# commentaries

text:
<p><em>They rose up some time in the morning, and swore one to another. Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace</em>-</p><p> Abimelech had insisted that <em>he </em>had sent <em>Isaac</em> away in peace (:29); but now Isaac does that to Abimelech. We are left with the impression that Isaac was unreasonably paranoid about Abimelech, although God worked through his irrational fears; see on :27.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened the same day, that Isaac’s servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had dug, and said to him, We have found water</em>-</p><p> Isaac had moved away from Rehoboth, the dream home, as it were, where he imagined he had 'found room', and had a secure, private source of water. However, as noted on :23,24, he was moved on from there because it was God's purpose that Isaac should not settle down, but ever live the life of a pilgrim. His sacrifice of the well there was compensated for; he was taught that God can provide wells anywhere, at will. </p>


text:
<p><em>He called it Shibah. Therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day</em>-</p><p> All the drama about the wells was unnecessary. Isaac thought he needed them in order to preserve the wealth, in terms of flocks, which Yahweh had given him. But now he realized that God can give wells, water and blessing without his needing to strive and argue and even fight for the wells. And he learnt this at Beersheba, where he had grown up as young man (<em><a href='B:10 22:19'>Gen 22:19</a></em>). He came full circle, back to his roots with his faithful father Abraham. And so many lives have done the same. </p>


text:
<p><em>When Esau was forty years old, he took as wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite</em>-</p><p> Isaac his father had also married at 40. This again has the ring of psychological credibility; that he thought of marriage at the same age as his father. But at 40, Isaac had taken special care to marry within the faith, whereas Esau did the opposite. Abraham had bought property from the Hittites (<em><a href='B:10 23:10'>Gen 23:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:16'>Gen 23:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:18'>Gen 23:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 23:20'>Gen 23:20</a></em>)- this is emphasized multiple times. And that is understood in the New Testament as an act which reflected the great paradox- that he bought land which was his as an eternal possession. But Esau married into them, instead of recognizing that he merely lived amongst them on his spiritual pilgrimage to a far greater destination. We learn from <em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em> that Rebekah was 'weary of her life' because of her Hittite daughters in law. Rebekah had sacrificed all she knew and once held dear for the sake of marrying within the faith, as explained in Genesis 24. She found her son marrying outside of the faith to be a source of huge mental agony. The names of the girls and their fathers are all suggestive of idol worship. </p>


text:
<p><em>They grieved Isaac’s and Rebekah’s spirits</em>-</p><p> Genesis 24 explained the great lengths and sacrifices they both went to in order to honour the principle of marrying within the faith, in order to raise the Godly seed. They of all believers would have been so heartbroken to see their son marrying unbelievers; but often we are tested in family life on the very issues over which we ourselves have taken a strong stand. The grief of spirit was intense; <em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em> records that Rebekah was 'weary of her life' because of these daughters in law.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said to him, My son? He said to him, Here I am</em>-</p><p> Isaac was 117 and Jacob 57. "<em>His</em> elder son" (:5 also) compares with Jacob being described as Rebekah's son (:6). If Esau was of integrity, he would at this early point have explained that he had sold his birthright to Jacob.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, See now, I am old. I don’t know the day of my death</em>-</p><p> Isaac didn't die for another 43 years. Now Isaac was 137 (<em><a href='B:10 41:46'>Gen 41:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:6'>Gen 45:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 30:25'>Gen 30:25</a></em> cp. 29:18,21,27); which was the age at which his brother Ishmael had died, 14 years before. The Biblical record is Divinely inspired, and the psychological 'ring of truth' about the incidents confirms this. It is normal and psychologically credible to get a fear of death when you come to the age at which your brother died.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Now therefore, please take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field, and take me venison</em>-</p><p> About Jacob's last recorded words were his memory of how he took "Shechem... out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow" (<em><a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a></em>). Perhaps subconsciously he wanted to prove to himself and others that he was not weaker than Esau, and was as adept at the use of bow and weapons as he had been.</p>


text:
<p><em>Make me savoury food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat, and that my soul may bless you before I die</em>-</p><p> The grammar seems to suggests that eating the food was necessary to impart the blessing; see on :9. Clearly Isaac is thinking in human terms; for the only blessing ultimately worth having came from <em>God</em>, not from Isaac's "soul", and was not bestowed through having a ritual meal. However we note the understanding they had that blessing and covenant relationship were somehow attested by a meal. This continues in our time with the memorial feast, the breaking of bread, serving the same function. </p>


text:
<p><em>Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>. The fact Isaac spoke to Esau privately, away from Jacob and Rebekah, could reflect his awareness that Esau had sold the birthright to Jacob but he chose to get around that. Isaac also seems to be in studied disregard of the opening prophecy that Esau as the firstborn would serve Jacob the younger. All through the lives of the patriarchs we see weakness, and they were saved by God's grace and their faith in that grace, with occasional works which reflected that faith. But the general picture of their lives is not spiritually positive. In this sense they become our "fathers". </p>


text:
<p><em>Rebekah spoke to Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard your father speak to Esau your brother, saying</em>-</p><p> One form of Bible study by questions is to ask questions like ‘What should Jacob have replied to Rebekah in Genesis 27?’, ‘What should Eve have said to the serpent’? &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>‘Bring me venison, and make me savoury food, that I may eat, and bless you before Yahweh before my death’</em>-</p><p> Rebekah appears to have added "before Yahweh" (:4). The blessing of being the Abrahamic seed and covenant relationship ('before God' is used in this sense in <em><a href='B:10 17:18'>Gen 17:18</a></em>) was not predicated upon the paternal blessing of Isaac, but was given by God, by grace. But Rebekah assumed that the birthright was the covenant blessing; and she was bent on making the prophecy about the elder serving the younger somehow come true in her own strength and by her own device. This can so easily be our weakness too.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command you</em>-</p><p> This is clearly alluding to Adam obeying his wife's voice and falling into sin; doing what she commanded rather than what God commanded. And Isaac was surely intended to see the parallel, especially as the narrative included eating and blessing (and cursing). We too are set up with situations where we are intended to see the Biblical parallel, and act accordingly. This is where basic knowledge of the Bible text is valuable; and moreso, the willingness to perceive that we are really intended to see the links and act accordingly.</p>


text:
<p><em>Go now to the flock, and get me from there two good young goats. I will make them savoury food for your father, such as he loves</em>-</p><p> One goat was quite enough for two men to eat. Two goats suggest some kind of ritual meaning to the meal; we noted on :4 that Isaac felt the blessing had to be somehow mediated through a meal. This was a quite wrong understanding of "blessing", for true blessing is from God and not man. We note that the only other reference to two young goats is when the phrase is used about the ritual of the Day of Atonement (<em><a href='B:30 16:5'>Lev 16:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 16:7-8'>Lev 16:7-8</a></em>), where one represented the sinner who must die, and the other the righteous who was set free.</p>


text:
<p><em>You shall bring it to your father, that he may eat, so that he may bless you before his death</em>-</p><p> As noted on :4, they all understood that the blessing was predicated upon the meal ("so that..."). Her emphasis was clearly upon the word "you". She was aware of the sale of the birthright, and also wished to force to come true the prophetic word about the elder serving the younger. But blessing is of God; although the memorial feast, the breaking of bread, continues this theme of blessing being associated with a meal. But the meal is a celebration of the blessing already given, a reaffirmation that we want to be part of it; the meal doesn't of itself give blessing. This is the error of transubstantiation, and the essence of that misunderstanding is seen here.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man</em>-</p><p> The way Jacob is described at the time as "smooth", without a covering of hair, may be a hint that he needed a covering of atonement. Jacob's concern was how to get away with the deception, rather than any moral issue with what Rebekah was suggesting. "Smooth" is only elsewhere used about flattery (<em><a href='B:240 5:3'>Pro 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 26:28'>Pro 26:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 12:24'>Eze 12:24</a></em>). It could be that by "smooth" there is a contrast set up with the hairy Esau to suggest Jacob was like a smooth lamb and Esau the kid of the goats hairy from birth; as explained on :16, "hairy" is usually translated "kid of the goats". The parable of the sheep and goats would then suggest Jacob as the righteous; but he was so far from that at this time, and was only counted as a sheep by grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>What if my father touches me? I will seem to him as a deceiver, and I would bring a curse on myself, and not a blessing</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a></em>. The true blessing of God according to the Abrahamic promises could not be taken away by men, nor simply due to human failure. And yet Jacob had yet to come to perceive that. And the Divine blessing was given by God; it was not 'brought upon oneself' by dint of human device and skill. It took Jacob a lifetime to come to perceive this grace. "Touches" is the same Hebrew word translated "search" or "felt" when Laban felt all over Jacob's possessions in search of the stolen idols (<em><a href='B:10 31:34'>Gen 31:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:37'>Gen 31:37</a></em>). The word "recognize" is likewise common in both incidents; see on :23. We are intended to join the dots between our experiences in life. Jacob was intended to see how he had earlier survived such a 'touching' when he was in the wrong- but to what end? He was to later give back his blessing to Esau, rejoicing instead in God's gracious blessing of him (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>His mother said to him, Let your curse be on me, my son. Only obey my voice, and go get them for me</em>-</p><p> The lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons are held up in the NT as our examples. And yet their records are absolutely shot through with reference to the spiritual weakness of those men, and even the suggestion that as men they were not 'nice' people. They, the archetypical believers, aren't good people. Indeed, the records seem to juxtapose their weakness against the more humanly acceptable behaviour of the world around them. The whole business of Jacob obtaining the blessing from his slightly drunk father Isaac is almost comical; dressed up with skins, with his mum prodding him under the ribs saying "Go on, go on, it's my sin not yours"; Jacob must have been willing the old boy to hurry up, knowing as he did that Esau was about to come in with his meal.&nbsp;Yet this was the most Godly family on earth at the time. </p><p>There was no recorded curse from Isaac upon Jacob, and in any case if there was there is no record of it coming upon Rebekah. The whole idea of blessings and cursings uttered by men appears somewhat phony; they were indeed held to be of great value, but the Biblical record demonstrates that it is the Divine blessing and cursing which is important. Thus Jacob's later blessings of his sons don't all seem to have had direct fulfilment; and likewise the expected curse from Isaac either doesn't come or is not carried out. It should've been obvious that Isaac would realize the deception; but both Rebekah and Isaac assumed that what mattered was whether he uttered a curse during the blessing ceremony. And if he didn't, and blessed Jacob, then this could not be retracted. They predicated the receipt of blessing upon the ceremony; but Jacob was slowly brought to realize that it is direct Divine blessing which is to be sought above all, rather than some secular blessing from an old man.</p>


text:
<p><em>He went, and got them, and brought them to his mother. His mother made savoury food, such as his father loved</em>-</p><p> Went, got and bought to her... all emphasize his total obedience and complicity in the plan. The only other times the Hebrew phrase "savoury food" is used outside of this incident is in <em><a href='B:240 23:3-8'>Pro 23:3-8</a></em>, where the "dainty food" is used in the context of deceivers who want to get rich; and as so often in Proverbs, we appear to have a commentary upon this earlier Biblical incident: "Don’t be desirous of his dainties, since they are deceitful food. Don’t weary yourself to be rich... Don’t eat the food of him who has a stingy eye, and don’t crave his delicacies: for as he thinks about the cost, so he is. Eat and drink! he says to you, but his heart is not with you. The morsel which you have eaten you shall vomit up, and lose your good words". </p>


text:
<p><em>Rebekah took the good clothes of Esau, her elder son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob, her younger son</em>-</p><p> These clothes were likely those of the firstborn, and they would have had religious meaning; just as they did when given to Joseph. This would explain why the clothes were not in Esau's own dwelling, but in that of Isaac and Rebekah. Rebekah didn't have to go into Esau's home, and in full view of his pagan wives, grab his best clothes. Isaac liked to think that the smell of these robes was as the smell of the field or garden which God had blessed- perhaps an allusion to Eden. Esau usually led the family worship in these clothes- and yet he was very far from the true God. This shows the low level of spirituality which there was in the family.</p>


text:
<p><em>She put the skins of the young goats on his hands, and on the smooth of his neck</em>-</p><p> Esau was "hairy", the same word translated "kid (of the goats)" (<em><a href='B:10 37:31'>Gen 37:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 4:23'>Lev 4:23</a></em> etc.). The word is also used of idols made to goats (<em><a href='B:140 11:15'>2Ch 11:15</a></em> "devils" AV). Clearly Esau is being set up as an idolater by his very appearance. </p>


text:
<p>S<em>he gave the savoury food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob</em>-</p><p> The level of detail increases, as it often does in the Biblical narrative when we are being invited to re-imagine the scene, playing "Bible television" with the information presented. Here, we see Rebekah putting bread and meat into Jacob's literal hands. The last time we have heard of Jacob with cooked food, he was again involved in a deception. He ought to have learnt from his mistakes, but like us, he didn't. At the time.</p>


text:
<p><em>He came to his father, and said, My father? He said, Here I am. Who are you, my son?</em>-</p><p> The question "Who are you?" suggests that Jacob's carefully practiced imitations of Esau's voice just weren't much good. He would've panicked at the question.&nbsp; Jacob foresaw that the same question would be asked as he came to meet Esau (<em><a href='B:10 32:17'>Gen 32:17</a></em> s.w.); consciously or subconsciously, Jacob came to realize that the fruit what he had done in that tent with Isaac was being demanded of him. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to his father, I am Esau your firstborn. I have done what you asked me to do. Please arise, sit and eat of my venison, that your soul may bless me</em>-</p><p> His proud claim to his father that "I have done according as thou badest me" (27:19 AV) when he had effectively done nothing of the sort was the basis for the character of the elder brother in the Lord's parable (<em><a href='B:490 15:29'>Luk 15:29</a></em>). Time and again, Jacob emphasizes his works: "I have <em>done</em> according as thou badest me (AV)... my days (of service) are fulfilled (therefore) give me my wife... did not I serve with thee for Rachel? (notice Jacob's legalism; <em><a href='B:10 29:21'>Gen 29:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:25'>Gen 29:25</a></em>)... give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee... thou knowest my service... how I have served thee (<em><a href='B:10 30:25-33'>Gen 30:25-33</a></em>)... with all my power I have served your father (<em><a href='B:10 31:6'>Gen 31:6</a></em>)". This trust in his own works was what prevented Jacob from a full faith in the promises. It was only the night of wrestling and his subsequent handicap that drove it from him.</p><p>As noted earlier in this chapter, the family understood the blessing as being predicated upon eating this ritual meal; it had to be eaten <em>that</em> the blessing might be given. But this betrays a total lack of appreciation of the fact that the only blessing worth having, that from God, is not given by man, and is not dependent upon a meal or ritual. </p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac said to his son, How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son? He said, Because Yahweh your God gave me success</em>-</p><p> "Your God" is almost cynical; the sort of thing an unbaptized child of a believer might say to their parents. It was only at the very end of his life that Jacob was to talk of God as "my God"; it took him a lifetime to find God for Himself, rather than seeing Him as merely his father's deity. And the same happens in the lives of many born and bred into believing households. "Success" translates a Hebrew word which has only so far been used in the Hebrew Bible in <em><a href='B:10 24:12'>Gen 24:12</a></em>, where the mission to find a wife for Isaac is met with Divine "success" through finding Rebekah. Perhaps Isaac and Rebekah had often rehearsed the story, and used this word- which Jacob now uses. As if to say: 'Just as your God gave amazing success in your search for a wife, so He gave me'. </p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac said to Jacob, Please come near, that I may feel you, my son, whether you are really my son Esau or not</em>-</p><p> Jacob was to use the very same words "come near" when he too was blind and Joseph's sons were brought before him for blessing (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 48:10'>Gen 48:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:13'>Gen 48:13</a></em>). It's not simply that what goes around, comes around. Even in his old age, God was still working with Jacob to help him realize how his aged father must have felt at that time. The same Divine hand works in our lives to help us appreciate how others feel, whom we have hurt. It's not punishment nor judgment, as it were; but more an attempt at our education and spiritual maturity, as thereby our deeper repentance is elicited. And God was still at work in Jacob's life when he was very old, as He works with us too right to the end.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob went near to Isaac his father. He felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau</em>-</p><p> For "felt", see on :12. Later, Jacob was to beg God to deliver him from "the hands of Esau" (<em><a href='B:10 32:11'>Gen 32:11</a></em> s.w.). He was being taught how wrong he had been to impersonate those hands and make them his own. God ever seeks to reform, rather than simply punish. His hope and intention was Jacob's repentance; and when Jacob finally meets Esau, he hands back to him the blessing he had stolen (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>He didn’t recognize him- </em>The same word translated "recognize" is found in <em><a href='B:10 31:32'>Gen 31:32</a></em>, where Jacob invites Laban to "recognize" what is his, and Laban 'feels' his possessions in search for his lost idols; see on :12. Again we marvel at how the Divine hand repeated the essence of circumstances in Jacob's life, in order to lead Jacob to repentance and a transparent life, rather than a deceptive one. The same word is also used in <em><a href='B:10 37:33'>Gen 37:33</a></em>, again in connection with deception involving a garment; Jacob's sons bring him the robe of the firstborn, worn by Joseph, and Jacob 'recognizes' it (s.w.), although he draws wrong conclusions from it. He was again being put in the seat of his father Isaac; although Jacob would only have realized this deception some years later, when he met Joseph and the whole deception was exposed. </p><p><em>Because his hands were hairy, like his brother Esau’s hands. So he blessed him</em>-</p><p> Jacob was smooth skinned, but he placed skins on his hands to deceive Isaac that he was Esau. Yet we read: "his hands were hairy". Were Jacob’s hands really hairy? No. He made them <em>appear</em> hairy, and this is the perspective the record adopts, without correcting it. It doesn’t say ‘Isaac didn’t realize, because Jacob’s hands <em>seemed </em>hairy’. This helps us understand the New Testament usage of the language of demons.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Are you really my son Esau? He said, I am</em>-</p><p> It's possible that "I am" is an allusion to the Yahweh Name, and that Jacob was thereby swearing by Yahweh. His point blank lie thereby becomes the more reprehensible. The question could be yet another expression of doubt by Isaac, as in :21. But the question and answer could also have been the beginning of the ritual by which the firstborn received the blessing. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless you. He brought it near to him, and he ate-</em></p><p> The verb translated "bring / come near" occurs often here (:21,22,25,26,27). We also find a similar cluster of occurrences when Jacob draws near to and meets Esau years later (<em><a href='B:10 33:3'>Gen 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 33:6-7'>Gen 33:6-7</a></em>). Clearly the hand of providence, the working of the Spirit, was seeking to remind Jacob of this earlier incident in his life, just as the Spirit restimulates memories and situations so that we might better understand both ourselves and the others who were involved. And Jacob did respond, for he hands back to him the blessing he had stolen (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>He brought him wine, and he drank</em>-</p><p> The taking of bread (:17) and wine over a meal was all part of a ritual for confirming a covenant; and we see the essence of it in the breaking of bread service. But we suspect that the intention was to get Isaac drunk. “Deceiving and being deceived” is so true of Jacob (<em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>). Laban likewise used alcohol and darkness (cp. blindness) to deceive Jacob into marrying Leah rather than Rachel. </p>


