The Future of Esau and an Overview of the Joseph Story: – Held on Sunday, January 12, 2014

Posted on January 15, 2014 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 01/12/14

  1. Previous Week’s [12/22/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading Gen. 36: 01 – 43
  4. Discussion
  5. Overview of the Joseph Story, Gen. 37:01 – 50:26

Previous Week’s [12/22/13/ Review

As we can note, the “Previous Week” was before Christmas.  As I listened to that recording I was struck by how many insights were expressed by the group that gathered.  I have selected three that seemed to me especially significant and which I reported in last week’s blog.  I think they merit clarification and some repetition.

  1. In the passage we were discussing, Jacob in response to God’s command to build an altar addresses his household who now number “foreigner,” non-Israelites, possibly referring to the women and children captured in the “Rape of Dinah” episode.  “So Jacob told his household and all who were with him: “Get rid of the foreign gods among you; then purify yourselves and change your clothes… “ [Gen. 35:02].  For the Israelites purification had a ritual component but implied much more.  The “much more” is revealed in a story Tim shared.  He was bothered by the fact that he really didn’t like people.  In reflecting on this, there came a moment in time when he realized that it wasn’t that he didn’t like people rather it was that he didn’t like what they do.  This is something that happened in Tim and it changed him.  It may seem like a minor thing for the reader but it wasn’t minor for Tim. Such an event and the corresponding change of mind and heart is what is meant by the scripture that says “purify yourself.”  Each of us might benefit by identifying such an event in ourselves for such an event is both our doing and God’s.
  2. Ken in reaction to other’s description of Jacob’s character remarked how it is that we tend to pigeonhole people.  We form an opinion of others, attend to whenever they say or do that confirms them in the pigeonhole we have placed them, and discount, reinterpret, or don’t attend to whatever would be contrary to their fitting into  our pigeonhole of them.  I found Ken’s observation both accurate and challenging.
  3. Faryl made a most telling observation.  The passage tells of the rather horrific response that Jacob’s sons made, killing, raping, and pillaging.  They accomplished all of this by using a central religious symbol, circumcision.  And nowhere in the passage is God even mentioned.  Yet Faryl reminded us that God’s promise was moving forward in the midst of this all.  It is very difficult to realize the truth Faryl observed when we are in the midst of personal, social, and national evils.

The observations of these three persons enrich all of us, challenge us, and reveal the community of faith that binds us together.

Background to today’s Reading: Gen. 36: 01 – 43.

Many scholars believe that the material that inform this chapter come from documents that probably were a result of the capture of this region under David’s reign.  Edom is a region located south of the Dead Sea.  The material can be broken down into three settings described in genealogical form.  It is easy enough to note the family, the clan, and the nation.  However, the only evidence of the names recorded are from the bible.  As has been stated over and over, the purpose of the biblical literature is not to provide us with an historical account of events but rather to provide with a religious meaning.

What matters is that in this passage, there is religious significance.  It allows us to discover the relationship of the non-chosen people to the chosen ones.  This is especially meaningful if we think in terms of our global world and the relation between Christians and everyone else.  In general numeric terms, there are 7 billion human beings, only 2 billion of which are Christian.  How are the two groups related?

In this passage we can discover first of all the fact that being chosen or not does not in any way void the fact that the two groups are brothers.  So we too, all 7 billion and growing are children of God our Father, brothers and sisters to one another.  This is a theological fact.  Second like the story of the chosen, the story of the non-chosen are that they too are blessed with land, progeny, and blessings.  Being chosen is certainly a privilege but attended to that privilege is a responsibility.  We are to be salt, light, leaven for the whole.  We have a responsibility for the sake of the whole.  We are not the whole, neither at any one time nor over time.

We are invited to read this passage in the light of the above.

Reading: Gen. 36: 01 – 43 http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/36. 

Discussion

The reading was daunting for all of us, a range of names, difficult to pronounce, the meaning of which is not at first ascertainable.  But there it is, Esau’s future in balance with Jacob’s.

Overview of Joseph, Judah, and Jacob’s Family.

The next fourteen chapters [37 – 50] bring Genesis to a close and set the stage for Exodus.  Although these chapters are primarily an account of the ups and downs of Joseph, it takes us from Israel as an individual, Jacob, to Israel as a people, the Israelites.  The geography moves us from Canaan to Egypt and in that move allows us to see the full range of Egyptian life; a life that is not, nor should not, be demonized.  Despite the central role that Joseph plays in this narrative, Yahweh remains the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Joseph becomes the symbol of the passage to a people.  He ultimately does not seek revenge on his brothers.  The narrative makes clear the importance though of the individual.  It matters what Joseph says and does.  God is at work throughout but nowhere does God appear to Joseph as he does with Abraham, with Jacob.  Joseph builds no altar, is not the center of any place of worship.

What remains for us is to uncover these points in the telling of the story.  Ken observed that various TV specials have focused attention on efforts to uncover the historical evidence of this period of time in Egyptian history.  And they have come up for the most part with little or no evidence of the Israelite slave position, the rise of Joseph, etc.  Part of our nature as modern individuals, especially as far as the bible goes, is a near insatiable search for the historical evidence.

What I would reiterate is first the bible is not history in that sense.  Second the bible is a real collection of books spanning two time frames, the times being written about and the times of the writing.  What is written about moves from the beginning to, for Christians, the Christ event.  As I have said many times, it was written by people of faith, to people of faith, for the sake of their faith.  The writing was initially a telling, and then a writing, and then an editing, and finally a community discernment of what edited writings were to become the bible.

Modern scholarship has shed wonderful light on the writing of and thus has had a backward light on what has been written about.  But always what is written about is by, to, and for faith.  There is a mysterious and incarnate relationship between the books of the bible and the chosen people.  Thus we read, study, and, most importantly, live so that individually and communally we can be salt, light, leaven.  As Christ taught us to pray, thy Kingdom come … Already but not yet.  Already present in the presence of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Not yet until we believe.  What else can I say.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

1] Conclusion of the Rape of Dinah. 2] Journeys of Jacob: – Held on Sunday, December 22, 2013

Posted on January 8, 2014 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 12/22/13

  1. Previous Week’s [12/15/13] Review – Did Not Post
  2. Background to today’s Readings
  3. Readings
    1. Gen. 34: 30 – 31
    2. Gen. 35: 01 – 29
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [12/15/13/ Review – Did Not Post

The holidays are over for the most part.  Both my computer and my car died but they mattered little because family and friends gathered to celebrate God with us, Immanuel, the Incarnation.  Nothing can ever be the same.

I’ll try to catch up from a nearly three week lag.  On Sunday the 15th we ended up discussing some very big concepts, history and truth.  Of course, whole books, years of study would not be sufficient to get our heads around these types of concepts.

