Genesis 43:1-15

The Brothers Come Again, Bringing Benjamin

43:1 Now the famine was severe in the land. 2 And when they had eaten up the grain that they had brought from Egypt, their father said to them, "Go again, buy us a little more food." 3 But Judah said to him, "The man solemnly warned us, saying, 'You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you.' 4 If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food; 5 but if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us, 'You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you.' " 6 Israel said, "Why did you treat me so badly as to tell the man that you had another brother?" 7 They replied, "The man questioned us carefully about ourselves and our kindred, saying, 'Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?' What we told him was in answer to these questions. Could we in any way know that he would say, 'Bring your brother down'?" 8 Then Judah said to his father Israel, "Send the boy with me, and let us be on our way, so that we may live and not die--you and we and also our little ones. 9 I myself will be surety for him; you can hold me accountable for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever. 10 If we had not delayed, we would now have returned twice."

11 Then their father Israel said to them, "If it must be so, then do this: take some of the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry them down as a present to the man--a little balm and a little honey, gum, resin, pistachio nuts, and almonds. 12 Take double the money with you. Carry back with you the money that was returned in the top of your sacks; perhaps it was an oversight. 13 Take your brother also, and be on your way again to the man; 14 may God Almighty grant you mercy before the man, so that he may send back your other brother and Benjamin. As for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved." 15 So the men took the present, and they took double the money with them, as well as Benjamin. Then they went on their way down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph. (Genesis 43:1-15, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 22, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 17, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

In yesterday’s reading, Jacob’s nine sons returned from Egypt with food, but without Simeon (Gen. 42:24) who was left behind as a hostage to guarantee that they would return with Benjamin (vv. 15, 34). Jon D. Levenson says, “Chs. 43-45 repeat the pattern of ch. 42, only with variations, greater detail, and much greater emotional tension. Once again, the brothers depart for Egypt, approach Joseph fearfully, find themselves subjected to a frightening test of their honesty as well as accusations of deceit, and once again they return to their father” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 43:1-34). We are reminded again that “the famine was severe in the land” (Gen. 43:1; cf. 41:56, of Egypt, and 42:5, of Canaan). It was apparently the same famine prolonged, for “when they [i.e., Jacob’s family] had eaten up the grain (rb,w,0ha, haššever) that they had brought from Egypt, their father said to them, ‘go again, buy us a little more food’ ” (43:2). Rabbi J. H. Hertz comments on “eaten up the corn” (JPS 1917, AV/KJV, for “eaten up the grain” NRSV, cf. “eaten up the rations” NJPS 1985, 1999): “Not in its entirety; they must have left sufficient for their father and the household during their absence in Egypt” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 43:2). William L. Holladay defines the word translated here as “corn” or “grain” as “grain for sale” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. II rb,w,, šever), related to the verb II rbw (š-b-r). The latter is defined as “buy grain,” or “more generally buy” (ibid., on II rbw, š-b-r). Another word for “grain,” without the connotation of buying and selling, is NgADA, dāgān).

But Judah reminds Jacob of “the man’s” warning–Joseph’s warning, though they don’t know him as Joseph. “But Judah said to him, ‘The man solemnly warned us, saying, “You shall not see my face unless your brother is with you” ’ ” (v. 3). He emphasizes the fact that they will not go to Egypt without Benjamin. “If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food; but if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us, ‘You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you’ ” (vv. 4-5). “Judah’s decisive language,” says Rabbi Hertz, “has the desired effect with Jacob” (op. cit., on v. 5). At this point Israel (Jacob) complains. “Why did you treat me so badly,” he asks, “as to tell the man that you had another brother?” (v. 6). Their reply is not completely true, for they quote Joseph as saying, “Is your father still alive? Have you another brother?” (v. 7a; contrast 42:13, where they volunteer the information about Benjamin). They claim that they could not have anticipated Joseph’s demand, “Bring your brother down” (v. 7b). “Jacob, to whom the brothers once lied about Joseph (37:31-35),” says Levenson, “now accuses them of telling too much of the truth” (op. cit., on Gen. 43:6-8). Judah intervenes with an offer that succeeds where Reuben’s earlier offer failed (42:37-38). Only Judah puts himself on the line, not his sons. “Send the boy with me, and let us be on our way, so that we may live and not die–you and we and also our little ones. I myself will be surety for him; you can hold me accountable for him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever” (vv. 8-9). The Rabbi says, “Jacob is more impressed by his words than by Reuben’s wild offer” (op. cit., on v. 9; cf. 42:37). Judah also notes the urgency of their trip. “If we had not delayed, we would now have returned twice” (v. 10).

So Israel relents, and insists that they take presents for the Egyptian. “Then their father Israel said to them, ‘If it must be so, then do this: take some of the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry them down as a present to the man--a little balm and a little honey, gum, resin, pistachio nuts, and almonds’ ” (v. 11). Rabbi Hertz says, “Jacob yields to the inevitable, and offers his children prudent counsel” (ibid., on v. 11). According to Levenson,

As in 37:21-30, Judah’s plan succeeds where Reuben’s had failed (42:37-38). This is another indication that one function of the Joseph story is to explain why Joseph (the dominant tribe of the North) and Judah ()the royal tribe of the South) became more important than Reuben (the first-born). See 1 Chron. 5:1-2. The balm and ladanum (a fragrant resin [cf. NRSV ‘resin’]) recall the commodities conveyed by the Ishmaelite caravan in 37:25. Once again, Jacob’s beloved son is being brought to Egypt–only this time with his father’s knowledge and consent and as a sign (unknown to all but Joseph) of healing rather than estrangement. (op. cit., on v. 11)

Israel directs them to return double the money that they found in their bags on the last trip. “Take double the money with you. Carry back with you the money that was returned in the top of your sacks; perhaps it was an oversight” (v. 12). And in resignation, he allows Benjamin to go. “Take your brother also,” he says, “and be on your way again to the man” (v. 13). Hoping against hope, he prays for their safe return, saying “may God Almighty yDawa lx, (’el šadday) grant you mercy before the man, so that he may send back your other brother and Benjamin. As for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved” (v. 14). Rabbi Hertz says, “God Almighty. Heb. El Shaddai. ‘The God of Abraham can alone now help him, an old man trembling for the life of his two children’ (Procksch)” (op. cit., on v. 14). According to David M. Carr, “The phrase translated as God Almighty is variously understood as ‘God, the one of the Mountains,’ ‘God of the Shadday [deities],’ or even ‘God with breasts’ (= ‘fertile God,’ see 49:25). Whatever its original meaning, the Priestly tradition understands this epithet to be what the early ancestors of Israel called God before they learned the name Yahweh during the Exodus (Ex. 6:2-8)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 17:1; ref. from 43:14). Israel’s expression of mournful acquiescence in the Divine will reminds us of Esther’s exclamation (Est. 4:16), “and if I perish, I perish” (cf. Rabbi Hertz, op. cit., on Gen. 43:14). they return to Egypt and stand “before Joseph” (v. 15). As the story continues tomorrow, we will learn of events in Egypt on the brothers’ second trip.

1 Corinthians 7:1-9

Directions concerning Marriage

7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.(1 Corinthians 7:1-9, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of September 25, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 22, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing from September 28, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated from March 17, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

With 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, Paul begins to address a series of questions which the Corinthians have sent in a letter to him, “the matters about which you wrote” (1 Cor. 7:1). These questions are marked by the introductory phrase “Now concerning (peri; dev, peri de)” (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Here he gives directions about marriage. In order to put the two paragraphs in context, take note of comments by Ben Witherington III, who says that one must know something about marriage in the culture of the Roman Empire in order to understand Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians in chapter 7:

Roman marriages were for the most part arranged and involved little personal choice on the part of the participants, at least among the prosperous. The disposition of property was all-important, and marriage became a means of enhancing one’s property and status. Hence one often reads that a cardinal characteristic of good Roman marriages was concordia, a state of peace or harmony between husband and wife, rather than great love or affection. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 170, on 1 Cor. 7:1-40)

With aspects of the culture in the Roman Empire, and so in Roman Corinth, in mind, Witherington rejects an “ascetic interpretation” of Paul’s advice, which “rests on several misunderstandings of 1 Corinthians 7”:

First, while Paul would agree that there are contexts in which it is good for a man not to ‘touch’ a woman (cf. 6:16-20), he strongly qualifies that slogan in vv. 2ff [i.e. 7:2-5]. Second, his egalitarian treatment of the rights of each partner is remarkable and would have amounted to serious qualification of the status quo. Few Romans could have conceived of arguing that the husband’s body belonged to the wife. Against the ascetic view, Paul says that sex should be abstained from only in a time of prayer. Third, those who argue for the ascetic view have misread what Paul is conceding in v. 6. He is not conceding sexual relationships. The nearest and proper antecedent of touto (“this”) at the beginning of v.6 is the concession of abstinence during a time of prayer. This is why he has just said that marital partners should only abstain for a specific limited period of time. (ibid., p. 175)

Witherington adds that “Paul’s preference for singleness is motivated by ideas that decidedly set him apart from some of his contemporaries who did have ascetic tendencies,” such as his eschatology and the “present, not future, distress,” his “theology of giftedness (charisma),” and “his pragmatic reason for preferring singleness . . . that a single person can give more time, and undivided time, to the Lord’s work” (ibid., pp. 175-176).

With those considerations in mind, we see that Paul introduces today’s reading by saying, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch (a{ptesqai, haptesthai) a woman’ ” (1 Cor. 7:1). “Touch,” says Richard A. Horsley, “is a euphemism for sexual intercourse” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 7:1). This, as noted above, is the first of a group of “matters” about which the Corinthians have asked Paul in their letter. According to Victor Paul Furnish, “Some scholars believe the the quotation is another slogan current among the Corinthians (see 6:12-13); others believe it represents a view that Paul himself has expressed (perhaps in an earlier letter; see 5:9). Many translations do not mark it as a quotation at all” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 7:1). While the observation of Furnish that some translations do not use quotation marks here is true (cf. AV/KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, NIV, ISV), others do use quotation marks, including the TNIV revision of the NIV and the NRSV revision of RSV (cf. ESV). And some of those lacking the quotation marks translate in a way that indicates that Paul is expressing a view of at least some of the Corinthian believers. The New English Bible, for example, says,

AND NOW FOR THE MATTERS YOU WROTE ABOUT.

It is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with women;^e but because . . . (1 Cor. 7:1, 2a NEB)

And text note e says, “Or You say, ‘It is a good thing . . . women’; . . . The New Living Bible’s paraphrase implies a Corinthian question while anticipating Paul’s later expressed preference for celibacy. “Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life” (1 Cor. 7:1 New Living Bible). So it appears that this is the question addressed to Paul by some Corinthian believers, “about which you wrote” (v. 1a), not his advice to them. In response to that, Paul advises, “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (v. 2). And he instructs that there should be equality in this relationship. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (v. 3). According to Furnish, the statement, “give . . . conjugal rights” is an “affirmation of sexual intimacy within a Christian marriage [that] stands in contrast with the ascetic view quoted in v. 1” (op. cit., on v. 3). “For the wife does not have authority over her own body,” says Paul, “but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (v. 4). Furnish says, “A husband’s authority over his wife was presupposed in the ancient world (see Eph. 5:24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1-6), but not a wife’s authority over her husband” (ibid., on v. 4). “Do not deprive one another,” says Paul, “except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (v. 5). The included reasons, “because of cases of sexual immorality” (v. 2), and “so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (v. 5), do not change the advice given; in fact, they represents aberrations, not the norm. Even so, Paul apparently has some reservation. “This I say by way of concession,” he adds, “not of command” (v. 6), with reference to the previous advice. He apparently leaves the way open for voluntary celibacy–outside of marriage, of course. “I wish that all were as I myself am,” he says. “But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind” (v. 7). “Perhaps,” says Horsley, “because some were appealing to Paul’s own unmarried and celibate status, he declares that celibacy is a special gift from God” (op. cit., on v. 7).