text:
<p><em>His father Isaac said to him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son</em>-</p><p> The kissing was likely part of some ritual. For "come near", see on :25. Kissing a parent was a sign of leaving them and becoming independent (<em><a href='B:10 31:28'>Gen 31:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:20'>1Ki 19:20</a></em>). Just as Abraham prematurely gave all that he had to Isaac even before he died, so it seems Isaac now wished to do to his firstborn Esau. This shows how much he loved Esau and wanted by all means for him to be his primary "seed". And in that desire we see an unspirituality and lack of faith in the prophetic words to Rebekah about the elder serving the younger. It was as if Isaac wished by all means to reverse it. God didn't allow him to do so; and yet He worked through the unethical and sinful behaviour of Jacob and Rebekah. God works through sin to the extension of His purpose; rather than turning away from sinners in disgust.</p>


text:
<p><em>He came near, and kissed him. He smelled the smell of his clothing, and blessed him, and said, Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Yahweh has blessed</em>-</p><p> The clothes had a distinctive smell, and they were used in family worship. The smell may have been from incense, which might suggest that their religious rituals were not as spiritual as they might have been. The whole question of "blessing" in its human sense is and was very subjective. Isaac liked to imagine that the ritual clothes of Esau even smelt of Yahweh's blessing; but that was in his imagination. Yahweh would bless the field if there was obedience to His covenant (<em><a href='B:50 28:3'>Deu 28:3</a></em>); but there was none of that with Esau. We too can imagine spirituality in those we love, especially family members, when it simply isn't there.</p><p>The Hebrew for "smelled the smell" is only used elsewhere of God receiving acceptable sacrifice and being pleased with it (<em><a href='B:10 8:21'>Gen 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:31'>Lev 26:31</a></em>). But the spirituality of this family had descended into mere tokenism and ritualism. Isaac "smelled the smell" of spiritual acceptability just because a man was wearing certain clothes which had a distinctive smell, perhaps from incense. </p>


text:
<p><em>God give you of the dew of the sky, of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and new wine</em>-</p><p> Isaac's mind was focused very much on earthly realities. He had failed to appreciate that his noticeable material blessings were really but visible indicators towards the far greater spiritual blessings which the covenant promises were centred upon. And he makes no reference to the all important aspect of the Abrahamic promises- the seed.</p><p>The fatness of the <em>eretz</em> may refer to Canaan, the best part of the <em>eretz</em> promised. Isaac later wishes that wherever Esau dwells shall be likewise blessed (:39). </p><p>There are many examples of where God worked through Jacob's weakness, and blessed him in spite of it, imputing righteousness to Jacob. Thus Jacob's use of red stew to wrest the birthright from his red brother was used by God to give him the birthright (the words for "red stew" and "Esau" are related), even though Paul evidently disapproved of Jacob's attitude (<em><a href='B:520 12:20'>Rom 12:20</a></em> surely alludes here); his evil deception of his father was used by God to grant him the physical blessing (<em><a href='B:10 27:28'>Gen 27:28</a></em> is confirmed by God in <em><a href='B:50 33:28'>Deu 33:28</a></em>), even though at the time he was dressed like a goat (27:16), connecting himself with fallen Adam and the rejected at the day of judgment; “Deceiving and being deceived” certainly rings bells with Jacob (<em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>). Laban likewise used alcohol and darkness (cp. blindness) to deceive Jacob into marrying Leah rather than Rachel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers- </em>This was a willful attempt to reverse the Divine statement that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac really doesn't come over as very spiritual. he wished Esau, as he thought, to be lord over Jacob because he seems to have disliked Jacob and wanted the Angel's words about his dominance over Esau to be untrue. And yet he had faith. It could be argued that his words here were <em>i</em>nitially fulfilled in Edom / Esau being dominated by Israel (<em><a href='B:100 8:14'>2Sa 8:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 11:15'>1Ki 11:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 8:21'>2Ki 8:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 60:8-9'>Psa 60:8-9</a></em>). But it seems to me that Isaac's blessings were not so much prophecy as simply his personal wishes, although within that there was still faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>). </p><p><em>Let your mother’s sons bow down to you.&nbsp;Cursed be everyone who curses you. Blessed be everyone who blesses you</em>-</p><p> "Your mother's sons" is a strange way for Isaac to talk about his own sons. He clearly considered Jacob to be more of&nbsp; Rebekah's child than his. We note the plural "sons", as if there may have been other unrecorded sons born later. The record of Isaac's blessing of Jacob is framed to portray Jacob as a type of Christ: "Let people serve thee" = <em><a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 60:12'>Isa 60:12</a></em> "nations bow down to thee" = <em><a href='B:230 72:11'>Psa 72:11</a></em>; "Be Lord over thy brethren" = <em>Php_2:11</em>; "Let they mother's sons bow down to thee" = <em><a href='B:530 15:7'>1Co 15:7</a></em>. But Jacob was so far from being the true Abrahamic seed at that time. The fact was that Jacob bowed down to Esau, thereby recognizing that this blessing was not for him; Jacob hands back to him the blessing he had stolen (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). The language of cursing and blessing is indeed taken from the Abrahamic promises; but there is no reference to blessings in the promised seed. Isaac seemed to understand the promises on a far too immediate and material level. Isaac's pronouncement of a curse upon any who cursed Jacob meant that he could not himself curse Jacob; so Jacob's fear of receiving a curse was therefore mitigated.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob had just gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting</em>-</p><p> Isaac must have been willing the old man to get a move on. He obviously knew that the deception would be uncovered, but he had the idea that the words spoken at the ceremony were all powerful. He totally failed to understand that ultimately, all blessing is from God and not from man, and is not predicated upon any human ceremony. Jacob went away from "the face of Isaac" (Heb.) just as he was to flee from the face of Esau. The idea of being in the presence of / seeing the face of recurs in the incidents connected with Jacob's meeting of Esau, years later. Again, God was seeking to help Jacob join the dots and realize his need for repentance and for the face / presence of God, seeing he had ended his relationship with the face / presence of his earthly father and brother. </p>


text:
<p><em>He also made savoury food, and brought it to his father. He said to his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison, that your soul may bless me</em>-</p><p> Again, the misunderstanding is repeated; the blessing was seen as dependent upon eating the food and doing the ritual. And the blessing was seen as most definitely proceeding from the person ("soul") of Isaac. The Divine blessing was of grace and mediated through direct personal relationship between God and man.</p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac his father said to him, Who are you? He said, I am your son, your firstborn, Esau</em>-</p><p> The insistence that he was the firstborn indicates that he refused to take seriously the selling of his birthright. Like us all, he liked to think that time works a kind of atonement for the past. But because the image of past events becomes distorted and far smaller on our horizon as the years pass, we should not think that the consequence of human action likewise diminishes; especially in God's sight. The mention of "firstborn" is a hint that Esau was already beginning to guess what had happened; and that has the ring of psychological credibility to it. We can be certain that what we are reading actually happened.</p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac trembled violently, and said, Who, then, is he who has taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before you came, and have blessed him? Yes, he will be blessed</em>-</p><p> The violent trembling was not simply in anger at having been deceived. Isaac realized that he had been trying to reverse the Divine statement that the elder would serve the younger; "Yes, he will be blessed" shows how he recognized this. He makes no attempt to annul what he has said in blessing. He trembled before God, knowing that he had gone against Him and His word. And it had been reversed, albeit through human dysfunction. He recognized that as Paul put it, the gifts and calling of God are without changeability (<em><a href='B:520 11:29'>Rom 11:29</a></em>). "Who is... he?" was not an enquiry, as all knew it was Jacob, but rather a rhetorical comment as to the nature of Jacob; as if to say "What kind of a person is he?". The reference was to Jacob's name (:36), "supplanter".</p>


text:
<p><em>When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry, and said to his father, Bless me, even me also, my father</em>-</p><p> The Hebrews were warned not to follow Esau's sinful example, otherwise at the judgment they would experience what he did: "Afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing (cp. our desiring the Abrahamic promises of entry into the Kingdom), he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it with tears" (<em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em>). In view of this, the weeping of the rejected at judgment may be as a result of desperate pleading with the Lord to change his mind. There will be a sense, as with Esau, of an irrevocable decision. Just as the foolish virgins earnestly desire to enter the feast, but all too late. The request for the blessing all the same (this is the idea of the Hebrew word translated "also") may have reminded Isaac of how his father Abraham had requested this for his half brother Ishmael, and God had heard this. <em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em> suggests that he sought to change Isaac's mind, to get him to somehow reverse the blessing and all the same give it to him. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Your brother came with deceit, and has taken away your blessing</em>-</p><p> Isaac doesn't immediately agree to make up some kind of blessing. And he refused to change his mind about the blessing of the firstborn going to Jacob (see on :34). Because the blessing of the firstborn had indeed been uttered already, and taken by Jacob. This belief reflects their common understanding that the blessing was solely and totally dependent upon the uttering of the words by the father, and the ceremony. There was no idea that something could be recalculated; whereas God's purpose and word is full of such recalculation. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Isn’t he rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright. See, now he has taken away my blessing. He said, Haven’t you reserved a blessing for me?</em>-</p><p> "He took away my birthright" indicates that Esau thought he had done nothing wrong by selling his birthright. He chose to remember it as Jacob taking it away. The parental blessing and the birthright went together; so on one hand it seems unreasonable to count up two cases of supplanting. But in another sense, he was right. The demand of the birthright was effectively a taking of it away. And Jacob had used deceit to try to force through the fulfilment of the promise that the elder would serve the younger. <em><a href='B:350 12:2-3'>Hos 12:2-3</a></em> comment that God would punish Jacob for supplanting; so although what he did was morally wrong, God still worked through it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac answered Esau, Behold, I have made him your lord, and all his brothers have I given to him for servants. With grain and new wine have I sustained him. What then will I do for you, my son?</em>-</p><p> Wine seems an unnecessarily significant item in Isaac's mind. "All his brothers" suggests there were other brothers who aren't mentioned in the records. Isaac seems to imply that as he had blessed with Jacob with lordship over his brothers and grain and wine, there wasn't much left he could now bless Esau with. This comment reflects his lack of appreciation of the promises to Abraham; the blessing of the seed and eternal inheritance of the land. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau said to his father, Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, my father. Esau lifted up his voice, and wept</em>-</p><p> At the time of Jacob's deception, Esau lifted up his voice and wept; and this is picked up in <em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em> as a warning to all those who would fritter away their spirituality for sensuality. The faithlessness of Jacob is disregarded, and the emphasis is placed upon Esau. If Esau's rejection by Isaac is indeed a picture of the rejection of the goats at the final judgment, Isaac there becomes a hazy prefigurement of our future judge. And yet the record presents a scene of both father and rejected son as shaken and helpless, both dearly wishing it could be different (<em><a href='B:10 27:33'>Gen 27:33</a></em>). The sadness of Isaac becomes a figure of the pathos and sadness of God in rejecting the wicked. Note how the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 27:38'>Gen 27:38</a></em> adds the detail: "And Isaac said nothing; and Esau wept". We are left to imagine the thoughts of Isaac's silence. Truly our God takes no pleasure at all in the death of the wicked (<em><a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a></em>). According to <em><a href='B:650 12:17'>Heb 12:17</a></em>, Isaac did not change his mind despite the tears; the blessing of the firstborn was not given to Esau, and the other blessings now spoken were not the result of any change of mind.</p><p>Jacob too "lifted up his voice and wept" when he met Rachel (the same words are used, <em><a href='B:10 29:11'>Gen 29:11</a></em>). It's not simply that what goes around, comes around. God was working with Jacob to help him realize how his brother must have felt at that time. The same Divine hand works in our lives to help us appreciate how others feel, whom we have hurt. It's not punishment nor judgment, as it were; but more an attempt at our education and spiritual maturity, as thereby our deeper repentance is elicited.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac his father answered him, Behold, of the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling, and of the dew of the sky from above</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a></em> speaks of how God made Esau's inheritance waste and barren. We therefore wonder whether Isaac's words had any relevance at all; the essential thing was the Divine blessing, not that of any man. Yet <em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em> says that Isaac blessed both his sons "by faith". He had faith that Esau's seed would have blessing and in Christ, that shall be ultimately true. </p>


text:
<p><em>By your sword will you live, and you will serve your brother- </em>Esau was in a similar position to Ishmael (<em><a href='B:10 16:12'>Gen 16:12</a></em>). These words could only be seen as a "blessing" if Esau was proud to live by the sword. But the Lord Jesus alludes to this by saying that those who live by the sword shall perish by it (<em><a href='B:470 26:52'>Mat 26:52</a></em>), and the spiritual way of life was not to take the sword. There is no evidence that Esau ever served Jacob, confirming that these blessings, although uttered in faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em>), were Isaac's wishes rather than predictive prophecy. It could be that Isaac is referring back to the prophetic words that "the elder shall serve the younger" which he had tried so hard to overthrow, and is here accepting they would come true. Jacob would however have been aware of these words of Jacob to Esau when later he had to serve his brother Laban and was deceived into serving him for much longer than he expected (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 29:15'>Gen 29:15</a></em>). Jacob deeply resented this service of his brother Laban; he was taught at length what this "blessing" of having your brother serve you meant. He was learning the feelings which Esau would have had, had this "blessing" come true. Constantly, we are seeing the attempted education of Jacob.</p><p><em>It will happen, when you will break loose, that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck</em>-</p><p> Possibly a reference to how Edom broke free from Israel at the time of Ahaz (<em><a href='B:120 16:6'>2Ki 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 28:17'>2Ch 28:17</a></em>). And Israel were in fact ruled over by the Idumean / Edomite Herods just before their final destruction as a nation in AD70, and frequently Israel are described as being yoked by the neck to their neighbours. That would rather disprove Isaac's blessing; but in fairness, blessings were seen more as wishes than as prophetic predictions. Yet <em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em> says that Isaac blessed both his sons "by faith". But his attitude at the time was weak and his understanding foggy; indeed he may well have been under the influence of alcohol at the time, and he set himself to go against the revealed word that the elder must serve the younger. And yet the Spirit in <em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em> discerns that somewhere within all that confusion, there was faith. We can take comfort from this in our weakness, and be encouraged to more positively view our brethren and focus upon the positive within the general picture they present to us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him. Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand. Then I will kill my brother Jacob</em>-</p><p> Our thoughts <em>are</em> our words; the intention is the action. In any case, there is a Biblical theme that what we say in our heart comes out into the open: “Esau said <em>in his heart</em>, The days of mourning for my father are at hand. Then will I slay my brother Jacob. And the words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah” (<em><a href='B:10 27:41-42'>Gen 27:41-42</a></em>). What Esau said to himself became public knowledge through his actions. Isaac lived another 43 years, so Esau was held back from immediately killing Jacob by Isaac's sickness, which he apparently overcame. Jacob would later have perceived God's grace in that. The connection with Cain killing his brother Abel is apparent; but Esau clearly didn't care for the Biblical allusions.</p>


text:
<p><em>The words of Esau, her elder son, were told to Rebekah. She sent and called Jacob, her younger son, and said to him, Behold, your brother Esau comforts himself about you by planning to kill you</em>-</p><p> Rebekah comes over as quite the amateur psychoanalyst of Esau (see on :44,45). She imagined him internally comforting himself with his plans to murder Jacob. She may have recalled how she had comforted Isaac after the death of his mother (<em><a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a></em> s.w.), and she saw this same need for comfort in her son at this time. The whole record has strong psychological credibility. Esau was inconsolable by anyone apart from his own inner thoughts; and Jacob was to go through this in later life, when he refused to be comforted over the loss of Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 37:35'>Gen 37:35</a></em>). We are brought to know how others feel or felt; we are intended to examine our lives, our histories; and to learn the lessons and come to greater sensitivity and repentance.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now therefore, my son, obey my voice. Arise, flee to Laban, my brother, in Haran</em>-</p><p> "Obey my voice" is what she had told Jacob about the whole plan of deceiving Isaac. Jacob comes over as dominated by his mother, although he was already in his 70s, and like Adam, lead by a woman into sin. </p>


text:
<p><em>Stay with him a few days, until your brother’s fury turns away</em>-</p><p> She twice states that Esau's anger would turn away (:45). She knew her son to be a man of the moment, living for today, emotional for a moment and then calming down. The Hebrew phrase "fury turned away" is mostly used about God's wrath turning away (<em><a href='B:40 25:11'>Num 25:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:38'>Psa 78:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 66:15'>Isa 66:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 32:37'>Jer 32:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 36:7'>Jer 36:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a></em>). The Bible opens here in Genesis with a picture of a livid, furious man, burning in anger because of the wrong done to him... whose anger turns away. We are intended to apply that word picture to God, and ever remember that He has feelings, and gets red hot angry at sin. His grace and patience is thereby given a backdrop, and such far greater meaning. </p>


text:
<p><em>U</em><em>ntil your brother’s anger turn away from you, and he forgets what you have done to him</em><em>-</em></p><p> Rebekah knew Esau's character; just as he had effectively forgotten his sale of the birthright, so he would soon forget what Jacob had done, and calm down. He is presented as the epitome of the man of the flesh; living life for the moment, without care for longer term consequence, and seeing past history as of no meaning. "Anger" here is literally "nose"; it was as if Esau was a furious animal sniffing out Jacob as his prey and intending to kill him. We get the impression that Jacob must have run away or was hiding himself nearby; hence in :42 Rebekah sends for Jacob.</p><p>The Hebrew phrase "anger turned away" is different to that in :44, but as there, it is mostly used about God's wrath turning away. Again we observe as on :44, that the Bible opens here in Genesis with a picture of a livid, furious man, burning in anger because of the wrong done to him... whose anger turns away. We are intended to apply that word picture to God, and ever remember that He has feelings, and gets red hot angry at sin. His grace and patience is thereby given a backdrop, and such far greater meaning. </p><p><em>Then I will send, and get you from there. Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?</em>-</p><p> Rebekah feared that the revenger of blood law would mean that if Esau killed Jacob, he too would be killed perhaps the same day. For her to fear the loss of Esau that same day, there must have been credible revengers of blood nearby. I have noted so far in this chapter the double mention of Jacob being lord over his brothers, plural. There were likely other brothers, not recorded in Scripture, who would have immediately killed Esau. Rebekah paid the price for her obsession about Jacob in that she likely never saw Jacob again, as he was away for at least 20 if not 40 years. Rebekah gets no great mention for spirituality, apart from in her brave decision to immediately leave her family and go to the land of promise to marry the Abrahamic seed. Isaac likewise is not exactly stellar in his spirituality, apart from in his early willingness to be sacrificed by Abraham and his implicit faith in resurrection. Abraham and Jacob likewise only occasionally manifested the works that prove faith is real. Perhaps we are to conclude from all this that the patriarchs and matriarchs of God's people were spiritually weak, but had a dogged faith in God, which they just only occasionally demonstrated in their works. And this is sadly the family characteristic which we too bear.</p>


text:
<p><em>Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these, of the daughters of the land, what good will my life do me?</em>-</p><p> Rebekah’s apparent zeal against marriage out of the faith was really a cover for her desire to save her son from problems which he had only her to blame for. And yet we do remember that Rebekah had personally paid a huge price to marry within the faith, and indeed Esau's marriages out of the faith had deeply grieved her (see on <em><a href='B:10 26:35'>Gen 26:35</a></em>). In family life we are so often tested on points where we have made a huge sacrifice, but our children act differently. For Rebekah, spiritually weak as she has been presented in the events of this chapter, life was not worth living if she failed to produce a Godly seed because her children had married unbelievers and thus denied the covenant. And yet those genuine feelings were clearly overridden by a simple desire to save Jacob's life and not be bereaved of her two sons (:45). Human motivation is never, or rarely, pure. Always there are other considerations, and our defence of the faith can so easily have more secular reasons for it. </p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac called Jacob, blessed him, and commanded him, You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan</em>-</p><p> This 'blessing' is so significant. As noted throughout Genesis 27, all concerned in the sad drama had failed to realize that the true blessing was the Abrahamic blessing, and not corn and wine, i.e. material things. Isaac realizes now that he had been mistaken in trying to fight against the Divine plan that the elder should serve the younger; in this sense he blessed Jacob by faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:20'>Heb 11:20</a></em> - although the question is where his faith came in when blessing Esau). In connection with that blessing, he urges Jacob not to follow his brother and marry a Canaanite. Isaac had himself waited until 40 years old and seen his father go to huge effort to find him a wife within the faith. To remain within the Divine program of blessing, Jacob had to marry someone in the faith. And so he went to Mesopotamia subconsciously expecting to find a wife there, just as his father had found one there through Eliezer meeting Rebekah by the well.</p>


text:
<p><em>Arise, go to Paddan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father. Take a wife from there from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother</em>-</p><p> Isaac had effectively taken that journey in the person of Eliezer in Genesis 24. He too had found a wife from the family of Laban.</p>


text:
<p><em>May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a company of peoples</em>-</p><p> I noted on Genesis 27 that Isaac's allusions to the Abrahamic promises had focused on the immediate and the material, with no attention to the important promises of the seed who would multiply. But now Isaac appears to have learnt his lesson, and understands this as the most important blessing. And he speaks of<em> God</em> blessing Isaac, rather than of he himself blessing his sons ("that my soul may bless you", <em><a href='B:10 27:25'>Gen 27:25</a></em>).</p><p>Jacob self-admittedly didn't believe as he slept that night at Bethel; for he said that if Yahweh would bring him safely home, only then would Yahweh be his God. But just days&nbsp; before that, as Jacob here sheepishly stood before his sorrowful, betrayed father; right there, right then, God promised Jacob that he would become "a multitude (LXX <em>ekklesia</em>) of people", words which could only become true through their application to Christ. The LXX gives: "Thou shalt become gatherings of nations". The idea is that the nations would be gathered together in unity through his seed.</p>


text:
<p><em>And give you the blessing of Abraham, to you, and to your seed with you, that you may inherit the land where you travel, which God gave to Abraham- </em>According to the New Testament, and the implications of the inheritance promise in <em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>, the inheritance of the land was to be eternal, and not in this life. Jacob died in Egypt and didn't inherit the promised land in his lifetime, and so the fulfilment must be yet future at the resurrection of Jacob; and he is to inherit it with "your seed with you", suggesting they too must be resurrected (<em><a href='B:650 11:8-13'>Heb 11:8-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:39-40'>Heb 11:39-40</a></em>). Likewise the land was not given to Abraham in his lifetime; but Jacob is invited to see it as being as good as his, so sure is the promise of fulfilment. But Isaac still fails to fully perceive these things, and speaks as if Jacob would receive the full inheritance in his mortal life. But Isaac has commendably moved on from his level of appreciation of the promises displayed in Genesis 27; he accepts that <em>God</em> gives blessing, and that "the blessing of Abraham", rather than Isaac's wishes of corn and wine, were the only blessing worth having. But Isaac came to this understanding through God's patient working with the failures and misunderstandings of all the family.</p>


text:
<p><em>Isaac sent Jacob away. He went to Paddan Aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, Rebekah’s brother, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother</em>-</p><p> Jacob is now placed before Esau, in recognition that he really is being treated as the firstborn. We recall that Abraham "sent away" his sons by Keturah to the east, to this same location, because he perceived living and remaining in the promised <em>eretz</em> as fundamental to covenant relationship (see on <em><a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a></em>). Later, both Jacob and Joseph wished to be buried in the <em>eretz</em>. So to send Jacob away to the east, out of the <em>eretz</em>, to relatives whom Abraham had been told to separate from, could be seen as not the best decision. For Abraham had expressly forbidden Isaac to go there, but rather must a woman be willing to leave that area and come to him in the <em>eretz</em>. And indeed Jacob did suffer spiritually from his 20 or 40 years out of the <em>eretz</em>; although his earnest desire to be buried in the <em>eretz</em> showed that he learnt the lesson at the very end of his long life. </p><p>It must be remembered that Israel are ethnically linked to the other Arab nations in the ‘land’- Jacob’s 12 sons married wives from there; some of their mothers were Arab slave girls; Jacob’s wives were Arameans, as was his mother (<em><a href='B:10 28:5'>Gen 28:5</a></em>); historically there was much intermarriage with surrounding nations, throughout Israel’s history; Ephraim and Manasseh were half Egyptian. Rahab, Ruth etc. are all reminders of the amount of Arab blood in the average Jew. The definition of ‘Israel’ was therefore not so much on ethnic principles but rather on spiritual ones. Anyone who has walked the streets of modern Israel and pondered the question ‘What <em>is </em>a Jew?’ will have come to this conclusion, as they see Russians, Americans, black Africans… all wearing skull caps. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan Aram, to take him a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he gave him a command, saying, You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan</em>-</p><p> It is twice emphasized that Esau noticed that Isaac had blessed Jacob, although the blessing in view is the Abrahamic blessing, which required raising the Godly seed through not marrying unbelievers but those within the Abraham family of faith. He wished to have whatever blessings might be going, and so he takes more wives, from Ishmael's family. And yet although Ishmael was circumcised into the covenant, he had returned to Egypt in every sense and clearly didn't want part in the covenant. Esau continues to be presented as the typical man of the flesh, vaguely interested in external appearances of doing the right thing, but not grasping the spirit of things at all.</p>


text:
<p><em>And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan Aram</em>-</p><p> There is sustained emphasis on Jacob's obedience to his parents, especially to his mother (<em><a href='B:10 27:8'>Gen 27:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:13'>Gen 27:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:43'>Gen 27:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:7'>Gen 28:7</a></em>). The whole story is a foretaste of the issues involved with Christians and parental expectation in our day. It might not be going too far to say that he grew up far too much under her thumb; he meekly obeyed her faithless suggestion that he deceive his father into granting him the blessing, content with her assurance that it would be mum's sin, not his (and I imagine her pecking him on the cheek as she gave him the tray with Isaac's food on). No wonder he fell madly in love at first sight, when he first saw the girl he knew his mother wanted him to marry, perhaps at the same well where his father's servant had first met his mother. Jacob introduces himself as "Rebekah's son" (<em><a href='B:10 29:12'>Gen 29:12</a></em>), although it would have been more normal to describe himself as Jacob ben-Isaac. <em><a href='B:10 29:10'>Gen 29:10</a></em> labours the point three times that Laban was "his <em>mother's </em>brother". The fact Deborah, his mother's nurse, was taken under the wing by Jacob, further suggests his very close bond with his mother; he buried Deborah under Allon-Bachuth- 'the oak of his (Jacob's) weeping' (<em><a href='B:10 35:8'>Gen 35:8</a></em>). Jacob struggled to accept his father's God as his God. And yet he in so many ways is portrayed as deeply influenced by Rebekah his mother. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan didn’t please Isaac, his father</em>-</p><p> Perhaps he refers specifically to how his Canaanite wives were a grief of mind to his parents, and his mother had said she wanted to die because of the thought of Jacob marrying such women (<em><a href='B:10 27:46'>Gen 27:46</a></em>). Although Rebekah clearly used the 'marriage out of the faith' issue as an excuse to send Jacob away to safety, she also sincerely felt as she said she did about the matter; and we ever remember that both Isaac and Rebekah had sacrificed so much to marry only within the family of faith.</p>


text:
<p><em>Esau went to Ishmael, and took, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife</em>-</p><p> The polygamy of Esau, in an attempt to please his parents, is presented as so inappropriate- as they were not apparently polygamists, and Isaac isn't recorded as taking any other wives when Rebekah was barren for the first 20 years of their marriage. The names of these women all suggest idolatry.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran-</em></p><p> Bethel is about 70 miles from Beersheba, so Jacob would have had a few days to reflect before the dream. He went from Beersheba, "the well of the path", to Haran, "the parched place". The hint could be that this was a bad move; it was the apostate who moved eastwards. If he wanted a wife from Abraham's family there, then he could have done what his father did, and send someone to invite someone to come to him within the land or promise.</p>


text:
<p><em>He came to a certain place, and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. He took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep</em>-</p><p> Jacob's sleeping with a stone as his pillow is hardly a natural thing to do- but it was done in order to induce dreams and revelations from the gods (J.G. Janzen, <em>Abraham And All The Families Of The Earth</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) p. 108). And the one true God responded to Jacob, by showing him Angels ascending from him to God, and Angels descending from God to Jacob in response. It wasn't the other way around- because surely the idea was to show Jacob that his prayers really were being heard, Angels were in touch with God about them, and God was zealously responding even then through Angelic providence. Yet all this was done by God when Jacob was so far from Him. Just as a patient and loving father bears with his child, so God bore with Jacob; and He does with us too, and we are to reflect this in our dealings with our brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em>He dreamed- </em>This was later understood by Jacob as an answer to his "distress" (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>). God often sees situations as prayers, and responds; demonstrating that the effectiveness of prayer is not simply dependent upon our ability to verbalize, because this ability varies between persons.</p><p><em>Behold, a stairway set upon the earth, and its top reached to heaven. Behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em>. The idea of a stairway leading into Heaven of course has obvious connections with the ziggurats of those times; the white limestone cliffs or slopes around him merged into a ziggurat in his dreams. But note that those stairways had a temple on the ground immediately where the stairway started, and led up to a temple at the summit. On a human level, Jacob's subconscious was thinking of pagan temple systems. But God turned all this around. For the man Jacob lying there that night, in all his weakness, was a temple, connected by the Angels to Yahweh's Heavenly temple. And we too in all our weaknesses are the temples of God on this earth. Thus his idolatrous dream of a Ziggurat was turned into an assurance of Divine care for him, the shrine which topped Mesopotamian ziggurats being turned by God in the vision into the throne of Yahweh. Indeed, ‘Babylon’ meant “gate of God”, and in thinking that he was at heaven’s gates, Jacob was confusing Babylon and the true city of God. But still God worked through all this.</p><p>The stairway or ladder was "set", literally, erected or stood up. The same word is used for how Jacob later at this very same place stood up or erected an altar (<em><a href='B:10 35:14'>Gen 35:14</a></em>). A different word is used here in :18. Jacob realized that his altars and sacrifices were ascending to God Himself personally, just as this magnificent staircase led to God, with Angels ascending and descending upon it, between God and himself. This is the power of prayer, of covenant relationship, of sacrifice and fellowship with God. The idea of reaching up to heaven and God reaching down from heaven is meant literally here, but it is also a metaphor meaning that God paid attention to the point of feeling whatever was done on earth (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:21'>Gen 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 28:9'>2Ch 28:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 51:9'>Jer 51:9</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:18:5'>Rev 18:5</a></em>). This sensitivity of God, and His response, is articulated through the Angels. Jacob was being taught that it is not just the situation at Babel or Sodom which elicits this huge attention; but the state of a lonely fugitive sleeping rough in the semi-desert. He deals directly with individuals. The order "ascending and descending" suggests that our situation is as it were taken up to God in heaven, and then He responds through Angelic means (descending). </p><p>We all grow up with some concept of God. This is as true for those with atheist or apostate backgrounds as it is for those steeped in Sunday School from the cradle. That concept of God which we have in our youth tends to stay with us, and in some ways dogs us for much of our lives. Growth towards a real, personal knowledge of the true God, <em>our </em>Father, is a lifelong process. Jacob grew up in the most spiritual home on earth at the time (although some of the goings on would have made the neighbours doubt this). He was brought up 'in the Truth', we could say. And yet his conception of God was woefully immature for many years. His struggle towards the true knowledge of God is not only fascinating; because Jacob's spiritual growth really is intended as <em>our </em>model. Nathaniel thought he really believed in the Lord Jesus. The Lord commented: "You shall see (usually used in John concerning faith and spiritual perception)&nbsp; greater things than these... you will see heaven opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man" (<em><a href='B:500 1:51'>Joh 1:51</a></em> RSV). It was Jacob who saw Heaven opened and the Angels ascending and descending. And the Lord's comment that Nathaniel was "an Israelite (Jacob-ite) indeed, in whom is no guile" (i.e. Jacob without his guileful side) is a reference to Jacob's name change. It confirms that Nathaniel was to follow Jacob's path of spiritual growth; he thought he believed, he thought he saw Christ clearly; but like Jacob, he was to comprehend far greater things.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac-</em></p><p> This is another way of reminding Jacob of the promise given to Abraham, "I will be their God". Yahweh Himself was involved with Jacob; the huge staircase was to make Jacob see that his situation was directly transferred to God, and God would directly respond; for the bottom of the ladder was Jacob, more precisely, Jacob's mind. And God saw all that was there and responded there, through a huge, awesome system. </p><p>It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. The vision of Jacob's ladder showed the Angels coming and going, perhaps meaning that they are sometimes physically present with us, sometimes not. <em><a href='B:10 28:13-15'>Gen 28:13-15</a></em> are the words of the Angel to Jacob. God manifested through Jacob's specific guardian Angel then goes on to say, v. 15, "I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken of unto thee" (AV). At the end of his life, Jacob mentions the presence of the Angel which he had sensed all through his life. But that one Angel controlled the multitude of Angels which he saw that night in vision ministering to him. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed</em>-</p><p> This was making specific the Abrahamic blessing, which Isaac had never clearly articulated to Jacob because he seemed so caught up in the literal, material aspects of the promises. So far as we know, Jacob had no wife nor children. He was being set up psychologically to expect that soon, therefore, he would have both. He meets Rachel, but finds that this promise was hard of fulfilment; he had to work seven years for her, and then there were major issues of infertility. All this was not God punishing Jacob, but rather seeking to hone his focus and faith in this prophetic word.</p>


text:
<p><em>Your seed will be as the dust of the earth, and you will spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. In you and in your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 12:3'>Gen 12:3</a></em>. Paul interprets the "seed" as singular, referring to the Lord Jesus, and the multiplication as being through individuals being baptized into that seed (<em><a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>). This promise of spreading abroad geographically didn't happen in Jacob's lifetime, and so he would have been driven to faith in a resurrection and future fulfilment in the Kingdom of God on earth. The mention of the compass points would have encouraged Jacob to see himself as Abraham, who was told the same (<em><a href='B:10 13:14'>Gen 13:14</a></em>). However, he does use the Hebrew for "spread abroad" in describing how his family has "increased greatly" (<em><a href='B:10 30:30'>Gen 30:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 30:43'>Gen 30:43</a></em>). The blessing of all families of the <em>eretz</em> came true in a limited sense through his seed Joseph being a blessing for them all in saving them from famine through giving all families of the earth the bread of life, pointing forward to the salvation of all peoples from all compass points in Christ (<em><a href='B:490 13:29'>Luk 13:29</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:13'>Rev 21:13</a></em>). And so we see what we ought to discern in our lives- an incipient fulfilment of the Kingdom blessings right now. </p>


text:
<p><em>Behold, I am with you, and will keep you, wherever you go, and will bring you again into this land. For I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken of to you</em>-</p><p> <em><a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a></em> combines quotes from <em><a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 1:5'>Jos 1:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:50 31:16'>Deu 31:16</a></em>. <em><a href='B:650 13:5'>Heb 13:5</a></em> doesn’t quote any of them exactly, but mixes them together. This is typical of how the New Testament quotes the Old, and is how the Rabbinic commentaries likewise functioned. The promises just made were eternal, and so the promise to not leave Jacob until they were fulfilled continues right up to the establishment of the Kingdom on earth at the Lord's return; He therefore will never "leave" Jacob and his seed, the true Israel of God. Which is why this promise is so frequently applied to all God's people at various points in history. "I am with you", Emmanuel, God with us, is a promise carried on to all the true seed, as Jacob himself realized when he insists that "God will be with you" (<em><a href='B:10 48:21'>Gen 48:21</a></em>; repeated in <em><a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a></em>); although it maybe took him a lifetime to realize it, seeing that in :20 he seems to question it at this stage: "If God will be with me..." (AV). </p><p>The promise of Divine keeping connects with the Angel cherubim keeping the way to the tree of life (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>); Jacob was promised to be kept in the way, however lonely that way must have seemed at the time, with the end in view being re-entry to a restored Eden. But the same word is used of how Abraham's seed were to "keep" the covenant and "the way of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:10 17:9'>Gen 17:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a></em>); and Israel in the wilderness, for whom Moses was primarily writing Genesis, also had an Angel to "keep" them in that "way" (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>). But the life of spiritually stumbling Jacob shows that this was and is not a tit for tat offer- 'If you keep My covenant, I'll keep you'. God kept Jacob in the way by grace, even when Jacob was not committed to keeping the covenant (see on :21,22). God unilaterally fulfilled His side of it, and it was this grace which finally led Jacob to respond. Moses uses this word "keep" multiple times in Deuteronomy, several times in almost every chapter. He urges Israel to both "keep" the covenant requirements, and also to "keep" themselves and their own hearts (<em><a href='B:50 15:9'>Deu 15:9</a></em>). The covenant was therefore so intensely personal, and the Angel who worked to "keep" them within the covenant way (<em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>) was therefore working on a personal level with every heart within Israel. And that Angel in its work is understood as the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and lives today (<em><a href='B:290 63:9-10'>Isa 63:9-10</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>). Under the new covenant, the Spirit is placed within our hearts to cause us to "keep" the covenant requirements (<em><a href='B:330 36:27'>Eze 36:27</a></em>). As Jacob came finally to "keep" the covenant in which he himself had been kept by grace, we are to follow his path (<em><a href='B:350 12:6'>Hos 12:6</a></em>). </p><p>"Bring you again into this land" is the same Hebrew word for word as in <em><a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a></em>: "return unto the ground", from which Adam had been taken just as Israel in the wilderness and Jacob had originally been in the <em>eretz</em> and were being brought again to it, albeit by a long and circuitous route. The connection is to highlight the way in which there is a way out of the curse upon Adam; we shall indeed return unto the ground, but we can also be brought into the promised land- necessarily, through a bodily resurrection from the dead. This is one of so many nudges throughout the Bible that the curses upon Adam can ultimately be reversed for God's people.</p><p>God promised that He would not leave or forsake Jacob. He said the same to Israel in the wilderness, and yet predicted that Israel would leave or forsake God by forsaking the covenant and thereby God would leave / forsake them (<em><a href='B:50 31:8'>Deu 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a></em>). Likewise God did not forsake or leave Jacob's father Isaac because Isaac respected the implications of the covenant (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>). But the way God speaks to Jacob here appears to be unconditionally promising that He would not leave Jacob; and it was that unmerited grace which in the end elicited Jacob's response to it.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob awakened out of his sleep, and he said, Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I didn’t know it</em>-</p><p> The conflict of tenses is arresting. Yahweh <em>is</em> (present) here, but I did not (previously) know it. Although the vision was ended, Jacob realized that the promised presence of God, with Angels ascending and descending upon him, was ongoing, and not just a dream. And he admits that he had not appreciated this when he first laid down in that place, nor earlier in his life. We see here definite growth in Jacob. The same Hebrew term is found in <em><a href='B:20 6:3'>Exo 6:3</a></em>, where we read that Yahweh revealed Himself to Jacob and He was 'known' to him thereby. So we conclude that after the dream, Jacob 'knew' Yahweh, although he had not previously done so. We note the gradual growth of Jacob in knowing or having relationship with God.</p><p>"Yahweh is" in Hebrew here means more than the present tense of the verb "to be". The idea is that Yahweh exists, right here. Moses was primarily writing for Israel in the wilderness, who had questioned whether "Yahweh is among us" using the same Hebrew (<em><a href='B:20 17:7'>Exo 17:7</a></em>, as <em><a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a></em>). Even if they had not known it, they were to realize that His presence, mediated perhaps by the same Angel who dealt with Jacob, was just as real for them as it had been for him in the desert that night. <em><a href='B:50 29:26'>Deu 29:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:17'>Deu 32:17</a></em> and other passages teach that the idols of the nations were not 'known' by Israel who worshipped them; the idea is that Yahweh alone enters into personal relationship, which is the Hebrew idea of 'knowing'. And likewise all the possible idols in our lives do not offer the personal knowing / relationship with God which He alone does.</p>


