

Verses 25-36: Notice the structure of Joseph’s reply to the Pharaoh: In verses 25-27, he gives Pharaoh the key to interpreting his dream: cows = years and ears of corn = years. He explains that the two dreams have the same meaning. In verses 28-31, Joseph explains the meaning of the symbols as they relate to each other. Why does the emphasis fall on the famine rather than on the good years? In verses 32-36, he gives the Pharaoh advice about what he should do to deal with the predicted famine. Notice also that each of the three parts of his response begins with an introductory sentence: “the dream is one” (verse 26), “What God is about to do, he showeth to Pharaoh” (verse 28), and “the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass” (32). What is the point of these introductory verses? How did Joseph, a slave recently retrieved from prison, have the temerity to give the Pharaoh advice about how to respond to the predicted famine? He was only asked to interpret the dream, but he goes much further than offering an interpretation.

When Joseph speaks of God, he uses the term ha elohim, “the God.” When Pharaoh speaks of God, he uses the same term but without the article: simply “God.” Why that difference?

Verses 26-31: Why does Joseph describe the bad cows and ears, but not the good ones? Similarly, why does he give us one sentence about the years of plenty, but five about the years of famine?

Verse 36:

In Leviticus and Numbers the verb translated “perish” means is used when speaking of being cut off from Israel. It has been used twice before in Genesis, in Genesis 9:11 and Genesis 17:14. Why does Moses use that particular verb here?

Verse 37: Why did the Pharaoh see Joseph’s interpretation as good?

Verse 38: What is the Pharaoh asking his servants when he asks, “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?”

Verses 39-41: Joseph has now been in three houses in Egypt: Potiphar’s house, the prison house, and Pharaoh’s house. Are there parallels between the things that happen to him in each of these? In verse 40, the Pharaoh tells Joseph that he will be in charge of everything, except what? Does the writer intend us to see a parallel with his situation in Potiphar’s house? In verse 41, he says, “See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.” Why the redundancy?

Verse 42: Are we supposed to see any connections between the clothing that Joseph receives here and the clothing he has had before, such as the “coat of many colors”?

Verse 45: Is there any problem with Joseph taking an Egyptian wife? If so, what evidence is there for the problem? If not, why not, given Isaac’s fear that his son would not marry within the family? What does Joseph’s assumption of an Egyptian name and an Egyptian wife tell us about what is happening? (Notice that in verse 55, though the Pharoah has given Joseph an Egyptian name, he refers to him by his Hebrew name.)

Verse 51: Joseph names his son Manasseh, meaning “forgetting,” “For God, sad he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house.” We can easily understand why Joseph would celebrate the birth of his son by naming his son in gratitude for forgetting the labor he has performed as a slave, but why would he also give thanks for forgetting his family? What is the significance of naming his second son “Fruitful”? Does he intend more by that name than that he will have descendants through him?

Genesis 42

Verse 1: Why does Jacob reemerge as an important character in the story? What does his reproach, “Why do ye look one to another?” (in other words, “Why are you standing around staring at one another?”) tell us?

Verse 4: Does Jacob continue to treat the sons of Rachel differently than his other sons? What evidence in the story is there of how Benjamin’s brothers responded to his special status? What are we supposed to conclude from that?

Verse 9: Of what significance is it that Joseph remembers his dreams about his brothers (chapter 37) rather than that they had sold him into slavery? Why does he accuse them of being spies? Why does he keep repeating that accusation (see also verses 12, 14, 15, and 20)? The verse explains the accusation by referring to the dreams. How do they explain his accusation? Do the dreams he had explain the demand he makes of them to bring his younger brother?

Verse 11: How is it relevant that they are all the sons of the same man? Is the fact that Joseph is also the son of Jacob, their father, important to understanding what Moses wants us to see here?

Verse 13: Why do the brothers offer this unsolicited information about the family? What result does it have?

Verses 14-16: Is Joseph giving his brothers “pay back” by imprisoning them? Though the Talmud (the interpretation of the first five books of the Bible, the Torah) was written much later than Genesis, it gives us an idea of how the Jewish tradition has understood repentance and so a hint at how Old Testament people might have understood it. According to the Talmud, a person has repented if he faces exactly the same temptation and has as much power to succumb as he did when he sinned, but he abstains. Given this understanding, how does Joseph’s proposal test the repentance of his brothers?

Verse 17: Why does Joseph has his brothers imprisoned?

Verses 18-24: What are these verses designed to show us?

Verse 19: Compare Job 29:12-13 and Proverbs 31:20. What point is Moses making in this verse?

Verse 20: Joseph’s promise is that if they return with Benjamin they, rather than the brother left behind, will not die. We would expect him to threaten to kill the captive brother if they don’t return. Why does he make this unusual threat?

Verse 21: We learn here something we did not see in chapter 37: Joseph pled with his brothers when they threw him into the pit. Why did Moses keep that information back until now—or is Joseph’s memory adding details that may not have happened?

Verse 24: Why do you think Joseph weeps? Why do you think Joseph had Simeon bound rather than one of the other brothers?

Verse 27-28: What do the brothers think when they discover the money in their sacks? Various motives have been offered for Joseph putting the money in their sacks: it was an act of brotherly kindness to show them that they were guests; it was, as they believed, to make them look like thieves; it was an imitation of the earlier situation in which they were willing to exchange Joseph for money—if they get money, will they abandon Simeon?

Verses 30-34: Which parts of what happened to them do they leave out when they tell their story to Jacob? Why?

Verse 37: How is Reuben’s offer related to what Jacob has suffered?

Verses 36-38: What is Jacob’s response to the problem? Is he willing to send Benjamin to Egypt in order to ransom Simeon? What does that tell us? What did it say to Jacob’s other sons? (Notice that he says “My son shall not go down with you, suggesting obliquely that they are not his sons.)

Genesis 43

Some have argued that this chapter and chapter 42 may be arranged in chiasms, and that the chiasms of the two chapters echo one another. (See Word Biblical Commentary 2:318-419.) Why might the writer have written the chapters in that way?

Verse 2: Why does Jacob tell them “”Go again, buy us a little food”?

Verse 3: Why does Judah, rather than Reuben, the oldest, make the argument to take Benjamin to Egypt? See Genesis 42:37-38 and 35:22

Verse 6: How should we understand Jacob’s complaint in this verse?

Verses 8-10: What is different in Judah’s plea this time? What changes Israel’s mind about allowing his sons to return to Egypt with Benjamin?

Verse 9: When Judah says, “let me bear the blame forever,” what is he offering his father? What does it mean to offer to bear the blame? Why isn’t this an empty offer?

Verse 14: Why does Jacob refer to Simeon as “your other brother” rather than use his name?

In Hebrew, the construction is unusual. Literally, it says “your brother another one” rather than “your other brother,” as if to emphasize that Jacob doesn’t use Simeon’s name.

Compare Jacob’s prayer here to that in Genesis 32:9-12.

Verse 18: They are afraid that they will be taken as slaves and that their asses will be taken from them. What does their concern for their asses suggest about their wealth? Does that help us understand anything about the story of their encounter with Joseph?

Verses 20-24: What are we supposed to see in this scene? Joseph knows that his servants put the money in their sacks at his command. Why does he say “Your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks” (verse 23)? Is he lying? If not, what point is Moses making?

Verse 29: This is the first time that a relation between Joseph and his brothers has been mentioned in this part of the story. Previously the text has referred to “them” and “the men,” but not said anything about brothers. Why is “brother” and “mother’s son” introduced here?

Verses 31-32: Does Moses intend a contrast between this meal and that in Genesis 37:25?

Verses 33: Why does Joseph seat them in order of seniority, surprising them?

Genesis 44

Verse 2: Why do you think Joseph has the servant put his silver cup in Benjamin’s sack rather than in one of the other brother’s sacks?

Verses 1-10: What is the point of Joseph’s test?

Verse 14: I’m fairly sure that this is the first time in the story that we are told that all of the brothers have fallen down before Joseph. Here we see the fulfilment of the dream of Genesis 37:6-7. How has Joseph changed since then? How have the brothers changed? How has Jacob changed? What brought about that change?

Verse 16: To whom is Judah referring when he asks, “What shall we say unto my lord?” To Joseph, whom they stand before? To Jacob, to whom they must explain what has happened? To God?

Verses 18-34: This speech by Judah is the longest speech in Genesis. It has three parts: a description of what has happened (verses 19-29), a description of the effects of what has happened (verses 30-32), and the proposal of an alternative to keeping Benjamin as a slave (verses 32-33). Since Joseph already knows what has happened to them, why does Judah repeat the story to him? Why did Judah omit the accusation of spying from his story? Is it significant that Judah stands as surety for the brothers’ return? How so? Judah uses the word “father” 14 times in his speech. What effect does he hope it will have? What effect does it have? What do we see of Judah’s character in this speech? How does that compare to what we saw of him in chapters 37 and 38?

Genesis 45

Verses 1-2: What finally moves Joseph to tears that he cannot control? (This is the third time that Joseph weeps—see Genesis 42:24 and 43:30—but it is the first time he weeps openly.) What are we to make of the fact that not only those in Joseph’s house, but also those in Pharaoh’s house and “the Egyptians” heard him weeping?

Verse 3: Joseph says “I am Joseph.” Then without a break he asks “Is my father still alive?” What does this tell us?

Verse 4: Is Joseph still speaking through an interpreter, or has he switched to Hebrew? How are they likely to react to “your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt”?

Verses 4, 5, 7: Notice that in verse 4 Joseph speaks of being sold into Egypt, but in verses 5, 7, and 8 he speaks of being sent into Egypt. What does that change in the verb tell us? What way of thinking is behind that change? Compare these to the sending mentioned in Genesis 37:13-14. What does this suggest about our intentions and purposes, about our goals and plans?

Verses 14-15: What has changed that makes this reunion possible? What has Joseph learned? Given what his brothers did to him, how can Joseph no longer be angry at them? Of what significance is it that at this point we learn “and after that his brethren talked with him”? Hadn’t they talked with him before?

Overall for this lesson

The story of Joseph is the longest story in Genesis, longer than the story of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, the story of the flood, the story of Abraham, . . . . Why? In spite of the importance of the story of Joseph to the book of Genesis, he is rarely mentioned in the Bible after Genesis. Why not?

In Genesis 15:13-14 the Lord told Abraham that the children of Israel would be strangers in a land that is not theirs for 400 years. This story shows us the fulfillment of that prophesy. Why do you think the Lord planned to send Israel into Egypt and then into captivity in Egypt?

Why is Egypt a common symbol in the scriptures? For what does it stand?

One interpreter (Nehama Leibowitz) claims that Joseph is the only one of the tribes described as tzadik, “righteous,” but she doesn’t give a source for her claim and I couldn’t find it. However, assuming that she is right, why would that be? What in the story of Joseph demonstrates his righteousness?

The birthright is Joseph’s (1 Chronicles 5:2). Given that the Savior was born through the lineage of Judah (Matthew 1 and Luke 3), what is the significance of having the birthright? Why didn’t the Messiah come through the lineage of the birthright?

The connection between Joseph of old and the latter-day prophet, Joseph, is obvious. (See, for example, 2 Nephi 3.) What kinds of parallels can you see between the two Josephs? Why do you think those parallels are there? What do they teach us?

Many have seen parallels between the story of Joseph and the life of Christ. They see Joseph as a figure of Christ. That Joseph is a savior of Israel is obvious. Can you think of any other parallels between Joseph and Christ? What is the point of such parallels? Why do the scriptures use types and shadows—figural language?

Responses to this post should be made at Feast Upon the Word.

Genesis 34

What was the sin of Dinah’s brothers? Was it that they took vengeance? Reread the Abrahamic covenant to see what it promises, and think about that covenant as it relates to this event. Did they violate that covenant? How does this chapter portray Jacob? Beyond the rape, what does Shechem do, through his father, that is an affront to Jacob and his sons?

For an excellent discussion of this chapter, read Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative 445-475.

Chapters 37-47

It is obvious that, like we who try to study and teach the large amounts of material assigned for each lesson, those who created these Sunday School lessons have struggled to deal with the amount of material to be covered. They have had to divide the story of Joseph in two, chapters 37-39 in this lesson and chapters 40-45 in lesson 12, and they have had to omit the denouement of Joseph’s story, chapters 46-47 as well Jacob’s deathbed blessing of his sons and Joseph’s death (48-50). The result forces us to focus on parts of the story and, perhaps, to overlook the story as a whole—which is likely to change our understanding of the parts. However, to understand the story of Joseph, I think that we need to read it as a whole. We can understand the story as having these parts (Word Biblical Commentary 2:344):

To understand the story as a whole, consider questions such as how the third visit and the story of Joseph’s sale as a slave are connected and why the story of Joseph includes the stories of Tamar and Judah and of Joseph and Potiphar, as well as how those two stories are alike and dissimilar. Also ask how this story illustrates the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. Look at each specific part of the blessing, and see whether you can see how Joseph’s story exemplifies that part.

Genesis 37

Verse 2: Similar to the story of Isaac (Genesis 25:19), this story begins “these are the generations of Jacob,” but it isn’t followed by the expected genealogy. (The word translated “generations” could also have been translated “results” or “proceedings.” It refers to an account of a person and his descendants and is the word used in Genesis 2:4.) Why do you suppose the two stories begin this way? Is that the beginning of this story, or is it the end of the list of Esau’s descendants in chapter 36? (Remember there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original text.) What difference does each way of reading the text make? Why do you think Jacob is referred to here as “Jacob” rather than as “Israel”?

We read the story that begins here and ends in chapter 47, with the reconciliation of Joseph and his brothers (or even in chapters 49-50, with the deaths of Jacob and Joseph), as “the story of Joseph.” If we take “these are the generations of Jacob” to be the beginning of this story rather than the end of the genealogy of Esau, what is the significance of that beginning? Who is Joseph’s mother? (Reread Genesis 30 and 33 for a better understanding of the fact that Joseph is Jacob’s favorite son.) Of what significance is it whose sons Joseph was with? “The lad was with the sons of Bilhah” may mean “the boy was a servant to the sons of Bilhah.” If we understand the text that way, does it change anything about how we understand the story? How is Joseph’s age relevant? How does the last clause of the verse prepare us for what is to come? Does it give us some reason to believe that Joseph’s brothers won’t be happy with him, even before we hear the rest of the story? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for Joseph? For his brothers?

Verse 3: How does the beginning of this verse contrast with the end of the last? What do you make of the explanation for why Jacob loved Joseph most, especially in light of what you’ve read in chapters 30 and 33, and in light of the fact that Jacob has another son of his old age, Benjamin? What does the explanation indicate?

The phrase “of many colors” is a guess at a translation of a difficult Hebrew phrase. Others have translated it “a coat with long sleeves.” the Koehler-Baumgartner Hebrew lexicon says that it is a garment worn next to the skin that covers the arms to the wrists and the legs to the ankles (A Handbook on Genesis 848). 2 Samuel 13:18 takes it to be something worn by a princess.

Whatever the correct translation, it is clear that Jacob has made Joseph a special coat, perhaps even a ceremonial one, and almost certainly a sign of authority. What might such special clothing indicate? Might that at least partially explain Joseph’s brothers’ animosity toward him? Do you think Jacob’s own history might at least partially explain his love for one of his youngest sons? Isn’t there an irony in the comparison of Jacob’s history and this story?

Verse 4: What is going on in this family? Does this fully explain the brothers’ hatred? What about the end of verse 1? Does that also explain their hatred? Why do you think that Moses repeats three times that the brothers hated Joseph, here and in verses 5 and 8?

Verses 5-8: Why does Moses introduce the story by giving us a synopsis of it (verse 5)? Picture a seventeen-year-old boy saying this to his brothers, some probably in their forties. How is Moses portraying Joseph? Are we supposed to have some sympathy for the older brothers? Are we supposed to understand their anger? Ultimately the answer to the brothers’ question will be “yes,” but what are we supposed to see at this point in the story?

Verses 9-10: Why has Moses placed these two dreams so closely together? What effect does he create by doing so? This pair of dreams is paralleled by the dreams of the butler and baker and the two dreams of Pharaoh. Is that significant? How does the story of this dream differ from that of the previous dream? What do we learn about Jacob from these verses? What do verses 5-10 tell us about Joseph? Do you think Joseph knew the reaction his stories might bring?

Verse 11:

“Envied” translates something that is much stronger in Hebrew. The Hebrew means that they had a strong emotion that made them red in the face.

Jacob’s reaction is different than that of the brothers: he “observed” or “guarded” what Joseph had said. What do we see about Jacob here, given what we saw in verse 10? If Jacob couldn’t get what Joseph was saying out of his mind, why did he rebuke Joseph in the previous verse?

Verses 12-14: How is this connected to the immediately preceding stories? In verse 2 we saw Joseph tending sheep. Then we saw three short stories about Joseph’s relation to his family. Now we see him at home with his father while his brothers tend the sheep. So what? Why did Joseph, the shepherd, stay behind? Why might Jacob have sent Joseph rather than a servant to check on the sons?

The phrase “be well with” translates the Hebrew word shalom, often translated “peace,” though “well-being” is also a very important meaning. How is shalom a key word in this story?

Verses 15-17: Why does the writer include this episode in the story? What’s the point? Why not move immediately from verses 12-14 to verse 18? Note that Shechem is a place destined for disaster. (The word may mean “retribution.”) In addition to the evil done by Joseph’s brothers there, Dinah was raped there (Genesis 34), and Israel was divided there between Jeroboam and Rehoboam (I Kings 12). What do you make of the fact that Joseph was wandering?

Verse 18: What does this verse tell us about Joseph’s brothers? How long did it take them to come to a decision?

Verses 19-20: What do the brothers intend by the phrase “this dreamer”? What does it mean to the writer?

“This dreamer” translates what literally means “this master of dreams.”

Given what the brothers say in these verses, what motivates their hatred? Notice the way in which, at the end of verse 20, they prophesy unwittingly. What point is the writer making?

When describing what the brothers intend to do, the writer used a word that is correctly translated “slay” or “kill.” Here, however, the brothers use a word that might be well-translated as “murder.”

Exodus 21:16 is relevant to understanding the seriousness of what the brothers have decided to do.

Verses 21-22: What do the brothers believe Reuben is proposing? Why might Reuben want to save Joseph? What is Reuben’s position in the family? How might that be relevant? For example, in Jacob’s absence, what would be his responsibility?

Verses 23-24: Have the brothers decided yet what they are going to do, kill him or leave him in the dry cistern to die? How could Reuben save Joseph from immediate death (verse 21) but agree to let him die of thirst in the pit?

Verses 25-27: What does the first clause of verse 25 say about the brothers? Is Judah also trying to save Joseph? What reasons does he give against killing Joseph? How seriously would the brothers have understood each reason to be?

Verse 28: What happened here? Are the Midianites and the Ishmeelites two groups or two names for the same group? Note that 20 shekels (pieces of silver) is the standard price in the Old Testament for a young, male slave (Leviticus 27:5).

Verses 29-30: Where has Reuben been? Why didn’t we see him leave? What is Reuben asking when he cries, “And I, whither shall I go?” Why does he tear his clothing? What does torn clothing represent in the Old Testament

Verses 31-33: Why don’t the brothers respond to Reuben? Why do the brothers invent this relatively elaborate subterfuge? Why not say nothing at all? We know Joseph got lost on the way to see them (verse 15-17), why not just pretend they never saw Joseph? Is there any connection between this deceit by Joseph’s brothers and the deceit that Jacob played on Isaac?

Verses 34-35: Is Moses portraying Jacob’s mourning as excessive? Why or why not? Compare Genesis 50:10 and Deuteronomy 34:8.

Verse 36:

A note for your amusement: the Hebrew that is translated “captain of the guard” means literally “chief of the butchers.” That title came to mean “captain of the guard” or “house steward.” It isn’t clear which of those it means or how it came to mean one or the other of them.

Chapter 38

Many find this story distasteful and so avoid it. But it is important not to read it merely through contemporary eyes. Tamar set about obtaining what was hers by legal right—see Genesis 38:26—and what her father-in-law had refused her. What do Onan’s actions show us about his relationship to the Abrahamic covenant? Tamar’s? Does that help explain why Tamar is one of only three women (besides Mary) mentioned in Jesus’s genealogy (Tamar, Ruth—married to Tamar’s descendant, Boaz—and Bathsheba: Matthew 1:3, 5, and 6)? Many contemporaries of each of these women, and Mary, would have thought them questionable people.

Why is this story included in the scriptures at all? Does it parallel the story of Joseph and Potiphar in some way? If so, how? (For example, compare Genesis 37:32-33 and Genesis 38:25-26.) If we take “these are the generations of Jacob” to be the beginning of the story in these chapters, does this episode fit into the story better?

If we assume that the story belongs in the scriptures, why does Moses interrupt the story of Joseph to tell it to us? If it is necessary that the story be included in scripture, it could have come before the Joseph story without breaking the chronology significantly. So it seems to be where it is for a reason; its placement draws attention to it. What might the reason be for Moses putting it here rather than somewhere else? What has this story to do with the story of Joseph? How does the Judah whom we see in this chapter compare to the man we see in Genesis 44:18-34? What brings about that change? Might it be this event? Is there evidence for such a conclusion?

Word Biblical Commentary (364) notes a possible correlation between this story, the story of Joseph’s sale, and the story of Jacob’s blessing: Jacob deceived his father, Isaac, and he was, in turn deceived by his son Judah, who was then deceived by his daughter-in-law, Tamar. Each cases uses clothing and goats to carry off the deception. Do you think this is a legitimate connection? If so, what is its point?

Chapter 39

For an excellent discussion of the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, read Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative 107-112. Sternberg also has a useful discussion of the story (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative 423-427).

Verses 1-6: What do we see of Joseph in these verses? Verse 2 says “the Lord was with Joseph.” Compare Genesis 26:3, 24, and 28; 28: 15 and 20; and 31:3. In fact, in verses 2, 3, and 5, we are told five times “the Lord was with Joseph” as he entered and worked in Potiphar’s house. What does Moses use this phrase to signify? Has Joseph learned something from his experience with his brothers? Is verse 5 intended to show the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that all the world would be blessed through his descendants? How are the descendants of Israel a blessing to the world? If this is an example of how the house of Israel is a blessing to the world, should we take the promise not only spiritually but temporally? If we take the promise temporally, what does it mean about the house of Israel today? Verse 6 tells us that Potiphar didn’t concern himself with anything having to do with his household except the food that he ate. Why would that be an exception? Verse 6 ends with a note that Joseph was a handsome, well-shaped man. That would be a more modern translation of “goodly and well favoured.” “Joseph was fine-figured and had a handsome face” would also be a good translation. The only other person described in the same way as Joseph is Rachel (Genesis 29:17). What does that tell us?

