Genesis 42: Jacob Has a New Favorite Son

Today's podcast

Joseph's Brothers Go to Egypt (v. 1-38)

Jacob had heard that there was grain for sale in Egypt and he told his sons to go there to get some. He sent 10 of them, but kept Benjamin behind because he was afraid he might get hurt.

What about the other 10 that he sent? Apparently with Joseph gone Jacob picked a new favorite. He seems to just be a terrible father.

From Guzik

Famine is not a good thing, but God used it. God can and does use material need and lack in our life to get us to do things we normally would never do. Normally, the brothers would never go to Egypt. But need drove them to Egypt.

We saw this in the reading from last time, that God is the cause of this famine. It appears that he did it to get this particular story to play out in this family. It might seem okay to use need to get people to act a certain way, but what happens when you consider the broader implications of this action? Think about all of the other people who are hurt by this. Certainly many died as well, collateral damage doesn't seem like it is really considered here.

This is how I picture Joseph (pic source)

As we saw last time, Joseph is in charge of selling the grain and he was the person that his brothers had to deal with to buy grain from Egypt. He recognized them, but they didn't recognize him. He basically harassed them, he called them spies and put them in jail for a few days. They explained their situation, and he said he would believe them if they went back home and brought their last brother here.

It's not completely clear to me if he is messing with them or if he is truly pissed at them and punishing them. I think it is really both, which of course makes it hard to disentangle. He loves his brothers, but they also tried to kill him and sold him into slavery. Mixed emotions I'm sure.

This is interesting, from Guzik

"One is no more": This was a lie, and the brothers knew it. They had every reason to believe Joseph was not dead, but living a horrible life of slavery. Perhaps they had repeated the lie to themselves so often they came to believe it.

He points out that they lied and said that Joseph is dead when really the sold him in to slavery. Perhaps this was part of why Joseph was so pissed, they claimed he was dead.

They didn't realize that Joseph could understand them (there was an interpreter between them) and they said that they really were guilty for what they did to Joseph and they are getting what they deserve. He turned so they couldn't see him an cried.

This is what I mean when I say he seems to really care for them. He is very moved that they still think about him and are ashamed of what they did to him.

Then he said that all of them except one (Simeon) should go home with the grain they came for. When they bring back the last brother they will get Simeon back. He also arranged for their money to be put back in their grain pouches.

I'm not sure I understand this, is he giving them the money so he can accuse them of being thieves later?

When they were travelling back one of the brother found the money in the pouch as they were feeding their donkeys. They freaked out and said "What is this that God has done to us?"

I have 2 comments here, first, why blame this on God? They know they aren't thieves, so there was apparently some kind of mix up. Are they saying that God magicked the money into their bags? Perhaps this was just a figure of speech or something. Like a way to say "this was so unlucky" or something.
Second, why not sent one of the brothers back to give the money back? What a perfect way to prove they aren't spies, "We found this money that should be yours, there was a mix up and we wanted to give it back as soon as discovered the error"

They get home and tell Jacob the whole story, and they discover not just the one bundle of money in one pouch, but all 9 have money in their sack's of grain. Jacob is distraught that another of his sons is dead. He doesn't want to let Benjamin go because he will be forfeiting yet another son.

Wow, Jacob is a really shitty person. He's willing to just give up on Simeon to keep from risking Benjamin. He says if Benjamin dies he won't have any left, I'm guessing that's sons from one particular wife. What about his other sons that are all right in front of him?

Guzik seems to agree with me

Apparently, Jacob didn’t think too much of Simeon. It didn’t matter to him that Simeon spent the rest of his life in an Egyptian jail.

Reuben offers up his 2 sons for Jacob to kill if he fails to bring back Benjamin safe, but Jacob says no because he doesn't want to risk Benjamin's life.

What the hell kind of offer is that? If your son dies feel free to kill your grandson? The fact that he would even offer this to Jacob means he thought it might work, and that Jacob is a horrible person. Also, Jacob didn't say how terrible of a thing it was, he just didn't want to risk Benjamin even with this...insurance? I don't know, this whole thing is screwed up.

