Trees,stolen gods,and becoming Egyptian: Reading Genesis missionally

Introduction

The book of Genesis has been a key biblical book for mission theology development over the last several decades. The account of God coming to the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve’s act of disobedience told in Genesis 3 and the call of Abraham found in Genesis 12 are foundational passages in theology of mission discussions. These passages have been commented on and interpreted in various ways that have aided mission theology immensely.

However, the missiological literature becomes far sparser when it comes to the rest of Genesis. While a few mission theologians dabbled in discussions relating to Abraham’s life beyond his call (Matthews, 1997; Glasser, 2003: 62–65; Talman, 2013; Hunter, 2014; Riecker, 2016), Jacob’s activities (Glasser, 2003: 66), and Joseph’s life in Egypt (Glasser, 2003: 67–68), there is very little well-developed missiological engagement with these three life narratives of Genesis. Various reasons could be posited for this lack of engagement with these passages in missiological literature, ranging from a low view of mission in the Old Testament to a lack of close readings of the text with a missional hermeneutic (Dumitrescu, 2010; Kaiser, 2102; Riecker, 2016).

This article adds to missiological discussions by rereading some selected passages from the life of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph using a missional hermeneutic (Shaw and Van Engen, 2003: 53–56; Redford, 2012). I have chosen Genesis 12:6–7 and 13:18, which record Abraham’s forms of worship and dwelling among important groves of trees as an example of worshipping God in a plural society in the public sphere as a potentially helpful example for worshipping God today in the public sphere. I then turn to the struggle of Jacob and his family’s connection to deities other than Yahweh in their journey away from Laban toward God, as found in Genesis 31:19, 32, and 35:2–4. God’s semi-silence in the process of Jacob and his family’s move away from other gods is a telling example of the real-life dynamics of people following God while holding onto long-held traditions and worship practices acquired prior to their experience with God. The final part of this article will discuss Joseph in Egypt, more specifically his full acceptance as an Egyptian as found in Genesis 41:45, 50; 42:8; 43:32 and his use and practice of Egyptian rituals as a part of his daily life as demonstrated in Genesis 44:5, 15, and 44:31–34. Joseph’s narrative, which involves God heavily, creates an interesting discussion surrounding issues concerning people following God within a context where they are a very small minority due to extraneous circumstances.

I hope this article will trigger reflection on the missiological issues presented as well as trigger reflection on the potential of Genesis to inform the ongoing discussions of missiology. Reading the Bible from a missional hermeneutic is a relatively new hermeneutical phenomenon still in development (Shaw and Van Engen, 2003; Redford, 2012; Goheen, 2016). This article is one version of how this type of hermeneutic can aid biblical studies and missiological studies.

Abraham among the trees

Trees were particularly important in the arid land of the Levant, which Abraham traversed. They provided shade from the hot sun, stood in places where water was nearby, and were often large enough to create space where people could gather for interaction and even pitch a family’s tents. It was natural for Abraham and those with him to live in places where large trees grew. However, there is sufficient evidence to argue that Abraham was rarely the first person to come and stay among the trees. Most likely, the shaded areas were already being utilized before Abraham’s arrival for sheltering from the heat (Bar, 2010: 13), having meetings and teaching (Doukhan, 2016: 202), and creating shrines for the worship of the various local deities.

While some have argued that the trees were considered sacred and worshipped, this goes beyond the extant data available for the time of Abraham. ¹ The Bible in no way indicates that Abraham thought the trees themselves were sacred or worshipped them (Hamilton, 1990: 377; Pagolu, 1998: 60; Bar, 2010: 4). But this does not negate the likelihood that there were existing shrines erected, under or near the trees, for Canaanite deities (Wenham, 1987: 279; Bar, 2010: 7). Certainly, this was true of later times in Canaan and Israel as demonstrated in passages such as Deut 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 16:4; 17:10; 2 Chron 28:4; Isa 57:5; Jer 3:13; and Ezek 6:13. At the very least these spots under or around the trees were part of the “public sphere.”

