Short Science and God Presentation Notes

Some brief working notes I used to put together my 10 minute presentation I gave at Cornerstone Fellowship's Faith and Doubt event.  Fitting these sorts of things into 10 minutes is pretty difficult and, obviously, a lot has to be left out:

*“Science has disproven the existence of God”

Usually the idea is that we have no use for God.  Laplace: “I have no use for that hypothesis”.  The Big Bang gives us the origin of the universe and evolution the origin of living things.  So no room for God – we can explain the existence of things using only physical stuff and natural laws.

Several responses:

1)      Suppose the Big Bang and evolution are correct explanations of the universe and life.  God could still be the Creator since he could have used the Big Bang and evolution to create.  Just because someone uses a tool to make something doesn’t mean that they aren’t the one who made it.  Big Bang/evolution could be the tools God used.

2)      There are some things science cannot explain using only natural things (physical stuff and natural laws).  For example, natural things might not have existed and so need an explanation outside of themselves.  Science, then, cannot explain why there are any natural things at all by appealing to more natural things since those are part of what needs explaining – you can explain some natural things in terms of others, but not why there are any at all in the first place.  (Like trying to explain why there is any cereal in your house by saying you got the cereal in your bowl from the box in your cupboard – you’ve explained how some of the cereal got in your bowl, but not how any cereal got in your house in the first place)   Natural things cannot explain this, but God can.

3)      Science actually offers us evidence of God.  There is evidence everywhere that the universe was designed to support complex life.  If any of the most basic laws of physics, for example, or the basic values that show up in their equations, were slightly off, life would not be possible.  Without electromagnetic forces, for instance, we could not have chemistry and without chemistry, there could be no life.  Since the universe is so exactly fit for life and this is much more likely if it was designed than if not, we have good evidence for design.

Notes on ideas that didn't make it into the presentation:

* God is not, for the Christian, a theoretical postulate!  We don’t think up God merely in order to fill in some gap in our understanding of the world.  God is a person with whom we have a relationship – a someone we know, not a something we know about.  Ex: My mom is not some entity I posit to explain certain bizarre phenomena such as cell phone transmissions, birthday cards, past experiences, etc.  Not something I know about merely as an inference based on evidence but someone I know through my relationship with them.

* Suppose we did, however, explain how something in the physical universe works only in terms of physical stuff and natural laws.  Is there now no room for God in explaining it?  No – a fully physical explanations and a divine one are not mutually exclusive. 

Ordinary Christian thought: No contradiction between “The doctor saved my life” and “God saved my life” (contrast with some faith healing groups).  Bible accounts with same idea . 

* Not only are there tons of events which have no predetermined physical explanation and are not determined by natural laws (quantum mechanics), but even if there weren’t, we must remember that God is the creator and sustainer of everything that is not God – he not only created space, time, matter, etc. but every second, every event, every natural law, everything that is, is directly dependent for its existence on God.  God is the source of natural laws and the one who sustains them in place.  Anytime any physical things interact by virtue of natural laws, God is there.  Colossians – all things held together by him.  Acts – in him, we live and move and have our being.  When the doctor saves the patient, God is there sustaining the natural laws and physical interactions that will make that a success, even if everything is just going according to physics.  God works under and through natural processes.

* (1) Science cannot use God in its theories (methodological naturalism).  (2) Science gives/will give/can give a complete, unified, fully accurate picture of the whole world.  BUT: If 2 and there IS a God, science must include God, so 1 is only true if no God.  And so if 1, 2 is true only if no God.  So cannot accept BOTH 1 and 2 without already showing God does not exist – at most, can accept one of these.  2 wildly optimistic anyway.

Evil as Purposelessness and the Problem of Evil

When we talk about the Problem of Evil, there are really multiple problems we may be talking about.  There is an intellectual problem, which involves dealing with evil as potential evidence against the existence of God.  Then there are various psychological or emotional problems, which involve some kind of psychological or emotional disturbance relating one's belief in, trust of, or relationship with God to some particular evil(s) one is being confronted with.  The latter, of course, often leads to or is connected with the intellectual problem in obvious ways. 
There are various reasons, not necessarily mutually exclusive, why we might suddenly be having trouble with God and evil when faced with some particular evil(s):
(1) We had never really carefully considered evil before or ignored the sufferings of others and so did not previously really appreciate its true awfulness.  This obviously leads into the intellectual problem. 
(2) We are treating ourselves as more important than others or somehow special.  This invites the response, "You knew all about these horrible evils in the world before - what makes you so special that when it happens to you it's suddenly problematic but not when it happens to others?"
(3) We are experiencing the evil as a disruption or dark time in our relationship with God (perhaps a sense of abandonment) and just want the feeling of that relationship to return.  This is more Job's response.
(4) We are dealing with the felt need to give the evil we are facing meaning or a specific purpose.  This is generally accompanied by the assumption that if God is completely sovereign this evil must have a very specific, unique meaning and purpose inherent in it.  The evil, however, seems senseless, pointless and often the feeling of the person going through is "Why, God, why?"  This is the source of trouble I'll be focusing on in the rest of this post.
A response to (4): Even if everything is in God's plan and even if we took a strong Calvinist-type view, that still doesn't actually require each evil to have a special, unique meaning and purpose inherent in it.  God can and will use evil to bring about good or will redeem that evil, but that doesn't mean it has a special and unique meaning and purpose all on its own.
An idea: Think of evil and godlessness as absurdity, as purposelessness.  Our present evil age is characterized by this.  Tragic evil is senseless on its own.  God can bring good out of it, but that doesn't make it any less senseless in its own right.  We can think of the kingdom of God, then, as bringing meaning and purpose to this earth - there is no (ultimate) meaning or purpose outside God.  As Ecclesiastes asserts, life in this current world-state, in that shadow of death and the meaningless absurdities that characterize it, is but vapor.  Only in God is there any transcendence of this - meaninglessness will be swallowed up in meaning, pointless absurdity in glorious purpose.
Evil, then, can be thought of as deviation from the ultimate purposes and plans of creation set forth by God.  It is malfunction, things falling from their goals, failing to be what they should be.  Even if we are speaking of an elevated sovereign will of God as opposed to some other aspect of his will, particular evils can still count as purposeless in just that sense of having no particular, unique purpose to them.  One can think of them, for instance, as spandrels, a byproduct of bringing about things with purpose, or in other ways such that this way of thinking can still remain compatible with a strong view of the divine plan and providence. 

Bibliography 2nd Half 2012

A bibliography similar to the first one, the second, and the third. This one covers July-December 2012. Again, it's not necessarily complete and contains only whole books, not articles or primarily reference works. I'm also trying to only include books that are new - i.e., not on the previous lists. (Childrens' books also not included!) Starred books are ones I consider particularly outstanding, interesting, or otherwise likable.

Blenkinsopp, John, Ezra-Nehemiah.  OTL.
*Childs, Brevard S., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL.
*Collins, John J., Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care
*Douglas, Mary, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo
*Douglas, Mary, Leviticus as Literature
Durham, John, Exodus.  WBC.
*Enns, Peter, Exodus.  NIVAC.
*Enns, Peter, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Human Origins 
*Fretheim, Terence, Exodus. Interpretation.
Goldingay, John, Genesis For Everyone: Genesis 17-50 
*Houtman, Cornelius, Exodus, 4 volumes.  HCOT.
Laughlin, John, Archaeology and the Bible
*Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus. CC.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah
New Interpreter's Bible, Volume III (1&2 Kings-Judith)
Sailhamer, John, The Pentateuch as Narrative
Sarna, Nahum, Exodus. JPS.
*Wenham, Gordon Genesis 16-50. WBC. 
Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12-36. CC.
Westermann, Claus, Genesis 37-50. CC.
Williamson, H.G.M., Ezra-Nehemiah.  WBC.
*Whybray, R. N., The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study
Wright, David P., The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature 

Time Travel, Prenatal Ethics and other Miscellania

Random thoughts, mostly things I have posted online elsewhere:

Wow, this is simply HORRIBLE journalism. There are so many things wrong with this article - it's simply sensationalism. A text from hundreds of years after Jesus' death, written in the area from which we get all Gnostic writings which mixed up Jesus and Christianity with the mystery religions, has Jesus mention a "wife", a fact that even the person working on the text admits has nothing to do with whether Jesus was ever married, and what does the journalist say? "A small fragment of faded papyrus contains a suggestion that Jesus may have been married...The discovery, if it is validated, could have major implications for the Christian faith. The belief that Jesus was not married is one reason priests in the Catholic Church must remain celibate and are not allowed to marry. It could also have implications for women's roles in the church, as it would mean Jesus had a female disciple." Ugh. Then the journalist proceeds to undermine everything they just said. Way to go.

The real title of this article should be "I Like Incoherent, Logically Inconsistent Stories because I cannot Understand the Concept of Time Travel", but I think that would've been too long. It's because of writers like this that we have all the incoherent time travel stories that we do (and which I therefore despise, though I tend to give Doctor Who and Back to the Future a pass since criticizing them for lack of logic is like criticizing the Hitchhiker's Guide for letting Arthur turn into an infinite number of penguins). Seriously, this is horrible. Not all of the 4 options are even KINDS of time travel at all, nor even necessarily incompatible options. Number 3 is simply incoherent, 4 isn't really time travel but universe-hopping. Number 2, which is how non-contradictory time travel would work, has nothing to do with predestination, pre-ordination of events, or lack of any agency.

(1) New-born infants have a right to live;
(2) If there is no relevant intrinsic difference between the members of two sets, then the members of one set will have the same rights as the other;
(3) There is no relevant intrinsic difference between new-born infants and late-term, un-born fetuses;
(4) Therefore, late-term, un-born fetuses have a right to live.
This is a deductively valid argument, which means the only way to avoid the conclusion would be to reject at least one of the premises 1-3. But 2 seems to be a basic principle about rights and 3 is a scientific fact. 1 is therefore the most vulnerable, but few, I think, would be able to stomach the idea that infants have no right to live - to accept that would be pretty implausible. Since 1-3 are fairly certain and the argument is valid, then, we have to accept 4 as well.

Obama seems to deny 4, though, which makes me wonder which of 1-3 he would reject. But I'm sure he hasn't really thought about it (remember the "above my paygrade" remark?). This is just one of the reasons why I cannot understand people's enthusiasm for Obama (his unprecedented rolling back of various freedoms including religion and conscience are some of the other reasons). I understand people really liking some things about him or liking him more than Romney or liking him in general, but the unqualified enthusiasm some people have I cannot relate to. (Almost no one has any kind of enthusiasm for Romney (I certainly don't), so that's not an issue on his side!)

Since I did a potshot at Obama, here's one aimed at Romney: I think the rich should be taxed a lot more than the poor sheerly as a matter of fairness. Suppose we tax everyone 10% - then the person making 20,000 a year will be forced to pay 2000 - a chunk of their income they would be much better off holding onto. For them, missing that money is going to make a noticeable difference in their life. But suppose then we have someone making 100 million - 10 million is just a drop in the bucket and won't affect the quality of their lives in any noticeable way. Money has a diminishing marginal value as income goes up - 10% for a rich person, say, is an entirely different beast from 10% for a poor person. Suppose we actually scaled taxes according to the actual value money has for the individuals concerned (our tax brackets go some way towards this), then the rich person would be paying a much higher percentage of their income then the poor person and the two would be equally affected (or not affected) by the tax. And that's not even taking into account arguments you might make concerning the increased debt the rich have towards society for creating the possibility and infrastructure for such wealth in the first place. Those are just my own opinions, though.

 I don't always agree with him or think he's always fair to conservatives, but Jon Stewart is reliably hilarious. Apropos the above on taxation, this is pretty entertaining (be sure to click to watch on part two too).


I don't agree with all of this, but some interesting thoughts from a Christian philosopher on reforming higher education.

Annoying Theodicy Objections

As a philosopher, this kind of thing frustrates me to no end. From a recent book review:

"A solution to the problem of theodicy, that is, the reconciliation of the existence and effect of evil with the righteousness of the traditionally defined Jewish or Christian God is, to my mind, simply philosophically impossible. The problem arises due to a certain cluster of defined characteristics of God. God is one, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficent, omnipresent, immovable, impassible, the purposeful creator of all, and involved in history. One simply has to give up one or more of these characteristics to explain how evil came into the world, or one has to argue that evil is not truly evil but only appears to be evil from our limited human perspective."

It annoys me when I see this kind of thing coming even from some otherwise good evangelical theologians (having philosophical training, contemporary theologians can often annoy me). One of my favorite Christian authors has even stated that trying to do theodicy or answer the problem of evil is immoral. Unfortunately, they do not give very good reasons - showing that the existence of the traditional God and the existence of evil are compatible is NOT the same thing as making evil good or belittling it or anything of the sort (that is one way of doing it, but only ONE among many). Some people need more philosophical training! I for one would not opt for either side of the false dichotomy that shows up in the quote above.

Bibliography 1st Half 2012

A bibliography similar to the first one and the second. This one covers January-June 2012. Again, it's not necessarily complete and contains only whole books, not articles or primarily reference works. I'm also trying to only include books that are new - i.e., not on the previous lists. Starred books are ones I consider particularly outstanding, interesting, or otherwise likable.

Ashton, John. Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994
*Barrett, C. K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978
*Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Volume II: Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII.  ICC. New York: T&T Clark, 1998
Bammel, E., and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
*Bieringer, R., D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds.) Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001
*Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11 T&T Clark, 2011.
Bloesch, Donald  Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997)
Bock, Darrell. Luke, Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996
*Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John I-XII: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966
*Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John XXIII-XXI. AB. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1970
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel and Epistles of John
*Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John
Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts, Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988
Brueggemann, Walter Genesis. Interpretation.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983
Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998
Goldingay, John Genesis For Everyone: Genesis 1-16  
*Gottwald, Norman The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction
*Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997
*Green, J. B. and M. D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. 2nd edition. InterVarsity Press, 2000
Grenz, Stanley  Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994)
*Grillmeier, Aloys Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) 
Hakola, Raimo. Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness. NovTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2005
Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SP. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1991
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. SP. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992
Kärkäinen, Veli-Matti Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in International, Ecumenical, and Historical Perspectives. Baker Academic, 2002.
Kärkäinen, Veli-Matti Christology: A Global Introduction: An Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003)
Kärkäinen, Veli-Matti One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Liturgical Press, 2004
*Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2003
*Kierspel, Lars. The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context.  WUNT.  Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006
Kurz, William S. Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox, 1993
Lewis, C. S. Various Chronicles of Narnia books.
*Marshall, I. Howard, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1980
*Marshall, I. Howard, Luke: Historian & Theologian, Third Edition.  New Testament Profiles. Downer’s Grove, Illinois: IVP Press, 1988
Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Third Edition. NTL. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2003
*McGuckin, John St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1994)
Moessner, D. P. (ed.), Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999
*Morris, Thomas V. The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986)
*Motyer, Stephen. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997
* New Interpreter's Bible Vol. 1: Intro, Genesis-Leviticus
*Pereira, Francis. Ephesus: Climax of Universalism in Luke-Acts: A Redaction-Critical Study of Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (Acts 18:23-20:1). Anand, India: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1983
Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009
*Postell, Seth Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John, 3 vols.
*Shauf, Scott. Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19. BZNW. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005
Siggins,Jan D. Kingston  Martin Luther’s Doctrine of Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970)
Spencer, F. Scott. The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008
Talbert, Charles. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel.  Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 1991
*Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume One: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986 
*Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990 
*Tiessen, Terrance L. Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. InterVarsity Press, 2004
Walton, John The Lost World of Genesis One IVP Academic
*Wenham, Gordon Genesis 1-15. WBC.
*Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11. CC.
Witherington, Ben, III. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1995
Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998

Some Notes on Genesis 45:21-50:26

A main focus of both the Jacob and Joseph material is God’s unfolding of this portion of his plan of salvation for the whole world, the goal being the redemption of all creation and the undoing of all the evils recorded in Genesis 3-11.  With the call of and promises to Abraham in 12:1-3, the plan is set into motion.  Jacob and Joseph represent its continuation with chapters 12-50 as a whole telling us about the beginnings of God’s plan to undo 3-11.  Genesis is thus always forward-looking, anticipating the next and final stages of God’s plan, and backwards-looking, remembering God’s promises and his original creation intentions to give life and blessing.  This wider perspective gets played out throughout the stories of the patriarchs and recurs throughout the historical writings of the Old Testament. 

Life and blessing and salvation or rescue from God, however, are always available in the present even if only imperfectly in the present time.  In chapters 45-50 of Genesis we see just this work of God, anticipating the final redemption, already manifested in his dealings with Jacob and his family.  As part of his plan to bring that great redemption, God has chosen a particular family to make into a nation for himself as a vehicle to move his plan forward and bring redemption, life and blessing, to all nations. 

In Genesis 3-4 we see a broken relationship between God and humans but also between humans and humans.  Cain, the older, kills his brother Abel, the younger, in his jealousy.  This fallenness manifesting even within the human family has been manifested again in Jacob’s own family – the family which is to be part of the solution is itself also part of the problem, as the nation of Israel will learn again and again throughout their history. 

45-50 shows us, however, that it is God’s plan to heal that breach (the reunion with the brothers heals the separation through guilt, the reunion with the father heals the separation through grief) – this time, the plans of the older to kill the younger brother are transformed in God’s hands and turned into blessing rather than curse, unlike the case of Cain.  The sin of Cain is in some sense undone in the reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers.  God’s plan and promises are not simply for the future but bear fruit in the present as well.  He can use the evil purposes of fallen humanity to further his plan to redeem them (Romans 8:28) – like Jesus, Joseph was handed over for God’s greater purpose.

God’s promises and plan always win out ultimately, since God is the one in ultimate control.  It is his desire not to complete wipe out all of humanity, but to preserve life and bless humanity in redeemed form.  45:7 describes God as preserving a “remnant” (She’erit), a concept common in the Ancient Near East and throughout the Bible, emphasizing continuation of life in the form of a remaining group.  In the Old Testament (especially Isaiah), this notion of a remnant often has an emphasis of faithfulness to God and a vehicle of blessing – it is in the form of the remnant that Israel will survive its Exile and the nations of the world will themselves be preserved by God in the form of remnants faithful to Yahweh, the idea being that God’s people as a whole, embracing all nations, will be the form in which humanity will survive and receive blessing and redemption from God.  The preservation of the remnant is how God saves the human race.  Through Joseph, the remnant has been preserved, not for the last time (in fact, his adoption and blessing of Joseph’s may be in part motivated to preserve Joseph in the form of his sons by guaranteeing that they, though born in Egypt and not in Canaan, are part of the family and hence heirs of God’s promises). 

The blessings of God for all nations through Jacob’s family find their way through the preservation of that family into the nations with which they come into contact.  These nations may not yet achieve any ultimate redemption (though perhaps some do turn to Yahweh), but some aspect of blessing and preservation spill over to them nonetheless – the promises of God are powerful beyond human measure.  God’s saving of Jacob’s family from starvation has resulted in Egypt’s salvation from starvation as well, as imperfect as it may be in either case.  In 47:7 Jacob appears like Abraham in chapter 12 and the nomadic shepherd blesses the powerful king as a spiritual superior – the one who once ungenerously tricked his brother for blessing is himself now a generous source of blessing.  Jacob’s blessings, whether of Pharaoh or of his own sons (or grandsons) here are an expression of the future work of God in history looking forward to the fulfillment of his ultimate plan. 

Jacob is himself, however, also a recipient of the blessings of God’s plan.  Whereas he previously seemed to have lost all hope and despaired of life, seemingly failing to rest in God’s promises in 37:33, 35; 42:36, 38, now in 45:28 all of this is reversed.  God has graciously looked out for Jacob and been faithful even when Jacob seemed to have lost any hope of that.  Jacob himself experiences God’s salvation, a foretaste of the final redemption, receiving Joseph “from the dead”.  In response to this, he has himself become alive from being dead – his spirit, the life-giving principle (see 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22), is said to be revived.  After a long hiatus, God once again speaks to Jacob in 46:2-4, affirming that going into Egypt is part of God’s plan to bring salvation and Jacob, strengthened by his revival of hope, hopes in and believes in God’s promises here as well. 

47:29-30 reaffirms Jacob’s hope and trust in God’s promises, his own burial in Canaan looking back to God’s promise of the land and forward to Israel’s return by God’s hand.  Hope here, as elsewhere, seems to be a response to God’s faithfulness to his promises and plan which will ultimately be expressed in the final redemption.  Jacob’s foretaste of this returns him to hope.  The promised return to Canaan, however, will not happen until after his death – for himself, not long after his death, but for the rest of his family not until after a long time under a yoke of slavery.  50:24-25 expresses the same hope in a much later fulfillment by God.  God’s promises require patience and their fulfillment may not be realized even prior to our own deaths, as this emphasizes. 

By contrast with Jacob and Joseph, the other sons of Jacob have failed to trust God’s promises or his plan and so are stuck in their guilt over what happened to Joseph and imagine still that he may harm them, despite the blessings of Jacob.  Joseph, because of his trust in God’s fulfilling of his plan to fulfill his promises and preserve Israel for blessing and for life, rules that their concerns are overruled by God himself, thus completing their reconciliation.  

The changes in our characters and the blessings bestowed on them in 45-50, as we look closely, are expressed in terms that do not dwell as much on the characters’ interior faith or faithfulness or in their own initiative or worthiness or even repentance.  Rather, the force of change in the story and initiation of salvation is always on God’s side.  It is his work alone – Jacob’s family is imperfect and God’s faithfulness to them is not directly dependent on their own faithfulness to him.  As is constantly emphasized throughout the Old Testament, God’s favor of Israel and his relationship to them is based on his grace, not their merit (even in the Old Testament, salvation is not by works, contrary to many popular presentations – obedience to the Law was seen as a proper response to God’s grace and election, not a means to these).