Also, how would Reuben's sons feel about having their lives offered up as collateral? I guess we can only hope they were not privy to this particular conversation. [thanks Ahab for pointing this out] 

for the verses of note post

--Family--

Genesis 42:4,38 Jacob is still playing favorites among his children

"But Jacob did not send Benjamin, Joseph's brother, with his brothers, for he feared that harm might happen to him...But he said, "My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he is the only one left. If harm should happen to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol."

Genesis 42:37 Reuben offered his sons lives up for collateral

"Then Reuben said to his father, 'Kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my hands, and I will bring him back to you.'"

Genesis 38: Bang Your Brother's Widow

Today's Podcast

Judah and Tamar (v. 1-30)

Judah (one of Jacob's sons) found a Canaanite wife and had 3 sons with her (Er, Onan, and Shelah).

We don't actually learn the wife's name, we learn her father's name though.

From Guzik

Through an ungodly and unwise marriage to a Canaanite woman Judah fathered three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. 

It isn’t hard to see the sons of Israel rapidly being corrupted by their Canaanite neighbors, and what the future will bring if they continued in that land. God had a plan to bring them out.

I hadn't really thought much of this, but Guzik has said things along these lines quite a few times. We should remember that god put them in this situation, it is because of him that they have settled here, and if he's omniscient he knew that all of this would happen. 

He gets a wife for Er named Tamar, but God didn't like Er and killed him. So Judah told Onan to bang Er's wife and raise the kids as Er's. Onan didn't like that the kids would not count as his, so he pulled out and didn't make any babies, so God killed Onan too.

Funny thing here, verse 9 is the one where the brother was "spilling his seed", and it is the verse than many have used to say masturbation is a sin. But that isn't what this story is about, it very clear that it is a very different situation. 

verification from Guzik :)

Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called “onanism.” However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating. This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother’s widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex.

I have another thought here though, God killed Er for being Wicked, and yet he killed Onan for not helping Er produce posthumous children. That doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense! Onan is essentially being punished for not doing a favor for Er, whom God hated.

Judah told Tamar to go live with her father as a widow until Shelah was grown up.

Presumably so he could have kids for his older brother. 

Guzik seems to suggest that Judah simply was afraid his last son would die and that is why he sent Tamar away. This is supported by what happens later in the chapter. Perhaps what was said about him being too young was not true?

In the meantime, Judah's wife dies and he took a trip to Timnah. Tamar saw that Shelah was old enough and she wasn't married to him, which means Judah is dragging his heals. When she heard of his trip she changed out of her widow clothes and covered up her face and also went to Timnah. Judah saw her and thought she was a prostitute and negotiated a business transaction. He said he'd give her a young goat for her services, and she took his signet, cord, and staff as collateral. Of course, later when he tried to find her again to give her the goat and get his stuff back she was gone.

source

Three months later when everyone realized she was pregnant outside of marriage, Judah wanted to burn her at the stake. But she produced the collateral and he realized what had happened. He said that she was more righteous than him since he didn't give her to Shelah.

I guess he thinks that his inaction drove her to doing what she did, and that is why he feels more guilty than her. What would be nice is if this episode demonstrated that burning at the stake is not an appropriate punishment for sex outside of marriage, but that doesn't seem to be the lesson.

From Guzik

When Tamar conceived, it certainly was not intended by Judah, but it was definitely planned by both Tamar and God.

Wait, this was God's plan? Based on what? The fact that he didn't kill everyone? I certainly didn't see any indication that God had consulted with her on this plan.

Tamar was pregnant with twins, and when she was giving birth one baby put out it's arm and the midwife tied a ribbon around it, but it went back inside. Then the other was actually born first. Perez was the one who was actually born first, Zerah was the one with the thread.

I imagine this will cause some problems as pertains to birthrights. The one with the ribbon got declared as older while the other was actually older. Hilarity ensues?

for the verses of note post

--Family--

Genesis 38:8 If your older brother dies before having children, you need to bang his wife

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.'"

--Sexuality and Women--

Genesis 38:24 Death penalty for adultery (for women)

"About three months later Judah was told, 'Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.' And Judah said, 'Bring her out, and let her be burned.'"

--Violence--

Genesis 38:7-10 God kills people for "being wicked" and for pulling out of his dead brother's wife

Genesis 37: Your Family Annoying? Sell Them!