Abraham is recorded in Genesis 12:6–7 as dwelling at the site of the “great tree of Moreh at Shechem.” This was a recognized and iconic spot (Bar, 2010: 6). Verse 6 adds the important detail that “the Canaanites were there.” It is in this spot that Abraham chooses to build an altar to the Lord “who had appeared to him.” While this is early in Abraham’s recorded journey with God, the reader already finds him worshipping God by building an altar, presumably for sacrifices, in a space visible to the Canaanites “who were already there.” This is a form of public witness, not necessarily done with full missional intention, “but Abraham builds an altar, the first in the Holy Land, and this altar, not far from the pagan cultic center, was a sign at first still silent, still noncombative, of infinite significance” (Von Rad, 1972: 162). Thus, begins the process of Abraham fulfilling the promise of Genesis 12:1–3 to be a blessing to the nations by creating awareness of Yahweh through his public recognition through worship (Doukhan, 2016: 202).

This was a practice that Abraham continued throughout his sojourn in Canaan. In Genesis 13:18, there is another instance of Abraham dwelling among important trees in Mamre of Hebron. Once again, Abraham builds an altar to the Lord. Like Genesis 12:7, readers are not told of any, reactions or questions this raised among the Canaanites in the surrounding area. Genesis never explicitly states that the Canaanites asked questions about Yahweh or tried to learn more about Him, nor does it record that the Canaanites had an issue with Abraham worshipping his God openly and publicly. Canaan at this time was a plural society when it came to the worship of deities, and this made it possible for Abraham to openly build altars and perform sacrifices in such important spaces as the trees of Mamre. ²

There is no record that Abraham had a separate tent or structure for his worship of Yahweh or performing rituals related to God. While studies in the ancient Near East reveal that there were structures like temples during this time period, this was not part of Abraham’s experience. God did not require him, from the record we have in Genesis, to erect any sort of physical space for separate worship. Rather worship was performed through the altar or the erection of pillars and rocks (Gen 28:22) (Walton, 2001: 415). ³

In the Bible, there are very few instances where God guides His followers to build physical structures to worship Him in. The prominent examples are the tabernacle in the wilderness, the special tent provided for the ark of the covenant by David, the temple built by Solomon, and the rebuilding of the temple by the post-exilic Jews. After that, there is no clear indication in the New Testament that God required or even desired that buildings or other types of large structures were needed to worship Him. God appears content with the public worship of Abraham through these reasonably minor, in size at least, altars and shrines. However, the locations where these altars were erected were not insignificant. The “Great tree of Moreh” and the “trees of Mamre” were significant locations where the worship of God was visible to a large group of Canaanites who worshipped other deities (Ross, 2008: 98).

The trajectory of Abraham’s overall interaction with the Canaanites who surrounded him was positive. He was able to develop and maintain meaningful relationships, and on several occasions, Canaanites recognized the power and importance of Abraham’s God. Examples of this include the narratives of Abraham’s interactions with Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18–20, with Abimelech in Genesis 21:22–34, and in the burial negotiations for Sarah’s tomb in Genesis 23. While there is no direct reference to his altars by Canaanites, it may be that through the passage of time and repeated observation, they were able to gather some knowledge of Abraham’s God through Abraham’s public worship and personal life.

I presuppose that the same God who interacted with Abraham is the God of the New Testament and the God of today. Therefore, while the contextual world of Abraham is very different from the present, the way God interacts with Abraham and receives his worship demonstrates how God can and has approvingly dealt with His followers in the past.

Abraham worshiped his God among a majority around him who worshipped other deities. He was a minority in a land that was semi-open to variety in deity worship. This is not unlike much of the world today. While there are places that require specific forms of worship and restrict adherence to other “gods,” most of the world is in a state of semi-open pluralism whereby people can choose who to worship or follow without being harmed or persecuted. ⁴ This worship, however, is often relegated to physical structures that have been erected, such as a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. But those who follow Jesus in these types of physical structures, especially in places like Western Europe and North America, have become or are becoming minorities in the wider population. The rise of the “nones” is well-documented in Western Europe, North America, and now South America (White, 2014). It is widely accepted that the Western world has entered a post-Christian era. What can the story of Abraham’s altars under the trees reveal in the contemporary setting? ⁵

