That Awkward Moment When…..

…you are not anyone’s flavor of the month because you have to confront everyone.

So, because you are lukewarm, I will vomit you out.

From Revelation 3

Sometimes, there are occasions when we have to take care of others, and other times, there are occasions when we have to impose responsibilities on others in order force or provoke growth in them.

I appear to finish this sabbatical in the same place where I began it: being a goad in the lives of those who need to mature.

I have seen a lot of good come from showing silence or gentleness to community, especially when community grows indifferent or unreceptive. However, there are times we need to shake or stir or provoke community so that it does not entropate.

The verb form of “entropy”, coined by yours truly.

There was a reason the only people vomited from our L-rd’s mouth were those who refused to decide between two useful states and attempted to mix the two into a state of apathy.

Lukewarmth defeats the twin purposes of hot and cold and leads to a destroyed twisting, much like the bile-laden and undigested garbage that is rejected by the king.

Gang, I would like to issue a challenge.

Cold is useful. As is hot. The text of Revelation and the rest of the canon never rejects the idea of “cold”, and, indeed, if we read the context, we will appreciate that reality.

But if you find yourself in a doldrumous place of apathy or refusal to fight or stir up what is needed to stir up, I would urge you to consider asking the King to shake you up in some fashion.

He might just surprise you.

Be blessed to receive His stirring of your spirit.

On Joseph, Israel and the Adopting of Ephraim and Manasseh

Genesis 48 has always provided me with some nagging questions. One in particular.

Why would Israel perform what appears to be an adoption of Jacob’s sons and what further could be taken by some to imply a disinheriting of Joseph?

How does this fold into the Genesis 49 blessing given to Joseph?

I would like to suggest the possibility, for the purpose of discussion, and I accept I could be wrong.

But one of my guidestars in dealing with the text of Scripture is that I endeavor to be a student WITH others, and to learn from those who are scholars of the Scripture, as well as those who are not. I have, in teaching have always preferred the round table to the lectern or the pulpit, not that I mind standing behind something.

But I like to sleuth with other believes about the possibilities in the text.

Some have put forth the idea that, because of the discussion of the silver cup of divination (Genesis 44:1-5) showed Joseph left the faith of Adonai.

While I don’t necessarily buy that idea, given the fact Joseph mentions the L-rd later on, and given some of the other interactions they have, I have to say that the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh can do one of a number of things.

1) Show a replacement of Joseph with two others.

2) Show a intensification of blessing upon Joseph.

3) Show Joseph as defined by the twin realities of Ephraim and Manasseh.

4) I would also be willing to entertain the possibility that the variety and length of trauma was strong enough to create a part in Joseph, that is, a divided identity (along the spectrum of DID).

What tells against the idea of Joseph being disinherited are the statements, “am I in the place of G-d” (Gen 50:19), “you meant evil against me, but G-d meant it for good” (Gen 50:20), and the statements from Israel in 48:21-22 that G-d will be with Joseph and that Israel was passing to Joseph the slope he got from defeating the Amorites.

What seems to tell for the disinheritance of Joseph is the silver cup of divination.

What seems to tell for Ephraim and Manasseh’s adoption alongside Joseph is the statement in 48:5-6 that Ephraim and Manasseh are sons of Israel.

Just some thoughts.

There could also be something I am missing, which, I would love to hear your thoughts on.