Big Bible Questions: Who's to Blame for Joseph's Enslavement?

Welcome, friends and readers! Today marks the third session of my "Big Bible Questions" series.

If you're new to this series, this is where I take a story from the Bible, usually a story that modern readers feel very passionate about; everybody has their own interpretations of the story and the characters, and it can result in an ugly clash if they're not careful.

Here, I strive to be much more philosophical than argumentative. Whether or not you agree with me is up to you, and if you're not religious at all, hopefully you can at least appreciate the educational aspects of these discussions. Besides, it's fascinating for me, myself, to go back to the stories of my childhood and learn something I hadn't really thought of before.

Today's topic: Joseph in Egypt, from the book of Genesis.

To summarize, Joseph started out as a young, precocious boy who was his father's pride and joy. His father, Jacob, the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham, had several wives, which resulted in more than a dozen children.

What made Joseph so special was that he was the first son of Jacob's especially beloved wife, Rachel, who had been unable to give him a child for many years.

In those days, an abundance of children was a sign that you had God's blessing. The more children a woman had, the more favored she must be in God's sight.

So, if a woman only had one child—or no children at all—society frowned on her more because there was clearly something wrong with her. Of course, we know today that that's not the case, and childless, even unmarried women are still God's daughters and He loves them as such. But again, such were the standards of those days; even in our day, society is all too often tainted with extreme unfairness.

Having a son was especially significant. Nothing wrong with a daughter, of course; we get at least a few examples of fathers in the Bible, like Mordecai and Jairus, who cherished their daughters. Well, Mordecai was actually Esther's cousin, but there's still something to be said about how he took her in after her parents died and how she grew up into such a splendid woman, splendid enough to catch the eye of a king.

Still, sons were held in such favor that society would go easy on a woman with only one child if that child was a boy.

So, when Rachel gave birth to a son, it really was nothing short of a miracle. Despite all the children Jacob had already, this child was "extra special."

But where Jacob cherished his little boy with all his heart, the other sons grew to hate him with all their hearts. That hatred eventually grew strong enough for them to sell their own brother into slavery, a fate many considered worse than death...and for good reason.

Joseph was taken away from his home, from everyone and everything he ever knew and loved, and brought against his will into a strange country, where he would most likely spend the rest of his life. Worst of all, only heaven knew whose hands he would fall into, whether his new master would be kind or cruel. He would have no more control over his own life than a horse, a donkey, or a camel.

So today's "Big Bible Question" is: who's responsible for Joseph's predicament?

Are his brothers solely to blame, or did Jacob play an unintentional role in this? Or is it possible that Joseph brought this on himself, at least to some extent, since it's likely enough that his father's favoritism went to his head?

Was this a cruel injustice, or a necessary lesson in humility?

In my opinion, these questions are best answered in the DreamWorks movie, Joseph: King of Dreams.

What I love about this movie is that you get to see everyone's perspective and it's illustrated quite plainly that everyone has their own reasons (understandable, if not justifiable) for what they do, and as a result, the responsibility doesn't rest with just one person.

To one degree or another, they're all responsible.

Yes, Jacob was right to be over the moon about his miracle child, but he was not right in elevating Joseph above all his other sons. To be fair, he may not have even known how his other sons truly felt, but he could have made a better effort to reach out to them and talk to them; a little miscommunication can go a long way.

Yes, Joseph was right to know and celebrate his own self-worth. But there is a fine line separating self-confidence from narcissism, and he ended up having to learn the hard way that he was human like everybody else, that God is in charge, and God is all Joseph has to turn to when things go wrong. Joseph's change in humility is beautifully expressed in the song, "Better Than I."

I thought I did what's right

I thought I had the answers

I thought I chose the surest road

But that road brought me here

So, I put up a fight

And told you how to help me

Now, just when I have given up,

The truth is coming clear

You know better than I

You know the way

I've let go the need to know why

For you know better than I

If this has been a test,

I cannot see the reason

But maybe knowing I don't know

Is part of getting through

I try to do what's best

And faith has made it easy

To see the best thing I can do

Is put my trust in you

For you know better than I

You know the way

I've let go the need to know why

For you know better than I

I saw one cloud and thought it was the sky

I saw a bird and thought that I could follow

But it was you who taught that bird to fly

If I let you reach me,

Will you teach me?

For you know better than I

You know the way

I've let go the need to know why

I'll take what answers you supply

You know better than I

And yes, Joseph's brothers had the right to be angry, if not a little envious. Where they went wrong is they allowed this envy to consume them, causing them to lose sight of what was most important, and the whole family ended up suffering the consequences. It's like when you do something in the heat of the moment, and only afterwards do you realize your mistake.

As serious as their mistake was, the brothers proved they had changed when they had an opportunity to save their other brother, Benjamin, from becoming a slave as well. Ironically, Joseph is the "slave owner" this time, and he's doing this as a deliberate test. Again, I feel Joseph: King of Dreams illustrates this very well, and I'll let the dialogue speak for itself:

"Take any of us, Your Grace, but please, let the boy go!"