Today's podcast

Joseph's Dream (v. 1-11)

Joseph was the favorite son of Jacob, he was given a "robe of many colors". His brothers hated him because of the favoritism.

One lesson here seems to be to not have a favorite child, or at least to not make it so obvious to them. You honestly can't blame them for having a serious emotional reaction to their father favoring a sibling. "Why does dad love Joseph so much? What's wrong with me?"

Guzik highlights this fact as well. He doesn't go so far as to say that Jacob shouldn't have done this, but does acknowledge that it was the source of much family conflict. 

He also points out that the robe is not a working man's robe, and that it signifies that he will get the birthright. Perhaps in a society where one son gets the birthright and the other's don't, it is impossible not to show favoritism.

Joseph had a symbolic dream that he would someday rule over his brothers and they would bow down to him. He told them about the dream and they hated him even more.

Okay, now Joseph just seems like an idiot. Granted, he's only 17 years old, but seriously dude, be a little bit more aware of your surroundings. If his brothers already hated him, why tell them about this particular dream. Furthermore, even absent that, don't be such a dick. Nobody is really going to like being told that they will be worshiping you in the future.

Guzik and I are once again on the same page, he points out how stupid Joseph was here, although he says "lack of tact" rather than "stupid"

Joseph had another dream where the sun (his dad), moon, (his mom) and the stars (his brothers) were all bowing down to him. He told his family about it. His father rebuked him for thinking he would rule the rest of them.

Yeah, Joseph just has no judgement here.

And again, me and Guzik have similar comments. If the brothers were upset before, he must really be out of it to tell this second dream. Guzik also points out that this story must be out of sequence from previous stories since Joseph's mother died before. Interesting, I hadn't noticed that.

But me and Guzik don't agree on everything, he says

The idea of the stars, moon, and sun representing the family of Israel is repeated in Revelation 12:1. That passage speaks of Jesus coming from the nation of Israel.

To insert Jesus into this story is completely insane in my opinion. Just because the sun, moon, and stars are used in two stories doesn't mean they have to be directly related. Hell, there aren't even the right number of stars. This story has 11, the revelation story has 12.

Joseph Sold by His Brothers (v. 12-36)

His brothers were out pasturing their flock and Joseph went out to meet them. When they saw him coming, the brothers decided they would kill him. However, Reuben said they should throw him in a pit and not hurt him, intending to come back later and rescue him.

It seems to me that Reuben is the hero of this story so far. 

Interesting, Guzik seems to think Reuben didn't do enough, 

Reuben could have simply rose up and said, “This is wrong! We can’t do this!” He didn’t because he wanted to do right by Joseph without alienating his brothers. His desire to be nice to everyone will fail to prevent a great evil. The good Reuben wanted to do (bring him back to his father) will not happen.

My read was that he was doing as much as he thought he could. If he pushed too hard his brothers would ignore him and kill the brother, he thought this was the best way to keep his brother safe. Honestly, both seem like reasonable interpretations, what do you think makes more sense?

They took Joseph's robe and threw him in a pit, intending to kill him later, but then a caravan of traders came by and they decided to instead sell him into slavery.

I guess this is better than just killing him. 

Guzik points out that the brothers reveled in taking the robe, then he makes an analogy with modern day Christians

Each believer in Jesus Christ is given special assurance of the Father’s favor. Certainly, many spiritual enemies want to rip from the believer the assurance of the Father’s favor.

Oh yeah, us atheists are exactly like Joseph's brothers...

When Reuben saw that Joseph was no longer in the pit he freaked out a bit and went back to the brothers, but then they ripped up the robe, put some animal blood on it, and told their father Joseph was dead. Jacob was inconsolable.

I guess this means Reuben wasn't around when Joseph was sold into slavery.

Still learning gimp, I'm happy with my progress

for the verses of note post

--Awareness--

Genesis 37:5 Joseph tells his brother his dream that was obviously going to piss them off

"Now Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers they hated him even more."

--Family & Slavery--

Genesis 37:27 Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery

"Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh." And his brothers listened to him."

--Favoritism--

Genesis 37:3 Jacob had a favorite son and made this fact obvious

"Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors."

--Violence--

Genesis 37:23-24 Joseph's brothers stripped him and threw him in a pit and intended to kill him later

"So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it."

