The Patriarchs, Paragons of Virtue and Righteousness OR

Virtually every child who has spent time in a Christian Sunday school can name the three patriarchs of the Israelites, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  But who were these men, and why were they selected to be the patriarchs of a nation?  Let's have a look.

The first time we meet Abraham in the bible is in Genesis 12 verse 26. But his name wasn't Abraham then, it was Abram. "When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran."  Abram married a woman named Sarai.  She is said to be barren so, of course, she and Abram had no children.  God said to Abram that he should go to a land that God would show him and that he would make of him a great nation.  God promised to bless him and make his name great.  Why has God chosen him for this special treatment?  According to the bible, he has done nothing special nor is he anyone special.  We are not told why God has chosen him.  He was born,  he got married, and now he's 75 years old, and he's off to Canaan with his wife and nephew Lot.  When they got there God spoke to Abram again and told him that he would give this land to his descendants.

A famine in Canaan forced Abram, his wife, and Lot to go into Egypt.  Here's where we learn a little about Abram's character.  He was afraid that because of his beautiful wife, someone would kill him so he could take her for himself.  He told her to tell everyone that she was his sister.  His plan worked, for him anyway, but not so much for poor Sarai.  The Pharaoh took her as his wife.  God blamed Pharaoh for all of this and punished him and his family with plagues.  Pharaoh was furious with Abram for lying to him.  Abram said he didn't really lie to him. Sarai was his half sister. They had a common father.  SO, the first of the patriarchs was a liar and a coward, who was engaged in an incestuous relationship with his half sister.  PLUS, he was a callous man more concerned for his own safety than for his wife's, who he pimped out to save his own skin.  It's a wonder God didn't rescind his offer.  But, we're not done yet.

Since Abram and Sarai were so far unable to have children Sarai suggested that Abram "go into" her slave maid, Hagar, so that he might have children.  Abram put up no resistance to this plan and Hagar was soon pregnant.  Sarai then complained that Hagar looked on her with contempt.  Abram told her to do with her maid as she pleased.  She dealt so harshly with her that Hagar fled.  God caught up with her and told her to return to and submit to Sarai.  God also told her that her that he would make a great nation of her son who was to be called Ishmael.  Hagar did as she was told and Ishmael was born.  Abram was now 86 years old.

When Abram was 99 years old God renewed his promise to Abram, but now changed his name to Abraham and his wife's name to Sarah.  As a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants, he and his male descendants must be circumcised.  He also told Abraham that he and Sarah would have a son whose name would be Isaac.  God also told him that he would make his covenant with Isaac, ie not Ishmael, but didn't give any reason for doing so.  Abraham circumcised all the males in his household including all his male slaves (yes, Abraham was a slave owner), as well as his son, Ishmael and himself. (I hope he got someone else to do his own circumcision.)

Abraham and Sarah went to the land of Gerar, where Abimelech was king.  Abraham was afraid that someone would kill him so that they could have Sarah who was now in her 90's.  (Abraham may be a little out of touch with reality here.)  So, he told everyone that she was his sister.  Yes, we've been here before.  Last time with the Pharaoh, this time it's Abimelech who takes Sarah.  I guess Abraham and Sarah were slow learners.  The result was the same.  God was angry with Abimelech, who was the innocent party here by the way, and Abraham got a lot of good stuff, including more slaves.  More lying, more pimping, more cowardice, more callousness towards his wife and more rewards for all his vices and shortcomings.

As God promised, Sarah conceived and she and Abraham had their promised son whom they called Isaac.  Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born.  When Sarah saw Ismael playing with Isaac she said to Abraham,"Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac."  Wow,  This was Sarah's idea in the first place.  She had Hagar kicked out once already when she was pregnant with Ishmael and now she wants to do it again.  God told Abraham let Sarah have her way.  So Hagar and Ishmael were sent packing.  Keep in mind that Ishmael was every bit as much Abraham's son as Isaac.  Abraham seems to have lacked a backbone.

