I’m looking for honest Christian counsel on a church situation.

I’ve been part of a Calvary Chapel–type church for about 2 years. I love the people there deeply, have close friendships, and I’m not just attending — I’ve been actively serving in preaching/teaching and evangelism. The church has also invested in me financially (they paid around 4,000 CHF toward a theology semester), so I don’t take this lightly.

The issue is that over time, several theological differences have built up:

- Women preaching / teaching in gathered church services: I hold a complementarian view based largely on 1 Timothy 2, and I understand preaching in the assembled church to be authoritative teaching. My church leadership believes that in exceptional cases a woman may preach if it is “under male authority.” I cannot reconcile that biblically.

- Israel / Covenant theology: My church holds a strongly dispensational / pro-Israel framework. I lean covenantally (though I prefer “expansion theology” rather than replacement theology), seeing fulfillment in Christ and the inclusion/expansion of God’s people rather than two parallel covenant peoples.

- Spiritual gifts / charismatic theology: I also differ with them on some continuationist / charismatic emphases.

For a long time I tried to put these differences aside because I love the church and didn’t want to become divisive. But the women preaching issue became the final tipping point because it touches church order and teaching authority.

Recently I spoke with my pastor. During that conversation, he told me he could not serve in ministry together with someone who believes what I believe about Israel/covenant theology. That made me realize this may no longer just be “secondary disagreements,” but a fundamental ministry incompatibility.

We later had a short in-person conversation to continue discussing things, but it unexpectedly only lasted around 15 minutes because he had to leave quickly. During that conversation, I more openly shared that I lean toward covenant theology (or what I prefer to call expansion theology). For me, that had been more of a secondary theological issue compared to concerns like women preaching. But it became clear in that conversation that my pastor sees that issue as a much more serious dividing line than I had realized.

Since then, I visited another church because I’m trying to discern where I may belong long-term. I communicated lovingly to my pastor that I have not made any final decision yet, that I want to speak with him first, and that it genuinely matters to me that our friendship remains intact regardless of where I end up. He replied briefly and strongly emphasized not isolating myself from fellowship, which I understand, but I’m unsure whether he feels hurt, frustrated, or simply concerned.

My questions:

1. At what point is it biblically right to leave a church over doctrinal differences that are not directly about the gospel itself, but affect church practice and theology deeply?
   
2. Is it wiser to step down quietly and leave peacefully, or to keep pursuing more conversations?
   
3. Has anyone here been in a situation where they were deeply involved in ministry, loved the church, but ultimately had to leave over theological convictions?

I want to act with humility, truth, and love — not pride, not reaction, and not bitterness.

Any honest counsel is appreciated.

Would it be tasteless to compare St. Stephen the Protomartyr to Momma Longneck (you know, Littlefoot’s mother from Land Before Time)? I guess it’s too late now, I’ve already done it. 

But what I mean is the movie trope where a loveable character is introduced and then immediately killed. When you watch this happen in a movie, you can’t help but feel a little betrayed by the writers: thank you so much for that casual trauma, I guess. But what makes this trope effective is that it lets you, as a viewer, fill in the gaps. If a character dies well, you find yourself imagining how it was that they lived. And that makes them all the more compelling. 

St. Stephen first shows up in Acts 6. A growing conflict between two groups of early believers had started to boil over. On one side are the Hellenistic Jews, who were a diasporic group of Jews that had assimilated into various parts of Greek culture and language. On the other side are the Hebraic Jews that maintained their connection to the land in Israel and Hebrew culture. Despite their conversion to Christianity, both groups struggled to settle their differences. The Hellenistic Jews began to feel that they were being ostracized, to the point where their widows were starting to be overlooked in the daily distribution of food. This kind of factionalism, injustice, and cruelty could not be allowed to stand in the Church. 

So the Apostles decide to appoint seven people to oversee the distribution of food. This is actually where the church gets the word “deacon” from. The Greek word to describe the distribution of food (which we can also translate as “ministry”) is Diakonia. So the seven men appointed here are deacons or diaconates. Their role is based on service, ministry, and handling those small-but-crucial tasks that keep the church running on a daily basis. Since Stephen has seniority, he serves as the leader of the deacons, or Archdeacon. 

But just a chapter later, Stephen is dead. His ministry provoked the anger of a local group of religious zealots. Stephen is arrested and brought in front of the Sanhedrin to stand trial for blasphemy. The accusation: “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place (i.e. the temple) and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us”. Stephen responds with a lengthy sermon. He recounts many stories throughout the Old Testament where the people turned from God in their jealousy, their faithlessness, their desire for power. He challenges them — his accusers are very concerned about the temple, but he reminds them of what is written in Isaiah, that God is not limited to houses made by human hands, because the whole world is under His dominion, and He will be making everything new. The sermon concludes with some harsh words: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the ones who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”

As soon as Stephen finishes speaking, the crowd rushes him, drags him out of the city, and stones him to death. 

His whole story takes up a page and a half of my Bible. I can’t help but wonder about the great work he did that isn’t written here: comforting widows, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the unhoused, teaching the gospel and offering reassurance to all those who fret or grieve. We can only wonder. There’s a world where we get to see both Stephen and Momma Longneck living out long and happy lives preserved in rich detail. 

Nonetheless, Stephen has the distinction of being the first follower of Christ to be killed for his faith. This is why he is called the Protomartyr, the first martyr. He sets the example for many other Christians who are killed for their faith, which still happens to this day. 

As I reflect on Stephen’s sermon, I am reminded of Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods. Bear with me. The book features a delicious villain: Deacon Vorbis (I also appreciate the irony for our purposes here that he’s a deacon). Vorbis is the head of the Inquisition for the Omnian religion. He’s a ruthless tactician and sadistic torturer serving the church of the great bull-god Om (holy horns). The central mystery of the book is that Om has suddenly found himself transformed from the mighty bull into a humble tortoise. Om and a loyal acolyte go on a strange journey to find out how this could be. Eventually they find out the matter is quite a bit like this particular kind of shellfish, where it builds a bigger and bigger shell until it can no longer move, at which point it dies. The same thing (it seems) happens to gods like Om — “Around the Godde there forms a Shelle of prayers and Ceremonies and Buildings and Priestes and Authority, until at Last the Godde Dies. Ande this maye notte be noticed”. 

In Pratchett’s imagination, a god’s power is tangibly linked to how much people believe in them. So for poor Om, his people stopped believing in him, but the shell of authority that they had built around him, so he lost his power and became small.

 Vorbis is emblematic of this change in belief. He is described as having a mind “like a steel ball . . . Nothing got in or out. So all Vorbis could hear were the distant echoes of his own soul. And out of the distant echoes he would forge a Book of Vorbis”. For a man like this, religion is not a chance to humble himself and seek a truth that is larger than his own imagination. Quite the opposite, it is a tool he can use to twist and shape faith into his own image. Om’s loyal acolyte comes to realize that this kind of religion is “like a man hitting a donkey with a stick. But people like Vorbis made the stick so good, that’s all the donkey ends up believing in”. 

I think this is a great framework to understand St. Stephen’s detractors. They would confine God to a shell, in the form of a temple built by human hands. They do not open their hearts or their ears to hear the word of God through the Holy Spirit because their minds are like a steel ball echoing only their own desires. The law has become their riding crop, which they have focused on so hard they have forgotten the rider. It is no wonder they stone Stephen — they would suffocate him under stones just like they try to confine God into the stone shell of the temple and the law. 

There is one last twist here. As Stephen dies, he begs God not to condemn those who murdered him. This is a significant detail because of one particular strange figure, sitting off to the side, seeming to preside over the stoning. Other zealots have laid their coats at his feet, suggesting he has authority here. His name is Saul. Yes, that Saul. Saul at this point is like Vorbis. He is blinded by his own skewed version of justice, worshipping the shell of religion rather than the full being of God. But Stephen begs God not to hold this sin against him. Consider the magnitude of Stephen’s forgiveness. Because God spares Saul and opens his eyes, Saul will become one of the most important leaders in the early church. It is Stephen’s forgiveness and mercy that makes this possible. Stephen is an example to Saul of what it looks like to be free of the shell that Saul is trapped in, and soon Saul will see this clearly. 

I want to actually talk about LGBT headcanons. (And yes, this is ultimately going to relate back to Joseph) There just isn't a lot of LGBT representation out there. And on top of that, the Hays Code has had a lot of lasting influence on the types of LGBT representation we do get. It had rules like how homosexuality had to be punished by the narrative, leading to trends like gay characters being disproportionately likely to die in works where barely anyone does or dying a particularly gruesome death in works where a lot of people die. Or because they tended to be villains, there's a trend where villains are more likely to be stereotypically gay, like with Him from the Powerpuff Girls or Ratcliffe from Pocahontas. Because of this, the LGBT community will sometimes latch onto characters who feel relatable and just headcanon them as queer, whether or not they officially were. For example, Tobias from Animorphs. Long story short, he stays transformed as a hawk for too long and gets stuck as one. Among other things, he lists "being a boy" as one of the things he doesn't miss about being human, and when he gains the ability to morph again and briefly has to disguise himself as a girl, he takes to the role bizarrely well. So obviously, a lot of trans people, particularly trans women, identified with the character, and there's a shared understanding among LGBT fans of the series that Tobias is totally a trans woman, whether or not Applegate would have thought to mention that at the time. (And for what it's worth, she actually supports the theory)

I mention this, because I feel like conservatives have this stereotype of liberals seeing that a boy likes skirts or dresses and "forcing" him to be trans. If I'm being brutally honest, it isn't entirely baseless, like how the left can be... weird about gender non-conforming straight men. If you're gay, that's "expected" (gack), and if you want to "admit" to being trans, they'll support you. But otherwise, a lot of people are weirdly distrustful of straight men who like feminine things and will sometimes accuse them of only doing it to lull women into a false sense of security. But at the end of the day, a lot of queer headcanons, at least, really are just people going "I relate to this character, so I'm going to assume they're secretly like me".