Genesis 27: Jacob Steals Esau's Blessing

Download the mp3 of today's episode, or watch it on youtube and follow along

Isaac Blesses Jacob (v. 1-46)

Isaac was old and blind and thought he might die soon. He called his favorite son Esau to him because he wanted to bless him before he dies. But first, he requested that Esau go hunt for him, and prepare a meal for him with the meat.

So Isaac wants to bless his favorite son, but first requests something from him. This seems reasonable. Esau wants to please his father, so why not. This seems relatively unimportant up to this point, but what exactly is this blessing? As we will see, it is not simply symbolic, it is something more, although I'm not exactly sure what.

Rebekah heard this whole thing, so when Esau went out to hunt she told Jacob what happened and asked him to go get 2 goats from their flock so she could make some food for Jacob to give to Isaac and trick him into giving him Esau's blessing.

What exactly is this blessing that it can be stolen like this? It doesn't seem like it can be from God, as surely God could see the deception involved.

Also I would point out that Rebekah doesn't seem to be a very good wife here, but given what happened in the reading from last time, I can hardly blame her.

Painting from here

Jacob worries that Isaac will be able to tell he is not Esau because he is not as harry as Esau. He worries he will get cursed instead of blessed. Rebekah says she will take on any potential curse and insists that he brings her the animals.

I like that Jacob is thinking here, and not just blindly following. But now we have added a curse into the mix here along with the blessing. Suppose he gets cursed, how does that work? Is it in Rebekah's power to transfer it to her? What is going on here?

He brought Rebekah the animals and she prepared the food, she also gave Jacob Esau's clothes to wear and put goat skin on Jacob's hands and neck so he would appear hairy like his brother.

I absolutely love this, Esau's hands apparently are like a goat.

Jacob went to Isaac, who seemed suspicious. He asked how he came back so far, Isaac said the lord blessed his hunt. Isaac felt his hand and smelled his clothes. The voice threw him off for a second, but no matter, time to do a blessing.

You would think the voice would be more important than any of the rest of it. Especially since Isaac was obviously suspicious. Why did he go through with the blessing?

After being blessed Jacob left and Esau came in shortly thereafter. Esau offers the food and asks for the blessing, and Isaac trembled as he realized what had happened. Esau cried out, he was angry at Jacob because he has cheated him twice now, first out of his birthright, now out of his blessing.

Hold on there buddy, you lost your birthright out of sheer stupidity.

Esau then asks his father if he has any blessing left for him. Isaac says that Esau will have to serve his brother until he grows restless and then he will "break his yoke form your neck"

So apparently these blessings are a commodity of some sort. Isaac couldn't simply give him the same blessing he gave his brother. He also apparently can't take Jacob's blessing back? This whole thing is confusing.

Esau vows to kill Jacob as soon as his father dies, Rebekah hears this and tells Jacob to flee to her homeland. At some point Esau's anger will die down and Rebekah will send for him. It's for the best anyway, Rebekah hates the Hittite women that Esau has married, if Jacob also marries Hittites she will hate her life. This way Jacob will be likely to marry someone from her land.

Wait a minute! Was this whole ridiculous scheme of Rebekah's so that Jacob won't wind up with a Hittite wife? Look back at the story, the whole situation was her doing. This is the second chapter in a row that is totally motivated by racism.

For the verses of note post:

--Family--

Genesis 27 Rebekah manipulates her whole family in this chapter

--Lies--

Genesis 27:19 Jacob lies to his father multiple times in this chapter (this is an example)

"Jacob said to his father, 'I am Esau your firstborn...'"

--Prejudice--

Genesis 27:46 Rebekah is racist

"Then Rebekah said to Isaac, "I loathe my life because of the Hittite women.If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women like these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?""

Genesis 25: A Meal for a Birthright

Check out today's episode

Abraham's Death and His Descendants (v. 1-18)

Abraham remarries and has a bunch more kids, he gives them gifts but gave most of his stuff to Isaac. He sends the other sons away to the east. Eventually Abraham dies and he is buried along with Sarah.

I'm really not a fan of Abraham's favoritism of Isaac. He gives him basically everything he has, and sends away his other sons. It seems like a pretty screwed up way to handle things, pick you favorite and to hell with the rest of them. It's actually not that much different from God is it? He picks his favorites, his "chosen people", and screw everyone else.