I wanted nonetheless to focus on a few things that matter.

  1. Starting with beliefs I would remind us all that as Catholics what has to be believed is remarkably small.  I would suggest starting with the Apostles Creed.
  2. There is a real difference between believing and understanding.  We believe a lot of very important things but certainly don’t understand them well.  This is a fact not only in matters of religion but in most of our life.
  3. A truism from the medieval period [13th c.] is that truth is in our minds.  This quote from Fr. Bernard Lonergan SJ adds an important point to the truth that is in our minds.  “… truth is contextual.  The meaning of statements depends upon the context.  But it makes a vast difference whether that context is conceived as a unique and fixed set of necessary and immutable truths or as an ongoing process that develops historically, that contains in living unity knowledge and belief, certainties and probabilities.” Early Works on Theological Method 1, CWL. P. 470 – 471.

For too long we have placed the beliefs in our mind within a set of “unique and fixed set of necessary and immutable truths.”  We then deduce equally fixed and immutable truths.  And in the process overlook the fact of development.

The truths we believe are true in a context and the contexts change.  Change is inevitable and as such change is ambiguous.  Some change is good, some bad.  And we don’t all agree on which are the good changes and which are the bad.  Certainly the crucifixion of Jesus was viewed as a good for the powers that wanted him out of the way.  Certainly it was a devastating bad for his followers.  What could this mean, our leader crucified.  God our Father responded by converting this concrete bad into an ultimate good, the Resurrection.  That is the very truth of our existence, if you believe. Where is that belief, it’s in your mind.  It is also true in an ever changing context.

Background to today’s Reading: Gen. 34: 30 – 31.

These last two verses conclude the passage headed as “The Rape of Dinah.”  Here Jacob is confronted by what his sons have done.  He was not involved yet sees himself as possibly suffering the consequences of their behavior.  The sons’ justify their behavior but their words lacks any apparent basis in fact in the story.

Reading: Gen. 34: 30 – 31 http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/34. 

It might be helpful to turn to the list of the Pope’s questions, if you would choose to read this passage on your own.  Asking one or more of those questions is work, but it is also rewarding.  For your review here are his questions:

  1. What does this text say to me?
  2.  What is it about my life that you want to change by this text?
  3.  What troubles me about this text?
  4. Why am I not interested in this? Or perhaps:
  5. What do I find pleasant in this text?
  6. What is it about this word that moves me?
  7. What attracts me?
  8. Why does it attract me?”

Discussion

We were able to easily identify the characters, Jacob, Simeon, and Levi.  Dinah is mentioned as Simeon’s and Levi’s sister.  All the other brothers are not mentioned at all.  Most critically God is no mentioned in the whole of this passage.

Tim’s assessment of Jacob was that he was true to form; concerned about himself, not forthright.  Ken reacted by observing that we tend to pigeon whole people; project a certain personality on them.  He pointed out that Jacob didn’t want nor seek revenge.  It was his sons who did so.  He thought too that as a leader he would be held accountable for what his sons did.  Annette thought as well that as their leader Jacob would be held accountable for what the sons had done.  Faryl felt that both Tim and Ken had something true to offer in the conversation.  Jacob has a character that she agrees with Tim’s description of but also feels that Ken’s points are true too.  His character is multi-dimensional.

I wondered what was the significance of the son’s response.  It took a while for the group to recognize the words the two brothers used to described what had happened to Dinah.  She had been treated as a “prostitute.”  Roseann though that the word “prostitute” really didn’t applied in this case.  Without noticing the change in words though neither the question nor the possible answers could come forward.  Focusing on the actual words is what Pope Francis meant by his word, the literal.

Roseann suggested too that the use of this term by her brothers might be an expression of their disapproval of the very idea of intermarriage between the two peoples.

I thought that there was a further question that would be worth reflecting on.  What do we think God is revealing in this passage?  Ken felt that it was a clear example of how violence breeds more violence.  Roseann believed as well that it is our human nature to retaliate.  Faryl was quick to point that despite the awful behavior, God’s promise is still at work, coming into effect.

I raised a final question, what difference did Jesus make, if after three thousand years we are continuing to do pretty the same thing.  Kai made a number of very meaningful observations.  He agreed that this story has been repeated in different settings over human history.  It seems to be our human nature which is further aggravated by the absence of God.  But the most telling thing is how they used their religious symbols as a tool to commit these atrocities.  He concluded his remarks by reflecting that Jesus has made us more aware of what is going on.

I tended to agree with Kai but felt that besides the inner awareness that Jesus has brought to us there was as well an “objective” change in the human world.  Jesus’ refusal to repay violence with more violence has changed something fundamental in the human world.  His approach to evil has reemerged over time in the lives of others and each time we are stirred by that person’s life.  The death of Nelson Mandela brought that to light just recently.

Ken thought that we feel some need to defend our honor, our religion.  He then mentioned, almost in passing, that there have been a number of posts on the internet and in the newspapers in opposition to Pope Francis.  The posts express the feeling that the Pope should be a more forceful leader, defend the honor of the church, make the moral judgments that our church believes is true.  Rosemarie thought that these persons didn’t really understand the Pope.

I have the opinion that the authors of these statements understand the Pope very well, they simply don’t agree with him.

We moved on to the next passage.  More on that later.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Personal Note

Posted on December 20, 2013 by Dick

Computer Crashed.  Purchased new one.  In the process of installing programs.  Best Scenario: Post for Sunday, Dec. 15, delayed; worse case, no post.  Only time will tell.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Rape of Dinah: Part 3 – Held on Sunday, December 08, 2013

Posted on December 13, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 12/08/13

  1. Pope Francis’ Exhortation,
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading: Gen. 33: 18 – 34:31
  4. Discussion

Pope Francis’ Exhortation

I began this week’s review not with what we had discussed the previous Sunday but a discussion of Pope Francis’ Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium [The Joy of the Gospel.]  If you are interested, and I would encourage you, in reading what the media are naming Pope Francis’ Manifesto, a pdf  version is available on the Vatican Website, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf.

In Chapter Three, The Proclamation of the Gospel, Section III, Preparing to Preach Pope Francis shares his insights into what the priest should do as he prepares each week to  preach the Gospel.  In the fourth subsection,  paragraphs 152 and 153, he address in detail how the priest should approach the scripture passage.  I passed out these two paragraphs because they give concrete images of what anyone who wishes not just to study but to be changed by the Gospel ought to do.

The Pope reminds us of a very ancient tradition for reading the scripture,  Lectio Divina, Spiritual Reading and states very clearly how to start,

 “The spiritual reading of a text must start with its literal sense. Otherwise we can easily make the text say what we think is convenient, useful for confirming us in our pre­vious decisions, suited to our own patterns of thought.”