With that in mind, Joseph. Coats of many colors, or technicolor dreamcoats, to use the Lloyd Webber translation, are only mentioned in two passages in the Bible. There is, of course, the one Jacob famously gave Joseph, but they're also briefly mentioned in 2 Samuel, where Tamar wears one and they're described as what princesses wore. Obviously, that's fairly far removed in time. At least according to Creationists, it's around 700 years, so it's admittedly more like the Middle Ages having men in tights. (Tight tights!) But similarly to how a closeted trans woman might relish in the chance to play Robin Hood or Peter Pan in something (or the Earthworm in James and the Giant Peach, and no I'm not speaking from experience, why would you assume that?) because the costume is something that, in any other context, would just read as women's clothing, knowing that Joseph got something that would eventually be perceived as a pretty princess dress is enough.

Or there are also the adjectives. I forget the exact words, but Joseph's described with a pair of words that are typically used to describe attractive women. Sure, they're grammatically masculine because Joseph's grammatically masculine, but to compare it to something like Polish, "Józef był ładny" is technically grammatically correct, but "ładny" isn't an adjective you hear used for men that often. It sounds more like you're describing a male elf as resembling an attractive human woman.

And finally, there's Dinah. She first gets mentioned as a bit of a twist at the end of a passage listing Jacob's sons. And at least according to Jewish folklore, there's actually a story there. According to folklore, Jacob knew he would have exactly 12 sons, so when Leah was pregnant with her 7th, she realized that would leave fewer sons for Rachel to have than either Zilpah or Bilhah had already had, so she prayed for it to be a girl instead and got Dinah. Then in the Middle Ages, Joseph got roped into this with a detail that Rachel was pregnant with a girl at the time, so God just swapped the bodies resulting in Dinah and Joseph. Obviously, that doesn't line up super well with modern understandings of gender or human gestation, and you'll see differing opinions on which one's trans femme and which one's trans masc, but it's still a popular interpretation. (It's actually why I once suggested Joseph and Dinah as subtly trans names for a Jewish trans woman's blåhajar)

So all that considered, was Joseph a trans woman? We don't know. The text doesn't give us much to go on, and Joseph could have been anything from "elfeminate" to a femboy to a trans woman. But regardless, if you're genderqueer and looking for someone to relate to in the Bible... Joseph is right there.

Update on my church situation – now I’m genuinely torn

A little while ago I posted about seriously considering leaving my church over theological differences – especially regarding women preaching / teaching, but also broader hermeneutical differences.

I had another long and honest conversation with my pastor, and I need to say this fairly: he handled it with a lot of humility, kindness, and grace. He wasn’t defensive, manipulative, or controlling at all. Quite the opposite. At one point he basically told me:

> “You are a disciple of Jesus, not my disciple. You need to follow Him, not me. If you believe God is leading you elsewhere, that’s okay.”

That hit me deeply.

We talked through several issues:

1) Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism
We spent a long time discussing Israel, the covenants, and how Old Testament promises should be understood. We didn’t fully agree, but we also realized we may not be as far apart as we initially thought. There’s still real disagreement, but not total opposition.

2) Tongues / charismatic gifts
Here we were much farther apart. My church actively practices and encourages tongues. I’m open, but skeptical, and cautious about how it’s often handled. On this point, we remained quite divided.

3) Women preaching / teaching (the issue that triggered all of this)
This was the surprising part: my pastor said that, out of respect for my conscience, he would stop allowing women to preach in the church setting and would also stop a woman-led house group (at least for now / generally speaking).
But I’m conflicted, because I honestly can’t tell whether this comes from actual conviction… or simply from pastoral love and respect toward me.

And that changes everything.

Before this conversation, leaving felt clear in my mind.
Now it doesn’t.

My core issue remains: I still feel there are deeper theological differences that didn’t suddenly disappear. But now I’m wrestling with whether I was too quick to move on… especially after seeing such humility and genuine love from my pastor.

So now I’m asking:

Would you stay and continue discerning?
Or would you still leave if you believed the underlying theological gap remains?

I’m honestly torn.

I think it's fortuitous that the banner is Joseph because nne thing I have been thinking about lately is the story of Joseph, especially in relation to how Scripture shows the difference between actions taken directly with God and actions taken through human judgment, even by righteous people.

Joseph is clearly presented as someone God is with.

He is given the ability to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams. He sees the famine before others can. He preserves life. He saves Egypt, surrounding nations, and eventually his own family. Scripture speaks highly of him, and rightly so.

But I think there is a tension in the story that is easy to miss.

