{"id":32,"date":"2018-01-10T09:49:00","date_gmt":"2018-01-10T14:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/?post_type=chapter&p=32"},"modified":"2018-01-11T17:03:35","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T22:03:35","slug":"chapter-5-they-were-the-heroes-of-old","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/chapter\/chapter-5-they-were-the-heroes-of-old\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 5: They were the heroes of old","rendered":"Chapter 5: They were the heroes of old"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nLet us look more closely at some of the stories to see how the general\u00a0introductory material presented in earlier chapters might be of use in reading\u00a0the Bible. Every speech act;[1]<\/a> can be thought of as requiring three conditions to\u00a0be completely successful: intention, text, and interpretation. When a person\u00a0uses language to inform another about a state of affairs the information may\u00a0be generated in language and begins with an intention on the part of the\u00a0speaker. A simple thought experiment serves to show that intention is a\u00a0necessary condition for a speech act to occur. Imagine walking along the beach\u00a0and seeing many lines in the sand made by the outgoing tide. You might\u00a0consider those lines from an aesthetic viewpoint, and point to interesting\u00a0patterns in the sand made by the lines; you might even speak metaphorically\u00a0about how the water is \"writing\" in the sand, but it would not occur to you to\u00a0consider them as a new language that needed translation. The reason such an\u00a0approach strikes us as absurd is that it is impossible to consider the ocean\u00a0water as having intention<\/em>. The lines in the sand are just that: lines in the\u00a0sand. But now imagine that on the same beach walk you find a bottle washed\u00a0ashore by the water and in the bottle you find a piece of paper covered with\u00a0lines. In this case you have reason to believe that effort spent attempting to\u00a0translate the lines into a language that you understand will not be an irrational\u00a0act because it is likely that an intentional act of communication has occurred.\u00a0In the second case we would consider the lines a text and proceed to read it in\u00a0quite a different way than the first set of lines. It is not the medium that is\u00a0crucial here, for it is quite possible to make temporary texts in the sand with a\u00a0stick (who hasn't written her name in the sand and probably thought how apt\u00a0such an act is in capturing the human condition?), but it is the intention that\u00a0makes the one a speech act and the other a non-speech act.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nReaders invest time and effort in texts because of a belief that meaning,\u00a0in the form of information or inspiration, either resides in or is triggered by the\u00a0text at hand. By applying everything we know to the text we begin to create an\u00a0interpretation. `Intention, text, interpretation' is a bit like an unknown in an\u00a0algebraic expression: its meaning is determined by the context and conventions\u00a0of the language of algebra. Think of meaning as the unknown x of an algebraic\u00a0expression. X is not ambiguous; its value is determined in each \"sentence\" -\u00a0thus the value of x is not constant, but it is not arbitrary either. Consider:\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1. 3x = 12, so x = 4\r\n\r\n2. 2x = 12, so x = 6\r\n\r\n3. .5x = 12, so x = 24\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nwhere the meaning of x changes from statement to statement but is fixed in the\u00a0statement in which it is used. Speech acts do not yield their meaning in such a\u00a0mechanical way, but when a reader reads a text, some value for x, some\u00a0interpretation, will necessarily follow. Just as we can solve algebraic\u00a0expressions for unknowns only if we know the conventions, so too with speech\u00a0acts. Reading is a creative act as can be seen in the way we use the word\u00a0\"reading\" to refer to a construct, another text, as in \"my reading of the curse of\u00a0Ham story is that it is a story about homosexual incest,\" or, \"most everyone\u00a0reads Abraham's test story as an expression of blind faith but I think that it is a\u00a0story of rational self-interest.\" Writers and readers are driven by intention, and\u00a0they meet on a grid of conventions.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nWe have seen how repetition of a key phrase is used to affect the\u00a0reading of the creation myth that opens Genesis. The form of that story is\u00a0clearly an important part of its complete impact: repeated phrases emphasizing\u00a0the phases of creation and the valuing of those things created; formal\u00a0imperatives which move from word to world; and the utterances of the\u00a0creator-god, which are the commands of a separate, transcendent power, and\u00a0which mediate between nothingness and being. We have seen also how the\u00a0author presents various other myths: the flood story presents a covenant myth,\u00a0the tower of Babel story presents an origin myth to \"explain\" why there is \"a\u00a0babble of the language of all the world\" and fantastic stories of giants and hints\u00a0of many gods populating the .... the place where gods live. These many gods\u00a0behave like Greek gods moving in with Bacchanalian thoughts on the beautiful\u00a0human women. These stories come to us from a distant past, and bring with\u00a0them roots from a vast storehouse of images. They are told as part of our\u00a0universal need to explain and understand the experiences of our life by telling\u00a0stories. Were there really giants on earth? No. Did Noah's ark float around\u00a0filled with pairs of animals (or sevens of animals)? No. These stories do not\u00a0claim a truth; rather they proclaim it.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe balance of Genesis establishes the beginnings of the line of heroes\u00a0that people the next several books, heroes who, through the covenant\u00a0promise, are chosen to bring a boon to the community. Everyone of\u00a0importance to the story of Israel springs from Terah, and we are given the\u00a0requisite genealogy to proclaim this line. These are the bare bones of the\u00a0stories, but let us see how the flesh is put on the bones.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nConsider Yahweh's \"test\" of Abraham. In a brief narrative one of the\u00a0central stories of the Judeo-Christian belief system bursts out of the page and\u00a0into human consciousness:\r\n
The time came when God put Abraham to the test. `Abraham', he\r\n\r\ncalled, and Abraham replied, `Here I am.' God said, `Take your son\r\n\r\nIsaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah.\r\n\r\nThere you shall offer him as a sacrifice on one of the hills which I\r\n\r\nwill show you.' So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled\r\n\r\nhis ass, and he took with him two of his men and his son Isaac; and\r\n\r\nhe split the firewood for the sacrifice, and set out for the place of\r\n\r\nwhich God had spoken. On the third day Abraham looked up and\r\n\r\nsaw the place in the distance. He said to his men, Stay here with the\r\n\r\nass while I and the boy go over there; and when we have\r\n\r\nworshipped we will come back to you.' So Abraham took the wood\r\n\r\nfor the sacrifice and laid it on his son Isaac's shoulder; he himself\r\n\r\ncarried the fire and the knife, and the two of them went on\r\n\r\ntogether. Isaac said to Abraham, `Father', and he answered, `What\r\n\r\nis it, my son?' Isaac said, `Here are the fire and the wood, but\r\n\r\nwhere is the young beast for the sacrifice?' Abraham answered,\r\n\r\n`God will provide himself with a young beast for a sacrifice, my\r\n\r\nson.' And the two of them went on together and came to the place\r\n\r\nof which God had spoken, there Abraham built an altar and\r\n\r\narranged the wood. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the\r\n\r\naltar on top of the wood. Then he stretched out his hand and took\r\n\r\nthe knife to kill his son; but the angel of the Lord called to him\r\n\r\nfrom heaven, `Abraham, Abraham.' He answered, `Here I am.' The\r\n\r\nangel of the Lord said, `Do not raise your hand against the boy; do\r\n\r\nnot touch him. Now I know that you are a God fearing man. You\r\n\r\nhave not withheld from me your son, your only son. (Genesis\r\n\r\n22.1-12)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nOne way of reading this story is as a myth signifying the end of human\u00a0sacrifice: there will be no human sacrificed in this story. But such a reading is\u00a0flat and does not do justice to the levels of narrative tissue to be found.\u00a0Concentrate on the story: once again this god speaks: \"Abraham,\" he calls.\u00a0Abraham replies: \"Here I am.\" What else could one say to the power\u00a0represented here? There is no place to hide from this god; Adam and Eve\u00a0learned that. And he issues commands: \"Take your son Isaac, your only\u00a0son, whom you love....\" In the command there are two phrases (emphasis\u00a0mine) which are completely redundant. Abraham certainly does not need to be\u00a0reminded either that Isaac is his only son or that Isaac is beloved. Isaac is,\u00a0remember, a \"special package\", a miracle that arrived from this god who now\u00a0demands the miracle's sacrifice. Isaac arrived very late in Abraham's life from\u00a0a wife beyond child bearing days, and he is the repository of the seed that is to\u00a0carry on the chosen people. `Isaac' means `he laughed' and the charming story\u00a0in which he is announced has Sarah laughing at the idea that she can give birth\u00a0to a child at her stage of life. No, these non-restrictive phrases are for the\u00a0reader's benefit: \"Remember, reader, this command to this old man is to take\u00a0his only son, his beloved son, to the land of Moriah, there to kill him.\"\u00a0Abraham's response? \"So Abraham rose early in the morning...and set out for\u00a0the place which God had spoken.\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIn the scene just after the announcement of Isaac's birth and before the\u00a0test story we were shown Abraham's reaction to God when told of the\u00a0impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with his\u00a0god: \"Wilt thou really sweep away good and bad together? Suppose there are\u00a0fifty good men in the city...\" And further: \"May I presume to speak to the Lord,\u00a0dust and ashes that I am: suppose there are five short of the fifty good men?\u00a0Wilt thou destroy the whole city for a mere five men?\" Finally Abraham\u00a0negotiates so aggressively that God that \"For the sake of ten I will not destroy\u00a0it.\" But the angels of the lord are unable to find the people who would in their\u00a0goodness save Sodom and Gomorrah and God destroys the place. And Lot's\u00a0wife does not obey the order \"do not look back\" and is turned into a pillar of\u00a0salt. Do not obey and die.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThis man Abraham, who had argued effectively with God in order to\u00a0try to save unknown men in Sodom and Gomorrah, says nothing to try to save\u00a0his only son. He says nothing; he does obey. We are told nothing of his\u00a0conversation with Sarah or of her reaction to the order to kill her only son.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Can you hear?\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\"Sarah, I have to go on a journey.\"\r\n\r\n\"Where are you off to now, dear Abraham?\" \"\r\n\r\n\"Oh, I have to go out into the desert and sacrifice\r\n\r\nIsaac, but I should be back in about six days.\"\r\n\r\n\"Sacrifice Isaac! No, let us take him and hide from\r\n\r\nthis god.\"\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBut there is no place to hide. \"Here I am.\" And Sarah's reaction in the\u00a0story? Well, we can only guess at any of this because we are not told. Here the\u00a0writer has compressed the narrative to the breaking point. We are told, \"On\u00a0the third day Abraham looked up....\" He has been travelling, head down, for\u00a0three days, ever since receiving the crushing command to sacrifice his son. The\u00a0narrative provides no details, presents no psychological profile. What\u00a0happened on that three day journey?\r\n\r\nDo you see young Isaac running along, playing, whistling, throwing\u00a0stones, puzzled that his loving devoted father is so depressed? We are not told\u00a0that Abraham is depressed; we are just told that he \"looked up\" on the third\u00a0day. What a wealth of narrative detail has been omitted in order that our\u00a0attention be riveted on this old man Abraham, obedient and unquestioning,\u00a0walking toward this place of sacrifice. Do you identify with Abraham? Is this\u00a0story filled with verisimilitude? Can you imagine being ordered by your god to\u00a0sacrifice your child? Would such an order tell you something about your god?