[Reposting at a time when abortion, throwaway unborn fetuses and unwanted born babies have become connected with “Women’s Rights”.   Whaaatttt?  Where?  In a country where women are supposedly so liberated, they can be as sexually active as they choose to be, in and out of marriage, because contraceptives are accessible and aplenty, guess where?  If that’s so, then why can’t women just resort to contraception in this day and age when they are given control over their bodies, at least in societies that recognize that right.  How far have we come from Biblical times! The title of this post is exactly what this Genesis chapter is about:

Image from asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com

One.  Yaakov’s sister-wives try to out-baby each other going to the point of using their maidservants as surrogate mothers. What is it about having babies that obsess these rival sister-wives? It couldn’t possibly be a scramble to fulfill prophecy; it must simply be that the culture in those days regarded female fertility as a ‘super-plus’ so that women themselves thought their be-all and end-all was to be prolific baby machines and produce children non-stop.  No wonder barrenness or infertility had to be the bane of the wives of Israel’s patriarchs, if only for Israel’s God to intervene and open the womb so that the promised child could be evident as a miraculously conceived and born. 

Two.  Yaakov and Laban . . . 2 wits . . . outwitters . . . nitwits. This chapter says it all.

Unbracketed commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H.Hertz; translation is Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses with commentary in “EF”; additional commentary from “RA” Robert Alter.—Admin1.]

————————————————-

Genesis/Bereshith 30

else I die.  Of grief and shame.

[RA]  Give me sons, for if you don’t I’m a dead woman!  It is a general principle of biblical narrative that a character’s first recorded speech has particular defining force as characterization.  Surprisingly, although Rachel has been part of the story for more than a decade of narrated time, this is the first piece of dialogue assigned to her.  It is a sudden revelation of her simmering frustration and her impulsivity:  in fact, she speaks with an impetuousness reminiscent of her brother-in-law Esau, who also announced to Jacob that he was on the point of death if Jacob did not immediately give him what he wanted.

am I in God’s stead?  In His hands alone are the issues of life and death.

[EF]  Yaakov’s anger flared up: The usual biblical expression for anger; lit. Yaakov’s nostril(s) flamed.”

[RA] Am I instead of God. Through Jacob’s words, the writer shrewdly invokes a fateful deflection of the anunciation type-scene.  According to the convention of the annunciation story, the barren wife should go to an oracle or be visited by a divine messenger or a man of God to be told that she will give birth to a son.  Rachel instead importunes her husband, who properly responds that he cannot play the role of God in the bestowal of fertility, or in the annunciation narrative.  Rachel is then forced to fall back on the strategy of surrogate maternity, like Sarai with Hagar.  One should note that she demands “sons,” not a son.  Eventually, she will have two sons, but will die in giving birth to the second one.  Perhaps her rash words here, “Give me sons, for if you don’t, I’m a dead woman,” are meant to foreshadow her premature death.

behold my maid. Rachel resorts to the same expedient as Sarah.

upon my knees.   A figurative expression denoting the adoption of a child.

be builded up. As in XVI,2.  She can thus have ‘sons whom I may nurse and rear as my own’ (Targum).

[EF] give birth upon my knees: An idiom for legal adoption (here, by Rahel).

[RA]  give birth on my knees. Placing the newborn on someone’s knees was a gesture of adoption.

built up through her. As with Sarai in chapter 16, the verb ‘ibaneh, puns on ben, “son.”

mighty wrestlings. lit. ‘wrestlings of God’, where ‘of God’ is merely the Heb. idiom for the superlative.

[RA] grapplings.  The Hebrew naftulim plays on Napthtali.  It is noteworthy that Rachel chooses an image of wrestling for her relationship with her sister that marks a correspondence to the relationship of Jacob, the “heel-grabber,” with his older sibling.

Fortune is come. This translation is according to the traditional Reading, the Kre.

[RA] Good luck has come.  The translation follows a long-established practice in separating the enigmatic single word of the Masoretic text, bagad, into ba’gad.

[EF] What happiness: Others use “Happy am I!”

