From: dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM (Dmitri Leschiner)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Master and Margaret and other books
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:48:18 GMT
Reply-To: "soc.culture.soviet via ListServ" <SCS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>

> Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 08:30:20 GMT
> From: "Yury M. Mukharsky" <muh@PHYSICS.BERKELEY.EDU>
>
> >
> >... it was his brother Isav who sold him his
> >descendant's rights for one bowl of cheap soup, being immediately justly
> >punished for his lust and greed. As it might so be dangerous to also you.
>
> Are you serious? Do you really think that Jacob's behaviour in this
> case is an example for any decent man? BTW, have you been really hungry
> in your life.

Not really, I must admit.

>               This may be useful experience for you.

No doubt. BTW, were you?

>                                                      Anyway, fooling
> greedy or maybe reckless is not my ideal of decent person.
>

OK, now we are starting to study "B" letter...

So, to begin with... First, I'm not sure (no actual indication of it there)
that Esau was _really_ hungry. Though he did say "I'm at the point to die",
most probably he was idiomatic, or pretending to... Note that few lines below,
the same text tells of _real_ hunger, and in quite a different terms: "There
was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of
Abraham. Ans Isaac went unto Abimelech king..." (Gen. 26:1). Look, when it
comes to real famine, things are changing...

Now, we have two variants: either he was dying starving, or he was not.
Let's examine his conduct in each case. (Wait, I'll examine Jacob's conduct
too; just to start with Esau, for clarity.) In the second case, he gave up
birthright, i.e. God's gift, the _most important thing_ he possibly could
have in his life, basically, his destiny in that life, purpose of it - for
his greed to food. Is it thing that should be encouraged, what do you think?
Since we are talking of _Christian_ books (remember start of thread yet?),
let me remind you the first temptation of _Christ_ in desert by Satan.

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the
devil. And when He was fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterward
an hungred. And when the temper came to him, he said, If Thou be the Son of
God, command these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is
written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God. <Deut. 8:3>" (Matth. 4:1-4).

See the parallel? The pattern (it's called "prototype" in biblical theology)?
And see the difference? For futher discussion on topic of Christ's temptations,
see antisemite Dostoevsky's "Legend of Creat Inquisitor", in "Brothers
Karamazov". Quite a lot of worthy observations there.

Now, let's take the first case: Esau _was_ dying of starvation. Now, what to
say of his deed? He is no longer guilty of greed; instead, he is guilty in a
much worse sin: in _disbeleiving God_. He did not believe that God, having
given him the birthright of elder son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, whom God
the LORD said unto: "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and
from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make
of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and
thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse
him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
(Gen. 12:1-3) - so, he did not believe, that God, having made such a promise
to Abraham, will keep His word through him, Esau, as it should have been done
by his birthright. He disregarded the very God-defined destiny of his life -
the same thing as I've already said - not out of greed, but of disbelief.
He believed himself instead. Now, what's better, first or second? It matters?
Is it recklessness? I'd say, it's even more than that.

The very same passage of Deuteronomy, which Christ in the desert responded by,
speaks of the same thing:

"And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee forty
years in the wilderness, to humble thee, to prove thee, to know what in thy
heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no. And He humbled
thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou
knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know
that man doth not live by bread only, but but every <word> that proceedeth
out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deut. 8:2-3).

Now, let's go to Jacob behaviour. What was the result of his deed? He has
stole Esau's blessing, which so has been taken away from him, who did not
deserved him, and was given to Jacob, who did deserve, since he justified
it, and fulfilled it, and did bore sons, whom the great nation has descended
from, the nation in which all families of the earth have been blessed, as
God the LORD Himself have promised to his grandfather, and as his father
Isaac said to him in his blessing: "cursed every one that curseth thee,
and blessed he that blesseth thee" (Gen. 28:29). And that was accomplished
by him, and by his family's merit, as also Paul the Apostle confirms and
tells: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
He <God> aslo Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death
he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
to bondage. For verily He took not on angels, but he took on the seed of
Abraham." (Hebrews 2:14-16).

Now; what was _the subjective_ side of Jacob's behaviour? (The question that
seems is interesting to you the most.) The Scripture has actually no indication
of his personal wishes concerning that. So, it _might_ and _might not_ have
been done by him with selfish wishes in mind. What Scripture says instead,
that is he did it obeying his mother, Rebecca, direct saying. "Now therefore,
my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee." (Gen. 27:8).