By “literal” the Pope does not mean “literally” but rather he is referring to the actual words on the printed page that is the passage we are reading.  To do this is much more difficult than we might at first think.

As we read the scriptures all kinds of thoughts emerge in our mind.  What the Pope wants to make sure is that our thoughts are rooted in the actual words of Scripture.  To accomplish this I would suggest we answer this simple question, what words in this passage support our thoughts, the words we would use to say whatever we are thinking?  Our thoughts might be good, helpful but if they are not supported by the actual words in this particular passage we are reading, they are NOT Spiritual Reading.

I have found over the years that we tend to do just what the Holy Father says, “Otherwise we can easily make the text say what we think is convenient, useful for confirming us in our pre­vious decisions, suited to our own patterns of thought.”  Instead of the Scripture challenging us, it confirms us in our thoughts.  We remain unchanged, unchallenged.  In light of this fact, the Pope does something very remarkable in the next paragraph to help us break out of this pattern.

The Pope writes,

“In the presence of God, during a recollected reading of the text, it is good to ask, for example: “Lord, what does this text say to me? What is it about my life that you want to change by this text? What troubles me about this text? Why am I not interested in this? Or perhaps: What do I find pleasant in this text? What is it about this word that moves me? What attracts me? Why does it attract me?” When we make an effort to listen to the Lord, temptations usually arise. One of them is simply to feel troubled or burdened, and to turn away. Another common temptation is to think about what the text means for other people, and so avoid applying it to our own life. It can also happen that we look for excuses to water down the clear meaning of the text. Or we can wonder if God is demanding too much of us, asking for a decision which we are not yet prepared to make. This leads many people to stop taking pleasure in the encounter with God’s word; but this would mean forgetting that no one is more patient than God our Father, that no one is more understanding and willing to wait. He always invites us to take a step forward, but does not demand a full response if we are not yet ready. He simply asks that we sincerely look at our life and present ourselves honestly before him, and that we be willing to continue to grow, asking from him what we ourselves cannot as yet achieve.”

I’m never sure how well we can read the written words. So … Pope France in his example begins with a simple, single word, “LORD.”  Reading the scripture is a conversation with our Lord.  It is prayer.  The Lord and me.  The Pope then guides us by suggesting a series of questions for us to ask ourselves about the concrete, actual words, we have read.  If the questions are not about those words, it is NOT Spiritual Reading.  More importantly though, the answers to the questions must be our answers about us; not about others.  To do this takes a considerable amount of discipline, practice.  ““Otherwise we can easily make the text say what we think is convenient, useful for confirming us in our pre­vious decisions, suited to our own patterns of thought.”

To help, I will list the questions the Pope suggests.  I don’t think we can ask each and every one of these questions.  Nonetheless, unless we answer at least one of them we are NOT engaged in Spiritual Reading.  The Pope’s suggested list of eight questions:

  1. What does this text say to me?
  2.  What is it about my life that you want to change by this text?
  3.  What troubles me about this text?
  4. Why am I not interested in this? Or perhaps:
  5. What do I find pleasant in this text?
  6. What is it about this word that moves me?
  7. What attracts me?
  8. Why does it attract me?”

I would be excited to read what you think of these two paragraphs in the Holy Father’s Exhortation.   He is exhorting us.

Background to today’s Reading

Let us attend first of all to the fact that the last three verses of Chapter 33 belong more to Chapter 34 than they do to Chapter 33.  A lot can be learned from this simple fact.  Somewhere between the 13th and 16th centuries, the bible was divided into chapters and verses.  They were not a part of the original bible.  In other words, the bible is a living document, actually composed of many different books written by many different persons spanning more than a thousand years.  Modern scholarship, beginning in the 18th century, has contributed enormously to enriching our understanding of the bible.

In Gen. 33: 18 – 20 Jacob and the Israelites have settled in Canaan, the land that God promised them.  Like Abraham before him, Jacob purchased a plot of land.  The purchase was made “from the descendants of Hamor.”  Yet in the next chapter it is Hamor [not his descendants] who negotiates with Jacob for the marriage of his daughter, Dinah, with his son, Shechem.  We learn as well that Dinah “went out to visit some of the women of the land.”  It is this type of connections between verses 18 – 20 that suggested to scholars, along with other factors, that it more properly belongs to the setting of chapter 34.  It is also helpful to appreciate that in the Jacob story up to this point, we only know of one daughter, Dinah, born to him.   The time in the two segments are not the same time; it is not a continuous story.

If there is to be a progeny from Jacob, then the issue of intermarriage has to occur.  This issue should not be all that foreign to us.  It wasn’t all that long ago, that the Catholic Church did what it could to have Catholics marrying Catholics.  If we look back into our heritage, Italian, German, Irish, etc.  we will discover that marrying one’s own was a rather common value.  The same communal value was operating with the Israelites.  Beneath the story we are reading lies this issue.  It is told in the person of Dinah and Shechem but it deals with a much larger issue that is symbolized by the story of  Dinah and Shechem.

Most probably the editors of your version of the Bible have titled this episode as The Rape of Dinah.  What has proven helpful is to walk through the passage verse by verse which we did; doing that however limits what can be covered in the allotted time.

V. 02: The passage states clearly in this verse that Shechem “seized her and lay with her by force.”

The remainder of the passage, however, tells a conflicting and probably different story about the relationship between Shechem and Dinah, directly from the words and deeds of Shechem and what might be assumed from what is implied by the account of Dinah in the passage.  Jacob’s sons interpret what happened to Dinah in different terms as well and the sons themselves carry out not only a violent but deceitful revenge that includes raping.

V. 03: Immediately after the “rape” we read that “He [Shechem] was strongly attracted to Dinah, daughter of Jacob, and was in love with the young woman. So he spoke affectionately to her.” Later in the passage similar terms are used.  Thus in v. 08 we read “My son Shechem has his heart set on your daughter” and in v. 19 “ .. he wanted Jacob’s daughter.”  These are not the words of a rapist as we understand that term.  In our world rape is understood in terms of an act of domination.  It is a crime that psychologically is inimical to love, tenderness, etc.

As we move forward it might be helpful to read two passages, one from Exodus and the other from Deuteronomy that reflect the legal tradition  the Israelites developed to protect and preserve as much as possible women who were violated in this way.

Ex. 22: 16 – 17: – “When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall make her his wife by paying the bride price. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the bride price for virgins.

Dt. 22: 28 – 29: – If a man comes upon a young woman, a virgin who is not betrothed, seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels and she will be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her as long as he lives.

In light of these two passages we will read in verse 08 – 12 that Hamor, the father of Shechem, and Shechem himself not only comply with these laws, they exceed them.