Those following God must become far more creative in their worship of God outside the typical realms of worship, such as a church structure. While the building of altars and performing of sacrifices is no longer an appropriate means of public worship, there may be other forms that should be explored. This is complicated, and I do not have a clear idea what would be appropriate, but for starters identifying public places of gathering and interaction, like the trees of the ancient Near East, seems appropriate. ⁶ Once these spaces are identified, and in this day and age, they may be digital spaces, it is up to the followers of God to creatively perform acts of worship that are visible but not overly offensive to those they are among in the public space. Is it possible that these types of spaces could become one of the primary places of worship in locations where the institutional church can no longer serve this purpose (Stone, 2018: chap. 5)?

In other places where followers of God are so few that they are overlooked because they separate for worship in such small numbers will also have to creatively conceive of ways to publicly worship and acknowledge God as Abraham did as a small minority in Canaan. There are parts of the world, especially in Asia, where the followers of Jesus are numerically so few that they are not visible to the public eye. How can they be witnesses to the God who is leading them so that the wider public can observe them worshipping (Smith, 2017)? ⁷ It may be that there is more to learn from the example of God and Abraham as it relates to mission than has typically been realized. I do not have the answers for the best ways to publicly worship God, but these passages have reminded me that God accepted the worship of Abraham and that it served as a public acknowledgment of God in a place where few knew God.

Jacob’s family and other gods

In Joshua 24:14, Joshua, as leader of Israel, implores the people to abandon the gods they were worshipping in place of the true God. He then references the gods that their ancestors worshipped beyond the river Euphrates. Many Israelites struggled with moving towards the one true God away from gods their ancestors had passed on through the ages.

Several generations before Joshua, there is a similar kind of plea and desire on the part of Jacob with his own family in Genesis 35:2–4. At the end of Jacob’s plea, his family takes the physical objects representing these gods and buries them under the oak tree at Shechem. From this point forward, in the narrative of Jacob, there is no more mention of other deities.

So how did Jacob’s family get to this stage? The narrative of Jacob is a convoluted tale of deceptions and struggles between family members. It is also a tale of the struggle between Jacob and God and Jacob’s family members with God. While the narrative of Jacob wrestling with the Angel of the Lord is an often-discussed point in this journey, the struggle with other gods is less discussed.

In Genesis 28:20–22, Jacob made a vow to God, after his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven, that if God helped him Jacob would set up a stone pillar in God’s honor and tithe a tenth of what he had to God. While it may be going too far to argue that Jacob was still unsure whether or not this was the one true God, there is an element here of testing on Jacob’s part. This is a covenant moment in which the terms are being set by a human, though God initiated the interaction. But Jacob never refers to other gods as worthy of his admiration nor is there any example of him worshipping or even taking seriously other gods. However, this is not true of his spouse Rachel, nor does it appear to be true of his wider family that was raised in the confines of Laban’s household.

Rachel stole household gods (Gen 31:19), which in this case, were small enough to fit into the camel’s saddle that she could sit on to hide them from the searching Laban (Gen 31:35). At this stage in the story, Jacob is unaware that his wife has stolen the household gods from Laban. He states that if Laban finds anyone with these gods, they should be killed (Gen 31:32). Eventually, Jacob became aware that the household gods were with the family members and that they were still being revered as mediums for some members of the family because in Genesis 35:2–4 he explicitly references these gods and states they should be abandoned. ⁸ The family members agree to this arrangement, and the small objects representing the gods are buried under an oak tree at Shechem. ⁹

What is particularly fascinating about this narrative, when compared with the passage from Joshua cited above, is God’s relative silence on the issue. Nowhere does Genesis record God telling Jacob or any other member of his family that they must abandon these household deities. Jacob comes to the realization that it is incompatible in his journey with God to have these deities in the family camp. This realization comes right after God requests Jacob to “Go up to Bethel and settle there, and build an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau” (Gen 35:1). So, it is in the context of fulfilling the vow Jacob had made earlier that he now decides to get rid of all other gods in the camp and focus on the one true God who fulfilled his promise to him.

