Genesis 25:22-28

2008.Apr.18 19:47

The Younger of Twins

Read Genesis 25:22-28 | Full Chapter

But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If it is so, why then am I this way?" So she went to inquire of the LORD. The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."
(Genesis 25:22-23, NASB)

Rebekah has now conceived, after a period of barrenness, as it were. But a new problem arises. She’s pregnant with twins (that’s not the problem), who are struggling with each other. I’m going to just take that point as it is, since I have no idea what that would feel like, whether such a feeling is common with twins, etc. Understandably, this bothers Rebekah a bit, and not only because it’s probably causing her to feel more sick than hormonal changes alone. So, she asks Yahweh what this is all about.

Yahweh explains that this is just the beginning. Out of these two children are going to be borne two powerful nations, one of which will serve the other. Perhaps God chose to let them wrestle for illustrative purposes; one does not imagine that the brothers’ struggle is because they understand all this. Shoot, even I don’t understand all this. Add to that a reversal of the “normal order” in this society, in which the eldest son generally holds authority. In this case, it will be the younger son who becomes more powerful.

This seems to be a bit of prophecy for the sake of prophecy (or whatever is the right term when Yahweh just tells one person directly). That is, there doesn’t seem to be a particular warning here, just a “this is the way it’s going to be.” On the other hand, it may be an intentionally self-fulfilling prophecy, which I’ll explore a little later in this article.

When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. Afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob; and Isaac was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.
(Genesis 25:24-26, NASB)

The two kiddos are born, Esau and Jacob, in that order. I think it’s interesting, though I’m not sure to what purpose, that Jacob is holding on to Esau’s heel. I guess if their lives had gone differently, this might have been more interpretted as a show of love and cooperation between the two. Alas.

Isaac and Rebekah are fairly old by this point, although spring chickens compared to Abraham and Sarah when Isaac was born. Nothing particular to say about that point.

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the field, but Jacob was a peaceful man, living in tents. Now Isaac loved Esau, because he had a taste for game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.
(Genesis 25:27-28, NASB)

The two boys are different (surprise, surprise). Esau likes the outdoors, Jacob tends to stay at home and is probably more “intellectual” of the two. Esau becomes Isaac’s favorite, while Rebekah prefers her younger son. According to the text, Isaac’s preference is straight forward: he likes the meat of the animals Esau hunts. Rebekah’s is not explained that I’ve noticed. However, as I touched on earlier, I wonder if her favoring Jacob is due in part to Yahweh’s explanation about the struggle between the two during her pregnancy. That is, does she prefer Jacob because she knows that he will become the more powerful of the two?

Whatever their reasons, favorites is a dangerous game, that is, playing favorites. It’s quite natural, I imagine, that a parent will have more in common and/or be closer to one or another child. The trouble (I think) comes when a parent translates that natural connection into actively acting for the better of one child at the expense of another, for no other reason than that preference (Having not raised any children, I take a moment to comment that I may be quite misguided on these assertions). As we will see, Rebekah in particular goes down that road, and although I don’t think I can prove it, I get the impression Isaac does as well. Trouble, naturally, ensues.

Genesis 25:29-34

2008.Apr.26 00:07

Well, that was stupid

Read Genesis 25:29-34 | Full Chapter

Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" (That is why he was also called Edom. ) Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright." "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?" But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left. So Esau despised his birthright.
(Genesis 25:29-34, NIV)

Welcome back to Biblical patriarchs being morons. In this short story, Esau sells his birthright to Jacob for some bread and stew. My understanding is that the birthright entitles the first born male to a double portion of the inheritance. I imagine it also includes some status, including possibly being heir to the headship of the family. If that assumption is wrong, it nevertheless stands that the birthright is a big deal, both socially and economically.

Esau’s logic is not irrational, i.e. if he dies of hunger, the birthright is useless to him; however, one of his axioms is foolish. He concludes that his death from starvation is imminent. There is first no indication of that–after all, he is able to talk and reason (if poorly). In addition, surely he could have found some other food. It is his emotions, I guess, that inform him he needs this stew. After all, it smells good and he really is hungry. But the price is far too steep.

So, Esau is foolish, and Yahweh’s prophecy to Rebekah is one step closer to fulfilled, but what about Jacob? Jacob achieves great success in his life, and while I think God blessed him greatly–for God’s own reasons–one of Jacob’s primary skills is cunning, to such an extent that it often seems to me deceitful (and maybe it is). I would not be surprised to find that Jacob planned this particular encounter. It seems to me that either he knew precisely what he wanted, or else he was being flippant (in which case, Esau was made that much more the fool).

I think this narrative qualifies as purely a “Here’s what happened” narrative. Except maybe for the presentation of causes and effects of foolishness, I don’t see a particular chord of morality to this story. Jacob, in my opinion, cheated his brother, but, then Esau made it exceptionally easy. In the end, though, I’m not sure the birthright really gains Jacob anything.

Genesis 30:1-8

2008.Dec.19 07:12

The Handmaid

Read Genesis 30:1-8 | Full Chapter

When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!" Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" Then she said, "Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her." So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. Then Rachel said, "God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son." Therefore she called his name Dan. Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. Then Rachel said, "With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed." So she called his name Naphtali.
(Genesis 30:1-8, ESV)

If you haven’t read The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, quit reading this and go read that, now. Seriously. The read her novel, The Blind Assassin for a little (just a little) cheering up. The Handmaid’s Tale references this narrative. Anyway.

Rachel, more loved by Jacob, is barren. Story of Genesis, right? She complains to her husband. Jacob is angered because he feels there’s nothing he can do. There’s a fair chance he’s right. His point is that he is not God. A surprisingly wise point from him. Now, what do these two do? Do they talk to Yahweh about it? Well, there’s no record of them doing so. Instead, Rachel takes matters into her own hand, and our apparently rather horny patriach willingly goes along.

Specifically, Jacob sleeps with Rachel’s maidservent Bilhah, at Rachel’s suggestion. The technique is effective in so far as Bilhah has two sons, Dan and Naphtali, who Rachel considers as her own children. As with Leah, one of Rachel’s biggest concerns in having these sons–if less than directly–is her status in relation to Leah. Rachel now is both the object of Jacob’s infatuation and has “given him” sons. So, she has “prevailed.”

I have a hard time not assuming that God’s reason for the inclusion of this narrative is to remind us how of our focus can get because of sin (jealousy, in this case). Having children just to say “I’m better than you?” How absurd. But that’s one of the things sin does. It makes us absurd.

Genesis 30:31-36

2009.Jan.23 17:00

What Jacob Wants

Read Genesis 30:31-36 | Full Chapter

[Laban] said, What shall I give you? And Jacob said, You shall not give me anything, if you will do this one thing for me [of which I am about to tell you], and I will again feed and take care of your flock. Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted animal and every black one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages. So later when the matter of my wages is brought before you, my fair dealing will be evident and answer for me. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the sheep, if found with me, shall be counted as stolen. And Laban said, Good; let it be done as you say. But that same day [Laban] removed the he-goats that were streaked and spotted and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every black lamb, and put them in charge of his sons. And he set [a distance of] three days' journey between himself and Jacob; and Jacob was then left in care of the rest of Laban's flock.
(Genesis 30:31-36, AMP)

Jacob’s request is in some ways an acknowledgement that both he and Laban play the game of deceit. The idea is that as long as Jacob is caring for Laban’s flocks, if Jacob has any animals of his own, it would be easy for either party to make conflicting claims. Since Jacob is asking for a portion of Laban’s flock in payment for his continued service, this issue must be addressed. Jacob’s proposal is that they be divided by color.

How much does Jacob understand about heredity? And how much does Laban? Those could be particularly relevant questions if one were trying to decide who is practicing the most deceit. Fortunately, I consider that a moot point, instead caring more about this issue of mutual faithlessness. In either case, the idea is probably that sheep and goats with a particular type of goat will tend to have offspring of the same; in addition, coloration is something easy to distinguish. Laban agrees to the wages and to the policy of determining which animal belongs to which owner.

That is, he agrees in theory. Laban, in order to minimize his loss, sends the speckled and spotted and so forth and has his sons take care of them. That is, he removes them from the flock under Jacob’s care so that Jacob cannot take them as his wages. Jerk. But then, it is probably Jacob anticipates his uncle’s action; he’d be rather a fool not to expect something of the kind.

So, where are we? There’s a lot of ugly crap between Jacob and Laban. Neither is innocent, although in their relationship, Laban seems to be the more willing to take advantage of his relative. The tables will, of course, turn, for better or worse. For the whole family, it’s for worse. Laban will ultimately be hurt by his deceptive acts, just a Jacob will feel the pain of the lies practiced by his sons. In fact, from the birth of Jacob through his arrival in Egypt, there’s a ton of lying going on. And the running thread through all those lies is that someone always gets hurt. Not a surprise, mind you, but worth the notice.

And, of course, a lot of it has to do with money. Although some is plain old jealousy.

Genesis 30:37-43

2009.Jan.30 17:00

The Wealth of Jacob

Read Genesis 30:37-43 | Full Chapter

But Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white in the rods. Then he set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the watering troughs where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred and conceived when they came to drink, The flocks bred and conceived in sight of the rods and brought forth lambs and kids streaked, speckled, and spotted. Jacob separated the lambs, and [as he had done with the peeled rods] he also set the faces of the flocks toward the streaked and all the dark in the [new] flock of Laban; and he put his own droves by themselves and did not let them breed with Laban's flock. And whenever the stronger animals were breeding, Jacob laid the rods in the watering troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed and conceive among the rods. But when the sheep and goats were feeble, he omitted putting the rods there; so the feebler animals were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man increased and became exceedingly rich, and had many sheep and goats, and maidservants, menservants, camels, and donkeys.
(Genesis 30:37-43, AMP)

So, let’s consider Jacob’s wealth. Because, it’s not clear whether he’s wealthy at the beginning of this passage, but he clearly becomes so. Certainly, from what I know about the sociology of polygamy (admittedly not a lot), having four wives is a sign of at least a high status within such societies. And by the end of the passage, we see him “[becoming] exceedingly rich,” with servants and a great deal of livestock, which I imagine are the main things one can measure wealth by in what appears to be a still largely nomadic society. (Incidentally, I’ve been reading a book on the history of Israel lately, and the author notes that camels probably weren’t in use during this time; maybe later I’ll update this with an actual quote).

The Biblical description of how he achieves this wealth, despite Laban’s schemes, is to me one of the weirder passages in the Bible. It’s also one of those passages that I think demonstrates that Yahweh’s intent with scriptute was not to present a scientific treatise, something which a surprising number of my fellow Christians seem to claim. But I digress.

The narrative indicates the Jacob used branches to influence the coloration of the offspring during breeding season. Since the contract specifies that Jacob’s and Laban’s flocks be distinguished by coloration, and since Laban has previously removed those of Jacob’s group prior to that agreement going into effect, and given a lack of specific knowledge of heredity and genetics, well, I guess I can’t blame Jacob for trying. And it works. This could be a miracle; it could be the author’s way of shortening a more drawn out and complex circumstance. Regardless, it presents some interesting food for thought.

A possible lesson from this, and one which I’m believe is wrong, is the idea that it’s okay to cheat when you’ve been cheated. But, then, is Jacob cheating? It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t. Is this deception or cunning? Or is cunning just a word for deception we like? Etc. One of the difficulties with reading the pre-Mosaic accounts is that morality is at times unclear. Particularly as regards Jacob.

But he does build wealth, fat lot of good it will do him in time (as a forthcoming famine will render it largely irrelevant). And yet his relationship with his father-in-law/uncle is not getting any better. So, then, is this a story of greed, its destructive effect on relationships and ultimate insufficiency? Yes, Jacob counters a bad circumstance through an amazing plan, one which not only is unexpected but also rather stupid, at least given modern science (which is capable of stupid on its own, admittedly). But it’s perhaps more interesting that his acknowledgment of Yahweh, God of his fathers, has become pretty much exclusively lip service at this point. It is on his own cunning that Jacob relies.

So, what else? Not only does Jacob’s messing with the sticks benefit him, it directly hurts Laban, for whom Jacob designates the weaker animals. Maybe it’s illustrative of the need to consider the small print. Given the importance of Covenant in later Israel, it’s not surprising to find a contract and how both parties try to mold it to their own advantage. Israel’s history (like that of humanity in general) has abundant instances of that nation trying to sidestep her agreements with Yahweh. And, as for both Jacob and Laban, the immediate results seem beneficial.