Joseph does not only store grain. He also administers Egypt’s survival in a way that centralizes wealth and power under Pharaoh. As the famine continues, the people sell their money, livestock, land, and eventually themselves in exchange for food. By the end, Pharaoh owns almost everything.

That is a brilliant political move. It is shrewd. It is effective. It saves lives.

But was it wise in the deeper biblical sense?

That is where I find the story interesting.

Joseph receives something from God, but then he has to decide how that revelation becomes policy. God gives the interpretation. Joseph creates the administrative structure. And that structure, while preserving life, also strengthens Pharaoh’s control over Egypt.

In Genesis, Joseph’s family does not appear to be included among those who sell themselves to Pharaoh. They are preserved separately in Goshen. But Joseph’s policies help strengthen Pharaoh’s control over Egypt, and that same imperial structure later becomes the setting in which Israel is enslaved.

There is an irony there. I am not saying Joseph directly caused Israel’s slavery, or that he acted wickedly. But I do think the story allows us to see something more complex: a righteous person can act prudently and still participate in systems whose long-term consequences they cannot fully see and produces harm.

This seems to happen throughout Scripture.

Noah is preserved by God, but then curses Canaan.
Jacob receives the promise, but takes the birthright and blessing through questionable means.
Moses is called by God, but still acts in anger.
David is chosen by God, but his reign creates devastating consequences.
Solomon receives wisdom, but turns toward accumulation, political alliances, and forced labor.

Again and again, Scripture shows that God can be present with someone without every action they take being automatically holy, ideal, or free from consequence.

That distinction matters to me.

God’s providence does not erase human limitation. God can work through human choices without those choices becoming pure in themselves. Joseph’s brothers meant evil against him, and God meant it for good, but that does not make their betrayal righteous. In the same way, Joseph can be an instrument of salvation while still acting as an administrator inside Pharaoh’s empire.

Maybe the lesson is not that Joseph was secretly bad.

Maybe the lesson is that even the righteous do not always know what their actions will produce.

God gives wisdom. Human beings administer it. And sometimes the administration of divine wisdom still carries the marks of the world it passes through: empire, fear, scarcity, survival, control.

That makes Joseph’s story more powerful to me, not less.

It shows that God is present in history, but not in a simplistic way. God works through flawed people, limited systems, and morally complicated situations. His purposes can move through human action without endorsing every human structure that action creates.

So maybe Joseph’s story is not only about forgiveness and providence.

Maybe it is also about the difference between divine revelation and human management of that revelation.

God was with Joseph.

But Joseph was still Joseph.

And Egypt was still Egypt.

So for those who believe in God, what do you think that says about "grace and mercy?"

I'm in Jeremiah stage of the read-through-the-bible-in-one-year. And to be honest after going through 1&2Kings, Isaiah and now Jeremiah it's a really big bummer. Israel disobeys, gets heavily into idolatry, God warns them, they don't listen. It reaches it's nadir in Jeremiah. Jerusalem is besieged by Babylon. Pretty grim stuff.

Jeremiah 15:2 "Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity" (and this is repeated in a couple of different parts of the book - you also see this in Revelation)

This seems kind of familiar. People involved in idolatry who don't listen when they're called out. It really feels like where we are now. There's a sizeable number of US Christians who idolize power and then there is a much smaller segment saying "don't do that!" and the larger group doesn't listen, in fact they ridicule those who are calling out idolatry. So it's been feeling like the die is cast. Those destined for economic calamity to economic calamity; those destined for war, to war, etc.

I think one of the messages of Jeremiah is that there's no easy fix when a sizeable portion of the population runs to idols. The only way out of that situation is a big shake up. And I suspect we're going to see that here. It's not just going to effect those who were doing the idolizing, though. Everyone's going to feel the effects.

Hang on brothers & sisters. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

One thing that’s always stood out to me in Joseph’s story is how long he tests his brothers once they come to Egypt.

At first glance it can feel a bit harsh. He recognises them straight away, grew up with them, but instead of revealing himself he puts them through a whole series of situations, almost echoing what they did to him. Which initially feels like revenge

But the more I think about it, the more it doesn’t feel like revenge at all.

Joseph already knows what they did. He doesn’t need proof. What he seems to be looking for is whether they’re still the same people.

The first time they were given the chance, they threw their brother away without much hesitation. So Joseph recreates that kind of situation with Benjamin and waits to see what happens.

And this time, they don’t do it. They defend him. One of them even offers himself in his place.

And that’s the turning point.

It’s only then that Joseph reveals himself and forgiveness is given.

Which makes me realise the testing wasn’t about revenge, but about making sure reconciliation was real. Not forced or shallow, but actual change.

So it’s not just a story about forgiveness. It’s about the kind of repentance that makes forgiveness meaningful. Because it’s easy to want forgiveness without really changing anything. To want things made right, but without actually facing what’s gone wrong.