More unsettling is the reality that God was already interacting with Rachel and blessing her with children before these episodes involving other gods. Genesis 30:22–23 records a positive interaction between God and Rachel whereby she is granted a son. Thus, God was able and willing to positively interact with Rachel despite her reluctance, demonstrated through her stealing and keeping of the gods, to fully rely on God as the one and only true God. The narrator of Genesis indeed belittles these “gods” by demonstrating how they were sat on by a woman who claimed she was “impure” while sitting on the false deities (Von Rad, 1972: 309–10; Hamilton, 1995: 303). But the narrator’s view should not be confused with the idea Rachel had of these deities. While there is no recorded instance explicitly mentioning Rachel or any other family member worshipping through these objects or using them in other ritual forms, Jacob’s recognition of their presence in the camp demonstrates they were being used in some way and were prominent enough to be seen as problematic and in need of removing (Wintle, 2015: 51). Jacques Doukhan argues that they were probably related to ancestor worship and that “Rachel was still attached to the religion of her father and was therefore not so confident about leaving home” (2016: 362). Hamilton posits that Rachel probably stole the idols to be protected by them (1995: 291–95; Adeyemo, 2006: 59). Both are plausible arguments and not mutually exclusive explanations.

God’s silence is an interesting phenomenon in the Bible. Missiological literature could benefit from more careful reflections on God’s actions and words and His silence. In this case, there is a significant missiological lesson to be learned by God’s silent response to Rachel and other family members’ continued adherence to a belief in other gods. God desired them to move away from these gods based on His later clear instructions about idol worship. But at this stage in the journey of Jacob and his family, God was more reluctant to call out the use of idols directly (Walton, 2001: 631). ¹⁰ He patiently waited for the family to recognize the need for removal while at the same time reaching out to them in their everyday lives in positive ways, such as blessing both Leah and Rachel as well as their maidservants with children. As Hamilton puts it, “It is to Jacob’s credit that he himself is responsible for suggesting the extirpation of the gods. That was not a part of God’s directive to Jacob in the previous verse. He intuitively senses that the continued presence of these gods is irreconcilable with the new life he has found in Yahweh. The whole incident must be read as an illustration of Jacob’s religious maturation” (1995: 374–75). Until Joshua 24 and even beyond, God would struggle with his follower’s use and adherence to other gods. Often this struggle was a silent struggle on the part of God, whereby, He relied on His actions to lead people away from other deities toward Himself.

This is a reminder to all followers of God, but especially to those newly following God or walking alongside those newly following God, to be very patient in their journeys. Human beings continue to struggle with other “gods” (Floyd-Thomas, Floyd-Thomas, and Toulouse, 2016; Ramachandra: 2016). ¹¹ Often, this struggle is in the midst of God working positively in the lives of the same people who are unsure of His claim to be the one true God. It is prudent and wise in many of these cases to keep silent while portraying and interacting with the true God until people realize that their journey requires the abandonment of other deities. In some parts of the world, such as India or among the Indian diaspora, the journey toward God may be very similar to the story of Jacob and his family, right down to the physical objects (Wintle, 2015: 51). In other contexts, the “gods” may not be so clearly represented in physical images, but the struggle is similar. While there are times for explicit denunciation of idol worship (Josh 24:14), this is often appropriate in cases where people have been following God for a significant amount of time and have sufficiently seen and experienced the works of God in their lives and the lives of others to know there is no other “god” like Him.

While much of missiological literature is concerned with “syncretism,” more emphasis should be put on understanding better when to keep silent and when to explicitly address issues of “gods” with people whose journey with God is in its early stages (Tompkins, 2013; Shaw and Burrows, 2018). But as the story reminds us, even Jacob struggled with how to relate to and understand this God who he knew was the true God (Adeyemo, 2006: 60). Eventually, Jacob speaks out against the “gods” in the camp, but it is possible that he was not ready to take this step until he had sufficiently experienced God’s keeping of the covenant verbalized at Bethel (Gen 28:20–22). Even those of us who have been journeying with God for extended periods of time are also learning and growing in our understanding of God and how to relate to Him (Koyama, 1980: 6). This narrative is a reminder that, even within a family, we are all at different stages and in the right moments and times we can grapple with serious issues of dual allegiance, but these issues do not necessarily cut us off from God’s positive leading and blessing (Shaw and Burrows).