"You would sacrifice yourselves for a half-brother who's spoiled by your father?"

"Yes."

"Why? Why should you care if I take him? Beat him? Make him a slave?"

"Because I will not make my father suffer...again."

"Again? What do you mean, 'again'?"

"Our brother was not killed by wolves. We were blinded by jealousy and sold him into slavery. For twenty years, we have lived with that guilt. We can't go back without the boy. My father could not bear it a second time...and neither could we. If anyone is to be punished, it should be us."

"I will not harm any of you...or our father. I am your brother, Joseph."

The last four verses in chapter 44 of Genesis, where Judah (the ringleader, more or less) expresses his regret for Joseph's loss and his determination to not let the vicious cycle repeat itself with Benjamin, are quite poetic as well: "It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die: and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave.  

"For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying, If I bring him not unto thee, then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever.  

"Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren. 

"For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father." (Genesis 44:31-34)

Today, a lot of people hold these characters in deep contempt, especially Jacob. They keep saying, "Well, Jacob was a terrible father! Joseph's brothers were awful to him and didn't deserve to be taken back! Even Joseph deserved what he got! They should all have known better!"

True, they should all have known better...but that's what I like about this story.

It shows that nobody is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes, some more serious than others, but what matters in the end is how well you learn from those mistakes.

Even if a lesson must be learned the hard way, the important thing is that you do learn.

After all, God is more than willing to give us another chance. So, what excuse do we have not to give another chance to each other?

What Joseph and his family went through was terrible, heartbreaking, and utterly horrifying. But they all came through stronger, more humbled, and they could finally become a proper family. It even says that everyone lived to a good, ripe age in Egypt, in peace and prosperity.

I love a story with a happy ending—especially when it's a real "happily ever after."

My Characters in Live Photos

Sometimes I like to imagine how my characters might look in the real world, and I like to dabble in a few photo manipulations here and there.

So, here are the pieces I did today that I feel turned out kind of cool. I may even consider some of these famous actors and actresses for the voices, though I'd probably be lucky enough if my stories make it as far as actual book form.

Even so, a writer can always dream, right?

Big Bible Questions: Was Judas Iscariot a True Traitor?

Hello, friends, and welcome once again to "Big Bible Questions." This is where I take serious topics in the Holy Bible that are quite controversial to this day, if not more so, and try to make as fair an analysis as I can.

As always, you are more than free to agree or disagree with me. Even if you're not Christian, or religious at all, I hope you can still take a nice bit of education away from this. We're all intelligent people and it's always fascinating to look at certain things from more than one perspective.

Today, as you can deduce from the title, we will be discussing Judas Iscariot, otherwise known as "Judas the Traitor" or the man who turned our Lord and Savior over to his enemies in exchange for thirty pieces of silver.

Even if you're not religious, surely you've known Judas's name to be associated with that of a back-stabber, similar to Benedict Arnold or Marcus Brutus. Adolf Hitler's name is also spoken with nothing short of contempt, and to call someone a "Nazi" is an extremely harsh pejorative, even in joking.

Where people clash on the subject of Judas Iscariot is this: was he really a traitor, in the grand scheme of things?

If Jesus Christ was meant to die all along, did Judas actually do him a favor, or was Judas still in the wrong?

If Judas was capable of showing such remorse for what he'd done before taking his own life, is he still "the bad guy"?

So, let's just pause a moment here, go over the facts we've got with a magnifying glass.

As we all know, Jesus Christ was foreordained as the Savior of the World. He offered to give up his perfect, sin-free life for us so that we could have a chance at forgiveness from sin, relief from sorrow, and eternal life after death. It was because of him that we could obtain mercy while still keeping the scales of justice in balance.

Further study of other scripture reveals that ancient Israel was the only country in all the world, if not all of history, who would have the gall to sacrifice their own Lord. Had the Savior been born in any other country, the people would have known who he really was from the start and revered him as such.

At the time of Jesus's earthly life, Israel was in an awful mess, to say the least. I won't bog you down with details, but Israel was under the thumb of the Roman Empire; the Romans were known to terrorize and kill anyone who dared question their authority (which, ironically, motivated some people all the more to rise against them), and even the Jews on their own were far from ideal.

Some "traitor Jews" were able to rub elbows with the Romans and thus enjoy a cushy status all their own. This is why publicans were held in such contempt; if the Roman Emperor was like Prince John of England, a publican was like the Sheriff of Nottingham, taking money and property from their fellow Jews in the name of their "superiors" while stealing extra for personal gain.

Or a lowly Jew might, if he could, tell off a high-and-mighty publican the way Aunt Em tells off Miss Gulch in The Wizard of Oz: "Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn't mean you have the power to run the rest of us!"

Besides this, marriages and families weren't regarded as highly as they used to be, or should have been. A man could divorce his wife or disown his children for the most trivial reasons, such as his wife not cooking or keeping house properly, or his daughter being the only child he'll ever get when an abundance of children is an unquestionable sign of God's grace. A man could even get out of caring for his own parents in their old age, giving the money that would have been used for them to God as a gift, when one of God's Ten Commandments clearly states, "Honor thy father and thy mother."

