The ‘Slave’ Is the ‘Master’: Jacob's Servile Language to Esau in Genesis 33.1-17

1. Introduction

Genesis 33.1-16, which narrates Jacob's meeting with his estranged brother Esau, presents a number of problems for interpreters. One of these problems is Jacob's use of master–slave deference (‭ינרא–ךרבע‬ ‘my lord/master’–‘your servant/slave’) to a social equal; here, his biological brother. In contrast, Esau uses familial language (namely, ‭יהא‬ ‘my brother’) but does not correct Jacob's language. ¹ In the wider narrative (Gen. 25–33), Jacob's language is ironic. It contrasts with the prediction in Gen. 27.29 that Jacob will ‘be lord over his brothers’ (‭ךיהאלדיכגחוח‬) ² and the prediction in 25.19-23 that Esau will be subject to Jacob. From this, a psychological interpretation, deriving from a possible intent by the narrator of Genesis 25–33, can be suggested: ‘Perhaps it feels good, and seems just, for Esau to hear Jacob humble himself in Esau's presence’. ³ That is, no matter what Jacob intends by his language in Genesis 33, the narrator may be using it as redress for how Jacob has treated Esau in Genesis 25 and 27. For the narrative in Genesis 33 itself, Jacob and Esau's clash of language type raises the question, frequently asked, as to what Jacob intends by using his deference. The most common answer is that he negotiates a treaty with Esau with himself as vassal. ⁴ This historical-reconstruction interpretation is in keeping with a widely held view that the Jacob–Esau narratives in Genesis, the genealogies of Esau (Gen. 36; 1 Chron. 1.38–54) and Num. 20.14–21//Deut. 2.1–8 reflect various events in the history of Israel/Judah–Edom relations. ⁵

A second problem is Jacob's intention with the gift he sent to Esau (32.14-22 [13–21] ⁶ ), which Jacob urges Esau to accept in 33.10-11. This problem is an issue within the narrative, but one that recognizes that Genesis 32 and 33 are linked as integral parts of the wider narrative and therefore any determination of Jacob's intention in his language has to recognize that the wider narrative has bearing on it. The most common understanding is that Jacob gives back to Esau the stolen blessing of ch. 27, ⁷ though some argue that Jacob makes reparation or restitution for the stolen blessing. ⁸ Only rarely is the comment made that Jacob's language may be intentionally ambiguous: ‘Esau is free to interpret it [the intention of the gift] as he wishes’. ⁹ Part of this problem is relating what Jacob says in 33.10-11 to what he says to himself in 32.21 (20). In the latter, Jacob's purpose for the gift is to ‘cover his [Esau's] face’ (‭וינפ חרפכא‬) so that Esau will forgive him (‭ינפ אשי‬ ‘he will lift my face’). Another problem is Jacob's use of ‭חחנמ‬ (32.14, 21 [13, 20]; 33.10) and ‭חברב‬ (in 33.11) for the gift. ‭חחנמ‬ can mean ‘tribute’, which gives support to the view that Jacob seeks to be a vassal of Esau. However, the language contained in 32.21 (20) is also used in the religious sphere in the context of offerings for forgiveness from Yhwh (cf. Lev. 1.4; 2.1–14; 4.20, 26, 31). ¹⁰ Despite Jacob's clear intent in 32.21 (20), there is the possibility that he may intend something else, because his intention is stated in ‘self-talk’. ¹¹

Clearly there is no agreement on these issues, despite the two common interpretations that Jacob negotiates a treaty with Esau or sought to give back the stolen blessing. Yet, even for these two interpretations there are problems. For the former, the Bible makes no mention of Judah or Israel being in vassalship to Edom; rather, Edom was in vassalship to Judah from about 1000 to 850/840 bce (2 Sam. 8.14; 2 Kgs 8.20). This of course does not deny the possibility that Judah may have been at some point in time a vassal of Edom, but there is no extant evidence, biblical or otherwise, to prove that this occurred. There is, however, evidence of some Edomite influence in southern Judah from the late eighth century onwards, and Edom as being a threat to Judah in the last years of the kingdom of Judah (Arad 24; cf. Obad. 10–14). After the exile, Edomites who survived the Nabataean invasions migrated to southern Judaea, a situation possibly reflected in Mal. 1.2–5. There is general agreement that the many prophecies against Edom (e.g. Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 26.12-14; Obad. 1–14; and Mal. 1.2–5) reflect this long-standing influence, hostility and later migration, ¹² which gives impetus for interpreting the references to Esau and Edom in the Pentateuch, as noted above, as reflecting events in Israel/Judah–Edom relations. Yet, in the discussions on Israel/Judah–Edom relations, Gen. 33.1-17 is rarely mentioned. ¹³ This is no doubt because of what has been noted: Judah seems to have never been in vassalship to Edom. Genesis 33.1-16 therefore needs to be viewed as integral to the story about Jacob as presented in Genesis rather than be thought of as a text that reflects Judah's relations with Edom at some point in Judah's history. For the latter view, that Jacob sought to give back to Esau the stolen blessing, there is the problem that the wider narrative, as it now stands, does not entertain this idea. Genesis 27.33–37 makes it clear that the blessing could not be rescinded. Even if it could be rescinded, Isaac, the only person who could rescind it, is not yet dead (35.27), a matter which prompts Arnold to note that Jacob cannot give the blessing to Esau, since the blessing was not his right to give. ¹⁴

What then is Jacob doing with his language in Gen. 33.1-17? This study proposes, with reference to the wider narrative (Gen. 25–33) and also with some reference to the larger biblical intertext and historical considerations, that Jacob is simply being polite to his brother. Yet, by being polite, he gets what he wants from Esau. This has been noted by others, ¹⁵ but a use of politeness theory will give theoretical grounding to this observation. Specifically, it will be argued that Jacob wants Esau to receive him favourably and so waive his right of revenge for the stolen blessing; and second, that Jacob can remove himself from Esau. Jacob achieves these two wants by using master–slave deferential language to construct an identity of social inferiority to his brother, recognizing Esau's power to harm him. To assist the argument, politeness theory will be used to analyse the dialogue between Jacob and Esau.

2. Politeness Theory

Politeness theory, especially in its classic expression in Brown and Levinson's Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, ¹⁶ attempts to explain why social harmony occurs in the context of actions that may disrupt relations and how this is achieved. I have in a previous article summarized and evaluated this theory, especially Brown and Levinson's contribution to it and its applicability to biblical texts, and tested it on Num. 20.14–21, ¹⁷ so will give a brief summary only. The essential argument of politeness theory is that all people have ‘face’, which can be defined as a public perception of oneself. ¹⁸ ‘Face’ is essentially a sense of honour that people have about themselves, whether derived from their own view about themselves or from others’ views about them. Further, all people, barring a few occasions, desire to respect face when they interact with others, both their own face and that of the other. ‘Face’ is apropos to the present study because of its frequent use in biblical Hebrew in the preposition ‭ינפל‬ (literally, ‘to the face/s of’) and because of Jacob's reference to Esau's ‘face’ (‭םינפ‬) in 32.21 (20) and 33.10. Brown and Levinson's unique contribution to politeness theory is their argument that there are certain strategies of politeness universal to all cultures, and that these can be graded. They argue that people will choose strategies they think are appropriate to their perception of how much face loss they cause to their listener/s. These strategies are also classified as ‘positive politeness’ and ‘negative politeness’. ‘Positive politeness’ are those strategies that show approval to the listener (representing people's desire for approval, called ‘positive face’), and ‘negative politeness’ are those strategies used to show respect for the listener's desire to be free from imposition (called ‘negative face’). In addition, negative politeness is considered to be more polite than positive politeness. With ‘S’ referring to the speaker and ‘H’ the intended hearer of the speaker, the list of strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson reads:

In addition to these, there are ‘off-record’ (where the intention is not stated) and ‘bald-on-record’ (i.e. an absence of polite language, such as in imperative requests and commands) strategies. Brown and Levinson note that ‘bald-on-record’ strategies are used mostly by people in power or influence over their listener/s, in situations of urgency, or where the interactants decide to dispense with politeness. The former is represented in the Hebrew Bible, for example, by 2 Sam. 14.1–24, in which King David does not use polite language to the wise woman or to Joab. Brown and Levinson also argue that ‘off-record’ strategies are the most polite of all politeness strategies as they allow the hearer complete freedom to interpret the speaker's intent. ¹⁹ On the whole, polite language is essentially an exercise in ambiguity and manipulation: encouraging a hearer to respond favourably to what is said or requested without them feeling they have been coerced. In this article, Brown and Levinson's distinction between positive politeness and negative politeness is accepted, but not their grading of politeness strategies. This is due to Jacob's use of a number of strategies, and a lack of data from ancient Israel that allow attempts to grade politeness strategies. ²⁰

Politeness theory has yet to become familiar in biblical studies. It is used in some doctoral dissertations but always in conjunction with other interpretative strategies. ²¹ A few publications use politeness theory, but the topics for which it is used to assist discussion—deferential language in biblical texts, ²² self-abasement, ²³ analysis of the particle ‭אנ‬, ²⁴ honour–shame dynamics, ²⁵ Hebrew language letter-ostraca from the pre-exilic period, ²⁶ Egyptian letters, ²⁷ and rhetorical questions in biblical prose ²⁸ —indicate its usefulness as a heuristic tool for analysing both biblical texts and other texts from the ancient Near East.

3. Jacob and Esau's Dialogue

Genesis 33.1-17 is a dialogue which contains five rounds (i.e. each interactant has a turn speaking), headed by an introduction in which Jacob bows to Esau and a conclusion in which both go their separate ways.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Introduction (vv. 1–4)	Jacob and Esau meet; Jacob bows to Esau
Round 1 (vv. 5–7)	Esau asks about Jacob's family; Jacob focuses on the children
Round 2 (v. 8)	Esau asks about the gift; Jacob says it is to find favour
Round 3 (vv. 9–11)	Esau objects to receiving the gift; Jacob insists he accept it
Round 4 (vv. 12–14)	Esau asks to accompany Jacob; Jacob refuses
Round 5 (v. 15)	Esau offers protection; Jacob refuses
Conclusion (vv. 16–17)	Esau and Jacob go their separate ways

Even though Esau initiates all rounds of the dialogue, it is Jacob who acts first when they meet: he bows to Esau (v. 3). Bowing is a form of deference, representing the negative politeness strategy, ‘give deference’. Jacob continues this strategy of politeness with his master–slave deference to Esau in the dialogue (vv. 5, 8, 13–15). By using deference, Jacob places himself in the role of social inferior to Esau, despite being Esau's brother. His seven-fold obeisance (‭םימעפ עבש הצדא וחתשיו‬) parallels a common element in prostration formulae in Amarna, Ugaritic and Hittite correspondence. ²⁹ It is this parallel that no doubt encourages the interpretation that Jacob acts as a vassal toward Esau, being used by vassals to an overlord. ³⁰ However, as already noted above, there is no biblical or other extant evidence indicating Israel/Judah was a vassal to Edom, which could give rise to this narrative. Further, Gen. 33.1-17, as it stands, does not include Esau imposing obligations on Jacob. In addition, other narratives in Genesis contain both bowing and the use of master–slave deference to a hearer in the role of social superior (18.1-5; 19.2; 42.6-13; 43.26-28; 46.31-47.6; and 50.15-18). Other texts that have a high use of master–slave deference but without bowing are 19.18-20 and 44.18-34. All these texts use the form of deference, ‭ינרא–ךרבע‬ (‘my lord/master’–‘your servant/slave’), which Jacob uses in 33.5, 8 and 13–15 (rounds one, two and five of the dialogue). A reduced form of deferential language, ‭ינרא–ינא\ונחנא‬ (‘my lord’–‘I/we’), is found in 18.23–32; 23.3-16; 47.18-19 and 31.35. ³¹ Jacob also uses this form of deference in rounds four and five of the dialogue (33.12-15). Though ‭ינרא–ינא‬ deference may seem less polite than ‭ינרא–ךרבע‬ deference, since the first-person is used, it is used in conjunction with other politeness strategies and so should not be automatically viewed as a reduction in politeness, as will be argued below. The comparison of Jacob's speaking with these other texts in Genesis serves to show that Jacob's style of speaking is not unusual.

What is unusual, and hence the cause for comment, is that he uses this language to Esau. Esau is Jacob's brother, and therefore his social equal. Politeness theory predicts that social equals do not, or need not, use polite language to each other. This is borne out in Gen. 14.21–24; 20.9-13; 21.22–24; 26.26–29; and 34, in which the patriarchal family interacts with other peoples in Canaan (cf. Jacob's interaction with Pharaoh in 47.7-10). The impression conveyed is that they and these peoples are equals. As has already been noted, Esau does not correct Jacob. This implies that Esau accepts Jacob's language; that is, Esau knows what Jacob is doing.

The explanation for Jacob's use of deference (both obeisance and ‭ינרא–ינא\ךרבע‬ language) comes from Genesis itself. As is well-known, Jacob has stolen the blessing due to Esau (Gen. 27) and Esau has threatened revenge (27.41). Jacob, now returning to Canaan after his lengthy stay in Haran (chs. 29–31), has to deal with Esau's threat. That this is a real fear is found in 32.8 (7) (self-talk) and 32.10-13 [9–12] (prayer). The narrator has not indicated Esau's intention. Jacob assumes Esau has the power to harm him and his family (32.12 [11]). ³² This fear of Esau is the driving emotion behind his large gift to Esau in the hope the gift will appease him (‭וינפ הדפכא‬ and ‭ינפ אשי‬, v. 21 [20]). In effect, Jacob has a request of Esau: he wants him not to carry out his threat of revenge. Deferential language is appropriate in this context, and is used in similar contexts elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. In 1 Sam. 25.23–31 Abigail requests David not to kill her husband Nabal. In this narrative, Abigail is at least socially equal if not superior to David (David is an outlaw in 1 Sam. 25). Similarly, in 1 Kgs 20.32 Ben-hadad, king of Aram, defeated by Israel in a battle, uses deferential language to the king of Israel in a request to be allowed to live. These three situations—Jacob to Esau, Abigail to David, and Ben-hadad to the king of Israel—are the only instances narrated in the Hebrew Bible where a social equal (or even a superior) to a hearer uses deferential language. ³³ All deal with the large imposition (i.e. request) on the hearer of sparing life. Polite language is needed to defuse the potential loss of face to the hearer if s/he accedes to the request.

Deference achieves this maintenance of the hearer's face by conveying a power difference between speaker and hearer. It has the effect of abasing the speaker, that is, reducing the speaker's social standing relative to the hearer. At the same time, it raises the standing of the hearer relative to the speaker. By using deference, the speaker recognizes that the hearer cannot be coerced to comply with the request. ³⁴ Deference makes a favourable response to the request appear to be an act of grace or benevolence; that is, freely given by the hearer. Therefore, if the hearer grants the request, his/her sense of honour is not diminished. In Jacob's case, he abases himself as Esau's ‘servant’ (‭ךדכע‬) and raises Esau as the ‘master’ or ‘lord’ (‭ינדא‬). The use of ‭ךדכע‬ and ‭ינדא‬ suits because slaves were social inferiors (e.g. they were a possession [e.g. Exod. 21.21; Lev. 25.44-46], subject to abuse [Exod. 21.20-21], had less redress at law than for a free person [Exod. 21.20–27, 32; Lev. 19.20–22], and slavery was a state people did not desire to be in or have their children subject to [e.g. 2 Kgs 4.1; Neh 5.4]) ³⁵ and it recognizes that the hearer has ‘power’ over the speaker, whether it is formal ³⁶ or informal. ³⁷ In the case of Jacob, Esau's ‘power’ over him is informal and based on physical force: Esau has the power to harm him and Jacob fears this. Esau's lack of correction of Jacob's language indicates he accepts the role of superior status person given to him by Jacob, and that Jacob is making requests of him.

As already noted, Jacob reduces his deference from ‭ינדא–ךדכע‬ to ‭ינדא–ינא‬ prominent in rounds 4 and 5 in the dialogue (Gen. 33.12-15), in which Jacob refuses to accompany Esau or allow Esau's men to accompany him. The only use of ‭ינדא–ךדכע‬ deference by Jacob in this part of the dialogue is in his counter request in v. 14a, ‭ודכע ינפלינדא אנ־דכעי‬ (‘Please let my lord pass over before his servant’). The reduction in deference should not be seen as less polite. Verses 13–14 function as a politeness strategy, ‘giving reasons’, for the counter-request of v. 14a. Giving reasons for a request may seem obvious, but this does not deny it being a politeness strategy in its own right. It is a form of claiming that speaker and hearer are co-operators on the matter. The speaker presents reasons to appeal to the hearer that this is why they would want the request for themselves if they were in the speaker's situation. ³⁸ This phenomenon of reduced deference when reasons are given for a request is also found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. 1 Sam. 1.16b; 25.28c–29; also in Gen. 44.20-31a), so Jacob's strategy should be understood as being in keeping with what is expected of rhetoric in the context of making requests. Jacob's ambiguous response, ‭ינרא יניעב ןח־אצמא‬ (‘let me find favour in the eyes of my lord’, v. 15b), to Esau's request that Jacob allow some of his men to accompany him also shows politeness. Here, Jacob uses an ‘off-record’ statement that has the intention of ‘no’. The politeness of ‭ינדא יניעכ ןח־אצמא‬ is evident by the fact that Esau has to guess Jacob's intention, then decide whether to accept it or not. The natural ambiguity in off-record statements gives the impression that Jacob lies to Esau, especially since he claims that he will follow Esau (v. 14) but does not (v. 17). ³⁹ Yet, increasingly, it is being recognized that Esau understands Jacob to be polite. ⁴⁰ As Waltke comments, Jacob ‘could not refuse him directly without offending him and risking his anger’. ⁴¹ That Esau accepts the statement without remonstration indicates he has guessed Jacob's off-record request.

Jacob also gives reasons in vv. 10b and 11b (third round), when he insists Esau should accept his gift of 32.14-22 (13–21). However, here, Jacob's language is surprisingly direct, with deference being absent. It is surprising because Jacob insists that Esau accept his ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ of ch. 32, and the rest of the dialogue hinges on this acceptance. However, like for vv. 13–15, deference is replaced by other forms of polite language. In fact, vv. 10–11 contain the greatest concentration of polite forms in the dialogue. This concentration indicates that deference should not be used as the sole criterion to measure politeness in biblical texts. Jacob, in countering Esau's initial refusal to accept the ‭החנמ‬ starts with the use of ‭אנ‬ in a conditional clause: ‭ךיניעב ןח יתאצמ אנ־םא אנ־לא‬ (‘No, please, if I have found favour in your eyes’, v. 10a). This is customary softening (‭אנ‬ ⁴² ) in conjunction with the negative politeness strategy, ‘question, hedging’. ⁴³ His intent is to imply that Esau has already received him favourably, evident by the embracing and tears in v. 4. The mention of favour adds to Jacob's deference: it reflects recognition that Esau has power over him. As Clark argues when discussing requests for favour (‭וח‬) in the Hebrew Bible, ‘the subject of the verb is or acts as if he were in a positive but sub-ordinate formal relationship to the grantor’. ⁴⁴ The rest of v. 10 is the positive politeness strategy—'give reasons'—for Jacob's request, ‘Please, take my gift which has been brought to you’ (‭ךל תאכה דשא יתכדכ־תא אנ־חק‬) in v. 11a. However, it includes the comment that ‘to see your [i.e. Esau's] face is like seeing the face of God’ (‭םיהלא ינפ תארכ ךינפ יתיאר ןכ־לע‬), which is a use of another positive politeness strategy—'exaggerate interest to H’. Despite the clear allusion to the incident at Peniel (32.23-31 [22–30]), Jacob flatters Esau. As a character, Esau does not know about Jacob's wrestling with God. The flattery works on the assumption that Esau has already received him favourably. The use of ‭אנ‬ to soften a request is also found in 33.11a, in which Jacob requests Esau to accept the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬. ⁴⁵ The rest of Jacob's statement (‭לכ־יל־שי יכו םיהלא יננח־ינ‬, ‘because God has shown me favour and I have everything’, v. 11b), despite functioning as ‘reasons’, is also the negative politeness strategy ‘minimize the imposition’. The ‘imposition’ Jacob deals with now is the threat to Esau's face if he accepts the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ too quickly. If Esau has accepted the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ quickly, he would demean himself. ⁴⁶ Jacob minimizes this face-threat by inferring the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ costs him little to give.

Behind all of Jacob's polite language lies his ultimate request why he wants Esau to accept the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬, expressed in v. 8b and 32.21 (20): to be accepted. But why insist on Esau accepting the gift? Esau has already shown acceptance of Jacob, evidenced by his embracing of Jacob and tears in 33.4, his use of ‭יחא‬ (‘my brother’) in his initial refusal to accept the gift (v. 9), and his claim he has much (‭כד יל־שי‬). ‭יחא‬ is in-group language and represents that Esau considers to have a (restored) relationship with Jacob. It also indicates social equality between the two brothers. See also 1 Kgs 20.32–33, where an exchange of ‭יחא‬ precedes the treaty negotiations between Ben-hadad and the king of Israel after their battle: a friendly reciprocal relationship is started. Esau's claim, ‭כד יל־שי‬, is an implicit comment that he no longer considers the stolen blessing of Genesis 27 to matter, and hence he accepts Jacob. What Jacob is doing in his insistence that Esau accept the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ is to ensure that he will forego his right of revenge for the stealing of the blessing. By accepting the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬, Esau cannot renege on his acceptance—he is obligated to Jacob—that is, he foregoes any retribution and so formally relinquishes his claim on the blessing. In this interpretation, Jacob's ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬ is reparation. This phenomenon of obligation inherent in accepting a gift, as with reduced deference when reasons are given for a request, is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Proverbs 18.16 and 21.14 mention the power inherent in giving gifts, and 1 Sam. 30.26–31 and 2 Sam. 2.4 narrate David's giving spoils of raids to the leaders of Judah and his acceptance by them as king of Judah. ⁴⁷ This may suggest that the biblical authors reflect a cultural practice in ancient Israel, ⁴⁸ an idea that is given support by social anthropology. ⁴⁹ The Genesis 33 narrative indicates awareness of the issues involved in gift giving and acceptance by taking two rounds in the dialogue plus direct narration to resolve the acceptance of Jacob's ‭החנמ‬. In effect, this is Jacob's key purpose in his meeting with Esau: he wants Esau to forego his right of revenge for the stolen blessing. It represents an ‘implied’ or indirect request. Once Jacob is satisfied that Esau will forego his right of revenge, the rest of the dialogue revolves around Jacob's off-record request to be removed from his brother. Despite Esau's friendly and accepting manner, Jacob wants to have as little to do with him as he possibly can. The narrative adds to this by not indicating whether the meeting was successful, but instead moving directly to Jacob and Esau's going their separate ways (Gen. 33.16-17). However, it should be assumed that the meeting was successful, since no further problems between Jacob and Esau are narrated in Genesis.

Both of Jacob's purposes are big ‘impositions’ in terms of potential face-threat to Esau. In relation to Jacob's use of deferential language and Esau's non-correction of it, it is not language of a vassal or language used by a subject to a king, despite its similarity to this conventional language of the ancient Near East. It is simply Jacob's recognition that Esau has power to harm him.

4. Conclusion

Jacob's use of deferential language in his meeting with Esau in Gen. 33.1-17 is not that of a vassal to a suzerain. Jacob simply puts himself in the role of social inferior to Esau to assist in achieving his purposes from the meeting. These are: first, to get Esau to accept his gift and thus forego his right of revenge for the stolen blessing of Genesis 27; and second, once this is achieved, to have as little to do with Esau as he possibly can. Both of these purposes are requests, but both are not stated openly. The first is an implied or indirect request, connected with the directly stated request that Esau accept the ‭החנמ/הכדכ‬. This interpretation receives support from literary studies using ‘type-scene’ analysis or structuralist approaches. ⁵⁰ That these literary approaches give similar conclusions to my use of politeness theory should caution scholarship about the appropriateness of the interpretation that Jacob rescinds the blessing. The second request or purpose of Jacob in the meeting is an off-record request, hidden behind Jacob's refusal to have Esau be with him, or have some of his men be with him. That Esau knows that this is Jacob's intention is proved by their separation without narration of any further events in the meeting. Jacob's deferential language is also in keeping with other characters in Genesis when they make requests, even though Jacob is in the unusual situation of being deferential to his brother. Esau knows what Jacob is doing, so does not need to correct him. Jacob also uses other polite language strategies to assist his two requests from Esau, and some of these replace deferential language in parts of Jacob's speaking.

Jacob's use of master–slave deference plays on the inferior status of slaves to the free. In effect, he constructs an identity to Esau of being the social inferior despite being portrayed clearly as an equal to Esau: he has vast possessions (Gen. 30.43); he can give a substantial gift to appease Esau (Gen. 32.14-22 [13–21]); and he has already held his own against his uncle, who also had sufficient manpower to enforce his demands on Jacob (31.22-24, 42). Jacob's constructed identity is thus ‘counter-factual’ to his situation. ⁵¹ Yet, by being so, he has got his way in the meeting with Esau. As Cotter notes, ‘Jacob is effusive in his gestures of self-deprecation, but Esau does not gainsay him’. ⁵² The problem with interpreting Jacob's master–slave deference is that the slavery terms in this type of deference are lexicalized; that is, their use as deference terms is conventional, ⁵³ but Jacob is an equal to Esau. Here, the conventionality is the metaphoric concept, ‘slave is inferior’. That such language is common in requests, which in biblical narrative is normally in the context of a social inferior speaking to a social superior, should alert interpreters that Jacob's language is typical deferential language, given what he is trying to achieve from the meeting.