Joseph was a bit of a jerk!


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Vort said:

You're missing my point, Jamie. In ancient Israel, a concubine was a wife. That's the whole point. Bilhah and Zilpah were wives, not mere "mistresses" or "kept women". The Bible makes this explicit.

This calls for a visit to Professor Internet. According to Merriam-Webster...

Quote

Definition of concubine

: a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: such as 

a : one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife

...and "mistress sense 4a" is

Quote

a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship

So it must be quite correct to refer to a mistress as a concubine. But what you're saying of course is that in Bible-speak a "concubine" cannot be called a "mistress". So where does "concubine" even originate? According to this same Merriam Webster page, the English word "concubine" comes from...

Quote

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin concubina, from com- + cubare to lie

...so it's obviously not Biblical, and must be an inexact translation of a quite different Hebrew word. So if you're right, in those days there must have been two grades of wife, one of which we (confusingly) translate as "wife" and the other as "concubine" - so when we see the word "concubine" in the Bible we must always interpret in the second sense.

So thanks Vort! It's all worth knowing! :)  

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, Genesis 30:4 reads:

And [Rachel] gave [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

Similarly, Genesis 30:9 reads:

When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

Bilhah and Zilpah were Jacob's wives. That's what concubines were in ancient Israel, wives, not merely mistresses. Bilhah and Zilpah did not have the social status of Rachel and Leah, but they were certainly no mere kept women. They were wives, and their sons were fully legitimate, being counted among Israel's (i.e. Jacob's) "twelve tribes" and gaining full inheritance rights, equal to Leah's and Rachel's sons.

Edited by Vort
One day, I will learn to count
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Just to be clear, Genesis 30:4 reads:

And [Rachel] gave [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

Similarly, Genesis 30:9 reads:

When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

Bilhah and Zilpah were Jacob's wives. That's what concubines were in ancient Israel, wives, not merely mistresses. Bilhah and Zilpah did not have the social status of Rachel and Leah, but they were certainly no mere kept women. They were wives, and their sons were fully legitimate, being counted among Israel's (i.e. Jacob's) "ten tribes" and gaining full inheritance rights, equal to Leah's and Rachel's sons.

OK it does say "wife" in those parts in the niv too, though they obviously weren't "wives" in quite the same way Rachel and Leah were. Interestingly they were both servants of the "main" two wives, and also Hagar was a servant of Sarah. Was it, I wonder, one the duties of a lady's maid to be a kind of "substitute wife" to her mistress' husband when required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Just to be clear, Genesis 30:4 reads:

And [Rachel] gave [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.

Similarly, Genesis 30:9 reads:

When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

Bilhah and Zilpah were Jacob's wives. That's what concubines were in ancient Israel, wives, not merely mistresses. Bilhah and Zilpah did not have the social status of Rachel and Leah, but they were certainly no mere kept women. They were wives, and their sons were fully legitimate, being counted among Israel's (i.e. Jacob's) "ten tribes" and gaining full inheritance rights, equal to Leah's and Rachel's sons.

This is actually covered in part with a change of opinion, or a policy of what is taught within the Church.  In otherwords, what I was taught many years ago has been changed apparently in the church and is no longer taught.  The teaching is changed.

When I was younger we were taught the difference between concubines and the full on wife in the days of Genesis dealt directly with the Sealing power.  Those who were married for time and all eternity were wives in the fullest sense.  They were sealed up to be wives under the power of the priesthood.  Those who were not, were considered concubines.  They were wives in this life, but had not been sealed by the priesthood for eternity to their husband.

Thus, in relation to Jacob, when these handmaids were given as wives to Jacob, they were not sealed to him, thus any children they had were theirs in THIS life, but in the eternal nature of things, these children were literally Leah's and Rachel's in accounting for their prosperity. 

This is something I was taught in my youth, but I have not seen taught in some time in the Church.  I'm not sure why.

Today, instead they teach it is more about the elevation or status of a wife rather than anything regarding the priesthood or priesthood ordinances.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Call me cynical, but I tend to think that it comes to the same thing. Joseph/Pharaoh had them over a barrel, and it made very little difference whether he/they took their property by force or not.

