Leftovers - Genesis 27:37-46

27:37 - At this point, I just feel really bad for Esau and wonder how much of this situation is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a person from birth that the role and responsibility that is supposed to be given to them was being taken away and given to their brother instead because they were unworthy of it, at what point do they just say, “well I’m already being punished for being unworthy, I may as well just do whatever I want.” I was raised very much like that. I was very much punished for everything I did, right or wrong, who I was, good or bad, and stuff that had nothing to do with me. I was just punished, punished, punished all the time. At that point, when everything is wrong, then nothing is. If Esau was stripped of his place at the head of the family because God “knew” he was going to do something wrong, then why try to do anything right? What’s the point, you’re already suffering the consequences. It’s like when someone accuses their significant other of cheating and treating them like they are a cheater, then the person is already being punished for cheating, regardless of whether or not they actually did it. I’m not exactly sure, obviously, how everything shook out with Esau and the revelation that he would not be holding the position he was entitled to, but I think the fact that he didn’t turn into a monster and burn the world to the ground for being punished for something he didn’t do, is indication of the goodness that he had in him. In fact, as we go throughout this story, I’m a fan of Esau and I REALLY don’t like Jacob. This isn’t to say that I think God was wrong in giving the priesthood lineage to Jacob instead because obviously I don’t believe God is ever wrong, but personality wise, Esau > Jacob for me. Esau has just been figuratively kicked in the face and begs this dad, “Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” Isaac answers basically, “what is there left for me to give you? I already gave Jacob the right to the family leadership and ‘corn and wine have I sustained him.’” And Esau cried. Now the word “wept” in verse 38 is cross-referenced with Hebrews 12:16-17 in which Paul describes Esau as a “fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” I will acknowledge that Paul, a Pharisee and scriptorian, would have been infinitely more knowledgeable about the situation with Esau than I am, so if he casts Esau as wicked and unrepentant, then I will differ to his expertise. But again, I can’t help but wonder just how much of that is self-fulfilling and how much of it is that he was a turd. 27:38-46 - As Isaac goes into the blessing he’s giving to Esau as sort of a “consolation” prize, there is an issue that comes up that I had never considered important. Maybe it’s because I saw Jacob’s blessing as vague and generalized, but when Esau’s blessing seemed just as non-descript, I thought that Isaac was simply blessing both his boys with generic prosperity. It does appear that it is a big deal in the Hebrew world however, because with the blessings actually being very specific and binding, it appears in the English translation of verses 39 & 40 that Isaac gives Jacob and then Esau that exact same things, which is contradictory, because they can’t both inherit the promised land and be the family rulers. The lecturer from the Torah Class notes that the Hebrew words used in Jacob’s blessing are different than then the words used in Esau’s blessing. In fact, the words used for Esau were the exact opposite of the words used for Jacob. This means that “in verse 28, the Hebrew shows God, through Isaac, actively giving richness of land to Jacob, and in verse 39 it shows in Hebrew that Isaac is telling Esau he will be held away from richness of land.” And it’s not just that, but Esau and his descendants will live a violent existence, “by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” I’m not exactly sure what the last part means, but the word “yoke” is cross-referenced to mean “physical bondage,” indicating some sort of physical subservience as well as that of a lack of leadership. That’s pretty rough man, honestly. It does beg the question, if Isaac gave all that great stuff to Jacob initially because he thought that it was Esau, does that mean he intended to only violence and bondage for Jacob if it had all gone the way that Isaac had intended? That seems unlikely as well. Maybe he hadn’t intended to give Jacob such a bleak blessing, but once the subversion went down, that’s just how he ended up saying the words to Esau. Maybe because Jacob was the second born, if Isaac’s plan had worked out then Jacob wouldn’t have expected anything other than “keep up the good work.” Esau is understandably furious with Jacob and plans to do the one thing that all brothers seem to have as their Plan A in all of the scriptures, he is going to murder his brother after his father dies. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in the ancient world. Fortunately for Jacob, someone tells Rebekah about this plan and she tells Jacob to go to her brother Laban’s house in Haran and wait for Esau to cool down, then she’ll send for him to come back. Notice that Rebekah doesn’t say anything to Jacob about finding a wife there, but that is the reason she gives Isaac for sending Jacob away because she just can’t stand the thought of Jacob marrying “the daughters of Heth” like Esau did.