Verses 7-9: In verse 4 we saw that Joseph “found grace in his [master’s] sight.” Now we see that Joseph also found grace or favor in his master’s wife’s sight. So what? Paraphrasing, Joseph responds to her lustful demand saying “My master has entrusted me with everything he has and hasn’t kept anything from me.” How does that explain why he cannot lie with Potiphar’s wife? When he says he cannot sin against God, which sin does he seem to have in mind, adultery or violating his master’s trust (which is not to say that he would commit either)? What is the significance of each? Contrast Joseph’s behavior with Judah’s. Might this be part of the purpose of chapter 38? Verse 9 is the first time that Joseph has said anything about God. What might his response to Potiphar’s wife show us?

Verses 10-12: How long did Potiphar’s wife go on trying to seduce him? Why do you think Joseph didn’t say anything to Potiphar about his wife’s behavior?

A better translation of “about this time (verse 11) would be “as usual.”

Notice a parallel between Joseph’s first difficulty and this: in both he loses his cloak and, as the next verses show, in both it is used as a testimony against him. Does that parallel tell us anything? We see very similar wording in verse 6 and verse12: “he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand” (verse 6) and “he left his garment in her hand” (verse 12). Is the writer making a point with that wording? If so, what is it?

Verses 13-18: Obviously Joseph’s master’s wife tries to establish an alibi in verses 14 and 15. But what else is she trying to do? Why does she say what she does to the other servants in verse 14?

The Hebrew word translated “mock” in verses 14 and 17 is used in Genesis 26:8 to refer to sexual intimacy and in Genesis 21:9 to refer to insulting behavior. Why does she use a word that has both meanings here?

Verses 12-18: Compare Moses’ account of what happened between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (verses 12-14) with the story she told the other servants (verses 14-15) and with the story she told Potiphar (verses 17-18). What do the differences between those stories show us?

Verses 19-20: In the Mosaic Law the usual penalty for rape of one free person by another was death (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Though that law is not yet in force in Israel and though Egyptian law would be the relevant law in this case, it would be surprising if the penalties weren’t similar. If the rape of a free person by another free person was that serious, how much more serious would the penalty for attempted rape of a free woman by a slave be? Why does the master deal so leniently with Joseph?

Verses 21-22: How is this a repetition of what we’ve already seen? Is this an expression of the same sentiment we see in 1 Nephi 1:20? What do these verses foreshadow?

Make responses to this post at Feast Upon the Word.

Chapter 25

Verse 19: We expect a genealogy to follow when we are told, “these are the generations of so-and-so,” but here none follows. What meaning does the word “generations” have in this verse? Does that tell us anything about the usual meaning of genealogy? Does it add any depth to our understanding of genealogy? The form of this genealogy is unusual in that it first mentions Isaac and then goes back to Abraham, his father, rather than going immediately to Isaac’s descendants. How would you explain this unusual form?

Verse 20: Why do you think the writer mentions Isaac’s age when he married? Why is it important that we know the ethnic identify of Bethuel—and therefore also Rebekah and Laban? (See also Deuteronomy 26:5.)

Most modern translations identify Bethuel and Laban as Aramean rather than Syrian.

Verse 22: Why do you think the writer makes a point of what seemed to Rebekah like a fight between the twins she is carrying? Rebekah is having a difficult pregnancy and asks, “If this is the way it is, why am I here?” In other words, “Why do I continue to live?” Though many pregnant women have asked this question, perhaps all and especially those with multiple babies, her case is different: she asks the Lord about it and receives an answer. Compare Genesis 27:46. What do you make of the similarity of the complaint? Is it significant that Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife because she was not conceiving, but that she goes to the Lord for herself about the difficulty of her pregnancy? Is the difference between the way Isaac dealt with infertility and the way Abraham did significant?

Verse 23: The answer has the form of a poem:

Two nations are in your womb,
and two manner of people will be separated from your body;
and one people shall be stronger than the other;
and the elder shall serve the younger

Does seeing this as a poem tell us anything about what the Lord has said to Rebekah? Do you think that Rebekah understood what this poem meant until later? If so, how? If not, why was she given this answer when she asked? If we did not already know what is going to happen, we could understand the first line as a repetition of the Abrahamic blessing. The second line is more specific, but “two people” could refer to the descendants of one child, so it still does not necessarily tell Rebekah that twins will be born.

Wordplay seems to be at work here (though almost certainly a wordplay that Rebekah would not have understood or perhaps even noticed): the word for “shall serve” (more literally translated “will be a slave of”) rhymes with “Jacob” and has the same three consonants. It is something we can see if we look closely, perhaps something inserted by the narrator rather than the literal recording of what was said. In addition, the Hebrew word for “younger” may be a word play on one of the names for Esau, Edom. What is the point of this kind of wordplay?

We do not know whether traditional Jewish inheritance laws applied in Isaac’s time, but many interpreters assume that they did. According to those laws (see Deuteronomy 21:17), the eldest son got two shares of the inheritance (birthright) and each other son got one share. But that could be changed if the father desired. Presumably the Lord could control birth order, so why did he arrange things in this way, a way contrary to what would be expected? Why do you suppose the younger brother so often is the leader in both scripture and Church history?

Verse 25: David, too, was described as reddish or ruddy, probably meaning “red-haired.” (See 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:42.) Is that significant?

Here is another wordplay: the Hebrew word for “reddish” (admoni) is a wordplay on “Edom,” in other words, Esau. In the ancient Near East, hairiness was considered to be, by itself, a sign of being uncivilized. What is the writer doing by giving us this detail?

Verse 26: The struggle continues, even as the infants leave their womb. The name “Jacob” probably means something like “May God protect,” but since it sounds like the word for “heel” in Hebrew, the writer uses that play on words to make his point. Why does the writer do this, make up an etymology for the word “Jacob”?

To understand the Old Testament we must gain a taste for such plays on word and puns and for things like patterns of speech, etymologies (true or false), parallels, the forms of story, and the idea that an event can be both real and symbolic. Those kinds of textual matters and attitudes are generally overlooked, thought inconsequential, thought of as secondary traits (”only metaphor”), or denied by those of us brought up on the kind of thought that has been the norm in European and American cultures since about 1500. That isn’t how we write history. However, when we overlook them, think them insignificant or merely secondary, or deny them, we are insisting that the writers of the Old Testament must have (or should have) thought like us and that they must have (or should have) written as we would have written. That is arrogance, an attitude that will cause us to read things into the Old Testament that are not there and to overlook important things the writers included. We need to practice reading the scriptures as the writers wrote them rather than as we would have written them. If we are to read what they wrote literally—in other words, as they wrote it and for what the text itself says (rather than for what it would say if it were understood as a modern text, as a transcription of a video recording)—then we cannot insist on reading it in our terms and with our methods.

Why do you think Moses and the other Old Testament writers were interested in puns and plays on words, etc.? Why does the verse tell us Isaac’s age when Esau and Jacob were born? What do we see by comparing what we learn here about Isaac’s age with what we learn about it in verse 21?

Verse 27: What is the contrast between the two brothers? Why might this contrast be included in the story? Specifically, what do the words “cunning” and “simple” show us?

The Hebrew word translated “simple” means “complete,” “sound,” “whole.” The most natural translation is “perfect,” but that seems unlikely, even if we understand “perfect” as discussed in Lesson 6. (Note, however, that the Hebrew word for “simple” or “perfect” here is not the same as that in Genesis 6:9.) Some other translations: “peaceful,” “quiet,” “wholesome.”

Is it significant fact that Esau liked the outdoors and Jacob preferred to stay around the tents? Does the contrast between these two brothers teach us anything about either them or ourselves?

Verse 28: The struggle between Jacob and Esau has its counterpart in the relation between Isaac and Rebekah. Isaac prefers Esau because Esau provides the food he likes; Rebekah loves Jacob. Why aren’t we told the reason for Rebekah’s preference?

Verse 29: “Sod” means “made.” Pottage isn’t anything in particular. It just means “something boiled in a pot.” Later we learn that it is red (verse 30) and then that it is a lentil stew (verse 34), though lentils would probably not make the stew red. Why do you think that this verse gives us no details when it describes the stew, though the details are given later? Why was Esau faint, in other words, exhausted? Here “field” does not mean a cultivated field, but the open country side.

Verse 30:

The Hebrew says something like: “Let me swallow [a formal word rather than an ordinary one] some of that red stuff.” What does this show us about Esau?

Why do you suppose the story emphasizes the word “red”? Esau is red, he asks for red pottage, the word “Edom” is a play on the word for red (as is the name “Adam”). What might that color be here to indicate?

Verse 31: Esau has said “please” (verse 30), but Jacob’s response is curt: “Sell me your birthright right now.” What do you make of this difference in the way the two brothers speak to each other?

It is tempting for us to moralize at this point, trying to decide whether Jacob was right to ask for the birthright, especially since almost all readers know what is going to happen in a chapter or two. But is Moses interested in the moral question? Rather than asking about what we are interested in, we should ask, “What does the story itself tell us to look at and think about, above and beyond what we are interested in?” It isn’t that we can’t discuss the morality of what occurs. Neither is it that we can’t have sympathy for Esau. Though he portrays Esau as uncouth, Moses clearly has sympathy for him. (See, for example, Genesis 27:33 and 27:38, where Esau is portrayed very sympathetically.) Other biblical writers are also sympathetic to Esau. (See, for example, Hosea 12:2-3 and perhaps Jeremiah 9:3). However, we don’t want to get so involved in those aspects of the story that we miss its real point.

What is the real point of this story? What does it tell us about the lives and blessings of Jacob and Esau? What does it tell us about these events from Jacob’s point of view? from Esau’s?

Word Biblical Commentary(2:178) suggests that the word translated “right of the firstborn” (bkrh) is an anagram of the word that we translate “blessing” (brkh). If that is right, there is another wordplay at work here. What could the writer be doing with that wordplay?

Verse 32: How seriously should we take Esau’s statement that he is about to die? Is there anything in the story that will help us decide whether he is actually on the verge of death or whether he is just exaggerating because he is hungry? How does what we say in answer to this question affect what we take to be the meaning of the last half of this verse? Can you think of any reasons why Esau might have thought that his birthright was of no value to him? Does the contrast between Esau and Jacob that we saw in verse 27 help us understand what is going on here?

Verse 33:

Jacob responds with what is, in Hebrew, a three-word reply that we can represent as “swear to-me now.”

Why is everything that Jacob says in this story so curt? There are traditional Jewish stories that say the birthright was represented by a holy garment of skins (the garment given to Adam, the garment Noah was not wearing when Ham mocked him). If we accept those stories, what might we infer about the transaction between Esau and Jacob?

Verse 34: It is possible to interpret the pottage of lentils in this verse as different than the red pottage that Esau requested in verse 30. (See D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law 193-200.) In that case, Esau asks for one thing (red pottage), makes a deal for it, and gets something else (lentil pottage). What might that reading suggest about how to understand this story? Notice the terseness of “and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way.”

The Hebrew is even more terse. We could translate it, “He ate, drank, got up, and went away.” What might Moses be trying to show us by writing in that way?

Why does Esau, who has previously in the story been rather talkative, say nothing at all now? It is rare that the narrator in Genesis intrudes to make a point. Usually he just tells the story and does so in a way that allows the story to make its own point. Here, however, he inserts a moralizing conclusion: “So Esau showed contempt for the firstborn rights.” Why does Moses insert that comment?

Chapter 27

Verses 1-5: This is the first of five dialogues that Moses uses to tell this story. The others are verses 6-17, verses 18-29, verses 30-40, and verses 41-45. Consider studying the chapter by focusing on those five “scenes” and asking what each scene is supposed to show readers. The story in these verses is straightforward: Isaac asks Esau to prepare a meal for him and promises Esau a “deathbed” blessing. Since meat was exchanged as a symbol of ancient covenants (cf. Genesis 15:8-11, 17), the meal Isaac asks for may be symbolic of the fact that a covenant is to be established or passed on. Is it normal for the father to summon only one son for his deathbed blessing? (Compare Genesis 49 and 50:24-25.) Most other blessings to sons are given when the father knows he is going to die and as part of the preparation for death. (See, for example, Genesis 47:29 and 50:24 and Joshua 23:14, as well as 2 Nephi 1-4.) What is the significance of the fact that Jacob says that he does not know when he will die (verse 2)? Why does Isaac add “such as I love” to his request for savory meat? Why does Isaac say “[so] that my soul may bless thee” rather than simply “so I may bless you”? What do these verses show us about Isaac’s intentions? Suppose that you had never read the Bible before and, so, did not already know the story as it will unfold. What would you think at the end of verse 5?

Verses 6-10: Here too the story is straightforward. The writer is an excellent story teller. We see Isaac’s expectations described in the first four verses of this scene, then we see the plot that is to come about in its next six verses. There aren’t going to be any surprises, so those reading the story will have to concentrate not on the ending, but on how that ending comes about and what it means to those involved. In verse 5, Esau was referred to as “his son.” In verse 6, Moses refers to Jacob as “her son.” Why does he do that? Isaac said, “that my soul may bless thee.” Why does Rebekah change that to “that I . . . may bless thee” (verse 7)? What is the significance of the phrase “before the Lord”? Why does Rebekah offer to prepare the stew (verse 9) rather than have Jacob prepare it, as Isaac expected Esau to do? Does what we know of Laban, Rebekah’s brother, (Genesis 24:29-31)) help us understand this story?

Verses 11-12: The culture of the Bible differs from other ancient Near Eastern cultures in that it gives more strength to the mother’s authority. This is a patriarchal society, to be sure, but it is a patriarchal society in which women have more authority than they have in other patriarchal societies of the same time period. (See the inclusion of mothers also in places such as Exodus 20:12 and 21:15 and 17, as well as Proverbs 1:8 and 6:20. However, see also Numbers 30, the entire chapter.) Here, for example, Jacob seems genuinely torn between obeying his mother and deceiving his father. Is Jacob torn by duty, motivated by fear, protesting insincerely, .?.?.?? How are we to understand what he says in these verses, and what in the text justifies your answer? Is Deuteronomy 27:18 relevant to our understanding of Jacob’s response?

Verse 13: What do we see of Rebekah here? If the blessing given to Jacob could not be changed and given to Esau, how could the hypothetical curse, had it been pronounced on Jacob, have been transferred to Rebekah? Is this merely something that Rebekah and Jacob overlook, or is her offer a rhetorical way of encouraging her son, a way of saying “That will never happen”? Rebekah says the same thing to Jacob at the beginning of verse 9 and at the end of verse 13, but she doesn’t say it in the same way. How do you explain that difference in tone?

Verses 14-17: Why do you think the writer includes so many details, many of which are repetitions of things he has already told us? Who does most of the acts in these verses, Jacob or Rebekah? What does that tell us? How does each person act, with any noticeable alacrity or enthusiasm?

Verses 18-24: Which persons appear in this scene (verses 18-30)? Which do not appear? Why is the scene built in that way? Do we see Jacob hesitating here? Does that change our reading of the previous verses, or do we see that Jacob has changed? Does Isaac doubt that he’s speaking with Esau? How many proofs does he demand? Might Jacob’s three deceptions have anything to do with the story of Peter’s denial? Is a type of some sort at work in the New Testament event?

Verses 26-27: What finally convinces Isaac that he is dealing with Esau? Notice how Jacob has gradually gotten closer and closer to Isaac and finally is intimately close to him. There is something very poignant about verse 27. The tension has mounted and mounted: Isaac thinks he hears Jacob, but he is told it is Esau. But he has returned from the hunt too quickly; . . . . Step-by-step we see Isaac questioning who he is dealing with, and we can imagine Jacob becoming more and more fearful that he will be exposed. Isaac feels his hands and still isn’t reassured. So he asks who he is speaking to and Jacob must lie to him if the ruse is to succeed. Isaac agrees to eat, but still seems hesitant. Finally, Isaac asks for a kiss, the final test. We can imagine how frightened Jacob must have been. But Jacob pulls it off: Isaac is finally convinced by the smell and immediately gives his blessing. Why does this ruse work when there were so many places that it could have gone wrong?

Verses 28-29: Notice the connection between Esau’s clothing (verse 27) and the blessing that follows. How would you explain the point that Isaac is making? Does that point also have relevance to Jacob? Isaac promises Jacob perhaps three things: the bounty of the earth, rulership over others, and that those who curse him will be cursed while those who bless him will be blessed. (The last of these three may not be a separate blessing. It may be a repetition of the second blessing.) Part of the first promise (”plenty of corn and wine” or “new grain and wine”) may indicate the materials used in the temple ritual. If so, the bounty of the earth includes priesthood authority. The second promise also can be construed as priesthood authority, especially in a patriarchal period. If the third promise is a separate blessing, what might it have to do with the priesthood? How does the blessing’s wording differ here from its occurrence in other places (e.g., Genesis 25:23)? Are those differences significant? Is it connected to Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37:7, 9) and the bowing that his brothers will do?

Verse 30: Why might Jacob have left so quickly after the blessing was given? Notice how the narrator moves the story along: just as Isaac finishes his blessing and Jacob leaves, Esau returns. Just as we were beginning to feel some relief from the tension building up as Jacob passed the tests his father posed, just as we might have begun to feel comfortable with what has happened, Moses shifts the perspective of the story to Esau and a new tension begins to build. Now we will see Esau’s reaction.

Verses 31-33: Isaac is quickly convinced that he is indeed speaking with Esau. Does Moses want us to feel sympathy for Isaac? What makes you think he does or doesn’t? Why does Moses go to such lengths to allow us to see Esau’s and Isaac’s emotions? He doesn’t normally tell us very much at all about people’s emotions. Why is Isaac in such a panic?

The Hebrew word translated “trembled” is used to refer to the trembling associated with great fear, as in Genesis 42:28, Exodus 19:16, and 1 Samuel 21:1.

What is the significance of the end of verse 33, the last part of Isaac’s cry?

Verse 34: It is difficult to read this verse without hearing Esau’s cry. The writer portrayed Esau so unsympathetically before, why does he now portray him so sympathetically?

Verses 35-38: Can you hear the resignation in Isaac’s answer to Esau (verse 35)? What tone of voice do you imagine Esau using when he says what he says in verse 36? In verse 37 Isaac seems at a loss. He’s already given everything to Jacob. How does Esau’s tone change in verse 38? Is it the same as in verse 36? Is it the same as in verse 34? What is Esau asking about in verse 38? Do we know of other father’s deathbed blessings in which only one son was blessed or one was excluded? Does this suggest anything about Isaac and Esau’s original plan?

Verses 39-40: Esau’s blessing, too, has three parts. The first part is the almost same: the riches of the earth (but without the promise of “plenty of corn and wine,” the ritual materials that perhaps indicate priesthood and temple service). Modern commentators tend to read verse 39 privatively: these things are being taken from Esau rather than given to him; he is to become a wanderer like Cain. If that is true, what do you make of this scene? The second part of this “blessing” is the reverse of the second part of Jacob’s blessing: you will serve your brother. How can that be a blessing? How is it a blessing to serve Jacob? Given the kind of authority implied for Jacob, what kind of service might be implied for Esau? The third part is the promise that Esau will be able to throw off his brother’s yoke. The third blessing indicates that Jacob (or his descendants) will put a yoke on Esau’s neck. The yoke indicates more than just the service of a lesser brother; it indicates slavery. Thus, though Jacob has received a wonderful blessing, the blessing on Esau indicates that the authority given to Jacob and his descendants is an ambiguous one. It can be exercised unrighteously and, when it is, those over whom it is exercised unrighteously will be blessed to break that yoke off of themselves.

Verse 41: Now what is Esau’s mood? How have we seen that mood change in the last few verses? Has it shifted from one thing to another, or has it grown in generally one direction? What kind of character do we see in Esau? Why does he postpone his vengeance? What becomes of Esau’s threat? (See Genesis 33:1-15.)

Verses 42-45: If the Esau’s hatred was something that he said in his heart (verse 41), how was it reported to Rebekah (verse 42)? Once again we see resourceful Rebekah. She tells Jacob to stay with her brother a few days. How long did he end up staying (Genesis 31:38)? Why do we see no response to Rebekah by Jacob? What might this story about Jacob (later called “Israel”) and his dominance over Esau have said to the nation Israel about its self-understanding? What might it say to us about our self-understanding as latter-day Israel? What ought it not to say?

Genesis 33

Verses 1-3: What do we expect to follow these verses? Does Jacob / Israel arrange his family in order of his feelings for them, with the favorites at the rear, or does he arrange them according to their birth order? (Compare Genesis 32:7-22.) Verse 3 tells us that Jacob / Israel was at the head of the procession? Does that help us decide what he is doing? Does Jacob / Israel’s bowing have anything to do with the blessing he received (Genesis 27:29)?

Verse 4: Why is this such a surprise? Has Esau changed his character, or does this show him as he was before, impulsive? Does this event change the meaning of what happened earlier? The parable that we usually refer to as that of the “prodigal son” (though it is also about a father and a second son) uses the language of this verse to describe the welcome the father has for his lost son. The language of running, embracing, falling on the neck of the other person, and weeping is common to stories of relatives meeting each other in the Bible. Does that tell us anything about the early Christian understanding of this particular story?

Verse 5: Some commentators have noticed that Jacob / Israel doesn’t refer to his children and other possessions as “blessings,” but as things that have come by the grace of God. (See also verses 8 and 10.) Why might he emphasize grace or favor rather than blessing?

Verses 8-9: Try to see through the formalities and customs of ancient people. What is going on here?

Verse 10: Why does Jacob / Israel allude to his experience with God here? (See Genesis 32:24-33.) In effect, he says, “Seeing your face is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me [as God has accepted me?], so you should accept these gifts.” How do we make sense of his comparison of his relation to his brother and his relation to God? (Compare 1 Samuel 29:9, 2 Samuel 14:17, 20; 19:28.)

Note that this comparison of Esau to God is underscored by the fact that the Hebrew word translated “receive” (meaning “accept”) is also a term used for the temple sacrifices (see Leviticus 2:1, 3-7).