V. 04: As we read this verse, we need to place it in the context of a patriarchal society in which marriage was a prearrange event that occurred between the two families of the bride and groom.  The word translated “get” really has the connotation of negotiating with the bride’s family to arrange the marriage.  Up to this point, we know next to nothing about Dinah’s feelings, thoughts, desires; a point brought out later in our discussion by Heber.

V. 05: We are not told by whom but Jacob finds out what has happened.  The term that is used to name what has happened is a “defilement.”  Almost at every turn the biblical world leaps out of the words used.  What does “defilement” in this context mean?  A clue can be uncovered in the words and deeds of Jacob’s sons.  When they hear of what has happened, their response is described in

V. 07: We learn that this act of Shechem is “an outrage in [against] Israel.”  We move from what has happened to Dinah to what it means in Israel.  There is a bit of a time lapse in that one word “Israel.”  Now it means not Jacob renamed but the Israelite community at a different time in human history.  In their world, and we need to expand our consciousness to hear them speaking, what has happened to an individual, Dinah, has impacted all of them, Israel.  Thus they “… were indignant and extremely angry.”

Vv. 08 – 12: Hamor and Shechem are willing to far exceed the demands of the Israelites in order to win their daughter, Dinah.

Reading: Gen. 33: 18 – 34: 31 http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/33, http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/34

Discussion

Again we had a lively discussion, but this post is long enough.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Change in the Catholic Church, New Evangelization, Scripture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Rape of Dinah: Part 2 – Held on Sunday, November 24, 2013

Posted on December 3, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 11/24/13

  1. Previous Week’s [11/17/13] Review

SEE PREVIOUS POST FOR #1 ABOVE.  THIS POST WILL ADDRESS THE NEXT THREE ITEMS

  1. Background to today’s Reading
  2. Reading: Gen. 33: 18 – 34:31
  3. Discussion

Background to today’s Reading

Most probably the editors of your version of the Bible have titled this episode as The Rape of Dinah.  What has proven helpful is to walk through the passage verse by verse which we did; doing that however limits what can be covered in the allotted time.

V. 02: The passage states clearly in this verse that Shechem “seized her and lay with her by force.”

The remainder of the passage, however, tells a conflicting and probably different story about the relationship between Shechem and Dinah, directly from the words and deeds of Shechem and what might be assumed or implied by the account of Dinah in the passage.  Jacob’s sons interpret what happened to Dinah in different terms as well and the sons themselves carry out not only a violent but deceitful revenge that includes raping.

V. 03: Immediately after the “rape” we read that “He [Shechem] was strongly attracted to Dinah, daughter of Jacob, and was in love with the young woman. So he spoke affectionately to her.” Later in the passage similar terms are used.  Thus in v. 08 we read “My son Shechem has his heart set on your daughter” and in v. 19 “ .. he wanted Jacob’s daughter.”  These are not the words of a rapist as we understand that term.  In our world rape is understood in terms of an act of domination.  It is a crime that psychologically is inimical to love, tenderness, marriage etc.

As we move forward it might be helpful to read two passages, one from Exodus and the other from Deuteronomy that reflect the legal tradition  the Israelites developed to protect and preserve as much as possible women who were violated in this way.

Ex. 22: 16 – 17: – “When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall make her his wife by paying the bride price. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the bride price for virgins.

Dt. 22: 28 – 29: – If a man comes upon a young woman, a virgin who is not betrothed, seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels and she will be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her as long as he lives.

In light of these two passages we will read in verse 08 – 12 that Hamor, the father of Shechem, and Shechem himself not only comply with these laws, they exceed them.

V. 04: As we read this verse, we need to place it in the context of a patriarchal society in which marriage was a prearrange event that occurred between the two families of the bride and groom.  The word translated “get” really has the connotation of negotiating with the bride’s family to arrange the marriage.  Up to this point, we know next to nothing about Dinah’s feelings, thoughts, desires; a point brought out later in our discussion by Heber.

V. 05: We are not told by whom but Jacob finds out what has happened.  The term that is used to name what has happened is a “defilement.”  Almost at every turn the biblical world leaps out of the words used.  What does “defilement” in this context mean?  A clue can be uncovered in the words and deeds of Jacob’s sons.  When they hear of what has happened, their response is described in

V. 07: We learn that this act of Shechem is “an outrage in [against] Israel.”  We move from what has happened to Dinah to what it means in Israel.  There is a bit of a time lapse in that one word “Israel.”  Now it means not Jacob renamed but the Israelite community at a different time in human history.  In their world, and we need to expand our consciousness to hear them speaking, what has happened to an individual, Dinah, has impacted all of them, Israel.  Thus they “… were indignant and extremely angry.”

Vv. 08 – 12: Hamor and Shechem are willing to far exceed the demands of the Israelites in order to win their daughter, Dinah.

Reading: Gen. 33: 18 – 34: 31 http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/34

Discussion

What is the narrator’s point in this passage what my question.  Annette however shared that she could identify with the story from events that had occurred in stories told about her dad and his efforts to marry her mom.  At that time, her dad felt obliged to talk with her  grandfather about his desire to marry.

Rosemary’s question, why didn’t anyone try to stop Shechem, assumed a setting that might not actually have existed.  Our story doesn’t really tell us the details of when, where, etc.  After all sexual intercourse is normally an event that occurs in private.

We began to discuss the notion of “defilement” when “the bell rang” and our session was over.

For those who might be interested, John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Vol. IV, Law and Love, Ch. 35 “Jesus and Purity Laws” P. 342 ff. presents an illuminating account of an aspect of Jewish life that is quite foreign in our world view.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Rape of Dinah: Part 1 – Held on Sunday, November 24, 2013

Posted on November 27, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 11/24/13

  1. Previous Week’s [11/17/13] Review

THE FOLLOWING THREE POINTS WILL BE POSTED AFTER THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY.  HAVE A SAFE AND HEALTHY ONE.  REMEMBER THOSE WHO ARE ALONE WITH NONE TO GATHER WITH, TO CELEBRATE.

  1. Background to today’s Reading
  2. Reading: Gen. 33: 18 – 34:31
  3. Discussion

Previous Week’s [11/17/13] Review

If you read last week’s post you will know that the last part of our conversation addressed the growing cultural conflict over the celebration of Christmas in our economy and in our public square.  I had wanted to merely affirm that this conversation revealed what mattered to the group that gathered.  Although I intended to move directly to the passage for our consideration, such was not to be the case.

For almost the next half hour we revisited this area of conflict and concern. Here is a selection of concerns, thoughts, observations made by the group presented without comment.