\r\n\r\nIsaac's direct question to his father, who has not spoken for the entire\u00a0journey, is an ironic one: \"...where is the young beast for sacrifice?\" And\u00a0Abraham's answer is ironic, \"God will provide himself with a young beast for a\u00a0sacrifice, my son.\" Replace that final comma with a colon and the answer is as\u00a0honest and complete as Abraham can give. More irony. Or is it? Why doesn't\u00a0Abraham argue with God on this occasion when he did so before to save\u00a0people he did not even know? Perhaps Abraham knows exactly what part he is\u00a0to play here. Unquestioning obedience, required by this god in the Garden of\u00a0Eden story, is required here also. Failure to obey has led to severe punishment\u00a0in the past. Abraham knows that Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a\u00a0pillar of salt. Knowing what he knows about this god, Abraham proceeds with\u00a0the best action based on a rational analysis of his situation. Earlier, when faced\u00a0with an order from Abimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham also acted out of\u00a0rational self-interest; he told the king that Sarah was his sister and did nothing\u00a0to stop the king from taking her.\r\n\r\nA current textbook on the philosophy of religion[3]<\/a> is typical in its\u00a0assessment of the story of Abraham: \"This story is the archetypal example of\u00a0faith as trusting obedience to God.\" Penelhum, like others, takes the story out\u00a0of context to assess it. But this story of Abraham and Isaac is a part of a larger\u00a0narrative, a narrative which has shown important events that have already\u00a0occurred in the earlier relationship with God. For example, in an earlier scene\u00a0God has said to Abraham: \"I will maintain My covenant with him [Isaac] as an\u00a0everlasting covenant for his offspring to come.\" (Gen. 17.19) Thus, Abraham\u00a0has reasons to believe that God will not kill Isaac - in fact, he has the word of\u00a0God. Instead of a set piece on blind obedience the story is a report of rational\u00a0action.[4]<\/a>\r\n\r\nReading Abraham as a rational self-interested hero instead of as a\u00a0\"knight of faith\" may be objectionable because to do so shrinks him to mere\u00a0human size. Where is that fearful \"teleological suspension of the ethical\"[5]<\/a> that\u00a0Kierkegaard\u00a0\u00a0 writes of so movingly ? Where is the knight of faith in a reading\u00a0like this? Where? It resides in the Kierkegaard interpretation, in his official\u00a0line, but not in the story line given in the Bible. Kierkegaard writes of\u00a0Abraham:\r\n\r\n \r\n
Yet Abraham believed and did not doubt, he believed the<\/em>\r\n\r\npreposterous. If Abraham had doubted - then he would have done<\/em>\r\n\r\nsomething else, something glorious; for how could Abraham do<\/em>\r\n\r\nanything but what is great and glorious! He would have marched<\/em>\r\n\r\nup to Mount Moriah, he would have cried out to God, \"Despise not<\/em>\r\n\r\nthis sacrifice, it is not the best thing I possess, that I know well, for<\/em>\r\n\r\nwhat is an old man in comparison with the child of promise; but it is<\/em>\r\n\r\nthe best I am able to give Thee. Let Isaac never come to know this,<\/em>\r\n\r\nthat he may console himself with his youth.\" He would have<\/em>\r\n\r\nplunged the knife into his own breast. He would have been<\/em>\r\n\r\nadmired in the world, and his name would not have been forgotten;<\/em>\r\n\r\nbut it is one thing to be admired, and another to be the guiding star<\/em>\r\n\r\nwhich saves the anguished.[6]<\/a><\/em>\r\n\r\n <\/blockquote>\r\nWhat would it mean to believe and not to doubt? Would doing so have\u00a0any survival value? To believe the preposterous is just what the salespersons of\u00a0channeling, E.S.P., out of body experiences, and other nonsense depend upon.\u00a0How passionately one believes that x has no efficacy whatsoever in making x\u00a0true, where x is a proposition about the world. Either God exists or God does\u00a0not exist; and what I believe about the proposition `God exists' has no effect on\u00a0its being true. We can tell another story, as Kierkegaard does in his retelling of\u00a0the Abraham story; we can put forward another official line as\u00a0Kierkegaard does in Fear and Trembling, we can escape into the\u00a0irrational or into subjectivity, and \"believe the preposterous,\" or we can listen\u00a0to the ancient voice of the poet who is telling the Abraham story, and who\u00a0reveals its human meaning in the details of the narrative and in the overall\u00a0structure. Hear Sarah laughing outside the tent as the angel announces to\u00a0Abraham that they will have a child. That laugh is the laugh of this tale:\u00a0human and skeptical.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe human sized Abraham is in the biblical text; the knight sized\u00a0Abraham is in Kierkegaard's text. Fear and trembling flow from Kierkegaard's\u00a0reading while the story tells of fear and surviving. Two different stories are at\u00a0play here. One proclaims that this god (the establishment, authority, the\u00a0official line) values unthinking obedience above all else, and, indeed, will\u00a0reward blind faith with the ultimate prize. A second reports on how to live, and\u00a0how to survive, in an arbitrary world filled with powerful and tyrannical forces.\u00a0Abraham, who earlier was Abram, carries not only two names, but also two\u00a0radically different intentional \"lines\": one with the authority of the religious doc-\u00a0trine which it proclaims, the other with the authority of the human voice it can\u00a0not drown. What one must do to survive or advance oneself is not always\u00a0identical with what one believes in one's heart or says in public. There is always\u00a0an official line, proclaimed as true by priests and kings, and it is often in con-\u00a0flict with the story line that makes up a human life. Official lines change: now\u00a0blind obedience is of utmost importance, later it will not be enough. Official\u00a0lines change because they are based on a complex of beliefs and doctrines,\u00a0which as we all know are relative to time and place. But each of us realizes that\u00a0some things never change; these things are not to be found in official lines\u00a0because they reside in story lines. In part the story line reveals ways of\u00a0surviving in spite of the official line.\r\n\r\nPatriarchy is the official line of Genesis. Men's names and men's stories\u00a0make up much of the Old Testament. Yahweh appears to Abraham, to Isaac,\u00a0to Jacob, to Moses. We have come to think of God the father. This\u00a0privileging of the masculine over the feminine is also part of the official line,\u00a0and although it is, it is countered by the story line. Who are the characters\u00a0with sparkle, intelligence, and ability? The women. Rebecca over Isaac in every\u00a0way - except in the official line.\r\n\r\nAnd what does it mean to choose Rebecca over Isaac? Look at the\u00a0story: Sarah dies. Isaac is devastated by the loss of his mother. Abraham sends\u00a0a servant back to his homeland to get a wife for Isaac. The servant meets a\u00a0virgin by a well and by good fortune she is of the right tribe. When we first see\u00a0Rebecca it is clear that she is a lively, intelligent, alive young woman. \"The girl\u00a0was very beautiful, a virgin...She went down to the spring, filled her jar and\u00a0came up again.\" She moves quickly and decisively, draws water for the servant,\u00a0for his camels, answers all questions, and runs to her mother's tent to report.\u00a0Here is a type-scene for a betrothal. But what is different; what is the writer\u00a0telling us about character and story through the variations in the pattern for a\u00a0betrothal scene?\r\n\r\nFirst, it is a servant and not the husband-to-be who is present at the\u00a0well. Isaac is back at home moping about at the loss of his mother. Actually he\u00a0is even further removed from the center of the story than that, for it was\u00a0Abraham, not Isaac, who sent the servant in search of a wife. And when the\u00a0servant returns home with Rebecca, (who announces her decision to leave her\u00a0mother and family and travel with him with a \"Yes, I will go,\") then we finally\u00a0see Isaac, the bridegroom. \"One evening when he had gone out into the open\u00a0country hoping to meet them he looked up and saw camels approaching.\" He\u00a0looked up? There is some confusion in the text here, and one reading of the\u00a0Hebrew is, \"One evening when he had gone out into the open country to\u00a0relieve himself....\" Isaac is out there either to meditate or to urinate. Either\u00a0action is a good measure of this bridegroom. Of Rebecca we learn, \"So she\u00a0became his wife, and he loved her and was consoled for the death\u00a0of his mother\" (emphasis mine). Isaac the special; Isaac the spoiled. He\u00a0will have a wife to replace the mother he has lost.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nJACOB AND ESAU<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nAbraham remarried after Sarah's death and his wife, Keturah, bore\u00a0him six more sons. These six plus Ishmael and Isaac and several sons by his\u00a0concubines provide dozens from whom he can choose when he dies. He\u00a0chooses Isaac to carry on the special relation with Yahweh, or, better yet,\u00a0Yahweh chooses Isaac to carry on the special seed, or, even better, the writer\u00a0presents a story in which choosing is given to us in the form of a narrative.\u00a0Just as Yahweh had chosen Abraham for his covenant so too Abraham\u00a0chooses Isaac. These choices are made; we are given the heroes. And do these\u00a0particular people have any particular virtues? The stories tell us: no. Neither is\u00a0exceptional. Neither is endowed with extra-human courage or special insight\u00a0(the image that remains in both cases is bowed head), neither is particularly\u00a0bright. But here are the choices. This is the god of choice; whatever else he\u00a0does in these stories he is always choosing. He chooses to create the world. He\u00a0chooses to accept Abel's sacrifice but reject Cain's sacrifice. He chooses\u00a0Abraham and in so doing chooses Israel over all other tribes. He chooses Isaac\u00a0over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over all of his brothers. Why? It is\u00a0important that we look carefully for the answer to this question. Is there\u00a0something special that leads to each of these choices? No. This god of choice is\u00a0also the god of chance. Never are we given reasons for these choices.\r\n\r\n \r\n
Here a choice is announced to Rebecca:\r\n\r\nTwo nations in your womb,\r\n\r\ntwo peoples, going their own ways\r\n\r\nfrom birth!\r\n\r\nOne shall be stronger than the other;\r\n\r\nthe older shall be servant to the\r\n\r\nyounger. (Gen. 25.23)<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\nAnd \"when her time had come, there were indeed twins in her womb.\u00a0The first comes out red,[7]<\/a> hairy all over like a haircloak, and they name him\u00a0Esau (\"Red\"). Immediately afterwards his brother is born with his hand\u00a0grasping Esau's heel, and they call him Jacob (\"he caught by the heel\"). The\u00a0boys grow up, Esau a hunter of skill and Jacob a stay-at-home. We are told\u00a0that Isaac favoured Esau and that Rebecca favoured Jacob. Given what we\u00a0know of these two characters it is obvious that Jacob has the stronger backer.\u00a0Jacob, remember, is at home with his mother while Esau is out hunting. Jacob\u00a0trades some soup for Esau's birthright and we are given an explanatory\u00a0comment from the writer: \"Thus Esau showed how little he valued his\u00a0birthright.\" Here we see clearly an attempt to show a causal relationship\u00a0between character and outcome: Esau deserves what he gets (or does not get)\u00a0we are told. At yet another level we are told how it is that Israel flourished and\u00a0their close kinsmen, the Edomites, did not. David will subdue the Edomites (2\u00a0Sam. 8.13-14). Writing after the fact has the same effect as writing\u00a0before the fact with foreknowledge.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nBecause of a famine in the land God orders Isaac to move to Gerar.\u00a0Notice how we are given two explanations for the action: 1. famine, 2. god's\u00a0command. This dual explanation for the actions of the heroes is typical in the\u00a0Old Testament. We are often given a natural as well as a supernatural reading\u00a0of the forces at play. Thus, God is always present in the story, controlling\u00a0events and characters directly. God appears to Isaac as he had done with\u00a0Abraham and reaffirms the covenant, \"Thus shall I fulfil the oath which I\u00a0swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as many as the\u00a0stars in the sky; I will give them all these lands...\" And we are told of the\u00a0continuing story of Israel: from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. This connection\u00a0between Abraham and Isaac is emphasized with one brush stroke in chapter\u00a026: \"When men of the place asked him about his wife, he told them that she\u00a0was his sister; he was afraid to say that Rebecca was his wife; in case they\u00a0killed him because of her; for she was very beautiful.\" \u00a0 Like father like son:\u00a0both are capable of lying to save their own skins. These are characters of\u00a0human dimension.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe famous deception story of Genesis 27 begins with a reminder to\u00a0the reader that Isaac is old \"and his eyes became so dim that he could not see.\"\u00a0With Rebecca assisting Jacob, and with a nearly blind Isaac, it is easy to accept\u00a0that Jacob in his costume, with wool over his smooth arm, can deceive his\u00a0father. Once again we are given a natural explanation for the events of the\u00a0story, a story which is intended to show how it is that the chosen seed of God\u00a0will be carried on from generation to generation in violation of the conventions\u00a0of primogeniture. One measure of a god is to have the god break human\u00a0conventions. Although Isaac and his choice, Esau, cannot see, this Jacob can\u00a0see even at night while asleep. He dreams the famous ladder dream in which\u00a0he makes contact with the spirit world. In the dream he is told that the land\u00a0will be given to him and his descendants, who will be as countless as the \"dust\u00a0upon the earth.\" Jacob will become Israel, and will father the twelve tribes. The\u00a0image of fruition used in the Isaac story came in \"as many as the stars\" but now\u00a0the promise to Jacob is expanded to as \"countless as the dust upon the earth.\"\u00a0Not only is the image expansive, it is also a part of an imagery pattern that\u00a0goes back to the creation story and forward to the united kingdom, when all of\u00a0the land is brought under one kingship and is the pinnacle of power for the\u00a0Hebrews. The promise God makes to the heroes of the Old Testament stories\u00a0is always a promise of land - a place here on this earth, a place of dust: real,\u00a0solid and actual.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nJacob, who receives this promise, is imaged as one who is real, solid,\u00a0and actual. He is aggressive, but a dreamer. He is tenacious (he will work\u00a0twenty years to get Rachel), brave, strong, physical, wily, self-reliant and\u00a0shrewd. He is the Hercules of the Old Testament, lifting stones, wrestling with\u00a0angels, tested and successful, climbing in his dreams to touch the other world\u00a0but always of this world (he uses a ladder with its feet firmly on the ground). If\u00a0fire identifies Samson, then stones identify Jacob. He lifts them, builds with\u00a0them, finds water in them, and above all, has stones. From these stones will\u00a0come a nation. A comparison between the meeting of Isaac and Rebecca and\u00a0Jacob and Rachel brings out the character differences. Rebecca was a burst of\u00a0energy and vitality in the scene where she is first discovered by the well. Isaac is\u00a0not present. In Genesis 29 we find a parallel scene when Jacob meets Rachel.\u00a0Travelling through open country Jacob spots a well that has a huge rock over\u00a0it. He discovers that all the herdsmen gather at the well daily and when they\u00a0are all there then together they can roll this rock off the well shaft to water\u00a0their flocks. He makes contact with these herdsmen, discovers that they know\u00a0Laban, the grandson of Nahor, and asks about him. \"Yes, he is well,\" they say,\u00a0\"and here is his daughter Rachel coming with the flock.\" A well, a woman, and\u00a0a group of herdsmen - a scene to watch carefully and to compare with others\u00a0like it. While the herdsmen wait for the rest of their number in order to jointly\u00a0roll the \"huge rock\" off the well Rachel arrives. \"When Jacob saw Rachel, the\u00a0daughter of Laban his mother's brother, with Laban's flock, he stepped\u00a0forward, rolled the stone off the mouth of the well and watered Laban's sheep.\u00a0He kissed Rachel, and was moved to tears....she ran and told her father.\" The\u00a0scene is filled with action, exhibited through the series of active verbs. The\u00a0sight of Rachel brings a surge of energy to Jacob allowing him to do that which\u00a0several men cannot do: roll the huge stone off the well. Once that well is\u00a0opened, water, the life force, can flow. The images of male and female\u00a0sexuality and the promise of new life are obvious in the well, the stone, the\u00a0uncovering and the release, and the two characters are brought together by the\u00a0kiss. There is power here. Sexual power, imaged in the well, the rock, the\u00a0flocks, the young people, the actions, is palpable in the story.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nJacob the deceiver, who with his mother had tricked Isaac into giving\u00a0him the birthright over his older brother, is now deceived himself by Laban\u00a0who exchanges Leah for Rachel on Jacob's wedding night. Jacob works for\u00a0twenty years for Laban in order to pay for Leah and Rachel. With his two\u00a0wives and the two slave girls given to him by his wives he fathers thirteen\u00a0children, twelve of them the sons who will become the twelve tribes of Israel.\u00a0Thus Israel is founded and the act is signalled by a change of name for Jacob,\u00a0who becomes Israel. The story must get the Israelites into Egypt, and it does so\u00a0by having Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers. Chapter 37 begins\u00a0with \"And this is the story of the descendants of Jacob.\" First we are told of\u00a0Joseph, who is Jacob's chosen son, and we see how disharmony arises in the\u00a0family because of this special treatment. Here again the story is struggling with\u00a0the stated principle which it carries, namely, that God has chosen a particular\u00a0tribe for special covenant treatment. The concept of choseness, as we see in the\u00a0Joseph story, is fraught with problems. Joseph's brothers are jealous of him\u00a0and hate his overbearing presence. He acts as a spy for his father, and his father gives him a special long sleeved robe. This robe becomes an\u00a0identifying feature for Joseph and when he is sent to spy on his brothers in\u00a0Dothan it serves the writer well as a way of focussing the brothers' hatred when\u00a0they first spot the cloak coming across the fields.\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Joseph's story is an excellent example of sophisticated narrative\u00a0structural devices used in support of story. In the opening passages we are told\u00a0of a dream of Joseph's in which his brothers bow low before him. This dream\u00a0serves to give motivation for the jealousy and hatred the brothers feel for him,\u00a0and to mark the particular skill of Joseph's which will bring him into power in\u00a0Egypt. At the end of the story \"his brothers also wept and prostrated\u00a0themselves before him,\" saying, \"You see, we are your slaves,\" and the motif\u00a0introduced at the beginning is closed at the end. Dreams, interpretations,\u00a0insights, seeing, are all a part of the story, as are their opposites, to be found in\u00a0deception and trickery. Jacob, like his father Isaac before him, cannot see very\u00a0well and does not notice that his special treatment of Joseph is a cause of\u00a0disharmony in his family. Choosing one over another for good reasons is one\u00a0thing and could be understood by rational people. But choosing for no reason\u00a0is arbitrary and the seeds of destruction are contained in the act of arbitrary\u00a0choice. Chapter 38 is a good example of structural integrity and of\u00a0sophisticated choices made by the writer\/redactor. Writers, like the characters\u00a0in stories, must make choices. Each sentence is a choice. A footnote in the\u00a0New English Bible (page 40) says of Chapter 38, \"The account here interrupts\u00a0the flow of the Joseph narrative.\" It interrupts the story, but for good aesthetic\u00a0reasons. In the brief story we are told about Judah's treatment of Tamar. He\u00a0had promised her his younger son to replace an older brother who had died.\u00a0Judah forgets about his promise to her and she is forced to take action to get\u00a0what is due to her. Part of her scheme has to do with deceiving Judah by veiling\u00a0her face and passing herself off to Judah as a prostitute. Judah, driven by\u00a0sexual desire, does not see as he should, just as Jacob, overcome by excessive\u00a0grief, had leapt to the conclusion that the bloody cloak shown him by his sons\u00a0meant that Joseph was dead. By getting a pledge from Judah, Tamar is later\u00a0able to get him to recognize that he is the father of her twins. In the next\u00a0section Joseph will exhibit sexual restraint in dealing with Potiphar's wife\u00a0because he does see clearly. The stories are thematically related and play one\u00a0on the other while reminding us of the idea of seeing which is central to the\u00a0entire series of stories. Seeing the pledge reminds Judah that he has made a\u00a0promise to Tamar. Seeing what dreams mean brings Joseph to a position of\u00a0power that enables him to send for his family and thus bring the Israelite\u00a0tribes into Egypt for the Exodus. When God speaks from a position of\u00a0knowledge of the future, as the author of all stories, then seeing and\u00a0interpreting become of great importance. \"What is in store for me, what is my\u00a0future?\" are questions to be asked by every character in the narrative, and he\u00a0who can see the plan through dreams or any medium is a hero. Jacob's family,\u00a0torn apart by jealousy and hatred, must find itself before harmony can be\u00a0restored; must see and recognize each other by dealing with the sins of the\u00a0past. This family, now Israel, is united by the end of Genesis: \"He [Joseph]\u00a0comforted them and set their minds at rest.\" To see is to read. The Old\u00a0Testament hero is, above all, one who can read intention and offer correct\u00a0interpretation. Abraham reads Yahweh's intentions in the sacrifice story and\u00a0interprets the story correctly. Israel prospers when its heroes see clearly.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n[1]<\/a> A speech act is an act performed by using either written or spoken language to bring about any of a number of intentional consequences. People use<\/em> langauage to do many kinds of things: to promise, to predict, to pray, to prophesy, to politisize, to claim or to report. John Austin and John Searle have both written on the subject of speech acts. See How to do Things with Words<\/em> and Speech Acts.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[2]<\/a> Remember, Abraham has another son, Ishmael, but Isaac is Sarah\u2019s only son.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[3]<\/a> Faith<\/em>, edited by Terence Penelhum, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, page 5.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[4]<\/a> A fascinating book on the subject of rational assessment is Biblical Games: A Strategic Analyxix of Stories in the Old Testament<\/em>, by Steven J. Brams, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. Brams writes, \u201cOne conclusion I draw from these stories is tha \u201crational\u201d interpretations of biblical actions are no more farfetched than \u201cfaith\u201d interpretations.\u201d (page 36)\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[5]<\/a> Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling and the Sickness Unto Death<\/em>, translated, with an introduction and notes, by Walter Lowrie, Princeton University Press, Princeton, page 15.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[6]<\/a> Kierkegaard, op. cit., page 35.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[7]<\/a> Medical science has attempted to diagnose conditions depicted in the Bible. For example, J. R. Gwilt writes, \u201cIt seems likely that Esau suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia; this is based on his appearance at birth ... his exhaustion due to vigorous exercise with a feeling of immanent death, and his rapid recovery after a high protein me\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
\n