This is really the only statement you're saying... again and again... just worded differently for different issues and line items.

You see something happen for ... whatever motivations and/or purposes...  And you immediately see them through "UNFAIR!!!" glasses.  I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not so naive to think that all these scriptural figures were perfect.  But why not give them the benefit of the doubt?  Are you so cynical that you accuse first, then require proof that your accusations are wrong?  What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I may be wrong, and all your characterizations are 100% right.  But what good does that do to see these stories through such eyes?

You also keep saying that "if it were that way, then the author ought to have stated it."  Why?  Do you not know how many lessons are in scriptures that are not explicitly written?  It's a story.  It's up to US to listen to the Spirit and extract the lessons that these stories can tell us and how we might live better thereby.

Some things are hidden for the same reason the Savior spake in parables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Colirio said:

In what way was Joseph living the law of Moses? 

A provision of the Law of Moses was that if you had debts you could not pay, then you sold your family and/or yourself into slavery to pay said debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

This calls for a visit to Professor Internet. According to Merriam-Webster...

OK:

Quote

1) a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.

2) (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.

  -- Dictionary.com  (I'm not sure if the UK version will have the same definitions as the US version.  But there it is.)

Also remember that your definitions come from modern English usage.  That is not the language that the Bible was written in.

1828 dictionary has two entries which parallel Dictionary.com.

Quote

1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.

2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.

Not every word that is written is what YOU believe it means.  You have to look for the original author's intent (as much as is possible).  Then you need to pray about it for clearer understanding.

EDIT:

5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

OK it does say "wife" in those parts in the niv too, though they obviously weren't "wives" in quite the same way Rachel and Leah were. Interestingly they were both servants of the "main" two wives, and also Hagar was a servant of Sarah. Was it, I wonder, one the duties of a lady's maid to be a kind of "substitute wife" to her mistress' husband when required?

OK, I guess you were coming around.  As to this question, kind of, yes, but not really.  The idea was that the man couldn't simply up and decide to lie with the woman on a whim.  There was at least a minimal process involved.  But it was not a formal marriage ceremony.  I'm not familiar with the details of such.  But it was not simply choosing to lie with her on a whim.  (A whim is apparently a type of ancient bedwork in which... just kidding).

Stop thinking with presentism.  Example: Hagar was Sarah's slave.  She had been given as a 'present' to the bride as part of her dowry.  Because of Abraham's social standing, the slave would have been used to a higher standard of living than that of a nomad (no matter how wealthy he was).  She was used to living in an Egyptian palace.

She was never given much respect as a foreigner and a slave.  To be raised up to be the 2nd wife and mother of the heir to the father's birthright!  That gave her such delusions of grandeur that she began believing herself higher than Sarah.  Perhaps in Egypt that would have been the case.  But not under Abrahamic traditions.

She did indeed have some benefits from the position.  So, I don't think it would be fair to say she was completely unwilling.  It's just that the story didn't have a happy ending which makes us think she didn't have a part of her lot in life.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh...  Egypt charged them a 1/5 of their gains (20%) and that gets Egypt and Joseph called evil, greedy, selfish jerks...  But the UK charging them 1/5 or more and that is all ok and good and proper... https://www.mileiq.com/en-gb/blog/income-tax-rates-2019-20-uk/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

Joseph lived before the time of Moses. 🙂 

BAM!!!  You're absolutely right.  Boy did I get that mixed up.  Nevermind.  I don't know what I'm talking about.  Carry on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 6:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

They never tell you this stuff in kiddies' Sunday School class. (Just as they never tell you what Joshua did to the people of Jericho after "the walls came tumbling down"...but that's another story.)

It's kinda poetic justice that a few generations later, the Israelites found themselves slaves in Egypt!

Read the Bible closely and carefully, and you see a lot of stuff like this

Do you believe Deuteronomy 7:2; 9:1-5, and Joshua 10:40?

Jonah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Do you believe Deuteronomy 7:2; 9:1-5, and Joshua 10:40?

