10 MIKETZ (at the end); Gen 41:1-44:17, Mat 21&22

[Bruce Bertram]

Gen 41:1-44:17; 1Kings 3:15-4:1; Mat 21&22

Pharaoh has a dream concerning some cows, and he can't find anybody to interpret. The cupbearer belatedly realizes that he knows someone who can, and recommends Joseph. Joseph tells Pharaoh that there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine so severe that people will have to eat up all of what was produced in the years of plenty. He tells Pharaoh to put someone in charge who is wise to handle things, and Pharaoh decides that the guy should be Joseph. Joseph gets elevated to the second position behind Pharaoh, is given a wife, and during the years of plenty has two sons.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the famine hits and gets so severe that it affects even the area where Jacob lives, so he sends his sons to Egypt to buy food. Apparently this means grain, because they seem to have flocks and herds which would provide meat. Joseph buys up all of everything people own, including the people, and somewhere in there Jacob's sons show up to buy grain. Joseph recognizes them, but they do not recognize him. It's been a few years since they've seen him after all, and who would expect that the one they sold into slavery would end up second in command in Egypt? Joseph decides that he wants to see the youngest brother (Benjamin) and sends his brothers away with the money for the grain purchase tucked back into their packs. The brothers know they are in trouble when they find the money, but return to Jacob anyway. For a while they live off of the grain they purchased, but eventually they have to go back.

Taking Benjamin, they return to Egypt, only to go through the charade again of having their money put back into their packs, but this time a gold cup is added to Benjamin's pack also. After the boys leave, Joseph dispatches a servant to catch up and search their packs. The cup is found, and the boys return to Joseph's house again.

In Matthew, Jesus goes into the city of Jerusalem riding on a colt, the 'foal of an ass,' to resounding shouts of praise and welcome. Entering the temple, Jesus proceeds to 'clean house' by chasing money lenders and others out of the area. The next morning, Jesus causes a fig tree to wither (perhaps a symbol of the eventual withering of Israel) and the religious leaders later ask Him by what authority He does the things He does (and probably referring specifically to the entry the day before) but He won't tell them because they can't tell Jesus about John's authority. Two parables are offered (the two sons and the tenants and the vineyard) illustrating a son who doesn't at first do what the father asks but later does it, a son who acts like he will do what his father but doesn't, and a group left in charge of a vineyard that not only will not do what the owner wants but add insult to injury by killing the son to steal the inheritance. This is obviously a poke at the religious leaders who killed the prophets that the Father sent (the owner of the vineyard Israel) and will shortly kill the Son also in order to keep their power.

The parable of the wedding feast is next, where people are invited who should come but don't, so other people are invited from the highways. Jesus passes the test of what should be given to Caesar, while the Sadducees and Pharisees try to flummox Jesus with questions designed not to learn but to trip Him up. The Sadducees don't believe in the resurrection so pose a (pretty stupid) question concerning marriage in the afterlife, while a lawyer from the Pharisees throws out a question concerning the greatest command. Jesus successfully answers these questions.

37And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40 NASB95)

But they cannot answer His.

42“What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” 43He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet” ’? 45“If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” 46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. (Matthew 22:42-46 NASB95)

Shalom

[Bruce Bertram]

Comparing and contrasting the two sections, Genesis and Matthew, I see some similarities between the games being run by Joseph and the games that Jesus is running on the Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, Herodians and elders.

Joseph is a smart man, having wisdom and discernment and able to interpret dreams. He is dealing with smart men who are older than himself and should know better. For instance, since money was left in the packs the first time, why wouldn’t a reasonable person check his packs before leaving the second time? Why didn’t the brothers recognize Joseph, especially when he asked all sorts of detailed questions (such as “do you have a younger brother?”) and they knew that the Ishmaelites they sold Joseph to were going to Egypt? (Genesis 37:25) How would Joseph know to seat them in their correct order according to age? (Genesis 43:33) Why wouldn’t they notice that Joseph ate apart from the other Egyptians? (Genesis 43:32) They were smart enough to realize that selling Joseph was catching up to them (Genesis 42:22), but they weren’t going all the way.

Jesus is also not recognized by the ruling elders of the time. Yet they are also smart men, learned in the Word, sort of, and no slouches when it comes to knowledge. Yet they also didn’t recognize the Messiah standing right in front of them. Or did they?

First Fruits of Zion puts out a weekly eDrash which states the following.

When Joseph’s brothers arrive in Egypt, they do not recognize him, nor does Joseph reveal his identity to them. Joseph is dressed like an Egyptian. He has Egyptian hair and Egyptian makeup. He speaks the Egyptian language. To the ten brothers, Joseph is a Gentile prince. They have no idea that this is their own brother, the one sent to them by their father so long ago, the one they rejected, stripped, put into the earth and gave over to the Gentiles. And how could they suspect it? The brothers had long ago come to regard Joseph as dead, convincing themselves of their own deceit to explain his absence. To the brothers, there is no Joseph.