Verse 11: Does this verse answer the question of verse 5, about blessing and favor? Jacob / Israel says, “God has been gracious to me, so take back the blessing that I took from you.” What point is he making? Does this offer change our understanding of the story as a whole? How does this story of reconciliation compare and contrast with the story that is to come of Joseph’s reconciliation with his brothers?

Comments on this post should be made at Feast upon the Word.

0 people like this post.

Like 

Because there is so much material to cover I’m going to abbreviate some of what I do. I’ll feel guilty about skipping over Abraham 1 and try to get it into these notes the next time around. I’ll deal with Genesis 15-17 and 21 relatively briefly and then concentrate on Genesis 22. As you can well imagine, the scholarly literature on Genesis 22 is enormous, thousands and thousands of pages. I don’t pretend even to have dipped into that literature. At the most I’ve wetted the tip of my finger, so I cannot pretend to do justice to the chapters assigned.

Genesis 15

Synopsis:
The chapter begins with Abram’s complaint to the Lord: You’ve not provided me with an heir, so my servant will inherit my estate. The Lord responds with a promise that Abram will have an heir and that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars. The Lord promises Abram that he will inherit Canaan, and Abram asks how he will know that he will. In response the Lord makes a covenant with him: Abram is to offer unique animal sacrifices (they are not put on an altar and burned) and the Lord appears to him in a vision, promising that his descendants will inherit Canaan, though they will spend time in exile in Egypt. After the vision a pot filled with fire appears, passing between the pieces of the offerings, and the Lord covenants that Abram’s descendants will inherit Canaan.

Notes:
The victories of chapter 14 are not what Abram wants. When the Lord promises to be his shield and to reward him (presumably in battle), Abram responds that no reward can compensate for the fact that he has no heir.

As I mentioned in the notes on Lesson 8, Genesis 15:6 is important as a proof text in Romans and, therefore, also for many Christians: Abram’s faith / reliance on the Lord / trust in the Lord was reckoned to him as obedience to the law / righteousness / moral conduct. As we see in Ezekiel 18:5, righteousness is a matter of doing what is right. As we see in Deuteronomy 25:1, a righteous person is one who should be acquitted. We see the same concept used in speaking of the judgment of God in Psalms 1:6 and 75:11. How would you explain this verse—and Paul’s explication of it (Romans 3:10-4:22)—in LDS terms?

The Hebrew for “made” in verse 18 is literally “cut.” What is the connection between that and Abram’s sacrifice, and why is cutting central to covenant making? When two people covenanted with each other in ancient Near Eastern custom the meaning seems to have been “If I don’t fulfill the covenant I am making with you, may God cut me as I have cut these animals.” But it cannot mean that here, where the Lord himself makes the covenant. Then what does it mean?

What might the animals that have been laid out mean? What might the pot of fire represent?

Genesis 16

Synopsis:
Sarai offers her handmaiden, Hagar, to Abram as a second wife, and she conceives. When Hagar has conceived she begins to look down on Sarai. Sarai complains to Abram, who tells her to do what she thinks is good, even though she is now his wife and no longer Sarai’s servant. Sarai deals harshly with Hagar, who runs away. An angel meets Hagar at a spring in the wilderness and tells her return to Sarai and submit to her authority, but he promises that her descendants will be innumerable. He also gives the child a name, Ishmael, and says that he will be wild.” Then Ishmael is born.

Notes:
Sarai says she hopes that she will obtain a child through Hagar (verse 2), but verse 16 says that Hagar “bare Ishmael to Abram.” Is the writer telling us something by that difference? Given the social norms of Abram’s day, how should we understand what the narrator is saying when he says “And Abram hearkened to [i.e., obeyed] his wife”? Is it significant that the only other place this phrase occurs in Genesis is in 3:17? If so, does the usual LDS reading of what happened in the Garden suggest a positive reading also of this verse (Genesis 16:3)?

The word translated “submit” in 16:9 is from the same root as “humiliate” (the word used in 16:6).

Does verse 13 suggest that rather than just an angel Hagar has seen the Lord? Do Jeremiah 2:24 and Hosea 8:9 help us understand what this prophecy about Ishmael (16:12) means?

“Beer-lahai-roi” means “well of the Living One who sees me.” What is the significance of the name that Hagar gives the well?

Genesis 17

Synopsis:
The Lord appears to Abram and covenants with him: “Walk before me and be thou perfect. And I will . . . multiply thee exceedingly” (17:2). The Lord changes Abram’s name to Abraham. The covenant that he will be the father of nations and kings will be everlasting, both to Abraham and to his descendants, and it requires that they be circumcised. The Lord changes Sarai’s name to Sarah and gives her a blessing like Abraham’s: she shall be the mother of nations and kings. The Lord promises Abraham a son through Sarah, and Abraham laughs at the idea, thinking it impossible. The Lord promises to bless Ishmael, as he had promised Hagar, to be a fruitful nation, but the covenant with the Lord will be with Isaac. Abraham circumcises all the males in his household.

Notes:
Gordon Wenham notes that after the covenant and the Lord’s speech on making the covenant, “divine speeches become rarer and little new content is added to the promises, but the fulfillment of these promises becomes more visible” (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2: Genesis 16-50, page 16). Why do you think that is the case? Does it suggest anything about the fact that there appear to be differences between the number of direct visions that Joseph Smith had and the number that contemporary prophets have?

Genesis 9:14-16 tells us that the rainbow was a reminder to the Lord that he would not forget his covenant with Noah. Is circumcision also such a reminder to the Lord, a reminder of his covenant with Abraham and his descendants? Most societies that practice male circumcision perform that circumcision when boys reach puberty or immediately before marriage. Why do you think that Lord has Israel do circumcision at birth? Are there symbolic reasons as well as reasons such as lessening the memory of pain? Why is it that Abraham’s descendants may break the covenant, but God will not (Judges 2:1)? In context, how do you explain Abraham’s petition: “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” (17:18)? What do you make of the fact that Sarah receives the same blessing as did Abraham? There appears to be a chiasmus in verses 19-21:

A Sarah will bear a son, Isaac (verse 19a)
B The Lord will establish his covenant with Isaac (verse 19b)
C Ishmael and his descendants will be blessed (verse 20)
B’ The Lord will establish his covenant with Isaac (verse 21a)
A’ Sarah will bear Isaac at this time next year (21b)

What do you make of that chiasmus?

Genesis 21

Synopsis:
Sarah gives birth to Isaac and Abraham circumcises him, and they hold a feast when Isaac is weaned. Sarah sees Ishmael mocking (though it is not clear whom, presumably Isaac or perhaps Sarah). She demands that Abraham drive Hagar and Ishmael away, which distresses Abraham considerably. God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah and not to worry. Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness with a supply of bread and water. When the water is gone, she puts Ishmael under a bush assuming that he will die. God hears the boy crying, and the angel of God comforts Hagar, telling her that Ishmael will live and become a great nation. Is Ishmael’s name, “God has heard” (16:11) relevant to the short story we see in 21:14-20? God reveals the location of a water well, and Hagar and Ishmael drink and are saved. God is with Ishmael.

Recognizing that God is with Abraham, Abimelech comes to Abraham asking to make a covenant of peace. Abraham agrees. Then Abraham discovers that Abimelech’s servants have taken some of his wells. Abimelech protests his ignorance, and Abraham gives him sheep and oxen in token of the covenant.

Notes:
What is the point of saying that God visited Sarah? Compare 1 Samuel 2:21, but see also Exodus 20:5. Why is verse 3 redundant: “the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bore to him”? Has the nature of Sarah’s laughter changed? (Compare 17:17 and 21:6.) What do you make of the sudden change of tone between verse 8 and 9? Why do you suppose the narrator makes such an abrupt shift? What reason does Sarah give for her demand that Ishmael be expelled? Why do you think she avoids using either Hagar’s or Ishmael’s names, but refers to Isaac by name? How does Sarah’s description of Ishmael (21:10) differ from Abraham’s (21:11)? So what? Notice (21:12) that Abraham is concerned not only about Ishmael, as verse 11 could be interpreted, but also about Hagar. Is there a connection between the well of water that Hagar sees and that saves Ishmael and the ram that Abraham sees (chapter 22) and that saves Isaac? What might we be able to learn about our own lives from the story of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael?

Beersheba later becomes an important center of Israelite worship, including an early temple. Is this story somehow relevant to that? Usually Abraham builds an altar as a monument to God. Why does he plant a tree in this case? The first of these two stories is clearly relevant to Abraham’s history as the father of Israel, but why is the second included at all? Does it prepare us for the story in Genesis 22 in some way?

Genesis 22

Verse 1: Chapter 22 begins by explicitly referring back to the events of chapter 21: “after these things.” It seems that Moses wants us to understand chapter 22 in relation to chapter 21. As we have seen, Genesis 21 tells of the promised birth of Isaac, and of Ishmael and Hagar being cast out. It also tells of the covenant that Abraham made with Abimelech. The first two of these stories are clearly background to the sacrifice in chapter 22, but are they any more than that? What insight into the story might they give us? The story of this chapter appears to be written in such a way as to remind us of Genesis 12:1. What might that connection teach?

The word Elohim is used in the first sentence of the verse (with a definite article). (Elohim has been named as the divine Agent since Genesis 21:2.) Of what significance is it that he (presumably the Father), and not Jehovah (the Son), poses this test?

Notice the footnote in the LDS edition of the scriptures. In 16th and 17th century English, the language of the King James translation, the word “tempt” meant not only “to allure,” as it does today, but also “to test” or “to try.”

Why would the Lord need to try Abraham? Does Abraham know that this is a test? Consider some other tests in the Old Testament: Exodus 15:25, 16:4, 20:20; Deuteronomy 8: 2, 16; Judges 2:22; 1 Kings 10:1; Daniel 1:12-14. Does seeing what are considered tests (or “proofs”) in those cases help us understand what the Lord means here?

“Behold, here I am” means, literally, “See me here.” In Arabic, even today a person answers a call with something similar—“Ready”—and that is part of the import of this response. In scriptures we find this phrase commonly used when prophets respond to a call. (For other examples of the phrase, see verse eleven of this chapter, Genesis 27:1, 18; 31:11; and 46:2; Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4, 5, 6, 8, and 16; Isaiah 6:8; and 2 Nephi 16:8. We also see it in Moses 4:1 and Abraham 3:27, in the calling of the Savior and in Satan’s rebellion.)

Compare what happens here to 1 Samuel 12:3, where we see the same kind of language in another case, and Genesis 3:9-10 and Exodus 20:18-21, where we see cases in which people don’t respond to a call from the Lord in this way. What might be the scriptural import of this response?

Verse 2: The verb translated “take” could also have been translated “please take.” That is rare in a divine command. Why is it part of this command? There is a traditional Jewish story told of this verse: God said, “Take thy son.” Abraham said, “But I have two sons!” God said, “Whom thou lovest,” and Abraham said, “But I love them both.” God said, “Even Isaac.” The writer shortened everything by giving us only God’s words. What problem is this story designed to solve? Are there other answers to that problem? Why is Isaac said to be Abraham’s only son? What about Ishmael?

The Hebrew is emphatic about him being the only son.

Similarly, why is the Savior said to be the Father’s only son? Aren’t we also the children of our Father in Heaven? Does thinking about the question in Abraham’s case help us understand the question in the second case? Why does the Lord add “whom thou lovest”? Is that written for us or for Abraham? If for us, what does it do to help us understand the story? If for Abraham, why does the Lord remind him of his love of Isaac?

Why doesn’t the Lord tell Abraham which mountain he is to go to? Why wait to tell him? We don’t know for sure where the “land of Moriah” was. The temple mount is named Moriah. (See 2 Chronicles 3:1.) Perhaps the region of Moriah contained what would become the temple mount, but we don’t know. Though the Septuagint (a very early translation of the Old Testament into Greek) calls the land “the high land,” the temple mount is more a hill than a mountain. Some have seen a connection between the word “Moriah” and the word “myrrh,” one of the incenses used in the temple. Why would the sacrifice of Isaac be so closely connected with the ancient temple? What connections might it have to the modern temple?

Besides the possible connection between “myrrh” and “Moriah,” some connect the word “Moriah” to the Hebrew word for sight or vision (mr’h). (For example, the Vulgate, an early Latin translation) calls Moriah “the land of vision.”) Does the sacrifice of Isaac have anything to do with vision? Does the ancient temple? Does the modern temple? Still others connect “Moriah” to the Hebrew word for “teaching.” What has that to do with the ancient temple? The modern? It is not uncommon for people to say that they learn a great deal in the temple? What do they mean? About what do they learn?

“Offer him there for a burnt offering”: The Hebrew says, literally, “take him up there for (or ‘as’) a burnt offering.” Though the wording is the wording one would use to tell someone to make a sacrifice, the Hebrew is more ambiguous than the English; it is less obvious in Hebrew that a blood sacrifice is demanded. Some of the ambiguity can be seen in an alternate translation: “Offer him as a burnt offering.” What do we make of this ambiguity?

How does what the Lord commands here compare to what we see recorded in Judges 11:31-40, and 2 Kings 3:27 and 17:17? How would Abraham’s experience (Abraham 1:12) have made him feel about this commandment?

In English, the word “sacrifice” is closely related to “sacrify,” meaning “to make sacred.” We often think of sacrifice as giving something up, but it isn’t necessarily—except that to recognize something as holy is no longer to claim that it belongs to me. In what sense or senses was Isaac sacrificed?

Verse 3: Why does Moses tell us that Abraham rose “early in the morning”? Why doesn’t he tell us anything at all about how Abraham felt or what he was thinking? The events in this verse are out of sequence: Abraham arose, he saddled the ass, he took his servants and Isaac with him, he cut some wood, he rose up, they went to Moriah. The expected sequence would have Abraham cut the wood before saddling up the ass before leaving with the young men and Isaac. Why do you think that Moses has given the events this order? Though we see here that Abraham has at least two servants, and earlier scriptures tell us that he has many servants, Abraham saddles his own ass and cuts the wood for the sacrificial fire himself. Why? Does that tell us anything about Abraham? And, why is that an important part of the story of the sacrifice? Why does Abraham take two servants with him?

Verse 4: In this story we see only three gestures, here and in verses 10 and 13, so I assume that when the gestures are mentioned they are important to the story. Why does it say that Abraham “lifted up his eyes”? (Is the name of the mountain relevant?) Abraham was looking at a mountain, but it was a long way off and, if the tradition is correct about it being the temple mount, it wasn’t much more than a large hill, so it would not have been the physical geography that made him lift up his eyes. What is the writer telling us? Is there any significance to the fact that the trip takes three days? If so, what is it? (Compare Genesis 31:22, 40:20, and 42:18.) Given that the trip took three days, why don’t we see even one detail regarding it? Are there any parallels to this that might be instructive? Does this detail tell us anything about Abraham or about the sacrifice itself?

Verse 5: Why does Abraham not want the servants to accompany him? Is the fact that Moses went up Mount Sinai alone relevant? (See Exodus 19 and 24.) Though not as explicit in English as in Hebrew, notice that Abraham unwittingly prophesies what will come: “I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.” He tells them “we will come again to you.” What is the point of this unintentional prophecy? In other words, what is it supposed to tell us, as readers? The word translated “worship” means literally “to bow low.” This is a much weaker term than “make an offering.” Is Abraham weakening in his resolve? Why does he describe what will happen with that term? There are at least four ways that a person who didn’t already know the story could understand what Abraham is doing: he could be deceiving them about his real purposes so that they would not interfere with him; he could be understood not to be deceiving anyone, but to not plan to kill Isaac; we could read him as affirming his faith: “I don’t know how this is going to work out, but I know that God will not make me annihilate Isaac, the child through whom God has promised that my blessings will come. So I know that we both will return.” (I have taken these four ways, loosely, from Søren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling.) Given the story as Moses has written it, which do you think is the best interpretation? In any case, what has bowing low to do with worship? What does bowing symbolize? Are there scriptures that indicate that worship involves what bowing symbolizes? How about Mosiah 4? If Mosiah 4 is an appropriate comparison, how does it help us understand this better? How might this help us understand Mosiah four better?

Verse 6: Notice how the writer alternates: details in verse 3, none in verses 4 and 5, and details again in this verse. Why give us details in those places and not between? What purposes do the details serve?

To help you think about the details and what they do, notice that the word translated “knife” could also be translated “cleaver.” It may mean, specifically, a butcher knife. (Compare Judges 19:29, where the same word is used.) How would that different translation change how we read this verse? For more understanding of the impact of that difference in translation, read about what was done with the sacrificial animal—see, for example, Leviticus 1:3-9.

Notice the parallel between Christ carrying his own cross and Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice. Why would such a parallel be important to Moses, the writer? Why does the writer, at the end of the verse, make such a point of Abraham and Isaac being together?

Verse 7: Why does the writer repeat the word “father” and then contrast it with the word “son”? What effect does that create? What does that repetition and contrast teach us? Notice that in this story Abraham consistently refers to Isaac as “my son,” rather than by name. Abraham answers his son in the same way he answered the Lord. What might that show? What is Isaac’s reaction to the situation he finds himself in? When do you think Isaac understood what was to happen, now or later, in verse 9? Why? Based on the age of Sarah at her death—which occurs immediately after this story—tradition has it that Isaac was thirty to thirty-five years old at the time of the sacrifice. If Isaac was older, perhaps even as old as 30 or 35, how would that change our understanding of the story?

In verse 12 Isaac is called a n’r, which is translated “babe” in Exodus 2:6 and “young man” in 2 Samuel 14:21, so the Hebrew word doesn’t help answer the question.

Verse 8: “God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering”: Like most prophecy and much scripture, there are several levels at which this phrase can be understood. Among them are:

1. Like his comment in verse 5, it could suggest that Abraham is deceiving his son (though, unlike verse 5, if we read it in that way, there is no suggestion that Abraham is going to disobey the commandment).

2. It can mean what Isaac (correctly) thinks it means, that the Lord will provide a lamb they can use.

3. It can mean what Abraham thinks it means, that Isaac—provided by God in the matter of his birth, and now (Abraham thinks) provided by God in the matter of his death—will be the sacrifice.

4. It can be Abraham’s unknowing prophecy of what we read later (verse 13).

5. It can be a prophecy of the Atonement, provided by the Father for the redemption of all mankind.

Which of these possibilities help us think about the meaning of Abraham’s sacrifice? How do they help us understand Christ? How do they help us understand our own lives? This verse, like verse 6, ends with “they went both of them together.” Verse 6 listed the implements of the sacrifice, then ended with this phrase. Verse 7 takes up the question of the victim of the sacrifice. Then verse 8 takes up the answer to that question, ending with the phrase, “they went both of them together.” The parallels are so deliberate that they cannot be coincidence. What is going on here? The phrase “God will provide” is the turning point of this story. Could it also be something like a thesis statement for the story? How is that phrase a response to the test that Abraham has been given?

Verse 9: We saw absolutely no details of the journey, why does the writer give us details when they get to the mountain?

The traditional Hebrew name for this event is the akedah, meaning “the binding,” rather than “Abraham’s sacrifice” or some other variation that we use. Why was the binding of Isaac so important to the Jews that the whole event could be named after it? What kinds of things can “binding” mean? Do those meanings have anything to do with the ancient temple? With the modern temple? Compare and contrast the different things that these different names for the story tell us.

Verse 10:

The word “slay” translates a Hebrew word that could also be translated “slaughter.” In most cases, it means “to kill in a ritual manner.” (The same word is used in Leviticus 1:5 and 6:25.) Why is it important that the writer use that word here?

Here the second gesture of the story appears: “Abraham stretched forth his hand.” (The first was when Abraham lifted his eyes in verse 4.) What does that gesture show us? Does this gesture say something about Abraham’s attitude? Notice that this verse and verse 9 use very short phrases: “came to the place,” “laid the wood in order,” “bound Isaac,” “laid him on the altar,” “stretched forth his hand,” “took the knife to slay his son.” What is the effect of this staccato pattern?

Verse 11: In verse 1, God gave Abraham the commandment, but in this verse the commandment not to sacrifice Isaac is delivered by an angel, the angel of Jehovah. What might Abraham’s reaction have been? What kinds of things does this show us? Why is the original commandment given by the Father, but the reversal of that commandment given by an angel of the Son? Why does the angel call Abraham’s name twice? In verse 1, the Lord called him only once. What might the repetition show?

Verse 12: Why does the angel repeat the injunction not to hurt Isaac? What does it mean to fear God? Does this story help us understand that by showing us? Do we see any evidence of what we might mean by “fear” in this story? Why do you think English uses the word “fear” for this attitude of awe and respect before God? What does it mean to say that Abraham hasn’t withheld his son from Jehovah?

Verse 13: Here the third gesture occurs, and it is the same gesture as the first one: “Abraham lifted up his eyes.” What does lifting his eyes indicate? Does the parallel to verse 4 help us understand either one of these better? The ram, of course, is the traditional burnt offering. (See Leviticus 1:10-13.) There is an obvious textual difficulty here: Abraham looks up and sees the ram behind him. That seems impossible. But scholars have suggested that perhaps copyists have made a mistake and written a Hebrew word for “behind” when they were reading a very similarly written Hebrew word for “solitary.” If we accept that emendation of the text, what is the point of writing “a solitary ram” rather than just “a ram”? The Joseph Smith Translation deals with the problem by putting the ram behind the thicket: “Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind a thicket, there was a ram” (JST Genesis 22:16).

Verse 14:

Notice that there is a double entendre in the name, Jehovah-jireh: The Hebrew phrase means literally “The Lord will see” but that can be understood to mean “the Lord will provide.”

What is it the Lord has seen? What is it he has provided? (See verse 8.) You might want to do some brainstorming on this one to go beyond the obvious answers—Abraham’s obedience and a ram. Remember the connection to the temple and the atonement. “Mount of the Lord” is a phrase often used in the Old Testament to refer the temple, whether on a mountain or not. Another translation of the sentence that explains the name Abraham gave the place is, “The Lord will be revealed in a mount (i.e., a temple).” (This is probably a more accurate translation than the translation given by the King James translators.) Moses tells us that people say this because of the sacrifice of Isaac and the name Abraham gave to the place of that sacrifice. Ancient Israel offered sacrifice in its temples, so the connection of this story to their temples was more obvious. (You might want to read about sacrifice in the Bible Dictionary in your scriptures.) But it might pay to think about, though not to discuss, the connection between the sacrifice of Isaac and the temple. What has this story to do with temple work? What has it to do with the seeing the Lord in the temple? How do is the Lord revealed in the temple? What do we learn of sacrifice here? In the temple?