Let us look more closely at some of the stories to see how the general\u00a0introductory material presented in earlier chapters might be of use in reading\u00a0the Bible. Every speech act;[1]<\/a> can be thought of as requiring three conditions to\u00a0be completely successful: intention, text, and interpretation. When a person\u00a0uses language to inform another about a state of affairs the information may\u00a0be generated in language and begins with an intention on the part of the\u00a0speaker. A simple thought experiment serves to show that intention is a\u00a0necessary condition for a speech act to occur. Imagine walking along the beach\u00a0and seeing many lines in the sand made by the outgoing tide. You might\u00a0consider those lines from an aesthetic viewpoint, and point to interesting\u00a0patterns in the sand made by the lines; you might even speak metaphorically\u00a0about how the water is “writing” in the sand, but it would not occur to you to\u00a0consider them as a new language that needed translation. The reason such an\u00a0approach strikes us as absurd is that it is impossible to consider the ocean\u00a0water as having intention<\/em>. The lines in the sand are just that: lines in the\u00a0sand. But now imagine that on the same beach walk you find a bottle washed\u00a0ashore by the water and in the bottle you find a piece of paper covered with\u00a0lines. In this case you have reason to believe that effort spent attempting to\u00a0translate the lines into a language that you understand will not be an irrational\u00a0act because it is likely that an intentional act of communication has occurred.\u00a0In the second case we would consider the lines a text and proceed to read it in\u00a0quite a different way than the first set of lines. It is not the medium that is\u00a0crucial here, for it is quite possible to make temporary texts in the sand with a\u00a0stick (who hasn’t written her name in the sand and probably thought how apt\u00a0such an act is in capturing the human condition?), but it is the intention that\u00a0makes the one a speech act and the other a non-speech act.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Readers invest time and effort in texts because of a belief that meaning,\u00a0in the form of information or inspiration, either resides in or is triggered by the\u00a0text at hand. By applying everything we know to the text we begin to create an\u00a0interpretation. `Intention, text, interpretation’ is a bit like an unknown in an\u00a0algebraic expression: its meaning is determined by the context and conventions\u00a0of the language of algebra. Think of meaning as the unknown x of an algebraic\u00a0expression. X is not ambiguous; its value is determined in each “sentence” –\u00a0thus the value of x is not constant, but it is not arbitrary either. Consider:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. 3x = 12, so x = 4<\/p>\n