text:
<p><em>He was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! This is none other than God’s house, and this is the gate of heaven</em>-</p><p> "Dreadful" suggests that Jacob feared God with the fear of one who has no real relationship with Him. He was on one hand in awe at God's closeness; and yet he was afraid. I suggest this was the fear of sinful man before God Almighty. The first reference to "fear" is in Adam's words of guilt before God: "I was afraid" (<em><a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a></em>). He feared because he felt he was so close to God now; at the gate of heaven. The Lord maybe used this idea in speaking of the virgins in the parable knocking at the door of the Kingdom. Jacob felt he was still "outside", at God's gate, so close, but perhaps he felt so far, and therefore feared. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on its top</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:500 1:50'>Joh 1:50</a></em>. As noted on :12,&nbsp; Jacob understood this makeshift alter as his poor replica of the stairway to heaven. His humble altar and sacrifice of the oil of his spirit were a way of ascending to God Himself personally, just as this magnificent staircase led to God, with Angels ascending and descending upon it, between God and himself. This is the power of prayer, of covenant relationship, of sacrifice and fellowship with God. </p>


text:
<p><em>He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first</em>-</p><p> Before that watershed night of Genesis 32, Jacob was influenced by the surrounding religious ideas, and was possibly involved with idol worship. The fact he openly says that Yahweh will only become his God <em>if</em> He brings him back home in peace is proof enough that up until age 77 at the earliest, Jacob was not an unreserved worshipper of Yahweh. Yet knowing the nature of the man, it seems impossible to believe that he was totally irreligious until the time of his repentance in Genesis 32. The connections between Jacob and idolatry are so very numerous throughout the prophets that it seems impossible to totally disconnect him from idolatry. "Luz" appears to refer to a tree which was associated with idolatry. Jacob renamed it to Bethel, the house of God, although his later life was hardly free from the influences of idolatry. But here we see the beginnings of the development of a rejection of idolatry. He also perceived that God needs no "house", for He reveals Himself deep within the heart of His people, and ascends and descends upon them, wherever they are. This was a not insignificant paradigm shift; for the 'religion' of his day as of ours tended to think in terms of having a 'house of prayer', a place you went to do your religious stuff and find contact with your deity. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go- </em>See on <em><a href='B:10 48:20'>Gen 48:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 10:16'>Jer 10:16</a></em>. As Jacob set out to relatives in a distant land, hoping to find a wife, he was fully aware that he was in principle replicating his father's experience. When he spoke of God keeping him "in this way that I go" and bringing him again "to my father's house" (:21), his mind was on the story he had so often heard of how God lead Abraham's servant in "the right way" and leading back home with a wonderful wife for Isaac his father (<em><a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:40'>Gen 24:40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:42'>Gen 24:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:48'>Gen 24:48</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a></em>). When at this stage in life (he was 77, remember) things suddenly took a different turn, his great hope was that God would bring him back safely "again to my father's house in peace" (28:21); he wanted to go back to the stay-at-home life. What God put him through in the rest of his life was the exact opposite of this. He says that if God does this, he will "surely give the tenth unto thee" (28:22 cp. 14:20)- exactly as granddad Abraham had done (<em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>), who had doubtless told Jacob this many a time as they 'dwelled together in tents' (<em><a href='B:650 11:9'>Heb 11:9</a></em>). We very much get the impression that Jacob was wrapped up with his parents too much; he had not yet avowed Yahweh as his personal God, but he felt a safety in his religious family and consciously and subconsciously living out their expectations. He was like many raised "in the faith"; he had to discover it all for himself, alone, and throw away the crutches of the family environment, upon which a man shall never see his God for himself.&nbsp; </p><p><em>And will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on- </em>This is simply incredible in its lack of faith; '<em>If</em> God will really look after me, which includes giving me food and clothes, <em>if</em> He's as good as His word, then I'll accept Him as my God'. And yet Paul speaks of how we should serve our Master well, especially if he is our brother (alluding to Jacob and Laban), and "having food and raiment be content" (<em><a href='B:610 6:2'>1Ti 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 6:8'>1Ti 6:8</a></em>), as if the fact Jacob only expected food and clothing from God was a sign of his unmaterialism. The Spirit focused upon one part of Jacob's words and imputed righteousness to him because of them, just as the bitter and cynical words of Sarah are quoted so positively in the New Testament. At the very time Jacob said those words, he at best only half believed, and the next 20 (or 40) years of his life were devoted to accumulating far more than just food and clothing. And yet his words regarding food and raiment, sandwiched as they are between much that is wrong, are treated as a reflection of his spirituality. </p><p>Having heard the promises concerning his future seed and the present protection God would grant him, Jacob immediately seized on the latter: "If God will be with me... then shall Yahweh be my God" (:21). He brushed past the implications of Messiah, although later he came to see that these were the most fundamental things God had promised. The way he raised up (cp. resurrection) the pillar and anointed it at this time may have shown a faint conception of Messiah, but this took years to seriously develop. </p><p>“If God… then…” implies was that Jacob didn't consider Yahweh to be his God at that time. He was not totally committed to Yahweh as his God. The fact he promises to give a tenth to God <em>in the future</em> suggests that he did not then consider God to be his King, for the idea of tithing seems to have been established before the Law of Moses was given (as were many other elements of that Law; <em><a href='B:10 14:20'>Gen 14:20</a></em>). Jacob's words sound as if he believed in 'God' as a kind of force or spirit, but did not have Yahweh as his personal God. And yet God had promised Abraham that He would be the God of his seed (<em><a href='B:10 17:7-8'>Gen 17:7-8</a></em>); Jacob was aware of these promises, and yet he is showing that he did not accept their personal relevance to him at this time. The fact at the end he does call God his God reveals that he then accepted the Abrahamic promises as relevant to him personally. His offer to give a tithe to God if God delivered him would have been understood in those days as saying that Yahweh would then be his <em>king</em> (cp. <em><a href='B:90 8:15'>1Sa 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 8:17'>1Sa 8:17</a></em>); and yet he evidently felt that Yahweh wasn't then his King. &nbsp;There is no record that Jacob ever did build a temple or tithe; but at the end of his life he realizes that God had kept <em>His</em> side of the deal, in that He had been with him and fed him all his life long. The fact he hadn’t kept his side of the deal made Jacob realize the huge grace of God…</p>&nbsp;<p>The fact at the end he does call Yahweh his God reveals that he then accepted the Abrahamic promises as relevant to him personally (<em><a href='B:10 49:24-25'>Gen 49:24-25</a></em>). This is an essay in the titanic difference between knowledge and belief. At baptism we tend to have knowledge, which masquerades as belief. And all our lives long we must struggle, as Jacob did, to turn knowledge into faith. His <em>personal</em> grasp of the wonder of the promises at the end is revealed in <em><a href='B:10 48:4'>Gen 48:4</a></em>, where Jacob recounts how "God Almighty... said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession" (AV). God never actually said all this to Jacob; Jacob is quoting the promise to Abraham of <em><a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a></em> <em>and applying it to himself</em>. And with us too, a personal grasp of the wonder of it all, that it really applies to <em>me</em>, is a mark of that final maturity we fain would achieve.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>So only at the end, Yahweh was Jacob's God. God seems to recognize this by describing Himself as the God of Jacob / Israel so very often. His joy, His sheer delight at Jacob's spiritual achievement is recorded throughout the Bible. The way God describes Himself as "the God of Israel" (201 times) or "the God of Jacob" (25 times) infinitely more times than anyone else's God is proof enough that God saw His relationship with Jacob as very special. "God of Abraham" occurs 17 times; "God of Isaac" 8 times; "God of David" 4 times. Remember that whenever we read "Israel", we are reading of the man Jacob and his children. That God was the God of mixed-up, struggling Jacob is a sure comfort to every one of us. God is not ashamed to be surnamed the God of Jacob (<em><a href='B:650 11:16'>Heb 11:16</a></em> Gk.). The clear parallel between the historical man Jacob and the people of Israel is brought out in <em><a href='B:460 1:2'>Mal 1:2</a></em>: “I loved you… I loved Jacob”. Had Israel appreciated God’s love for the man Jacob, and perceived that he was typical of them, then they would never have doubted God’s love for them. And the same is true of us, whom Jacob likewise represents.</p><p>The covenant God made with Abraham was similar in style to covenants&nbsp; made between men at that time; and yet there was a glaring difference. Abraham was not required to do anything or take upon himself any obligations. Circumcision (cp. baptism) was to remember that this covenant of grace had been made. It isn’t part of the covenant (thus we are under this same new, Abrahamic covenant, but don’t require circumcision). Perhaps this was why Yahweh but not Abraham passed between the pieces, whereas usually both parties would do so. The promises to Abraham are pure, pure grace. Sadly Jacob didn’t perceive the wonder of this kind of covenant- his own covenant with God was typical of a human covenant, when he says that <em>if</em> God will give him some benefits, then he will give God some. Although he knew the covenant with Abraham, the one way, gracious nature of it still wasn’t perceived by him. &nbsp;</p><p>Because of the great importance of Angels or a specific Angel in our lives, many of God's people seem to have conceived of God in terms of an Angel. Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 48:15'>Gen 48:15</a></em>) and the patriarchs are clear examples. The extent of this is shown by Jacob vowing to his Angel at Bethel that "if God (the Angel) be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go... so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord (Yahweh) be my God" (<em><a href='B:10 28:20-21'>Gen 28:20-21</a></em>). That the 'God' was definitely the Angel is shown by <em><a href='B:10 31:11'>Gen 31:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:13'>Gen 31:13</a></em>: "The Angel of God spake unto (Jacob)... I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me". So was Jacob promising his Angel that if He protected him, "then shall Yahweh be my Elohim (Angel)"- i.e. 'then I will recognize Yahweh is behind you, and I will relate to Him as I do to you'?</p>


text:
<p><em>So that I come again to my father’s house in peace, and Yahweh will be my God</em>-</p><p> The AV and others suggest that Yahweh becoming Jacob's God was part of the deal which Jacob was offering God. See on :20 for the implications of this. We can each personally, as members of the seed, enter into Jacob's experience at this time. David certainly did:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td><em><a href='B:10 28:20-21'>Gen 28:20-21</a></em> re. Jacob </td><td>Psalms 23 re. David </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He is with me </td><td>For You are with <em>me </em>(i.e. just as You were with Jacob) </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He will keep me </td><td>He makes me lie down, he leads me, he restores my life </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>He will give me bread to eat </td><td>He prepares a table before me in the presence of my enemies </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I come again to my father's house in peace </td><td>I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>David was a man who saw the height of Jacob, perceiving Jacob as our example, and the deep significance of his spiritual growth as our pattern. His almost fanatic devotion to "the Law" would have included the record of Jacob- around a fifth of "the Law" which he studied all the day (and deep into the night watches). </p><p>It's questionable whether Jacob ever did really return to his father's home in peace. But all the same, as is clear from Jacob's final words, he fully accepted Yahweh as his God at the end of his life. He realized that his passionate hankering after being back home with mum and dad, of returning to how things used to be... was of the flesh. God wanted him to be a man, standing alone before Him. And Jacob realized that, and made Yahweh his God all the same, despite never really returning home in peace. He likely never saw his mother again, and the record of his burial of Isaac with Esau leaves us to imagine his nervousness and inability to ever live again near Esau. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, will be God’s house. Of all that you will give me I will surely give the tenth to you</em>-</p><p> As noted on :20, this was understood as accepting Yahweh as his king. There is no record that Jacob ever did tithe to Yahweh, nor that he ever attempted to build a sanctuary, a literal "house", at the spot where he had erected that pillar. He does return there and erect a pillar later (see on :12), but he built no literal "house" of worship for God. He would've looked back and perceived how inappropriate was his bargain with God; and all he offered to do, he concluded was inappropriate. God was worthy of his all, not just a tenth; and the house of God was him, his heart, upon which Angels ascended and descended constantly because of his covenant relationship. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east</em>-</p><p> A 450 mile journey. Balaam was from here (<em><a href='B:40 23:7'>Num 23:7</a></em>), and he apparently had a relationship with Yahweh. So the knowledge of the true God was somehow still around there; perhaps Abraham had told his family why he was leaving Ur, or had sent message back there of his relationship with Yahweh. But as noted on <em><a href='B:10 25:6'>Gen 25:6</a></em>, to go to the East was a sign of leaving the land of promise and returning to where the true seed of Abraham should have left from. Jacob's parents had operated on the principle that Isaac would not go to the land of the east, rather Rebekah must leave there. So the whole journey was not on the right basis; yet still God worked through it, and out of so much failure and dysfunction there, forged the people of Israel, His covenant people.</p>


text:
<p><em>He looked, and behold, a well in the field, and, behold, three flocks of sheep lying there by it. For out of that well they watered the flocks. The stone on the well’s mouth was large</em>-</p><p> The repeating similarities between our lives and those of others also reveal to us that God at times arranges for us to suffer from our <em>alter ego</em>-</p><p> persons who behave similarly to us, and who through those similarities cause us suffering. In this way we are taught the error of our ways, both past and present. It seems that Jacob the deceiver suffered in this way from Laban the deceiver- in order to teach him and cause his spiritual growth. For example, as Jacob deceived his blind father relating to an important family matter, so Laban deceived Jacob in the darkness of the wedding night. And Jacob learnt from this- whereas Laban (so it seems) just didn't "get it". Indeed, so many themes repeated in Jacob's life in order to teach him. For example, when he first meets Rachel, there are three other flocks of sheep waiting to be watered (<em><a href='B:10 29:2'>Gen 29:2</a></em>); but the implication of <em><a href='B:10 29:10'>Gen 29:10</a></em> is that Jacob rolled away the stone from the well and watered them and ignored the other three flocks. But did not this stone return upon his own head when God rolled away the reproach of the other three women in Jacob's life (Leah and the two servant girls) but not that of Rachel, who initially remained barren? Is this the significance of the three unwatered flocks? We wonder at the significance of these three flocks of sheep. Perhaps the reference is to the division of the earth / <em>eretz</em> dwellers into the three sons of Noah. </p>


text:
<p><em>There all the flocks were gathered. They rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the stone again on the well’s mouth in its place</em>-</p><p> This was their tradition- to wait until all the flocks were gathered and then remove the stone. Jacob felt this to be inefficient, as the sheep could have been grazing for the hours they were kept hanging around the well (:7). The headstrong, intelligent, hard working Jacob was to soon face years of looking after sheep day and night, consumed by the frost at night. Truly he was brought down, that he might be exalted.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to them, My relatives, where are you from? They said, We are from Haran</em>-</p><p> Jacob apparently didn't know how close he was to Haran. There would've been no informative signposts on the road of the type we are used to. He addresses them as "brothers", a standard Middle Eastern form of address; but he could have sensed that he was drawing near to where his relatives lived. He was psychologically set up to expect a meeting of his relatives and his future wife, by a well- just as had happened to Eliezer in choosing a wife for Jacob's father. So he was hopeful that these indeed might be his relatives.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to them, Do you know Laban, the son of Nahor? They said, We know him</em>-</p><p> Laban was Nahor's grandson, but Hebrew genealogies frequently skip generations. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said to them, Is it well with him? They said, It is well. See, Rachel, his daughter, is coming with the sheep</em>-</p><p> The structure of the Hebrew language seems to reflect something of God's way of thinking. In Biblical Hebrew, there's no term for "yes" in replying to a question. Instead, the person answering repeats the question. Thus here Jacob asks: "Is he well?"; and the shepherds reply "Well". God's way of saying "Yes" to our prayers / requests is to repeat back to us as it were our requests; and thus the form and wording of our prayers becomes in some sense important; for what we ask for is what we will receive back, if He answers positively. </p><p>"Rachel" means "ewe", identifying her with her sheep. Jacob's heart would have been in his mouth, expecting to meet his future wife. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Behold, it is still the middle of the day, not time to gather the livestock together. Water the sheep, and go and feed them</em>-</p><p> Jacob displays here the typical zeal and acumen of the Abraham family. The shepherd girls were wasting time, as he saw it; they should water the animals and then take them for feeding, rather than losing feeding time milling around the well with them. However it may be that Jacob wanted to meet Rachel alone, or at least, without the presence of the male shepherds; and he therefore took the initiative to get these men watering their flocks, so that he could meet Rachel without them. He was absolutely psychologically set up to expect that he would be meeting his future wife.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said, We can’t, until all the flocks are gathered together, and they roll the stone from the well’s mouth. Then we water the sheep</em>-</p><p> They may be alluding to some local custom; for Jacob alone could move the stone. It wasn't that they couldn't budge the stone. Perhaps they were fearing evaporation from the well or water warming if the stone was left off for too long. But see on :7 and :10. </p>