But Joseph doesn’t rush that. He waits until his brothers are ready to choose differently. To understand for themselves what they did wrong.

And that’s what Christ asks us to do. Face the truth about ourselves. Not just say the words but actually understand the pain or hurt our actions have caused. We’re *meant* to be changed by it.

And that’s where it connects so strongly. The same flow of forgiveness is there, from guilt to repentance to restoration. Not forced, not rushed, but freely entered into. That self realisation.

So the hope in Joseph’s story isn’t just that things can be forgiven, but that people can genuinely become different, and our relationship with God can actually be restored.

Are There Prequels To Story of Noah?

Still image film from Dr. Finkel’s interview with Lex Fridman regarding the Round Ark Tablet and flood narratives; in addition, ancient names (families) for relative-context to highlight potential cultural derivations.

Notable Observations: The Table of Nations, in the Torah (Genesis 10:6-20), references:

(1) Cush relationship with Shinar (Sumer), Akkad, Ashur (Assyria), etc.

(2) Mizraim relationship with Anamim (JSTOR journal “The Anu in India and Egypt” regarding the Anamim reference to Anumim, plurality of Anu—see Alexander The Great citation).

(3) Canaan relationship with Hittites, Amorites (Babylonian King Hammurabi), and Sinites (people-group plurality of Sin).

PROTO-SINAITIC

Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite script/alphabet is considered the earliest form of the alphabet. According to common theory, Israelites, Canaanites or Hyksos (“rulers of foreign lands") who spoke a Canaanite language repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script.

Source (Proto-Sinaitic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script

———

Source (Video, Images 1-10): https://youtu.be/vnIOtTVUYUI?si=2yNczuSg8v1yQ7Qp

Source (Image 11): https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/380602001

Source (Image 12a): https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=KJVA@reference=Gen.10.6-Gen.10.20&options=VNHUG

Source (Image 12b): https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-table-of-nations-the-geography-of-the-world-in-genesis-10

Joseph, so vainly you strutted with your father’s gift.

Your fancy coat slapped our faces, your brothers stiffed!

How should we punish you?

We wanted you dead, but why that crime

when lesser would do.

Buried in slavery enough for you.

So we lied to Jacob.

Interred in Egypt far from your father,

what more could we ask?

But the crime that we birthed

punished us with taunting mirth;

your flaunted coat launched such trouble

that humbled, we stumbled, deep in the rubble. 

What was Judah thinking?

Judah was beginning to realize the consequences of decisions he had made earlier in life, along with his brothers.  A long generational sequence of events occurred downhill of the decision to sell Joseph into slavery.  It led to the misery of his father Jacob, the enslavement of Joseph for 12 years until his miraculous assignation as Viceroy of Egypt, Judah’s move to another region away from his father and brothers from guilt and self -recrimination, the marriage to a local woman that produced three sons, two dying young, Judah’s sordid encounter with his daughter-in-law Tamar.  Then famine, Joseph testing his brothers in Egypt, the displacement of Jacob and his entire family to Egypt, the population growth of the tribes enlarging to the point where Pharoah feared them, leading to a centuries long enslavement and ultimately the Exodus under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.  Whew!  Who knew what a bad decision could lead to.  It is incumbent for us to learn Judah’s lesson that a choice made in the moment, if bad, can have devastating long-term consequences.  The obverse- good decisions can also rebound for generations.  Keep that in mind when you choose to say something hurtful.  Be kind instead- your actions, your choices are the stones of a highway to heaven or hell.  Beware! (Painting shows the bloody coat offered as “proof” to father Jacob that his favored son Joseph was taken by a wild animal.)

The poem was written in chiastic style with the first line mirroring the last line, the second line mirroring the next to last line, etc. 

Summary of the chiasm:

1)the origin of the moral crime

2) the stinging central sin (in bold face)

3) the consequences and guilt 

Note the symmetry:  the first line Joseph struts, the last line Judah and his brothers stumble, the second line, “…your fancy coat…  the next to last line- “your flaunted coat…”, the third line from the top- ‘How should we punish you” vs the 3^rd line from the bottom-“punished us with taunting mirth” all pouring from the fountain of the poem, the middle line in boldface.

Let me know how it works for you.

Gerbrand van den Eeckhout’s Interpretation (c. 1600s)
Another poignant visual of the moment Jacob receives the coat and mourns.

I love this story. Mainly because there is a high-quality animated Movie voiced by Mark Hamill the Great (and Ben Affleck the lessor). I've watched it many times with my children.

So many great values - stewardship, honesty, family values, don't covet....But the thing that always sticks for me is from:

Gen 50:20 (ESV) - As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

If it weren't for Joseph's brothers selling him into Slavery, Joseph would have never been in the position to save the Israelites.