2. 2x = 12, so x = 6<\/p>\n

3. .5x = 12, so x = 24<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

where the meaning of x changes from statement to statement but is fixed in the\u00a0statement in which it is used. Speech acts do not yield their meaning in such a\u00a0mechanical way, but when a reader reads a text, some value for x, some\u00a0interpretation, will necessarily follow. Just as we can solve algebraic\u00a0expressions for unknowns only if we know the conventions, so too with speech\u00a0acts. Reading is a creative act as can be seen in the way we use the word\u00a0“reading” to refer to a construct, another text, as in “my reading of the curse of\u00a0Ham story is that it is a story about homosexual incest,” or, “most everyone\u00a0reads Abraham’s test story as an expression of blind faith but I think that it is a\u00a0story of rational self-interest.” Writers and readers are driven by intention, and\u00a0they meet on a grid of conventions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We have seen how repetition of a key phrase is used to affect the\u00a0reading of the creation myth that opens Genesis. The form of that story is\u00a0clearly an important part of its complete impact: repeated phrases emphasizing\u00a0the phases of creation and the valuing of those things created; formal\u00a0imperatives which move from word to world; and the utterances of the\u00a0creator-god, which are the commands of a separate, transcendent power, and\u00a0which mediate between nothingness and being. We have seen also how the\u00a0author presents various other myths: the flood story presents a covenant myth,\u00a0the tower of Babel story presents an origin myth to “explain” why there is “a\u00a0babble of the language of all the world” and fantastic stories of giants and hints\u00a0of many gods populating the …. the place where gods live. These many gods\u00a0behave like Greek gods moving in with Bacchanalian thoughts on the beautiful\u00a0human women. These stories come to us from a distant past, and bring with\u00a0them roots from a vast storehouse of images. They are told as part of our\u00a0universal need to explain and understand the experiences of our life by telling\u00a0stories. Were there really giants on earth? No. Did Noah’s ark float around\u00a0filled with pairs of animals (or sevens of animals)? No. These stories do not\u00a0claim a truth; rather they proclaim it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The balance of Genesis establishes the beginnings of the line of heroes\u00a0that people the next several books, heroes who, through the covenant\u00a0promise, are chosen to bring a boon to the community. Everyone of\u00a0importance to the story of Israel springs from Terah, and we are given the\u00a0requisite genealogy to proclaim this line. These are the bare bones of the\u00a0stories, but let us see how the flesh is put on the bones.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Consider Yahweh’s “test” of Abraham. In a brief narrative one of the\u00a0central stories of the Judeo-Christian belief system bursts out of the page and\u00a0into human consciousness:<\/p>\n

The time came when God put Abraham to the test. `Abraham’, he<\/p>\n

called, and Abraham replied, `Here I am.’ God said, `Take your son<\/p>\n

Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah.<\/p>\n

There you shall offer him as a sacrifice on one of the hills which I<\/p>\n

will show you.’ So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled<\/p>\n

his ass, and he took with him two of his men and his son Isaac; and<\/p>\n

he split the firewood for the sacrifice, and set out for the place of<\/p>\n

which God had spoken. On the third day Abraham looked up and<\/p>\n

saw the place in the distance. He said to his men, Stay here with the<\/p>\n

ass while I and the boy go over there; and when we have<\/p>\n

worshipped we will come back to you.’ So Abraham took the wood<\/p>\n

for the sacrifice and laid it on his son Isaac’s shoulder; he himself<\/p>\n

carried the fire and the knife, and the two of them went on<\/p>\n

together. Isaac said to Abraham, `Father’, and he answered, `What<\/p>\n

is it, my son?’ Isaac said, `Here are the fire and the wood, but<\/p>\n

where is the young beast for the sacrifice?’ Abraham answered,<\/p>\n

`God will provide himself with a young beast for a sacrifice, my<\/p>\n

son.’ And the two of them went on together and came to the place<\/p>\n

of which God had spoken, there Abraham built an altar and<\/p>\n

arranged the wood. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the<\/p>\n

altar on top of the wood. Then he stretched out his hand and took<\/p>\n

the knife to kill his son; but the angel of the Lord called to him<\/p>\n

from heaven, `Abraham, Abraham.’ He answered, `Here I am.’ The<\/p>\n

angel of the Lord said, `Do not raise your hand against the boy; do<\/p>\n

not touch him. Now I know that you are a God fearing man. You<\/p>\n

have not withheld from me your son, your only son. (Genesis<\/p>\n

22.1-12)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

One way of reading this story is as a myth signifying the end of human\u00a0sacrifice: there will be no human sacrificed in this story. But such a reading is\u00a0flat and does not do justice to the levels of narrative tissue to be found.\u00a0Concentrate on the story: once again this god speaks: “Abraham,” he calls.\u00a0Abraham replies: “Here I am.” What else could one say to the power\u00a0represented here? There is no place to hide from this god; Adam and Eve\u00a0learned that. And he issues commands: “Take your son Isaac, your only\u00a0son, whom you love….” In the command there are two phrases (emphasis\u00a0mine) which are completely redundant. Abraham certainly does not need to be\u00a0reminded either that Isaac is his only son or that Isaac is beloved. Isaac is,\u00a0remember, a “special package”, a miracle that arrived from this god who now\u00a0demands the miracle’s sacrifice. Isaac arrived very late in Abraham’s life from\u00a0a wife beyond child bearing days, and he is the repository of the seed that is to\u00a0carry on the chosen people. `Isaac’ means `he laughed’ and the charming story\u00a0in which he is announced has Sarah laughing at the idea that she can give birth\u00a0to a child at her stage of life. No, these non-restrictive phrases are for the\u00a0reader’s benefit: “Remember, reader, this command to this old man is to take\u00a0his only son, his beloved son, to the land of Moriah, there to kill him.”\u00a0Abraham’s response? “So Abraham rose early in the morning…and set out for\u00a0the place which God had spoken.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the scene just after the announcement of Isaac’s birth and before the\u00a0test story we were shown Abraham’s reaction to God when told of the\u00a0impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham argues with his\u00a0god: “Wilt thou really sweep away good and bad together? Suppose there are\u00a0fifty good men in the city…” And further: “May I presume to speak to the Lord,\u00a0dust and ashes that I am: suppose there are five short of the fifty good men?\u00a0Wilt thou destroy the whole city for a mere five men?” Finally Abraham\u00a0negotiates so aggressively that God that “For the sake of ten I will not destroy\u00a0it.” But the angels of the lord are unable to find the people who would in their\u00a0goodness save Sodom and Gomorrah and God destroys the place. And Lot’s\u00a0wife does not obey the order “do not look back” and is turned into a pillar of\u00a0salt. Do not obey and die.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This man Abraham, who had argued effectively with God in order to\u00a0try to save unknown men in Sodom and Gomorrah, says nothing to try to save\u00a0his only son. He says nothing; he does obey. We are told nothing of his\u00a0conversation with Sarah or of her reaction to the order to kill her only son.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Can you hear?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“Sarah, I have to go on a journey.”<\/p>\n

“Where are you off to now, dear Abraham?” ”<\/p>\n

“Oh, I have to go out into the desert and sacrifice<\/p>\n

Isaac, but I should be back in about six days.”<\/p>\n

“Sacrifice Isaac! No, let us take him and hide from<\/p>\n

this god.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But there is no place to hide. “Here I am.” And Sarah’s reaction in the\u00a0story? Well, we can only guess at any of this because we are not told. Here the\u00a0writer has compressed the narrative to the breaking point. We are told, “On\u00a0the third day Abraham looked up….” He has been travelling, head down, for\u00a0three days, ever since receiving the crushing command to sacrifice his son. The\u00a0narrative provides no details, presents no psychological profile. What\u00a0happened on that three day journey?<\/p>\n

Do you see young Isaac running along, playing, whistling, throwing\u00a0stones, puzzled that his loving devoted father is so depressed? We are not told\u00a0that Abraham is depressed; we are just told that he “looked up” on the third\u00a0day. What a wealth of narrative detail has been omitted in order that our\u00a0attention be riveted on this old man Abraham, obedient and unquestioning,\u00a0walking toward this place of sacrifice. Do you identify with Abraham? Is this\u00a0story filled with verisimilitude? Can you imagine being ordered by your god to\u00a0sacrifice your child? Would such an order tell you something about your god?<\/p>\n

Isaac’s direct question to his father, who has not spoken for the entire\u00a0journey, is an ironic one: “…where is the young beast for sacrifice?” And\u00a0Abraham’s answer is ironic, “God will provide himself with a young beast for a\u00a0sacrifice, my son.” Replace that final comma with a colon and the answer is as\u00a0honest and complete as Abraham can give. More irony. Or is it? Why doesn’t\u00a0Abraham argue with God on this occasion when he did so before to save\u00a0people he did not even know? Perhaps Abraham knows exactly what part he is\u00a0to play here. Unquestioning obedience, required by this god in the Garden of\u00a0Eden story, is required here also. Failure to obey has led to severe punishment\u00a0in the past. Abraham knows that Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a\u00a0pillar of salt. Knowing what he knows about this god, Abraham proceeds with\u00a0the best action based on a rational analysis of his situation. Earlier, when faced\u00a0with an order from Abimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham also acted out of\u00a0rational self-interest; he told the king that Sarah was his sister and did nothing\u00a0to stop the king from taking her.<\/p>\n

A current textbook on the philosophy of religion[3]<\/a> is typical in its\u00a0assessment of the story of Abraham: “This story is the archetypal example of\u00a0faith as trusting obedience to God.” Penelhum, like others, takes the story out\u00a0of context to assess it. But this story of Abraham and Isaac is a part of a larger\u00a0narrative, a narrative which has shown important events that have already\u00a0occurred in the earlier relationship with God. For example, in an earlier scene\u00a0God has said to Abraham: “I will maintain My covenant with him [Isaac] as an\u00a0everlasting covenant for his offspring to come.” (Gen. 17.19) Thus, Abraham\u00a0has reasons to believe that God will not kill Isaac – in fact, he has the word of\u00a0God. Instead of a set piece on blind obedience the story is a report of rational\u00a0action.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Reading Abraham as a rational self-interested hero instead of as a\u00a0“knight of faith” may be objectionable because to do so shrinks him to mere\u00a0human size. Where is that fearful “teleological suspension of the ethical”[5]<\/a> that\u00a0Kierkegaard\u00a0\u00a0 writes of so movingly ? Where is the knight of faith in a reading\u00a0like this? Where? It resides in the Kierkegaard interpretation, in his official\u00a0line, but not in the story line given in the Bible. Kierkegaard writes of\u00a0Abraham:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yet Abraham believed and did not doubt, he believed the<\/em><\/p>\n

preposterous. If Abraham had doubted – then he would have done<\/em><\/p>\n

something else, something glorious; for how could Abraham do<\/em><\/p>\n

anything but what is great and glorious! He would have marched<\/em><\/p>\n

up to Mount Moriah, he would have cried out to God, “Despise not<\/em><\/p>\n

this sacrifice, it is not the best thing I possess, that I know well, for<\/em><\/p>\n

what is an old man in comparison with the child of promise; but it is<\/em><\/p>\n

the best I am able to give Thee. Let Isaac never come to know this,<\/em><\/p>\n

that he may console himself with his youth.” He would have<\/em><\/p>\n

plunged the knife into his own breast. He would have been<\/em><\/p>\n

admired in the world, and his name would not have been forgotten;<\/em><\/p>\n

but it is one thing to be admired, and another to be the guiding star<\/em><\/p>\n

which saves the anguished.[6]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What would it mean to believe and not to doubt? Would doing so have\u00a0any survival value? To believe the preposterous is just what the salespersons of\u00a0channeling, E.S.P., out of body experiences, and other nonsense depend upon.\u00a0How passionately one believes that x has no efficacy whatsoever in making x\u00a0true, where x is a proposition about the world. Either God exists or God does\u00a0not exist; and what I believe about the proposition `God exists’ has no effect on\u00a0its being true. We can tell another story, as Kierkegaard does in his retelling of\u00a0the Abraham story; we can put forward another official line as\u00a0Kierkegaard does in Fear and Trembling, we can escape into the\u00a0irrational or into subjectivity, and “believe the preposterous,” or we can listen\u00a0to the ancient voice of the poet who is telling the Abraham story, and who\u00a0reveals its human meaning in the details of the narrative and in the overall\u00a0structure. Hear Sarah laughing outside the tent as the angel announces to\u00a0Abraham that they will have a child. That laugh is the laugh of this tale:\u00a0human and skeptical.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The human sized Abraham is in the biblical text; the knight sized\u00a0Abraham is in Kierkegaard’s text. Fear and trembling flow from Kierkegaard’s\u00a0reading while the story tells of fear and surviving. Two different stories are at\u00a0play here. One proclaims that this god (the establishment, authority, the\u00a0official line) values unthinking obedience above all else, and, indeed, will\u00a0reward blind faith with the ultimate prize. A second reports on how to live, and\u00a0how to survive, in an arbitrary world filled with powerful and tyrannical forces.\u00a0Abraham, who earlier was Abram, carries not only two names, but also two\u00a0radically different intentional “lines”: one with the authority of the religious doc-\u00a0trine which it proclaims, the other with the authority of the human voice it can\u00a0not drown. What one must do to survive or advance oneself is not always\u00a0identical with what one believes in one’s heart or says in public. There is always\u00a0an official line, proclaimed as true by priests and kings, and it is often in con-\u00a0flict with the story line that makes up a human life. Official lines change: now\u00a0blind obedience is of utmost importance, later it will not be enough. Official\u00a0lines change because they are based on a complex of beliefs and doctrines,\u00a0which as we all know are relative to time and place. But each of us realizes that\u00a0some things never change; these things are not to be found in official lines\u00a0because they reside in story lines. In part the story line reveals ways of\u00a0surviving in spite of the official line.<\/p>\n