Verse 15: Why is the angel’s message divided into two parts? Does the division help us focus on particular aspects of each part? Is there a difference in the messages?

Verse 16: What is the significance of the Lord saying “By myself have I sworn” (italics added)? (Compare Jeremiah 22:5 and 49:13, and Amos 4:2 and 6:8.) One medieval Jewish commentator (Nachmanides) suggests that in the phrase, “By myself have I sworn,” we see the Lord making Abraham’s calling and election sure. (Obviously, I’m using our terminology for his concepts, not his terminology.) So what? How is that relevant to us? Notice the emphasis put on Abraham’s not having withheld his only son. Why that emphasis? What does Abraham not withholding his son show? The blessing that follows in verses 17 and 18—already given once before (Genesis 12:2-3 and 13:14-16)—is said to be “because thou hast done this thing.” If it has already been given, how can it be the result of this test?

Verses 17-18: Why does the Lord say, “in blessing, I will bless thee”? What do you think the repetition of a word for blessing does for our understanding? Abraham has already received this blessing. Why repeat it? Or is this version different in some way? Why is this blessing such a desirable blessing? Why is it a blessing to have innumerable posterity? Hebrews 6:14 quotes the blessing of verse 17. Does that quotation help us understand something of what this story teaches from a Christian point of view? What does it mean to say that Abraham’s seed will possess the gates of their enemies? Who are their enemies? What are the enemies gates? What does it mean to say that all the nations of the earth will be blessed in Abraham’s seed? Compare Abraham 2:9-11 to see more clearly who Abraham’s children are. Does the end of verse 18 perhaps give us a better idea of what the Lord meant by “this thing” in verse 16?

Verse 19: The Lord has spoken to Abraham and renewed the covenant. However, we don’t see Abraham respond or Isaac be released, Isaac isn’t mentioned again in the story, and Abraham just goes back to his servants and goes with them to Beersheba. Why? At the end of chapter 21 (verse 34) we are told that Abraham lived in Hebron (the land of the Philistines). Now we are told he dwelt in Beer-sheba. Has he moved? If so, why? How would the sacrifice cause Abraham to move to a new location?

Verses 20-23: Here, within a message given to Abraham, we see Milcah’s sons. Why is this message important to Abraham as part of the story of his test? When the Bible was divided into chapters and verses, the editors could have put these verses into the next chapter, as its beginning. Do you have any ideas as to why they would think it belongs in this chapter? Why is this genealogy inserted here, between the story of the sacrifice and the account of Sarah’s death? Rebekah’s birth seems to be the point of the genealogy. How is that relevant to what we have just seen?

Verse 24: In contrast to verses 20-23, this list of Reumah’s sons is not something that was said to Abraham, but a comment made by the writer. Why does he think he needs this comment, and why has it been included here rather than at the beginning of the next chapter? Of course, the chapters and verses we see were not part of the original text. But there is a natural division at Genesis 23:1. We could ask the question in this way instead: why does this genealogical list come before rather than after that natural break?

Responses to this post should be made at Feast Upon the Word

Verses 1-2: Are there elements in Abram’s journey to Canaan that typify Israel’s later exodus from Egypt? If there are, what would be the point of that parallel?

Verse 1: Notice the difference in the way the families are described in Genesis 12:5 and here. Does anything in these verses suggest a change in the family situation? If yes, of what sort? Journeys from Egypt to Canaan are said to be “up” and journeys from Canaan to Egypt are said to be “down.” We might use the same metaphors because of the way we have constructed the map of the world, with Canaan to the north of Egypt, but that similarity is misleading since they didn’t have maps or use the points of the compass as we do. So why would ancient people have used that language of up and down?

Verse 2: What is the point of this detail? Does the comment about their wealth in verse 6 explain it, or is it here for some other reason?

The word used for “rich” in Hebrew means “heavy.” It is used to describe Abram’s wealth and also the famine (Genesis 12:1). Any wealth that a nomad had beyond his flocks would have to be carried by camel and it would be a heavy for them, so the word makes sense. Was Abram’s wealth a burden to him in any other sense?

Verse 3-4: Why does Abram go back to the place where he had built an altar? (See Genesis 12:7).

Verses 5-7: What is happening to Abram’s family here? He has already been blessed that he will be a great nation (Genesis 12:2). What would Abram think about that blessing at this point? Might there be anything deeper to this strife than an argument over pasturage? Does Genesis 18:19 suggest something about the difference between Lot and Abram? Why is the story of Abraham’s blessings interrupted by this story of strife? Not every detail of Abraham’s life is included, so when a detail is included, we must assume that there is a reason for including it. We must also give the writer some credit for placing details where he does. So, why does Moses mention Abraham’s wealth and this strife, and why here?

Verse 6: What reason does this verse give for the land being unable to bear them? What does that mean? (What was the main way in which wealth was held?)

Verse 7: Why is it important that we know that the Canaanites and the Perizzites (a tribe usually grouped with the Canaanites) dwelt there? Why does the writer think it is important to include that editorial note?

Verses 8-13: Abram says, “Let there be no strife [i.e., quarreling], I pray thee, between me and thee.” The immediate reference is to what has just happened between their herdsmen: “Let’s not continue that.” Does this warning also point forward to anything?

The King James translation hides something interesting in the text. In Hebrew, at the end of verse 8 Abram says “for we be men and brothers.” The KJV elides that into merely “brothers,” which is a legitimate translation. However, what might the original text mean by “men and brothers.” What point is Abram making?

If Abram has been given all of the land, why is he willing to be so generous in giving it up (verse 9)? Should his generosity be a model for the behavior of his descendants? Verses 11-12 show Lot choosing to live on the edge of Canaan, if not even beyond it. (Compare Genesis 10:19.) What is the significance of his choice? Is he turning his back on the Abramic blessing? Does separation from Abram mean, for Lot, separation from Abram’s blessing? If not, how does Lot continue to be part of that blessing? In verse 13 we see a rhetorical form that the Bible uses often. It is called “hendiadys,” which means “two for one.” The people of Sodom are describe as “wicked and sinners.” That is a way of saying “wicked sinners.” Did Lot know what kind of men lived in the land he had chosen? Why did he choose that land? What was the sin of Sodom? (See Ezekiel 16:48-50 for one important explanation.) Do we see anything in chapter 14 that suggests the same explanation?

Verses 14-18: Why did the Lord repeat his blessing to Abram (verses 14-16)? Compare the wording of verse 15 with the wording of the same blessing in Genesis 12:7. Why is this wording much fuller? What do we learn from this wording that we didn’t learn earlier? Verse 19 ends the chapter as it began, with Abram settling down. Why do you think the story of this chapter is framed in this way?

Chapter 14

Verses 1-12: Why have Amphral, Arioch, Chedorloamer, and Tidal invaded the Jordan valley?

The kings of Sodom and Gommorah have striking names, for they are made of words that, in Hebrew, mean “evil” and “wicked.” How would you explain that?

Verses 11-12: Why is verse 11 important to what we will later learn about Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did the kings take Lot captive?

Verses 13-16:

This is the first occurrence of the word “Hebrew” in the Bible. One reasonable assumption of the meaning of “Hebrew” is that it means “someone from the other side.” (See the discussion of Genesis 12:1 in the materials for lesson 7.) Another is that it refers to the Habiru, a general term for outsiders (foreign slaves, mercenaries, and especially marauders). What might these meanings for that word tell us about how Abraham was perceived in Canaan?

“They were confederate with Abram” might better be translated “They had made a covenant with Abram.”

What kind of covenant would Abram and the Amorites have entered into (verse 13)? What does verse 14 mean when it refers to trained servants? What was the point of this story for those hearing it in ancient Israel? What might its point be for us?

Verses 17-21: Is there any irony in Abram being greeted by the king of Sodom, on the one hand, and the king of Salem, Melchizedek, on the other (verses 17-18) ? How might we find a spiritual meaning in that irony? These verses seem to be rhetorically structured as a chiasm:

A The king of Sodom meets Abram

B The king of Salem meets Abram (offering bread and wine)

B’ The king of Salem offers Abram a blessing

A’ The king of Sodom offers Abram a deal

Is that structure anything more than a good story telling technique? Notice that the structure is followed by Abram’s reply: he refuses to take his share of the booty. What do you make of the fact that the story presents this as one episode: the king of Sodom and the king of Salem come to meet Abraham at the same time? Is the writer suggesting a comparison of the two? If so, what are we to make of that comparison?

The name “Melchizedek” is composed of two words, melek and tsaddiq. The second of these means “righteous.” (See the notes for lesson 6 for more about tsaddiq.) The first of these words is a general term for a ruler, from the king on down. So the name Melchizedek probably means “my king is righteous.” (The names “Adonizedek” in Joshua 10:1 and “Zadok,” David’s high priest (e.g., 2 Samuel 15:24-29) are related names).

Genesis is filled with genealogies showing the connections of the prophets. Why is there nothing in those genealogies about Melchizedek? (In the Bible, he appears only here, in Psalms 110:4, and in Hebrews.) Compare the additional material given in Joseph Smith’s revision of Genesis 14:17-40, Hebrews 7:1-3, as well as what we find in Alma 13:14-19, and D&C 84:14 and 107:1-4.) Assuming that at this point Joseph’s inspired revision gives us information that was originally in the Bible (rather than material he was inspired to give us to help us understand), why might someone have removed this information? Melchizedek offers Abram bread and wine. Is this symbolic, or is it merely an offering of a meal to a hungry returning army? What had the King of Sodom offered? So what?

In verse 19, many translators translate Abram’s blessing as “maker of heaven and earth” rather than “possessor of heaven and earth,” as the King James version has it. What might that alternate translation suggest? How could Abraham reasonably be called a maker of heaven and earth?

Verses 21-24: According to ancient custom, the victor had full rights to the spoils of war. Why would Abram have pledged to take nothing, in other words, none of the spoils of war? After all, Abram was the commander-in-chief of the winning army. What does verse 21 show us about the king of Sodom? How does Abram’s behavior toward the king of Sodom contrast with his behavior toward Melchizedek? What is the difference and why does he behave differently? How does Abram’s attitude contrast with that of the king of Sodom? What does that difference portend?

In verse 22, the phrase “I have lift up mine hand” means “I have solemnly sworn.” The Hebrew word translated “made rich” in verse 23 has a root that is almost identical to that of the word translated “tithed” in verse 20. What does that connection do in this story?

Chapter 15

Chapter 15 isn’t part of the assignment, but it is used by Paul as an important linchpin in his argument in the early part of Romans, and many Protestants today use it when they talk about their understanding of salvation by grace. So, because Genesis 15:6 is a verse that Latter-day Saints are likely to be asked to think or talk about, I’m including some notes and questions about it.

Verse 6:

The word translated “believed” translates the Hebrew word aman, “to be firm or certain,” “to be stable,” “to trust,” “to believe.”(It is the origin of our word, “amen.”) The word “counted” translates a Hebrew word that means “reckoned” (see Psalms 106:31 and Numbers 18:27, 30). The word “righteousness” translates the Hebrew word tsedaqa, a varation of tsaddiq: righteousnesss, lawfulness, justice. (See the notes for Genesis 14:17-21 and for lesson 6 for more about tsaddiq.)

We can understand this verse to say “Abraham believed / trusted the Lord [or ‘believed / trusted in the Lord,’ as in the KJV], and the Lord credited that belief / trust to Abraham as if Abraham were a righteous person, i.e., one who obeys the law.” Given the context, what is the best way to understand what “believed” means here? In thinking about this verse, much depends on whether we understand the verb phrase to mean “believed the Lord” or “believed in the Lord” and there’s nothing in the Hebrew to dictate either over the other—though if we substitute “trusted” for “believed” there is little difference in meaning. Looking at the verse in context—and trying to set aside your personal theological convictions for the moment—which do you think makes the most sense and why? Is it relevant that the writer is either Moses or a later writer writing from a Mosaic perspective? What difference might that make to how we understand the “righteous” in this verse? What is your best explanation of this verse? Once you have thought about that, read Romans 3:10-4:22. If you have difficulty with the language, try reading it in a more contemporary translation, perhaps the New American Bible. How does Paul understand the verse? Is Paul using the verse out of context to make his point (”proof-texting”), or is he true to what we read in Genesis? Finally, what kind of theological answer might you give to someone who says that this teaches something that Mormons don’t believe, namely salvation by grace alone? Can you give a satisfactory answer that also takes careful account of the Genesis text?

Chapter 18

Note: There is perhaps no better illustration than the story of this chapter of what narrative and other genres of scripture can do that theological reflection cannot. If we read the story of this chapter theologically—by stepping back from it and asking quasi-philosophical questions about it, by focusing exclusively on the principles that we assume it teaches and thinking about how those relate to each other—then we will almost certainly miss a great deal of what the story offers and, presumably, what Moses intended to give us by telling this in the way that he does. As you read this story pay particular attention to it as a story about Abraham and Sarah and the Lord. Trying to understand it as a story before trying to theologize about it will provide rewards.

Verses 1-2: The story begins in the third-person plural (verse 2). Then it shifts to the third-person singular (verse 9) before it moves the first person (verse 13). Why do you think the writer does that? Though verse 1 tells us who is visiting Abraham, he appears not to know that these are divine beings until verse 14, when the Lord identifies himself. How does that suspension of identification affect our reading of the story? Some have pointed out that this begins without explicitly naming Abraham: “he sat in his tent” rather than “Abraham sat in his tent.” They suggest that this shows that what follows is part of a series of stories (including the immediately previous chapter) that are to be understood together. So what? Why does the writer tell us where Abraham was sitting and what time of day it was? Why would Abraham have gone to his tent during the heat of the day? Why does Abraham jump up and run to greet these visitors? Does he know what kind of visitors they are? It isn’t uncommon for people to run to greet others or to bow down to those in power. (See Genesis 29:13 and Genesis 42:6.) However, these visitors are not yet known to Abraham to be either, so why does he bow down in this way?

Verses 3-5: As does Abraham’s initial greeting, what he says to the visitors can be understood on two levels, that of a greeting to three human visitors and that of a greeting to the Lord. Why does he use the singular when he addresses his visitors, rather than the plural? Notice that Abraham underplays the thirst of his visitors: “I won’t fetch a lot of water, just a little, just enough to slake your thirst,” as it were. He also underplays the feast he is going to prepare: “a morsel of bread” [probably like a piece of pita bread]. Why does he do that?

Verses 6-8: Is it significant that Abraham runs to fetch the calf rather than having a servant do it? “Three seahs of meal” seems to be about 8 liters. Why so much bread for three guests?

Since it mixes meat and dairy (verse 8), this is not a kosher meal. Abraham does not live under the Mosaic Law. According to Word Biblical Commentary (2:47), the phrase translated “fine meal” appears elsewhere in the Five Books of Moses only in reference to temple offerings of various kinds. Do you think that this is a conscious choice on the writer’s part? If so, what is the point he is making by that choice?

Verses 9-15 : Why does the visitor ask “Where is Sarah thy wife?” Any visitor would have known who was in charge of preparing the meal and what that implied about where she was. And certainly the Lord would know where she was. So why ask? (Compare the Lord’s questions in Genesis 3:9 and 4:9—Moses 4:15 and 5:34.) Why is it important for us to know that the tent door was behind the speaker? Who makes the promise of verse 10? How do you know? Did Abraham? Compare and contrast this version of the promise to that in Genesis 17:15-21. What do you learn from that comparison? How many different explanations can you give for Sarah’s laughter? Which do you think most reasonable? Why? How does Sarah’s laughter here compare to Abraham’s in Genesis 17:17? Are they doing the same thing or something different? In verses 14-15, is the Lord speaking to Abraham or to Sarah? In verse 15, what is Sarah afraid of? Compare the Lord’s reproof of Sarah, here, with his reproof of Abraham in Genesis 17:19-22. How are they alike? How different? What might explain any differences?

Note: The chapter begins with only Abraham. However, after the Lord asks “Where is Sarah they wife?” she begins to figure more prominently in the story. Skipping over the Sodom and Gomorrah story of chapter 19, Sarah becomes an integral part of the story in chapters 20-21. What does that suggest?

Verses 16-22: Now we learn to where the three visitors were traveling when Abraham stopped them. We will continue to see him trying to stop them in this part of the story, as two of them continue on their journey but Abraham stands “yet before the Lord” (Genesis 18:22). To whom is the question of verses 17-18 addressed? Can you put those verses in your own words? What point is the Lord making? What does the Lord mean when he says that he knows Abraham?

The word translated “know” here is the same word translated “know” in Genesis 4:1. (It is also the same word used in verses like Amos 3:2, Exodus 33:17, Deuteronomy 34:10, and 2 Samuel 7:20.) Does that tell us anything about what the Lord is saying? Does it suggest anything about how we should understand God’s knowledge?

How does the description of Abraham’s blessing in verse 18 differ from previous descriptions? So what? How does verse 19 explain why the Lord is going to explain to Abraham what he will do? In other words, how is the fact that he will teach his children to be righteous relevant to the Lord’s decision not to hide from Abraham what is going to happen to Sodom and Gomorrah? Some Christians today teach that the Lord’s promise of blessing is unconditional, but it appears that we see exactly the opposite throughout the Old Testament. In verse 19, for example, we see that the Abraham will teach his children to obey so that the Lord will give Abraham that which he has promised. Is this a difference between the Old and New Testament understandings of our relation to God? Or is there a better explanation?

This question, a question about grace, is not one in which those on the side we usually associate with other Christians say “We don’t have to keep the commandments” and we say, “Yes, you do.” All who receive the promise must keep the commandments, and few Christians believe otherwise. The question is about the connection between the promise and obedience: do we receive the blessing because we obey or do we obey because we have received the blessing (and we refuse the blessing if we disobey)? That is what is at issue in many discussions of grace and works.

What does it mean to “keep the way [i.e., the path] of the Lord”? Some have identified this with knowing the Lord. What does it mean to know the Lord? What does Mosiah 4 teach about what it means to know the Lord? Does what we see in verse 19 perhaps explain what the Lord says about revealing his will to the prophets in Amos 3:7? What does it mean to say that the children of Abraham “will do justice and judgment”? Why does the Lord describe that as “keeping the way of the Lord”? How do we do justice and judgment? Compare “I will go down” in verse 21 with Genesis 11:7. What does that verbal connection suggest? Does verse 21 suggest anything about the Lord’s desires for Sodom and Gomorrah?

Verses 23-33: What does verse 23 tell us when it begins with “Abraham drew near”? Compare these verses:

Prayer	Response
23-25	26
27-28a	28b
29a	29b
30a	30b
31a	31b
32a	32b

What is the point of this series? Why is Abraham bargaining with the Lord? Why talk him down from one number to another and then to still another? Why does the Lord permit him to do this? What does this say about the Lord? About our relation to him? About prayer? Does doing justice and judgment have anything to do with what we see here? Compare Abraham’s initial question, “Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (verse 23) with his final question, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there” (verse 32). How do you account for what seems like a difference in Abraham’s confidence? In the first part of Abraham’s prayer (verse 23) he asked that God not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. In the second part (verse 24), he asks that the Lord spare everyone, not just the righteous. Then he goes back to asking that the righteous be spared when the wicked are killed (verse 25). How would you explain these differences?

Chapter 19

Verses 1-3: Compare the beginning of the chapter with the beginning of the last. What does that comparison show? If hospitality demanded that one offer a stranger a place to sleep, it also demanded that the stranger accept the offer extended. What do you make of the angels’ initial refusal to stay with Lot? Was it just a polite refusal (”No thanks, no more chocolate cake for me. I’m full.”) that could then be followed by acceptance, or was there something deeper to their refusal?

Verses 4-11: Why is it important that we know that “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round about, both old and young, all the people from every quarter” (verse 4)? What does Lot’s offer in verse 8 tell us about the ethics of the time? In spite of that, how do verses 6-9 portray Lot? Those who try to break into Lot’s home refer to him as one who “came in to sojourn,” in other words, as a stranger living among them (verse 9). What is the point of that remark from the point of view of the Sodomites? What does it say about them from the writer’s point of view? (Notice the note of slap stick comedy at the end of verse 11: everyone is stumbling around trying to find the door.)

Verses 12-14: In particular, what evil have the Sodomites revealed in the previous verses that now calls for the retribution of these verses? In other words, did the sin of verses 4-11 exemplify the cry that the Lord referred to in Genesis 18:21? Why do the sons-in-law think that Lot is joking (verse 14)?

Verses 15-23: Why is the Lord willing to save Lot and his family? Is it because of Lot’s righteousness? If not, what has this story to do with the bargain that Abraham struck with the Lord in the previous chapter? What do we learn about Lot in verses 17-22? How does that compare to his bravery in verses 6-9? What kind of a person does Lot emerge as in this story? Compare Lot’s pleading for Zoar with Abraham’s pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah. What’s the difference? Compare and contrast this story with the Noah story. How are their messages the same? How different? In fact, compare and contrast several stories of what might be called rescue (though in Lot’s case, they thought they were beginning a new world but were not): Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, Abraham leaving Ur, Abraham and Isaac, and this one. What do you learn from those comparisons?

Verses 24-26: There are many possible naturalistic explanations of this story, including for example an explanation of human-like rock formations near the Dead Sea), but what does the writer intend by this story? What does he want us to know above and beyond whatever happened to Lot’s wife?

Verses 27-29: Compare verses 27-28 to Genesis 18:16. The beginning and the end are marked by the use of similar scenes. The story ended in verses 27-28. Now we have, in verse 29, an “and thus we see” passage. What is it that we are most supposed to remember about this story? How does that contrast with our usual discussions of the story? What might that tell us about our relation to scripture?

Verses 30-38: Obviously we find the story in these verses distasteful, though it is hard not to compare this story to that of Moses and Ham. How are the stories the same? How different? Why is this story included in scripture? What are we to learn from it? Given the names that the daughters gave their sons, were they ashamed of what they had done? Why not? Is it legitimate to compare this story to that of Tamar, who was forced to conceive a child by her father-in-law Judah because he would not fulfill the Levirate law and provide her a husband from among his sons? Does their (mistaken) understanding of the situation make us think differently about this event than we would otherwise? What does that mistake tell us?

Make responses to this post at Feast Upon the Word.