[RA] What good fortune!  For the girls have acclaimed me fortunate.  Asher’s name is derived from ‘osher, “good fortune,” and the entire naming is thus closely parallel to the naming of Gad. This noun ‘osher produces a common biblical verb, ‘isher, the basic meaning of which is to call out to a lucky person, ‘ashrei, “happy is he” (or, here, “happy is she”).

mandrakes. Or, as the RV Margin translates, ‘love-apples.’  The fruit is of the size of a large plum, quite round, yellow and full of soft pulp.  The fruit is still considered in the East as a love-charm.  This explains Rachel’s anxiety to obtain it.

[EF] love-apples: Heb. dada’im; a plant believed to have aphrodisiac powers.  Others use “mandrakes.”

[RA] mandrakes. As in other, later cultures, these plants with tomato-shaped fruit were used for medicinal purposes and were thought to be aphrodisiac, and also to have the virtue of promoting fertility, which seems to be what Rachel has in mind.  The aphrodisiac association is reinforced in the Hebrew by a similarity of sound (exploited in the Song of Songs) between duda’im, “mandrakes,” and dodim, “lovemaking.”

Image from rastafarirenaissance.wordpress.com

thou hast taken away. By holding first place in his affections.

[EF] taking away: The theme of “taking,” so prominent to Chap. 27, returns, in the context of sibling rivalry again.

[RA] Is it not enough that you have taken my husband. The narrator has mentioned Rachel’s jealousy of Leah, and Rachel has referred to “grappling” with her sister, but this is the first actual dialogue between the sisters.  It vividly etches the bitterness between the two, on the part of the unloved Leah as well as of the barren Rachel.  In still another correspondence with the story of Jacob and Esau, one sibling barters a privilege for a plant product, though here the one who sells off the privilege is the younger, not the elder.

[EF] With me you will come to bed . . . And he lay with her that night.  In his transactions with these two imperious, embittered women, Jacob seems chiefly acquiescent, perhaps resigned.  When Rachel instructs him to consort with her slavegirl, he immediately complies as he does here when Leah tells him it is she who is to share his bed this night.  In neither instance is there any report of response on his part in dialogue.  The fact that Leah uses his particular idiom for sexual intercourse (literally, “to me you will come”), ordinarily used for intercourse with a woman the man has not previously enjoyed, is a strong indication that Jacob has been sexually boycotting Leah.  That could be precisely what she is referring to when she says to Rachel, “You have taken my husband.”

[EF] hired-wages:  “Wages” recurs as a theme throughout this part of the Yaakov cycle (Fokkelman).  It is perhaps a veiled portrayal of the events of Yaakov’s adulthood as “payment” for what he did to his brother.  Yissakhar: Trad. English “Issachar.”

[RA]  God has given my wages. In this case, as again with the birth of Joseph, there is a double pun in the naming-speech.  The word for “wages” (or, “reward”) is sakhar, which also means a fee paid for hiring something.  Leah uses this same root when she tells Jacob (verse 16) that she has “clearly hired” him (sakhor sekhartikha). Thus Issachar’s name is derived from both the circumstances of his  conception and his mother’s sense of receiving a reward in his birth.  All this suggests that the naming etymologies may not have figured so literally in the ancient Hebrew imagination as moderns tend to imagine:  the name is taken as a trigger of sound associations, releasing not absolute meaning but possible meaning, and in some instances, a cluster of complementary or even contradictory meanings.

[EF] this time my husband will prize me: Lea’s six pregnancies and birthings are bracketed by  this verse and 29:32. “Now my husband will love me.” Zevulun: Trad. English “Zebulun.”

[RA] a goodly gift . . . my husband will exalt me. The naming of Zebulun illustrates how free the phonetic associations can be in the naming-speeches.  Zebulun and zebed (“gift”) share only the first two consonants.  The verb for “exalt” (this meaning is no more than an educated guess), zabal, then exhibits a fuller phonetic correspondence to Zebulun and evidently represents an alternative etymology of the name.

This time my husband will exalt me. Having borne Jacob half a dozen sons, half of the sanctified tribal grouping of twelve, Leah indulges one last time in the poignant illusion that her husband will now love her.

and she called her name Dinah.  The absence of a naming etymology for Dinah is by no means an indication, as has often been claimed, that this verse derives from a different source.  There is no naming-speech for Dinah because she is a daughter and will not be the eponymous founder of a tribe.

my reproach. Of being left childless.  The Heb. name has the double sense of ‘taking away’ (the reproach) and of ‘adding’ (to her another son).

[EF] 23-24  removed . . . add:  Yosef’s naming prefigures his destiny as a son lost and found.

[RA] taken away my shame. “Taken away,” ‘asaf, is proposed as an etymology of Yosef, Joseph.

Image from rastafarirenaissance.wordpress.com

24-43.  JACOB’S WAGES

[EF] Yosef:Trad. English “Joseph.”

[RA] May the LORD add me another son. “Add,” yosef, Rachel’s second etymology, is a perfect homonym in Hebrew for Joseph (and hence the odd name used among American Puritans, Increase).  Leah’s double etymology for Issachar had referred in sequence to conception and birth.  Rachel’s double etymology refers to birth and, prospectively to a future son.  She remains true to the character of her initial speech to Jacob, where she demanded of him not a son but sons.  She will be granted the second son she seeks, but at the cost of her life.

send me away.  It would thus seem that the fourteen years’ service terminated shortly after Joseph’s birth.

found favour in thine eyes. Laban wishes to retain Jacob.

[EF] Pray, if I have found: Or, “May I now find.” I have become wealthy,/ and YHAH . . .: Some interpret this as “I have divined that YHWH . . .”

[RA] If, pray, I have found favor in your eyes.  This formula of deference is normally followed by a request. If the text is reliable here, Laban begins with the deferential flourish and then, having mentioned how he has been blessed through Jacob, lets his voice trail off.  A second formula for the introduction of speech (“and he said”) is inserted, and only then does he proceed to his request: “Name me your wages.”  Could the thought of the prosperity he has enjoyed through Jacob’s supervision of his flocks lead to this self-interruption, a kind of hesitation before he asks Jacob to name the separation pay that he knows he owes his nephew?

I have prospered.  Everywhere else in the Bible, the verb niesh means “to divine,” but that makes little sense here, and so there is plausibility in the proposal of comparative semiticists that this particular usage reflects an Akkadian cognate meaning “to prosper.”

with me. Under my care.

withersoever I turned.  lit. ‘at my foot’, i.e. either ‘at every step I took’; or (so the Midrash), ‘at my coming’ into thy house.

provide for mine own house.  His wives and children now belong to him, and he feels the responsibility of making provision for their future.

Image from www.essex1.com

Jacob, still feeling sore at the way he had been outwitted by Laban over the matter of Rachel, determines to put to good use his exceptional knowledge and skill as a shepherd.

[RA] You need give me nothing. In a classic bargainer’s ploy, Jacob begins by making it sound as though Laban will owe him nothing.  As he goes on to name his terms, it seems as though he is asking for next to nothing: most sheep are white, not dark-colored; most goats are black, not speckled; and, Laban, by first removing all the animals with the recessive traits from the flocks, will appear to have reduced to nil Jacob’s chances of acquiring any substantial number of livestock.  One should note that, as in the stealing of the blessing, Jacob is embarked on a plan of deception that involves goats.

The sheep in Syria are white and the goats black.  Jacob asks as his wages the sheep which are not white and the goats which are not black.  Laban considers the request fair and, to him, profitable.

of such shall be my hire.  These, and the lambs and kids subsequently born with the same peculiarity, should belong to him.

[EF] Let me go: Some read “Go.” every speckled . . . : This would appeal to Lavan, since such animals would be in the minority.

righteousness.  ‘In this way my honesty will tell, when you come to cast your eye over my share; any goat in my lot that is not speckled or spotted, any sheep that is not black, you may consider to have been stolen’ (Moffatt).

The compact is all in Laban’s favour; but, crafty, selfish and grasping, he starts to circumvent Jacob, by preventing the increase of any speckled or brown cattle.

[EF]  white: Heb. lavan.  Also the word “poplar” in v. 37 is a play on Lvan (livne).  The conniving father-in-law is tricked with words resembling his own name.