Jonah

The Bible itself confirms that Joshua 10:40 is not accurate.  Joshua may have tried to do it; but it didn’t happen.  Descendants of the Canaanites remained in the promised land through the time of Christ and later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2019 at 4:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

I'm not even going to talk about him being a spoiled brat - the only son (apart from Benjamin) Jacob had with his beloved Rachel, instead of ugly old Leah or one or other of his two mistresses (I've forgotten their names and can't be bothered to get the Bible out). 

I don't think it is fair, nor a righteous judgement, to assume Joseph (who we have very little of his history, which mainly begins at seventeen years-old) was a spoiled brat. We know the following of Joseph before being sold:

1) He was loved by Jacob because he was obedient (that should ring a bell to someone else who was "obedient" in all things), and because he was the first son of the woman he wanted to marry originally. Jacob's love for Joseph created envy and jealousy from his brothers.

"And Israel said unto Joseph, Do not thy brethren feed the flock in Shechem? come, and I will send thee unto them. And he said to him, Here am I." Where his father sent him, he obeyed, and it appears he obeyed without hesitation. As we can see from the story Joseph was a honest son, who would return and report.

2) He wasn't afraid to report the "evil" doings of his brothers (which is one of the reasons they hated him).

3) He was aware of how the Lord would speak through dreams, and his dreams angered his brethren such that they hated the more for it.

4) He relays even another dream to his father that mom and dad would also bow to him. At first Jacob rebuked but "observed" his sayings. Whereas his brothers envied him.

To determine Joseph was a spoiled brat from, what, 1 chapter of scripture -- really? And this one chapter of scripture highlights aspects of his character that many of us don't have. The next chapters dealing with Joseph talk about a slave who was honest and favored that even the slave master could see God was with him. After thrown into jail, for no wrong, he continued to find favor. He continued to do what was right such that God was still showing him dreams and allowing him to interpret dreams. Does this sound like the workings of a spoiled brat?

On 10/18/2019 at 4:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

They never tell you this stuff in kiddies' Sunday School class. (Just as they never tell you what Joshua did to the people of Jericho after "the walls came tumbling down"...but that's another story.)

Well, milk before meat is usually a good premise. But, I assume you had a different Sunday School class then I. I remember being taught what was done, but sure it was never the focus of the class.

On 10/18/2019 at 4:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

Read the Bible closely and carefully, and you see a lot of stuff like this - things that you never knew because you thought you knew the story - while in reality you only ever knew the Enid Blyton or Hollywood version. For example, I'd be interested to know how many Christians are aware of the interlude in the Joseph narrative, the (quite literally) sticky story of Onan and Tamar! I expect it was more in the past - after all, it's where we get the term "onanism" from!

True. There is a lot in the Bible that causes a person to think, really? Wow! Is that what really happened? OMG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

To determine Joseph was a spoiled brat from, what, 1 chapter of scripture -- really? 

Perhaps I worded that badly. I'm not saying he was a spoiled brat - only that that's a charge often brought against him - but that wasn't what I wanted to focus on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Well, milk before meat is usually a good premise

Indeed it is! The problem is that you feel a definite sense of betrayal when the "meat" eventually comes. I struggle to understand the real difference between Joshua and Bin Laden. My faith is in the Bible for sure but I don't always find that faith easy to justify. I try, but I do struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

The problem is that you feel a definite sense of betrayal when the "meat" eventually comes.

A brilliant insight, seriously, and one only too appropriate to an LDS forum. How many Latter-day Saints have felt betrayed, and have even distanced themselves from the kingdom of God, because they learned something about the gospel or the history of the Church that they felt had been misrepresented to them?

The problem here is a disconnect between what we say we believe about God and what we really believe about him, deep inside ourselves. I am reminded of those who talk about the "vengeful Old Testament God", as opposed to the "loving Father" of the New Testament, acting as if there is some fundamental difference between the two. I have even heard people whom I love, people close to me, people in my inner circle of friends and family, accuse God—GOD!—of being a murderer, a rapist, and a child abuser. No, I am not joking. The mind boggles.