0 people like this post.

Like 

Verse 1: Why does this work use the name “Abraham” for the person in question when we know from Genesis that his name was as yet still “Abram”? What does it tell us that Abraham says “the residence of my fathers” (plural) rather than “the residence of my father” (singular)? Why did Abraham think he needed to “find another place of residence”? (Compare Genesis 12:1 as well as Abraham 1:5-12 and 2:1-4.) What do you make of the dispassionate, deliberate character of Abraham’s language in this verse and, in the later verses, of his account of the Chaldean attempt to sacrifice him? Is that an artefact of translation, perhaps, or does it show us something about Abraham?

Verse 2: What does Abraham mean by “the blessings of the fathers”? Verse 4 tells us that the phrase refers to the priesthood. Then why is it plural? If it does not refer to the priesthood in this verse, to what does it refer? What would it mean to have the right to administer the blessings of the fathers? Who were the fathers? Assuming that this verse is about the priesthood, how does possessing the High Priesthood make Abraham “one who possessed great knowledge”? Are having the priesthood and possessing great knowledge the same thing for Abraham? How would having this blessing that he desires make him “a greater follower of righteousness”? What do you make of this double repetition:

Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge. (Italics added)

How would Abraham have thought that having great knowledge would be relevant to him becoming the father of many nations? Did he receive that blessing (Genesis 12:2) when he received the priesthood? Does he intend “follower of righteousness” to mean the same as “follower of God”? Are “father of many nations” and “prince of peace” intended to be two ways of saying the same thing? If so, how does that work? If not, why are they in parallel here? What about “desiring to receive instructions” and “desiring . . . to keep the commandments of God”? Do they mean the same? In the ancient Near East, gods were associated with a particular place: the gods of Assyria, the gods of Egypt, etc. How was Abraham’s understanding of God different? How as it important to his time? Is there anything comparable to the local gods in our own understanding?

Verse 3: What does this history of the priesthood that Abraham has received tell us? What do these verses tell us about the priesthood? Why is that important to our understanding? The first word in the verse, “it,” refers to “the right of the firstborn.” What does that tell us about the priesthood that Abraham is talking about? Why does Abraham qualify “the firstborn” with “the first man, who is Adam, or first father”? Is Adam the only firstborn that Abraham is talking about? Are all firstborn a figure of Adam?

Verse 4: The first part of the verse is straightforward: “I sought for mine appointment to the Priesthood.” But what does “Priesthood” mean when it is qualified by “according to the appointment of God”? Or does that phrase modify instead “I sought for”? What does it mean to say that the appointment of God was “unto the fathers concerning the seed”? Does that phrase help us know how we should understand the word “appointment”?

Verse 19 (my addition to the reading for this lesson): What does the Lord mean when he tells Abraham “As it was with Noah so shall it be with thee”? Why is the next sentence in the verse written as a contrast with the first: “As with Noah so with thee, but thy ministry will be known through the earth”?

Abraham 2

Verses 1-2: Does the account here agree with Genesis 11:31-32? If so, how? If not, how do you explain that difference? Do we understand things differently in each case?

Verses 3-5: Some have noticed that the order in which the Lord tells Abraham to leave is slightly odd: first country, then kindred, then father’s house. That is the opposite of the actual order in which a person would leave: first he would leave his father’s house, then he would leave his larger family, then he would leave his country. Do you think that reversal of what we might expect the order to have been is significant? Why do you think Abraham felt it necessary to include the kinds of details we see in these verses in his record? What have they to do with us?

Verse 6: How do you think we should understand the word “minister” here? What does it mean to give something as “an everlasting possession” to someone “when they hearken to my voice”? Doesn’t that qualifying phrase mean that the possession isn’t eternal, that I can be lost?

Verses 7-8: In verse 7 are the particular actions named by the Lord important? If so, for what reasons? Why is it important that Abraham know that the Lord knows the end from the beginning (verse 8)? Are the end and beginning of which he speaks temporal or spatial? Why does the Lord use that wording, “the end from the beginning”? How does the word “from” function in this sentence? For example, does it indicate a difference, like knowing chocolate from vanilla ice cream? Does it entail temporality: the Lord knows how things will end from the very beginning? What other ways of understanding “from” are there? What does the imagery of “my hand shall be over thee” suggest?

Verse 9: How will the Lord make Abraham into a great nation? Why is that a great blessing? The Lord says, “thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations.” Does this mean “You will be a blessing to your seed so that they can take the ministry and priesthood to everyone,” or does it mean “you will be a blessing to your seed in that they will take the ministry and priesthood to everyone”? In other words, explain how Abraham is a blessing to his posterity and what that has to do with them preaching the Gospel.

Verses 10-11: What does it mean to say that the Lord will bless Abraham through Abraham’s name? Who are Abraham’s children? Who will bless Abraham? In what sense is Abraham our father? How and when do we recognize that? Why does verse 11 say that both Abraham and his seed are his priesthood? What is Abraham’s priesthood? Do John 8:39 or Romans 9:7-8 add to our understanding of this promise?

Genesis 12

Verse 1:

It is often assumed that the word “Hebrew” comes from the root ivri meaning “someone from the other side.” The most straightforward way to understand that name is that it designates someone who comes from Mesopotamia, on the other side of the river. However, are there other ways to understand that Abraham and those who descend from him are from “the other side”?

Gordon Wenham says this about the stories of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph. (Warning: what follows is a long quotation.)

Genealogically, the narratives are connected by Abraham’s being father of Isaac, Jacob’s being Isaac’s son, and Joseph’s being Isaac’s grandson. But there are many parallels between the plots of each group of stories, and these tend to highlight the similarities between the careers of the leading patriarchs and, more loosely, with the subsequent history of Israel, for example:

1. All these heroes leave their home-land (12:1; 28:2; 37:28)
2. All quarrel with their brothers (13:7; 27:41: 37:4)
3. Three go down to Egypt, one to Gerar, i.e., toward Egypt (12:10; 26:1; 37:28; 46:6)
4. Two patriarchal wives are seduced or nearly so; an Egyptian wife attempts to seduce Joseph (12:14–16; 20:1–14; 26:1; 39:6–18)
5. Their wives are barren and quarrel (in Abraham’s and Jacob’s cases) (16:1–6; 29:31–30:8)
6. The younger sons are divinely favored (also Joseph’s sons) (17:18–19; 25:23; 48:14; 49:8–12, 22–26)
7. Brides met at well (24:15; 29:9)
8. Promises of children, land, divine blessing (e.g., 12:1–3, 26:2–5; 28:13–14)
9. Gentiles acknowledge God’s blessing on the patriarchs (21:21–22; 26:28–29: 41:39–40)
10. Buried in cave of Machpelah (23:1–20; 25:9; 35:27–29; 49:29–32)

These parallels between the patriarchs seem to be rather more than coincidence. Obviously, in a family where traditions run strong, it is not surprising that everyone is buried in the same ancestral grave. But the stories do seem to lay special emphasis on this point, and a whole chapter of the Abraham cycle is devoted to recording the purchase of the family tomb. Other features, though, like the seduction of the patriarchs’ wives and Joseph’s experience, meeting one’s bride at a well, or the acknowledgment of divine blessing by foreigners, can hardly be put down to family tradition. These parallels are being consciously drawn and even accentuated so that the analogy with the experiences of different generations can be observed. Therefore the stories should not be interpreted in isolation. They were written to shed mutual light on each other, and if we are to recapture and appreciate the original writer’s motives and intentions, each cycle of stories must be read in the light of the others and each episode ought to be compared with other similar episodes. The slight differences from one version to another help to enhance the portrait of the actors. For example, while Jacob and, later, Moses both personally encounter their future brides at the well and then negotiate terms of marriage with their fathers-in-law, Isaac stays at home. Abraham’s servant meets Rebekah, negotiates with Laban, and brings her to Isaac. This suggests that Isaac is a rather retiring, unforceful person, an impression that is confirmed later in his dealings with the Philistines and in his manipulation by Rebekah and Jacob.

If these parallels among the narratives give them depth and interest, they also illustrate the theological principle of typology. There is already in the parallels between Cain’s and Adam’s sin in Gen 3 and 4 a rudimentary typology. We see men acting in similar fashion in similar situations. But typology is not merely a result of human nature’s unchanging weaknesses; it also reflects the constancy of God’s character. God always punishes sin and always keeps his promises, so it is not surprising that the accounts of his dealings with one generation resemble in some degree those of the next. And man’s propensity to disobedience only makes it more likely that history will repeat itself to some extent.

Yet we must not exaggerate the similarities among the cycle: there is a real development from one story to the next in the tightness of the plot, the depth of characterization, and in theological sophistication. The differences between the primeval history and the patriarchal stories are most marked. (Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002]. 256–258.

Verses 2-3: What does it mean to say that Abram will not only be blessed, but will “be a blessing” to others? Why is that part of the covenant? Do those who inherit Abram’s blessing inherit that obligation to be a blessing? What does that mean to us? Is verse 3 a repetition of the meaning of verse 2, or does it say something new? If it is a repetition of verse 2, why does the Lord bother with that repetition? Notice that the revelation of verse placed Abram outside, putting a barrier between him and all those to whom he had been related. (Is this another repetition of the “expulsion from the Garden” theme? If so, why does scripture repeat that theme?) In these verses, however, Abram becomes universal, a blessing to all. The movement is from particularism in verse 1 to universalism in verse 3. What do you make of that? What does it mean to us? Does it perhaps help us understand our individual relation to the Church or the world, the relation of the Church to the world, . . . ?

Verses 4-5: What does “all their substance that they had gathered” (verse 5) imply? What does “all . . . the souls that they had gotten in Haran” imply? In this verse, the wording suggest that Lot and his family are part of Abram’s family: “Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son.” However, the wording of Genesis 13:1 suggests a difference: “Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him.” If something has changed, what is it?

Verses 6-8: If you can, locate on a map where Abraham settled. What is the significance of Abram building an altar? Is there anything comparable in our lives? If so, what? If not, why not? Where are our altars to the Lord that express our gratitude for his blessings to us and from which we make our petitions to him?

Genesis 17

Verse 1: The Lord calls himself El-Shaddai, the Almighty God. Later he tells Moses that this was the name by which he was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but he was not known to them as the Lord, Yahweh (Exodus 6:3). Why do you think he used the name “Almighty God” in his relations with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but later used the name Yahweh, “the Lord”? When the Lord commands Abram to be perfect, what is he commanding him to do?

The Hebrew word translated “perfect” is the same word we saw used to describe Noah (Moses 8:27; Genesis 6:9): tamim, meaning “complete” or “whole.”  How is this like or unlike the commandment that the Savior gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:48—the Greek word there is teleios, “having attained its purpose or end”)?

How is what the Lord commands here like or unlike the commandment with which the Lord begins the Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:2)? Do these scriptures help us understand what the Lord is commanding when he commands us to be perfect? What kinds of misunderstandings might we have of that commandment? Do the scriptures undo those misunderstandings?

Verse 2: What is a covenant? We often compare it to a contract, but how does it differ from a contract? In the ancient Near East, society was created and maintained by covenants rather than by laws. (There were laws, such as Hammurabi’s Code, in some societies, but those societies were the exception rather than the rule.) Looking at those ancient covenants between peoples and nations can help us understand better what a covenant was in that world and it may help us better understand what a covenant is for us. In those ancient covenants we see several things:

(1) They usually occur in response to some important historical event, such as a battle.
(2) The parties making the covenant are not usually equals.
(3) In some sense, the covenant creates an exclusive relationship.
(4) They involve appeals to God.
(5) They describe the norms for expected future behavior.
(6) A ritual act of some kind, often a sacrifice or the eating of a sacrificed animal, is part of ratifying the covenant.

How does the covenant that the Lord makes here with Abraham fit that model? We see the Lord covenant with Abraham at least three times, in Genesis 12 (Abraham 1), Genesis 15, and here. Are these three different covenants or a repetition of the same covenant?

Verse 3: Why did Abraham fall on his face? What does that act imply?

Verses 4-9: Why might the Lord have changed Abram’s name to Abraham? (Verse 5) “Abram” means “exalted or lofty father.” Given Hebrew naming conventions, most scholars believe that means “the Father is exalted” rather than “Abram is an exalted father.” The name “Abraham” means “father of many.” In your own words, what does verse 7 promise Abraham? What does the promise of verse 8 mean today?

Comments to this post can be made at Feast Upon the Word.

Verse 9:

The Hebrew of Genesis 5:29 shows us that Noah’s name means “rest.” How does his father, Lamech, explain the name? Is Noah’s name significant to the story of the flood?

Verses 19-21: Why don’t the people listen to Noah? What do the things they say about themselves tell us about them? (Compare verse 21 to verse 14.) Why does what they say focus on marriage and children? How is what they say a reply to Moses’ message of repentance? Do we see anything here about how they understand what it means to have dominion?

Verse 22: Compare this verse to what God says of creation (e.g., Moses 2:10, 31). What has happened to creation? How has it happened?

Verse 23-24: What does Noah promise the people of the earth if they will repent? How is the reception of the Holy Ghost a blessing?

Verses 25-26: Why does the Lord decide to destroy the earth? In Genesis 6:6 the Lord says of human beings: “It repent me that I have made them.” The comparable verse of Moses (8:26) says “It repenteth Noah that I have created them.” What is the significance of that difference? Is it just a matter of Moses giving us a better version of the story, or is there a difference in what the two versions are telling us?

Verse 27: What does it mean to be just? What does it mean that Noah was “perfect in his generation”? What does it mean to walk with God? We find the same phrase, “just man, and perfect in his generation,” (with the plural of “generation” rather than the singular in Genesis 6:9).

In Genesis 6:9 the word translated “just” is a translation of the Hebrew word tsaddiq and the word translated “perfect” is a translation of the Hebrew word tamim. Tsaddiq is often translated “righteous” (as in Psalms 145:17 and Proverbs 13:25). The verb form of the word is used to speak of judgment: a judge must judge according to the truth, honestly and impartially. The Old Testament has a great deal to say about the tsaddiq. For examples, see Job 29:12-15, 31:31-32; Psalms 37:21, 72:1-2; Proverbs 14:34; and Malachi 3:18. Tamim, “perfect,” is most often translated as “without blemish,” but it is also translated as “whole,” “sound,” and “upright.” One translator (Nehama Leibowitz) translates the word “whole-hearted.” Its root meaning is “whole,” as is the root meaning of our word “integrity.” To be tamim is to have integrity. In Genesis, Hebrew the word corresponding to “generation” in this verse means “the circle of a person’s life, from birth to death.”

Some take the declaration that Noah was perfect in his generation to mean that he was righteous his whole life. Some understand it to mean that he had become righteous. Still others take it to mean that he was righteous in comparison to the other inhabitants of the earth. Which do you think is more likely, or do you have an alternative way of understanding this description of Noah? Why?

Verses 28-30: In verse 29, does “all flesh” mean “all human beings” or does it mean “all living things”? What does it mean to say that the earth was corrupt? That it was filled with violence? Where did that violence begin? What has been the outcome of Cain’s covenant with Satan?

Another translation of the word translated “corrupt” in the corresponding verse of Genesis (Genesis 6:11) is “destroyed.” Does that suggest anything about why the Lord agreed to destroy all flesh from the earth?

Compare Ezekiel 33:11. Does that verse suggest anything about what happened at the time of Noah?

Genesis 6

Verse 12: Notice that Genesis says “all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth,” and Moses says “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth” (italics added). What do you make of that difference?

Verse 14-16: How is the ark a symbol of salvation? (See 1 Peter 3:20-22.) What does the story of Noah have to teach us today?

Verse 17: Notice how this verse is a kind of mirror image of the creation. In the creation, the Lord gave the breath of life to all things. Here he takes it away from them.

Verse 18: What covenant does the Lord establish with Noah? Why does he use the word “establish” rather than “make”?

This difference isn’t only an artifact of translation. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used here, like the English word “establish,” means “to cause to stand.”

Verse 22: Why did the writer include this verse? Why does it end by repeating “so did he”?

Genesis 7

Verses 1-5: Though not a word-for-word repetition, these verses closely repeat what was said in Genesis 6:17-22. Notice that verses 7-9 repeat the information again. Why these repetitions?

Verses 20-23: Eden was a well-watered place (Genesis 2:10-14; Moses 3:10-14) and the creation as described in Genesis 1 and Moses 2 begins with water. Water is central to both the creation and the destruction of the earth. So what?

Genesis 8

Verse 1: How was Noah like Adam? (Does Genesis 9:1 compare the two? Compare that verse to Genesis 1:28) What does it mean to be remembered by God?

The Hebrew word translated “remembered” in this verse can be used to refer to recollection (e.g., Psalms 137:1) and to meditation on something (e.g., Job 21:6-7). When used in reference to people, it often implies action, as in Numbers 15:40 and Ezekiel 6:9.

Verse 4: The ark “rested.” Is it a coincidence that Noah’s name means “rest”? Is it significant that the ark came to rest on the seventh month? on the seventeenth day? If not, why are we told the day and the month? It has been exactly five months since the flood began (Genesis 7:11). Is that relevant to understanding this story?

Verse 5: Three events are dated in this story: the rains begin (7:11), the ark comes to rest (8:2), and the tops of the mountains appear (8:5). Is it a coincidence that the dry land appeared on the third day of creation (1:9)?

Verses 7-14: Why do you think Moses spends so much time telling us about Noah waiting for the waters to abate?

Notice the pun on Noah’s name that occurs in this verse: the dove found no rest (noah) for her foot, so she went back to Noah. Why are biblical writers so fond of puns and word play?

Umberto Cassuto argues that the date given in verse 13 for when Noah exited the ark tells us that, from the first rains until Noah stepped out on dry land, the Flood lasted exactly 365 days, one year. Is that relevant to our understanding of the story?

Verses 17-19: Notice the similarity between this and the creation story. What is the point of that similarity?

Verses 20-22: What does it mean to say “the Lord smelled a sweet savor”?

The Hebrew word translated “sweet” in the KJV could also be translated “soothing” or “restful.” It is another pun on Noah’s name.

Does this verse show us the Lord changing his mind? If not, what is he doing? Why does verse 21 tell us that the Lord said what he said “in his heart”? The Lord told Adam that the ground was cursed for his sake (Genesis 3:17; Moses 4:23). What does it mean when he says “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake”? Does it mean that the Adamic curse of the earth was lifted? How does the fact that man’s heart is evil from his youth explain that the Lord won’t curse the earth any more (verse 21)?

Genesis 9

Verses 1-7: Why does the Lord twice repeat the original commandment to “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth” (verses 1 and 7)? The Lord commanded Adam to subdue the earth. Why doesn’t he repeat that commandment here? Why was eating meat first not allowed (Genesis 1:29) and now allowed (verses 2-4)? Does that have anything to do with the dominion that Adam was given? Does comparing this to other commandments we have been given and that were then retracted (such as the Law of Consecration) help explain what may have happened? Why is Noah forbidden to eat blood? What does blood symbolize and when we refrain from eating blood what might we remember? What does it mean to say “your blood of your lives will I require” (verse 5)? Does what follows in verse 5 explain that phrase? Does the concluding clause of verse 6 explain why we shouldn’t kill another (because the other person is made in the image of God) or does it explain why the judge has the right to impose the death penalty (because he is made in the image of God and, so, has the power to deal out divine punishment)? In Genesis 1, only the fish were told to “bring forth abundantly” or “swarm.” Now human beings are also told to do so (verse 6). Why might that be added to the commandment to be fruitful and multiply?

Verses 8-17: Why was this covenant necessary? What purpose does it serve? Why is the rainbow a particularly appropriate token of the Lord’s covenant never to destroy the earth by water again? Is the fact that it is a bow significant? What light does Isaiah 54:9 shed on the covenant and the meaning of the rainbow? What does it mean to us?

Verses 18-23: What is the import of “and Noah began to be an husbandman” (verse 20)? Is there a parallel here with Adam?

Another translation of the phrase “began to be an husbandman and planted” is “master of the earth was the first.” In the alternate translation “Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard” becomes “Noah, master of the earth, was the first to plant a vineyard.” Suppose that translation is better. How does it change our understanding of the text?

Verse 21 gives us the ground for everything that follows, but the writer says no more than absolutely necessary about what happened. Why do you think that the writer may have been so terse in this verse? Notice that the same is true of verse 22. Some have speculated that Ham’s sin was of a incestuous homosexual nature, but there is no textual evidence for such a claim. What is the sin of Ham? Notice the difference between the amount of language used in verse 23 and that used in verses 21-22. What might the point of such comparatively expansive language be? Why, for example, do you think “their father’s nakedness” is repeated twice?

Verses 24-25: Perhaps the most difficult question in these verses is “Why does Noah curse Canaan, the son of Ham, rather than Ham?” (Verse 25). Or does the word “Canaan” refer to Ham’s son? When the sons’ names were mentioned previously, they were Shem, Ham, and Japhet. Here they seem to be Shem, Canaan, and Japhet. What are we to make of that difference? In verse 25 the curse is that Canaan will be “a servant of servants.” In contemporary English, the Hebrew word translated “servant” would be translated “slave.” Does this mean that he will be the slave of other slaves? Or is the phrase suggesting that he will be the lowliest of slaves?

Verses 26-27: How might this verse change our understanding of what has just happened? Noah blesses the name of God, “the God of Shem,” and repeats that Ham will be “his” servant. To whom does “his” refer? To “God” or to “Shem”? If it refers to Shem, is it significant that his servitude is mentioned in the context of praising God? Does verse 27 help us answer those questions?

Genesis 11

Verses 1-9: How is this similar to what we saw happening with Adam’s descendants before Noah? What does that repetition of events suggest? (Refer back to what the Lord says of human beings in Genesis 8:21.) Does the decision to give themselves a name (verse 4) suggest anything about their problem? Why do they want to give themselves a name? How do we try to give ourselves a name? What are they trying to avoid and why are they worried about it? What does having a common language allow people to do? What does a language barrier help prevent? In other words, what problem is the Lord dealing with in these verses and why is the confounding of the language a solution to that problem? (Compare Isaiah 2:12-18.)

To comment on this post, go to Feast Upon the Word.

0 people like this post.

Like 

As always, remember that these are questions for studying the reading assigned more than for planning the lesson itself. Even then, you are certainly going to find more questions here than you can deal with in one study session, though not, perhaps, more than you can deal with in a week.