Just as Joseph was disguised, so too the Messiah remains disguised to His brethren, the Jewish people. In some ways, Gentile Christianity is responsible for the disguise. Christian artwork represents Jesus with Gentile hair, makeup and clothes. In Christian literature Jesus speaks in Greek and in the language of every nation; His Hebrew mother tongue is all but forgotten. Christianity has removed Him from His Hebraic and Torah context and made Him unrecognizable to His own brothers. Historically, the harder Christians have tried to convince Jews otherwise, the more they have strengthened the Jewish conviction that this Jesus is not a Jew, and He is certainly not the Messiah.

So was Joseph really not recognized because he was dressed like an Egyptian and it had been a long time? Is the Messiah not recognized today due to being dressed like a Greek by the church?

The problem is, the disguise excuse (and it is an excuse) doesn’t cover the situation with Jesus at the Temple. Sure, over the last couple of centuries the church may’ve been playing dress up with a paper doll version of Jesus, but does that really excuse the non-recognition by His own brothers? And how does it explain the lack of recognition at the Temple scenes in Matthew 21 and 22? They recognized that He had authority (Matthew 21:23) they just wanted to hear Him say where it came from. They had seen and heard of the miracles Jesus was doing, many of which only the Messiah would do, according to Scripture. They couldn’t seize Him because of the people, who recognized Him as the Son of David and coming in the Name of the Lord (Matthew 21:8-11) also according to Scripture. Oh yes, the ruling elders certainly knew who Jesus was and was claiming to be (John 8:53-59 and 10:27-33 among other verses). The problem wasn’t with a disguise at all, was it?

I think, instead of a disguise being the reason for lack of recognition of both Jesus and Joseph, it was something else entirely.

Hard hearts.

The brothers of Joseph had hardened their hearts to his pleas a long time before. They had to harden their hearts to lie to Jacob and tell him that Joseph had died. Over and over through the ensuing years they had to harden their hearts every time the subject came up. So when they at last stood in front of Joseph, no wonder they didn’t recognize him. Hard hearted people do not recognize the ways of God when they are manifested. Joseph devised an elaborate plot, in my opinion (remember he is very smart) to bring his brothers to confession and repentance. He uses the youngest brother as a hostage in a similar fashion as he was used when he was the younger brother. The 10 brothers dimly start to figure things out at about Genesis 42:22, but Joseph has to keep things going in order to get them to soften their hearts and confess what they did.

I also believe that Joseph was aware of the previous dreams (Genesis 37) and was possibly making a concerted effort to make them come to pass. He needed a reason to get Jacob to come down to Egypt also, and holding Benjamin hostage was a good way to do it. Joseph could’ve simply revealed himself, which would’ve taken care of some of the difficulties involved in getting his family down to Egypt, but might not necessarily soften the brother’s hearts nor cause them to confess and repent.

Jesus is using the tests at the Temple likewise with the intention to bring the ruling elders to repentance. A number of groups representing different factions come to Jesus trying to trap Him, yet He passes every test. On the other hand, they refuse to listen and soften their hearts when He in turn tests them. Parables don’t work either, even though they recognize that Jesus is talking about them. Joseph manages to work things out with his brothers, but unfortunately Jesus cannot do the same with the Jewish rulers of His time. They refuse to listen, arrest Him at night when the people won’t interfere, railroad Him in a sham of a trial that goes against Torah, and rapidly hand Him over to (my people) the Romans to kill.

Hard hearts also explains the non-recognition of Jesus at the Temple. I do not think, in fact, that the rulers couldn’t see Him, any more than they can’t see Him now. Of course they can see Him, with or without a disguise. A person is known by their fruit, not their appearance, and the fruit of Jesus has always been eternal life. I think the elders did see Him, and recognize Him, but refused to acknowledge Him as Lord and Messiah. This is an entirely different prospect than the church disguising Jesus so that He is unrecognizable to Jews. It is not the fault of someone else – it is the fault of the individual for refusing to recognize God and His manifestation no matter the size, shape, color, or disguise. The fruit of God, and the fruit of the Christ, is instantly recognizable to those of His people with hearts soft enough to see.

The eDrash from FFOZ closes with a couple of good thoughts also.

Joseph did not return evil for evil. When he fell into the hands of his brothers, they treated him with contempt. But when the tables were reversed and they fell into his hands, he repaid evil with good. He sent them home with the grain necessary for their survival and their money too.

Why did Joseph not reveal his identity to them at once? He sustained the ruse in order to test their hearts for repentance. Perhaps the long years of the Messiah’s concealment from us is accomplishing the same end.

Shalom

[Bruce Bertram]

Miketz Genesis 41:1 – 44:17; I Kings 3:15 – 4:1; Matthew 21 & 22; Acts 7:9-16;
1 Corinthians 2:1-5

It’s interesting that just a couple days ago I was told by a pastor to return to a former church and “work things out.” I tend to think that Scripture jumps out at us because of what we are going through at the moment. So what caught my eye this week in our reading section is the concept of testing.

