Lessons of Genesis (B'resheet)

Arach and jar have expressed an interest in discussing the lessons to be learned from the stories in Genesis (B'resheet).These lessons can be from the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim perspective.We are looking for moral or life lessons, not prophecy or forshadowing.We are looking at the whole story.The first subject are the three stories where Abraham and Isaac use the wife/sister scenerio.Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-18, and 26:1-11Is lying justified?From what I have read of the Jewish viewpoint, the men weren't totally untruthful and their actions of misleading were justified to preserve their life. MIRMAH IN AVRAHAM'S FAMILY Excerpt Distanced from Falsehood Excerpt

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I read the passages that you suggested. Thanks. Here's my take.First of all, one statement about good / bad / morality must fit within a larger framework. My framework is that I don't believe in good / bad. I think the best guideline is that often offered by jar (and others) - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.As far as lying... it's a Catch-22 situation. It's a bad deal all around, no matter what choice is made. "Lying" or not has no value in and of itself. Only the overall outcome matters. Yes, I no longer believe in virtue!In this case, I have a hard time understanding what the alternatives were really available, what the outcomes of the alternatives were predicted to be, and if those predictions were reasonable. But if I was going somewhere that I thought I'd be killed because I have a hot wife, and I thought if I left her behind that's gonna be a problem too, then yeah, I'm gonna say it's my sister. I don't even care if she's my half-sister or not; I think that addition to the situation is crappy and unnecessary. In fact, I think it leads to the establishment of absolutes (lying is bad) and virtuosity.I think absolutes and virtuosity (i.e. lying is bad) is really dangerous. The good thing about it is that it's really easy to judge. The bad thing is that it's just not realistic; we're not rule-based creatures. We identify virtue and justice by recognition, not by application of rules. Due to the dichotomy between explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge, rule-based systems (whether it's rule-based morality, rule-based law, or rule-based grammars) in principle cannot capture our "conceptions," "knowledge," or "behavior."Furthermore, absolutes and virtues lead people to be misled. Offering absolutes allows people to operate without developing their own conceptualization. This is bad. Virtues, when adopted, lead to a sense of absolutes; less tolerance, less understanding, less thinking. I think it ultimately leads to a sense of entitlement, that "because I've done good, I am deserving of XXX." I think a self-analysis of values and the value of action would be much less likely to lead to this kind of thinking.Ben

Well, as you might expect, there is disagreement with the various commentaries about it.From — — ’ ’ | ’’‘ -’

quote:

---

With Parashat Lekh-Lekha we begin the stories of the patriarchs (and the matriarchs), which focus primarily around struggles to continue the family line and settle the land of Israel. These struggles for physical and spiritual survival were difficult and complex, and some of the steps taken to this end by the patriarchs have been viewed controversially by biblical exegetes.

​

In this week’s reading we encounter what seems to be a grave moral issue. When going down to Egypt, Abraham requested of his wife that she pose as his sister: Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you (Gen. 12:13).

​

Nahmanides, in his commentary on Gen. 12:6, criticized this action of Abraham’s especially from the point of view of faith in G-d:

​

Note that our patriarch Abraham unwittingly sinned greatly, for he put his righteous wife in the position of being a stumbling block leading to wrongdoing because of his fear that he would be killed. He ought to have trusted the Lord to save him and his wife and all that belonged to him, for G-d has the power to help and deliver.

​

Radak (on verse 12:12), however, rejected Nahmanides’ criticism in no uncertain terms:

​

It is fitting for any righteous person not to rely on a miracle when in a place of danger, but to protect himself using any device he can. Regarding this, Solomon said: Happy is the man who is anxious (Heb. mefahed, meaning not complacent) always (Eccles. 28:14); also our Sages said that one should not rely on miracles.

​

Abarbanel, in his introduction to chapter 12, emphasized the moral aspect in his questions, wondering how Abraham could have abandoned his wife:

​

The thirteenth question [which Abarbanel asks on the Parasha] concerns Abraham saying to his wife, They will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you. What elevated man would choose life with such terrible dishonor, seeking to benefit himself by having his wife commit adultery with others? It would have been more behooving had he chosen death, rather than do such a disgraceful thing.

---

It looks like to me that Abraham had a lot of very bad choices, and he just decieded to do the best he can. No man is perfect, and while it might not have been the best move in retrospect, he did the best he could.