text:
<p><em>While he was yet speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she kept them</em>-</p><p> This is emphasized (:7 too). "Coming with the sheep" would have restimulated images of his mother Rebekah coming with her father's sheep to a well near Haran. The record very cleverly presents Jacob as bound to fall in love with Rachel at first sight, and indeed he does.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban, his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban, his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother</em>-</p><p> As explained previously, Jacob was psychologically set up to fall in love with Rachel at first sight. We don't read that he fell in love on first sight, but rather that he moved the stone. He had been psychologically set up to expect that like his father, he too would find a wife in Laban's family (<em><a href='B:10 28:2'>Gen 28:2</a></em>), and God would bless him in his mission (<em><a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a></em>). So when he finds that one of the pretty shepherd girls he meets by a well is in fact Laban's daughter, his heart and whole psychology would have been elated. And so he finds the physical strength to impress the girl by shifting the heavy stone; or, as suggested on :8, to upset the local customs of only moving the stone once&nbsp; all the flocks were gathered. And then the stress and relief issues forth in the tears of emotional breakdown (:11). This has absolute credibility in psychological terms and confirms the internal veracity of the inspired record.</p><p>We see reflected here Jacob’s psychological domination by his mother- Laban is three times called “his mother’s brother”. And he followed his mother's weaker side too. Rebekah rejected the promise of <em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em> in ch:27; as Jacob in <em><a href='B:10 33:3-5'>Gen 33:3-5</a></em>. There is sustained emphasis on Jacob's obedience to his parents, especially to his mother (<em><a href='B:10 27:8'>Gen 27:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:13'>Gen 27:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:43'>Gen 27:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:7'>Gen 28:7</a></em>). The whole story is a foretaste of the issues involved with Christians and parental expectation in our day. It might not be going too far to say that he grew up far too much under her thumb; he meekly obeyed her faithless suggestion that he deceive his father into granting him the blessing, content with her assurance that it would be mum's sin, not his (and I imagine her pecking him on the cheek as she gave him the tray with Isaac's food on). No wonder he fell madly in love at first sight, when he first saw the girl he knew his mother wanted him to marry. Jacob introduces himself as "Rebekah's son" (29:12), although it would have been more normal to describe himself as Jacob ben-Isaac. 29:10 labours the point three times that Laban was "his <em>mother's </em>brother". The fact Deborah, his mother's nurse, was taken under the wing by Jacob, further suggests his very close bond with his mother; he buried Deborah under Allon-Bachuth- 'the oak of his (Jacob's) weeping' (<em><a href='B:10 35:8'>Gen 35:8</a></em>). &nbsp;Jacob struggled to accept his father's God as his God. And yet he in so many ways is portrayed as deeply influenced by Rebekah his mother.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept</em>-</p><p> That he should break down in tears is absolutely in line with the psychology of the situation which I have outlined so far in this chapter. The pressure release would have been enormous, mixed with joy that the apparently chosen wife for him was very beautiful. And yet God's intention was that he should marry Leah, not Rachel. Jacob was being led this way to try to teach him that marriage is not about the flesh but the spirit. For Rachel never comes over as very spiritually minded, indeed she was so attached to the family idols that she stole them when the family left Laban's encampment. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son. She ran and told her father</em>-</p><p> We note his self-identity as <em>"</em>Rebekah’s son"- not Jacob ben-Isaac, as would've been the usual introduction. See on :10. Her running was another connection with how Rebekah, Jacob's mother, had likewise run from the well back to her father with the news. </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, when Laban heard the news of Jacob, his sister’s son, that he ran to meet Jacob, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban all these things</em>-</p><p> Again the similarities are so clear with Eliezer's visit to get Rebekah as a wife for Isaac. Circumstances do indeed repeat in human lives, so that we might discern the principles and lessons. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said to him, Surely you are my bone and my flesh. He lived with him for a month</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; We recall Laban wanting Rebekah to stay with them about a month before agreeing to marry Isaac. As noted above, the similarities with the marriage of Rebekah are so clear. But the spiritual aspect wasn't paralleled at all. To continue that, Jacob ought to have explained that Rachel would have to leave the land of the east and return to the <em>eretz</em> with him; and he should have pointed out to everyone that he had had a vision at Bethel which had assured him that this was God's program for him, and he wished to remain part of it. But the spiritual side of things was quite lacking. He apparently only saw a pretty girl who restimulated his feelings for his mother. </p><p>We note that "my bone and my flesh" means 'blood relative', and the same term is used of our relationship to the Lord Jesus within His body (<em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em>). This is indeed a challenging level of intimacy; our relationship with Him is no mere occasional hobby. In a very detailed study of this language, the theologian Henricus Renckens concluded: "In Israel, in order to say that someone was a blood relation, one said: "He is my flesh and my bones" (<em><a href='B:10 29:14'>Gen 29:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a></em>; cp. <em><a href='B:10 37:27'>Gen 37:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a></em> ff.; <em><a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a></em>)" (H. Renckens, <em>Israel's Concept of the Beginning: The Theology of Genesis 1-3</em> (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964) p. 228). This is how close we are to the Lord Jesus- blood relatives. This language could in no way be justified if Jesus were God Himself in person.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said to Jacob, Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what will your wages be?</em>-</p><p> Laban had been given a fortune in the ten camels' worth of expensive presents and metals which he had been given when Rebekah married Isaac. But his avarice is clear. He saw in Jacob a good worker. We meet here the idea of 'serving', and in the next verse, the idea of older and younger siblings. Jacob had laboured wrongly and in his own strength to bring about God's prediction that between him and his brother, the elder would serve the younger. The word "serve" is so repeatedly used about how Jacob served Laban (:18,20,25,27,30; 30:26,29; 31:6,41; <em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>). Jacob had so wanted the blessing to come true, of his older brother serving him. But he never really got that in his life, and he was made to realize what serving your brother or relative (Laban) was really like. He was being made to understand how Esau would have felt if he had served Jacob as Jacob intended. We too are taught how things we once hankered after would've been, had they come true. And this is why the motif of elder and younger siblings is included in Jacob's experience of "serving", to remind him of the whole drama in his own earlier life about the elder serving the younger. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban had two daughters. The name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel</em>-</p><p> See on :15. If we are to assume these were his only daughters, then he had not been greatly blessed with children. Laban is presented as focused on material wealth and blessing, and yet never really achieving it as he wished, despite his schemes. And Jacob ought to have learnt from that.</p>


text:
<p><em>Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and attractive</em>-</p><p> The reference could be to weak eyesight, which was a feature of the Abraham family. Or the reference could be to how Semitic peoples value vivacious, sparkling eyes; Rachel had these, but Leah didn't. Leah was "in appearance dull" (another acceptable translation) in comparison to Rachel. Again we see that Jacob's attraction to Rachel was of the flesh.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob loved Rachel. He said, I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter</em>-</p><p> Jacob had been promised that he was to “let people serve you” (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em>) and yet he effectively said he didn’t want that promise, by serving Laban for a wife (29:18,25,27); at the end he was brought through life’s experiences to see that the promises are the basis of life, and that we must let God fulfill them to us.&nbsp;Seven years labour was a significant dowry; the once wealthy Jacob, apparent heir of Isaac's huge wealth, was now reduced to a penniless man in love, willing to sign himself up for seven years hard manual labour in order to get married. It was a huge comedown, and he must have wondered at times how God's promise "I will be with you" would really work out, as it certainly seemed to have little cash value through all those years; "for a wife he kept sheep" (<em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>). </p><p>The deal was clearly defined- it was for "your younger daughter", perhaps stressed because Jacob was aware of the tradition to marry off the elder daughter first. He ought to have realized that it was God's plan he marry Leah, and seeing she was weak eyed, possibly an invalid, he would've served fewer years for her. But he wanted to go his own way and marry the pretty but less spiritual girl, and he suffered for it. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said, It is better that I give her to you, than that I should give her to another man. Stay with me</em>-</p><p> The implication could be that she was already promised to "another man" but Laban was prepared to cancel that agreement. In this case, we again are left with the impression that Jacob was Divinely intended to marry Leah and return with her to his father's house in peace. But he wanted to get around that and have Rachel, and so the whole sorry saga unravelled further; and yet through it all, God worked to build up His people from such unspiritual beginnings. Just as He does with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob served seven years for Rachel. They seemed to him but a few days, for the love he had for her</em>-</p><p> This may seem commendable, but we must remember the observations already made that it was the Divine 'Plan A' that he marry Leah. Instead he was obsessed with Rachel and making God's purpose work out in such a way that would reinforce his own desires. In essence, this temptation is present with all God's children. That same kind of obsession had led Jacob and Rebekah to defraud Esau of the birthright and blessing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her</em>-</p><p> We note that he didn't sleep with his betrothed for seven years, which is commendable. The fact Jacob had to take the initiative in asking Laban for his betrothed may already hint at a reluctance on Laban's part. Jacob's term "my days are fulfilled" sounds as if he had counted the days; to still feel like this toward Rachel after seven years of betrothal indicates a besotted love for her, although I have suggested earlier that this was an obsession which was ignoring the fact God had clearly intended him to marry Leah and then return to the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast</em>-</p><p> Laban was perhaps expecting some attempt by Jacob to take Rachel by force, or otherwise make a scene. So he gathered all the local men to be present. Surely they knew what was being planned. See on :27 "we". The Hebrew for "feast" is literally "a drinking", and this would explain why Jacob didn't realize he had slept with Leah rather than Rachel.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him. He went in to her</em>-</p><p> Surely one reason that Jacob disliked Leah subsequently was that he understandably felt she had played a conscious part in the deception. As noted on :32 and :34, she seems to have truly loved Jacob and wished that he would be joined to her in love. He clearly didn't feel joined to her nor love her, at least initially. However it's hard to imagine that Rachel didn't get wind of the conspiracy, and was not in some way part of it too.&nbsp; We are to suppose that in the earlier part of the ceremony, Rachel was acting the part of the bride; and then, as stated here, only in the evening, when Jacob was drunk, was Leah brought to Jacob. The idea was clearly that once Jacob had slept with her, he had to have her as his wife. So Rachel was surely involved in the deception. After all, where was she whilst all this was going on? What did she feel, what did she say?</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid to his daughter Leah for a handmaid</em>-</p><p> Laban gave Jacob his castoff maidservant, rather than Leah having her own maidens, as happened with Rebekah. This was somewhat of an insult, and an attempt to get power over Jacob in this way too. Zilpah was apparently given to Leah before the evening, if these verses are chronological. So she too was part of the deception. Jacob must have felt so alone, but that was all part of the Divine plan- to bring him to Him, just as He did at the vision of the ladder at Bethel.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened in the morning that, behold, it was Leah. He said to Laban, What is this you have done to me? Didn’t I serve with you for Rachel?- </em>We naturally enquire why only "in the morning" did Jacob realize the deception. I suggest he may well have been drunk; as noted on :22, "feast" is literally 'a drinking'. This would form a parallel with how Jacob had given Isaac his father wine when he likewise deceived him, under cover of the darkness of Isaac's blindness.</p><p><em>Why then have you deceived me?</em>-</p><p> Jacob was verbalizing the thoughts and words of Isaac and Esau whom he had deceived. The truthful answer was more or less: 'For money / material advantage'. And that was the answer which Jacob had to give to the same question asked of himself. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said, It is not done so in our place, to give the younger before the firstborn</em>-</p><p> The obvious response is that he should not have therefore contracted with Jacob for her. There is however evidence that this tradition of only giving the elder first could be waived if the elder was in some way deformed or blind; and there is the possibility that Leah was indeed like this, which would explain why it was Rachel and not Leah who was out with the sheep when Jacob first met her. It would also explain why Laban was at such pains to marry her off; and why Jacob specifically made the contract stating that Rachel was the younger daughter. So in every way, Laban had deceived Jacob, just as he had deceived his own father. </p>


text:
<p><em>Fulfill the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you will serve with me yet seven other years</em>-</p><p> The "we" connects with "the men of the place"; see on :22. This really left Jacob trapped; he had to agree. His obsessive love for Rachel had led him into the position; whereas if he had married Leah as it seems God planned, then he wouldn't have gotten into the impossible situation he was. For marrying two sisters was not only immoral, it was going to give rise to a miserable domestic life. He, the one time heir to all Isaac's huge wealth, was indeed brought very low.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week. He gave him Rachel his daughter as wife</em>-</p><p> He had a Divinely provided opportunity here to accept Leah as the wife God intended, and return home to the <em>eretz, </em>trusting God to keep His promise of bringing him home in peace. But his infatuation with the unspiritual Rachel and his pride led him to agree. And so many spiritual people have become obsessed with an unspiritual partner, leading to many wasted years, and frustration of the Divine possibilities for them. And we all miss Divine possibilities and potentials.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah, his handmaid, to be her handmaid</em>-</p><p> As noted on :24, unlike Rebekah, Rachel was not given her own virgins to assist her, but rather her father's ex. We notice that Bilhah and Zilpah were "his" handmaids. No mention is made of his wife. They may well have effectively been his women on the side, perhaps having had his children, and were therefore a way of exercising control over Jacob's family. To later have children by the ex-mistresses of his hated master would've been so emotionally painful for Jacob. </p>


text:
<p><em>He went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years</em>-</p><p> Jacob was under the one man: one woman ideal of Genesis; and yet he evidently didn't take this too seriously. His mad infatuation with Rachel meant that he thought nothing of polygamy. The idea of accepting one's married circumstances for the sake of principle was obviously foreign to our Jacob. Many aspects of the Mosaic Law were already in place before it was pronounced to Moses; the prohibition on marrying a second wife who was the sister of the first wife could well have been known among God's people in Jacob's time, seeing that it was a precept based on the principles of Eden (<em><a href='B:30 18:17-18'>Lev 18:17-18</a></em>). "It is wickedness" was God's comment to Moses, and there is no reason to think that His essential moral judgment on this kind of thing has ever changed much. Yet Jacob thought nothing of breaching this command, and committing this "wickedness". Leah's reaction to Jacob's evident favouritism for Rachel was to become obsessed with having children. When she failed to conceive, she panicked that she was barren, and therefore asked Jacob to have intercourse with her servant Zilpah in order to produce children. During the first seven years of her marriage, she produced 6 sons and 1 daughter. This indicated not only an incredible fertility, but also a high womanly status in those times, seeing that she produced so many more sons than daughters. The fact none of her children died in babyhood was also remarkable for the times. Her fertility became proverbial in later Israel (<em><a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a></em>). And yet despite this evident fecundity, whenever she thought she had failed to conceive, she asked Jacob to have intercourse with Zilpah. Despite knowing her fertility, Jacob did so. It seems he sacrificed basic principles in order to placate a neurotic wife who, it would seem, he didn't care too much for anyway, seeing he made it plain he had never wanted to marry her in the first place (29:25,31). The whole sense that we get is that his relationship with Zilpah was unnecessary, and he was far too casual in his attitude to it. Jacob had set out for Laban's home intending to get married, and God had promised to be with him. It could be argued that he should have accepted God's choice in Leah, especially as she clearly loved him (:32,34). But he wished to force things through his way, and so ended up marrying two sisters and serving at least 14 years of his life in relative poverty. </p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh saw that Leah was hated- </em>Jacob maybe did hate Leah because of her part in the deception practiced on him. But it is also possible to understand "hated" as meaning "loved less", he loved Rachel more than he did Leah (:30), and he possibly speaks with fondness of Leah after her death at <em><a href='B:10 49:31'>Gen 49:31</a></em>. This is a Semitic idiom, and is seen by comparing <em><a href='B:490 14:26'>Luk 14:26</a></em> (hating parents) with <em><a href='B:470 10:37'>Mat 10:37</a></em> (loving parents less than Christ). We note that God gave these barren women children because He felt sorry for them, as part of His sovereign purpose; there is no mention of the women and Jacob praying to God for children, as there is with Jacob's parents. Again we see the establishment of God's people Israel upon the basis of unilateral grace and Divine pity rather than human spirituality. One loved and one hated / loved less was exactly the situation God was in with Jacob and Esau (<em><a href='B:520 9:13'>Rom 9:13</a></em>). And Jacob was the beloved one. He ought to have perceived this, and responded with a similar grace.</p><p><em>And he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren</em>-</p><p> Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and only then responds (also in <em><a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 14:26'>2Ki 14:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a></em>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. I suggest God so enters our experience that in a sense He may limit His omniscience just as He can limit His omnipotence.</p><p><em><a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a></em> speaks of closed and open <em>wombs</em>, not fallopian tubes. There was no need for inspiration to produce a document that was so scientifically correct that the generation contemporary with it couldn’t cope with it. Indeed, the whole beauty of God’s revelation is that He takes people from where they are as they are, and leads them on to higher truth without having head on confrontation with them regarding their incorrect scientific understandings.</p>


text:
<p><em>Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she named him Reuben-</em></p><p> The root meaning fallacy arises from the false assumption that a word has a "proper meaning", which can be reached by tracing it to its source. But seeing that words change their meaning, the 'root' of a word isn't really much of a guide to its meaning. Take the English word 'nice', i.e. pleasant. In the eighteenth century this word meant 'precise' rather than 'pleasant'; and it actually derives from the Latin <em>nescius</em>, meaning 'ignorant'. It's obviously wrong to read the word 'nice' in a contemporary book and think that the word therefore means 'precise', or, even more accurately, 'ignorant'. Context and usage is obviously the key. I'm constantly amazed at how respectable lexicons like Liddell & Scott use the term "prop.", i.e. 'proper meaning', with the evident understanding that the earliest use of a word is somehow its real, 'proper' meaning. This is an utter fallacy. The meaning of the names of Jacob's children are parade examples. Reuben means 'behold a son', but the inspired narrator suggests a meaning of 'affliction' because the consonants with that word are vaguely similar to 'Reuben'.</p><p><em>For she said, Because Yahweh has looked at my affliction-</em></p><p>‘Looking upon’ is an idiom for answered prayer or God's response to human request (<em><a href='B:10 6:12'>Gen 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:25'>Exo 2:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 6:14'>Jdg 6:14</a></em>). Now apply this to how in <em><a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a></em> Mary exalts:&nbsp; "he hath looked upon…" (ASV). All this implies that Mary like Elisabeth had requested to have this child- to bear Messiah. She sees what God has done as “His mercy” to her (<em><a href='B:490 1:50'>Luk 1:50</a></em>), as if a request had been granted.</p><p><em>For now my husband will love me</em>-</p><p> The way Leah comments about Jacob to Rachel “Now will my husband love me… now this time will my husband be joined unto me” (<em><a href='B:10 29:32-34'>Gen 29:32-34</a></em>) all imply that Jacob’s marriage was in a mess. Jacob, Rachel and Leah were indeed a tangled web. God joins together a married couple; yet Jacob, apparently, neither loved his wife Leah / Rachel, nor had allowed God to join him unto her in emotional bonding. And there he was, having kids by his domestic servants as well, his boss’s cast-offs. And God <em>loved</em> this man, and worked with him <em>so</em> patiently, to build the house of Israel His people. There’s comfort enough for every man and woman, reading this record. The way Jacob is simply described as the one whom God loved in <em><a href='B:230 47:4'>Psa 47:4</a></em> is majestic in its brevity. God loved Jacob. He really did. Simple as that. When Jacob is the one presented as having struggled with God more than any other.</p><p>We can assume from <em><a href='B:10 49:4'>Gen 49:4</a></em> that Reuben later committed incest with Bilhah, his father's concubine. Leah was perhaps obsessed with the fact she had produced Jacob his firstborn son, and came to dote inappropriately upon her son. Whatever happened, the seeds of his later perversion would've been sown in early childhood. Truly Jacob's family life was a tragedy and a moral shambles; and yet out of it came the twelve sons who would be the foundations of God's people. This perhaps was to encourage us as that people, that we were created and are saved by grace and not by any moral purity or spirituality of our own.</p>