What was the subjective side of _her_ behaviour? Again, no indication; it
_might_ and _might not_ have been done with selfish wishes in mind. In fact,
as a rule, when Scripture speaks of some _wrong_ deed, it is usually indicated
explicitly. So, if nothing is said, we, as a rule, may assume a good state of
souls of those who did it. What might have been the good cause for deception
of dying father and coward hurting of brother's life? Obviously, only direct
God's revelation to their heart. Could Rebecca and Jacob get such an
 revelation?Were they able to accept it relevation? For usual people, answer for
 both
question might very well be _no_, though it is surprising that often it is
anyway actually _yes_. For them, answer was definitely _yes_ - as it is shown
in many other places of the same book. Did the reason for such a God's command
exist? Of course yes, as we saw it above. Does Scripture say anything of that
revelation indeed being given? No. Does Scripture _always_ tells _explicitly_
when people are getting God's revelation? As a rule, no. The reason for that
is that God's revelation to human heart might take very different froms - from
very explicit to tiniest and hardly noticed. Scripture most often refers to
most expilict ones explicitly. Anyway, what's the conclusion? Did such a reve-
lation exist? Probably, yes. But, probably.

Now, what if it _did not_ exist? Still, Esau has voluntary gave up his
birhtright, and, apparently, his blessing was contingent upon that. Worth
noting that Esau himself didn't think so... Probably, he even didn't take
his sale of birthright seriously. Indeed, whether bowl of cheap soup, which
most often was abundant in his father's home (Isaac became finally a rich
man), was worthy his precious birthright, with so much property connected
with it? Of course, it was only a very stupid joke. Is it not clear?

Still, when Rebecca heard that Isaac is going to bless Esav (he apparently
did not believe that his beloved son might have sell his birhtright for
cup of soup - or even did not heard of it?), she felt that he did not
deserve father's blessing, but Jacob deserves it instead. Note, that feeling
_might_ and _might not_ be selfish; also, it _does not_ exclude God revelation
in _any_ (from strong to invisible) form. She told Jacob. Was he obliged to
obey his mother? Yes and no. The same what was said of Rebecca, is applicable
to him. Now, if we want to know with more certainty, what they were thinking
and feeling, we may turn to (oral) Tradition - it might have preserved some
details of their behaviour (and, most probably, did).

Now, finally, is their behaviour justified? It really depends of what was in
their hearts then. It applies to the first story (of birthright sale), as
well as to the second (of blessing). Let's even suppose, it _was not_ justified.
So what? It does not contradict Jacob being a "respected person", as you have
put it, and a Saint. History knows many Saints who did much worse things
in their lives, then repent and became Saints. If this thing was done by them
unjustly, did they repent afterwards? Sure. Was this done in public? Of course
not. Why it should be? Publicity doesn't count, anyway. Still, most probably,
they did not have anything to repent in here.

Finally, what about "an example for any decent man"? In which sense, you
think, life of Saint is an example for any decent man? St.Moses the Black
was serial murderer and robber. Is it an example? No. He was an obedient
askete and monastic coworker. Is it an example? Depends of who you are -
if you have wife and family, probably it is not. Moses (another one:) was
prophet of God and leader of Israeli people - is it an example? If you'll
try to follow it, you'll most probably get Lenin instead, or something even
worse. The answer is: _they are not you_. Their life was different, their
destiny was different, their spiritual strenghth was different, their
closeness to God was different.

What was _not_ different, is the world, where we live, God, Who give us this
life, Satan, who's trying to bring us to death, and the way how we should
try to avoid this fate. So, if you want to learn form Saints, don't try to
mimic their deeds, but try to understand, what finally made them Saints.
And it's not easy neither to understand, nor to accomplish. In any case,
Satan is infinitely smarter than you, don't try to suck or to fool him.

Now, all that comments are actually from top of my head. If you want to
_really_ know something of that case, one have to turn and find out what
Church Tradition, Church Fathers, prayers, liturgical texts, an so on, tell
us about it. That's where study of "C" letter begins... And _then_, we might
start talking of Christian books...

Hope that helps.

Dmitry
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet