The Naivete of God's Chosen: Joseph's Dreams: Genesis 37:1-10

[sealchan]

When I read Genesis 37:1-10 I am struck by the naivete and apparent cluelessness of Joseph. He's a tattle-tale on his brothers, then he gets a special cloak from his father...then he has two dreams which suggest he will rule over the family. If we thought Jacob's treatment of Esau was bad, how much is Joseph asking for what happens?

What sort of character does Joseph exhibit that explains his lack of awareness of how much animosity he is generating? Why would God seem to single out this individual? Is there some quality in this behavior which belies that quality which God loves most?

 

[osgart]

The message you get from Christians is , if its from God it is good; dreams, birth right, standing up for what is right. God never wanted Esau to inherit, because Esau could not care less about God, and Joseph's utmost faith and care was in God.

God is the ultimate standard in trustworthiness.

According to Christians God is easily and obviously available to everyone if they so believed, trusted, and repented. The only thing separating every man from God is that they have no desire for God in truth.

If this were all true i would have believed, trusted and repented long ago. I would know this professed truth. Some silent, unseen, voice that is supposedly present called God.

 

[sealchan]

The message you get from Christians is , if its from God it is good; dreams, birth right, standing up for what is right. God never wanted Esau to inherit, because Esau could not care less about God, and Joseph's utmost faith and care was in God.

God is the ultimate standard in trustworthiness.

According to Christians God is easily and obviously available to everyone if they so believed, trusted, and repented. The only thing separating every man from God is that they have no desire for God in truth.

If this were all true i would have believed, trusted and repented long ago. I would know this professed truth. Some silent, unseen, voice that is supposedly present called God.

Yes...this is in stark contrast to what we read in Genesis. It seems that God's chosen patriarchs often acted without consulting God, had to go through a learning process over the course of their entire lives in order to obtain some goal or learn something critical to their personal development and committed major failures along the way.

It seems like the people described in Genesis are...well, actually like you and me!

I think it is a sign of the degradation of a belief system when its believers have to whitewash everything in order for it to be acceptable. A religion that can't talk about reality is a mere fantasy and a cult.

 

[sealchan]

There seems to me to be a repeating pattern of the main, male characters in Genesis being, to some extent, a little naive or clueless in their younger years. It might be interesting to list the examples. Here is the first example:

How many of you thought Adam seemed a bit gormless when he unhesitatingly took the fruit Eve had plucked from the forbidden tree? We can't say Eve didn't tell him because he was, according to Genesis 3:6, "with her" at the scene of the crime. For all those who believe that Eve and Adam must have acted with some great self-centeredness or malicilous or evil intent, but that is going beyond what the story says.

 

[sealchan]

How about when Abram took his family to Egypt because of a famine (Genesis 12:10-20)? He came up with this "plan" where his wife Sarai would agree to pretend she was his sister so he wouldn't get killed? God had to bail Abram out of that plan otherwise Abram would have been rich but would lost his wife. I don't think that Abram had the whole thing worked out so that he knew he would be okay, but rather I think he acted desperately and made a sacrifice to get out of a tight spot.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When I read Genesis 37:1-10 I am struck by the naivete and apparent cluelessness of Joseph. He's a tattle-tale on his brothers, then he gets a special cloak from his father...then he has two dreams which suggest he will rule over the family. If we thought Jacob's treatment of Esau was bad, how much is Joseph asking for what happens?

Ancient heroes weren't heroic like we define it. They were largely immoral villains with epic talents, the latter being the only qualification for "heroism". Judaism goes on and on about Israel's blessing, but that blessing was achieved through a con job and elder abuse. That's not a good thing.

God never wanted Esau to inherit, because Esau could not care less about God, and Joseph's utmost faith and care was in God.

The funny thing is, Joseph is pretty much a non-issue. Other than getting his family into Egypt, he didn't accomplish all that much biblically. He was a successful Egyptian official (per the story, anyway), and the bible hates the Egyptians.

How about when Abram took his family to Egypt because of a famine (Genesis 12:10-20)? He came up with this "plan" where his wife Sarai would agree to pretend she was his sister so he wouldn't get killed? God had to bail Abram out of that plan otherwise Abram would have been rich but would lost his wife. I don't think that Abram had the whole thing worked out so that he knew he would be okay, but rather I think he acted desperately and made a sacrifice to get out of a tight spot.

I think he just pimped her out for the tax breaks. He had no intention of stopping it until Pharaoh complained about the deception. I sincerely doubt the "Pharaoh would kill him" part because there was nothing stopping him from doing that anyway.

 

[metis]

Personally, I take much of what one reads in the scriptures as supposedly being objective history with a huge chunk of salt. I'm much more interested in the basic faith teachings and how they may be applied today.

 

[sealchan]

Personally, I take much of what one reads in the scriptures as supposedly being objective history with a huge chunk of salt. I'm much more interested in the basic faith teachings and how they may be applied today.

Sure but there is also a rich layer of meaning and spiritual understanding to be had from the story itself. By recognizing this we see the patriarchs and others as human beings like you and me and their status as "chosen" does not put them at a distance from our own experience of meaning.

I think that many are satisfied with idealizing and idolizing God's chosen, but I think this leaves half the story and half the teaching of the Bible out of reach.

Otherwise what are these stories but entertainments to satisfy those of us who find reading through the rules to be a chore. There are always circumstances to test the limits of any rule and the stories of the Bible are meant to put us in contact with that personal experience of the messiness of our lives that make rules often seem lofty and sanctimonious.

And really, how better to know how to apply those teachings than to see real, fallible people demonstrate their value and applicability?

 

[metis]

And really, how better to know how to apply those teachings than to see real, fallible people demonstrate their value and applicability?

Because that's simply the best we can do, and we all do it. Teachings that we think are unreasonable or wrong we tend to dismiss, and often maybe rightfully so.

It's the teachings that maybe can help us out today, not whether Abraham and Joseph actually lived as portrayed in the scriptures or even exited at all.

 

[sealchan]

Because that's simply the best we can do, and we all do it. Teachings that we think are unreasonable or wrong we tend to dismiss, and often maybe rightfully so.

It's the teachings that maybe can help us out today, not whether Abraham and Joseph actually lived as portrayed in the scriptures or even exited at all.

So would you then prefer a Bible that was composed simply of teachings? Of rules and laws and wisdom statements?

 

[sealchan]

Isaac is, perhaps, the most tragic case. His wife is procured for him and he never seems to rule the roost ending his days having given the blessing to the wrong son. He started off with the traumatic and resented experience of being a willing sacrifice to God made by his father. As the story in Genesis indicates, Isaac never overcame this act and reconciled with his father. Isaac's failing sight becomes symbolic of his more persistent naivete.

But I see that I am turning up another commonality with all these stories...one that actually doesn't apply to Joseph, perhaps, uniquely. In each case we see the chosen man being either betrayed, misled or otherwise entrapped by his dependency on his wife. God steps in to rescue his chosen man from this situation or otherwise directs him into another course of action or destiny.

Hmmm, further evidence of the careful, skillful excision of the role of the goddess and women in the patriarchal narrative of Genesis...

 

[sealchan]

Because that's simply the best we can do, and we all do it. Teachings that we think are unreasonable or wrong we tend to dismiss, and often maybe rightfully so.

It's the teachings that maybe can help us out today, not whether Abraham and Joseph actually lived as portrayed in the scriptures or even exited at all.

I'm not saying that we need to memorize the facts of the story of Abraham and Joseph...but to read a story, or watch a good movie, is to immerse yourself in a human experience of the world and to have done so gives you knowledge and perspective that is more directly tied into one's own experience than principles and teachings derived therefrom.

When one hears the story of someone in part and you feel that natural urge to judge their intentions...one can draw from one's own experiences and a judicious reading of scripture to understand that you really need to get as much of the context and facts about a person's life as possible before you can even dare to judge.

How many of God's chosen looked foolish or naive when young? How did they fair when they were older? Isaac is certainly a caution as he was promised the covenant, but I do not see too much highlighted in his life to be happy about.

 

[metis]

So would you then prefer a Bible that was composed simply of teachings? Of rules and laws and wisdom statements?

No, as I don't have any interest in such a move at least partially because different people can and do read the scriptures and draw their own conclusions, which I certainly have no problem with. In real estate, the value of a house is largely based on "location, location, location", but in scriptural studies the value is more based on "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation".
I think one of the things that people should realize by now is that the scriptures in any religion are subjective by their nature, written thousands of years ago by people who had a different mindset than most of us in the modern west have. If we forget this, then we're making a huge mistake. Instead, imo, it's best to try and relate the scriptures to the time they were written in and the culture they were written in.

But either way, the teachings are the teachings, and I do believe we should take them seriously, but then what we do with them will be our choice. Each day I read scripture, attend services each weekend, so what is written is meaningful to me even if I don't accept every single thing that's written or said.

 

[sealchan]

No, as I don't have any interest in such a move at least partially because different people can and do read the scriptures and draw their own conclusions, which I certainly have no problem with. In real estate, the value of a house is largely based on "location, location, location", but in scriptural studies the value is more based on "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation".
I think one of the things that people should realize by now is that the scriptures in any religion are subjective by their nature, written thousands of years ago by people who had a different mindset than most of us in the modern west have. If we forget this, then we're making a huge mistake. Instead, imo, it's best to try and relate the scriptures to the time they were written in and the culture they were written in.

But either way, the teachings are the teachings, and I do believe we should take them seriously, but then what we do with them will be our choice. Each day I read scripture, attend services each weekend, so what is written is meaningful to me even if I don't accept every single thing that's written or said.

That seems pragmatic...I sense that my mind would like to let what you've said here soak in a bit.

Thanks!

 

[sealchan]

My last example will be the best one, perhaps, of Joseph's father Jacob. He taunts his hunger brother with an exchange for his birthright for a meal. Then he steals the blessing from his father. Jacob's mother is his instigator holding on to the pattern that a woman will betray her husband...but what is this? God told Rebecca of His favor for Jacob so she is, in actuality, betraying her husband because of God!

But Jacob, fueled by his mother's efforts, is begging for a violent response from his more physically capable brother. As a consequence he goes into exile and learns about how to not just outsmart others but also care about their perspective and respect them.

So it seems that for Joseph he is set on a time-honored course of being less than perfect, yet chosen by God for great things. We can understand that each of us has great potential but we are differently potentialled for different ends. We all are naive but can all learn from our mistakes and thereby achieve more than we might have been judged capable of. Our strengths, in our naivete, are our weaknesses, but our lives can grow, with the assistance of God, into something transcendent.

Also, we see that the Bible often sets up a pattern in its stories only to break it at some point. This, to me, is to secure against simplistic attitudes. While we can see many examples of misogyny in the Bible, we can also see that a single counter-example can help to dismiss such things as proofs regarding God's truth. God can act through a woman (Rebecca) and through anyone whether they are perfect or not in any particular way. This mitigates somewhat although doesn't fully balance the deficit of respect for women and their spiritual perspectives in the Bible.

 

[metis]

One of the things that did not get unnoticed by Jewish scholars is that pretty much every major figure in the Tanakh is portrayed as having at least one defect, and at least one commentary on this has it that maybe these are included to pretty much tell us that none of these people are deities or perfect in any way.