Joseph tested his brothers, and Jesus is tested by the religious leaders. What is common to both tests is that everyone is tested, not just the presumed subject. Even people reading about the tests are tested. In other words, Joseph was tested in his love for his family even though he was rejected. Jesus is tested in a different way, sort of like a lamb is examined for defects before sacrificing. He still loves his people, in spite of knowing the test that was coming. In the testing of Jesus in Matthew 21 and 22 we see also that the religious leaders were tested, though they may not have realized it. Joseph’s brothers are tested in their love for their father and their brother. God’s Word has a way of doing this to us. He and His Word are a right standard, the source of life; perfection and balance and power. Any deviation or perversion is going to cause strife. Not in God or His Word, but in whether we will conform to it, repenting in humility if we need to.

This brings me back to the pastor’s comment. We left the former church because the leader of that congregation was an adulterer with an underage female. He was conniving his way back into a leadership position, at the expense, we thought, of the people. He systematically attacked anyone who was a threat to getting his position back. That’s why we eventually left, in spite of the fact that I considered him a best friend and had spoken in his defense in the adultery matter. The problem is we were the only ones in that congregation who knew what had happened with him at a previous church. To add insult to injury, he had counseled my daughter through some of her own improprieties, but told her not to tell us what she had done.

So being told to go back to that situation was, to say the least, ridiculous. It showed that the pastor doing the advising was lacking wisdom, so he failed the test of a man of God. It tested me in that I had to review a hurtful situation and make sure forgiveness was there. But it also brings up the issue of testing to prove adherence to God’s Word. The previous church was put in our rear view mirror, not because of some superficial failure such as a lack of enough hymns in the singing, but because the former pastor had been tested with the Word and found wanting.

This guy had failed spectacularly in his first test as a youth leader of a Baptist church. Then he went to a community church where we met him and eventually the infidelity allegations caught up to him there. They had been hidden for a while because the girl didn’t speak up. He was tested again when he was asked to leave the community church. He didn’t lose his ordination with the Evangelical Free denomination through our defense testimony. He went to the third church (where we were advised to return) and years later became the pastor. So now I’m being tested with advice to return there.

People make mistakes. We sin. We have to repent. Forgiveness needs to be extended and relationships restored. That is, if repentance is genuine and fruits of it are evident.

10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV)

Joseph worked things out with his family, and they reunited. I think this is because the brothers repented of their dastardly deed in humility. The humility was forced on them somewhat because of worldwide hunger, but they did it. Jesus, on the other hand, wasn’t able to work things out with the religious leaders, obviously. Later, it is possible (and probable) that some repented and entered into the kingdom, but in the meantime they failed the test. My test now is whether I would return to a congregation with a leader that is like the Pharisees and Sadducees before the crucifixion of Jesus. Is it lack of forgiveness that prevents our return, or a lack of genuine living out of the Word? In my opinion it’s the latter. Could Jesus have worked things out with the Pharisees? Sure, if He wanted to forget everything He is and everything that God had said. All He would’ve had to do was behave exactly as the Pharisees commanded.

18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 ESV)

I was also accused by the same pastor of being ‘contentious.’ I didn’t take it as an insult. Jesus was a contentious person. He was ‘divisive’ too. He stuck to His guns, and the guns of His Father. He would not compromise on unity with God, so they killed Him. Fortunately for me, when I won’t compromise on God’s Word I don’t get killed by the former pastor. I don’t even have to worry very much (yet) about getting killed for my beliefs in general. Someday soon, maybe. In the meantime, I test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. To me, the former pastor is not. This is apparent from the test results. He wanted to be a pastor and now he is. Too bad he is not passing the test of the Word. Is it lack of forgiveness that keeps me from returning? Am I a contentious person because I don’t return? Is being contentious a failure of my testing, or is it a mark of those who make a stand on the foundation of God’s Word?

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34 ESV)

Are we “divisive” as we’ve been accused? Are we separating from what is wrong and ungodly, or separating from what is right and holy and good? Isn’t it ‘divisive’ either way? Can we divide ourselves from ungodly people, and still be living the Word correctly? I would say yes. It’s easy to call someone contentious or divisive without saying where the contention or division is coming from. I’m sure atheists would call me contentious. So what? If the church or pastor is not adhering to the Word, then if they call me contentious that’s a good thing. If an adulterer says I’m being contentious, isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? Doesn’t contention or division in that instance mean that things are working exactly as they should? What if the adulterer and child abuser didn’t call me contentious? That would most certainly be failure of the test.

We can always reconcile a division or contention in the Body. Just repent from disobedience to God. Joseph’s family repented. Jesus allows repentance now through His death. We can pass the test of contention or division when we stay true to His Word and His plan. Without repentance peace is possible, but it’s the peace of the graveyard from which there can be no repentance.

51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. (Luke 12:51 ESV)

Shalom
Bruce