However, that said, the lesson itself has turned out to be more than I could deal with in a week. I had most of the lesson revised by Sunday evening and thought I would be able to finish adding material for chapter 7 by Tuesday or Wednesday. I was wrong, so I’m posting the materials incomplete. Perhaps next time around.

Chapter 5 

Verses 1-2: How do these verses connect to the story we learned in Moses 4? Given what we studied in the last lesson, what is the point of the last sentence of verse 1? Does verse 2 suggest anything about how the Old Testament prophets understand knowledge? They aren’t squeamish about discussing things that we often would rather not talk about, so it is difficult to think that the use of the word “knew” is just a euphemism. But if it isn’t a euphemism, then how did Moses and other writers of the Old Testament understand what it means to know something? Does that have any implication for what we mean when we say things like “I know the Church is true?”

Verse 16: Verses 2 and 12 refer to many children before Moses says anything about Cain. Were there children before Cain and Abel or was Cain the first child of Adam and Eve? If the latter, how do you explain verses 2 and 12? The name “Cain” seems to mean something like “one who makes.” Another translation of what Eve says when she names Cain (Genesis 4:1) is “I have created a man with the Lord.” What is the significance of his name? Does it say anything about what Eve may have learned from her experience in the Garden? What does Cain mean by the word “know” when he asks, “Who is the Lord that I should know him?” How do we know the Lord? How do we refuse to know him?

Verse 17: The name “Abel,” “breath,” is often used to speak of the brevity of life. (See, for example, Psalm 144:4, where it is translated “vanity.”) But what might Eve have meant by using that name? (Or did, perhaps, Adam and Eve rename him after his murder?) The word Eve uses here is not the same as the word translated “breath” in Genesis 2:7 (Moses 3:7), but might she have been making a connection anyway? What is significant about the fact that Abel kept sheep and Cain tilled the ground? And, since prior to Noah, it appears that people were forbidden to eat meat (see Genesis 9:3-4, where the prohibition appears to be lifted), why would Abel keep sheep? Is Cain—here— in any sense a type of Adam since he tills the ground as Adam was commanded to do?

Verse 18: How does Moses show us that Cain loved Satan more than God? Is the love of God or of Satan something that is only a matter of our inner thoughts and feelings? How do we judge the validity of those thoughts and feelings? Is Cain different than the rest of Adam’s children in this regard? (Compare verse 13.)

Verses 19-20: What does the phrase “in the process of time” tell us? If you look carefully at the way the two offerings are described, do you see any differences between them besides, of course, that they offered different things? Why did the Lord not have regard for Cain’s offering? How does the Lord choosing one offering over the other square with the scriptures that tell us God is no respecter of persons? Or ask the same question another way: What does the fact that God is no respecter of persons tell us about Abel’s and Cain’s offerings?

Verse 21: How did Cain know that the Lord had no regard for his offering?

Verses 22-25: Is the Lord rebuking Cain in the verse 22 and the first part of 23? What alternative does he lay out for Cain in the beginning of verse 23? Why does he spend so much time expanding on the second alternative? (He explains that in the rest of verse 23, and in verses 24 and 25.) What does it mean to do well? What does it mean to be accepted? What does it mean to say that sin is lying at the door? What does it mean to say that Satan has someone? What does this mean “it shall be unto thee according to his desire”? What does it mean to say that Cain will rule over sin? In what way can Cain be said to be the father of Satan’s lies? Notice that the corresponding verse of Genesis (Genesis 4:7) says that Satan’s desires will be to Cain and Cain will rule over him, echoing the words used to describe the relation of Eve to Adam (Genesis 3:16). What might this parallel indicate to us? The word “perdition”?means “utter destruction.” Why does the Lord give Cain that name and why does he add “for thou wast also before the world” after giving that name to him? Why is what the Lord describes in verse 25 a curse? What is so bad about having people say, “These abominations were had from Cain”? How can Cain avoid this curse?

Verses 26-28: What do these verses tell us about Adam and Eve? About their family? Do you think that Satan might have believed that his attempt to thwart God’s plan was succeeding? Might he think the same thing today? What reason do we have to believe that he is not succeeding?

Verses 29-30: Why does Satan have Cain swear by his throat? Why do his brothers swear by their heads? Why does Satan have Cain and his brothers swear “by the living God”? What is Satan imitating? Why? Notice that Satan is always imitating God. We saw his imitation of God in the story of the temptation and fall. And we see it here: In the Garden, knowledge brought death; here too knowledge (revealing these things) brings death. But the death brought is different in each case, as is the knowledge. The former is a knowledge of good and evil; Satan gives them only a knowledge of evil. From whom does Satan want to keep these oaths secret? Why? Why is “I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands” a promise that can tempt Cain? What does it show us about Cain?

Verse 31: Why is the fact that one can get gain by murder a “great secret”? Isn’t it an obvious fact of the world that we can, if we wish, get gain by murder? What does it mean to be the master of a secret? The footnote suggests that the word “Mahan” may mean “mind,” “destroyer,” or “great one,” but I couldn’t find anything to support that other than the footnote (which says more about me than about the footnote). The closest thing I could find that might be relevant was “macha,” meaning “to strike,” or “machah,” meaning “to wipe out, destroy.” Of what is murdering for gain a type? What are some of the ways we participate in this type, even though few of us murder in a literal sense?

Verses 32-33: Why does Moses say “Abel, his brother” when we already know that Abel is Cain’s brother? What does Cain mean when he says “I am free”? Free from what? Free to do what? What does getting his brother’s flocks have to do with being free? Is his statement in this verse related to what he asked earlier: “Who is the Lord that I should know him?”

Verse 34: Why does the Lord ask Cain where Abel is when he already knows what has happened? How does the Lord’s question in this verse compare to his question in Genesis 3:9 and Moses 4:15? How does Cain’s answer differ from his parent’s answers? The question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” means “Am I supposed to guard him, keep watch over, or care for him?” Is Cain asking whether he is supposed to be, for Abel, a shepherd, as Abel was for his flocks? What is Cain denying with his question?

Verses 35-37: Cain is the first person to be cursed. The serpent was cursed (Moses 4:20) and the ground was cursed (Moses 4:23), but Adam and Eve were not cursed. The word “curse” does not appear in what the Lord says to them, and the language that he uses doesn’t have the form of a curse. How is Cain’s curse—that the earth that has received his brother’s blood will not give its strength to him—different from what the Lord told Adam about the need for him to farm (Moses 4:23-25)? What does it mean that Cain was a fugitive and a vagabond?

Verses 38-41: Is Cain still rebellious in verse 38 or does he recognize the enormity of his sin? Cain blames at least two people. Who are they? Is he telling the truth in either case? In verse 39, why does Cain repeat the curse that the Lord has given? What is he afraid of in verse 39? Why does he add “for these things are not hid from the Lord” at the end of that verse? That clause begins with the word “for,” indicating that the clause explains something. What does it explain? Why would anyone want to kill Cain? Why does the Lord make the promise to Cain that he makes in verse 40? Why does the Lord say he will punish anyone who kills Cain seven times more than he will punish Cain? It doesn’t seem just to punish someone else more for committing the same sin. What does the Lord mean? What does it mean to be shut out from the presence of the Lord? How is what happened to Cain different than what happened to Adam and Eve when they were cast out of the Garden?

Verses 47-55: Why did Lamech kill Irad, his great-grandfather? Why do you think the Lord calls Cain’s secret a “secret combination”? Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “combination” this way: “intimate union, or association of two or more persons or things, by set purpose or agreement, for effecting some object, by joint operation.” Does that add to your understanding of the phrase “secret combination”? What does it mean to say “they knew every man his brother”? Notice the irony: the secret combination is spread, not only by those who have taken part in that combination, but by busybodies (perhaps Irad?) and by those who despise the combination and its members, by those who do not have compassion on the members of the combination (e.g., by Adah and Zillah). What might this say to us about our own lives? Are there secret combinations that we spread as did Adah and Zillah?

Verses 56-59, especially 59: What things were confirmed to Adam? In other words, to what does “all these things” refer? How does a holy ordinance confirm such things? If there has been apostasy at various times during the history of the earth, what does it mean to say that it was decreed during the time of Adam that the Gospel should be “in the world, until the end thereof”? Wasn’t the Gospel removed from the earth between the time of the Great Apostasy and the Restoration (as well as between other dispensations)? What do these verses tell us that we need to know?

Chapter 6

Verse 1: Doesn’t verse 1 fit better as the end of chapter 5 than as the beginning of chapter 6? (The division in Genesis is more like that.) Why or why not? (Remember, however, that the chapter divisions in the Bible don’t denote divisions in the original text. I am not sure what they denote in Moses. In other words, I’m not sure how Joseph Smith dealt with the chapter divisions of the Bible when he worked on his inspired revision.)

Verses 2-4: The name “Seth” means “appointed one” or “established one.” How is that relevant in the context of the immediately preceding story of Cain and Abel? Genesis 4:26 tells us “then [at the time of Seth] began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” Verse 4 of this chapter tells us “then began these men to call upon the name of the Lord.” How does the understanding of Moses 6:4 differ from that of Genesis 4:26? So what?

Verses 5-6: The verb “recorded” is normally transitive, but it isn’t used that way in verse 5. It has no object. What was recorded in Adam’s book of remembrance? Why does the verse specify that the book of remembrance was kept “in the language of Adam”? Was there another language it could have been recorded in? Do we have anything comparable to Adam’s book of remembrance? What does it mean to have a pure and undefiled language? Or, the other way to put the question, what does it mean to have a language that is not pure and undefiled? How might our language be impure or defiled? What would the consequences of the impurity and defilement of language be?

Verses 7: Why does verse 7 refer to “this same Priesthood” when the priesthood has not yet been mentioned? How is the existence of the priesthood in both the beginning and the end of the world relevant to Adam’s book of remembrance, the subject of the previous as well as of the subsequent verses?

Verses 8-9: What prophecy does the beginning of verse 8 refer to? What are we to make of the end of verse 8 and all of verse 9? Is this what the book of remembrance said?

Verses 10-21, 24-25: Why are the facts about how long people lived part of scripture? Is there any way that they can help point us toward belief in Christ and salvation?

Verse 15: How does this verse explain bloodshed and war? When does it say that bloodshed and war began? We can understand how seeking for power causes human beings to kill one another. How do “secret works” do so? Does “secret works” mean the same as “secret combinations,” or does it include more?

Verse 22: The Church does not accept the Adam-God theory, so how do we explain “Adam, who was the son of God”? How is it relevant that Adam conversed with God? When did those conversations occur?

Verse 23: To whom does “they” refer in the beginning of the verse? What does it mean to say “faith was taught unto the children of men” (my italics)? Why “faith” rather than “the gospel”?

Verses 26-30: In verse 26, what does it mean to say that the Spirit of God abode on Enoch? Consider the metaphors in verse 27: hearts that have waxed (i.e., grown) hard, ears that cannot hear well, nearsighted eyes. Notice that he does not speak of them being completely deaf or blind. What do these three metaphors suggest about the people to whom Enoch has been called to preach? Is the Lord using hyperbole when he says that humanity has gone astray “ever since the day that I created them”? What does “have sought their own counsels in the dark” mean (verse 28, my italics)? What does it mean to foreswear oneself (verse 29)? How have they brought death on themselves? Which death? To what decree is the Lord referring in verse 30?

Verse 31: Enoch has heard the Lord but seems not to have seen him. (However, see verse 42, which suggests he might have.) So what can it mean to say that he “bowed himself to the earth, before the Lord”? What does it mean to be slow of speech? Why would the Lord choose a prophet who is slow of speech when speaking is such an important part of his calling? (Compare Exodus 4:10; 2 Nephi 3:17.) Paraphrased in contemporary English, the last clause of this verse asks, “For what reason am I your servant?” What point is Enoch making with his question? Is it unrighteous of Enoch to argue with God in this way? Do other prophets ever argue with him? Can we argue with him? What do you make of the fact that in this verse Enoch says, “I am but a lad,” though in verse 25 we were told that Enoch was sixty-five when Methuselah was born. Has the story backed up in time? What is the relation between the genealogy in verses 10-25?

Verses 32-34: What does the Lord mean when he promises Enoch “no man shall pierce thee”? Why does the Lord add “for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good” to his promise to fill Enoch’s mouth? Why the emphasis on choice in verse 33? Why refer to the Lord as their Creator rather than, perhaps, their Savior or their Redeemer? In verse 34, what is the Lord promising when he promises to justify Enoch’s words? What is the point of the promise that the mountains will flee and the rivers will turn their courses before Enoch? What does it mean to abide in—to reside in—the Lord? What does it mean for him to abide in us? Given the things that the Lord has just said to Enoch, what is he saying when he commands him, “Walk with me”?

Verses 35-36: What is the relationship between verse 35 and John 9:6-7? What does verse 36 tell us when it says that Enoch “beheld the spirits that God had created”? The spirits of those on the earth with him at that time? Other spirits? How does this verse explain what it means to be a prophet, seer, and revelator? What is the significance of Enoch “standing upon the hills and high places” (verse 37)?

Verse 38: This is a strange verse. Why does it bother to mention the tent-keepers? What do the people mean when they refer to Enoch as a wild man?

Verses 39-40: What do Mahijah’s questions reveal about Enoch?

Verses 41-42: Where was the land of Cainan? From what Enoch says, those in the land of Cainan were not unrighteous. To whom, then, was he preaching?

Verses 43-46: What is the theme of Enoch’s preaching in verses 43-44? Why is that theme an important part of his message? How do you explain verse 45? Surely those to whom he speaks know that people die. What does he mean when he says “nevertheless, we know them”? What is it that he cannot deny? What is he telling them when he says that his people know “the first of all, [.?.?.] even Adam”?

Verse 47: Why would they have been unable to stand in Enoch’s presence?

Verses 48-52: Compare verse 48 to 2 Nephi 2:25. Both agree that Adam’s fall made it possible for us to be, but what they say after that is quite different. What do you make of that difference? Does verse 49 teach us that to be carnal, sensual, and devilish is to worship Satan? Notice that Satan chose to be shut out from the presence of God and he tempts us to make the same choice. The message in verses 50-52 is the familiar message of the gospel: all must repent, turn to God and believe, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Does anything in this particular version of that message stand out? If so, what does it teach us?

Verse 53: Adam asks why people must be baptized. How is what the Lord says in the second half of the verse an answer to that question?

Verse 54: This verse begins with “hence,” which tells us that what verse 54 tells us about is the result of what we learned in verse 53. Can you explain how the saying that went abroad among the people (concerning the Atonement and the guilt of children) is the result of what we see in verse 53, the Lord forgiving Adam and Eve’s transgression?

Verse 55: Given what we have just seen in the previous verse, what does it mean to say that children are conceived in sin? Of what significance is it that sin conceives in their heart only when they grow up? How do you reconcile being conceived in sin, on the one hand, with conceiving sin in one’s heart only when one begins to grow up? Does this verse teach that we may taste the bitter only if sin has conceived in our hearts?

Verses 56-57: Here is a paraphrase of one theme in these verses: human beings are agents to themselves and I have given them commandment that all people must repent if they wish to inherit the kingdom of God. How are these two connected? Does the “and” in verse 56 suggest a causal connection between the two? How should we understand the statement that the name of the Father is “Man of Holiness”? Is that one of his names or his most important name or something else?

Verses 58-61: Notice that this is one complex sentence. If you have the time and the skill, it would be informative to outline the sentence in some way. (You need not use the outlining system that some were taught in school. All that is necessary is to find some way of showing how the various parts of the sentence are related to each other.) Doing so will help you understand better how its parts relate to one another, and it will allow you to see what the main point of these verses is. Verse 57 and verse 58 begin in essentially the same way. Are they two different ways of saying the same thing, with verse 57 being an overview of verses 58-61? How do you understand the obvious parallel that verse 59 makes between the blood, water, and spirit of birth, on the one hand, and the blood, water, and spirit of rebirth? What kinds of things does that parallel suggest? Grammatically, the phrase, “that ye might be sanctified from sin,” refers back to something that has come before it: “x happens so that you can be sanctified.” Does it refer to “ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven” or to both that and “by reason of transgression cometh the fall . . . and so became of dust a living soul”? How do you explain the content of verse 60? What does it mean to say that we keep the commandment by water? What does it mean to say that we are justified by the Spirit? What is justification? What does it mean to say that we are sanctified by the blood? What is sanctification? To what does “it” refer in the clause “therefore, it is given to abide in you” (verse 61)? Is the semi-colon that follows “abide in you” an antique usage? Would it be a colon in contemporary usage, with the list of what abides following? What is “the record of heaven” in this context? What are “the peaceable things of immortal glory”? There are two ways to read the phrase “the truth of all things,” as meaning “how all entities are true” or as meaning “the truth that encompasses all things.” Are there other possible meanings? What do you think this phrase means here? Why? How would that truth abide in us? What quickens all things and makes them alive? In fact, in what sense are all things alive? How can what quickens all things abide in us? What does it mean to say that which quickens all things has all wisdom “according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment”?

Verse 62: The verse says “this is the plan of salvation.” To what does “this” refer here, something already said or something to come?

Verse 63: What does it mean to say that all things have their likeness? Does this have anything to do with Moses 2:26? Is there perhaps more to the list of “all things” than a poetic expansion of that phrase?

Verses 64-68: How does the phrase “became quickened in the inner man” (verse 65) help us understand what it means to be born of the Spirit? When are we born of the Spirit? Is it always when we are given the Gift of the Holy Ghost? What does it mean to say that Adam’s baptism and birth of the Holy Spirit “is the record of the Father, and the Son” (verse 66)? Is verse 67 a record of Adam’s ordination? What is it that has made Adam one in Father (verse 68)? When we speak of ourselves as sons and daughters of God, do we mean the same thing that is meant here when Adam is called a “son of God”? Why or why not? Verse 68 ends by telling us “thus may all become my sons.” The word “thus” tells us that we have seen how that is possible. It usually refers to something specific. To what in this reading do you think it refers?

Chapter 7

Verse 1: What does it mean to believe and to become a son or daughter of God? Have we seen that happen already? How did it happen? If we haven’t seen it happen, have we seen it explained? Where?

Verses 2-10: Why is it so important for us to have this prophecy that it was restored through a latter-day prophet? How is this prophecy relevant to us? The Lord tells Enoch that he will show him “the world for the space of many generations” (verse 4). Then he shows him the people of Shum and Canaan and the lands of Sharon, Enoch, Omner, Heni, Shem, Haner, and Hanannihah, with their people. What does this suggest about what the word “world” means in this case? In verse 10 we find the Lord’s threat against those who do not repent, but the wording is unusual. The phrase “come and smite” occurs 6 times in scripture, but the phrase, “come out and smite” occurs only here. Does that difference in wording make any difference to the meaning?

Verse 11: The members of the Godhead are one in will and purpose. Yet a distinction of some kind is made in ths verse: the Father and the Son are full of grace and truth; the Holy Ghost bears record of them. What do you make of that distinction?

Verse 12: Why didn’t Enoch call the people of Canaan to repentance?

Verses 13-15: What is going on here? What do we learn? What did Enoch’s people learn? What did Enoch learn?

Verse 16: What does “the Lord came and dwelt with his people” mean? Does he dwell with us?

Verse 17: What does it mean to say that the people “were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places”?

Verse 18: We often quote this verse as a description of Zion (but sometimes we quote only the first of the three attributes mentioned): of one heart and mind, dwelt in righteousness, and there were no poor among them. Can you explain concretely what each of those attributes means for us?

Verses 19-24: Why is the record of Zion being taken into heaven (verse 21) preceded by “in process of time”? What is that telling us? Verse 22 has sometimes been used to justify the belief that black Africans are “the seed of Cain,” causing much offense. How would you explain what this verse means?

Verses 25-66: One might easily say that this is a vision of all things. Why would the Lord give Enoch such a vision, particularly when Enoch would no longer be on the earth? Why is it important for us to know about Enoch’s vision?

Verses 25-27: Is this a description of a particular period in human history, or is it a description of the pattern of all human history?

Verses 28-37: Why is Enoch surprised to learn that God weeps? How does God explain his weeping?

Responses to this post should be made at Feast Upon the Word.

These notes focus on Moses 4, giving less attention to the other scriptures for this lesson. However, the other readings are necessary to understanding chapter 4. (The study questions for Moses 4:1-4 were part of the materials for lesson 2. I repeat them here so that they will be convenient.)

Note that if Moses 2 tells of the spiritual creation (as is commonly but not universally believed among Latter-day Saints), then chapters 3 and 4 correspond to Moses 2:24-30, the sixth day. That would mean that carrying out the physical aspect of each day’s creation involved considerably more than we see explained in Moses 2.

Moses 4

Verse 1: Why does the Lord say “that Satan,” using a demonstrative pronoun, rather than just “Satan”? Perhaps knowing what the word satan means will explain why the Lord refers to this being as “that Satan.” (How would we find the meaning of the word satan?) The Lord’s reference to Moses commanding Satan takes us back to Moses 1:13-15. Why is that reminder here? What does it mean to say that Satan was with the Father from the beginning? Compare the offer, “I will be thy son,” with what happens in Moses 1:19 and 5:13. What do we see? Why does Satan say “I will be thy son” rather than “I am thy son?” Isn’t he already a son of God? Does D&C 29:36 shed any light on why Satan’s request, “Give my thine honor,” was wrong? Do we ever try to assume the honor of God? If so, how?

Verse 2: What do you make of the difference between the way that the Father describes Satan in the previous verse and the way he describes Christ in this verse: “my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning” compared to “the same which was from the beginning”? Does that tell us anything about what Satan was suggesting in the previous verse?

Verse 3: When did Satan rebel? Have we seen that happen yet? If so, where? If not, why does the Lord speak of it here in the past tense? What do you make of the difference between the way Satan describes his plan—”I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost”—and the way the Father describes his plan: “Satan . . . sought to destroy the agency of man”? According to the scriptures, what is agency? (See 2 Nephi 2:16, 23, 27; Romans 8:2.)

Verse 4: What does it mean to say “he became Satan” (my emphasis)? The answer to the question about the meaning of the word satan may also be the answer to this question. Why is “father of all lies” such a descriptive title for Satan? (Remember this name for him when we study the story of Adam and Eve.) What does it mean to say that those who follow him will be led “captive at his will”? What does it mean to say that those who follow Satan are those who will not hearken to God’s voice? What makes a person a follower of Satan? How does one avoid being one?