text:
<p><em>She conceived again, and bore a son, and said, Because Yahweh has heard that I am hated, He has therefore given me this son also. She named him Simeon</em>-</p><p> Her hopes that Reuben's birth would lead to Jacob loving her (:32) were misplaced; he still "hated" her, perhaps literally because of her willing part in the wedding night deception, or perhaps in the sense of being loved less; see on :31. If "loved less" is the sense of "hated", then we can conclude that Leah wanted to be loved <em>more</em> than her sister. The whole situation was an unspeakable agony for Jacob, but it was of his making. The wife God gave him was Leah, but he was so infatuated with Rachel that he ignored God's clear movement, and suffered for it in his family life. And yet out of that came God's people, Israel.</p>


text:
<p><em>She conceived again, and bore a son. She said, Now this time will my husband be joined to me, because I have borne him three sons. Therefore his name was called Levi</em>-</p><p> She seems to have truly loved Jacob and wished that he would be joined to her in love. He clearly didn't feel joined to her, for the reason noted on :23. The Genesis record has explained that God would help a married couple cleave or be joined together (<em><a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a></em>). The fact Jacob and Leah were not "joined" therefore reflects how Jacob or perhaps both of them were resisting God's joining power. </p>


text:
<p><em>She conceived again, and bore a son. She said, This time will I praise Yahweh. Therefore she named him Judah. Then she stopped bearing</em>-</p><p> She actually started bearing again later (<em><a href='B:10 30:17'>Gen 30:17</a></em>); but here we have an example of Scripture reporting things as they seemed at the time; we see&nbsp; something similar in the language of demons being cast out in the New Testament. The way Leah uses the Yahweh Name implies something positive about her level of spirituality; and despite feeling unloved by her husband, she felt she had something to praise Yahweh for. We don't see this kind of spirituality in the record of Rachel.</p>


text:
<p><em>When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister. She said to Jacob, Give me children, or else I will die</em>-</p><p> Proverbs often alludes to historical portions of the Hebrew Bible, and <em><a href='B:240 30:15-16'>Pro 30:15-16</a></em> surely alludes here; the barren womb says "give!" and will never be satisfied. I suggested throughout Genesis 29 that God intended Jacob to marry Leah and return in peace to the <em>eretz</em>, but instead he became obsessed with Rachel, the vivacious but unspiritual beauty. He dreamed for 7 years of hard labour about marrying her, and instead of returning home with Leah, he agreed a further 7 years labour for Rachel. And now it turns out she is barren, and she seems to have little love for Jacob. She would've had to play a conscious part in the deception at the wedding ceremony when she was replaced with Leah. And Jacob's domestic life becomes really awful, married to two sisters, with the younger bitterly jealous of the older. And that was surely exactly how Jacob had been with Esau, seeking by all means to get equal to him, taking the birthright and then deceiving Esau out of the blessing of the firstborn. Rachel clearly blames her infertility upon Jacob, and unlike Rebekah, doesn't bring God into the situation; although fertility is from God (<em><a href='B:90 2:6'>1Sa 2:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, Am I in God’s place, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?</em>-</p><p> Jacob saw the infertility as coming from God, and insisted Rachel was wrong to blame him for it; after all, he had had children by Leah her sister, and Rachel's suggestion he sleep with her maid was a tacit recognition that Jacob was fertile and the problem was with her. These words of Jacob were surely remembered by Rachel, and she quoted them to her son Joseph when she finally did become fertile; for he alone uses this Hebrew phrase in comforting his brothers that he is not going to judge or punish them, as he (like Jacob) was not "in God's place" (<em><a href='B:10 50:19'>Gen 50:19</a></em>). Joseph learnt from the story of his mother's previous barrenness that we are not in God's place; and in practice, this helped him in the psychologically gigantic task of forgiving his brothers and not seeking to judge them. </p>


text:
<p><em>She said, Behold, my maid Bilhah. Go in to her, that she may bear on my knees, and I also may obtain children by her</em>-</p><p> Jacob should have been aware from the situation with his grandfather Abraham and Hagar that this was unwise; Sarah's suggestion to Abraham brought nothing but grief and family feuding, and it was clearly a lack of faith in the Divine promises. But Jacob wouldn't learn from that, and again went along with the suggestion of the woman in his life. He failed to learn from his mistake in listening to his mother's idea about deceiving Isaac into blessing him. It could be that Rachel was in fact alluding to the example of Sarah as a precedent (<em><a href='B:10 16:2'>Gen 16:2</a></em>); whereas the spiritually perceptive would have seen this as an example which ought not to be followed.</p>


text:
<p><em>She gave him Bilhah her handmaid as wife, and Jacob went in to her</em>-</p><p> The woman slept with was considered a "wife", which was why Laban was at such pains to get Jacob to sleep with Leah at the wedding ceremony. if Jacob had remained with Leah as the Divine provision, he would not have slipped into polygamy let alone marrying two sisters; nor would he know slip further into the immorality of having children outside marriage. Once he had agreed to this with Rachel, he was going to have to with Leah. </p>


text:
<p><em>Bilhah conceived, and bore Jacob a son</em>-</p><p> Conception is portrayed as being of God, and although all the circumstances surrounding this were unspiritual, clearly God worked through it in order to create the basis for His future people of Israel. </p>


text:
<p><em>Rachel said, God has judged me, and has also heard my voice, and has given me a son. Therefore called she his name Dan</em>-</p><p> Rachel felt that God hearing her voice was Him judging her. The prayer of the poor is judged by God in His response to them (<em><a href='B:230 10:7-8'>Psa 10:7-8</a></em>). Coming boldly before the throne of grace in prayer is again judgment seat language (<em><a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a></em>). Our attitude to God in prayer now will be our attitude to Him at the judgment; we are 'bold / confident' before Him now, and we can be 'bold' then (<em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>). Before the throne of grace we find grace to help (<em><a href='B:650 4:16'>Heb 4:16</a></em>); whereas we will “find” (s.w.) mercy in the day of judgment (<em><a href='B:620 1:18'>2Ti 1:18</a></em>). Each time we receive grace to help before the throne, we are anticipating the judgment day scenario.</p><p>But did God really judge and justify Rachel through this? I'd say this was just her imagination. We note however that in :1,2 she had left God right out of the question, but now Rachel brings God into it, and even prayed for the child to be conceived. But her naming of it "Dan", Divine judgment, seems rather bitter. She may have meant that God was judging her sister somehow, as the next child refers also to her wrestling with her sister (:8); or liking to imagine that God judged her faithful to Him just because she had suggested her husband sleep with another woman. </p>


text:
<p><em>Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid, conceived again, and bore Jacob a second son</em>-</p><p> As Leah had apparently stopped having children, maybe because Jacob stopped sleeping with her, Rachel was apparently set on getting an equal or greater number of children. And so the use of Bilhah was not just a one off situation but was intended to be ongoing. The race for numbers is reflected in Leah then getting Jacob to sleep with her maid, and naming the first child "A troop comes!" (:11). </p>


text:
<p><em>Rachel said, With mighty wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and have prevailed. She named him Naphtali</em>-</p><p> Naphtalijah, the wrestling of Yah. "Mighty" is literally <em>elohim</em>, and the parallel with the 'Yah' form is another nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that there were different source documents for Genesis, one using Yahweh and the other <em>elohim</em>. The name suggests that her struggles with her sister were her struggles with God; and the whole idea is lived out in Jacob's wrestling with an Angel, which was effectively his wrestling with Isaac, Laban and Esau. We sense that the women named their sons in reflection of their obsession with the male baby race, as they desperately vied to be the one who produced the most boys. The names reflect how <em>they</em> wished to see things, rather than how they were in reality. For Rachel hardly "prevailed" just because her maid had another son. Leah had more male sons at this point and 'won' the race to get the most. It's an example of where people drag "God" into their interpersonal struggles; her struggle with her sister became a struggle with God. She may not have "prevailed" as she meant, in a human sense. But the similarities with Jacob's wrestling with God continue when we realize that "prevailed" is the same word used of how Jacob did "prevail" over "God" in the form of the Angel he wrestled with (<em><a href='B:10 32:25'>Gen 32:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:28'>Gen 32:28</a></em>). He started off trying to force his way upon God, but because he repented, he did in another sense prevail over the Divine judgment which was what Jacob deserved; Jacob prevailed over God in that he asked for grace and was granted it, and in this he becomes our example (<em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em> s.w.). Rachel's struggle with God perhaps went according to the same pattern. </p>


text:
<p><em>When Leah saw that she had finished bearing, she took Zilpah, her handmaid, and gave her to Jacob as a wife</em>-</p><p> This is recorded from the viewpoint of Leah (see on <em><a href='B:10 29:35'>Gen 29:35</a></em>); she actually did bear more children. But the Bible at times records things from the viewpoint of the subjects of the narrative, without correcting their limited perspectives. Which is why we have the language of demon possession in the New Testament. </p>


text:
<p><em>Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a son</em>-</p><p> As noted on :12, she gave Zilpah to Jacob "as a wife", but the inspired record still calls her "Leah's handmaid". For that is who she was, and Jacob's behaviour with these women was not really moral.</p>


text:
<p><em>Leah said, How fortunate! She named him Gad</em>-</p><p> Or, "a troop cometh!" (AV), which is how Jacob understood the name in <em><a href='B:10 49:19'>Gen 49:19</a></em>. As noted on :7, the race for numbers is reflected in Leah&nbsp; getting Jacob to sleep with her maid, and naming the first child "A troop comes!". The names of the sons who were to be the basis of the people of God, Israel, were anything but spiritual. And yet God works through such unspirituality to form His people, as He does to this day. Indeed "Gad" was a local deity (as in <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em>); even Leah, the more apparently spiritual, was caught up with paganism at this time. Perhaps Jacob alludes to this in his final comment upon Gad; that he would be overcome by a troop rather than leading a troop, although he would overcome at the last (<em><a href='B:10 49:19'>Gen 49:19</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, bore Jacob a second son</em>-</p><p> Although Leah gave Zilpah to Jacob "as a wife" (:9), the Divine commentary is that she remained Leah's handmaid. God worked through a situation which was hardly moral, just as He does today. </p>


text:
<p><em>Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me happy. She named him Asher</em>-</p><p> The Lord’s mother constantly quoted and alluded to Old Testament scripture. All this reflects the level of spiritual ambition to which Mary attained. Her self-perception went beyond that of Leah to whose words she alludes (“all women call me fortunate / blessed”, <em><a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a></em> LXX). Elisabeth had said the same: “Blessed are you among women” (<em><a href='B:490 1:42'>Luk 1:42</a></em>). But Mary perceives that all generations, not just all contemporary women, would call her blessed. So when Mary spoke of all generations calling her blessed, her mind was here in&nbsp; <em><a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a></em>: "the daughters (i.e. future generations of them) shall call me blessed" , and yet at the same time on Zilpah the servant maid (cp. Mary the handmaiden) bearing Asher (happy). These women were seen by Mary as representatives of her. And yet Leah was mistaken in thinking that all would call her "blessed" because her servant girl had got pregnant again, and she now had the lead in numbers of children compared to her sister. The one who would be called "blessed" by all was not her, but Mary; the real seed was the Lord Jesus, not these sons who were being born as part of a race for superiority between two bitter sisters in a polygamous marriage.</p>


text:
<p><em>Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother, Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes</em>-</p><p> The evidence seems to be that until he left home, Jacob was influenced by the idolatrous thinking of the surrounding world. For the next 20 years, he more tacitly went along with these things being practiced in his family. The mandrakes used by Leah were not just aphrodisiacs, but were believed to have the magical ability to induce fertility. This pagan nonsense was believed by Leah and Reuben, and tacitly gone along with by Jacob- although God worked through these wrong ideas, apparently uncorrected, in order to bring about His purpose. And yet from these mixed up women God built the house of Israel.</p><p>The love apples were understood to induce a man to sleep with a woman. This would suggest that Jacob had stopped sleeping with his wives, perhaps in response to their endless desire to keep trying to get pregnant in their race for numbers of children, when both had fertility problems and both had already produced children for Jacob, even if fictively in Rachel's case. This again shows how low Jacob was brought; he had signed away 14 years of his life due to his obsession with Rachel, impatiently asking Laban to give him Rachel so that he might sleep with her (<em><a href='B:10 29:21'>Gen 29:21</a></em>). But now he didn't sleep with her. </p><p>We note it was Reuben who brought the mandrakes, and it was also Reuben who slept with Rachel's maid Zilpah (<em><a href='B:10 35:22'>Gen 35:22</a></em>). Perhaps this was done at Rachel's bidding, in order to notch up another pregnancy; perhaps Reuben had fallen out with his mother Leah and was as it were on Rachel's side at the time. This is where jealousy and lack of spirituality lead- to a downward spiral of behaviour which affects more and more people. </p>


text:
<p><em>She said to her, Is it a small matter that you have taken away my husband? Would you take away my son’s mandrakes, also?-</em></p><p> One is hard pushed to find women-only scenes in contemporary literature written during Biblical times. The women are presented in terms of the men with whom they inter-relate. Yet Elizabeth and Mary are recorded as having a conversation with no male present (<em><a href='B:490 1:39-45'>Luk 1:39-45</a></em>); and there are other such passages in Scripture (<em><a href='B:10 19:32'>Gen 19:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 19:34'>Gen 19:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 30:14-15'>Gen 30:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 2:1-10'>Exo 2:1-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 5:28-30'>Jdg 5:28-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 1:6'>Rth 1:6</a></em> to <em><a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 3:16-18'>Rth 3:16-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:80 4:14-17'>Rth 4:14-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 5:2-3'>2Ki 5:2-3</a></em>). The narrative of the women at the tomb and the resurrection is another example (<em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em> to <em><a href='B:490 24:4'>Luk 24:4</a></em>). In all these passages, the reader is invited to share the woman’s perspective.</p><p>It could be that the "She said to her" is Rachel talking, not Leah (although the AV translates otherwise), complaining that Reuben had actually stolen her son's mandrakes and taken away her husband. In this case, Rachel was also not being slept with at this time, hence she too wanted the mandrakes. She taunts Leah that Jacob is "my husband" whom Leah has "taken away"; perhaps Jacob came to love Leah more, because she had produced more children for him than Rachel. At least, Rachel perceived it that way. I have argued throughout Genesis 29 that God intended Jacob to marry Leah and return to the promised land; his obsession with Rachel made his path home so much harder. If indeed he did become more attached to Leah, then this would really demonstrate that all too late, he was accepting God's rightness in the matter. </p><p>If the speaker is Leah, then the complaint that Rachel had 'taken away' her husband is harder to understand. Maybe she legalistically held to the idea that as she was the firstborn, and married Jacob a week before Rachel did, therefore she was the legitimate husband. This is the kind of contorted reasoning that arises out of family jealousy and stress. It was no secret that Jacob loved Rachel and had agreed to marry her, but Laban and Leah had played a cruel deception on Jacob, with Leah clearly wanting Jacob and also in love with him. So Leah can hardly complain that Jacob loved Rachel more than her. </p><p><em>Rachel said, Therefore he will lie with you tonight for your son’s mandrakes</em>-</p><p> This could be mocking, as if to say "Jacob really loves me, not you; he'll only sleep with you for the mandrakes, not because he loves you". And so we have yet another insight into the endless feuding between the two, with every word and action being twisted and used as a source of conflict. The Hebrew can also be translated, as GNB: "Rachel said, "If you will give me your son's mandrakes, you can sleep with Jacob tonight". This would indicate that Rachel placed huge faith in the power of the coveted mandrakes to make Jacob sleep with her; clearly his love for her had abated, a far cry from serving seven years to have sex with her, as <em><a href='B:10 29:21'>Gen 29:21</a></em> implies. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me; for I have surely hired you with my son’s mandrakes. He lay with her that night</em>-</p><p> The language of "hire" is used in :18, where Leah bitterly suggests she feels like a prostitute, hired by God to have sons. And here she implies she is treating Jacob as a male prostitute. This was how far love went right out of the whole situation, because Jacob didn't follow God's direction- which was to marry Leah and return to the promised land. The scene is so reminiscent of Jacob's father Isaac walking in the field, apparently one evening, and meeting Rebekah, in a love marriage that only Heaven could have arranged. The same Hebrew words are used in <em><a href='B:10 24:65'>Gen 24:65</a></em>. But this meeting with Leah was for Jacob similar but tragically different; tragic, for a man so clearly dominated by a desire to replicate his parents' relationship.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>God listened to Leah, and she conceived, and bore Jacob a fifth son</em>-</p><p> Maybe Leah prayed to God and He heard, and her attempt to use the mandrakes was just a surface level thing, and the essence was her prayer. Or it could be that God looked with pity at the whole situation with the mandrakes, and 'heard' the whole situation as if it were Leah's prayer to Him. Because God responds to our spirit, our overall situation, sometimes He does things which seem to be an answer of prayers which were not properly believed in by the person who prayed. Examples include: <em><a href='B:10 30:16-17'>Gen 30:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:10-11'>Exo 14:10-11</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:160 9:9'>Neh 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:22'>Psa 31:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:13'>Luk 1:13</a></em>. Presumably the Father reads circumstances as prayers, even though the believer's faith in their actual verbalized request may be weak. </p>


text:
<p><em>Leah said, God has given me my hire, because I gave my handmaid to my husband. She named him Issachar</em>-</p><p> Although she apparently prayed and God heard her (:17), Leah's attitude is so wrong. She considers that God has rewarded her for allowing her maid to sleep with her husband, when this was immoral. The idea of being given her "hire" is however decidedly cynical; she feels as a&nbsp; prostitute, paid by God, who later gives her a dowry (:20). Yet despite this unspirituality, God listened to her and gave her conception (:17). This is His grace, focusing upon the positive, and patiently bearing with our anger and immaturity. God saw through all this (the bitterness of post natal depression?), through her recourse to using mandrakes to induce fertility... and God discerned the real faith in her. And this God is our God, who likewise bears with our Christian hypocrisy. </p><p>We note that the women named the children themselves, which was unusual at the time; and the names reflected their struggles and feelings. One gets the impression that Jacob was a distant father and wife, at least at this stage, finding the domestic scene unbearable and staying out at night with the flocks (<em><a href='B:10 31:40'>Gen 31:40</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Leah conceived again, and bore a sixth son to Jacob</em>-</p><p> Notice "son". We read only of their male children, apart from Dinah, which is just the female form of "Dan". But surely there were daughters born as well, but the women didn't count them in the race to produce as many sons as possible for Jacob and thereby to acquire the ascendancy in domestic life.</p>