  1. Not allowing Christmas Carols sung in our schools
  2. No longer saying the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools
  3. Stores requiring their employees to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas
  4. Attempts to take “in God we trust” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and off of our currency
  5. “They” want Christ out of Christmas
  6. President Obama requiring that a Christian symbol be covered up at his Georgetown University talk on the economy a couple of years ago.

In reflecting on these remarks, I want to begin by expanding the context of what we have to say to the world in which we actually live.  It is that world in all of its concreteness that establishes for better or worse the context of our conversations.  Keep in mind I am not talking about our world only but also about THE world whatever we think that world actually is .

Allow me to state the obvious we live in a diverse society that has changed over time.  The very make up, the demographics of our [US] society, has changed and the direction of that change is fairly clear.  We are becoming more and more diverse.  It won’t be long before Europeans will no longer make up the majority of our society which will be the first time in US history.  Peoples from South America, Hispanics, and peoples from Asia are growing in number and therefore in their percentage of the whole.  The very world in which this growing diversity of people has grown up, moreover, has and is changing at an ever more rapid pace.

The changes are clear in the incredible scientific breakthroughs that have transformed our understanding of the world, the universe, perhaps universes.  We live in a global world dominated not by politics but by a global economy.  At the same time the global world is, in some ways, becoming a global village due to the impact of our technologies, especially, the Internet and social media. Almost all of our institutions, whether it is the family, education, health, politics, etc., are being strained to a limit raising fundamental questions about their very nature.

Without our hardly knowing it, our very understanding of the past is changing. We are moving from a classical understanding of our culture, our moral norms, our institutions in which there is one correct cultural, one correct set of moral norms, one correct set of institutions to an understanding in the throes of an historical mindedness unevenly understood which is transforming that way of thinking to one rooted in the historically conditioned fact.  These are terms that beg for clarification but I must allow the limit of space and time to leave them as mere pointers to a vast, changing, and at times quite unclear world.  We are left with questions of which there are contrasting and conflicting answers.

Now to speak of religion, we live in a multi-religious global world.  For believers a religious world that emerges out of and heads back to a transcendent God of all that is.  For the believer that is the world that God has chosen them to be alive in.  It just is.  There is no escape.  The invitation is rooted in our very existence which is historically conditioned.  We live in the US in the 21st c.

So Rosemarie’s telling us to back up our beliefs with facts occurs in the world that I have attempted to merely hint at in the preceding paragraphs.  A world that confirms the awesome and awful truth of Faryl’s wonder, what world do I live in, which in turn can be addressed to each human being for we share the actual real world, universe, universes.  It is one but our understanding, judging, valuing is hardly one.  We lie at the core of the diversity, difference, conflict.  It is we who are called to become the one that the universe is but not a one that is simple like God but a one that is diverse like we are.  The challenge in backing up our beliefs with facts, is also to find “facts” that support not only our own position but the positions of those who think differently than we do, live in different worlds.  That is hard work. It is our work.  Fortunately for the Christian believer, it is not our work alone; for THE world in which we live is suffuse with the presence of God the Father, the Son, Jesus the Christ and their Spirit.  We are never alone.

For the remainder points in our outline above see my post early next week.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Science, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob and Esau Part Ways – Held on Sunday, November 17, 2013

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 11/17/13

  1. Previous Week’s [11/10/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading: Gen. 33: 12 – 17
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [11/10/13] Review

The central point of the previous week’s conversation dealt with a question that was implicit in our conversation but never came to foreground.  So I decided to ask it explicitly; namely what is revelation.  Now the answer to this question is very complex but I thought it would be good to take a first step.

What brought the topic up was that in our effort to understand the meaning of the text we referred to two or three different translations.  I then asked whether the different translations really mattered.  At first we thought it didn’t.  I pointed out, however, that it must have mattered at least to those persons and institutions who actually produced the different translations.  The three versions that we referred to were the New American Bible which is the version that is on the Bishop’s website and is the basis of our weekly conversations; the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version which appear in parallel columns in the The New Interpreters’ Bible, the commentary that guides me in my presentations.  In addition, Kai brought his 1850 copy of that has in parallel columns a German translation and St. Jerome’s Vulgate, the Latin version issued in 382 CE.

As a matter of fact, we do not have any “original” copies of the Bible; that is, contemporary with the authors’ or editors’ composition of their works.  Since this is simply factually true, what then is the source of revelation?  The first step in answering the question is to come to grips with the basic category to understand revelation is not directly the words but rather their meaning; the words mediate the meaning of the text and that is why there has been and probably always will be additional translations.  Furthermore, the meaning of the text is very rich and allows for many different interpretations.  Few, indeed, are the defined meanings.  Now for Christians, the meaning is measured by what the early church communicated to us as the words and deeds of Jesus.  It is Jesus’ life that throws a backward shadow on the Jewish Scriptures, out of which the early church selected out of the whole specific texts which had a specific meaning for those doing the selection.

At the same time, because the scripture is written it serves to control, as it were, the message.  The Jesus story cannot be whatever we want it to be.  There have been and will be misunderstandings of the meaning of who Jesus is and what he did.  For Catholics it is the role of the church to define.  Contrary to public opinion perhaps very little has been defined yet the very little is very important.  Our best summary of the defined is simply to recite the Apostle’s Creed and search for its meaning.  Remember the written word itself only communicates to intelligent and valuing persons whose intelligence and values are, de facto, shaped by their concrete history.  That does not mean that the meanings and values are relative. Nor can the truth be contained in the literal meaning of the words as that meaning is construed by persons who deny the very historicity of the bible itself.  Truth is always in human minds and human minds are always historically situated.  I want to conclude this effort to share the category in which revelation occurs with a reminder that revelation is a complex yet fascinating reality for us who believe.  God has entered into the very fabric of our lives; the very meaning of our lives, the ultimate meaning of our lives.  If this raises further questions, thoughts, observations, etc. see comment link below.

Background to today’s our readings.

These six verses bring to a close the relationship of Esau and Jacob with the exception of Esau’s appearance at the burial of Isaac, his and Jacob’s father.  Their parting reveals the ambiguity of both human life and God’s relations with us.  Deception again seems to be part of Jacob’s style.  Esau seems to be straightforward.

Faryl, pointed out correctly, though that the story is told from the point of view of Jacob.  Most of what we know of Esau is in relationship to Jacob.  For me, this is part of the continuous selection by God of particular people, particular individuals and not other peoples nor other individuals.  God, nonetheless, is the God of everyone and over time the meaning of the story becomes clear on this point.  The chosen are chosen not only as privileged but much more to the point as responsible.  Jesus always serves for Christians as the lens in which to hear / see / understand the biblical stories.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 33: 12 – 17: Jacob and Esau Part Ways.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/33

Discussion

There are only two characters in this episode, Jacob and Esau.  What matters though is what each says and does.  It is in their words and deeds that we are both limited in our imagination and invited to imagine.  I began our conversation with a question, who begins the dialogue.