Finally the big test came.  God told Abraham to take his only son Isaac (doesn't God know that Ishmael was also Abraham's son?) and offer him as a burnt offering.  Spineless Abraham does as he's told, but before he could plunge his knife into his son, an angel of the Lord told him not to, but to sacrifice a ram caught in a thicket instead.  The change of plan came about because the angel now knew that Abraham feared the Lord.  Still a coward.  Didn't God or Abraham think about poor Isaac in any of this?  This would be psychological torture for him.  Having his father bind him, place him on the altar and then get his knife out to stab him to death must have terrified the boy.  It was apparently not about obeying God; it was about proving that he feared God.  Why does God want people to be afraid of him?  I thought he wanted people to love him.  God renewed his promises to Abraham.

Sarah died at the ripe old age of 127.  Abraham remarried, to a woman named Keturah and they had six children together.  He also had sons with his concubines.  Abraham sent them east away from his son Isaac to whom he gave all his possessions.  Abraham died when he was 175 years old.  Since he didn't marry his concubines, he has now added fornicator to his ever growing list of shortcomings.

Before he died, Abraham had sent one of his servants to find a wife for his son Isaac.  He didn't want his wife to be a Canaanite woman, so he sent him to his country where some of his kin still lived. There the servant ran into Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel who was Abraham's brother's son.  Both Rebekah and her family agreed to her match with Isaac.  So Isaac, at 40 years of age, married his first cousin once removed. These guys really believe in keeping it in the family.

When Isaac was sixty Rebekah conceived and gave birth to twins, Esau and Jacob.  While they were inside her she felt them struggling so she inquired of the Lord (it must be nice to have God on speed dial) and he told her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two, born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger."  Isaac loved Esau,  Rebekah loved Jacob.  (Playing favourites with your children - not a good parenting ploy.)

Esau grew up the be a hunter and outdoorsman and Jacob was a quiet man and spent most of his time indoors in tents.  One day Esau came home from a day of hunting, absolutely famished and asked Jacob if he could have some of  the lentil stew he had prepared.  Jacob agreed to give him some, but only if Esau would give him his birthright, which was Esau's because he was the first born.  Esau agreed to the deal so, Jacob got the birthright and Esau got a pot of lentil stew and some bread.  Jacob was apparently a bit of an opportunist and Esau wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box.

A famine in the land sent Issac and Rebekah to Gerar, the land of the Philistines and their king, Abimelech.  Like father, like son, Isaac was afraid he would be killed so someone could take his wife, so he told everyone Rebekah was his sister not his wife.  Isaac, like his father was also a liar, a coward and more concerned for his own well-being than for his wife's.  Fortunately, for Rebekah, no one took her for his wife.

Esau also lost his father's blessing thanks to a little chicanery on the part of his mother and brother. When Isaac was very old and had become blind. Rebekah wanted to secure her husband's blessing for her favourite son, Jacob. It was rightfully Esau's since he was the eldest son.  Rebekah overheard Isaac telling Esau to hunt for him so that he might enjoy some savory food and then give him his blessing before he died.  She plotted to get the blessing for Jacob.  She sent Jacob to kill two kids and bring them to her so that she might make a savory dish for her husband whom she was about to dupe.  Jacob did what he was told.  He put on some of Esau's clothes and took the food to his father and told him he was Esau.  Isaac expressed his surprise that he had found game so soon.  Jacob told him God had granted him success.  Isaac had his doubts so he asked Jacob to come closer so he could touch him.  Esau was a hairy man and Jacob was smooth skinned.  Rebekah had this covered.  She had told Jacob to cover his hands and neck with the skins of the goats he had killed.  Isaac was fooled when he touched him.  He said, "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."  He said to Jacob, "Are you really my son Esau?"  Jacob replied, "I am."  Jacob had now completed the Patriarchs trifecta of lying and was rewarded with his father's blessing.  When Esau returned and found out what had happened he asked if he might also receive his father's blessing.  Apparently Isaac hadn't reserved a blessing for Esau for one wasn't forthcoming.  Nice one, Isaac.