[RA] 35-36.  And he removed . . . the spotted and speckled . . .And he put three days’ journey between himself and Jacob. Laban, taking Jacob at his word, seeks to eliminate any possibility of crossbreeding between the unicolored animals and the others by putting a long distance between the spotted ones and the main herds.

that had white on it. The Hebrew “white,” lavan, is identical with the name Laban.  As Nahum Sarna puts it, Jacob is beating Laban at his own game—or, with his own name-color.

three days’ journey. A phrase denoting a considerable distance; Exod. III,18.

streaks.  Jacob devises three plans for the purpose of frustrating Laban.  He placed streaked rods over against the ewes.  The sight of these rods would affect the colouring of the young about to be born.  ‘He did not resort tot his device the first year, and thereafter only in connection with his own flock; otherwise it would have been flagrant dishonesty’ (Kimchi).

[RA] he stood the rods he had peeled in the troughs . . . opposite the flocks, which went into heat.  The mechanism of Jacob’s ingenious scheme has long perplexed commentators.  At least on the surface, it appears to involve the age-old belief that sensory impressions at the moment of conception affect the embryo—here, the peeled rods, with their strips of white against the dark bark, would impart the trait of spots or brindle markings to the offspring conceived.  (The same effect would then be achieved for the sheep by making them face the flocks of speckled goats during their own mating time.)  Yehuda Feliks, an authority on biblical flora and fauna, has proposed that the peeled rods are only a dodge, a gesture to popular belief, while Jacob is actually practicing sound principles of animal breeding.  Using a Mendelian table, Feliks argues that the recessive traits would have shown up in 25 percent of the animals born in the first breeding season, 12.5 percent in the second season, and 6.25 percent in the third season. Jacob is, moreover, careful to encourage the breeding only of the more vigorous animals, which, according to Feliks, would be more likely to be heterozygotes, bearing the recessive genes.  It is noteworthy that Jacob makes no mention of the peeled rods when in the next chapter he tells his wives how he acquired the flocks.

Image from spaceghetto.us

The second plan was, Jacob separates the newly-born spotted lambs and kids from the rest of the flock, but so arranges them that there should be a further tendency to bear spotted young.

[EF] gave position: Following the interpretation of Fokkelman.

He arranges to secure for his own share the young of the strongest animals.

[EF] he came to have many flock-animals: Like his father (26:14) and grandfather (12:16).

[First posted in 2014; revived for our series on “The Outsiders”/”the Other”/the “UNchosen”.    Who?   Those who were not among the “chosen” or specifically the line of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob but were just as loved by the Creator/Revelator.  Related posts:

• The UNchosen – Esau/Edom – A Second Look
• The UNchosen: What if you were a gentile slave in Egypt?
• The UNchosen – My servant Caleb – a different spirit

 We should understand “choosing” a people to simply mean assigning them the serious responsibility of making Him known to all humanity as custodians of His instructions for living, His guidelines for life, His commandments for those in community.  This “choosing” God included in His instructions —how the ‘outsiders’ among His ‘chosen’  are to be treated —with conscious consideration and caring for “the other” among them, i.e., the neighbor, the stranger, anyone else who is not ‘you’!  

Hear O Yisrael, indeed, thank you for recording the original Sinai Revelation in your unadulterated sacred scriptures, virtually your history.  We learn about outsiders like us, Sinaites, among them Caleb, Ysmael, Ruth, the mixed multitude who left Egypt on your Exodus and stood with you at Sinai.  

For a related post, read; 

• Genesis/Bereshith 17: “as for Yishmael, I hearken to you . . .but my covenant I will establish with Yitzhak”

—Admin1]

—————————-

Students of literature will connect this article’s title with the opening line spoken by the narrative-voice in Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick. For a short-cut and introduction to this classic work and its fascinating characters with biblical names and implications, here are articles to check out:

• Hebraic and Biblical Elements in Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick

——————-

Sorry for that diversion, this post is about the Ishmael/Yishmael of Genesis/Bereshith, firstborn of Abraham but not with Sara.  

 Ten years after living in Canaan, ‘the tired-of-waiting-for-promised-son’ and barren Sara made a proposal to Abram he could have refused . . . but did not:   

Sara said to Avram:  

Now here, YHVH has obstructed me from bearing;

pray come in to my maid,

perhaps I may be built-up-with-sons through her!   

Despite Sara’s impatience and lack of faith who, in fact at first found the promise of a son through her in her old age laughable, what would and should we expect of Abraham?  

• Had Abraham been more trusting in YHWH’s promise of an heir through Sara, there would be no Ishmael.  
• But, alas,  the flesh is obviously weak: 

Avram hearkened to Sara’s voice:

• The wording suggests Hagar was given by Sara to Abraham as a wife/to be his wife, though not displacing Sara herself as wife no. 1: 

Genesis 16:3  

Sara, Avram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian-woman, her maid, at the end of ten years of Avram’s being settled in the land of Canaan,

and gave her to her husband Avram as a wife for him.  

The point?  Firstborn Ishmael who is 13 years older than Isaac had a privileged status despite the circumstances surrounding his conception and birth, and despite Sara/Sarah’s later antipathy toward him and his mother Hagar. He was a favored only son for a good 13 years, loved and raised by Abraham. Surely, Abraham would have passed on some values, if not his faith to this son. 

Consider the following: Before Ishmael was even conceived, when Hagar was dealt with harshly by Sara and sent away, this much was prophesied to Hagar about him:

Genesis/Bereshith 16:

10  And YHVH’S messenger said to her:

I will make your seed many, yes, many, it will be too many to count! 

11  And YHVH’S messenger said to her:

Here, you are pregnant,

you will bear a son; call his name: Yishmael/God Hearkens,

for God has hearkened to your being afflicted. 

12 He shall be a wild-ass of a man,

his hand against all, hand of all against him,

yet in the presence of all his brothers shall he dwell. 

13 Now she called the name of YHVH, the one who was speaking to her:

You God of Seeing! 

For she said:

Have I actually gone on seeing here after his seeing me? 

14 Therefore the well was called:

Well of the Living-one Who-Sees-Me.

Here, it is between Kadesh and Bered. 

15 Hagar bore Avram a son, and Avram called the name of the son whom Hagar bore: Yishmael.

What does it mean to be a “wild ass of a man”?  In modern lingo, being called an “ass” is hardly a compliment.  Animal metaphor is a good literary device, saves the narrator from elaborating on a person’s character; unfortunately we readers are not as familiar with animals as much as the original hearers were. Please don’t miss reading an illuminating article about the peculiar nature of this particular animal used to describe Ishmael in  [http://www.zoocreation.com/biblespecies/wildass.html].

The prophesied ‘character’ of Ishmael includes further his hand against all, hand of all against him.  That sounds much like a major world monotheistic religion that is claimed to be rooted to Yishmael and yet it was really started by a ‘prophet’ who lived in the 6th century.  

Father of the Arabs, perhaps:  “and over all his brothers shall he dwell”.

When Abraham expressed to YHWH at the giving of the covenant of circumcision, Genesis 17:18 Avraham said to God: If only Yishmael might live in your presence! —we can see how Abraham truly felt about this firstborn son, for Yishmael is truly the firstborn from Abraham, even if he is not the promised son through Sara. Like Esau, Yishmael sometimes gets portrayed like a villain, and pitted against the promised line of people that would issue from Yaacov/Jacob.

The ever gracious YHWH responded favorably, is He just or what? Despite humanity’s disobedience of His expressed instructions, the child here — Yishmael—is given an inheritance almost equal to Yitzhak.

Genesis/Bereshith 17

21  And as for Yishmael, I hearken to you:

Here, I will make him blessed, I will make him bear fruit, I will make him many, exceedingly, exceedingly—

he will beget twelve (tribal) leaders, and I will make a great nation of him. 

21 But my covenant I will establish with Yitzhak, whom Sara will bear to you at this set-time, another year hence.

22 When he had finished speaking with Avraham,

God went up, from beside Avraham. 

23 Avraham took Yishmael his son and all those born in his house and all those bought with his money,

all the males among Avraham’s household people,

and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins on that same day,

as God had spoken to him. 24 Avraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised,

25 and Yishmael his son was thirteen years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised. 

26 On that same day

were circumcised Avraham and Yishmael his son.

 27 and all his household people, whether house-born or money-bought from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

A blessed firstborn just like Isaac; simply because he’s from Abraham . . . but not the promised heir.

And so he and his mother are sent away, again at Sarah’s instigation after Isaac was born.  These few verses reveal much if carefully read:

  For one, Abraham is a bit disappointing, or admirable, for heeding the voice of his wife Sara . . . again, for the third time!  What are we to think of him, the father of all nations?  Caught between wife number one and mother of his FIRSTBORN son whom he dearly loves.  Perhaps he realizes this is the consequence of giving in to the first two times instead of standing his ground on what God had promised him from the very beginning, deviating from that plan to cooperate with a human diversion.  Who knows, scripture does not elaborate, so perhaps neither should we.  

Secondly there’s Sara — she’s not coming off as an admirable woman so far but admittedly, she’s behaving consistently, protective of her and her cherished son’s interest.

Thirdly there’s poor Hagar; elevated then degraded who loves and worries about her son just like any mother. Sometimes we forget that she hears voices from ‘up there’ whether it is a spiritual messenger or God Himself.  

But let us not forget this article is about Yishmael, who never asked to be born but is a victim of a circumstances, none of which was his doing.  And perhaps that is why the gracious God does bless him after all!

Genesis/Bereshith 21

9 Once Sara saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian-woman, whom she had borne to Avraham, laughing . . .

10 She said to Avraham:  

Drive out this slave-woman and her son,

for the son of this slave-woman shall not share-inheritance with my son, with Yitzak!  

11 The matter was exceedingly bad in Avraham’s eyes because of his son.  

12 But God said to Avraham:  

Do not let it be bad in your eyes concerning the lad and concerning your slave-woman;

in all that Sara says to you, 

hearken to her voice,

for it is through Yitzhak that seed will be called by your (name).

13   But also the son of the slave-woman—a nation will I make of him,

for he too is your seed.  

14  Avraham started-early in the morning,

he took some bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar—placing them upon her shoulder–together with the child and sent her away.  

Image from www.haaretz.com

For the descendants of Yishmael, here’s a genealogy:

Genesis/Bereshith 25

The next mention of Ishmael would be at the burial of Abraham where he and Isaac were both present.  Presumably, he had kept in touch with his father even if he and Hagar were expelled from the household. And the half brothers both pay respects to their common father.

The problem with some biblical narratives is—for those hungry for more details about figures like Ishmael who are on the periphery of the chosen lineage, there is not much more to wring out of the sparse verses devoted to them, and so we resort to seeking out extra-biblical sources.  Jewish commentators have much to say about Yishmael but they tend to go off-tangent and also tend to view Jew and non-Jew in black and white terms;  Yishmael and everyone else not in the promised lineage appear evil at most and a bad influence at the least.  But then this is the whole idea of separating a people to be distinct and peculiar and recognizable in the ways prescribed to them by Abraham’s God.

Christian commentaries are just as frustrating to read, knowing what we know now, but they can’t help it since their world view arises from their New Testament which is the real culprit.  It is said that three monotheistic religions can be traced back to Abraham: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Islam is monotheistic but its founder is the prophet Muhammad who lived in 6 C.E. and founded the religion only then, so we have yet to make the connection with Yishmael. How Christianity figures monotheism in its trinitarian concept of Abraham’s God is a mystery even to its adherents.  

Google listings usually give us more than we’d care to know, including amusing input from weirdos; nevertheless ‘googling’ did yield one really good commentary published in 2006 by SUNY Press  (State University of New York in Albany) that puts Yishmael in proper perspective, together with other “marginalized men” in the bible (Esau); it is worth reading: [http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61278.pdf]. 

Descendants of Ishmael, the “Ishmaelites” are mentioned in the Joseph narratives but since there is confusion in the use of Ishmaelites and Medianites, here’s some clarification:  [http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/who-purchased-joseph-ishmaelites-or-midianites]

Ishmaelites are no longer mentioned after the time of King David, having assimilated into other peoples according to the book of Jubilees. Some are shown in Judges as having become part of the Midianites. Others are mentioned living amongst the Israelites. The Hagarites split off as a separate group from the rest of the Ishmaelites and were conquered and assimilated by the Israelites during the reign of Saul.

The extra-biblical Book of Jubilees claims that the sons of Ishmael intermingled with the children of Keturah from Abraham and were called “Arabs” and Ishmaelites. 

Yishmael/”God Hearkens” – “Shema El” indeed —- for YHWH did hear his father’s and his mother’s pleas on his behalf as well as the “voice of the lad.”  In fact, God did not only hear but blessed Ishmael far beyond his parents (and even our) expectations, even though he was the offspring from Sara’s machination and Abram and Hagar’s accommodation.

What a great God YHWH is, praise Him for being gracious, loving, merciful, all wise, and just.

Thus says YHWH:

And it was so.

 [First posted in 2012.  This series ‘Journey of Faith’ features the Sinaite perspective on characters who figure prominently in the biblical narratives that trace the lineage of the chosen people of Israel. There are persons outside of ‘the chosen line’ who are interesting studies of character, often misrepresented or unfairly judged—one such is Esau.  We’ve added this post to our current series on THE OUTSIDERS or THE OTHER, in effect THE UNCHOSEN, those who were not in the chosen line of Jacob.  We belong to their category, you know?  Here are the others belonging to the same category as Esau:

• The UNchosen: What if you were a gentile slave in Egypt?
• The UNchosen – My servant Caleb – a different spirit
• The UNchosen — “Call me Ishmael”

Related posts:  

• Revisit: Becoming Israel – Esau and ‘Israel’
• Genesis/Bereshith 36 – “That is Esav, the tribal-father of Edom.”
• Genesis/Bereshith 35 – “Esav and Yaakov his sons buried him.”

 Translation is Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.–Admin1.]

—————————————————-

 

Image from bigfootevidence.blogspot.com

At first glance, all one sees in Esau is his physical appearance.  His name means “hairy,” Edom means “red.”  A description such as “hairy red” hardly justifies this artist’s sketch of what Yitzhak’s firstborn twin must have looked like which has been added to the articles about Esau on the web.  

 

If Yaakov was his twin, could he have looked like this? The answer is:  scripture confines this description to Esau. But could he have really looked like a stone age caveman or the hairy ape? 

A bit of medical trivia: there are two kinds of twins—identical and fraternal.

•  Identical twins result when the egg splits into two embryos after it has been fertilized; they have to be of the same sex;
• fraternal twins result when the mother has two eggs that are fertilized at the same time (they can be boy-boy, girl-girl or boy-girl). 

If Esau and Yaakov were identical twins, then Rivka would not have gone to such lengths to disguise her son, all Yaakov had to do was talk and act and smell like Esau.   

Will Esau fulfill his intent to kill his brother?

During the 14 year interval when his twin was slaving away to serve Laban, himself falling victim to others’ deceptions, Esau amasses for himself great wealth.  Time does heal even the deepest wounds but only when one has the right attitude as Esau seems to have acquired.  He learns to appreciate the fruits of his hard-earned labor and experiences a reversal of fortune, in other words ends up prosperous and is blessed after all. Why bother with an old grudge?

In Chapters 32-33 where the meeting between the two brothers is described, there is nothing but admiration left for this “hairy red” matured Esau. He had the motivation to live his life above and beyond the confining pronouncements of his father regarding his future; he is a good example of sheer determination to succeed on his own, left to his own devices, with no inheritance.  

In a way, Yitzhak’s last words to him were prophetic:  But it will be that when you brandish it, you will tear his yoke from your neck.  

Harboring anger, resentment, bitterness is counterproductive in the least and destructive to ourselves and others at the most; it puts us in bondage to a self-imposed agenda we are obligated to fulfill, and for what?

Image from theologikeal.blogspot.com

Did Cain get any satisfaction from giving in to his rage and taking his brother’s life?  That could easily have been the route taken by Esau;  and yet the Esau whom Yaakov feared and fled from for many years had quite unexpectedly undergone a change, evidently out of his own series of choices for himself for which he was eventually blessed.  He did “break loose” and he did “shake [Yaakov’s] yoke from his neck.  He decided to forgive and reconcile with the brother who did him wrong. That should be the lasting impression of Esau on a reader’s mind.  

Did Yaakov apologize or ask his twin’s forgiveness?  For the answer, read the Yaakov series “Becoming Israel.”

NSB@S6K