Verse 5: What does it mean to say that the serpent was subtle?

Another translation of the Hebrew word used at the corresponding verse in Genesis is “cunning” or “shrewd.” What does it mean to say that the serpent is cunning?

How do we see his subtlety or cunning in this story?

If we look at the language in Genesis, we see a play on words in Hebrew that shows a connection between Moses 3:25 and this verse: the word translated “naked” is spelled almost exactly the same as the word translated subtle. It even appears that the writer has gone out of his way to make that play on words, that it isn’t an accident. What do you make of that connection? What is Moses trying to do by connecting these two verses and the ideas represented by “naked,” on the one hand, and “subtle,” on the other?

Verse 6: What did Satan put in the heart of the serpent? Who are the many that Satan had drawn after him? What does it mean to say that Satan didn’t know the mind of God? What is the connection between not knowing God’s mind and seeking to destroy the world?

Verse 7: Another translation of Satan’s question is, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’” Why does he begin with a question? What kinds of things does Satan insinuate with his question?

Verses 8-9: Why does the woman emphasize that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in the middle of the Garden? How is its position relevant to our understanding? Why does the woman add to the prohibition? (Compare this verse to Moses 3:16-17 to see what she has added.) Is it significant that the prohibition was given to Adam before the woman was created?

Verses 10-11: What is the serpent saying when he says, “Ye shall not surely die”? What kind of doubt is he trying to plant?

The Hebrew of Genesis 3:4 is ambiguous. It could mean either “It is not certain that you will die” or “It is certain that you will not die,” though the first one is probably best. Why do you think the serpent speaks ambiguously here?

What ambiguity in the meaning of die is the serpent playing on? What meanings can it have other than physical death? Notice that the serpent’s words in verse 11 are almost exactly the same as those of the Lord in verse 22. What things does The serpent prophesy? Notice that each of them comes true. What, then, is the serpent’s lie? What motive does he ascribe to the Father? In other words, how are these verses an example of the fact that Satan is “the father of all lies” (verse 4) when there is a sense in which what he says here is true?

Verse 12: What is the point of the series that Eve goes through before we get to the phrase “did eat”? What does the woman see when she looks at the tree that she didn’t see before? What makes her think that the fruit is good to eat? Why is it good to eat? What does it mean that it is pleasant to the eyes? What is the woman doing in making these observations?

In Genesis 3:6, the Hebrew word translated wise is sakal. It means “to understand, to have insight” and also “to prosper.”

Notice that the writer begins with a lengthy introduction, but that the clause describing what she does is terse: “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” What effect does this contrast create? Why does the writer add “with her” to the phrase, “gave also unto her husband”? What does that “with her” add to the meaning? (Compare Genesis 6:18, 7:7, and 13:1 for similar uses of with.)

Verse 13: The serpent had said that their eyes would be opened and they are. What does it mean that their eyes were opened? Are our eyes opened? If they aren’t, what would it mean for them to be opened? What do the Man and the Woman see when they open their eyes? Is it what they expected? What does it mean to say they knew they were naked? Did they think before that they had on clothing? Nakedness plays an important role in the account from Moses 3:25 to here. It is an important theme or symbol. Why is nakedness important to what is being said? How is it important? What does nakedness have to do with a knowledge of good and evil? Can nakedness be thought of as a type? Of what kinds of things might that nakedness be a symbol? If you were naked, how effective would an apron be as a covering? What might their sewing of aprons rather than fuller clothing tell us? Of what might it be a type?

Verse 14: Why is the Lord God walking in the Garden? Does it seem that this is a customary thing to do?

Word Biblical Commentary (page 76) notes that the verb translated walking here is later used to describe God’s presence in the tabernacle (e.g., Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:15; and 2 Samuel 7:6-7). What is the connection between the Garden of Eden and the tabernacle?

Is the time of day that the Lord returned to the Garden significant? If so, how so? Why did Adam and the Woman hide? Why does it say they hid “from the presence of the LORD God” (my emphasis) rather than they hid “from the LORD God”? What might the word presence indicate? Is their any significance to the fact that they hid among the trees after they ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, or is that just a coincidence? If it is a coincidence, why does the wording so closely duplicate the earlier wording: tree, midst, garden? Moses could have just said they hid in the bushes. In other words, what does the narrator do by using the wording he uses here, wording that reminds of us earlier verses?

Verse 15: In Genesis the Lord God calls to Adam, asking “Where art thou?” (That call is much like his call to Abel in Genesis 4:9: “Where is Abel your brother?”) In Moses he asks “Where goest thou?” What is the difference, and does that difference make any difference? Notice that the Lord doesn’t just call out “Where are you?” He speaks to Adam when he asks the question. He obviously knows where Adam and Eve are, and we know he knows not only because he is the Lord and knows everything, but because the writer goes out of his way to make it clear that the Lord knows when he points out that the Lord spoke to Adam. So, why does the Lord ask this question? What is the Lord doing by asking? When does the Lord ask us where we are or where we are going?

Verse 16: Does Adam answer the question asked? If not, why not? What does Adam’s answer reveal about what Adam is doing? Doesn’t he understand that his answer is in itself a kind of confession of what has happened? If Adam doesn’t answer the question asked, what question is he answering? Compare Adam’s answer to the answers given by prophets in similar situations: Genesis 22:1, 7, and 11; 31:11; and 46:2; Exodus 3:4; 1 Samuel 3:4, 5, 6, 8, and 16; Isaiah 58:9; 2 Nephi 16:8; Moses 4:1; and Abraham 3:27. What might the difference between Adam’s answer and the answers given in those other places indicate about what is happening here?

Verse 17: Notice that the Lord asks two questions. What is the answer to the first? What is the answer to the second? Notice, again, the emphasis on nakedness. How does Moses 4:18 differ from Genesis 3:12? What do you make of that difference?

Verse 18: Which question does Adam answer? Why doesn’t he answer the other one? What did you say the answer to the second question in verse 11 was? How does that answer differ from Adam’s answer? Does he really answer the second question? Adam seems to be blaming here. Is he? If he is, who is he blaming? Is it only the Woman? What difference does it make that Moses 3:18 has “commandest that she should remain with me” and Genesis 4:11 has only “to be with me”?

Verse 19: Since the Lord has already heard from Adam what the Woman did, why does he ask her? How is the Woman’s answer like Adam’s? What does “beguiled” mean? (Looking in a dictionary is a good idea, but seeing how it is used in other scriptures may also give you a better sense of what “beguiled” means in the scriptures. Take a look at Genesis 29:25, Numbers 25:18, Joshua 9:22, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 2:4 and 18, 2 Peter 2:14, 2 Nephi 9:9, Mosiah 16:3, Ether 8:25, and Moses 4:6 and 19.) Have Adam and the Woman done something wrong? After all, Moses 5:10-11 shows that it was good that these things (as a whole) happened. If they did do something wrong, what? Could they have accomplished the same ends in some other way? How do you justify your answer? On the other hand, if they haven’t done something wrong, then how do you explain Moses 6:53, where we are told that the Lord forgave Adam his transgression in the Garden? If Adam didn’t do anything wrong, why did he need forgiveness?

Verse 20:

The Hebrew word translated cursed sounds very much like that translated subtle in verse 1 of Genesis 3 (and it is also very much like the word translated naked in 3:25). The play on words seems to suggest that the serpent’s cunning turns out to be his curse and that his curse is a form of nakedness (with all the symbolic connections that nakedness has).

In Hebrew, Genesis 3:14-15 (corresponding to Moses 4:20-21) are in verse. Why do you think that might be?

The Lord God gave both Adam and the Woman a chance to answer his questions, but he doesn’t ask the serpent anything nor does he give him a chance to defend himself? Why not? Why give that chance to Adam and the Woman but not the serpent? Notice that the punishment fits the crime: the serpent’s sin had to do with eating; his punishment has to do with eating. What meaning does this verse have for us? Is it a type of something? If so, of what? Does “because thou hast done this” an echo of “What is this thing which thou hast done?” in verse 19? Is “cursed above all the cattle . . . ” an echo of “more subtle than any beast of the field” in verse 5?

Verse 21: What is enmity? Who are the serpent’s seed? What does it mean to say there is enmity between the Woman and the serpent? Why enmity between the Woman and the serpent rather than between the couple and the serpent? What does it mean to say that there is enmity between the serpent’s children and the children of the Woman? Why does the Lord say “her seed” rather than “their seed”? Notice the footnotes to this verse in the LDS edition of the King James translation. They explain the Hebrew in the corresponding verses of Genesis 3. Using them we could rewrite the last part of this verse: “He shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.” Which would you prefer, a crushed heel or a crushed head? What is the serpent being told is going to happen to him? What does it mean to say that the serpent will crush the woman’s seed’s heel? Who will crush the head of the serpent? What does that signify? (See Romans 16:20, Hebrews 2:14, and Revelation 12.)

Verse 22:

Like the curse on the serpent, in the Hebrew of Genesis 3:16, what the Lord God says to Eve is written in poetic form. Why?

Look at the footnote about the Hebrew for the comparable verse in Genesis (verse 16). Using that information, we could rewrite the first part of this verse: “I will greatly increase thy discomfort and thy size in thy conception; in discomfort thou shalt bring forth children.”

In the Hebrew of Genesis 16, the usual word used for the pain of childbirth is not used here. Instead, the verse uses a word that refers to pain less specifically and that has the connotation of work, very much like the English word labor. This emphasizes the other meanings of the word rather than the idea of pain. How is the understanding created by this difference of meaning different from our usual understanding of the passage?

Does this verse necessarily describe a punishment? Notice that the Lord describes what he says to the serpent as a curse, but he doesn’t use that word here and he doesn’t use it when he speaks to Adam, except to say that the earth is cursed for his sake. If what the Lord says to Adam and the Woman isn’t a curse, what is it? Is it a blessing? If so, how so? What does it mean to say “thy desire shall be to thy husband”? What does it mean to say, “he shall rule over thee”? (Is the earlier discussion of the word “dominion”—see the notes for Moses 3 1:28—relevant here?) Some see a parallel: You influenced your husband, getting him to do what you wanted. Now you will have to do what he wants. What do you think? Is that what is going on? What do you make of the parallel between the language used here and that used in Genesis 4:7?

Verse 23: Notice that the Lord God said to the serpent, “because thou hast done this” and he says to Adam, “because thou hast hearkened to thy wife.” “Hearken to the voice of” is an idiom in Hebrew meaning “obey.” (See, for example, Genesis 16:2 and Exodus 18:24. )If we make that change in the text—”Because thou hast obeyed thy wife”—does that change our understanding of this story? In contrast with what the Lord God said to Adam, he didn’t give a “because” when he spoke to the Woman. Why didn’t he say something like, “because thou hast hearkened to the serpent”? Why is the ground cursed? What does it mean to say that it is cursed for Adam’s sake? What does that say to us about what is going on here? Similar to the serpent, Adam has disobeyed by eating and the consequence comes in terms of what he eats. If we can understand the word “sorrow” in verse 16 to mean “discomfort,” are we justified in understanding it that way here?

Another translation for the Hebrew word pain in Genesis 3:17 and, presumably, sorrow in Moses 4:23 is labor, in other words, work. What light does that shed on this verse? What light does it shed on verse 16, where the same word is used?

When the Lord God tells Adam that he will have to do field work all of the days of his life, he gives Adam the first hint that Satan was wrong: eating the fruit does bring death.

Verse 24: Why are thorns and thistles necessary? Notice the parallelism between the end of verse 23 and this verse (the A’s indicate similar ideas; the B’s indicate a different set of similar ideas):

A cursed is the ground for thy sake;

B in labor shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

A thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;

B and thou shalt eat the herb of the field

The parallel emphasizes two things: (1) that the ground is cursed and (2) that we eat what the ground produces through our work. (There is a very old tradition that all human beings were vegetarians prior to the Flood.) What does that parallel say to us? How might this be a type of other things? The transgression had to do with eating and the result of that transgression for Adam is discussed primarily in terms of eating. Why might that be? How is eating an important symbol in the Gospel? Who fed Adam and Eve before the fall? Who fed them after? Is there any connection between eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, eating the herbs of the field as a result, and partaking of the Sacrament? Is there an implied contrast between eating the fruit of the Garden and eating the grain of the field? If so, what is the point of the contrast?

Verse 25: We know that work isn’t a curse since Adam was commanded to work in the Garden, before the Fall (Moses 3:15; Genesis 2:15). The first part of the verse reemphasizes the necessity of work. If we count the implied reference to work in verse 24 and if we remember that the word translated sorrow can also be translated labor or work, this is the fifth time that work has been mentioned in four verses—twice to the Woman and three times to Adam. Why so much? Notice how Moses writes this in such a way as to connect it closely to the first part of Moses 3:7. What is the import of that connection? Paraphrased this verse says that Adam will have to work until he dies because he came from the ground and will return to it. Since verses 23 and 24 have made it clear that Adam’s work consists of tilling the soil, we might even paraphrase this as follows: You will have to work the ground until you return to the ground, for you were taken from the ground and will return to it. (Verse 29 reinforces this connection.) What is being said here? What is the point of this connection of Adam, work, and the ground? Could the emphasis on our “return” to the earth be to keep us properly humble? We have been created in the image of God, and we have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in order to have divine knowledge and to be like God (verse 28). Perhaps what this verse says is to help Adam (us) see these things from a proper perspective. Perhaps, too, the emphasis is to follow up on the penalty given with the original commandment: you shall surely die (3:17). For other helpful places where the scriptures speak of dust, see Genesis 18:27; Joshua 7:6; 1 Samuel 2:8; Job 7:21, 10:9, and 42:6; Psalms 7:5, 22:15, 44:25, 103:14, and 119:25; Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2 Nephi 1:14, 21, and 23; and 8:25; Jacob 2:15 and 21; Mosiah 2:25-26, 4:2, and 21:13; Alma 34:38 and 42:30; Helaman 12:7-8; D&C 77:12; and Moses 3:7 and 6:59. Notice the parallel between what is said to Eve and what is said to Adam. Just as in English, the Hebrew word translated “labor” can refer both to childbirth and to work. So though there are differences in what is said to each of our first parents, in the main each receives the same explanation of the results of their choice: they will have to work and they will have difficulty. Eve’s work and difficulty has to do specifically with childbirth; Adam’s has to do specifically with tilling the soil. But both are required to do the same thing, work and suffer pain / difficulty. What might we learn from this?

Verse 26: Why does Eve receive her name only now?

The Hebrew word translated “Eve,” means “life-giver.” We could just translate her name as “Life.” Given the sometimes pessimistic way this story has been read, Adam seems not to have been pessimistic: the woman with whom he has entered mortality and, in fact, the person who brought him into it by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil first is not something hateful or ignominious, but life.

Obviously Eve gives life to all those descended from her, namely the human race. But is there also any way of thinking of her as the mother of all living? Some have seen in Eve’s name a word play on the Hebrew word for “serpent.” If it is, why might Adam make that word play? What does the serpent represent besides Satan? There are many places where the serpent represents evil, for example: Genesis 49:17, Psalms 58:4, Isaiah 27:1, Revelation 20:2, 2 Nephi 2:18, Mosiah 16:3, and D&C 76:28 and 88:110. But there are also places where the serpent means something quite different than that: Exodus 4:3, 7:9-12, Numbers 21:8-9, 2 Kings 18:4, John 3:14, 2 Nephi 25:20, and Helaman 8:14-15. What might this say about what Satan was doing in the Garden? What might it say about Eve’s name? What has giving life to do with scriptures such as Exodus 7:9-12? Joseph Smith has some very interesting things to say about the power of giving lives:

The power of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to have the power of “endless lives”; for the everlasting covenant cannot be broken.

and:

Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam.

(Both of these quotations are from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 322.) What is the “power of ‘endless lives’”? What does it mean to “administer endless lives”? If life-giving is the power of the Melchizedek priesthood, why is it so intimately connected with Eve in this verse and in this story? Might this teach us anything about the relation of women to the Melchizedek priesthood or about our understanding of the fulness of that priesthood?

Verse 27: What do we know about that might be what this verse is mentioning obliquely?

Literally, the word translated “coats” means “coverings.” Word Biblical Commentary (page 84) says that the form of the verb “clothed” in Genesis 3:21 (Moses 4:27) “has two main uses: either of kings’ clothing honored subjects (e.g., Gen 41:42; 1 Sam 17:38), or for the dressing of priests in their sacred vestments, usually put on [the priests] by Moses.”

Why did the Lord need to replace the coverings Adam and Eve had made for themselves? Remember the role nakedness has played in this story. What might the aprons Adam and Eve made when they first discovered their nakedness indicate? What might the replacement of those aprons with coverings from the Lord indicate? One way to think about this question is to ask yourself, “What is the difference between clothing oneself and being clothed by God?”

Verse 28: Why does the Lord God say “the man is become like one of us” (my emphasis) rather than “Adam is become like one of us,” especially since “man” translates the Hebrew word adam? (Does Genesis 5:2 help answer this question?) What does it mean to say that Adam and Eve are now like the Gods? In what sense are Adam and Eve like them? Notice what preceded this verse: Temptation, Adam and Eve discovering their nakedness, the promise of posterity and the requirement of work, and being clothed in a garment given by God. What have these things to do with the knowledge of good and evil? What have they to do with becoming like the Gods? Is this a type for us? What does the word “know” mean in this context? Think back to Adam and Eve’s knowledge of good and evil. In what does it consist? Does the use of “knew” in Moses 5:2 give us any indication of what “know” means to the Hebrew prophets? (Assume that Moses 5:2 isn’t just a euphemism. Given the fact that the Old Testament writers seem seldom to hesitate to say what they have to say straight out, it seems unlikely that Moses is using a euphemism here.) How is Adam’s and Eve’s knowledge like the knowledge that God has? Does that have anything to do with the importance of families—and therefore also with the importance of sealing? Why doesn’t the Lord want Adam and Eve to live forever?

Verse 29: If, on leaving the Garden, Adam was given the job of tilling the earth, is it a problem that very few of us today till the earth? What might Adam’s job signify to us? Some interpreters have understood the creation story not to be finished until Adam and Eve are sent out of the Garden of Eden. Do you agree or disagree? Why do you think what you do?

Verses 30-31: Why do you think that the Lord God adds this summary to the story as a whole?

Verse 30: What does this ending tell us about the story we have just read? Have we been reading part of Moses’ endowment? Why is this story the story for understanding the endowment?

Moses 5:1-15

Verse 1: Does this verse tell us that Adam could not have dominion over the beasts of the field until after the Fall? What do you make of the last sentence of the verse? What does it tell us about the relation of Adam and Eve?

Verse 2: To repeat something noted in the material on Moses 4:28, the word know is perhaps the most important word of chapter 4. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden ends with them having knowledge—a knowledge of good and evil that makes them like the Gods. The beginning of human mortal existence begins with their knowledge of each other. Thus, the knowledge of godhood is not theoretical knowledge. It is appropriate intimate acquaintance with another person, an intimate acquaintance that makes families possible and in which one can know both good and evil. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden and their expulsion from it is the story of the Melchizedek priesthood and the importance of the sealing power.

Verses 4-5: In verse 1 of the chapter, we hear the Lord God speaking. The Lord God is the one with whom Adam and Eve have dealt in chapter 4. The name Lord God usually refers to Jehovah. God—Elohim—was the one we saw working in chapter 3. Now, however, the story usually refers only to “the Lord,” which could be either of them, though more likely refers to the Lord God than to God. Why do you think the story makes that change? Why is it important that Adam and Eve could hear the Lord’s voice but could not see him?

Verses 6-8: Why does the Lord wait many days? Has the Lord been speaking directly to Adam? If so, why does he send an angel to speak for him now? Compare Genesis 22, where the Lord commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but an angel rescinds the command. Verse 7 says “This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.” Does which refer to “Father,” to “Only Begotten,” or to “sacrifice”? Verse 8 begins with wherefore, which usually means therefore: you will do everything in the name of the Son because the sacrifice you make is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten. Can you explain the connection between those two clauses?

Verse 9: We have this record of Adam receiving the Holy Ghost. Why don’t we also have a record of his baptism? Who says “I am the Only Begotten” in this verse, the Son or the Holy Ghost? It appears to be the latter, but how can that be? Has Adam not known before now that he and his posterity could be redeemed from the Fall?

Verses 10-11: What does it mean to say that Adam was filled? With what? We saw him receiving the Holy Ghost in the previous verse. Is this a repetition of that or does it refer to something else? To what are Adam’s eyes opened because of his transgression? How does his transgression bring him joy in this life? What does he mean when he tells us that because of his transgression he will see God in the flesh? Eve says that the transgression brings the possibility of having children, the knowledge of good and evil, the joy of redemption, and the eternal life that God gives those who obey. Is she naming four different things, or is she saying the same thing in four different ways. Is what Eve says different than what Adam says, or is she saying the same thing in a different way? How is what they say related to the knowledge that they have received, both the knowledge they received from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the knowledge they have just been given by God’s messenger?

Verses 12-13: Notice the importance once again of knowledge. When Satan says “Believe it not,” to what does the word it refer in these verses? What is Satan saying to the children of Adam and Eve when he says “I am also a son of God”? Given what Adam and Eve have just a few verses earlier said about what it means to be godly, what they have learned because of their transgression, what might it mean that suggest about what this verse says when it tells us that people began “to be carnal, sensual, and devilish”?

Verses 14-15: How does the Lord call by the Holy Ghost upon people everywhere to repent? Is the second half of this verse parallel to Moses 4:30? If so, does that suggest anything about how the two stories completed by these parallel verses might be connected to one another?

Moses 6:48-62

Verse 48-49: Are the themes of these two verses different, or do they say the same thing? In other words, does Satan’s presence in the world explain how we are made partakers of death, misery, and woe?

Verses 50-52: Why is it important that we know that the Lord is the Creator? Moses doesn’t mention Adam’s baptism, but focuses on his reception of the Holy Ghost. Enoch focuses instead on Adam’s baptism. Does that difference tell us anything about how to understand what these stories each have to teach us? Verse 52 and Moses 5:7 describe Christ as “full of grace and truth.” What does that description of him imply? How is that relevant to Adam’s experience? When we talk about the Holy Ghost, we usually do so in terms of the things that he can teach us. Here Enoch speaks about him being the agent through which the things will be given that those who have received him ask for. Can you explain Enoch’s way of thinking about this? Can we translate our way of thinking about the Holy Ghost into Enoch’s, and vice-versa? Or are these two different ways of understanding what the Holy Ghost does.