 Esau planned to kill his brother to get his revenge when the time was ripe.  Isaac and Rebekah sent Jacob away to the land of his kin (Again,like father like son.) to prevent Esau from carrying out his revenge and also so that Jacob could find a bride from within his family and not from among the Canaanite women, specifically, a daughter of Laban, Rebekah's brother.  (Let's keep it all in the family).  Jacob is smitten with Rachel, Laban's younger daughter and Jacob's own second cousin once removed, and said he would work for Laban for seven years if he could have Rachel for his wife.  Laban agreed.  After completing his seven years labour Jacob asked if the could have his wife so that he might "go into her".  Laban agreed, but instead of sending Rachel into Jacob's tent after dark he sent in Leah, her older sister.  Next morning Jacob finds out that he consummated his marriage with Leah, not Rachel.  Laban explains,"It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the first-born."  He told Jacob that he would give him Rachel if he worked another seven years for her.  He agreed and did so.  Jacob was now a bigamist.  Rachel was unable to conceive, but Leah quickly turned out four consecutive sons for Jacob.  Since Rachel was unable to give Jacob any children she told him to "go into" her maid, Bilhah (where have we seen this before?).  Jacob put up no resistance to this idea, just like his grandfather, and Bilhah produces two sons for him.  Leah had ceased producing children for Jacob (was't four enough?) so told Jacob to "go into" her maid, Zilpah, who produced two more sons for Jacob.  Leah got her mo-jo back and produced two more sons and a daughter for Jacob. Then God opened Rachel's womb and she conceived and bore two boys, Joseph (of colourful coat fame) and later Benjamin.  Jacob's twelve sons would go on to head the twelve tribes of Israel, and Dinah would later be at the center of a rape and mass revenge massacre, but that's another story.

So, to sum up. what are the patriarchs guilty of?  Abraham was guilty of incest, adultery (with Hager), callousness, cowardice and fornication (with his concubines) and he was a liar and a slave owner,  Isaac was a coward and a liar and a callous man, more concerned for his own well being than for that of his wife.  He was also unbelievably parsimonious with his blessings.  Jacob was guilty of adultery (with Bilhah and Zilpah).  He was deceitful as well as being a bigamist, a liar and an opportunist.  It is hard to believe that these guys were the cream of the crop and were chosen to father a nation.  One has to wonder who got passed over before God stumbled onto these three.


Interesting notes:        
        
1. God promised Abraham that he would make a great nation of his descendants, yet many of his descendants got excluded from this promise, ie. Ismael, Abraham's six children he fathered with Keturah, the unnumbered sons he produced with his concubines, and Esau.  Why?  The bible has nothing bad to say about any of these people, which is more than we can say about the patriarchs.

2. The pericope of "She's my sister, not my wife" has three iterations in Genesis as we've seen here.  Some scholars believe that this is really just one story that had changed over time before they were first written down by the different sources.  Hence, the changes in characters and settings.  The compiler or overall editor(s) of the old testament included all three versions as they were all a bit different.

3. When Jacob went shopping for a bride in the land of his kin he was looking for Laban, his second cousin (Genesis 29:4).  He met some men from Haran.  He asked them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?  They replied, "We know him."  Apparently, they didn't know him very well, but then evidently, neither did his second cousin, Jacob.  Laban was not the son of Nahor, he was the son of Bethuel who was the son of Nahor, making Laban the grandson of Nahor.  Genesis 24:15 and Genesis 29:10 makes this relationship very clear.  This error appears in the King James version of the bible as well as the Revised Standard and Living bible versions.  However, the editors of the New International version correctly identify Laban as the grandson of Nahor.      

      



              







      

The Gospels - A Comparative Reading - Part 11 - Jesus Feeding the Multitude

The only miracle that Jesus performs that appears in all four gospels is the one in which he feeds a huge crowd of people with almost no food.  In fact, this story appears twice in Mark, once in chapter 6:34-44 and again in chapter 8:1-10.  Some of Mark's sources were no doubt oral and he may have heard this story from two different people.  The story had changed enough in the telling and retelling that he mistook them for unique stories so included them both in his gospel.  However, his editing skills left a little to be desired.  In the second version that appears in chapter 8, Jesus' disciples don't seem to know what he's talking about, even though they had fed thousands with a few loaves and a fish or two a short time ago.  One can imagine Jesus saying to them, "What do think we're going to do, you idiots, the same thing we did last week when we fed the 5,000 men?  Were you guys sound asleep when you were passing out the food then?"  Of course, he didn't.  He patiently tells them the same thing he did last time.  If Mark's author had read these two stories more carefully he might not have included them both.  Matthew picked up both versions of the story from Mark and included them in his gospel (14:13-21 and 15:29-39).  The other gospel writers were more circumspect since they both failed to pick up the extra version.

