34:30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought ruin on me by making me a foul odor among the inhabitants of the land – among the Canaanites and the Perizzites. I am few in number; they will join forces against me and attack me, and both I and my family will be destroyed!” 34:31 But Simeon and Levi replied, “Should he treat our sister like a common prostitute?”

Two things came to me while reading this story. First, circumcision is not so much an act you do, but rather something you become. They didn’t just go circumcise themselves, and that was it, but by doing the act of circumcision, it became a description of their being, much like someone would call a person an American, or Russian, or African. Circumcision was more about becoming something, much less just having something done. It was a way of setting themselves apart for something, rather than just an act. That fascinated me.

And secondly, and more importantly, they full on kill all the men and then take their wives and animals anyways! That’s messed up! Or at least, that is our response. But what I find so interesting is that ending to that story. So much detail is given, so much description about how they kill the men and then take their women and their cattle, and yet the story ends with Jacob afraid of his honor among the people, fear that because they are small they will be wiped out. But the sons reply, “Should he treat our sister like a common prostitute?” I feel like some men would agree with them, that they were right to defend their sister’s honor, and that Jacob was just being a pansy, more worried about his own life than to care about his daughter. And others would condemn the actions of the brothers for murdering the people that attempted to make things right, and even show how the sons are deceiving people around them just like their father.

But the author of the story? He almost doesn’t seem to say a word. He just reports Jacob’s speech, the sons rebuttal, and then leaves it there. He continues on to the next story. It kind of makes us wonder what is really going on by telling us this story.

Cameron

26:19 When Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and discovered a well with fresh flowing water there

What is so interesting is that in the original Hebrew the word for “fresh flowing” is actually the word living. The sentence literally says “a well waters living.” And what is funny is that many commentators of John point out that Jesus use of the phrase, “living water” is also the same phrase for fresh flowing water, thus a possible reason for the Samaritan woman’s confusion. Now albeit this story is about Isaac, and yet the parallels (and reversals) are just too interesting:

In Genesis the servants go out and find the living water whereas in John it is the Samaritans and not the disciples

In Genesis Isaac quarrels with the inhabitants whereas in John Jesus actually converses and calls them to him

Both stories have a child of promise dealing with wells

Isaac goes to Beer Sheba and worships God in that place, whereas in John Jesus claims that time is coming when worshippers will worship in spirit and truth

There is the promise of descendants that was given to Abraham, but in John we see that this is truly the son of the promise

It is hard to imagine that John isn’t in some way referencing back to Isaac’s own quarrels over living waters. And by doing so, we see that Jesus reverses the division that was established long ago in Genesis.

Cameron

• Is our being created from dust similar or analogous to the waters swarming with swarms (Genesis 1:20) teeming with life?
• Twice God says, “Let the land produce…” (Genesis 1:11, 24)–are these to form the backdrop against which the “Let us make” by which humanity enters the narrative (Genesis 1:26)?  Are they set as contrasting or synonymous pairs?
• Is there significance to the fact that we have been formed from another part of creation?  Does Eve’s creation from within Adam also bear significance?
• The animals also appear to have the breath of life in them (Genesis 1:30; 7:22)–is it really accurate for us to say that humanity is specially  for humanity to be filled

Aside from sorting out a few questions related to the telling of humanity’s creation and the avenues we typically see as expressions of our uniqueness (i.e. formed from the dust, having life breathed into us), one thought in particular has stuck in my mind as something I’ve wanted to pass by you.  Here it goes:

Is it possible that man is filled with the breath of life (rather than being spoken in to existence) as another expression of many’s function as God’s vice regent-stewards?  In other words, does God refrain from creating man by a word so that man, newly enlivened by the breath of life, might expel that breath in words of our own as we multiply and fill the earth with God’s image and glory?

What do you think?