While all of this may have been "the norm," that didn't make it right.

And it most certainly did not sit well with the Savior himself.

While we know Jesus for his love, mercy, and wholehearted acceptance, there comes a time, even now, when even he must draw the line. 

There's a reason why half of his talks condemn the Jews, especially the Pharisees, for their skewed priorities and blatant hypocrisy. There's a reason why he got angry enough to flip over loaded tables with his bare hands, scatter live animals, and drive the temple workers out of the building; those so-called holy men were turning a sacred place into a place of merchandise, or more accurately, "a den of thieves."

Even a few Romans had to acknowledge what kind of man Jesus was. When a Roman centurion pleaded for Jesus's help with a dying servant, going so far as to say the word alone from Jesus's lips would suffice, Jesus called this a greater act of faith than he had personally witnessed in all of Israel. 

Imagine that: a man who was supposed to be your national enemy had more faith than your entire nation put together!

So, you ask, what has all this got to do with Judas?

Allow me to reiterate: just because something is expected, even considered normal, that doesn't make it right.

After all, slavery was considered normal for many years, even in my own olden-golden US of A. But that didn't make such a practice any less reprehensible. President Abraham Lincoln was prudent enough not to just get rid of slavery all at once, but he still put forth noteworthy effort to keep slavery from expanding to other places. Like a cancer surgeon who may not be able to cure the cancer itself, but by golly he'll do all in his power to keep the cancer away from other parts of the body.

That's why I get so upset when people accuse Abraham Lincoln of not doing "more" for black people. Considering the times, people, what more could the man have done? What more do you want?

Anyway, back to Judas.

While Jesus Christ was more than willing to give his life for us, that doesn't (and shouldn't) diminish what Judas did to him, just how low a level to which the man stooped.

As powerful as the Pharisees were, they knew getting rid of Jesus for good was far easier said than done. Either Jesus's followers (which were a great many) would have their blood in a heartbeat, or the Romans would. The Romans might have been the enemy, but they were in charge nonetheless, and for all their wanton cruelty, they were very strict about who could receive (or administer) the death penalty.

The only way to get to Jesus was when he was alone. Which meant any one of Jesus's Twelve Apostles had perfect power to betray him.

Even before his betrayal, Judas proved his hypocritical and greedy nature when he criticized Mary (the sister of Lazarus) for her generous gift of spikenard, a very special oil for very important people that would have cost no less than a year's salary to purchase. While Jesus was all for giving generously, he was every bit as much for receiving graciously, but Judas complained that Mary should have given that kind of money to the poor. The Bible itself reads: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." (John 12:6)

In other words, Judas had the nerve to not only publicly criticize such a meaningful gift that wasn't from just anybody and wouldn't have been bestowed on just anybody, but he wanted that kind of gift (or the money he could get from it) for himself while pretending to have the welfare of others in mind.

Precisely the kind of hypocrisy that Jesus so often spoke against.

We can't tell how informed Judas was about the Pharisees and what they were capable of. Even now, it's a constant back-and-forth debate over whether this disciple truly believed they would simply arrest his Master and later let him go, or his Master would find some way to free himself, or he knew from the start his Master was doomed but got cold feet on his part at the last minute.

One way or another, Judas had to be enlightened to some extent. There was no way the man could be that ignorant, gullible, or stupid.

Furthermore, there is a world of difference between people who do wrong in ignorance (though the consequences can be just as bad) and people who do wrong when they know it's wrong. On that account, which people deserve the most leniency?

While Judas's actions may have set the Savior's noble sacrifice in motion, the fact remains that a man knowingly delivered another man into enemy hands in exchange for money. Not just any man, but a long-standing disciple. And not just a long-standing disciple, either, but an actual friend...someone who knew his Master, heard his voice almost every day, and surely loved him for quite some time.

And all this for a mere bagful of cold, heartless pieces of metal. To quote Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, "Never in the history of this world has so little money purchased so much infamy."

True, Judas showed he was not utterly heartless when he changed his tune that same night and even tried to send the blood money back...but it was too late.

The damage was already done.

The enemies got what they wanted, so they had no further use for Judas, and Judas felt suicide was all he had left.

So, one more time, was Judas Iscariot a true traitor?

Was the man more worthy of heaven or of hell?

Well, of course, it's not our right to make such a final judgment; only God can do that.

However, it's worth noting that the Bible and other scriptures give a few not-so-subtle hints of where Judas ended up, of the man's unscrupulous nature as a whole. Shortly before the Crucifixion, Jesus himself stated, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." (Matthew 26:24)

It also says in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

"They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

"For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

"Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

"Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame." (D&C 76:31-35)

Therefore, the answer is yes: Judas Iscariot was, indeed, a true traitor.

Which, in my opinion, makes the story a thousand times sadder. 

The man had as much promise in the beginning as anyone else. He was numbered among the Twelve for good reason. He could have become something truly extraordinary...but he fell, rendering all that potential and all those years of the Savior's tutelage an utter, utterly tragic waste.

(Screencaps courtesy of Animation Screencaps)