Guzik has absolutely no issue with Abraham picking a favorite. 

Also, it says Abraham gets remarried to Keturah, but then later calls her his concubine, what's up with that?

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown suggest that it is likely that she had been around for a much longer time than is described here given the number of children. That seems reasonable on first glance, but would it have to be after Isaac was born? Otherwise the whole thing with him having a son seems even more confusing.

The Birth of Esau and Jacob (v. 19-28)

Rebecca was barren and couldn't get pregnant so she prayed to God and then got pregnant.

I wonder how long they waited to determine she was "barren", sometimes it takes people a while to get pregnant, no miracle from God necessary.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown point out that Isaac had the same problem as his father, but he was patient instead of taking matters into his own hands.

She would have twins, and they were struggling in her womb so she asked God about it, he said they would be 2 divided nations within her, one is stronger than the other and the older would serve the younger. Esau was born first and he wound up being a skillful hunter and a man of the field. Jacob was born next and he was a quiet man and spent time dwelling in tents.

I guess getting along with your twin brothers is not part of the story. How's that for family values? Also, what the hell does it mean that Jacob dwells in tents? Does it mean he is just a weaker person? Is it perhaps code for being an intellectual?

whoa, according to Guzik:

Jewish legends say Jacob and Esau tried to kill each other in the womb. Also, every time Rebekah went near an idol’s altar, Esau would get excited in the womb, and when she would go near a place where the Lord was worshipped, Jacob would get excited.

that's some serious shit right there. He also points out that God once again has chosen the younger instead of the older in as he did with Isaac and Ishmael. 

Is it fair for God to love one and hate another, and to choose one and not choose another, before they are even born? We should regard the love and the hate God speaks of here as having to do with His purpose in choosing one to become the heir of the covenant of Abraham. In that regard, God’s preference could rightly be regarded as a display of love towards Jacob and hate towards Esau. The real thought here is much more like “accepted” and “rejected” more than it is like our understanding of the terms “loved” and “hated.”

Is it really okay for God to reject one before he's even born? Just seems screwed up.

Our greatest error in considering the choices of God is to think God chooses for arbitrary reasons, as if He were sort of an “eeny-meeny-miny-moe” chooser. We may not be able to fathom God’s reasons for choosing, and they are reasons He alone knows and answers to, but God’s choices are not capricious.

So God works in mysterious ways? Great. 

Esau Sells His Birthright (v. 29-34)

Pic Source

One day Esau came in from the field exhausted and asked Jacob if he could have some of the stew he was making. Jacob said that he would do it if Esau would give up his birthright for it. Esau said if he doesn't eat he will die and the birthright will be no good to him, so he agreed.


Wow, this story is dumb. First of all, how hungry could he possibly be? It says he came in "from the field", it is highly doubtful that if he didn't get this stew he would die. Why would he give up something so valuable for a bowl of stew, even when he was really hungry? And Jacob is a horrible person in this story, why would you take advantage of someone like this? Esau is either suffering from intense hunger or stupidity, it seems wrong to act as he did.

I'm wondering what the lesson from this story is supposed to be. My guess is don't be stupid/impulsive like Esau, and don't be a jerk like Jacob.

From Guzik:

Esau’s thought isn’t that he is so hungry that he will die without food. Instead, the idea is “I will die one day anyway, so what good is this birthright to me?”

But that's not what the text says? It makes more sense in one aspect, because it is unlikely he was one bowl of stew away from death, but if he wasn't desperate why would he trade something so valuable for something so cheap?

Luther draws attention to an important fact: this was not a valid transaction, because Jacob was buying what was already his, and Esau was selling something that didn’t belong to him. (Leupold)

What?! The blame here is on Esau for selling something that God gave to his brother? Perhaps this whole things is just a self fulfilling prophecy. 

For the verses of note page

--Family--

Genesis 25:5-6 favoritism of one child over others

"Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country."