Tim already had not only an answer to that question but thoughts about the whole of the passage.  He knew that it was Esau who began the dialogue but Tim reflected how he thought Jacob heard Esau.  Having left Haran dealing the entire time with Laban, Tim felt that Jacob didn’t want to lose his independence, didn’t want to have anyone else lord it over him.  So from the beginning Jacob was intent on going his own way and read Esau as possibly wanting to have a common life together.  For Tim it came to the point that once again Jacob lies to Esau.  He has no intention in the story of meeting up with Esau in Seir.  Faryl quipped that Jacob has a history of deception so it is not something that we should be surprised to find out.

Ken, drawing on his own experience of dealing with his dad, talked about what two parties might know but never actually say.  It was like the unspoken message that he and his father had at times.  They said one thing but actually meant another and both knew that it was the other that was meant.  The gist of human conversation revealed in our own lives.

Tim, in response to an early observation of Faryl, that the story was written from the point of view of Jacob, recognized that the same thing could be said of how we [US] tell the story of the Native Americans.  They are the bad guys, the savages. Etcs.  I mentioned that winners write the history and only later, sometimes much later, is the history corrected.  This is a pattern that is rather continuous, the winners’ version is corrected to better approximate the reality of what happened.

Jesus is the stark, contradictory even, model though of winners writing history.  He is the loser on the human scene.  His followers betray him, deny him, do not defend him; the authorities of his people condemn him and the state power executes him.  His Father responds to all of this by raising Jesus from the dead.  There was no corpse.  The risen Jesus embraces his followers, forgives his followers, and chooses his followers to spread the message.  They are changed, become what they might only have dreamed to be.  They become his witnesses.

I’m not sure exactly how this part of our conversation lead to what was to occupy the remainder of our time together.  Tim, like all of us, has experienced the commercialization of Christmas now beginning before Thanksgiving.  The experience of this, for Tim, for Heber, for Rosemarie to name those who joined in the conversation were incensed by it.  They felt that Christmas was being taken away.  Heber brought up not allowing children in school to sing Christmas carols as another example.  Ken did remark that it all depends on what Christmas we’re talking about.  Tim was conscious too that many good things happen at Christmas time and not only Christians do these good things.  There is no question that Christmas season for the economy is all about the exchange of money.

Rosemarie pointed out that there are two factors that form our thoughts, experience and observation.  She pointed to the obvious advertising barrage that confronts us almost every moment of the day and now starting even before Thanksgiving; too much.  She felt that our [US] culture is an attack on Christianity today and that this attack is stronger than we think.

The topic swept up many of the members into an emotional exchange.  Values were being challenged and people have sharp opinions.  Perhaps those of you who are reading the website might want to voice your own opinion.  The relationship of a religion in a culture is highly complex and significant factor in our lives.  More on this later.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Literal Interpretation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob Meets Esau – Held on Sunday, November 10, 2013

Posted on November 15, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 11/10/13

  1. Previous Week’s [11/03/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [11/03/13] Review

As I read over how our discussion developed, I was struck by the fact that there are significant changes in how we as human beings view our world from the period of time in which the bible was both written and what was written about and our period, the United States in the 21st century, in Ohio, etc.  The world of the biblical persons was different in two extremely important ways: one could be thought of as objective and the other subjective.  It seems obvious that the biblical persons lived a very different world, objectively speaking; a world without running water, without electricity, without any of our modern technology, without our scientific understanding, etc. etc.  Although these differences are enormous, almost indescribably different, the more significant difference may very well have been the subjective side.  The biblical persons simply thought more compactly than we do; they didn’t have the resources to make as many distinctions we do nor did they think in that way.

I chose two words from the previous week’s reading to concretize this internal, subjective difference: “wrestle” and “dark.”  We know the difference between wrestling with another human being in a physical manner and wrestling with a problem, a decision, etc.  In this passage, there is no question that the story portrays Jacob as physically wrestling.  It is not at all clear that the wrestling was any more than that.  Yet the word is a symbol of both for the author and his audience.  It was compact; that is, the author meant both the physical act of wrestling, but he meant as well what we would talk about in terms of wrestling with emotional, moral, existential issues, life struggles.  The wrestling occurred at night; it was dark out.  That certainly is true in the passage; in fact, the coming of daybreak is a critical moment in the passage.  Again though, the author didn’t mean only the dark of the night time for “dark” was a symbol for him too.  And in his consciousness the darkness also meant the dark moments in our life; when we don’t know what to do, when we are overwhelmed emotionally, when life seems to be breaking down.  Once we realize that the biblical authors and audiences thought more compactly, God’s words open up to us a deeper, broader, richer world that can address us living thousands of years later.

Background to today’s our readings.

This passage is so rich that I learned, really from Annette, that taking it verse by verse proved to be what was helpful, enriching, thought provoking.  So rather than provide the  background at this point in the post, I will walk through the passage verse by verse, covering not all but enough that you, the web reader, can get a feel for the flavor of what was happening in our group.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 33: 01 – 11: Jacob meets Esau.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/33

Discussion

The meeting with Esau really began with Jacob leaving Laban and heading back to THE LAND, to Canaan.  Jacob strategized on how best to meet his brother and God’s presence and prayer were an important part of the preparation for the meeting.  Now out of seemingly nowhere the author tells us of Jacob’s encounters in the dark and throughout the nigh a wrestling with one whom we discover at the end of the passage to be God; a God who wrestles with man, who leaves Jacob physically damaged, limping, and with that a new identity, Israel.

The meeting with Esau, then, occurs in light of that night of struggle and the changes that occurred in Jacob as a result.

V. 1 – As he knew, Jacob looks up to see Esau approaching with his 400 men.  [It is important to remember the strategy that Jacob had set in place in the earlier anticipation of meeting Esau with what follows.  See if you can identify the differences; that is what we did in our study session.]

V. 2 – Jacob divides his family into three groups:

  1. The maid servants and their children
  2. Leah and her children
  3. Rachel and Joseph.

This order has meaning and what follows is even more meaningful.

V. 3 – Jacob went ahead bowing down seven times as he approached Esau.

In the early strategy, Jacob wasn’t first, he was last.  Stepping out in front, even though it is Esau who wanted to kill him approaching with his 400 men reveals a change in Jacob.  Unless we who are the listeners / readers of the story are caught by that change, we literally miss an important factor in the story.

Bowing down seven times is another of these compact symbols.  We are inherently mathematicians, for us seven normally means seven, 1, 2, 3, etc.  But for our author and his audience seven meant more than the number seven.  Until “seven” means more and more approximating the more in the minds of the authors and his audience, we don’t really hear the word being read or listened to.