text:
<p><em>Leah said, God has endowed me with a good dowry- </em>We note the metaphor becomes somewhat more respectful than when she spoke earlier of God giving her her "hire" as if she was a prostitute used by God (:18). But she still mixes her metaphors, suggesting that the gift of sons from God was in fact a dowry paid, and a high price too.</p><p><em>Now my husband will live with me, because I have borne him six sons. She named him Zebulun</em>-</p><p> &nbsp;“Now will my husband live with me” surely implies that Jacob and Leah had effectively split up. He wasn't sleeping with her, hence the use of aphrodisiacs on him. And yet including Dinah, Leah managed to produce at least seven children in 7 to 14 years. This is why her fruitfulness became proverbial in later Israel. It would have been evidence enough that Leah had been the wife intended for Jacob and not Rachel; it was his insistence on forcing that through which led to so much grief.</p><p>Jacob was under the one man: one woman ideal of Genesis; and yet he evidently didn't take this too seriously. His mad infatuation with Rachel meant that he thought nothing of polygamy. The idea of accepting one's married circumstances for the sake of principle was obviously foreign to our Jacob. Many aspects of the Mosaic Law were already in place before it was pronounced to Moses; the prohibition on marrying a second wife who was the sister of the first wife could well have been known among God's people in Jacob's time, seeing that it was a precept based on the principles of Eden (<em><a href='B:30 18:17-18'>Lev 18:17-18</a></em>). "It is wickedness" was God's comment to Moses, and there is no reason to think that His essential moral judgment on this kind of thing has ever changed much. Yet Jacob thought nothing of breaching this command, and committing this "wickedness". Leah's reaction to Jacob's evident favouritism for Rachel was to become obsessed with having children. When she failed to conceive, she panicked that she was barren, and therefore asked Jacob to have intercourse with her servant Zilpah in order to produce children. During the early years of her marriage, she produced 6 sons and 1 daughter. This indicated not only an incredible fertility, but also a high womanly status in those times, seeing that she produced so many more sons than daughters. The fact none of her children died in babyhood was also remarkable for the times. Her fertility became proverbial in later Israel (<em><a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a></em>). And yet despite this evident fecundity, whenever she thought she had failed to conceive, she asked Jacob to have intercourse with Zilpah. Despite knowing her fertility, Jacob did so. It seems he sacrificed basic principles in order to placate a neurotic wife who, it would seem, he didn't care too much for anyway, seeing he made it plain he had never wanted to marry her in the first place (<em><a href='B:10 29:25'>Gen 29:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a></em>). The whole sense that we get is that his relationship with Zilpah was unnecessary, and he was far too casual in his attitude to it. “Now will my husband dwell with me” (<em><a href='B:10 30:20'>Gen 30:20</a></em>) surely implies that Jacob and Leah had effectively split up. The evidence that Leah bore seven children in seven years is evident from the chronology of Jacob's life, reflecting as it does the traumatic Jacob, Rachel, Leah relationship.</p>


text:
<p><em>Afterwards, she bore a daughter, and named her Dinah</em>-</p><p> As noted on :19, their obsession was with bearing sons in order to acquire dominance in the family. Even "Dinah" is just the female form of her son Dan. She probably bore other daughters, but only Dinah is mentioned because of her later significance in the narrative.</p>


text:
<p><em>God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her, and opened her womb</em>-</p><p> In :1,2, Rachel is presented as not having God on her horizon at all. But the misery of the whole situation maybe led her to pray to her husband's God. Or it could be that she didn't specifically pray, but rather God took pity upon her, reading the whole sad situation as prayer, and responded to her. Psychologically, it appears sometimes true that when a barren woman adopts a child, she then becomes fertile. But the stress here is that the pregnancy was from God, no matter what psychological processes were at work. And yet again we find the language of the day being used- her "womb" was opened, when it was her tubes not her womb that was opened. Just as the language of demons is used in the New Testament, so here the limited scientific perspective of the time is reflected in the narrative; because God is concerned with relationship and communication with people, rather than purist truth for the sake of it. </p>


text:
<p><em>She conceived, bore a son, and said, God has taken away my reproach</em>-</p><p> As noted on :22, Rachel was brought through her domestic misery, in her case being the loser in the race to produce sons, to turn to God. Initially she lacked this dimension (see on :1,2). Her comment here is tacit recognition that her idea of getting Jacob to sleep with her maid did not in fact resolve her misery, it didn't take away her reproach. The idea of "reproach" occurs nearly 100 times in the Old Testament, mainly reflecting a fear of reproach or shame. It was and is so important in Middle Eastern society. </p>


text:
<p><em>She named him Joseph, saying, May Yahweh add another son to me</em>-</p><p> Rachel's use of the Yahweh Name, when initially she didn't have God on her horizons much at all (see on :1,2), is all reflective of how through the endless Divine patience, Rachel herself grew in spirituality. Even though she was so attached to her father's idols that she stole them when she finally left home. Yet "Joseph" can also mean 'one who takes away', and this would have been in reference to how she felt now her reproach at being barren was taken away (:23). </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, Send me away, that I may go to my own place, and to my country</em>-</p><p> Jacob seems to have seen Rachel giving birth as the sign that he could now return home in peace. But this was a self-assigned signal. I explained throughout Genesis 29 that he ought to have married Leah alone, and returned with her to his country. It is commendable that after 20 or 40 years, Jacob still sees the <em>eretz</em> as "my place... my country". His heart was in the land of promise. However, "my place", Jacob's particular <em>maqom</em>, often used of a sanctuary or altar, may have in his own mind referred to Bethel, where he intended to build a house or sanctuary for God if indeed he returned to his father's house in peace. <em>Maqom</em> is used three times in <em><a href='B:10 28:11'>Gen 28:11</a></em> alone, and often throughout the record of Bethel in Genesis 28. </p><p>We note that it is twice recorded that Isaac "sent away" Jacob (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 28:5-6'>Gen 28:5-6</a></em>). Now, Jacob wants to be "sent away" by Laban. We get the impression of a man who needed direction; which might explain why he remained to long with Laban. He ought to have returned to the <em>eretz</em> in faith in the promise that God would bring him back there; and yet he was perhaps lacking in initiative, perhaps the result of "living in tents" with his parents and being dominated by his mother.</p><p>When Jacob asks Laban to allow him to leave, he uses very similar words to those used by Eliezer when he asked Laban's family to let Rebekah leave to go marry Isaac:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>Eliezer in Genesis 24</td><td>Jacob in Genesis 30</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Send me back" (<em>shallehuni</em>) 24:54 </td><td>"Send me away" (<em>shalleheni</em>) 30:25 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Let me go (<em>shallehuni</em>) that I may go (<em>w'eleka</em>) to my master" 24:56 </td><td>"that I may go (<em>w'eleka</em>)... let me go (<em>w'eleka</em>)" 30:26 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Laban's blessing of Rebekah 24:60 </td><td>Laban's blessing of his grandchildren and daughters 31:55 </td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The servant "went his way (<em>wayyelak</em>)" 24:61 </td><td>"Jacob went on his way" (32:1) </td><td></td></tr></table>&nbsp;<p>Intentional or not, the inspired record strives to bring out the similarities. The lesson is that culturally, Jacob was very much his mother's son- just as those raised Christian today may be culturally Christian, and yet not truly accept their parents' God as theirs until they pass through the valley of the shadows, the school of hard knocks. See on <em><a href='B:10 28:7'>Gen 28:7</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em>Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, and let me go; for you know my service with which I have served you</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a></em>. The suggestion could be that Laban effectively kept Jacob's wives and children within his encampment, refusing to honour the agreement regarding serving for them. It could be that Laban had further manipulated Jacob by demanding he serve also for the children. It was a way of keeping a person in endless servitude; and yet Jacob had been promised that the elder would serve him, the younger. His extensive experience of servitude was surely to help him fuller appreciate what this promise meant. And Laban's continual deceit of him regarding what was rightfully his... taught him what he had done to Esau. </p><p>Genesis was written by Moses primarily for the wilderness generation. So much in the story of Jacob would have demonstrated the wisdom of the various laws that generation were given- to release servants after the seventh year (<em><a href='B:20 21:2'>Exo 21:2</a></em>), and especially the command not to marry two sisters (<em><a href='B:30 18:18'>Lev 18:18</a></em>) nor for a polygamist to have a "hated" (loved less?) wife (<em><a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said to him, If now I have found favour in your eyes, stay here, for I have divined that Yahweh has blessed me for your sake</em>-</p><p> We see here the mixture of paganism and spirituality which was apparent amongst all of them. Laban "divined", by paganism, that there was the blessing of Yahweh in all this. Anyone who used enchantment (s.w. "divined") was to be killed under the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:30 19:26'>Lev 19:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a></em>), and it's hard to think that God's basic morality was radically different before the law was codified by Moses. </p><p>We have here a primary fulfilment of the promise that Abraham's seed would be a blessing to the nations; for Laban was blessed because of his association with the seed. Laban is presented as a "foreigner" in relation to Jacob; see on <em><a href='B:10 31:15'>Gen 31:15</a></em>). And the covenant promises we likewise have received have their primary fulfilments in this life, as well as the promise of eternal inheritance in the future Kingdom of God on earth. And yet the grace of it all is that at the time, Jacob was largely still in unbelief. He had been promised that he and his seed would be a blessing to those of north, south, east and west; and straight after that promise he continues his journey <em>to the east</em> and is a blessing to those there (<em><a href='B:10 28:13-15'>Gen 28:13-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 29:1'>Gen 29:1</a></em>). See on :39.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Appoint me your wages, and I will give it</em>-</p><p> We recall how initially, it was Jacob who offered the terms of wages to be given. Clearly Jacob is now in the ascendancy, with Laban desperate for him to stay. Jacob reasons in the typical Eastern way: 'I intend to do this, but if you pay me that, then I will not do so, at least not straight away'. Perhaps Jacob took some time to think about the possibilities, coming up with the mad idea of increasing his wealth by pagan practices if he could obtain large numbers of spotted animals.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to him, You know how I have served you, and how your livestock have fared with me</em>-</p><p> The repeated idea that "You know I have served you" (:26) may be referencing some claim by Laban that Jacob had actually not finished his service and owed him more time. </p>


text:
<p><em>For it was little which you had before I came, and it has increased to a multitude- </em>The allusion is to the promises to Abraham about multiplication and blessing, and that there would be blessing for those who blessed his seed. Laban had hardly blessed Jacob, and yet Jacob perceives now that the fulfilment of those promises is by grace; for even Laban had picked up some of the promised blessing. "Before I came" is Heb. "at my footsteps" which reflects again how Jacob feels now in the ascendency over Laban, and is sensing that the elder (Laban) is serving the younger (Jacob) by Divine blessing, according to the promises to Abraham.</p><p><em>Yahweh has blessed you wherever I turned. Now when will I provide for my own house also?</em>-</p><p> Jacob saw God as the one who gave physical blessing; he saw the promises of Divine blessing as primarily about material blessing. He missed their basic import, which was of forgiveness and the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>).</p><p>Jacob thought that God had blessed Laban in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, simply because Laban's flocks had greatly increased; he saw the "blessing" as physical prosperity. He was sharing the over-physical view of the promises which his father Isaac held, who mentioned the promised blessing as essentially concerning material blessings in this life (<em><a href='B:10 28:3-4'>Gen 28:3-4</a></em>). As with David and Solomon, the weakness of the parents was repeated in the child. This perception of the promises as only for his personal, physical benefit was clearly evidenced in the way in which he was so bent on obtaining the birthright from Esau.</p><p>"Now when will I provide for my own house also?" Jacob slyly asked Laban, and on this pretext spent then next six years using some pagan myth about cattle breeding to take Laban's cattle from him and amass them for himself. What he came to think of as "his flock" (<em><a href='B:10 31:4'>Gen 31:4</a></em>) was a reflection of his mad materialism; he used all his (considerable) human strength to achieve it, and then turned round and said he had only been serving Laban with it (<em><a href='B:10 31:6'>Gen 31:6</a></em>). Yet these very words are alluded to in <em><a href='B:610 5:8'>1Ti 5:8</a></em> as an example for faithful men to copy; indeed, Paul says, if you don't do as Jacob did, you're worse than a pagan! We see here the great focus of God upon what is positive in a person, just as elements of Sarah's bitter and sceptical words are quoted in the New Testament with approval. And yet the Spirit through Paul also recognized the weak side of Jacob; "evil men... deceiving and being deceived" (<em><a href='B:620 3:13'>2Ti 3:13</a></em>) is a sure reference to Jacob. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, What shall I give you? Jacob said, You shall not give me anything. If you will do this thing for me, I will again feed your flock and keep it</em>-</p><p> Jacob asks not for wages, but for Laban's spotted cattle. Perhaps Jacob was beginning to think more of his grandfather Abraham, for "You shall not give me anything (because God has blessed me)" was the spirit of Abraham after his victory near Damascus (<em><a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a></em>). He may well also have been sardonically alluding to Laban's words that he 'could not give' Jacob his younger daughter Rachel despite his having served for her (<em><a href='B:10 29:26'>Gen 29:26</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>I will pass through all your flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted one, and every black one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats-</em></p><p> Stipulating the terms of his own contract recalls how Jacob did likewise when offering to work seven years to marry Rachel. The similarity is such that it would seem Jacob is here trying to get equal with Laban for the deception done to him. He is seeking to deceive Laban, as Laban deceived him. But he later wouldn't wish Esau to so take revenge for the deception he had performed, and would've remembered this with shame. Jacob believed that through some pagan ritual, he could increase the numbers of the spotted animals; and perhaps he also had some idea to get them to breed unspotted offspring if they conceived in front of white rods. This has no truth to it and yet God worked through it. We must look for the positive in others, and like the Lord in His attitude to demons, bear with them and recognize faith when we see it. God worked through the pagan superstitions of Jacob regarding the speckled animals, and through the wrong beliefs of Rachel and Leah regarding their children… in order to <em>build </em>the house of Israel. He didn’t cut off His dealings with men at the first sign of wrong understanding or weak faith or mixed motives. </p><p><em>This will be my hire</em>-</p><p> Leah has just used this word in claiming that one of her pregnancies was her "hire" from God (:18 s.w.). All of them had the idea that good and wise behaviour led to directly related reward or "hire". Such justification by works was and is a way of feeling good about ourselves. Jacob was yet to learn the reality of grace; that it's not about measure for measure. The <em>wages</em> of sin are contrasted with the <em>free gift </em>or grace of God in <em><a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a></em> and elsewhere.</p>


text:
<p><em>So my righteousness will answer for me hereafter, when you come concerning my hire that is before you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the sheep, that might be with me, will be counted stolen</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a></em>. This attitude that <em>he</em> could bring about the fulfillment of God's promises through his own efforts was the outcome of Jacob's self-righteousness; see on :32. This is clearly shown when he says that his righteousness had caused his cattle to increase, although he later came to see that this increase of cattle was due to his receipt of the promised Divine blessing (<em><a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a></em>). The RSV renders "righteousness" as "honesty"; Jacob had been far from honest in his life, and although he was intimating to Laban that he was going to gain from this because of his honesty / righteousness, Jacob does come over as very hypocritical and self-righteous. Jacob's plan was to use a pagan myth to multiply his initial flock of speckled and spotted goats and black sheep. "Black sheep" had the same connotations in those days as the term has even today; the flock of Jacob / Israel were black sheep, and yet God blessed and multiplied them and they became the foundation of His people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said, Behold, let it be according to your word</em>-</p><p> The idea could be as the AV implies, 'You must be joking, I wish it might be so advantageous for me!'. Jacob was aiming to multiply his numbers of black sheep, which were despised by other shepherds and surrounding society, to such a degree that he would redefine and change the negative perception of black sheep and spotty goats. And he succeeded; as in a wider sense the Father did likewise through His work with black sheep and spotty animals. </p>


text:
<p><em>That day, he removed the male goats that were streaked and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the black ones among the sheep, and gave them into the hand of his sons</em>-</p><p> It's hard to know whether this refers to Laban or Jacob. If to Laban, then he was removing even the spotted animals so that Jacob would have even fewer of them to start off with, hence Jacob accuses Laban of deceit in this matter (<em><a href='B:10 31:7'>Gen 31:7</a></em>). Yet despite this, from the tiniest group of black sheep and spotty goats... God's purpose of blessing worked out, just as it does today, despite all Jacob's misunderstandings and wrong attitudes.</p>


text:
<p><em>He set three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks</em>-</p><p> The last phrase shows that despite Laban removing even the spotted animals, Jacob acted with integrity in still feeding Laban's flocks. Although he had not been honest in the past, Jacob was learning integrity. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob took to himself rods of fresh poplar, almond, plane tree, peeled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods</em>-</p><p> Jacob’s superstitious use of mandrakes and poplar rods was used by God to fulfill the physical aspect of the promised blessing; he used "white" rods to take power from Laban, the "white" one ("poplar" and "Laban" are related words in Hebrew), and to give him white animals- and God worked through it. Poplar had pagan associations (s.w. <em><a href='B:350 4:13'>Hos 4:13</a></em>); Jacob was acting according to paganic beliefs and yet claiming it would be Yahweh's blessing of him. He later came to see how wrong he was, and that the increase had not been due to the paganism but alone due to Yahweh's actual blessing (<em><a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a></em>). "Almond" is <em>luz</em>, the name of the place where God had first appeared to him and promised him blessing (<em><a href='B:10 28:19'>Gen 28:19</a></em>); again we see a hopeless mix of paganism and tokenism along with his awareness of Yahweh's promises, wishing to make those promises come true through his paganic rituals. The streaks in the rods were supposed to encourage the streaked animals to bear prolific numbers and quality of streaked offspring if they looked at them whilst mating. This has no truth in reality, although similar myths about looking at certain colours or images during intercourse are around to this day in some parts of the world.</p>


text:
<p><em>He set the rods which he had peeled opposite the flocks in the gutters in the watering-troughs where the flocks came to drink. They conceived when they came to drink</em>-</p><p> The idea was as in some primitive cultures today, that by looking at something at the time of intercourse, the offspring will become like it. He wanted his spotted animals to produce more spotted offspring; and then through the procedure of :40-42 to produce white offspring (although :33 might preclude that view), and so he made them conceive whilst looking at white peeled poplar rods, which would've been "streaked" in the sense that there was some white and some dark showing on the rods. </p>


text:
<p><em>The flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks produced streaked, speckled, and spotted</em>-</p><p> See on :38. The flocks conceiving in front of the rods / poles surely has reference to the concept of the pagan <em>asherah</em> poles, before which worshippers had sex. Jacob was clearly influenced by this wrong idea- and yet God patiently worked with him through it. Jacob appears to have had the idea that what a female thinks about or has before her eyes at the time of labour or conception, will affect the child. And so he peeled stripes off the rods so they appeared 'ringstraked', or striped- in the belief that if the female cattle gave birth or conceived looking at them, then the offspring would be striped too, like the striped rods. However, the connection with the asherah poles suggests that Jacob's beliefs were associated with pagan fertility myths, rather than faith in Yahweh the God of his fathers. <em><a href='B:400 1:5'>Mic 1:5</a></em> explicitly links Jacob's sin with idolatry. Jacob's superstitious ideas about the cattle mating were used by God to teach Jacob that He would bless him physically, as a prelude to the more important spiritual blessings which Jacob was later to value. There is no biological truth at all in what he did. Jacob wasn't specifically corrected for his paganism; later he must have realized the depth of God's grace in still working through him at this time, still giving him blessing. God blessed the whole thing so that it worked, apparently confirming Jacob in it by a vision (<em><a href='B:10 31:10-12'>Gen 31:10-12</a></em>). God will go along with things which are poorly motivated and even incorrect- but in order to finally teach that it was all nonsense, and His gift of grace shines through it all. We have been introduced to this whole mixture of paganism and Yahweh's involvement in :27, where Laban's pagan 'divination' was used by Yahweh. And now we are reading of how Jacob's pagan ideas were likewise used by Yahweh, to bless him. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob separated the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the streaked and all the black in the flock of Laban: and he put his own droves apart, and didn’t put them into Laban’s flock</em>-</p><p> Although initially Laban had separated many of the spotted and speckled and put them in his own flocks, Jacob still had the job of looking after them. Perhaps the idea is that Jacob made his black sheep look at the white sheep in Laban's flock, which he had at his disposal as he cared for them. His theory was that the offspring of black sheep whilst mating would be speckled if they conceived whilst looking at white sheep. This has no truth to it, but God used it to provide Jacob with great fertility and blessing of speckled animal offspring. We recall that "Rachel" means "ewe lamb", so perhaps the idea was that he was using the Rachel situation, under God's hand, to still produce blessing. </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened, whenever the stronger of the flock conceived, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the flock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods</em>-</p><p> The "stronger" may refer to the flocks who were more strongly in heat, and the "feeble" those who were less in heat. The peeled rods would have secreted gum and resin which were thought to be aphrodisiacs. The situation here is introduced by Leah using mandrakes to get Jacob to sleep with her and to induce her fertility; the mandrakes didn't give fertility, God alone did. And yet God worked through this bunk science and quasi-faith to give blessing. And again here. The "stronger" or more virile animals were Jacob's because they had been supposedly influenced by the aphrodisiacs from the rods; but as we learn in <em><a href='B:10 31:10-12'>Gen 31:10-12</a></em>, the blessing was from God and not from that.</p>