Verse 53: How is the Lord’s answer an answer to Adam’s question? Why does Adam need to have what he did in the Garden forgiven?

Verse 54: According to this verse, how long have people believed in original guilt? To what does “original guilt” refer in this verse? Does this verse give us any understanding of verse 48? What does it mean to say that children are “whole from the foundation of the world”? Why whole, for example, rather than clean? Does “foundation of the world” refer to a particular event? If so, to the creation of spirits in the pre-existence? to the creation of this world when Adam and Eve left the Garden? to something else?

Verse 55: What does it mean to say that children are conceived in sin if original guilt has been atoned for? Is conception being used metaphorically in this verse? If so, for what is it a metaphor? What is the connection between conception (metaphorical or not) and sin conceiving in the hearts of children? What does “sin conceiveth in their hearts” mean? Does it mean “sin is conceived in their hearts” or does it mean that sin conceives—creates—something in their hearts? If the former, why is the scripture in the active rather than the passive voice? If the latter, what does sin conceive in children’s hearts? Does this verse explain what seems to be our natural propensity to desire evil? If so, how? If not, why not?

Verse 56: Is the first clause of this verse a summation of the previous verse? To what is the Lord referring when he says “another commandment”? The commandment in the next verse seems to be a universalized version of the same one he gave Adam at his baptism (Moses 6:52).

Verses 59-60: What does it mean to say that we are born into the world by water, blood, and the spirit? What does the parallel between physical birth (water, blood, and spirit / breath) and spiritual birth (water, atoning blood, and Spirit) suggest? What does it mean to say that we keep the commandment by water? that we are justified by the Spirit? that we are sanctified by the blood?

Verse 61: Can you parse this sentence so that you understand how its parts fit together? For example, should we think of the first semi-colon (after “abide in you”) as if it were a colon, so that what follows is a list of the things that abide? Might each of the items after “record of heaven” mean the same thing? If so, might “record of heaven” also mean the same thing? How? If not, what does it mean in this context?

Verse 62: To what does “this is the plan of salvation” refer here? To verse 61? to verses 59-61? to something else?

Overall questions for this lesson

Given that the story of Adam and Eve is given to us in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple, it is clearly one of the most important scriptural stories. Why is it so important? What kinds of things does it teach? How are Adam and Eve and their story types for our lives? To think about that, consider any parallels between them and their story and other scriptural stories as well as any parallels between them and their story and our own lives.

Other scriptures that discuss the story of Adam and Eve: Job 31:33; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; 2 Nephi 2; Mosiah 3; Alma 12:22-23 and 42:5; Helaman 14:16; Mormon 9:12; Moroni 8:8; D&C 27:11; 29:34-36 and 40-42; 107:55-56; Moses 1:34; 5-6; and 7:1 and 22; and Abraham 1:3 and 26; and 5:13. You might also read what Joseph Smith had to say about Adam and Eve: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 12, 38, 39, 122, 157-159, 162, 167-169, 171, 301, and 345.

Please respond to this post at Feast Upon the Word.

0 people like this post.

Like 

A reminder about these notes: They are intended to help people study the assigned material for this week’s Sunday School lesson. They are not intended as an outline for how to teach that lesson, though I assume that by studying the material a person might get ideas about how to teach it.

And a note about these notes: These questions are for one particular kind of study, not the only kind nor necessarily the best kind. Sometimes we study a book of scripture from cover to cover, learning or reminding ourselves of its overall teachings and how the parts of its story or stories fit together. This kind of study is essential to our understanding the message the scriptures has for us. Sometimes we study chronologically, beginning with the earliest book or section and working our way toward the end so that we understand better the divine history recorded in the scriptures. Other times we study topically, trying to learn the things the scriptures have to say about particular problems or issues. These notes are for close reading, one more way to study. Close reading is helpful for seeing the depth of the scriptures, but it is a way that many of us have not had experience with. So, though I offer these scriptures to help those who wish to do close readings, I don’t suggest that close reading ought to be the only way we study.

Now, for the notes:

Except —I begin with a note about these notes in particular: The questions for Moses 1:27-42 are posted with the study questions for lesson one. These questions will be for Moses 2 and 3. —And a warning: printed, these notes take up to 10 pages.

Latter-day Saints have been given accounts of the creation in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple, each varying slightly, but importantly, from the others. I don’t think any other story has been repeated this many times in canonical form. Why is this story so important? Why does it occur in scripture three times? Why are the versions of the story different from and irreconcilable with each other? Do we learn things from the differences that we might not see otherwise?

Moses 2

Verse 1: Why does God say “I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth” (emphasis added)? What in chapter 1 prepares us for this? To what does “this heaven” refer? The Hebrew word translated heaven and used in the corresponding part of Genesis (Genesis 1:1) means “what is above the earth” or “the place where God dwells.” Which meaning do you think is intended here? Why does God begin his revelation of this heaven and this earth by telling us who he is? Why does he tell us that he created the world by the Only Begotten? What does God mean by “in the beginning”? In the beginning of what? In the beginning relative to what? We sometimes use the phrase “heaven and earth” to mean “everything.” Is that what it means here, or does it means something else?

Verse 2: Given the state we see being described here, to what does earth refer? It cannot yet refer to the dry ground because that hasn’t been created. Things are as yet utterly chaotic (as we will see), so how is the word earth being used?

“Without form, and void” is a rhetorical form called hendiadys. (Pronounced hen-DEE-ah-dis. But remember that there’s no test on this material, so you don’t have to remember that—or even care.) Hendiadys is a way of repeating words so that you say the same thing twice. Sometimes it is used for emphasis. Sometimes it is used for explanation.

You will notice that in these study materials, I’ll generally indent notes about more technical matters. That should make it easier for you to skip them if you wish.

The earth was without form, in other words, it was void. What does this repetition tell us here? Is it a matter of emphasis or of explanation?

The Hebrew word translated without form in Genesis 1:1 means “confused” or “chaotic.” It often means “desert,” as in Deuteronomy 32:10 and Job 6:18. The word translated void means “waste, emptiness.” See Isaiah 34:11, where we see the same words translated confusion and emptiness. Together these words means “complete chaos.”

Of what was the earth void or empty? What made it confused or chaotic? Why does it say that God caused darkness to come over the waters? That is different than the standard Genesis text, in which darkness is simply on the face of the waters.

The word translated moved in Genesis 1:2 could also have been translated “hovered.”

Why does God tell us that his Spirit moved or hovered over the waters? Why does this verse end “for I am God”? That seems to be an explanatory phrase, but what does it explain? Does it explain only the material in this verse, or does it also explain part or all of verse 1?

Verses 3-5: God describes the light as good. In what sense do you think he means that it is good? Is it good because it is pleasant? because it is better than something else? good in some other way? Does the use of the word light in places like Psalms 56:14, Isaiah 9:1, John 1:4-5, and the many places in the D&C have any bearing on how we should understand the word here? Why does God say, “This I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake”? How does that relate to the things we saw happening in the previous chapter? What does “the word of my power” mean? “The power of my word” is easier to understand, but that is not what he says. Is this usage related to the usage we see in Ecclesiastes 8:4? Notice that “the evening and the morning were the first day” tells us that the word day is used here only to refer to the period of daylight. We sometimes use the word day to mean a 24-hour period, but that isn’t how it is used here.

Verses 6-8:

In Genesis 1:6, the word firmament could also have been translated “an expanse of beaten plates” or “canopy.” It can refer to something hard, but need not. It can also refer to something that has been stretched out.

As verse 8 makes clear, “the firmament” refers to the heaven or the skies, which look like a canopy or bowl over our heads. Thus, verses 6 and 7 describe a scene something like this: First there is a mass of water. Then, in the middle of that mass, God stretches out a space, dividing the water into two parts, that above what he has stretched out and that below it. (See a diagram of this, with discussion, here. Since this is not the way we understand the universe today (there is no mass of water above the sky) it seems that God is using the understanding of Moses’ day to teach what it is important for Moses—and us—to understand about the creation. We can see a number of places in the story of creation where God explains things in that way. Why would he do that? Notice that in verse 8, God gives a name to the firmament. In the creation story, he names five things: light (Day), darkness (Night), the firmament (Heaven), earth (Earth), and the sea (Sea). Remember this connection between naming and creation because it will be important when we read Moses 3:19 (Genesis 2:19).

Verses 9-10: To what things is God referring when he says “I [. . .] saw that all things which I had made were good”? What is he telling us when he tells us that the things he has made are good?

Verses 11-13: What do “after his kind” and seed “in itself upon the earth” mean? Why was it important to Moses and Israel to know that herbs and fruit were created yielding seed after their kind and in themselves on the earth?

Verses 14-19: Verse 14 begins a second phase in the creation. As many have pointed out, in the first phase (the first three days), God created all the things that cannot move on their own. In this second phase we will see the creation of those things that do move: the heavenly bodies, animals of all kinds, and human beings. (Notice that verse 20 makes this explicit.) Some have understood “let them be for signs” in verse 14 to suggest that the lights of the heavens were to be used in astrological ways. Though God has used the stars and other heavenly body as signs (as he did with what we call “the star of Bethlehem” and with the rainbow), I think we have another case of hendiadys here. (See the discussion of verse 2 for an explanation of hendiadys). In other words, I think “for signs, and for seasons,” means “for signs of the seasons”: the heavenly lights are given to us so that we will have a means of measuring time. (Recall a similar discussion in Abraham 4:4-10.) Notice that verse 18 repeats substantially the material in verse 16. How do you explain that repetition? Verse 18 says that the moon as well as the sun divides the light from the darkness. What does that mean? In other words, how are we to understand the word divide in that verse? If you read these verses not only literally but also symbolically, what can you see in them? What metaphorical lights has God given us? Are there greater and lesser lights? How do they mark the seasons for us? How do they give light on the earth? How do our lights divide the light from the darkness? One of the frequent themes of scripture is the rivalry relation between older (greater) and younger (lesser) brothers. It is a theme that we have seen in Moses’ and Abraham’s accounts of the pre-existence. Does the creation of the greater and the lesser lights have anything to teach us about that rivalry? Why do you think that such rivalry is so often a theme of scripture?

Verses 20-23: The fifth day parallels the second: on the second day the firmament was created, with the waters below; on the fifth day the creatures were created who inhabit the firmament and the waters. The “great whales” referred to in verse 21 probably refers to any large sea animals. It may also be a reference to the sea monsters mentioned in verses such as Isaiah 27:1, Psalms 74:13-14, and Job 26:13. In at least some of these, the biblical writers seem to be referring to Canaanite mythology in which these sea monsters are the principle of evil and, so, symbols of Satan. What might their mention here suggest symbolically? Another translation of “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature” is “Let the waters swarm with swarms of creatures.” What is the point of that repetition? Notice that the fish are told “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters,” while the birds are told only “multiply in the earth.” Why the three-fold blessing/commandment for the fish and only a single one for the birds?

Verses 24-31: The sixth day parallels the third day: the creation of animals and human beings parallels the creation of the earth and its vegetation. The word cattle seems to be used more broadly than we would use it, referring to any creatures that can be domesticated. “Beasts of the earth” seems to refer to the other animals. To what might “creeping things” refer and why are they categorized separately? Why does verse 25 repeat what was said in verse 24? Why does the Father tell us that the Only Begotten was with him from the beginning? Why is “Only Begotten” almost exclusively the name used to refer to the Savior in these chapters? Why does the creation of human beings begin with a kind of prelude, “I, God, said [. . .] Let us make man”? When he created the other things, he said “Let there be [. . .]” and it was created. In this case, the story shows him stopping to discuss the next event in creation. What does that tell us? Though most of those who accept the Bible as scripture do not believe that God has a body, the language used in describing the creation of man is fairly clearly language that says, implicitly, that he does. To make man in the image of God is to give him the same bodily form as God. Other interpretations are possible, but that is the plain meaning of the Hebrew text, for the word for image refers specifically to the visible form of something. (See, for example, Genesis 5:3, where the same Hebrew word is used.) The word translated likeness is broader. It, too, can mean “visible shape,” as in 2 Kings 16:10 where it is translated fashion). But it can also be used for simple comparisons in which we would say “A is like B” without meaning that they look alike (as in Psalms 58:4 and Isaiah 13:4), and it can refer to how we think about something (as in Isaiah 40:18). Given that we have the same form as does the Father, how else are we like him? How are we like the Son? When the Father says that human beings are to be made in the image and likeness of the Father and the Son, what is he saying? Why is it important to notice (verse 27) that the word man refers to both male and female? What does that tell us about verse 26? Why does verse 27 repeat what was said in verse 26? How does the commandment to human beings (verse 28) differ from the commandment to fish (verse 22)? What is the difference between being fruitful and multiplying, or is this hendiadys: be fruitful, in other words, multiply? In what ways can we be fruitful? What ways do we have to multiply the number of children in our Heavenly Father’s kingdom? What does it mean to have dominion? What kind of rule over others does God expect of those who follow him? How might that apply to our dominion over “every living thing that moveth upon the earth”? What do you make of the fact that God gives us dominion only over the moving creatures? (Notice that Moses differs from Genesis in this way.) Of course, human beings are told to subdue the earth. What is the difference between subduing and having dominion?

One alternate translation of the word translated subdue is “make to serve,” which assumes that what one subdues resists.

Does this verse tell us that we can do whatever we wish? Compare Moses 29-30 to Genesis 29-30. What are the differences and what does Moses teach us that we don’t learn from Genesis? What do you make of the fact that both human beings and animals are given only vegetation and the products of vegetation as meat, in other words, as food? For other relevant scriptures, see Genesis 9:1-4 and Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25. Each of the previous times that God has passed judgment on his creation, he has said that it was good (verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, and 25). In verse 31, why does he say that the things he has made are “very good”?

Moses 3

Verses 1-3:

In the Bible, the Hebrew word translated host almost always refers to the troops of an army or to warfare. Beside here, I can find only two exceptions (though I didn’t make a comprehensive search). One is in scriptures that speak of those who enter into service in the tabernacle (for example, in Numbers 4, where the word is translated service). The other is in Job 7:1, 10:17, and 14:14, where the word means “appointed time” and seems to be unrelated to the use here.

Why does God use the word hosts, meaning “armies,” to describe his creation? What do you make of the formality of the language in these verses? For example, in verses 1and 2, God says three times that the heaven and the earth were finished. And in verses 2 and 3 he tells us twice that he rested on the seventh day. What do you make of the formal structure of the account as a whole? What is that formality of structure designed to teach us? What does it mean to say that the seventh day is blessed? What does it mean to say that it is sanctified? Is there any difference between these two terms or do we have another hendiadys here: “blessed in that I sanctified it”?

Verse 4: What does the phrase “generations of the heaven and the earth” mean? When the verse says “these are the generations of the heaven and the earth” is it referring to the account that has just been given or the account that is to come?

Verse 5: The creation story in Moses 2 is clearly different from that in Moses 3. That fact has bothered Old Testament readers of the corresponding chapters for some time. For example, in chapter 2, the creation takes six days, in this chapter it takes one (verse 4—”in the day”); in chapter 2 the earth begins as a mass of water, but in chapter 3 the land is already there (verse 5-6); in chapter 2 the two human sexes are created at the same time, but in chapter 3 male is created before female; in chapter 2 the plants are created on the third day—before the creation of humans—but in this chapter Man is created before the trees and, perhaps by implication, before other plants as well (verses 7 and 9); and in chapter 2 the living creatures were created before humans, but in Moses 3 they are created afterwards (verses 7 and 19). Some scholars interpret the first account of creation as an account of physical creation and the second as an account of the moral creation of human beings. How did Joseph Smith account for these differences? Moses makes more clear than do the other two scriptural accounts what kind of creation we have been reading about so far. If Moses 3 describes the physical creation, what does that say about attempts to correlate Moses 2 (and Genesis 1) with scientific accounts of creation? More important, what is the significance of the spiritual creation? Why is it important to know of the spiritual creation? What might the fact of the spiritual creation teach us? In what ways is it a type of other things?

Verse 7: A great deal of our religious language depends on this verse. For example, inspire means “to breath into,” and spirit means, literally, “breath.” What is the point of this language? In other words, what does it teach us? (As you think about this question, consider John 3:8.) For example, do you see any significance in the fact that Man is said to be made of both air (breath) and earth? Do you see any significance in the idea that Man’s life comes to him as the breath of God?

The name Adam and the Hebrew words for “earth” and “red” are related.

Why does God give Man a name meaning “earth”?

Verse 8: The name Eden seems to connote “a well-watered place.” What kinds of things are associated with water? What is the point of saying that the Garden was eastward? What kinds of typological significances can you see in the Garden of Eden? For example, how does it point us toward Christ?

Verse 9: Moses differs from Genesis in that it adds naturally to the phrase, “to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight.” What does that addition tell us? Why was that addition important? What does it mean to say that the tree became a living soul? What else do we see described by that phrase? The Book of Mormon often uses the Tree of Life as a symbol. Where do you see it used in the Book of Mormon? What kinds of things does it symbolize? Of what is it a type? What does knowledge mean when used as it is here, in reference to good and evil? Here too, what the Book of Mormon tells us about a knowledge of the Tree of Life may help us understand what it means to have a knowledge of good and evil. How do our children come to a knowledge of good and evil?

Verse 10: If the river flows out of Eden to water the Garden, then it seems that Eden and the Garden are not the same thing. Compare this to verse 8. What does the word Eden refer to? Does this help us understand what “eastward in Eden” might mean?

Verses 11-14: Abraham omits this part of the story. Why? Why do you think it is included in Moses and Genesis? Is there a spiritual reason for its inclusion? Might there be a connection between the rivers that flow from Eden and the water that is to come from the temple mount at the Second Coming? If so, what is the connection?

Verse 15: What does it mean to dress the Garden?

The Hebrew word translated dress in Genesis 2:15 means “to serve” or “to till.”

What does it mean to keep the Garden?

The Hebrew word translated keep in Genesis 2:15 means “to guard” or “to keep.” Its basic idea is “to exercise great care.” The word is used, for example, when the Bible speaks of keeping the commandments, as in Exodus 20:6.

One translator says that Adam’s job was “to serve and to guard.” What do you think of that translation? What does Adam’s job in the Garden mean to us? Do we have any similar job?

Verses 16-17: Are there any commandments for which it is not true that we may choose for ourselves for it (the choice) is given to us? Does this addendum to the commandment make it different than other commandments? Why does God add, “But, remember that I forbid it”? What do these verses in Moses include that is omitted from the Genesis account? What does that addition teach us? What does the Abraham account add to the Genesis account? What does that addition teach us?

Verse 18:

The Hebrew of Genesis 2:18 might also be translated “it is absolutely not good that the man should be alone.”

What is the problem with man being alone? We have the word helpmeet in English. However, notice that neither Moses nor Genesis uses that word. They use two words: help meet. The scholarly discussion of the meaning of this phrase is enormous, but I will deal with only a few possibilities. Since one relevant meaning of meet is “appropriate,” we can understand the last part of the verse to say “a helper appropriate to him.” What kind of helper would be appropriate to Adam?

The Hebrew of Genesis literally means “a helper in front of him” or “a helper opposite him.” Is it significant that God describes Woman as being in front of Man? In what sense does Woman stand opposite Man?

One translator says that this should be understood to mean “a helper corresponding to him” rather than “appropriate to him.” What kind of helper would that be? With what would a helper give him help at this point in the story? How does the account of the creation of male and female in this chapter compare and contrast with the account of that creation in chapter 2? What does each tell us?

Verses 19-20: Notice that Abraham omits these verses at this point, putting them, instead, at the end of the chapter. What do you make of that difference? How does that change what Abraham is saying in contrast to what Moses is saying? Notice, too, that these verses break up the story of Eve’s creation: verse 18 prepares us for that creation and verse 21 tells us of it. These verses interrupt the natural flow from 18 to 21. Why? What do they have to do with the creation of Eve? How do they help us understand that creation?

Verse 19: What does the fact that Adam names the animals teach us about the creation? In Moses God breathes the breath of life into the animals, but in Genesis he does not. Does addition to Moses teach us something about animals that the Genesis text does not?

“Living souls” in the Genesis text is “living creature”: hayyah in Hebrew, which sounds very much like the word for Eve, hawwah. Is the writer making a word play here. If he is, what is its point?

Verse 20: Does the end of this verse help us understand what verses 19 and 20 have to do with the creation of Eve? What happened to Adam as he named the animals; what did he discover? Does this teach us anything about our lives?

Verses 21-22: What might be the significance of Adam’s sleep? As a matter of doctrine, we do not believe that Eve was created out of Adam’s rib. So why is the story told this way? What’s the point?

Verse 23: Does this verse help us understand what the story of Eve’s creation tells us? What does it mean to say “this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”? (Compare Genesis 29:14; Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1; 19:12-13; 1 Chronicles 11:1.) Given the important role naming has played in this story, is there anything significant about the fact that Adam names her “Woman because she was taken out of man”? If so, what? Why doesn’t he give her the name Eve at this point?

Up to this point the Hebrew word translated man has been adam, from which Adam gets his name. Here, however, the word used is ish. It’s meaning (other than “man”) isn’t certain, but it may mean something like “that which exists.” When used to mean “man,” adam can refer to a particular individual or it can refer to humans in general. (As we will see, it can also refer to a married couple.) Ish, however, refers to specific individuals rather than to men or humans in general. The Hebrew word translated woman is isha. Obviously it sounds very much like ish, the word for man, just as the English woman sounds very much like man. In fact, isha may be a variation of ish, though many scholars doubt that they are related. However, even if they aren’t, the writer of this story uses them as if they are. We’re interested in what the writer is telling us, not in the history of words for its own sake. Given the story we have just seen in verses 19 and 20, what might the similarity of the Hebrew words for man and woman indicate?

How does the name that Adam gives Woman differ from the names he gave the animals?

Verse 24: Who is speaking in this verse, Adam or the writer? What does it mean to leave father and mother? What does it imply about the Man and the Woman? What does it mean to cleave to a person? What are the different ways in which a man and a woman may cleave to one another? What does it mean to be one flesh?

Verse 25: What does their nakedness indicate? Why should they be ashamed? What is the purpose of this verse?

Comments on this post should be made at Feast Upon the Word.