At this point Annette reminds us of the passage in Mt. 18:21

“Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?  Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.”

For the Hebrews seven meant fullness, perfection, completion. Peter and the earlier listeners to the story thought Peter was being unbelievably generous.  So Jesus’ words were mind boggling to his audience as it probably is to us if we take it seriously not only at a personal level, but socially, as we create our policies, design our prisons, etc.  But back to Jacob.

So Jacob bows down seven times.  What is the author telling his audience?  What is he saying to us?

Read now what Esau does, acts, lives – remember the brother [think of compactness – brother in this story has much the same meaning as the word “bro” in the black culture or even more challenging in the consciousness of Jesus who says “these the least of my brothers and sisters.”

V. 3 – Esau

  1. Ran [what does this gesture held in the word and all these other gestures  say from within Esau, the wronged brother; the author talking to his audience, God talking to us] THEN Esau
  2. Embraced him THEN Esau
  3. Flunk his arms around him THEN Esau
  4. Kissed him THEN Esau
  5. Wept with him in his arms.

Has this ever happened to you?  What could this event mean for Jacob?  For Roseann it was love, for Annette it was forgiveness.  What I want to do now is jump ahead to verse 10, not as it is translated by the version we use, the New American Bible which you can read in the link above, but as it is translated in the New International version.  There we read Jacob saying to his brother

“… for truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God …”

“Face” is another one of those compact words, symbols.  The word we came up with that best expresses its meaning to me is presence.  Jacob’s experience of his brother was overwhelming, the only thing he could compare it to was experiencing the very presence of God that he had just experience in the previous episode.

Our author was telling his audience and is telling us, really anyone who has ears to hear, that to experience forgiveness is to experience the very presence of God.  So Jesus tells Pete, “No, not seven times, but seventy-seven times” without limit always, each time.  Honestly this is impossible for us unless we have been forgiven first.  And so it was with Peter.  The crucified Christ asked Peter, the Peter who told the maid servant, “I don’t know the man” not once but three times which again means lots of times, Jesus asks him “Do you love me?” And who did Jesus select, chose Peter.  We are being told that God is forgiveness.  Our life is drowned in forgiveness that is the message, the meaning of Christ Crucified.  To have lived long enough is know the refreshing, relieving, longing experience that forgiveness is.  No relationship with any depth is possible without it.  And every relationship is incredibly deeper, richer with it.

Well there was much more but sufficient for today are the thoughts of today evoked in me by those who gathered, the believing community.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Scripture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob Wrestles with God – Held on Sunday, November 03, 2013

Posted on November 8, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Session held on 11/03/13

  1. Previous Week’s [10/27/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [10/27/13] Review

Last week’s web post was food for thought as we opened of our conversation this Sunday.  I had focused attention on a great insight that Ken expressed.  As is my custom, I followed up Ken’s thought with a question.

There is so much in what Ken thought and said.  We need to realize though that there is a huge assumption in Ken’s thought.  We can only experience “it” through the “Book” if we … at this point I wonder if you can complete the sentence.  If we what?

To that question, Mark responded, “We can only experience “it” through the “Book” if we … can comprehend what “it” is trying to convey.”  Mark followed up with his own question, “If we cannot comprehend “it” fully, does this mean it thus remains a story to one whom still tries to believe? “

In both his answer and his question Mark was thinking about “comprehending,” or in other words, understanding.  But in my answer, I used the word “believe.” We believe many things that we don’t understand, and certainly don’t understand fully.  We aren’t doing the same thing when we believe and we understand.  If we take believe, not in a religious sense, but rather to mean something we haven’t figured out for ourselves but accept on the authority of someone else about 98% of what we know, in this sense, we believe. Everyone believes in that sense, even scientist.  We accept the doctor’s authority that someone has cancer, even though we don’t know what cancer is.  In fact, the scientific community has spent decades trying to understand what cancer is; hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades, learning more and more but not understanding fully what cancer is.  We also believe that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; even though we don’t understand that fully, and never will.

At this point Ken expanded the conversation by sharing an experience he had on the Internet just this past week.  Someone in a post referenced an audience  in Waco TX booing Bill Nye the Science Guy for saying that the moon reflects light from the Sun, it doesn’t shed light itself.  The post went on to say how the audience made up apparently of Christians who, in taking the Bible in a literal way, understood the Moon to be a source of light and, therefore, felt that Bill Nye was contradicting the bible.  The person making this post wanted to show how these Christians don’t understand even the most basic facts of science.  Ken responded with his own post.  He argued that the authors of the bible couldn’t possibly know about the science of the moon since they wrote thousands of years before the birth of modern science.

In response, I wanted to point out that those who booed not only didn’t understand science they didn’t understand the bible either.  As we have said for years now, the bible was written by people of faith, to people of faith, for the sake of their faith.  It is not a book on astronomy, nor on physics, nor on what modern science means by cosmology; it doesn’t have any modern chemistry in it, etc.  It is historical, in the sense that it was written at particular times in particular places but it isn’t history in the modern sense of a critical effort to recover and report what was happening in the past.  In much of the religious world, not just Christian, but  in the Jewish world, the Muslim world, etc., what often divides their views of the world, their thinking has more to do with accepting or rejecting a modern historical account of the very composition of their holy books.  Strong emotions prevail on both sides of this divide.

Again a discussion that took more time than I expected but it is further evidence of the wonder and beauty of a group feeling free to say whatever is on their mind, because it is what they are thinking and, at the same time, being open to what the other is saying even if it is different from their thinking.

Background to today’s our readings.

This episode raises so many questions.  In a single sentence we learn that Jacob, alone at night near the water’s edge, wrestles all night with a stranger; neither prevails.  Daylight approaches and in a series of dialogues, two initiated by the stranger and one by Jacob, we learn much of the meaning of this event.  Yet questions remain.

Who is this stranger? An angel, a messenger from God, God himself.  If God, who is this God who wrestles the night, does not prevail, strikes Jacob, leaving him with a limp, and changes his name.

There is no question that the wrestling was physical but, nonetheless, it is spiritual too.  And why is this passage inserted into the narrative that had as its seeming focus a meeting between Jacob and Esau.  It is as though our author wants to make sure we know that if we are to meet our brother to resolve our differences we must first meet our God, work t;hings out with God and not without a price.  The power of this Book to tell stories that transcend their own times to reflect light on our times, anyone’s  time, eternal.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 32: 23 – 33: Jacob wrestle with God.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/32

Discussion

Tim couldn’t help but reflect the ambiguity of the story itself.  Who is this man?  Failing to succeed in this wrestling match; yet has the power to strike his hip, leaving Jacob with a new limp.  Kai wondered why he didn’t strike him at the very beginning.  Mark could not believe that God did not have the power to simply wipe Jacob off the face of the earth if God so choose.  Then he said something that was critical, maybe God was just playing, pretending.  That observation exists in Mark, but there is no evidence in the story that “the man” is just pretending.  All the evidence is that wrestling was real, the limp was real, it could have been different but it wasn’t; that is just a fact within the story.  God is not pretending.  A new image of God was beginning to be formed in Mark.