Joseph the Egyptian

On rare occasions, missiologists and theologians of mission have referenced Joseph’s narrative as an example of God’s leading in the Old Testament as a part of the missio Dei. But this is usually in passing and scarcely are the details mentioned. This, despite the fact that there are several interesting details from the life of Joseph in Egypt, especially after he is freed from prison and is working for Pharaoh, that have missiological implications. Bible commentators often skip over texts like Genesis 41:45, 50, and 46:20, which mention that Joseph was married to Asenath, the daughter of a Priest of On; 42:8 where it states that Joseph’s brothers did not recognize him, even though he was able to recognize them; 44:5, 15 where it is mentioned that Joseph had a cup for divination; and 50:2–3, 26 in which the Egyptians embalm Jacob and Joseph in the common tradition of Egyptian funeral rites.

Joseph as the foreordained savior of Israel, is often the theological focus of interpretations of this narrative. As a result, Joseph’s Hebrewness, as it were, comes across as overshadowing his Egyptianness. While there is no doubt, that God worked through Joseph to aid the survival of Jacob’s family and thus Israel as a nation, Joseph as a person, in many ways, shed his Hebrew identity for an Egyptian identity (Hamilton, 1990: 507). This does not mean he revoked his birth identity or claimed to be a non-Hebrew, but when it came to daily life and identity, Joseph, in most ways, became fully integrated into Egyptian ways of living.

Two particular points in his life as an Egyptian could disturb some missiologists. The first is that Joseph married Asenath, who was the daughter of a priest of On, the Sun god (Ross, 2008: 224). We know very little from the biblical text about Asenath or her father. However, the author of Genesis does intentionally add the detail that Asenath’s father was a priest of On more than once. Certainly, this connection to a prominent Egyptian would have increased Joseph’s influence and acceptance in Egypt (Doukhan, 2016: 446; Wintle, 2015: 62). While details are limited on Asenath and whether or not she continued to adhere to Egyptian gods or switched to Joseph’s God, we do know that the text records the birth of her sons Ephraim and Manasseh as a great blessing. This, indirectly, is a positive commentary on Asenath as a person and as the wife of Joseph. Her offspring are integrated fully into the lineage of Israel, as can be seen in their names representing two of the twelve tribes of Israel, rather than their father’s name. Is this an example of the nation’s blessing Israel? God said this would happen when He blessed Abraham in Genesis 12:3 by stating, “I will bless those who bless you.” ¹²

While the text never states that the followers of God should purposely marry followers of other deities, in this case, God does not condemn the actions of Joseph and, in fact, blesses him through the union (Von Rad, 1972: 377–78; Wintle, 2015: 63). Joseph found himself in a situation where he was a minority follower of God, probably the only one in Egypt at least explicitly following Yahweh. Therefore, in this situation, rather than remain unmarried he married, despite his spouse coming from a background of worshipping another deity.

Another troubling detail is Joseph’s reference to the cup that he has hidden in Benjamin’s bag of grain. The cup is not merely a cup but is unique because it is Joseph’s divination cup. While there is no record of Joseph using the cup for divination, he had the cup and knew its purpose. ¹³ In this case, he utilized it for something other than divination, but does this preclude the possibility that at other times he used the cup for divination (Ademeyo, 2006: 75)? ¹⁴ At the very least, Joseph was able and willing to play along with the Egyptian ritual activities and objects, even if he never used it for divination or believed in its efficacy (Walton, 2001: 681). While God would expressly forbid such activities among the later Israelites, God does not have anything to say about the cup or its use in this situation.

These elements, along with Joseph’s use of Egyptian language and dress, played a role in the inability of Joseph’s brothers to recognize him when they met him in Egypt (Hamilton, 1995: 519). Even in the death of Jacob and Joseph, the Egyptian identity played a role. Both Jacob and Joseph are the only biblical characters known to be embalmed at death. This was a well-established Egyptian ritual, usually done in such a way as to keep the physical body intact for the afterlife. While there is no record that either Jacob or Joseph held the same beliefs as the Egyptians on the afterlife or whether or not all the usual rituals related to death and the afterlife were performed at their funerals, at the very least we know that Egyptian physicians were intimately involved in the process of their embalming and that Egyptians undertook the usual mourning process at their deaths.

In the overall scheme of Joseph’s life in Egypt, while it started as a curse to Joseph, it was a great blessing to him in the end. He was able to marry and have a family, found meaningful and influential work, his extended family was granted property, and even in death, he was honored as any good Egyptian would have been. While typical interpretations and commentaries on Joseph’s life focus on his important Hebrew identity and the blessing he became to his Hebrew family, the Egyptian Joseph and the blessing that he received and gave to and from Egypt are often overlooked (Ademeyo, 2006: 72).

The Egyptianness of Joseph is particularly important to keep in mind in contexts where people, outside of their own life choices, follow God virtually alone or in very small groups. This is often the case in places of significant conflict or displacement, such as modern-day Syria and Iraq, or historically in other locations such as communist Russia and China. These people are faced with a choice to integrate through marriage, work, and other avenues into the places they find themselves, surrounded by people who do not believe in or worship the God they do. In some cases, they may encounter, later in life, a chance to interact with their birth identity community, but because they have lived so long within another location and developed another identity, their primary identity, remains with the new place and people they are among. This does not mean they should or must repudiate their original identity because the Joseph story is clear: you can have more than one identity that still plays a meaningful role in your life (Wintle, 2015: 63). Rather, it means the newer identity is more ingrained and has more pragmatic potential in the given situation. God, through the story of Joseph, does not frown on such a life but can use this type of integration to share His character through His followers to those who would not have otherwise met God. He can also work through people who do not openly worship or adhere to Him as avenues of blessing and abundant life for the faithful follower, much like some in Egypt were for Joseph.

From another angle, this narrative could inform how mission is done in a more general sense. Is it possible that a person could integrate into a society through marriage, work, and daily lifestyle to the extent of being fully accepted while still maintaining a faithful connection to God? Marriage, work, and daily life activities can go a long way in creating long-term trust within a community where a person normally would not be accepted at a deeper level. This would require further reflection and engagement with other biblical narratives and passages, but it may be a valid approach to mission as seen in the Joseph narrative.

It is accurate to describe Joseph as neither entirely Hebrew nor fully Egyptian. In a globalized world, Joseph can serve as an example of someone who navigates multiple identities and remains true to God through the various identities. Most people on earth today are constantly navigating multiple identities (Wrogemann, 2019: chap. 17), and it can be difficult to maintain clear allegiance to God while juggling these identities. The Joseph narrative reminds readers that it can be done and provides avenues for blessing that flow in many directions.

Conclusion

This article has reviewed three Genesis narratives with a missional hermeneutic approach. As a result of using this method, these three vignettes from the life of Abraham, Jacob’s family, and Joseph revealed certain implications that are important for missiological thinking.

The public witness of Abraham among the trees is a reminder that even in a pluralistic world where the old institutions of worship are viewed with suspicion, it is possible to worship God in a more public manner that is not disrespectful to the broader population. Rachel’s stealing of the household deities while simultaneously experiencing God’s blessing can add to the literature on why patience in mission is so crucial. Eventually, the household agreed to bury the deities, but in the intermediate time period, God remained silent on this issue as He journeyed with Jacob and his family. This can be modeled today as those who journey alongside others which have newly found God encourage them in their faith while for a time remaining silent about their areas of false understanding and practice. Finally, the Joseph narrative demonstrates that having more than one identity does not preclude a person or people from remaining faithful to God. Joseph could be Hebrew and Egyptian, with the latter being more important to his daily life, and still follow God. Many who find themselves in situations where they are alone or nearly alone in their allegiance to God can have more than one identity and remain faithful. Reading the Bible missionally is not the only way to read Scripture, but it is a way that deserves more attention and exploration.