Patriarchy is the official line of Genesis. Men’s names and men’s stories\u00a0make up much of the Old Testament. Yahweh appears to Abraham, to Isaac,\u00a0to Jacob, to Moses. We have come to think of God the father. This\u00a0privileging of the masculine over the feminine is also part of the official line,\u00a0and although it is, it is countered by the story line. Who are the characters\u00a0with sparkle, intelligence, and ability? The women. Rebecca over Isaac in every\u00a0way – except in the official line.<\/p>\n

And what does it mean to choose Rebecca over Isaac? Look at the\u00a0story: Sarah dies. Isaac is devastated by the loss of his mother. Abraham sends\u00a0a servant back to his homeland to get a wife for Isaac. The servant meets a\u00a0virgin by a well and by good fortune she is of the right tribe. When we first see\u00a0Rebecca it is clear that she is a lively, intelligent, alive young woman. “The girl\u00a0was very beautiful, a virgin…She went down to the spring, filled her jar and\u00a0came up again.” She moves quickly and decisively, draws water for the servant,\u00a0for his camels, answers all questions, and runs to her mother’s tent to report.\u00a0Here is a type-scene for a betrothal. But what is different; what is the writer\u00a0telling us about character and story through the variations in the pattern for a\u00a0betrothal scene?<\/p>\n

First, it is a servant and not the husband-to-be who is present at the\u00a0well. Isaac is back at home moping about at the loss of his mother. Actually he\u00a0is even further removed from the center of the story than that, for it was\u00a0Abraham, not Isaac, who sent the servant in search of a wife. And when the\u00a0servant returns home with Rebecca, (who announces her decision to leave her\u00a0mother and family and travel with him with a “Yes, I will go,”) then we finally\u00a0see Isaac, the bridegroom. “One evening when he had gone out into the open\u00a0country hoping to meet them he looked up and saw camels approaching.” He\u00a0looked up? There is some confusion in the text here, and one reading of the\u00a0Hebrew is, “One evening when he had gone out into the open country to\u00a0relieve himself….” Isaac is out there either to meditate or to urinate. Either\u00a0action is a good measure of this bridegroom. Of Rebecca we learn, “So she\u00a0became his wife, and he loved her and was consoled for the death\u00a0of his mother” (emphasis mine). Isaac the special; Isaac the spoiled. He\u00a0will have a wife to replace the mother he has lost.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

JACOB AND ESAU<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abraham remarried after Sarah’s death and his wife, Keturah, bore\u00a0him six more sons. These six plus Ishmael and Isaac and several sons by his\u00a0concubines provide dozens from whom he can choose when he dies. He\u00a0chooses Isaac to carry on the special relation with Yahweh, or, better yet,\u00a0Yahweh chooses Isaac to carry on the special seed, or, even better, the writer\u00a0presents a story in which choosing is given to us in the form of a narrative.\u00a0Just as Yahweh had chosen Abraham for his covenant so too Abraham\u00a0chooses Isaac. These choices are made; we are given the heroes. And do these\u00a0particular people have any particular virtues? The stories tell us: no. Neither is\u00a0exceptional. Neither is endowed with extra-human courage or special insight\u00a0(the image that remains in both cases is bowed head), neither is particularly\u00a0bright. But here are the choices. This is the god of choice; whatever else he\u00a0does in these stories he is always choosing. He chooses to create the world. He\u00a0chooses to accept Abel’s sacrifice but reject Cain’s sacrifice. He chooses\u00a0Abraham and in so doing chooses Israel over all other tribes. He chooses Isaac\u00a0over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over all of his brothers. Why? It is\u00a0important that we look carefully for the answer to this question. Is there\u00a0something special that leads to each of these choices? No. This god of choice is\u00a0also the god of chance. Never are we given reasons for these choices.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here a choice is announced to Rebecca:<\/p>\n

