For this paper, please focus on a small (roughly 6-10 verse) section of Genesis 30-31 and work it through in as much detail as you can. You should, at a minimum: Use ALL TEN READING TOOLS, including: *Compare translations. What words are so different ac

Transformation and Demarcation of Jacob’s “Flocks” in Genesis 30:25-43: Identity, Election, and the Role of the Divine

SONG-MI SUZIE PARK Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138

THE RATHER STRANGE STORY of Jacob and the speckled flocks in Gen 30:25- 43, a tale usually dismissed as simply reflecting “primitive” notions of maternal

impression, communicates a message that, at heart, concerns the very nature of

Israelite identity. In this essay I examine the ways in which the formal elements of

the story, most notably the numerous wordplays and puns, generate semantic cor-

respondences and oppositions. These ultimately convey and then attempt to diffuse

the tensions involved in the definition of Israel. I will try to show that this osten-

sibly simple story about Jacob’s magical transformation of his flock, when closely

examined, involves deeper issues about election and the role of the divine in

Israel’s formation and identity.

I. Brief Overview of Previous Scholarship

Commentators have put forth various explanations concerning the nature of

Jacob’s trick. Gerhard von Rad thinks that these verses reflect an “ancient and

widespread belief in the magical effect of certain impressions which in the case of

human and animal mothers were transferred to their offspring and can decisively

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Novem-

ber 2007 in San Diego, California.

667

influence them.”1 Hermann Gunkel also believes that this tale mirrors an actual

method of animal husbandry and states that such breeding techniques were known

in antiquity.2 Commentators such as Nahum Sarna and Victor P. Hamilton, noting

the phenotypes and genotypes of the animals, give scientific reasons for the success

of this magical trick.3 Indeed, Claus Westermann sees in Jacob’s ruse a transition

from a magical to a scientific way of thinking.4 As is evident, most commentators,

when approaching this text, attempt to uncover the actual animal husbandry tech-

nique that they believe is reflected in Gen 30:25-43; the significance of animal

breeding in small farming communities such as Israel would have accounted for

the telling and transmission of this story.

While all the above explanations seem reasonable, I believe that such com-

mentators have wrongly emphasized the “scientific” and historical nature of

Jacob’s ruse. Regardless of whether this story refers to some actual belief or tech-

nique, the key to the story’s decipherment does not lie simply in understanding

how Jacob’s ruse was successful or how it was that monochrome animals actually bore speckled and colored ones. Rather, one needs to shift attention away from

questions concerning the historicity reflected in the tale and toward deciphering

why the narrative is told the way that it is. As Michael Fishbane explains, “Such a

view considers a tale or narrative less from a linear perspective, whereby the

separate parts are isolated and their development ‘explained,’ and more from the

integrative consideration of a narrative as a seamless web of interanimating com-

ponents.”5

II. Wordplays and the Nature of Jacob’s Trick

Although scholars such as E. A. Speiser, von Rad, Sarna, Gunkel, and Well-

hausen have briefly noted the puns on the word lābān (“white”) with the name Laban, none has expounded on the pervasiveness of other wordplays in this story

or drawn out the significance of the use of these linguistic devices.6 Hamilton gives

668 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

1 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadel- phia: Westminster, 1972) 302.

2 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (1901; trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997) 329.

3 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1995) 284; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis: בראשית. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 212.

4 Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 483.

5 Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979) 58.

6 Gunkel, Genesis, 329; Sarna, Genesis, 212; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 239; von Rad, Genesis,

one of the more extended commentaries on the wordplays, noting the prominence

of the word “white” in Genesis 30: Jacob peels “white stripes” to expose the white

of the shoots of the poplar (לבנה) in v. 37, and Laban, “the white one,” removes from Jacob those animals that are not totally lābān (v. 35).7 Despite noting the fre- quency, Hamilton fails to delineate the implications of this repetition.

Von Rad correctly observes in his commentary that such a tale of trickery

seems “like a burlesque farce and could be . . . considered by itself, as a humorous

story.”8 The wordplays, then, are puns used to add comedy to the narrative. Simi-

larly, Marc Zvi Brettler has explained the presence of puns and wordplays in the

story of Ehud (Judg 3:15-30) as evidence that the tale is a political satire.9 Humor,

of course, is very difficult to decipher, especially in cross-cultural writings. There-

fore, while I am not completely convinced that Gen 30:25-43 is a farce sensu stricto, Brettler and von Rad do correctly point to the connection between the form of writing, the linguistic devices that are used, and the meaning of the story. How

a tale is written can often help to elucidate or draw out the meaning of the text.

With these ideas in mind, it is important to remember that the wordplays in

Gen 30:25-43 are not haphazard or without significance. Indeed, they shed con-

siderable light on the nature of Jacob’s trickery. Setting aside the debates concern-

ing the details of Laban and Jacob’s pact, and how it is that Laban changes this

deal “ten times” (31:7), the agreement between the two men, at least in 30:32-43,

seems simple. Jacob will remove from Laban’s flock all the dark-colored (חום) sheep and all the spotted, speckled, and streaked (עקד ,נקד ,טלוא) goats as his wage. The deal fits the names of the characters: Jacob (יעקב) will receive all the goats that are נקד and עקד. Gunkel, noting the Arabic word vuqâb (striped and speckled clothing), states that an earlier version of this tale probably contained a more evi-

dent wordplay on the name Jacob.10 Laban (לבן), on the other hand, seemingly will keep all the animals that are לבן—all the goats that are not spotted (נקד) or streaked (עקד) with white (לבן) spots, and all the sheep that are not dark (or not lābān). In other words, those that are purely lābān are Laban’s; those that are not are Jacob’s. The sheep and the goats, therefore, belong to the man whose name

phonetically and semantically matches the animal’s appearance. In this story, then,

appearance, sound, and meaning are interrelated.

One can now understand Laban’s ready acceptance of this agreement with

Jacob. As Gunkel and others have noted, since Laban is greedy, he would willingly

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 669

302; Westermann, Genesis, 483. Fishbane, however, has eloquently located the pervasiveness of other key words and double entendres such as the term ברך in the Jacob cycle.

7 Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 283. 8 Von Rad, Genesis, 301. 9 Marc Zvi Brettler, “Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Ehud Story as History and Litera-

ture,” HUCA 62 (1991) 285-304. 10 Gunkel, Genesis, 329.

assent to these terms because few animals would be speckled in the first place,

and “monochrome animals surely would not produce multicolored young.”11 Apart

from Laban’s inner motivations, however, the division of the flocks appears to be

textually understandable as well. The flock will go to the owner with whom it visu-

ally, semantically, and phonetically corresponds; like will match up with like.12

It is this simplicity that lends drama to Jacob’s trick, for, as we all know, with

a trickster what you see is not what you get. Although it is unclear why Laban removes the speckled and dark-colored flocks into the hands of his sons (it could

be that Laban is suspicious of Jacob and therefore desires to sequester the animals,

or perhaps Laban is trying to prevent the flock from mating with his monochrome

animals by removing them), the removal of these animals sets the stage for Jacob’s

magical ruse. Jacob takes fresh stakes of white poplar (לבנה), almond, and plane trees, and peels white peelings (פצלות לבנות) off them to expose the white of the shoots. He then sticks the stakes into the drinking vessels of Laban’s flocks because

he believes that when the flocks come to drink, they will also mate. The goats will

look at the spotted shoots of the trees while they drink and mate, and, hence, will

produce spotted offspring (30:37-39). As for the sheep, Jacob simply has them

face the streaked or dark-colored animals (v. 39). Reflected is the belief that the

animals will reproduce according to what they see.

Now the amazing results of this ruse follow. The flocks that mate are Laban’s,

in terms of both ownership and appearance; the flocks produced, however, are

Jacob’s, again in terms of both ownership and appearance. Another wordplay that

highlights this ruse concerns the term חום, which sounds similar to the verb יחם (vv. 38 and 39). Likewise, the semantic and phonetic connections among חום (“dark-colored,” “sun-burned”), חמם (“to become warm or hot”) and יחם (“to be in heat, conceive”) are quite evident. When Laban’s white flocks come to drink,

they are not only conceiving (יחם) but, semantically and phonetically speaking,

670 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

11 Ibid. Sarna writes, “In the Near East, sheep are generally white and goats are dark brown

or black. A minority of sheep may have dark patches, and goats white markings. It is these uncom-

mon types to be born in the future that Jacob demands as wages for his unpaid service. Laban readily

agrees, believing that he is getting a bargain on account of their rarity” (Genesis, 212). 12 As noted above, my emphasis is on a literary analysis of the tale, not on the story’s his-

toricity or scientific logicality. If one applies too literal a reading to this pericope, some ambiguities

do emerge. One can argue, for example, since it is never explicitly stated that all the animals Laban

receives are “white,” that Laban might have gotten dark goats or spotted sheep. But this is an overly

literal reading of the story. Rather, as I have argued, what is important are the multiple instances of

punning on “white,” “dark,” “spotted,” and “streaked” in a tale that centrally concerns an interfamily

battle between someone named Laban, or “the white one,” with someone named Jacob, a name that

sounds similar to the words for “streaked” or “speckled” in Hebrew. It is evident that “Laban,” or

“white,” is placed in contradistinction to “Jacob,” or “streaked,” “speckled,” or “dark (not-white).”

As I will argue later in this article, the key to the narrative centers on this very contradistinction of

the characters as exemplified in the contradistinction of the colors of the flocks.

are blackened or “made” not white (חום). In other words, a deliberate correspon- dence is set up between יחם and חום by the choice of this verb. Jacob uses Laban’s lābān flocks and the lābān shavings of the twigs to produce a flock that is not lābān and not Laban’s, but nāqōd and Jacob’s. The flock is transformed from white נקד) to speckled (לבן) from white ,(חום) to black (לבן) and עקד), and from Laban’s The message conveyed with these puns is that Jacob is not .(יעקב) to Jacob’s (לבן) stealing Laban’s flocks but that Laban’s flocks are being transformed into Jacob’s.

III. Correspondences, Relationship, and National Identity

The significance of these formal elements becomes evident when we further

examine the relationship between the form and the content. As I have stated above,

regarding both the form (wordplays) and the plot of Genesis 30, Jacob is neither

stealing Laban’s flocks nor taking what is rightfully his (Jacob’s), but is using what

is Laban’s to produce what is his (Jacob’s). This transformation—the use of one

thing to make another—reflects the uncertainty that exists between that which

belongs to Jacob and that which belongs to Laban. These wordplays, with their

shifting meanings, correspondences, and transformations, convey the ambiguous

relationship between Laban and Jacob. This is especially true in this particular case

because Jacob is Laban’s nephew, son-in-law, and employee. In this complex web

of relationships, not only is the identity of the flocks in flux, so to speak, but it is

unclear whether Jacob’s wives and children really belong to him or to Laban.13

Robert A. Oden writes about the tension implicit in the avuncular relationship.

Indeed, anthropologists such as Robin Fox have noted the importance and partic-

ularity of both the avuncular relationship and cross-cousin marriages in a variety

of cultures.14 Oden states that cross-cousin marriage is the “logical alliance if one

wished to avoid the extremes of too much endogamy on the one hand and too much

exogamy on the other hand.” Hence, the avuncular relationship is the “compre-

hensive ‘atom’ of kinship” because it contains a “relationship of consanguinity,

affinity and descent.” Thus, it is only when Jacob marries his mother’s brother’s

daughters that “a complete kinship system is described, and thus Israel properly

speaking is born.”15

The comprehensive and vital nature of the avuncular relationship, however,

makes it especially problematic with reference to Israel. The theological notion of

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 671

13 Genesis 31:43 seems to imply that Laban thinks that Jacob’s children and wives are his and

not Jacob’s. 14 Robert A. Oden, “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriar-

chal Narratives,” JBL 102 (1984) 189-205; Robin Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 50; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1967).

15 Oden, “Jacob as Father,” 199, 202.

Israel walks a fine line between endogamy and exogamy, universality and partic-

ularity. Israel is a kinship group that is descended from and related to other groups

of people, yet at the same time it is a group separated by God whose very existence

depends on its contradistinction from other peoples. It is both like other nations

and also separated and unique. It is both part of humanity and also marked off

from humanity as distinct or elected. Therefore, on the one hand, the avuncular

relationship is necessary to complete the kinship system and, consequently, is indis-

pensable to Israel’s becoming Israel. On the other hand, because of the complicated

nature of such a bond and because of the numerous ties involved in such a rela-

tionship, the lines between uncle and nephew and their respective families cannot

be cleanly distinguished. In this manner, the relationship and ties between Laban

and Jacob, especially if we view these figures as eponymous ancestors, endanger

the realization, the coming-into-being, of Israel itself. The question is: Are they

different peoples, families, and groups (the Israelites and the Arameans), or are

they the same, since they are related by blood and by marriage?

Therefore, the issue of the demarcation of the animal flocks in Gen 30:25-43

undergirds the problem of the ambiguous nature of Jacob and Laban’s familial

“flocks.” While the terms “speckled” and “dark” are set up as opposites of the

word “white,” the “creation” of one from the other connotes the existence of certain

relationships between the two objects. Just as Jacob uses Laban’s flocks to produce

his own flock, it can be seen that Jacob “uses” his wives, Laban’s children, to pro-

duce his (Jacob’s) own family ; note that the animals that belong to Jacob have

white streaks and spots—in other words, they contain little bits of Laban. This

raises the question, To whom do Jacob’s wives and family really belong? As Susan

Niditch asks, “Are the women his wives or still Laban’s children?”16 As I have

stated above, a division between Jacob and Laban’s “flocks” is absolutely neces-

sary for the existence and identity of the Israelite people.

This underlying question of kinship and identity thus elucidates the reason

for the particular placement (and inclusion) of Gen 30:25-43 within the larger

Jacob narrative. Immediately preceding the story of the flocks is a narrative that

also concerns the “birth” of Israel: the story about the birthing contest between

Leah and Rachel, the sister-wives of Jacob, and the births of Jacob’s sons, who

will later constitute the tribes of Israel (30:1-25). Just as the birth of Isaac endan-

gered Ishmael’s status, so the births of Jacob’s sons make crucial a clarification of

their status. In both cases the births raise a question concerning identity: Who and

what will constitute the nation of Israel? To answer this question, an elucidation

of the position of Jacob’s family in relation to Laban’s family—a demarcation

within the family group—is necessary. It is at this point, when such identity issues

672 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

16 Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 109.

are raised by the births of Jacob’s sons, that one encounters the tale of Jacob and

the speckled flock. The separation of the flock in 30:25-42, therefore, serves as an

important symbol for the separation and demarcation of Jacob (Israel) as a separate

entity from Laban (Aram)—a demarcation that, we will see, must happen in order

for Jacob to get on his way to the land promised to his forebears and thus truly to

become the nation of Israel.

Now we can understand why this story of Jacob and the speckled flocks

begins with Jacob’s request to leave so that he can go back to his own land. The

births of his sons necessitate that Jacob’s period of exile come to an end as soon

as possible. Fishbane writes as follows: “As soon as Rachel gives birth, Jacob plans

his return home. The continuity of the line of Abraham and Isaac is therewith

assured through Jacob’s favorite wife; and a reversal in spatial and interpersonal

action now follows.”17 Genesis 30:25-43 follows Fishbane’s rubric of the three

primary issues in the Jacob cycle—birth, blessing, and land. It is only after the

births of Jacob’s sons that Jacob is blessed via his trick. These actions all set the

stage for Jacob’s desperate return to his patrimonial land.18

IV. Divine Demarcation and Election

In Gen 31:6-9 Jacob informs the reader that it was God who actually “altered”

these flocks; Jacob states that God was the one who took what was Laban’s and

changed it into what was Jacob’s. Speaking to his wives, Jacob even declares, “God

has taken away your father’s livestock and given it to me” (v. 9).19 This acknowl-

edgment draws attention to earlier contrasting statements of relational blessedness.

Previously, Laban stated, rather surprisingly, that he has learned through divination

that it is on account of Jacob that he has been blessed by God (30:27). Von Rad

writes that “this is one of the strangest confessions of Yahweh and his blessing in

the Old Testament.”20 This idea is seconded and repeated by Jacob in 30:30: “For

the little you [Laban] had before I [Jacob] came has grown to much, since the LORD has blessed you wherever I turned.” The idea that a person is blessed because of a

connection to one of the ancestors is not a new theme. What is important, however,

is that this concept is asserted twice in this story through these beginning state-

ments. Both Jacob and Laban state that they understand that Laban is being blessed

because he, in some way, is connected to Jacob. In other words, at the beginning

of this story, both characters note that God is blessing both of them together or

one via the other and that therefore, in divine eyes, at least initially, Jacob and

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 673

17 Fishbane, Text and Texture, 58. 18 Ibid., 60. 19 All quotations from the Bible are from the NJPSV translation. 20 Von Rad, Genesis, 300.

Laban are correlated somehow. In other words, even in the eyes of God an ambigu-

ous line exists between Jacob and Laban, and their respective families.

I have already observed how this story phonetically and contextually concerns

the transformation of Laban’s flock into Jacob’s and how this transformation cen-

ters not only on animal property but also on human “property.” What is so powerful

is the role of God in this transformation. Although in the beginning of the story

God blessed Jacob and Laban together, Gen 30:25-43 is about God making a dis-

tinction between Laban and Jacob, blessing Jacob over against and at the expense

of Laban. It appears that God plays a crucial role here. At the point when the iden-

tity of Israel is threatened with murkiness and ambiguity, God steps in to draw the

lines firmly around the chosen group. God does so by “contrasting” and distin-

guishing Jacob and his family from another group: Laban or white (לבן) is con- trasted and distinguished from that which is Jacob, עקד ,נקד, or dark (חום). Not only will God make such a distinction; the proof that this is already being done is

shown by the fact that Jacob is now being blessed to the detriment of Laban. Even

Laban’s sons recognize this shift: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and

from that which was our father’s he has built up all this wealth” (Gen 31:1). As

Jacob used the לבנה and the white peelings to turn what is Laban’s into his, the reader is told initially in chap. 30 and more conclusively in 31:10-12 that it was

really God who made those things that were לבן and Laban’s into those that are -and Jacob’s. The demarcation of Jacob’s family is shown in God’s demar ,עקד ,נקד cation and transformation of the flocks in Gen 30:25-43.

V. The Role of the Unseen God

God’s invisible yet significant role in this tale might reflect another theme—

the theme of vision or sight—that seems to echo throughout the ancestral narra-

tives. Niditch has rightly noted the parallels among the trickery tales of the

speckled flock, the wife switching (Genesis 29), and the stealing of the birthright

(Genesis 27): “The pattern of trickery/trickster-duped/reverse-trickery and plays

on older-younger rivalry are ways in which the author ties together the Jacob nar-

rative into a beautifully balanced whole.”21 The theme of seeing ties the whole trickery and reverse-trickery business together. In chap. 29 the trick played on

Jacob is that he thought he was working seven years for Rachel, the girl whom

Jacob saw (ראה [v. 10]) as beautiful, and not Leah, whose eyes were weak (רכות [v. 17]). On the night of the wedding, Jacob was probably too drunk or too blinded

by darkness to see the person with whom he was cohabiting until the following morning. Similarly, in chap. 27, Isaac, who cannot see, is duped into blessing Jacob, the younger son, over Esau. The triumphant son is not the one who appears as the natural inheritor and superior.

674 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

21 Niditch, Underdogs, 107.

I tentatively suggest that the motif of “trickery-involving-sight” is subtly at

play in the flock tale as well. As I argued earlier, the initial agreement between

Laban and Jacob consisted of simple semantic, phonetic, and visual correspon-

dences. The animal’s appearance, its visible color, testified to its ownership. Hence,

what one saw is what one got. This idea of seeing is reflected also in the nature of

Jacob’s trick—what the animals were looking at while drinking and mating was

reflected onto the visage of their offspring. Again, what one saw was what one

got/begot. This simple correspondence, however, is turned upside down by the fact

that the vision of the animals is used to transform, to reverse, these initial natural

correspondences of Laban and לבן (“white”), and Jacob and עקד/נקד (“streaked and striped”). Unfortunately for Laban, what one saw was not what one got. See-

ing, therefore, is not believing, and in the context of the Jacob cycle, where like is suppose to match up with like, Jacob’s transformation of the flock shows that

correspondences and expectations are not direct but complicated and capable of

metamorphosis—there is always more at work than what is directly seen.22 The

repetition and use of homonyms highlight this theme; the phonetic, semantic, and

visual correspondences are only superficially unequivocal.

It is through this second theme of vision or sight that we can truly understand

the role of the divine in this tale. God, who is unseen, is said to have seen the unfair treatment of Jacob by Laban and is said to be the true actor behind the ruse

(31:10-13).23 As is evident in Exod 3:7, this is a deity who sees the oppression of

the divinely chosen one. The actor whom the reader sees on the scene is not God, however, but Jacob. The message to the reader is, again, what one sees is not what

is really happening; there is more at work than meets the eye.

The question then is, Who is the entity truly responsible for this trick? Is it

the unseen God or the seen human being? The trick was that the flocks would pro-

duce according to what they saw; however, behind this trick was an unseen magic that somehow transformed the prenatal flock according to the visage of the parents.

Therefore, on the one hand, Jacob is the one who goes through the necessary pro-

cedures and, thus, is the author of this ruse; on the other hand, in chap. 31, Jacob

states that it is God who is ultimately responsible for Jacob’s increasing wealth.

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 675

22 Although the idea of seeing appears to be a theme of the entire ancestral narrative, as people of limited vision interact with an all-seeing God (Genesis 16; 21:18; 22:13), it must be conceded

that the word “to see” does not occur in the flock story. Hence, as I have tried to argue, this theme

is present only subtly in this narrative. Likewise, though words for sight are not explicitly used in

the flock story, the theme of vision is an important leitmotif of the entire Jacob cycle, of which the

flock tale is a part. 23 Jacob, being a trickster, could of course be lying about the fact that, in his dream, God

claimed responsibility for the increase in Jacob’s wealth and transformation of the flock. Indeed, it

is difficult to know how much to believe Jacob’s statements, since he is such a dubious trickster.

What is important, however, is not the ethical characterization of the characters but the effect of

this claim, whether dubious or not, on the reading of this tale.

The question again is, Who or what is really responsible for the success of the

trick? The answer seems to be ambivalent. Although seeing is contrasted to not- seeing (the unseen God who sees all using unseen magic versus the seen character Jacob using a trick involving sight), the two categories are interrelated, for the

seen has to work with the unseen to make the ruse successful.

Here again the notion of contradistinction/interrelatedness reflected in the

theme of seeing/not seeing is tied to questions of national identity: What is the role

of humans and what is the role of God in Israel’s election? Who, in other words,

is truly responsible for the demarcation of the animal and the human “flocks” and,

hence, the identity of Israel? Fishbane correctly notes these tensions when he writes

about the “ambilateral givenness and hiddenness of divine grace”:

The final irony, not lost on the narrator, albeit handled with circumspect silence, is

that all the interpersonal machinations of the protagonists and antagonists are but the

actualization of a predetermined fate, of a forecasted divine determination . . . those

whom God has chosen succeed. But in the thickness of historical time, and because

of limited divine interventions, realization of the divine promises appears to rest with

human action.24

What one sees are human actions as work: Jacob, the trickster, is the one who

works to get the birthright and blessing and follows the necessary procedures to

turn Laban’s flock into his. Hence, initially it appears that Jacob is the primary

actor who takes for himself the blessings promised to his forebears. What is truly

at work, however, is something unseen, for in the moments when the ancestors

and their progeny are threatened, the unseen God who has ordained the victory of

the chosen ones steps in and intervenes to ensure their success (chaps. 12; 20; 26;

31). God is the power, the force, behind Jacob’s trick (chap. 31). While Jacob

works via his limited vision for his own good, behind him at work is an all-seeing

God who has already predetermined Jacob’s success.25

Fishbane is correct to point out that what is in contention is the idea of pre-

determination and volition. Somehow in the formation and identity of Israel, both

of these elements are present and needed. The existence of Israel is both chosen

by God and thus assured of success and yet also dependent on the visible actions

and choices of human beings. Both humanity and God played and continue to play

a part in the formation and identity of Israel. It was Jacob who duped Laban, and

Jacob who finally fled after he became wealthy in Genesis 31. It was God, how-

ever, who made Jacob’s trick successful and God who appeared in a dream to

Laban after Jacob fled to command Laban to leave Jacob alone. Hence, the visible

and the invisible, the limited and the all-knowing, and the human and the divine

676 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 72, 2010

24 Fishbane, Text and Texture, 62. 25 For a recent work on election, especially as it relates to the Jacob cycle, see Joel S. Kaminsky,

Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007).

are contrasted. Yet they are also coworkers in ensuring a fate that is both predeter-

mined and also volitionally made.

VI. Conclusion

The theme that what you see is not what you get subtly undergirds the manner in which the narrative espouses both predetermination and volition, as well as the

way in which God chooses. Even God is a type of trickster who favors the under-

dogs.26 In other words, God does not pick the readily apparent, the character who

appears to be the likely hero. As is evident in the choice of Jacob, Saul, and David, the characters who are unseen and unlikely are the ones chosen by God. Reflected

in God’s choices, again, is that what you see is not what you will get. The older, stronger, and more apparent hero is not the one who will be selected by God and,

ultimately, is not the victor. In other words, the Israelite God is not one who abides

by natural or easy correspondences. God chooses the unlikely heroes precisely

because their weaknesses so emphatically contrast and emphasize the strength of

the deity. Hence, only with such unlikely heroes is it possible for both humanity

and God to work together without lessening God’s power.27 It is no surprise, then,

that underdogs are often tricksters, for tricksters change and fulfill their destinies

not through strength but through subversion. Only with tricksters can both God

and humanity be given a role in such grand theological narratives as those found

in the Bible without the sacrifice of either volition or predestination.

Therefore, there is always more at work than what can be directly seen. The

repetition and use of wordplays in Gen 30:25-43 highlight the fact that the pho-

netic, semantic, and visual correspondences are related in complex ways when one

looks deeper into this simple tale of Jacob and the speckled flock. What one sees,

phonetically speaking, is not what one gets, semantically speaking. In this story,

then, form and content work together to elucidate and to resolve, at least temporar-

ily, the deeper tensions implicit in Israel’s national identity. After all, at the end of

this story Jacob and his clan are on their way back to the land promised to Abraham,

their forefather, to continue on in their transformation into Israel, the people chosen

by God.

JACOB’S “FLOCKS” IN GENESIS 30:25-43 677

26 For a detailed explanation of this theme, see Niditch, Underdogs. 27 I address only superficially here the topic of underdogs. Reflected in this motif are important

concepts of worldview and self-perception that require further research.

Copyright of Catholic Biblical Quarterly is the property of Catholic Biblical Association of America and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.