Lecture Eight - Exodus: From Egypt to Sinai

The lectures are too much of a history class and not as much of an English class.  I still want to understand the stories as lessons for our time rather than worrying too much about the historicity of the stories.

We do learn several things that are of passing interest to me.  First of all is the depiction of God as a storm god similar to the gods of the Canaanites.  At the Red (Reed) Sea for example, God causes a storm that allows the Hebrews to escape and then kills the pursuing Egyptians.  I am fascinated by the God of the Old Testament.  He is certainly inconsistent, jealous, vengeful, murderous, etc.  Hardly the loving forgiving god of Jesus.

This is obvious in the treatment of Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  The Egyptian magicians are no match for God's power and God sends 10 plagues on the Egyptian people.  Each time, Pharaoh is prepared to let the Hebrews go.  But "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" and another plague is sent until the final plague which is the killing of the first born of all the Egyptians.

The professor does not discuss the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.  Instead, she talks about how the Passover was likely some spring ritual that the Hebrew storyteller's found a way to explain.  And she also talks about how in Exodus 4, well before the first plague is sent, God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that the Hebrews are His first born and that by enslaving them and by not letting them go, Egypt will suffer retribution.  In other words, God knew in advance how the story would play itself out, that Pharaoh would not let the Hebrews go and that the killing of the first born Egyptians was inevitable.

But does God actually harden Pharaoh's heart?  Would God actually make somebody commit an evil act to serve as a means to display His power?  I can't read the text any other way.  However, there are lots of apologists out there who will attempt to find a rational account of this episode.  e.g. God really doesn't harden Pharaoh's heart.  He just gives him the opportunity to harden his own heart.  In fact there are a couple of verses where it does say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.  But if the text does distinguish between Pharaoh hardening his own heart and God hardening Pharaoh's heart, then the text appears clear.  God does harden Pharaoh's heart.  And if he can harden a heart, he can just as easily soften one.  If and when he chooses.  Leaving us with the "God works in mysterious ways" line.

We are also introduced to the third covenant that God makes in the Old Testament after the ones he made with Noah and then Abraham.  Unlike the first two, however, which were totally one sided ie the Hebrews didn't have to do much to gain God's favour, this time God expects something in return for his helpfulness.  The Hebrews are expected to obey and follow God's commandments to be rewarded; if not they will be punished.  God comes across here as a powerful king and the people are his vassals.  He is the ruler and his judgement stands.

The professor also refers to the exodus as a form of salvation but not the salvation as we know it.  There is no real concept of a soul that will live for ever.  The salvation is for a people who will survive if they follow God or perish if they do not.

And Moses and God come across as parental figures quarreling over what they should do about these wayward children.  Sometimes God wants to destroy them and Moses intervenes telling God that He wouldn't look so good if he took the people out of Egypt only to kill them Himself.  To be honest, I find the people annoying.  If you believe the life they have had in Egypt and if you believe that God has actually helped them escape, then the people come across as ungrateful whiners constantly asking to be returned to Egypt as life in the desert is so tough.  (Rather than send them back, God keeps them in the desert for 40 years until all the complaining adults who had left Egypt have died.  They would never see the Promised Land.

The Golden Calf episode is the highlight of these complaints and quarrels.  While Moses is with God, the people get scared and fear that without Moses and God, the people are in trouble.  They ask Aaron, the brother of Moses and the second in command, to create an idol for them to worship.  Aaron asks for all their gold and creates a calf.  The people are ecstatic and Aaron promises a feast for the next day.  Moses returns and is enraged.  He asks Aaron for an explanation and Aaron basically lies, telling Moses that the people made him do it.  The people are then asked to decide which side they are on - calf or Moses.  The people who are not with Moses are wiped out.  Aaron of course sides with Moses and he and his descendants are made high priests.

Again the apologists who excuse Aaron by suggesting that every thing he did was a delay tactic.  He asked for all their gold, even the gold from their wives and children, expecting that they wouldn't give up everything. Delay tactic one.  Delay tactic two was promising a feast for the next day.  Why not now?  Because Aaron was hoping that Moses would return in time.  I suppose those are great excuses, but wouldn't you think the head guy would have tried to explain that the worship of the idol was wrong and that the people needed to have faith in their leader and their God.  Wouldn't it have been better to resist the mob or at the very least warn them that he was going against his own beliefs and that he wouldn't be responsible for the consequences.  Neither.  He was either a coward or was suffering his own conflict in faith.  In another episode two of Aaron's sons are killed because they don't follow the proper ritual in some ceremony.  Yet Aaron gets a free pass here for something far more egregious.

One explanation for this episode, not in the lectures, is that monotheism may not have been so widespread while the people were wandering in the desert.  By killing all the people who still worshiped idols we are seeing the beginnings of monotheism as the dominant belief system.  I like that explanation - for the killings anyway.  I still don't like Aaron getting off so easily. 

Lecture Seven - Israel in Egypt

I can definitely see what I am looking for when reading/studying the Bible.  I am not particularly interested in the history of the Hebrews or the development of their religion.  I am way more interested in the stories and how we can learn from them or relate to them in today's world.

In this lecture we get a lot of history, but a lot of the stories were left out.

In the previous lecture there was mention of how Jacob was tricked by his uncle into marrying Leah ahead of Rachel who he gets to marry after promising Laban another seven years of service.  The irony of course is that Jacob tricked his father and brother only to be tricked by his uncle into marrying someone he didn't love. What kind of household was that like.

Leah gives birth to six sons and Rachel remains barren.  Jacob fathers four more sons by both Leah's and Rachel's handmaids (the Bible isn't the best place to argue the sanctity of marriage), but Rachel remains barren.  A daughter, Dinah, is born to Leah.  (I love the story of Dinah as well as the story of Judah and Tamar but neither is mentioned in the lecture.)  Finally the favoured Rachel gives birth to Joseph and then dies giving birth to Benjamin, the 12th son.  After wrestling with who we assume is God, Jacob's name is changed to Israel, and the 12 sons become literally and figuratively the 12 tribes of Israel.

This wrestling with God, which I like to think is Jacob wrestling with his conscience, occurs after he has taken his family and left his unscrupulous uncle to head back to the Promised Land.  On the way, he meets his brother Esau.  Jacob (Israel) is so frightened to meet with the brother that he cheated that he sets aside a huge gift of cattle and other goods to give to Esau as a peace offering (bribe?).  In today's lecture, the professor only refers to Jacob's changed character when he gives the gift to Esau as if he was doing Esau the greatest of favours, but what I found more interesting about the whole story was Esau's willingness to forgive Jacob.  Esau said that Jacob did not have to give him anything.  This is a total change from the man who was ready to kill his brother when they were last together.  No mention is given to explain Esau's change.  Like Ismael, the neglected brothers don't seem to get much respect from the storytellers nor from, what I can gather, modern readers.

In the lecture, we are told about Joseph being sold by his brothers and how he ended up in Egypt but little is told of his story either.  Joseph forgives his brothers and reunites that family.  But what is interesting here is that Joseph forgives but when does so he admits that all turned out for the better.  If the brothers hadn't sold Joseph, he wouldn't have ended up in Egypt becoming the rich and powerful person he became and thus able to save his family from the famine and possible death.  I wonder how forgiving he might have been if he had remained in jail all this time and it was the brothers who rescued him.   I suppose all of this is done in the seminars which is the negative of learning from free online courses.

What we do get is some of the historical evidence about the Hebrews in Egypt and the approximate dating for their arrival and the exodus, but even that is not 100% certain.  For example, there is one tablet that refers to a Semitic group being in control of Egypt (perhaps like Joseph being the pharaoh's advisor), but little else.

She talked a lot about the different names given to God in the Patriarchal stories compared to the ones given to Him in the stories involving Moses and the significance of names.  In Genesis, El is used a lot e.g. Elohim which has its root in many of the Canaanite gods.  This has been used as proof that the Hebrews (Israelites) originally worshiped Canaanite gods and through time allowed the one god Yahweh to gain dominance.  In other words she is presenting evidence that argues against the theory posed in one of the earlier lectures that monotheism was not an evolutionary change from previous religions but a completely radical approach.   As interesting as that may be, I just don't care all that much.

She also started to outline the story of Moses (a root of the name Ramses) and hinted that more would follow.  I hope so.  She was more interested in the story of the burning bush and Moses trying to learn the name of God (I am who I am) and how this naming was an important part of the story.  I found the unwillingness of Moses to do the bidding of God more fascinating.  Who or what calls our present leaders?  If Moses was reluctant, do we have any current leaders who are reluctant and why do they run for office.  I think the psychology of people who seek powerful positions is an interesting study. 

I am hoping that next week we get more about the Hebrews leaving Egypt.  I do want to know why God kept hardening the Pharaoh's heart leading to all those plagues.  I do want to know more about the Ten Commandments which I consider a pretty lame bunch of rules that are either outdated or obvious.  I really want to hear her take on the Golden Calf which is a brilliant story of a leader, in this case Aaron, dumping his bad judgement onto the people.  And I want to learn more about the wandering around in the desert and some of the other 600 or so commandments that God passed onto Moses some of which are cherry picked to prove a point about life today while others are conveniently ignored because they are no longer relevant.









   

Lecture Six - The Patriarchs (5)

Now we get to the even more fascinating part of the Jacob/Esau story.  Jacob has got the birthright and now he will steal the blessing.  But not without help.

Isaac is old, blind and dying and he wants to pass on the blessing to Esau before it is too late.  At this point, I am wondering how much Isaac knows about Rebecca's conversations with God and Esau's selling of the birthright.  It would appear that he is ignorant of all that has gone on.  He asks Esau to hunt up some game and make him a stew so he can give him the blessing.

Rebecca overhears this conversation and tells Jacob to disguise himself as Esau while she prepares the meal.  Isaac is somewhat suspicious both at how quickly "Esau" has returned and at the sound of "Esau's" voice, but Rebecca has been very clever.  Because Esau was a hairy person, Rebecca covers Jacob with animal fur and put him in Esau's clothes so he will have the right scent.  After Jacob receives the blessing, Esau returns and both he and Isaac are horrified that they have been deceived.



Which begs lots of questions.

What is the importance of the blessing?  His blessing was intended for Esau.  Why should it matter that Jacob received it?  Couldn't Isaac just say, I take that blessing back.  I am now giving it to the rightful person?

How are we supposed to judge Rebecca?  Jacob appears somewhat hesitant about deceiving his father.  Rebecca tells him that she will accept the curse (whatever the curse may be) for the resultant actions.   Obviously she realizes that she is doing wrong even though the outcome will be as God had intended.  I read an article about Rebecca's love for Jacob compared to Abraham's love for Isaac.  Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son for duty, while Rebecca was willing to sacrifice truth for her son.  The writer thinks that Abraham's actions are more acceptable than Rebecca's.  I am going to disagree.  Rebecca was wrong, but killing a child is about as low as you can get, whatever the motivation.

How do we judge Jacob?  His deception is bad enough, but he also lies.  When Isaac asks how he was able to return so quickly, Jacob says that God provided for him.  I realize the 10 Commandments haven't shown up yet, but isn't using the Lord's name in vain one of them.  

How should we judge the duped Isaac?  Esau is so angry at what has transpired that he has threatened to kill Jacob.  Rebecca tells Jacob to run to her brother.  But before leaving and despite the lies and deception Isaac blesses Jacob again.  Did Rebecca NOW tell Isaac of God's prophecy?

What of poor Esau?  Well I guess poor is the wrong word as he was foolish to give up his birthright in the first place.  What good is the blessing if there is nothing to bless.  But even after he realizes he has been tricked, he asks for a blessing and Isaac can offer him little more than you will be ruled by your brother.  Esau can do nothing but offend his parents by marrying a Canaanite woman, the daughter of Ishmael, and moving away.   (Esau does return and it is interesting how he reacts but that is for later.)

And what of God?  On the way to his uncle's, Jacob has a dream of a ladder into Heaven and hears God telling him that he will be blessed, that he will continue to be the patriarch of this great nation that He had promised Abraham and Isaac.  God is perfectly happy at the result of all the deception.  There is a lot to be bugged by that.

Jacob lies and deceives and is rewarded.  For sure, his life will not be an easy one.  He will be tricked and duped himself and father a bunch of misfits,connivers, murderers, and adulterers.  But he still has God's blessing.  We are left to wonder what might have happened if Isaac had blessed Esau first instead of sending him for the game.  God wanted Jacob or at least had prophesied that Jacob would be the ruler of Esau so does it matter how it was accomplished?  For example, we know that Jesus was to be betrayed and his death was to result in the saving of humankind.  So why does Judas get all the bad press for helping to accomplish that result while Jacob gets rewarded.  Yes, Jacob's future isn't all that easy, but his descendants continue to be blessed while people like Esau and Ishmael and their descendants receive nothing but scorn.

Maybe I am reading too much into this story because of course it is just a story, one used as I believe to justify the position of the Hebrews as descendants of Jacob rather than somebody else.   Still, one of the things that does bother me involves God's role in the blessing.  Not only does he accept that a liar and a deceiver should get the blessing (all part of the plan you know), God ignores Isaac's intentions,  Isaac - in his heart - wants to bless Esau.  The words that come out of his mouth bless Jacob.  What should God be listening to.  Is it good enough for me to say I love God with all my heart, when in fact my heart - and God should know this - believes no such thing.

Every time, I read these stories, I come away more confused than before.

Lecture Six - The Patriarchs (4)

 As mentioned earlier, Isaac is the least developed of the patriarchs.  After surviving death at the hands of his father, Isaac marries Rebecca.  Like her mother-n-law, she too is barren and it is several years later that she gives birth to twin boys, Esau (the first born) and Jacob.  But as always, there is a complication.  While pregnant with the twins, Rebecca feels them jostling and she asks the Lord what's going on.  And the Lord answers, telling her that she will be giving birth to two nations but the older will serve the younger.

Like other plot devices that are used by the storytellers, I quite enjoy this one.  Leaving aside the fact that God would answer a pretty routine question of a pregnant woman, why does he tell her this information.  What is the purpose of letting Rebecca know what the future holds.  It reminds me of the role the witches played in Macbeth when they told Macbeth that he would be king.  Instead of letting the prediction take its course, Macbeth goes about killing the king and anybody else that might get in the way of his lineage.  God's comment seems to play the same role as the witches.  Throw out a prediction and see how his little creations  deal with it.

The boys grow up and Esau becomes the hunter, the outdoors man and the favourite of his father.  Jacob hangs around the house and becomes the favourite of his mother.  One day, Esau comes home from hunting.  He is famished and asks Jacob for some stew.  Jacob, instead of just giving it to his brother like we would expect most brothers would do, asks for Esau's birthright.  Esau gives it to him saying what good is a birthright when I am dying?

Let me digress for a minute.

Did Rebecca tell Jacob that he would be ruling Esau as God had told her?  Had she told Esau?  Did anybody know?  In fact how do we know?  Who told the storytellers?  Who are the witnesses to these conversations?  Let's go back to the Abraham - Isaac sacrifice story.  How does anybody know what happened on that mountain.  Who told what and to whom?

Abraham:  God told me to kill my son but just as I was about to, an angel stopped me.
Abraham's friend::  He WHAT?  You WHAT?

Isaac:  Dad took me up the mountain and was just about to stick me a knife when some angel came along and stopped him.
Isaac's friend:  WTF?

These stories are trying to show a link between a specific person, the founder of a great nation and the favour shown by some god.  That group of people several generations later are trying to show why they are favoured and why they live as they do.  The stories want to connect the dots.  They want to show why Isaac was favoured and not Ishmael.  In fact there are several verses giving the generations of Ishmael and how they lived in hostility with their neighbours.  I am sure the Koran has an entirely different take on the generations of Ishmael.

Now we are finding out why Jacob's descendants are favoured rather than those of Esau.  Revisionist history through storytelling.

Back to the story.  If Jacob knew what God had told Rebecca then, like Macbeth, he is trying to make the prediction come true instead of allowing God's work to take its course, and that makes his actions even more repugnant.  If he didn't know then he is just being a sleazy opportunist.  Is this what God was hoping for when he told Rebecca that the younger would rule the older?

Did Esau know?  I am guessing he had to.  Why would he say he was dying just because he was hungry.  He must have known that his birthright was meaningless to him, that Jacob would be ruling over him regardless.  If not, then he is just a fool.  If you are that hungry, grab an apple. 

Now back to a previous question.  Who was a witness to this event? 

Isaac:  He sold me his birthright for a bowl of stew.
Esau:  Did not!
Isaac:  Did too!



Regardless of how one interprets the story, I do think the selling of the birthright is an important consideration.  Jacob may have been opportunistic and he is even more deceitful in the next part of the story but Esau would lose all respect by the ancient Hebrews because of his willingness to give up his birthright so easily.  Being the eldest did not just mean you would get the most of the inheritance, the most land and cattle; it also meant that you would get the most responsibility.  You would now be the leader of the family, of a tribe of people, and all the duties that came with that role.  By despising (term used in my version of the Bible) his birthright, Esau is showing little regard for his family. 

This story isn't finished.

Lecture Six - The Patriarchs (3)

The next story makes no sense to me at all.

After promising Abraham a great nation through his descendants and after helping an aged and barren Sarah to conceive, God decides to test Abraham, and in the worst possible way.  He tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  Why??  Why does God need to test us?  Can’t he already see how we will respond?  Abraham has tied Isaac up and just as he raises the knife, an angel of the Lord tells him not to harm Isaac as he knows now that Abraham “fears the Lord”.  He didn’t know before?

What kind of Sophie’s Choice is that anyway?   What kind of God would put a person in that kind of position?  Show your love for me by being prepared to kill your own kid.  Now that is bad enough but I am not giving Abraham a pass either.  What was he thinking?  Here is the guy who in a previous story bartered with God over the fate of Sodom to save a few innocent men, strangers to him, yet he doesn’t raise a single objection to the killing of his own, presumably innocent, son.  

In Hamlet, the ghost of Hamlet’s father tells Hamlet that he was killed by his own brother who has since stolen his throne and Hamlet’s inheritance.  Hamlet wants to avenge his father’s death, but he is unwilling to do so right away because he is uncertain if this ghost is actually his father and is actually telling the truth.   Isn’t that a more normal response?  What would happen to one of us, today, if we acted on the voice of God?  We would be locked up.  Considering that Eve (and all humankind) was punished for listening to the seductive lies of the snake, shouldn’t Abraham have been a smidgeon skeptical?  Wouldn’t a reasonable person, assume that this is not God asking him to commit a morally reprehensible act; and therefore, refuse to comply?  Wouldn’t a reasonable person think that if this were a test maybe passing it would be to refuse the command?  Aren’t heroic acts those that are used by people to stand up for justice rather be complicit in an act of injustice?

And finally, I would love to know how Isaac felt about this whole event.  How much did he know and understand?  Did he struggle?  How did he feel around his father in later years?  Isaac is the least developed of the patriarchs, the one we learn the least about.  He was probably too busy looking over his shoulder to do much of anything else.

I have researched this story and there are a lot of differing interpretations, but I see that as people trying to find some justification for an event so horrific that it is beyond comprehension.   Can anybody suggest some way that we can gain value from this story?

Lecture Six - The Patriarchs (2)

Abraham is also part of another fascinating story involving his nephew Lot.  Lot lives in the wicked city of Sodom and the people have displeased God to such a degree that he plans to completely destroy it and the other wicked cities of the plain. But Abraham intervenes.  He barters with God, asking if He would save the city if there were 50 good men.  God agrees.  Abraham then asks if God would save the city if there were 45, then 40, then 30 and then finally 10 good men.  God agrees each time.  Unfortunately, there are not even 10 good men, so the town will be destroyed but two angels will be sent to the city to help Lot escape.

What is with the bartering?  Is God not smart enough to realize that he shouldn’t be destroying whole territories that will include innocent people?  (Of course, today’s natural disasters “Acts of God”, kill the innocent as well as the guilty so we shouldn’t be surprised.)  And what does Abraham think of God if he feels so free to question God and argue with him.  (More on that in the next story.)    This story, like most of the Bible stories, lack so much detail that we are never sure what to make of them.   How evil were the people of Sodom?  What were their sins?  Were they harmful to others or were they living and enjoying a life of drunkenness and debauchery affecting only themselves.   How innocent was Lot?  Is he a worthy man or is his rescue just God’s favour to Abraham?

The next part of the story gets even stranger.  Lot invites the angels into his house which is what was expected to happen when visitors came through a town.  However, the rest of the town is not so welcoming.   All the men of the town come to Lot’s house demanding that the visitors come outside with the intent to gang rape them.   Lot tries to protect them further by offering to send out his two unmarried daughters.  WHAT!?  Luckily for the girls that isn’t what the villagers want.  Finally, the angels blind all the townsmen to end the threat.  

The next day, Lot, his wife and two daughters escape while fire and brimstone fall on the city.  Lot had tried to get his married daughters to join them but they had refused.   As they escape, Lot’s wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt.  What are we to make of the fate of Lot’s unnamed wife?  Why was she looking back?  Did she miss the evil of Sodom or was she looking back in hopes that her other daughters had changed their minds?  Was she turned into a pillar of salt as an accidental result of not moving away fast enough or was this purposeful punishment from God?  No answer is given.

Still, the story is far from over.   Thinking that they were alone without the possibility of husbands, the daughters get Lot drunk and each sleeps with their father.  Both become pregnant and their children become the Moabites and the Ammonites, later enemies of the Hebrews.  I don’t recall that episode being emphasized in Sunday School. 

So what we have here is a morality play in which we are told to live a righteous love or face God’s wrath and destruction.  We should be kind to wayward travelers.  We shouldn’t look back, advice given by many including Orpheus, Satchel Paige and Bob Dylan, and most importantly, we shouldn’t drink with much younger women, especially our daughters, lest we father an evil race of people.  

That last one was a bit of a joke, but despite how much I enjoy these stories I am still mystified by the reverence given to them.  Without, the historical context and by history I mean the history of the Bible and its effect on our modern culture, how much authority would we give them? 

The lectures are not giving me the answers as I assume those questions are being discussed in the seminars.  Perhaps I need to visit a minister.

More tomorrow.

Lecture Six - The Patriarchs (1)

The first thing covered by the professor was the veracity of the history.   She claims that there are enough contradictions, anachronisms, and such and not enough evidence to the contrary to say that these stories are accurate historically.  However, she does say that the Bible isn’t meant to be read historically, and that nobody complains about the accuracy of Shakespeare’s history.  Instead, the Bible stories should be read for the social, political and moral truths that are offered.  

Then we get into what I consider the best stories of the Bible.

First up is Abraham and there are several interesting twists and turns involving this fascinating character.   Abraham and his family are told by God to pack up their belongings and head to a land that He has promised them.  But this land is not empty.  People – people with whom God is displeased – still live there, but not to worry.  When the time is right, Abraham and his people will be allowed in.  

This story of the covenant between God and Abraham still affects us today.  God gives Abraham an area of land.  He promises Abraham that his descendants will be a great nation.  This nation – today’s Israel – is the centre of much controversy and conflict, especially with the people (the Arabs) who claim that they too are descended from one of Abraham`s offspring.  I am not sure what God was thinking when he decided to localize his support to one group as it appears to have not turned out so well, but I will leave that for others to figure out.

With all great stories, there has to be a plot complication.  Abraham is to be the father of a great nation but his wife, Sarah, is barren and is now well past childbearing years.   What to do?  He could adopt a slave to pass on his legacy but that just doesn’t seem right.   Sarah comes up with the solution.  She offers Hagar, her handmaiden, to be the mother of Abraham’s child.   When Hagar becomes pregnant, Sarah has second thoughts and begins to mistreat Hagar who runs away.  When God assures Hagar that all will be well, she returns.   She later gives birth to Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. 

  

I can’t begin to explain the cleverness of this plot complication, a complication that occurs in later stories as well.  God makes a promise, a prediction, that Abraham will be the father of a great nation.  Abraham accepts God’s promise on complete faith.  He has packed up his family and moved towards an unknown land.  He believes his descendants will be numerous, but cannot figure out how it will come about.  Despite being completely faithful to God, he does not wait for God to fulfill his promise without taking some action on his own.   So he sleeps with Hagar.  Back then, that would not be seen as the same moral dilemma that it would be today.   But what are we to make of the story.  If God were to make us a promise are we expected to do something that will hasten its occurrence or are we to sit back and wait for God to make it happen?   I don’ t know, but I will come back to this conundrum with a later story.

I don’t have a clue if we are to praise Abraham and Sarah for trying to find an answer to their problem.  Clearly though it didn’t turn out as expected.  Sarah actually laughs when she learns that she will be giving birth at her advanced age, in a sense mocking God’s power.  Once Isaac is born, she becomes even more shrewish toward Hagar when she sees Ishmael playing with Isaac so banishes them both to the desert.   God protects her and Ishmael and confirms once again the Ishmael will be the leader of a great nation.   So, nobody comes across as being particularly perfect here.

There is too much in this lecture.  Continued tomorrow.