Conclusions

Rebekah’s inquiry proves fruitful,²⁰ as YHWH answers her in v. 23: “Two nations (Myyg)²¹ are in your womb, and two peoples (Mym)l) from within you will be separated (wdrpy). And a people will be stronger (Cm)y) than a people, and the greater the younger will serve (ry(c db(y brw).” And yet, the oracle is far from clear; indeed, it seems to raise more questions than it answers. In light of this, we will explore several areas which need further investigation.

3.3.2.2.1 Grammatical ambiguities in 25:23

The first half of v. 23 is, grammatically speaking, relatively clear. The reason for Rebekah’s discomfort is that there are two peoples within her. The terms Mywg and Mym)l are often used in poetic parallelism to refer to nations or peoples, and either term seems appropriate in both instances here.²²

18 Origen, Homilies on Genesis 12.3; in Sheridan, Genesis 12-50, 147.

19 Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis,” in The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 1 (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1994), 521.

20 Interestingly, Josephus is the only ancient commentator I came across who takes issue with the fact that it is Rebekah, and not the patriarch Isaac, who seeks YHWH and receives an answer. In Josephus’s retelling, it is Isaac who inquires of YHWH. See Ant. 1.18.1.

21 BHS reads Mywg for Myyg. Further text-critical issues in the oracle are dealt with in Robert A. Kraft,

“A Note on the Oracle of Rebecca (Gen. xxv.23),” JTS 13 (1962):318-320.

22 See R.E. Clements and G.J. Botterweck, “ywg,” TDOT 2:426-433, here at 428; H.D. Preuss, “M)l,”

TDOT 7:397-398; B. Jacob, Das Erste Buch Der Tora: Genesis, Ubersetzt und Erklärt (Berlin:

Schocken, 1934), 543.

The term found at the end of 25:23a, wdrpy, also seems straightforward. From the root drp, the basic meaning of this term is “to separate.”²³ However, one might ask if this separation refers to the twins themselves, their descendants, or both. And if the lads are in view, does this separation denote enmity or physical separation? The term is found elsewhere in Genesis, most notably when it is used to describe the separation of Abram and Lot in Gen 13:9, 11 and 14, where strife might be implied, but is not necessary.²⁴ It may be that the ensuing narratives speak to this, as the brothers

separate in their lifestyles and temperaments, ultimately leading to conflict. However, while conflict does follow the brothers throughout the cycle of stories, the final scene (Gen 33) has the brothers separating in relative peace.

The next clause, 25:23b!, states that “a people will be stronger than a people (Cm)y M)lm M)lw).”²⁵ The ambiguity here relates to who is being referred to as Cm), “stronger,” and how this relates to the subsequent line about serving.²⁶ Steinberg offers a common interpretation:

The construction of the poetic piece leads the reader to believe that the stronger one is actually the older twin—the one whom Yahweh informs Rebekah will be a servant to the younger, weaker twin. The poem suggests that, if indeed there was a customary priority given to the firstborn, as many assume, this right will be overturned in the case of Jacob and Esau.²⁷

And yet several issues remain: does the use of M)l imply that the descendants of the twins are being referred to here, rather than the ancestors as Steinberg suggests? Even if one chooses to understand the reference here as the twins, questions remain: which one is “stronger”? Will Esau be weaker, and serve the younger, stronger brother? Or will Esau be stronger, and yet serve the weaker?²⁸

23 M. Hausmann, “drp,” TDOT 12:76-79. Here it is found in the niphal, which is the most common form.

24 Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 128; cf. J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (SSN 17; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), 89.

25 On the singular usage of M)l, see Preuss, “M)l,” TDOT 7:397.

26 On this term, see J. Schreiner, “Cm),” TDOT 1:323-327.

27 Naomi Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 89-90.

28 In light of the ambiguity here, Rashi offers an interesting option. He understands “one stronger than the other” as “they will never be equally great at the same time: when one rises, the other will fall”

(Rashi's Commentary: Genesis, 115). This reading makes sense not only of the national level of Israel and Edom, but also of the individual characters of Jacob and Esau.

The ambiguity is compounded in 25:23b", where we read, ry(c db(y brw. The first point of contention here is the terminology used. Who (or what) is being referred to with the terms br and ry(c? Are we still being told about the “peoples” from the previous clause, or are we now dealing with individuals? Speiser has noted that there is an exact parallel in Akkadian family law using the terminology of br and ry(c regarding inheritance.²⁹ And Saebo has highlighted that ry(c is often used in poetic parallelism, indeed, at times in juxtaposition with terms such as rwkb and related terminology, including br.³⁰ Thus, reference to the individual children and birth order is not out of the question. Others, however, argue that this clause has nothing to do with the birth order of the children, as the entire oracle has the national context in view.³¹ Moreover, the terms br and ry(c can also be rendered as “greater” and

“lesser,” removing any sense of birth order from the equation. All of this is compounded by a possible word play on the names of the boys in this clause. The word which is usually translated as “younger,” ry(c, is a homonym of r(#, “hairy,”

the term used in the description of Esau in the birth report of 25:25, and which will recur in the events of Gen 27. Meanwhile, the verb used here for “serve,” db(y, has similarities with Jacob’s name, bq(y.³² It could be argued that this casts doubt as to who should be considered the “greater” and the “lesser.”

This leads us to one last area of ambiguity in 25:23b", namely, who will be serving whom. Translations unanimously render this phrase as, “the older will serve the younger,” and this seems to be the way the early translations understood this as well.³³ However, the syntax is not straightforward; the ambiguity can be seen to some

29 E.A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 1; Garden City:

Doubleday, 1983), 194-195.

30 M. Saebo, “ry(c,” TDOT 12:424-428. For more on br, see H.-J. Fabry, “br,” TDOT 13:272-298.

31 Jacob, Das Erste Buch Der Tora, 343; Greenspahn, When Brothers, 118; cf. Burke O. Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1968), 49, who notes that the oracle to Rebekah appears to be more concerned with tribal issues, while the birth narrative takes pains to describe the individuals. While this distinction is somewhat helpful, it is also a simplification, as there are definite “national” overtones in the birth narrative as well,

particularly in the word plays relating to Esau, Seir and Edom.

32 These are noted by Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 176; Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, 177.

33 For contemporary translations which follow this, see NRSV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV. The LXX clarifies the syntax of the clause by noting the subject: kai. o` mei,zwn douleu,sei tw/| evla,ssoni. Tg. Onq.,

extent in rendering this as, “the older the younger will serve.” Heard elucidates the issues:

In typical poetic style, neither “older” nor “younger” is marked for case. … The lack of explicit case markers requires recourse to other factors to determine the subject and object of the verb ‘!bad. Both rab and !!‘îr agree in number and gender with ya‘"b#d, so the syntax of the verb alone is of no help in resolving the ambiguity. … In Hebrew, verbal clauses are most frequently structured verb-subject-object, with object-verb-subject, verb-object-subject, subject-object-verb, and object-subject-verb as well-attested alternatives. … Reading 23b"

“the older will serve the younger,” however, produces the pattern subject-verb-object, which though normal in English is rather peculiar in Hebrew. Of course, the line could be parsed as if it began with a nominative absolute (casus pendens), but it lacks the normal syntactical markers of a nominative absolute, such as the shift to an independent clause with its own explicit subject. … The lack of such markers does not mean that w$rab in v. 23b" cannot be read as a nominative absolute, but it does mean that such a reading, while possible, is not necessary. Readers are thus faced with the uncomfortable choice of reading “the older will serve the younger,” against the most frequent constructions of Hebrew grammar (or

construing w$rab as an unmarked nominative absolute, with no supporting syntactical features of the clause), or “the younger will serve the older,” against Israelite ethnic pride vis-à-vis Edom.³⁴

Heard continues by pointing out that the parallelism with 23b! might help clarify the meaning of this clause. However, the question then becomes how the waw which connects the two lines should be interpreted; is this a comparative (and thus

heightening) or antithetical (and thus distinguishing) parallelism? This goes back to the question which was posed above, namely, which “people” is the stronger: “Will the one serve the other (v. 23b") because the other will be stronger than the one (v.

23b!), or will the one serve the other in spite of the fact that the one is stronger than the other?”³⁵

The ambiguity of who will be serving whom has been noted on occasion by commentators, with various responses. Ibn Ezra implicitly referenced this issue by commenting that br must be the subject here, citing a similar case in Mal 1:6 (b) dbky Nb).³⁶ B. Jacob and Alter both note the ambiguity of the clause, but opt to

meanwhile, concludes the verse with )ry(zl db(t#y )brw. The addition of the preposition lamed here indicates that the greater will be subject to the lesser.

34 Heard, Dynamics, 99; cf. Richard Elliot Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 88. On agreement in parts of sentence with gender and number, see GKC

§145; on word order in sentences, see GKC §142; JM §155ng.

35 Heard, Dynamics, 100.

36 Ibn Ezra's Commentary, Genesis, 250.

render it in traditional fashion, as this in their view makes the most sense in context.³⁷ Others, however, feel that the ambiguity in 23b" is important in that it forces the reader to rethink other aspects of the story, such as the subsequent actions of the mother and her younger son, and whether or not these are in line with or in opposition to the oracle which was given.³⁸

In sum, the reader is left with several levels of ambiguity in this oracle: who will be stronger, and is this referring to the brothers or their descendants? Who will be serving whom? And should these terms be understood as “elder” and “younger,” or

“greater” and “lesser”? These ambiguities necessarily affect how one interprets the oracle to Rebekah, and in turn how the larger cycle of stories concerning her sons are understood.

3.3.2.2.2 Individual or national concerns?

The ambiguities in the oracle given to Rebekah obviously have implications beyond the immediate context. What should be made of YHWH’s words to Rebekah in terms of how they inform the larger narrative concerning Jacob, Esau, and their

descendants? The most pressing issue relates to the question of identity. The use of Mywg and Mym)l in the oracle brings to the fore an issue which affects not only our understanding of the Genesis narratives, but indeed all references to the brothers throughout the HB. Are Jacob and Esau to be understood as individual characters in their own right, or as ciphers for the nations that will bear their names?

This tension of individual and national concerns is evident in both ancient and contemporary interpretation. For instance, while early Jewish tradition certainly saw Jacob as the chosen son, this oracle came to be understood as dealing primarily with future national concerns. In Gen. Rab. and the targumim, this is not so much about

37 Jacob, Das Erste Buch Der Tora, 543; Alter (Genesis, 127) translates it as “the elder, the younger’s slave.”

38 David W. Cotter, Genesis (BO; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 189; Heard, Dynamics, 100.

Israel and Edom as Israel and Rome: one day the small, less powerful people will break free and rule the other.³⁹

The Christian tradition, on the other hand, understood the oracle as dealing with the theological issue of election, with the individual characters in the story serving as an example of the ways of God. The most famous example of this is found in Rom 9:10-13:

Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (NIV).

As Dunn notes, Paul is underlining the fact that Jacob and Esau do not just come from the same father (as Isaac and Ishmael did), but from the same act of intercourse: avlla.

kai. ~Rebe,kka evx e`no.j koi,thn e;cousa. Paul goes on to say that God’s choice is made before good or evil has been done, and the use of i[na in v. 11, “in order that,” points to intended purpose. For Paul, the election of Israel is not the point here, but rather

“how God’s purpose of election comes into effect.”⁴⁰

The use of Gen 25:23 in Romans would go on to provide fertile ground for the history of Christian interpretation. In his City of God, Augustine quotes Paul, noting that God’s choice was an obvious work of grace, as neither son deserved to be God’s chosen.⁴¹ Similarly, Calvin would argue that this oracle informs Rebekah that the younger will be the elect of God, meaning that one was chosen and the other rejected.

Moreover, God inverts the birth order to show that “the heir of the promised benediction was gratuitously elected.”⁴²

Interestingly, contemporary commentators tend to be divided along precisely these same lines, understanding the oracle as referring primarily to national events, or as concerned with the idea of election.

39 Gen. Rab. 63:7. Cf. Tg. Onq. and other targumic traditions, which use the word “kingdom” in place of “people.”

40 James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 542-543.

41 Augustine, City of God, 16.35; in Sheridan, Genesis 12-50, 148.

42 Calvin, Genesis, 44-45.

The reading strategy employed by historical-critical scholars in response to Gen 25:23 has been to understand the oracle as a retrospective nationalistic statement, referring most likely to Israel’s later subjugation of Edom under David. As Westermann remarks, we see in the oracle “the pride of the victor speaking who has overcome a larger people (2 Sam 8:13f.). … The generation of the early period of the monarchy sees in a simple family event of the remote patriarchal period the beginning of what it now experiences.”⁴³ Some have argued that David’s reign should be seen as the earliest possible date for this understanding, but that a later date, related to other national conflicts, is also possible.⁴⁴ Regardless, this historical approach makes sense of the oracle by relating it to later, national circumstances.

A second contemporary approach to the oracle in Gen 25:23 follows Paul’s

understanding of this as concerned with election. Here the focus tends to remain on the individuals in the narrative itself, even if the tension of individual and national concerns is noted. This can be seen in the work of Brueggemann, who highlights the scandalous nature of the oracle and the surrounding narrative:

The text credits the shattering career of Jacob to the speech of God. God does not explain or justify. God simply announces. … Like its main character, this narrative is indiscreet and at times scandalous. It shows God and his chosen younger one aligned against the older brother, against the father, and against the cultural presumptions of natural privilege. Jacob is

announced as a visible expression of God’s remarkable graciousness in the face of conventional definitions of reality and prosperity. Jacob is a scandal from the beginning.⁴⁵

Levenson, meanwhile, describes the situation using stark language, stating that “the oracle to the pregnant matriarch was not only a prediction but a statement of

YHWH’s own preference,” an idea which he says finds validity in Mal 1:2-3.⁴⁶ Drawing in the events of Gen 27, he concludes,

we are faced with a much larger problem than that of a mother and a brother who refuse to adhere to the principle of primogeniture, employing loathsome trickery to accomplish their ends. We are faced as well with a Deity who disregards the principle of order no less than they, even preferring the unscrupulous trickster over the uncouth first-born.⁴⁷

43 Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 413; Cf. S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (WC; London: Methuen &

Co., 1909), 245-247.

44 J. Alberto Soggin, Das Buch Genesis, Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997), 341.

45 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 215, 217.

46 Levenson, Death, 63.

47 Levenson, Death, 63. As Barth states, “There was much to praise in the later nation Israel (and in Jacob too), and much to blame in Ishmael (and in Esau too). But whatever we may find to praise or

In summary, the hermeneutical tension of individual and national concerns has led to two broad interpretive approaches to the oracle of Gen 25:23. The oracle has been understood 1) as a forward-looking or retrospective statement regarding nationalistic domination in Israel’s history; or 2) as dealing with the theological issue of election.

What are we to make of these interpretive approaches?

It would seem that both vantage points are important for a holistic understanding of the oracle. Indeed, many interpreters understand that a careful reading will need to incorporate both individual and national aspects. This requires care, however, as the two cannot be collapsed into one. As Clifford comments,

The national meaning of the Genesis stories of the ancestors becomes clear only when the drama of the individual actors is taken seriously on its own terms. The stories are not allegories with a one-to-one correspondence of individual and nation. The human actors, however, are ancestors who somehow include and prefigure their descendants.⁴⁸

If the oracle is concerned with both individual and nationalistic issues, then the

“nationalistic” reading is a helpful reminder that there is more going on in these stories than a small family feud. Nevertheless, it is clear as the story progresses that issues of family succession and the chosen son are also at stake, and this needs to be kept in mind. As such, the idea of “election” may be a helpful framework here, as the election of Jacob and non-election of Esau have obvious ramifications for their descendants as well. Any later Israelite dominance would be understood as a

byproduct of YHWH’s favor, and a continued reflection of this chosenness. Thus, the two horizons of individual and national concerns are not easily separated in a

canonical frame of reference.

blame, the election of the one and the rejection of the other certainly bears no relation to it.” See Karl Barth, “The Election of the Community,” in Church Dogmatics 2.2 §34 (trans. G.W. Bromiley;

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1968), 216.

48 Richard J. Clifford, “Genesis 25:19-34,” Int 45 (1991):397-398. Cf. R.W.L. Moberly, Genesis 12-50 (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 29; Fretheim, “Genesis,” 520; Blum, Die

Komposition, 79; Kevin Walton, Thou Traveller Unknown: The Presence and Absence of God in the

Komposition, 79; Kevin Walton, Thou Traveller Unknown: The Presence and Absence of God in the

In document Youth employment in the context of the European Union (página 147-156)