What Does the New Testament Say About Family?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about Family. Other entries in this series:

pic from here

1. Slavery
2. The Apocalypse
3. Women
4. Violence
5. Sexuality
6. Obedience
7. Fear
8. Blasphemy
9. Wealth
10. Binary Thinking
11. Faith
12. the Afterlife and Free Will
13. Suffering

Christians will often point out that the bible is pro-family. There are certainly a few verses where this is unquestionably true, but is that the overall picture we get from the New Testament? Let's start with the sermon on the mount, in Matthew 5:23-24 Jesus says that if you are involved in a religious ritual and you realize that you have some unresolved issue with your brother you should temporarily abandon the ritual in favor of patching things up with your brother. The clear message as I read it here is that even though the ritual is important, family is even more important. Take care of those relationships first. This is a great message, I like it.

There are also a number of pro-family verses that take the opposite perspective, talking about what not to do, rather than what to do. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 is giving a list of bad people, and includes "those who strike their fathers and mothers". This I also find pretty hard to argue with, so we have 2 verses so far that I imagine everyone would agree are pro-family. There are also a number of verses centered on obedience, Colossians 3:20, Romans 1:29-32, and 2 Timothy 3:2-5 all instruct children to be obedient to their parents. This is generally a good thing, but really does need to be tapered off as the kids grow older, and of course some parents are abusive and obeying them is not necessarily always a good thing. As often happens, the bible takes a good rule of thumb and pushed it too far, but nevertheless, as a rule of thumb telling children to obey their parents is probably a good thing. Ephesians 6:1-4 also tells children to obey their parents, but it adds that father's shouldn't provoke their children to anger, good but strange advice, it makes me wonder what environment we are talking about where this even needs to be said. While we are talking about obedience, 1 Peter 3:1,5 says that wives should also be obedient to the husband (well it says be subject to and to submit to their husbands). This is just garbage, although there are many Christian communities where this is how things are run, men are in charge of their wives as it says in the bible.

There are a few other things that the religious right here in America would like to consider "family values". Hebrews 13:4 says that you shouldn't have sex before marriage. This might sound reasonable on the surface, especially from the perspective of a parent who doesn't want their child to be hurt, but drawing that line at marriage does create some problems. The most obvious (to me) is that it encourages people to get married before they are really ready. This is particularly bad because, as Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 tell us, divorce and remarriage is the same as committing adultery. And as long as I am talking about marriage, I will once again bring up that odd verse Luke 20:35 which says that if you are married then you can't get in to heaven. So strange! (Note from later: TWF mentioned in the comments of a post where this came up before that the verse is really talking about getting married after you die. If you look at the surrounding verses, this verse seems to be telling us that we can get married in this age, but not after the resurrection. Although that produces a different problem, I certainly don't like the idea of not being married to my wife in the afterlife. What does it say about how Jesus views marriage if we are only married for a small finite piece of our infinite existence?)

So far, we have a few verses that are very clearly pro-family, and we have a bunch of verses that talk about family dynamics whose value can be debated, are there any verses in the bible that are very clearly detrimental to the family? There absolutely are, Jesus repeated tells people that religion is more important than family, I imagine many Christians would be surprised to find these verses in their bible. In Matthew 4:21-22 when Jesus was gathering his first disciples, he saw 2 brothers out fishing with their dad repairing the nets. I think it is safe to assume that this was not just a family activity, but their livelihood, upon being prompted by Jesus, they followed him and abandoned their father. In Luke 18:29-30 Jesus says that anyone who leaves their family for the benefit of the kingdom of God will be rewarded in the afterlife, and in Matthew 10:34-39 Jesus says that anyone who loves their father, mother, or even their own children more than they love Jesus, they are not worthy of him. What kind of an ego-maniac would say such a thing? This is not just for other people though, Jesus treated his own family like this as well. On 2 occasions (Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:20-21) Jesus' mother and siblings came to see him, and he refused to see them, saying instead that his followers are his family. This last interaction I find slightly amusing actually, he's calling his followers his family, clearly implying that being family is a good thing, while simultaneously ignoring his actual family, implying that family isn't that big of a deal.

My comics archive

So ultimately, we have a few verses that are pro-family and a few verses that are anti-family, and a number that can be argued either way. But ultimately it seems to me that the argument that the bible is pro-family just doesn't hold up here. Sure, Jesus tells us that resolving things with your brother, but when it comes time for him to do it he refuses to see his brother. He says that you should obey your parent but he refuses to see his mother. Actions speak louder than words.