In Mark's chapter 6 version, Jesus tells the disciples to give the people some food.  They ask him if they should buy some.  He asks them what they've got. They check and tell him they have five loaves of bread and two fish.  Jesus blesses the food and the disciples pass it out.  When everyone is finished eating they collect all that's left over.  There are twelve baskets of food left.  We are told that there were 5,000 men who ate the food.  This all took place during one day of preaching.

In Mark's chapter 8 version, Jesus says the crowd has been with them for three days and have nothing to eat.  The disciples ask Jesus, "How can one feed these men with bread in the desert?", as if they'd never done this before.  Jesus asks them what they've got and they tell him they've got seven loaves and a few small fish.  Jesus blesses the food and they pass it out.  Everyone eats their fill and they have seven baskets left over.  We are told that about 4,000 people were fed.  The various numbers involved are different from the chapter 6 version making Mark's author think this was a different story, but the disciples' seeming lack of knowledge of their recent experience says otherwise. They've never done this before.

Matthew's author borrows both of Mark's versions of these events.  The only changes he makes in them concerns the makeup of the people involved.  We are told that there were 5,000 men in the first version and 4,000 men in the second, but he adds in both stories that there were also women and children present.  This would inflate the numbers and put him out of sync with Mark’s numbers.

Both Luke's and John's author borrow Mark's chapter 6 story.  This is a one day event. They have five loaves and two fish to work with. There are 5,000 men, and they have twelve baskets of food left over.

The version that has this story taking place on one day seems more believable than the one in which the multitude is with Jesus for three days.  Talking to four or five thousand people over three days without voice amplification capabilities seems impossible.  To make oneself heard to a group this large would take constant shouting.  No human voice could do this.  I suppose an apologist could just claim Jesus had a super voice and could shout for days without losing it.

Only Matthew's version of this story acknowledges that there were women and children in the multitude, although John's author refers to there being 5,000 men there, but then states that it was a boy who had the five barley loaves and two fish.  It seems almost impossible that only men were there.  This seems like a family affair for all to participate in.  It seems strange that only Matthew clearly states this.  The others only refer to men being present.  Mark's chapter 8 version states that 4,000 people were present which would allow for women and children to be there, but of course, they would be included in that number.

There are lots of discrepancies here.  Was this a one day affair or a three day affair?  Did they start with five loaves or seven? Did they have two fish, or a few small fish? Did they have seven or twelve baskets of food left over?  Did the disciples have the starter bread and fish, or did a young boy have it? Were there 4,000 or 5,000 involved? Were they all men, or were women and children present?      

Some biblical scholars believe that this miracle was borrowed from the Old Testament.  In 1 Kings 4:42-44 a man brings twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain to Elisha, who tells his servant to give it to the men.  His servant says, "How am I to set this before a hundred men?"  Elisha says to him, "Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the Lord, 'They shall eat and have some left.' ".  The men ate and had some left.  Jesus' miracle, of course had to be bigger and better than Elisha's.  He fed thousands with even fewer loaves.  

                    

                    

Rude and Inconsiderate Jesus

Most Christians and perhaps some non-Christians who believe in an historical Jesus would attribute some of these qualities to him: loving, generous, kind, considerate, above reproach, nice, friendly, etc.  However, there are stories in the gospels in which he appears to have very less flattering attributes.  Here are some examples:

This story appears only in John (2:1-11).  Jesus, his mother and his disciples are attending a wedding celebration at Cana in Galilee.  When the wine fails his mother says to him, "They have no wine."  Jesus replies to her, "O Woman, what have you to do with me?  My hour has not yet come."  This incident occurs at the very  beginning of Jesus' ministry, so he would be about thirty years of age at the time.  In spite of his age, it's a wonder Mary didn't ground him for a month on the spot for such impudence and disrespect.  Doesn't the old testament say we should honour our father and mother? Would anyone care to guess what fury would rain down on a child who responded to his mother's polite reminder that it's time for him or her to clean up their room with, "O woman, what have you to do with me. I'll clean it up when I'm good and ready."  By the way, Jesus did help out the happy couple by performing a miracle and turning some water into wine, thus saving the day.

In Luke 8:19, Jesus has been going from town to town preaching to large crowds.  In one of the towns, his mother and brothers come to see him, but they can't get up close to him because of the crowd.  Someone tells him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." He replies, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."  A real family guy at heart.  Hasn't he talked about the word of God to his own family?  Haven't they heard the word from the horse's mouth and haven't they done it?  It would be ludicrous if he brought the word of God to total strangers and not to his own family.  Doesn't he care about their salvation?