At this point Jodie, having read the notes, suggested that the Angel was carrying out a command from God.  She felt that Jacob was really asking a confirmation of what he already knew; I have seen the face of God and lived.

Faryl wondered if Jacob was familiar with the broader cultural account of similar stories.  I responded that I was not aware of any evidence in the story or in any other material that could support Jacob knowing such matters.  Faryl respond but if he did … I reiterated that since Faryl’s “if” is not supported by any other evidence then it remains a thought within Faryl.  We have great power to suppose just about anything and at the same time we desire not just to understand but to know if what we understand is true, is real.

Heber thought at the beginning being alone and in the dark Jacob was hallucinating; but when he was struck so that he ended up limping he knew that this wrestling was physical, was real.

Ken believed that the event is both physical and spiritual.  At the end of the story all that is left is Israel physically impacted by his encounter with God.

We moved to discussing the dialogue that occurred between the man and Jacob.  I would ask you to reflect on each part of the dialogue separately.

V. 27: the notion of daybreak can be a reflection of an early period in which demons lost their power at daybreak but it also can be a reflection that no one can live and see the face of God.  Jacob ever in need of a blessing …

V. 28 – 29: normally a change in name is a divine action implying a change in the very identify of the individual.

V. 30: Jacob’s request to know the name is not granted; it won’t be until Moses that we learn the name of God.

I would also suggest that you read Mk. 10: 35 – 45: http://usccb.org/bible/mark/10 to see if you can discern a pattern when James and John ask for a blessing and they too are told about drinking the cup, be baptized with the baptism that Jesus was baptized.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Culture, Literal Interpretation, Science, Scripture | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Jacob prepares for his meeting with Esau – Held on Sunday, October 27, 2013

Posted on October 30, 2013 by Dick

Outline of Session held on 10/27/13

  1. Previous Week’s [10/20/13] Review
  2. Background to today’s Reading
  3. Reading
  4. Discussion

Previous Week’s [10/20/13] Review

Over the past two or three sessions we have ended up spending nearly an hour in review of the previous week’s discussion; much of which was prompted by parts of the discussion that I found of interest.  I wanted this week [10/27/13] to focus instead on the readings themselves.  We didn’t have any trouble doing exactly that.

Background to today’s readings.

Gen. 32:01 – 03 moves us from the departure of Laban to God sending his messenger to Jacob.  This is the third time in the Jacob narrative God sends angels/ messengers to Jacob. The place at which this occurs is named God’s encampment.  Throughout this section of the narrative we read about encampments; a word, symbol, of God’s protection. But as we will learn that protection has an edge to it which will be manifest in one of the most famous and most discussed passage – Jacob wrestles with God and emerges holding his own, physically hurt, and his name changed.

Gen. 32: 04 – 22 reveals two important insights not only into the character of Jacob but really how all of us need to address the challenges that face us.  Jacob is aware first of all that he conned his brother Esau of his birthright, and leaves Canaan, his homeland, in part because Esau wants to kill him. He is to learn that Esau is heading toward him with some 400 men.  Fear wells up within him.  What does he do?  He plans and he prays.  More than a thousand years later, St. Augustine captured this approach by telling us, “Pray like it all depends upon God.  Act like it all depends upon you.”  This is what Jacob does.  What we are invited to do.

In Gen. 32: 04 – 09 Jacob sends his messengers to Esau.  The words he instructs his messengers to say helps us to recognize an aspect of Jacob’s plan in approaching his brother.  Esau is lord, Jacob is servant. Jacob hopes to gain Esau’s favor.  When he learns that Esau is approaching with 400 men, he responds again with a plan; he is eminently practical.

Gen. 32: 10 – 13 is a prayer form that our author places on the lips of Jacob.  Each of the four verses expresses one of the elements in this prayer form.  Take time as you read the prayer to discern as best you can those elements.  Attempt to put words to what Jacob is doing in each verse, why is he doing that.  Think of the prayer that Jesus taught us, the Our Father, and see if you can recognize a similar structure.

Gen. 32: 14 – 22 provides greater details to Jacob’s plan.  He is leaving nothing to chance as he offers his brother gifts of more than 500 animals, arranges them in three separate droves, instructs his servants exacting what they are to say, how they are to act.  He definitely is micromanaging this event.

In Gen. 32: 21b – 22 there is a play on the Hebrew word, penim, which means both “before” and “face.”  Later on I read a translation that attempts in English to help us see that play at work.

We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder

  • Who are the characters in the story
  • What role do these characters play
  • What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent

Reading: Gen. 32: 04 – 09: Jacob prepares for his meeting with Esau.  http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/32

Discussion

Ken started our discussion and because what he had to say seemed extremely important to me, I will attempt to quote him.  “… at first I thought, Well none of us have the luxury as Jacob did of God directly making a promise to us.  But then I was thinking to myself, well the promises are here [Ken is pointing to the Bible in front of him.]  I mean this [again pointing to the Bible] is God talking to us; that’s the thing we need to look at as far as fulfilling the promise.  [In the story – my words] Jacob experiences first hand.  We experience it through the Book.” [Emphasis added.]

There is so much in what Ken thought and said.  We need to realize though that there is a huge assumption in Ken’s thought.  We can only experience “it” through the “Book” if we … at this point I wonder if you can complete the sentence.  If we what?  Please stop reading long enough to answer that question, even if your answer is I don’t know.  It would be wonderful if you, the reader on this website, were to record in the comment section your answer.

If we believe.  Without belief, “it” remains a story; with belief, “it” is promises made to us.  “It” changes the meaning of our life, everyone’s life.

At this point I could go on to report the next forty minutes or so of our conversation but without struggling with Ken’s insight, our reading more is just that reading more words.  Ken’s thought needs to be taken seriously enough to talk about what he had to say; to move into the words to the things the words reference.  What is that?

A final pointer, Ken’s thoughts obviously occurred inside of him.  They may have occurred to others but it was Ken who spoke them.  Paying attention to that simple fact is critical for understanding why scripture needs to be studied in a group and, in my opinion, by adults; persons who have lived long enough to know the joys and sorrows of our life.  And Ken has.

You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage.  Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed.  See “comment” link below

Posted in Literal Interpretation, Scripture | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment