There is some interesting foreshadowing in today's reading.While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father's concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. (Genesis 35:22)
One of Jacob's sons behaved inappropriately with his father's concubine (noticed how deftly I skirted speaking of the specifics?), and Israel heard of it. Hmmm. I wonder how he heard of it. The Bible doesn't really say, but it's interesting to speculate. Could there have been a tattletale in the family? Hmmm.
And on the darker side...
Esau's son Eliphaz also had a concubine named Timna, who bore him Amalek. (Genesis 36:12)
If this name (Amalek) doesn't ring a bell, just pay attention. I would suggest you make a note to yourself every time the name Amalek, or the tribal name Amalekites comes up in the story of Israel, and then remember that this can all be traced back to Esau's enmity with Jacob.
Question: Could God have blessed Jacob without Rebekah's interference? How might the outcome of that story been different if Rebekah had patiently waited on God's plan to unfold, rather than take matters into her own hands?
Could there be a lesson there for us? Hmmm...
Gary wants to know if you have any thoughts on Jacob's name being changed to Israel twice. The first in chapter 32:28 and then in 35:9,10.
ReplyDeleteGary asks a great question. Why does God give Jacob a new name in chapter 32 and then repeat it in chapter 35?
ReplyDeleteOne commentator I read said it was because the first time the name Israel was in contrast to Jacob's formerly questionable character, whereas the second time it was in a more positive light by removing the connotation of "struggle." Maybe, but I'm not satisfied with that answer.
In looking at the context, I see the first instance dealing with Jacob and his character. Prior to wrestling with God, he preferred to con his way out of difficult places rather than work through them. So, the first instance is about Jacob the deceiver becoming Israel the one who wrestled with God. The second instance is more in the context of Israel as a people rather than Israel as an individual. It takes up again the promise to Abraham and applies it to Israel and his descendants.
That explanation is also more satisfying to me than just laying it off on the idea that there were two (or more) oral traditions that both contained their version of the renaming, and once they were combined into a final written form it ended up being in there twice.
Those are my thoughts.
I'd love to hear from others their ideas about Gary's question. Don't allow my conjecture to shut down your thinking.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any commentary that really gives us an answer - conjectures range from 'because people are prone to forget' to claims that the second naming removed negative connotations, but I can't find anything indicating how they would know that...is there anything in the original language that would indicate positive or negative tilts, maybe, or are they (like us) simply grasping at straws? *shrug*
ReplyDeleteI guess the point is he *was* renamed, I'll let it go at that.
As to Rebekah's interference, well - if God meant for him to be blessed, he would've still been blessed is my thought, so the blessing would remain but it is possible they would've been spared a lot of calamity from Esau's aggrieved and violent descendants. I'm just glad God pulled through on the promises to Jacob/Israel in *spite* of the human tendency to make grabs at the steering wheel. - Amy
Amy, I don't think the commentators are as much grasping at straws as they are studying the context - what the extended passage has to add.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, consider the second instance in 35:10. Verse 12 reads: "The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you."
Someone put this into its final form. If the intended recipient of this message really was an exiled Israeli living in Babylon looking west and thinking about Jerusalem, as I have suggested, then logically what message was the compiler trying to get across?