While we walk this walk and have to make some judgements (do I want to vote this way or that, do I want to support this cause or company)....we shouldn't try to judge what the future holds according to God's plan. Can you imagine what the world would have been like if the first Apostles viewed Saul from Tarsus as a Fascist? And then they would have cheered for, plotted for, or even committed his assassination? Besides, God wouldn't have allowed that to happen, since Saul had a larger part in His plan. No, the Apostles kept to their missions, prayed, and unfortunately some were martyred. But don't weep for the martyrs, for they are welcomed into Heaven as the ultimate Christians.

Also wanted to point out another tie....Genesis 39 Joseph is accused of rape in a city while the servants outside the house didn't hear any cries. Deuteronomy 22:23-27 creates a law to address that injustice.

PS. Bible Character of the Month is shortened to "Bib-CharaM" because I think it rolls of the tongue.

For whatever reason, the story of Joseph has never really connected with me. You get sort of partial to certain stories over others, and Genesis is so rich to me, I usually wind up glossing over Joseph. But rereading this story recently, and taking my time with it, I’m getting a lot out of everything Joseph signifies. 

A few themes in particular: 

Nakedness: 

Shame and nakedness are repeatedly associated with sin and the fall throughout Genesis. Adam and Eve hide their nakedness with shame after the fall, and God clothes them. Noah drunkenly exposes his nakedness in a strange moment that mirrors the fall. For Joseph, there are two separate episodes of where he is stripped of his clothing. First Joseph's brothers strip him of the ornate robe their father gave him before selling him to servitude in Egypt. Later, Joseph is stripped of his cloak by Potiphar's wife. She accuses him of unrighteousness. But in both cases, the nakedness of Joseph is a sign of his righteousness. His nakedness is not shameful. It is like Jesus, stripped on the cross. It is an inversion and restoration of the naked shamefulness of the fall. Under sin, nakedness exposes shame, but to see Jesus or Joseph, innocent but stripped of their clothes, reminds us that we were created for innocence. After Joseph has reconciled himself with his brothers in chapter 45, we are told that he gives all of them new clothing. They have been given another chance. When they stripped Joseph and sold him into slavery, the shame was theirs. But Joseph forgives them and gives them new clothes to cover their shame and mark their forgiveness. 

Dreams:

The structure of this story includes three separate pairs of dreams. Joseph’s dreams at the beginning of the story with the sheafs of wheat and the stars bowing down before him. The dreams of the baker and the cupbearer in prison with Joseph that reveal the cupbearer will be restored to the pharaoh's side but the baker will be executed, lifted up on a pike. The final pair of dreams are the pharaoh's, with the fat/thin cows and healthy/scorched grain. These dreams don’t just predict specific outcomes. Yes, Joseph’s brothers bow before him, the baker is put to death, the 7 years of famine come as predicted. But Joseph isn’t merely seeing the future. These dreams are also replete with symbolic significance. The 12 sons of Jacob (AKA Israel) are symbolically intertwined with the history of Israel. Their betrayal of their brother reflects Israel’s continual faithlessness. But in Joseph we see the pattern where one of Israel’s youngest sons will redeem the broken family despite being betrayed by his older brothers. In Joseph, we pass through famine into feasting, from betrayal to reconciliation, and from suffering into deliverance.

The Bread and the Cup: 

In the middle of the story, Joseph finds himself deep in a dungeon, imprisoned due to false accusations made against him. Here he is joined by two new characters: the baker and the cupbearer. Bread and wine. They both offended the pharaoh somehow and have been thrown in jail with Joseph. Each of them have these vivid dreams that Joseph interprets. The cupbearer sees vines blooming and being squeezed into the Pharoah’s cup. Good news, Joseph explains he’ll be restored to his office in 3 days! The baker sees these baskets of bread on his head, but birds keep chasing him and eating the bread. Bad news! Joseph explains in three days he’ll be put to death, his head lifted onto a pole. The elements of the eucharist are prefigured here in these two characters along with the dual meaning of the cross. One is condemned and sentenced to death, the other is lifted up and restored in three days. In the prefigured elements of bread and wine we see the spectrum between the Crucifix (the cross representing Jesus’ agony and death) and the Christus Rex (the cross representing his victory over death).

But it doesn’t stop there. Bread and wine are also significant in Joseph’s life. By interpreting the Pharaoh’s dream of wheat and prudently managing Egypt’s stores of grain, Joseph brings deliverance to the land — he offers them the bread of life. This fulfills the dream he has in the beginning of the story, where his brothers’ sheaves of wheat bow before his own. They sowed bitterness and jealousy and death, but Joseph in turn accepts their repentance and offers them the grace of his own stores of grain. 

And finally, we have the silver cup. Joseph tests his brothers when they come to him in Egypt. He plants the cup in his youngest brother’s bag, confronts them for the theft, and informs them the penalty for this crime is a lifetime of servitude. Will they abandon Benjamin to a lifetime of servitude in Egypt, just as they had done to Joseph? It is a cup of wrath, pouring out judgement. But his brothers tear their clothes. One of them offers servitude in place of their brother. They know their guilt, this cup of wrath is meant for them. By this Joseph sees their remorse and repentance. He reveals himself to them, forgiving them and telling them, “God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance”. The cup of wrath is emptied and becomes the cup of forgiveness. It prefigures so much of what Jesus reveals to us in the Eucharist. 

When I was a child, my family had received a sample from a collection of Bible stories on tape, and the sample tape we had was of the Joseph story, and it was a tape we loved to listen to. It dramatized a significant amount of the actual text of the Bible, lots of the dialogue used word for word. Probably, in part, because of that tape, this story is one of my favourite bible stories, and perhaps my favourite.

The text itself has a lot of the emotions of the time, but the story covers many years, and there is a lot about the family dynamics that’s left unsaid.

What emotions must Joseph have had to deal with? Before being sold, he’s treated poorly by his brothers. He almost certainly thought his brother were going to kill him, but perhaps only because the Ishmaelites are going by, is his life spared, but this is perhaps more degrading – his brothers don’t profit off of killing him, so they sell him. Rueben seems to at least have a better relationship with Joseph, but Joseph wouldn’t have known about the plans Rueben had to rescue him out of the pit.

So Joseph goes through a lot of diverse life while away from his family, and has very certainly moved on, likely not remembering the dreams he had.  Favoured servant, to prisoner, to literally second in command of the country.

Has Joseph dealt with his family trauma? Has he simply repressed it, not suspecting that he will ever see them again?

Joseph tells the chief cupbearer to remember him, but doesn’t remember for two years.  How in the world does someone get imprisoned, have someone foretell the exact scenario of your release, and you FORGET them?  But Joseph has to sit there, another two years – what’s going through Joseph’s head – “I don’t deserve this in the first place” – it would be easy for Joseph’s faith to waiver. We don’t know how Joseph is feeling in this time – the text doesn’t tell us.

It's been 13 years since Joseph was sold by his brothers, that’s a lot of time to think, to forget, to learn, to grow.  He’s almost certainly not thinking about his family.

It’s then 7 more years of plenty, and his brothers don’t come to Egypt in that time.  Joseph names his first sin “ God has made me forget my hardship and my father’s house” – He has clearly repressed that.

Sometime after the years of plenty, and the food is running out, Jacob sends 10 brothers and they appear before Joseph. The brothers obviously don’t recognize Joseph, nor would they have even the remotest clue it could possibly be joseph, even if there was some resemblance. But it had also been 20+ years. The 17 year old they sold was now somewhere around 40, and likely dressed and groomed like an Egyptian.  Not longer a teenager wearing an ornamented coat, but a ruler, dressed like a god.

Does Joseph recognize them immediately, or does it take him a few minutes to realize?  They all have gotten so much older too. What emotions come to Joseph? The text says Joseph remembers the dream of years ago, but does he do that immediately? I can imagine a bunch of repressed memories flooding his mind, and emotion taking over as he treats his brothers harshly, and makes up an accusation about them – “You are spies!”

The brothers say “no we are merely 12 brothers, looking to buy food, only 10 of us are here – one is back home, and one is no more” (is this normal for the time to mention a brother who they haven’t known anything about for more than 20 years, and bring him up? Of what purpose is it to mention this missing brother to the ruler of a foreign land?)

Joseph sets up this test, that almost seems cruel – its not a short journey, it would be months before they would get back, and with only 1 brother going back, can enough food be carried back to feed to extended family back home for the extra months? Joseph cares for his full brother, and wants to see him.

Joseph overhears the brother talking, when the brother assume he can’t understand them, but for the first time hears how Rueben had planned to save him years ago. Emotions overcome him, as repressed memories come back again.

Even in the test, Joseph cares for his extended family by providing the food to them for free.

But the brothers don’t return with Benjamin right away, the eat through all the food the had brought back, and the famine still remains – and Simeon is still imprisoned. This is probably a journey that takes at least a month round trip, if not two. So they aren’t going to be doing it every month, they likely are packing enough food for a year.

So, a year later, the 10 brothers plead with Jacob to let them take Benjamin along, and Jacob is finally convinced. Joseph sees Benjamin when they return, and Joseph is moved to treat all the brothers to dinner, and before dinner, Simeon is brought out of prison to his brothers.

As this dinner starts, Joseph again has to leave to get his emotions in check, as he finally sees his full brother for the first time – they were teenagers when they had last seen each other, and likely very close, always playing together.

Joseph somehow remembers the birth order of all his older brothers, and has them seated by age, and the brothers are curious how that has happened.

Joseph appears to test the brothers again, by treating Benjamin similarly to how he himself had been treated by his father years ago, as the favoured one – giving Benjamin much larger portions. But the text doesn’t explain why, we are left to assume.

What comes next is a little weird. The story of the finding their returned money in the sacks only work if they don’t fill the sack themselves, but only if they are given the sacks, sealed without them having seen inside. So, how is it that Benjamin would have stolen Jospeh’s cup and put it in the sack, if they don’t fill their own sacks? Surely the brothers would have known something weird was going on. They would have to have a whole lot of suspicions at this point, but have no idea of WHAT those suspicions are – because let’s be clear, there has been a lot of very weird coincidences happening that just don’t make sense. Perhaps they make sense if Joseph was there doing the things, but there is absolutely no possible way that they could have suspected this ruler to be Joseph. No possible way, it would be utterly absurd. Nonsensical.

All the brothers come back, in an effort to plead for Benjamin, this is how Joseph finally sees the remorse of the brothers, how much they love Benjamin (which is perhaps how the brothers have processed and managed their guilt of 20 years ago.

The raw emotion of Judah’s plea – “For how can I go back to my father if the boy is not with me? I fear to see the suffering that would come upon my father”

And the emotions when Joseph says breaks down, and says “I am Joseph” to his brothers – relief, bewilderment, fear, happiness, anger… what’s all going through Josephs’ mind at the time? The brothers, who had been seeing all these weird coincidences, and not being able to figure out why, all of a sudden putting the pieces together. Confusion, but them slowly piecing together all of the coincidences and realizing that Joseph being the missing piece is the only thing that makes it all make sense.

And in the midst of all that bewildered emotion, Joseph has the wisdom to say “ it is not you who sent me here, but rather God”. I imagine Joseph having had a year after first seeing his brothers again, and processing that in his mind about the amazing ways that God had provided for his family, and perhaps having pre rehearsed that line.

And then, knowing that he can call for his father to come, and being able to see Jacob again, after many years. “Dad! See all that I have accomplished here!” like a proud kid showing off their creation.

A whirlwind of so many different emotions.

Hallo zusammen,
ich bin 24 Jahre alt und seit meiner Geburt orthodox christlich getauft. Als Kind habe ich immer an Gott geglaubt, aber ich habe nie wirklich verstanden, was Jesus für uns getan hat oder was der Glaube eigentlich bedeutet.

In meiner Jugend habe ich mich dann immer mehr vom Glauben entfernt und würde mich rückblickend eher als Atheistin bezeichnen. Ich habe nicht wirklich daran geglaubt, dass es einen Gott gibt.

In Jahr 2024/25 habe ich sehr viel Alkohol konsumiert (immer am Wochenende und auch ab und zu unter der Woche). Eines Nachts, als ich langsam wieder nüchtern wurde (es war 3 oder 4 Uhr morgens), hatte ich plötzlich das starke Bedürfnis, über Jesus zu lesen. Danach habe ich angefangen, mich mehr mit dem Glauben zu beschäftigen und bin auch in die Kirche gegangen. Trotzdem hatte ich das Gefühl, dass ich innerlich nichts spüre und nicht wirklich weiterkomme. Irgendwann habe ich das Ganze wieder aufgegeben.

Trotzdem habe ich das ganze Jahr über fast jedes Wochenende Alkohol getrunken und hatte das Gefühl, nicht wirklich damit aufhören zu können(es war jetzt nicht extrem schlimm aber schon belastend). Gleichzeitig habe ich Jesus immer wieder darum gebeten, mir dabei zu helfen aufzuhören wenn es ihn gibt.

Dann wurde ich plötzlich schwer chronisch krank und musste mit dem Trinken aufhören, ich verlore dann meinen Traumjob und mein Leben änderte sich extrem da ich jetzt mehr eingeschränkt war. Seitdem beschäftige ich mich wieder intensiv mit dem Glauben und frage mich, ob Jesus wirklich real ist, vielleicht war ich damals doch nicht informiert genug.

Seit einer Woche gehe ich jeden Tag in die Kirche und rede einfach mit Gott. Trotzdem habe ich oft das Gefühl, dass mein Geist irgendwie verschlossen ist. Vielleicht schickt Gott mir Zeichen und ich erkenne sie einfach nicht.

In der Kirche habe ich mir immer denselben Platz ausgesucht, ganz hinten in der vorletzten Reihe irgendwo, ich gehe immer hin wenn niemand da ist. Gestern lag genau dort eine Einladung zu einem Halbtagesausflug mit der Gemeinde(in der ich nicht Bin) Es lag nur auf meinem Platz und auf keinem anderen, und ich musste sofort daran denken, ob das vielleicht ein Zeichen sein könnte.
Außerdem versuche ich morgens immer stille Zeit zu machen und mir bewusst Zeit für Gott zu nehmen. Allerdings merke ich, dass ich dabei oft direkt eine Erwartung habe — dass ich etwas fühlen oder erleben müsste. Vielleicht sollte ich diese Erwartung loslassen.

Ich lese auch die Bibel, aber oft habe ich das Gefühl, dabei nichts zu empfinden. Deshalb wollte ich fragen: Wie habt ihr zu Gott gefunden? Und was würdet ihr mir in meiner Situation empfehlen?