I think we need to first develop an understanding of the time, the people and the culture. There are several issues involved, none that seem reasonable from a modern point of view.First, the issue of a man traveling with a good looking woman. In these stories the husbands are traveling outside the Judaic or Hebrew areas so we need to look at broad based moral systems as well.A general moral of the period is "You cannot sleep with someones wife. If you do so you bring dishonor on yourself and your community."This lead to two possible solutions, leave the woman alone or kill the husband because there was no restrictions on humping the widow.The men in the stories seem to doubt that the first option is likely and aren't too keen on the later.So their solution is the semi-truth or justified lie of being brother and sister. This means that the ferriners can hump the wife without having to kill the husband and since they are unaware of any marital status they do not have to feel they have acted outside the mores.Notice that throughout these stories the point of view, opinions and rights of the wife are not an issue. In everyones eyes, Hebraic or otherwise, the broad ain't got a say. She is but chattel, an article of moveable personal property.The reaction on all sides once the full story is known is one of betrayal. All sides that is except the wife. As chattel, she does not get a side.So within the mores of the time and people, which is the greater failing, telling a half-truth or even outright lie for what may be a good reason or telling the absolute truth which will lead to confrontation?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Excerpt from your link: His plan had some merits if all had gone as planned. Best laid plans. What I find interesting is that this plan backfired on him and he used it again, which also backfired. Even after two failures, Isaac also thought it was a good plan.Family tradition I guess.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

The lesson I learn from Genesis is that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can`t fool all of the people all of the time.

quote:

---

Arach and jar have expressed an interest in discussing the lessons to be learned from the stories in Genesis (B'resheet).
These lessons can be from the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim perspective.

---

With due respect, as a Muslim I don't think I can give my perspective for this discussion. It's because, well, I don't see Genesis as the word of God.

So Muslims do not teach any life or behavorial lessons from Genesis?

quote:

---

I don't see Genesis as the word of God.

---

I don't either, but that doesn't mean lessons can't be learned.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

One important lesson IIRC from the Islamic version of Genesis is the shared responsibility. Notice the constant use of 'them' and that the issue is a joint failure, not the woman falling and then seducing the poor guy. There is also none of the whining found in the Christian versions where Adam tries to lay the blame off on Eve.In addition, the Koran sets women at a far higher position than either Christianity or Judaism. Comapre that to the chattel position of women portrayed in the Bible verses under discussion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I do find it interesting that in each of these stories, God does not chastise Abraham or Isaac. They were given gifts instead. If you notice in the story with Isaac, God wasn't involved.The wife/sister stories in Genesis 12 and 26 are considered to be written by the J author and the one in chapter 20 is considered to be written by E.Odds are they are the same story told differently in the northern and southern kingdoms. The way the ruler was stopped in each was different.I haven't seen any religion mention that maybe the lesson is that the rulers of these kingdoms weren't as immoral as supposed. Once the deceit of Abraham and Isaac was discovered the rulers didn't go ahead and kill the men for their wives and were offended that they were put in such a situation.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Well I can say it was definitely part of the discussion in my Bible Studies classes. In particular the reaction of the rulers to the situation is an indication of the importance placed on the condition of hospitality.We often forget that hospitality is a two way street. The host promises to protect and succor the guest and the guest promises not to do anything that will harm or disparage the host.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The stories in Genesis seem to be missing the accompanying moral or lesson. In most teaching stories the moral is spelled out, this particular story doesn't have the moral spelled out. It is left to speculation.IMO the author was not creating a teaching tool.Here is yet another version of the Wife/Sister story "HIS SOJOURN IN EGYPT"So truthfully the story loses its teaching ability because our culture is very different. We can only guess at the way it was.We have no way of knowing what the real lesson was and are left with what the clergy present us with today.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I'm not sure that the parts we're discussing were as much a part of the morality lessons as part of Identity Building.We need to remember that the Bible was not JUST a religious document. It was also political, economic and cultural. Many parts of the Bible were directly related to trying to build Nation (or City) States. This cycle is repeated several times, when the first attempts to define a unique identity that went beyond family tribes, when the people were spread out in exile, when they were gathered back afterwards, when the kingdoms were built, split and consolidated.IMHO these tales are part of the earliest identity making tales, stories of how the Hebrews came to be seperate critters and more tales of culture, or ligitimaizing claims to authority, than moral.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

We need to remember that the Bible was not JUST a religious document. It was also political, economic and cultural.

---

Which was the purpose of the author(s) who combined them all, but we don't know the original intent of the stories before they were revised for the author's purpose.

quote:

---

IMHO these tales are part of the earliest identity making tales, stories of how the Hebrews came to be seperate critters and more tales of culture, or ligitimaizing claims to authority, than moral.

---

The need to create an identity came after the exile.Supposedly these stories were around before the kingdoms split. Israel had a king there was no reason to legitimize authority, the king had it. After the exile, the Rabbi's needed to legitimize their authority.That's why I think the author(s) used some of the teaching stories to flesh out their history. They just removed the morals, which are now lost in time.This story doesn't really contribute to identity.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France