Two nations in your womb,<\/p>\n

two peoples, going their own ways<\/p>\n

from birth!<\/p>\n

One shall be stronger than the other;<\/p>\n

the older shall be servant to the<\/p>\n

younger. (Gen. 25.23)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

And “when her time had come, there were indeed twins in her womb.\u00a0The first comes out red,[7]<\/a> hairy all over like a haircloak, and they name him\u00a0Esau (“Red”). Immediately afterwards his brother is born with his hand\u00a0grasping Esau’s heel, and they call him Jacob (“he caught by the heel”). The\u00a0boys grow up, Esau a hunter of skill and Jacob a stay-at-home. We are told\u00a0that Isaac favoured Esau and that Rebecca favoured Jacob. Given what we\u00a0know of these two characters it is obvious that Jacob has the stronger backer.\u00a0Jacob, remember, is at home with his mother while Esau is out hunting. Jacob\u00a0trades some soup for Esau’s birthright and we are given an explanatory\u00a0comment from the writer: “Thus Esau showed how little he valued his\u00a0birthright.” Here we see clearly an attempt to show a causal relationship\u00a0between character and outcome: Esau deserves what he gets (or does not get)\u00a0we are told. At yet another level we are told how it is that Israel flourished and\u00a0their close kinsmen, the Edomites, did not. David will subdue the Edomites (2\u00a0Sam. 8.13-14). Writing after the fact has the same effect as writing\u00a0before the fact with foreknowledge.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Because of a famine in the land God orders Isaac to move to Gerar.\u00a0Notice how we are given two explanations for the action: 1. famine, 2. god’s\u00a0command. This dual explanation for the actions of the heroes is typical in the\u00a0Old Testament. We are often given a natural as well as a supernatural reading\u00a0of the forces at play. Thus, God is always present in the story, controlling\u00a0events and characters directly. God appears to Isaac as he had done with\u00a0Abraham and reaffirms the covenant, “Thus shall I fulfil the oath which I\u00a0swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as many as the\u00a0stars in the sky; I will give them all these lands…” And we are told of the\u00a0continuing story of Israel: from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. This connection\u00a0between Abraham and Isaac is emphasized with one brush stroke in chapter\u00a026: “When men of the place asked him about his wife, he told them that she\u00a0was his sister; he was afraid to say that Rebecca was his wife; in case they\u00a0killed him because of her; for she was very beautiful.” \u00a0 Like father like son:\u00a0both are capable of lying to save their own skins. These are characters of\u00a0human dimension.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The famous deception story of Genesis 27 begins with a reminder to\u00a0the reader that Isaac is old “and his eyes became so dim that he could not see.”\u00a0With Rebecca assisting Jacob, and with a nearly blind Isaac, it is easy to accept\u00a0that Jacob in his costume, with wool over his smooth arm, can deceive his\u00a0father. Once again we are given a natural explanation for the events of the\u00a0story, a story which is intended to show how it is that the chosen seed of God\u00a0will be carried on from generation to generation in violation of the conventions\u00a0of primogeniture. One measure of a god is to have the god break human\u00a0conventions. Although Isaac and his choice, Esau, cannot see, this Jacob can\u00a0see even at night while asleep. He dreams the famous ladder dream in which\u00a0he makes contact with the spirit world. In the dream he is told that the land\u00a0will be given to him and his descendants, who will be as countless as the “dust\u00a0upon the earth.” Jacob will become Israel, and will father the twelve tribes. The\u00a0image of fruition used in the Isaac story came in “as many as the stars” but now\u00a0the promise to Jacob is expanded to as “countless as the dust upon the earth.”\u00a0Not only is the image expansive, it is also a part of an imagery pattern that\u00a0goes back to the creation story and forward to the united kingdom, when all of\u00a0the land is brought under one kingship and is the pinnacle of power for the\u00a0Hebrews. The promise God makes to the heroes of the Old Testament stories\u00a0is always a promise of land – a place here on this earth, a place of dust: real,\u00a0solid and actual.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jacob, who receives this promise, is imaged as one who is real, solid,\u00a0and actual. He is aggressive, but a dreamer. He is tenacious (he will work\u00a0twenty years to get Rachel), brave, strong, physical, wily, self-reliant and\u00a0shrewd. He is the Hercules of the Old Testament, lifting stones, wrestling with\u00a0angels, tested and successful, climbing in his dreams to touch the other world\u00a0but always of this world (he uses a ladder with its feet firmly on the ground). If\u00a0fire identifies Samson, then stones identify Jacob. He lifts them, builds with\u00a0them, finds water in them, and above all, has stones. From these stones will\u00a0come a nation. A comparison between the meeting of Isaac and Rebecca and\u00a0Jacob and Rachel brings out the character differences. Rebecca was a burst of\u00a0energy and vitality in the scene where she is first discovered by the well. Isaac is\u00a0not present. In Genesis 29 we find a parallel scene when Jacob meets Rachel.\u00a0Travelling through open country Jacob spots a well that has a huge rock over\u00a0it. He discovers that all the herdsmen gather at the well daily and when they\u00a0are all there then together they can roll this rock off the well shaft to water\u00a0their flocks. He makes contact with these herdsmen, discovers that they know\u00a0Laban, the grandson of Nahor, and asks about him. “Yes, he is well,” they say,\u00a0“and here is his daughter Rachel coming with the flock.” A well, a woman, and\u00a0a group of herdsmen – a scene to watch carefully and to compare with others\u00a0like it. While the herdsmen wait for the rest of their number in order to jointly\u00a0roll the “huge rock” off the well Rachel arrives. “When Jacob saw Rachel, the\u00a0daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, with Laban’s flock, he stepped\u00a0forward, rolled the stone off the mouth of the well and watered Laban’s sheep.\u00a0He kissed Rachel, and was moved to tears….she ran and told her father.” The\u00a0scene is filled with action, exhibited through the series of active verbs. The\u00a0sight of Rachel brings a surge of energy to Jacob allowing him to do that which\u00a0several men cannot do: roll the huge stone off the well. Once that well is\u00a0opened, water, the life force, can flow. The images of male and female\u00a0sexuality and the promise of new life are obvious in the well, the stone, the\u00a0uncovering and the release, and the two characters are brought together by the\u00a0kiss. There is power here. Sexual power, imaged in the well, the rock, the\u00a0flocks, the young people, the actions, is palpable in the story.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jacob the deceiver, who with his mother had tricked Isaac into giving\u00a0him the birthright over his older brother, is now deceived himself by Laban\u00a0who exchanges Leah for Rachel on Jacob’s wedding night. Jacob works for\u00a0twenty years for Laban in order to pay for Leah and Rachel. With his two\u00a0wives and the two slave girls given to him by his wives he fathers thirteen\u00a0children, twelve of them the sons who will become the twelve tribes of Israel.\u00a0Thus Israel is founded and the act is signalled by a change of name for Jacob,\u00a0who becomes Israel. The story must get the Israelites into Egypt, and it does so\u00a0by having Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers. Chapter 37 begins\u00a0with “And this is the story of the descendants of Jacob.” First we are told of\u00a0Joseph, who is Jacob’s chosen son, and we see how disharmony arises in the\u00a0family because of this special treatment. Here again the story is struggling with\u00a0the stated principle which it carries, namely, that God has chosen a particular\u00a0tribe for special covenant treatment. The concept of choseness, as we see in the\u00a0Joseph story, is fraught with problems. Joseph’s brothers are jealous of him\u00a0and hate his overbearing presence. He acts as a spy for his father, and his father gives him a special long sleeved robe. This robe becomes an\u00a0identifying feature for Joseph and when he is sent to spy on his brothers in\u00a0Dothan it serves the writer well as a way of focussing the brothers’ hatred when\u00a0they first spot the cloak coming across the fields.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Joseph’s story is an excellent example of sophisticated narrative\u00a0structural devices used in support of story. In the opening passages we are told\u00a0of a dream of Joseph’s in which his brothers bow low before him. This dream\u00a0serves to give motivation for the jealousy and hatred the brothers feel for him,\u00a0and to mark the particular skill of Joseph’s which will bring him into power in\u00a0Egypt. At the end of the story “his brothers also wept and prostrated\u00a0themselves before him,” saying, “You see, we are your slaves,” and the motif\u00a0introduced at the beginning is closed at the end. Dreams, interpretations,\u00a0insights, seeing, are all a part of the story, as are their opposites, to be found in\u00a0deception and trickery. Jacob, like his father Isaac before him, cannot see very\u00a0well and does not notice that his special treatment of Joseph is a cause of\u00a0disharmony in his family. Choosing one over another for good reasons is one\u00a0thing and could be understood by rational people. But choosing for no reason\u00a0is arbitrary and the seeds of destruction are contained in the act of arbitrary\u00a0choice. Chapter 38 is a good example of structural integrity and of\u00a0sophisticated choices made by the writer\/redactor. Writers, like the characters\u00a0in stories, must make choices. Each sentence is a choice. A footnote in the\u00a0New English Bible (page 40) says of Chapter 38, “The account here interrupts\u00a0the flow of the Joseph narrative.” It interrupts the story, but for good aesthetic\u00a0reasons. In the brief story we are told about Judah’s treatment of Tamar. He\u00a0had promised her his younger son to replace an older brother who had died.\u00a0Judah forgets about his promise to her and she is forced to take action to get\u00a0what is due to her. Part of her scheme has to do with deceiving Judah by veiling\u00a0her face and passing herself off to Judah as a prostitute. Judah, driven by\u00a0sexual desire, does not see as he should, just as Jacob, overcome by excessive\u00a0grief, had leapt to the conclusion that the bloody cloak shown him by his sons\u00a0meant that Joseph was dead. By getting a pledge from Judah, Tamar is later\u00a0able to get him to recognize that he is the father of her twins. In the next\u00a0section Joseph will exhibit sexual restraint in dealing with Potiphar’s wife\u00a0because he does see clearly. The stories are thematically related and play one\u00a0on the other while reminding us of the idea of seeing which is central to the\u00a0entire series of stories. Seeing the pledge reminds Judah that he has made a\u00a0promise to Tamar. Seeing what dreams mean brings Joseph to a position of\u00a0power that enables him to send for his family and thus bring the Israelite\u00a0tribes into Egypt for the Exodus. When God speaks from a position of\u00a0knowledge of the future, as the author of all stories, then seeing and\u00a0interpreting become of great importance. “What is in store for me, what is my\u00a0future?” are questions to be asked by every character in the narrative, and he\u00a0who can see the plan through dreams or any medium is a hero. Jacob’s family,\u00a0torn apart by jealousy and hatred, must find itself before harmony can be\u00a0restored; must see and recognize each other by dealing with the sins of the\u00a0past. This family, now Israel, is united by the end of Genesis: “He [Joseph]\u00a0comforted them and set their minds at rest.” To see is to read. The Old\u00a0Testament hero is, above all, one who can read intention and offer correct\u00a0interpretation. Abraham reads Yahweh’s intentions in the sacrifice story and\u00a0interprets the story correctly. Israel prospers when its heroes see clearly.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/a> A speech act is an act performed by using either written or spoken language to bring about any of a number of intentional consequences. People use<\/em> langauage to do many kinds of things: to promise, to predict, to pray, to prophesy, to politisize, to claim or to report. John Austin and John Searle have both written on the subject of speech acts. See How to do Things with Words<\/em> and Speech Acts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Remember, Abraham has another son, Ishmael, but Isaac is Sarah\u2019s only son.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> Faith<\/em>, edited by Terence Penelhum, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, page 5.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a> A fascinating book on the subject of rational assessment is Biblical Games: A Strategic Analyxix of Stories in the Old Testament<\/em>, by Steven J. Brams, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. Brams writes, \u201cOne conclusion I draw from these stories is tha \u201crational\u201d interpretations of biblical actions are no more farfetched than \u201cfaith\u201d interpretations.\u201d (page 36)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling and the Sickness Unto Death<\/em>, translated, with an introduction and notes, by Walter Lowrie, Princeton University Press, Princeton, page 15.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a> Kierkegaard, op. cit., page 35.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> Medical science has attempted to diagnose conditions depicted in the Bible. For example, J. R. Gwilt writes, \u201cIt seems likely that Esau suffered from congenital adrenal hyperplasia; this is based on his appearance at birth … his exhaustion due to vigorous exercise with a feeling of immanent death, and his rapid recovery after a high protein me<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":276,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-32","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/276"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/revisions\/71"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/readingthebible\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}