After addressing married people (vv. 1-7), Paul adds advice for those not married. “To the unmarried (oiJ a[gamoi, hoi agamoi) and the widows (aiJ ch:rai, hai chērai) I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am” (v. 8, cf. v. 7). Furnish says, “the unmarried [means] perhaps widowers specifically (the expression is masculine)” (op. cit., on v. 8). He is perhaps overlooking the fact that a[gamoV (agamos) is one of those Greek adjectives with two sets of endings, one for masculine and feminine, and one for neuter (cf. Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. a[gamoV, ou, oJ and hJ, where the definition is given as “an unmarried man/woman, of both 1 Cor. 7:8 . . .). But he perhaps has a point since the masculine plural article oiJ (hoi) is used and the expression is paired with “the widows” (aiJ ch:rai, hai chērai), which is clearly feminine. In any event, the statement clearly includes both widowers and widows; furthermore, it does not negate the earlier advice about marriage, and is not a rule as such (cf. v. 9), but a preference under certain conditions. “But,” he adds, “if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (v. 9). Horsley says, “practicing self-control is likely a reference to certain Corinthians’ celibacy. The memorable maxim, It is better to marry . . . indicates how seriously Paul took the sex-drive” (op. cit., on vv. 8, 9).

Mark 4:35-41

Jesus Stills a Storm

35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, "Let us go across to the other side." 36 And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. 37 A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?" 39 He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, "Peace! Be still!" Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. 40 He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?" 41 And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"

The following comments are based on those of July 22, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing here from January 23, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when they were repeated from August 10, 2008 (the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two), when comments were repeated from February 22, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 25, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were based on comments from earlier dates (noted there).

This story has parallels in Luke 8:22-25 and Matthew 8:23-27 (in a different context), and the parallel texts are presented in a separate file, Stilling the Storm. The story is somewhat similar to Jesus’ Walking on the Water (Mt. 14:22-33; Mk. 6:45-52; Jn. 6:16-21). In this story the emphasis seems to be upon the disciples’ fear–though one might suppose that fishermen would be used to the Sea of Galilee’s sudden storms–and lack of faith (Mk. 4:40), and on Jesus’ control of the powers of nature. Richard A. Horsley says, “Control of the sea is a divine characteristic (see Ps. 89:9; cf. Ps. 89:25)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on vv. 35-41). That issue is raised for the disciples, who “were filled with great awe” and asked, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (v. 41).

In Mark, after Jesus presents a series of parables and explains them for his disciples (Mk. 4:1-34), today’s reading begins with the report that “On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, ‘Let us go across to the other side’ ” (Mk. 4:35; cf. Lk. 8:22). In Matthew this report comes in the middle of a series of episodes grouped together after the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 8:1-9:34). According to Dennis C. Duling, “From Mark and Q . . . Matthew assembles ten miracles, suggesting the miracles of Moses in Egypt (Ex. 7:8-11:10)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Mt. 8:1-9:34). For Matthew, however, this episode is followed by Jesus’ healing of the Gadarene Demoniacs (Mt. 8:28-34), compare Jesus’ healing of the Gerasene demoniac which follows in Mark (Mk. 5:1-20; cf. Lk. 8:26-39). In Luke, as in Mark, the stilling of the storm follows parables (the Sower, 8:4-18), after the brief note on Jesus’ true relatives (Lk. 8:19-21; cf. Mt. 12:46-50; Mk. 3:31-35). But Luke’s time reference is indefinite. “One day he got into a boat with his disciples, and he said to them, ‘Let us go across to the other side of the lake’ ” (Lk. 8:22).

As this scene is introduced, Matthew follows Mark, “Let us go across to the other side” (Mk. 4:35b, cf. Lk. 8:22). Earlier, Matthew quotes Jesus: “Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side” (Mt. 8:18), but Matthew adds brief exchanges here that Luke uses elsewhere.

A scribe then approached and said, ‘Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’ Another of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’ (Mt. 8:19-22; cf. Lk. 9:57-62)

Then Matthew resumes Mark’s narrative. Mark says, “And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was” (Mk. 4:36a), and Matthew simplifies, “And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him” (Mt. 8:23). Luke says briefly, “so they pull out” (Lk. 8:22, end), and he anticipates the later report of Jesus’ sleeping, “and while they were sailing he fell asleep” (v. 23a). Mark says, “And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat just as he was” (Mk. 4:36a). In Mark, it appears that the disciples are in charge, with their boat, but in Matthew they followed Jesus into the boat (Mt. 8:23). Only Mark adds that “other boats were with him” (Mk. 4:36).

The point of the story, of course, is the storm that arose, which all mention, each in his own way. “A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion”” (Mk. 4:37-38a); “A windstorm arose on the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves, but he was asleep” (Mt. 8:24); “A windstorm swept down on the lake, and the boat was filling with water, and they were in danger” (Lk. 8:23). Note that Matthew and Mark mention Jesus’ sleeping here, which Luke mentioned earlier (see above). The cry for help is distinctive in each account as well, “and they woke him up and said to him, ‘Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?’ ” (Mk. 4:38b). “And they went and woke him up, saying, ‘Lord, save us! We are perishing!’ ” (Mt. 8:25). “And they went to him and woke him up, shouting, ‘Master, Master, we are perishing!’ ” (Lk. 8:24a). In each Gospel it is reported that Jesus rebuked ( ejpetivmhsen, epetimēsin) the storm (i.e., “the wind,” oJ a[nemoV, ho anemos, Mk. 4:39; Lk. 8:24; “the winds,” oiJ a[nemoi, hoi anemoi, Mt. 8:26), but other details vary. Mark reports that he said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” (Mk. 4:39). In each account Jesus chides the disciples for lack of faith. “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mk. 4:40). “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” (Mt. 8:26a). “Where is your faith?” (Lk. 8:25a). But in Mark and Luke this chiding comes after Jesus’ rebuking of the storm (Mk. 4:39; Lk. 8:24), whereas in Matthew it comes before he “rebuked the winds” (Mt. 8:26b). The awe and amazement that follows is noted by all. “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mk. 8:41b; cf. Mt. 8:27; Lk. 8:25b).

I. Howard Marshall, commenting on Luke’s version of this story, says,

Conservative scholars find it possible to accept the account [of this event] as substantially historical (Taylor, 272f.; Rengstorf, 108; Schürmann, I, 479; cf. Schweizer, 60f.). The Jewish parallel [cited by Bultmann 249f.] is obviously based on the story of Jonah, and is late. There is nothing in the story itself to demand that it is an invention, and hence a verdict on its historicity depends on the reader’s general understanding of the person of Jesus. (The Gospel of Luke, A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, 1978, p. 333, on Lk 8:22-25).

The story of Jesus stilling the storm, understood as his stilling the “storms” in the lives of Christian believers, has been a comfort to many. One example is this Gospel song from Mary A. Baker (on the Internet site Leader in Lieder mit Midi Melodies, by Frank Petersohn, at http://ingeb.org/spiritua/masterth.html, accessed March 4, 2010).

Mary A. Baker, 1874

In some times of trouble, Christ’s word to us is “Peace! Be Still!” Though spoken to the wind and the sea, when our hearts are troubled and the storm is within, he wants to speak “Peace” to our condition.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net