At the last supper Jesus tells his disciples that one of them would betray him.  Of that disciple, Jesus says, "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!  It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24) Jesus preached that if someone struck you on one one side of your face, rather than retaliate, you should offer him or her the other cheek to strike.  I guess Jesus didn't practise what he preached.  Cross him and you will be crushed.  That's not the other cheek.

Matthew 15:21-28 tells the story of a Canaanite woman who came up to Jesus when he and his disciples were in the district of Tyre and Sidon and said to him, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David, my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."  Jesus ignores her and says not a word to her.  She tries her luck with the disciples, but fares no better. The disciples grow weary of her pestering and come to Jesus and implore (in unison?) "Send her away, for she is crying after us."  Jesus replies, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  The woman tries once more, "Lord, help me."  He replies, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."  Nice.  A metaphor in which the Jews are children and the gentiles are dogs.  She responds, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table."  Her faith wins over Jesus and he grants her request.  In Marks version of this story the woman is a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth and Jesus says to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."  Luke's author took a pass on this story and so did John's.  

In Luke 9:57-62 a man approaches Jesus and the disciples and Jesus says to him, "Follow me."  The man replies, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."  Jesus then says to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."   Another potential follower says to Jesus, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home."  Jesus replies, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."  Geeze, this guy's all business.  These two will be disqualified from following Jesus if they want to say goodbye to their family or attend their father's funeral?  Wow! How considerate of Jesus.  How about a little closure for the chap who had just lost his father?  If the other guy just disappears won't his family be in agony for days, weeks, or months wondering what happened to him.  Is he alive? Was he kidnapped? Is he lying in a ditch somewhere?  Couldn't Jesus have said to these men,  "Sure you can bury your father, and say goodbye to your family.  We're headed for ....... You can catch up with us there."

In Mark and Luke there is a story about Jesus and a fig tree.  On their way to Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples see a fig tree.  Jesus is hungry and walks over to it for some fruit.  Unfortunately, it isn't the season for figs, so he finds none.  He curses it with, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."  The next day they find the tree dead.  In Luke he curses the tree with, "May no fruit ever come from you again.".  So, let me get this straight.  The Son of God doesn't know when figs are in season?  He's lived in the Middle East for 33-odd years and he doesn't know this?  And now because of his impatience and anger, a perfectly good fig tree is dead, and no one can enjoy its fruit any longer.

His anger is once more on display in the temple in Jerusalem.  He starts driving out those who were buying and selling in the temple and overturns the tables of the money changers and the seats of those that were selling pigeons,  saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."        

At times Jesus refers to the Pharisees, scribes and possibly the Sadducces as broods of vipers, hypocrites, blind fools and perhaps a few other choice epithets I may have missed.  Kind words indeed.

In chapter 10 of Matthew, Jesus is speaking to his disciples before he sends them out to preach "the kingdom of heaven is at hand",  and they are to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers and cast out demons."  He then tells them that "if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.  Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgement for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.  Jesus isn't even going to be the one preaching to these people.  He's sending out his neophyte preachers and if they aren't believed, well, these people will be wishing they had been in Sodom or Gomorrah when the fire and brimstone hit rather than the fate which apparently will await them.  What if some of the disciples aren't very convincing.  Are these people just out of luck?  That's pretty nasty.

Also, from the same chapter Jesus tells the disciples, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes will be those of his own household.  He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."  Jesus may not have meant for anyone to take what he says here at face value, but if he didn't, he should have expressed this differently so we could all understand what he meant.  Otherwise this is just a rather nasty declaration of Jesus' intent.  If one's message is at all important, and Jesus' is certainly thought to be so, he shouldn't be talking in riddles like this.  People shouldn't have to figure this stuff out.  It should be crystal clear.

In Luke (22:36) Jesus is again talking about swords.  He tells the disciples that if they don't have a sword to sell their mantles and buy one.  They say to him, "Look Lord, here are two swords."  Jesus says, "It is enough."  Really?  What's the plan here?  Has Jesus decided that if he's going down to cover the sins of mankind, he's going to take a few people with him?

So, it appears that Jesus was not the epitome of all the finest attributes one can have.