God is the God of life. He determines our lives. How can God be "guilty" of murder? Murder is, by definition, the wrongful intentional taking of human life. God cannot take life "wrongfully". Our lives literally belong to him. They are a temporary gift from him, which he can take back whenever suits his purposes. I can understand how an atheist might roll his eyes at this; in denying the very existence of his Creator, such a person feels liberated to shake his head at any description of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's characteristics. But I do not understand at all how anyone who calls himself a theist can have any contrary thoughts on the matter. This is so deeply embedded in the definition of "God" that you would have to be either blind or an idiot (or perhaps both) to think that God could be a "murderer" or "abuser" of people.

In my view, the so-called meat of the gospel is almost always a slightly-more-than-superficial examination or revelation of the mind and characteristics of God or of his kingdom or servants beyond the simplified versions of reality that we teach to our little children. How shocking to discover that Moses had a bad temper! What a testimony hit to find that Joseph Smith drank wine, even AFTER receiving Section 89! Quelle horreur to learn that some apostle or Church president used foul language in his youth! What disillusion in hearing that God the Father not only lets babies DIE (!!!!!), but has even commanded that such innocents be slain! That's even worse than the stupefying realization that he openly allows innocent children to be defiled and abused in unspeakable ways!

Welcome to reality. Welcome to mortality. Welcome to agency, your own and that of others. Welcome to hell, but with the promise of heaven to those who will reach out and grasp the proffered gift. Let us thank God for the beauties of our own lives while we seek to better the lots of others less fortunate than ourselves.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Vort said:

A brilliant insight, seriously, and one only too appropriate to an LDS forum. How many Latter-day Saints have felt betrayed, and have even distanced themselves from the kingdom of God, because they learned something about the gospel or the history of the Church that they felt betrayed over?

The problem here is a disconnect between what we say we believe about God and what we really believe about him, deep inside ourselves. I am reminded of those who talk about the "vengeful Old Testament God", as opposed to the "loving Father" of the New Testament, acting as if there is some fundamental difference between the two. I have even heard people whom I love, people close to me, people in my inner circle of friends and family, accuse God—GOD!—of being a murderer, a rapist, and a child abuser. No, I am not joking. The mind boggles.

God is the God of life. He determines our lives. How can God be "guilty" of murder? Murder is, by definition, the wrongful intentional taking of human life. God cannot take life "wrongfully". Our lives literally belong to him. They are a temporary gift from him, which he can take back whenever suits his purposes. I can understand how an atheist might roll his eyes at this; in denying the very existence of his Creator, such a person feels liberated to shake his head at any description of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's characteristics. But I do not understand at all how anyone who calls himself a theist can have any contrary thoughts on the matter. This is so deeply embedded in the definition of "God" that you would have to be either blind or an idiot (or perhaps both) to think that God could be a "murderer" or "abuser" of people.

In my view, the so-called meat of the gospel is almost always a slightly-more-than-superficial examination or revelation of the mind and characteristics of God or of his kingdom or servants beyond the simplified versions of reality that we teach to our little children. How shocking to discover that Moses had a bad temper! What a testimony hit to find that Joseph Smith drank wine, even AFTER receiving Section 89! Quelle horreur to learn that some apostle or Church president used foul language in his youth! What disillusion in hearing that God the Father not only lets babies DIE (!!!!!), but has even commanded that such innocents be slain! That's even worse than the stupefying realization that he openly allows innocent children to be defiled and abused in unspeakable ways!

Welcome to reality. Welcome to mortality. Welcome to agency, your own and that of others. Welcome to hell, but with the promise of heaven to those who will reach out and grasp the proffered gift. Let us thank God for the beauties of our own lives while we seek to better the lots of others less fortunate than ourselves.

Thanks very much for that Vort. You're right - it makes as little sense to accuse God of murder as to accuse Shakespeare of murdering Romeo and Juliet. I think if we're completely honest about it we do tend to see our lives as our own, and if we make a profession of Christianity, we have to continually remind ourselves otherwise. (This is one reason I think that Christianity must be more than just wish fulfilment.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share