text:
<p><em>But when the flock were feeble, he didn’t put them in. So the feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s</em>-</p><p> The idea is not the "the feeble cattle..." were not put in. Rather, those who had less virility at the time because they had not been put into intense heat by the supposed aphrodisiac effect of the rods. As noted on :40, although initially Laban had separated many of the spotted and speckled and put them in his own flocks, Jacob still had the job of looking after them. He did them no harm and didn't steal them. He simply didn't operate his pagan trick on them; and his cattle brought forth stronger animals than those of Laban, for whom he didn't place his striped rods in their troughs. And so <em>relatively speaking</em>, Jacob's flocks were stronger than Laban's. </p><p>The blessing was due to God not the rods (<em><a href='B:10 31:10-12'>Gen 31:10-12</a></em>). But the flocks would have been stressed by the separation made by Laban (:40). The differing behaviours of pure white and spotted animals <em>when the group is under stress</em> has been studied, and it has been found that the spotted will become dominant and more virile, and the unspotted less so. This on a human level may have been behind the blessing experienced. An academic article in the <em>Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research, 2011 </em>confirms this, and actually quotes this passage in Genesis 30 as confirmation for what was observed by academics at the University of Novosibirsk, Russia: "Stress can induce piebaldness in progeny. We are able to test this statement not only experimentally, but in natural conditions. Animals with white spots are always present in the water vole population that we have been studying for many years. We regularly assessed the level of stress in this population. Indeed, the assumption that in years with higher stress more white spotted animals would be born was confirmed. Then we found that the spotted animals are more resistant to stress and outperform unspotted animals in reproduction in stressful years" (Mikhail Anatolievich Potapov, 'Evolutionary ecology of animal fertility: Five decades of studies of reproduction as a link between generations' in Russian Journal of Genetics: Applied Research · July 2011).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>The man increased exceedingly, and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkey</em>-</p><p> This indicated to him that the promise to him at Bethel was coming true (<em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>). "The man" hints that Jacob was very human in all this. He used his newfound wealth from the spotted animals, and his redefinition of the value of black sheep, to buy servants, camels and donkeys. We recall how both Abraham and Isaac are recorded as being materially blessed straight after they had lied about their wives. Likewise, the use of paganism, folklore and bunk science to increase his wealth was not exactly spiritual; but God worked through it to bring about the primary fulfilment of the promises to him. Just as He so graciously works with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>He heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, Jacob has taken away all that was our father’s. From that which was our father’s, has he gotten all this wealth</em>-</p><p> This recalls how Esau spoke in his heart, that he would murder Jacob; and those words were heard. Attitudes were heard as words, as they are today. Laban had doubtless misrepresented the agreement about the spotted and speckled, as noted on :8. They likely believed his story, and of course noted that the Jacob who had been a poor shepherd for 14 years had now suddenly got wealthy. The sudden wealth did of course look suspicious. The tension served to help their sisters, Rachel and Leah, to have to make a decision between Jacob and their fathers' family; and they came down on the right side.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob saw the expression on Laban’s face, and, behold, it was not toward him as before</em>-</p><p> Laban had abused Jacob for 14 years. But the sudden increase in Jacob's wealth had altered the balance of power; and no longer was Jacob legally bound to serve Laban. Laban would have sensed that he the elder was coming to serve the younger. The changed relationship became a push factor, encouraging Jacob to do what he should have done earlier- to make returning to the <em>eretz</em> a priority.</p>


text:
<p><em>Yahweh said to Jacob, Return to the land of your fathers, and to your relatives, and I will be with you</em>-</p><p> The plan had originally been that Jacob would remain with Laban until Rebekah his mother sent him a message to return home. That message apparently never came, and it seems Rebekah was dead. God now replaces Rebekah for Jacob. I've noted several times that he seemed psychologically dominated by her, the stay at home mamma's boy who ended up trapped in a complex situation far from home, obsessively in love with a woman who restimulated his feelings toward his mother; and for whom he spent 14 years in servitude. And now God replaces Rebekah; <em>He</em> specifically calls Jacob homeward, and not Rebekah. This was all part of His program to draw Jacob into a direct personal relationship with Himself, rather than Jacob passively going alone with the religion of mum and dad.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field to his flock</em>-</p><p> Seeing they had young children to care for and bring with them, this was a major invitation. It seems from :17 that they left from "the field" without returning home. The need to all be together "in the field" was fabricated so that they could make the escape without Laban and his sons forcing them to remain. </p>


text:
<p><em>And said to them, I see the expression on your father’s face, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father has been with me</em>-</p><p> We note "my father"- not ‘<em>my</em> God’. Although Yahweh was still not fully Jacob's God, Jacob puts before his wives a clear choice- the god of their father, or the one true God of <em>his</em> father. There is something almost childishly proud about the way Jacob sets off <em>his</em> father against the deceitful father of his wives (:5-7). Laban mocks this almost immature homesickness in <em><a href='B:10 31:30'>Gen 31:30</a></em>. "Has been with me" could refer to an Angelic visitation, but it is more likely referring to the promise of Genesis 28 at Bethel, that "I will be with you". Jacob was starting to see that that promise of 20 (or 40) years ago had indeed been fulfilled; and he had vouched that if it were, then Yahweh would be his God. He still struggles with fulfilling that, as he talks about Yahweh as the God of his father, rather than his own God. </p>


text:
<p><em>You know that I have served your father with all of my strength</em>-</p><p> The suggestion could be that he had served Laban with all his strength, when the implication of the first commandment was that a man should serve God with all his strength (<em><a href='B:480 12:30'>Mar 12:30</a></em>). Now Jacob wanted to serve God and not Laban; his heavenly Father rather than "your father". The scene would have been programmatic for the wilderness generation who first heard the Genesis history; they had been called to no longer serve Pharaoh, but to escape and travel through the desert to the promised land of Canaan and serve Yahweh instead of Pharaoh. There was a period of great physical blessing upon their offspring, just as there had been upon Jacob's cattle; see on :7,21,28.</p>


text:
<p><em>Your father has deceived me, and changed my wages ten times, but God didn’t allow him to hurt me</em>-</p><p> The situation is similar to how God "didn't allow" the Abimelechs to take Sarah or Rebekah and sleep with them. Jacob was coming to see that there was this same unmerited, gracious activity on his behalf by the Spirit. Jacob had of course deceived his own father. He was being helped to realize how Isaac had felt; to the end he might repent the more deeply and learn the lessons. We go through similar prodding from the Lord who works also in our lives.</p><p>I suggested on :6 that Jacob's escape from Laban has similarities with Israel's exodus from Egypt and Pharaoh. As Laban "deceived" Jacob, so the same word is used of how Pharaoh dealt "deceitfully" with Israel (<em><a href='B:20 8:29'>Exo 8:29</a></em>). See on :21.</p>


text:
<p><em>If he said this, ‘The speckled will be your wages’, then all the flock bore speckled. If he said this, ‘The streaked will be your wages’, then all the flock bore streaked</em>-</p><p> Laban was obviously aghast at how Jacob's flocks were growing so rapidly, and tried to amend the original agreement so that some of the increased numbers would be his. He is portrayed as an avaricious liar and deceiver; although Jacob had been little better. The difference between Jacob and Laban was simply God's grace, and Jacob's eventual openness to this.</p>


text:
<p><em>Thus God has taken away your father’s livestock, and given them to me</em>-</p><p> Yet Jacob was soon going to be telling Esau that he wanted him to 'take away' all his material blessings; see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>. Jacob didn't steal Laban's animals, but his own flock did grow from the stock of black and spotted animals which Laban originally agreed to give to Jacob. Their increase was as it were taken away from Laban and given to Jacob. But Jacob insists this was done by God, and perhaps this is an admission that the paganism and folklore bunk science he had used was not the real cause of the great increase. He now justifies what he did as obedience to an Angelic dream (:10,11), although the dream is ill defined and unspecific about how the breeding was to be done.</p>


text:
<p><em>It happened during mating season that I lifted up my eyes, and saw in a dream, and behold, the male goats which leaped on the flock were streaked, speckled, and grizzled</em>-</p><p> The explanation suggests that the wives were ignorant as to how Jacob had acquired such huge fecundity amongst his flocks. Or perhaps he is telling them to the effect: 'We thought it was all due to those pagan rituals and folklore we believed; but let me tell you, it wasn't that at all. It was from God'. There was nothing told Jacob about using the rods, bunk science or other pagan devices which he did. That was his interpretation of the dream. </p>


text:
<p><em>The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob’, and I said, ‘Here I am’</em>-</p><p> These were the very words of response to Angelic visitation made by Abraham and Isaac. Jacob is being led into situations which they were in, and he responds as they do. His knowledge of how they responded was therefore significant; and whilst Biblical knowledge of itself will not save anyone, the more we are aware of Biblical history, the quicker we will perceive when we are in essentially similar situations and will respond correctly. </p>


text:
<p><em>He said, ‘Now lift up your eyes, and behold, all the male goats which leap on the flock are streaked, speckled, and grizzled, for I have seen all that Laban does to you</em>-</p><p> “Lift up your eyes, and behold...”&nbsp; is a promise couched in the language with which God invited Abraham to lift up his eyes and behold the land which He would give him (<em><a href='B:10 13:14-15'>Gen 13:14-15</a></em>). Even whilst Jacob was trying to fulfill God’s promises for Him, still half worshipping idols, God gently went along with him to teach him firstly that He <em>would </em>&nbsp;keep promises, and then to show Jacob the more spiritual essence of it all.&nbsp;The idea was that God had seen Jacob's affliction, and His response was to give Jacob huge numbers of spotty animals. But Jacob worked this out in practice through his usage of the pagan rods and other devices; but all the same, God worked through it. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you vowed a vow to me. Now arise, get out from this land, and return to the land of your birth’</em>-</p><p> The memory of 20 or 40 years ago would have been dim for Jacob, so maybe he needed reminding. It was presumably an Angel who appeared to him at Bethel, so the Angel he now sees is saying that He is the same Angel as in the earlier vision. As noted before, Jacob originally planned to only return to the <em>eretz</em> when he received a message from his mother; but she was probably dead, and so the Angel is effectively telling him that He is now replacing Rebekah. Jacob is to grow up and relate with God as a man, directly, and not through fulfilling parental expectation. Jacob is saying that the call to return to the<em> eretz</em> came from God at the same time as the vision of amassing wealth from spotted and black animals. It could therefore have been six years before this time of final exodus. But Jacob is only now telling his wives about the vision. We sense a distance between him and both of them, and a lack of spiritual connection between them. Yet out of this dysfunctional and unspiritual background, the Father formed His special people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Rachel and Leah answered him, Is there still any portion or inheritance for us in our father’s house?</em>-</p><p> There was no statement here of love for Jacob nor Yahweh. Rather they considered that being Jacob's wives cut them out of any possible inheritance in their father's family, and so they may as well throw in their lot with Jacob. The decision making process as revealed here seems very mercenary. The idea is as GNB "There is nothing left for us to inherit from our father"- because he had spent it on himself (:15). </p>


text:
<p><em>Aren’t we accounted by him as foreigners? For he has sold us, and has also quite devoured our money</em>-</p><p> We learn from this that Laban counted Jacob a "foreigner". This means that the blessing he felt from Jacob was an example of the Abrahamic blessing starting to come upon 'foreigners' (see on <em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>). It seems that as Laban ten times changed the "wages" of Jacob (:7), so he had also added to the terms of marriage. It was not only seven years service for each daughter, but also "money", or (Heb.), "silver". And he had spent that money, in ways the daughters seem not to approve of, because it has left them with nothing to inherit anyway (:14). Devouring an inheritance is the language of the prodigal son; and yet that same parable presents Jacob as the prodigal. But the language is in places also appropriate to Laban, showing that in essence these two deceitful and materialistic men were little different. The saving difference was simply God's grace and Jacob's openness to it. </p>


text:
<p><em>For all the riches which God has taken away from our father, that is ours and our children’s. Now then, whatever God has said to you, do</em>-</p><p> They seem to reason that their father has spent all his wealth, so they have no inheritance from him anyway (:14); therefore it's as well that God had taken some of their father's wealth and given it to Jacob. And they feel justified in taking it because they consider it to be their inheritance anyway. However, they were repeating a misunderstanding common amongst Laban's children (see on :1). Jacob hadn't stolen or taken away anything from Laban. They are saying how it appeared. He had originally had a prime flock of unspotted animals, which Jacob would look after in return for Laban's spotted animals becoming his. But God had hugely blessed those spotted animals and the herds of them had multiplied. It was only an incorrect appearance that God had taken Laban's wealth and given it to Jacob. But as with the language of demons, the Bible often records things from the perspective of the characters, without clarifying that their viewpoint is actually false or only partially correct.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives on the camels</em>-</p><p> Travel by camel would have recalled the account of Rebekah, Jacob's mother, travelling from the same area to the <em>eretz</em> on camel. Now finally Jacob was doing what God had intended he do when he first met Leah; marry her and return to the land of promise. The motivation of Rebekah was spiritual, it seems; whereas Rachel and Leah returned because they effectively had no other option, and faced poverty if they remained behind (see on :14,15). Jacob clearly would have had daughters too, although we only read of Dinah. But the focus is upon the sons; because this is to be taken as the account of when "Israel" as a nation, "the fathers", first entered the land of promise. And it was in a state of unspirituality. </p>


text:
<p><em>And he took away all his livestock, and all his possessions which he had gathered, including the livestock which he had gained in Paddan Aram, to go to Isaac his father, to the land of Canaan</em>-</p><p> The AV better reflects the manic 'getting': "all his goods which he had gotten, the cattle of his getting, which he had gotten". After 14 years of servitude as a labourer, his plan with the rods had led to huge and sudden increase of wealth. This would have surely reminded him of the Divine promise at Bethel to bless him and be with him, and return him to his land. His plan to return "to Isaac" suggests Rebekah was dead; her ruse to get blessing for her favourite son led to her never seeing him again in this life. </p><p>An example of following the negative spiritual traits of our forbears is seen in Jacob's penchant for materialism. This was a weakness of the whole Abraham family; a specific word is used about how they “gathered" material wealth. Abraham did it (<em><a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a></em>), and so now did Jacob. The list of what they "gathered" is almost identical (<em><a href='B:10 24:35'>Gen 24:35</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:10 30:43'>Gen 30:43</a></em>). Faithless fear (cp. <em><a href='B:50 20:8'>Deu 20:8</a></em>; Mt. 25;25; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:8'>Rev 21:8</a></em>) was another characteristic; in Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:11'>Gen 20:11</a></em>); Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:24'>Gen 26:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em>); and followed by Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 28:17'>Gen 28:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:31'>Gen 31:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:7'>Gen 32:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:11'>Gen 32:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 41:3'>Gen 41:3</a></em>). &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Now Laban had gone to shear his sheep: and Rachel stole the teraphim that were her father’s</em>-</p><p> He used them for divination (<em><a href='B:10 30:27'>Gen 30:27</a></em>), so maybe she thought Laban would use them to divine where Jacob and his family had fled to, or would use the teraphim to curse them. Such images were also thought to be the guardians of the family property and the source of blessing, "teraphim" coming from the root<em> taarap</em> to be prosperous. Rachel had just lamented that she was written out of the inheritance, as it were, such as it now was. So it wasn't simply that it was her idolatry which led to her stealing them; she was angry with her father and was bitter about the issue of the inheritance (see on :14,15). This was used providentially by God to ensure she would wish to emigrate with Jacob to the land of promise. They were also thought to be the source of fertility; Rachel should have learnt that they actually had no power in this at all, but such power was only of God. It was not until <em><a href='B:10 35:2'>Gen 35:2</a></em> that Jacob ordered these images to be discarded and buried beneath a tree; they were likely valuable, as such teraphim were typically covered in gold and precious stones. He sacrificed family wealth to ensure that idolatry was ended amongst his children and wives, and that they recognized that blessing was solely from Yahweh; a principle which remains relevant to this day.</p><p>The escape was planned for when Laban would be out in the field. Rachel presumably knew that her going out to meet Jacob in the fields was a signal to escape; so she stole the teraphim before leaving. Or perhaps she was the guardian of them anyway and carried them in her personal stuff; for they may have been quite small household gods. Her lack of spirituality is here clearly displayed; and yet Jacob had spent 14 years working for this woman. Jacob had recently protested to Laban that he would not steal a thing from him (<em><a href='B:10 30:33'>Gen 30:33</a></em>); and now his favourite wife steals her father's images. The same word for "stole" is now used in :20,26,27 for how Jacob "stole away" (AV) from Laban, as if to suggest that he was just as deceitful as was Rachel.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>Jacob deceived Laban the Syrian, in that he didn’t tell him that he was running away</em>-</p><p> Laban is called "the Syrian"; although he was a member of the Abraham family, he is spoken of now as a Gentile. And yet his "blessing" on account of Jacob was therefore the primary fulfilment of the Abrahamic blessing, that the nations would be blessed through his seed. Jacob's behaviour at this point is presented as 'deceit' although it was perfectly understandable- in order to continue the idea that both Jacob and Laban were equally deceitful. It was just that Jacob accepted God's grace.</p>


text:
<p><em>So he fled with all that he had. He rose up, passed over the River, and set his face toward the mountain of Gilead</em>-</p><p> "The river" refers to the Euphrates, the boundary of the <em>eretz</em>. Jacob is presented as now returning to the promised land. But the "river" also refers to the Nile, and is perhaps used to portray the similarities with Israel's exodus from bondage in Egypt, and then passing through the water of the Red Sea; see on :6,7,22.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban was told on the third day that Jacob had fled</em>-</p><p> This continues the connection with Pharaoh, who was "told... that the people fled" and then pursued them over the water (<em><a href='B:20 14:5'>Exo 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a></em>). The parallels were of great relevance to the initial audience of Genesis- Israel in the wilderness, who had likewise fled their abusers and been pursued. And they too were saved by grace; for Ezekiel 20 says that they took the idols of Egypt with them after spoiling the Egyptians, just as Jacob was accused of spoiling Laban and taking his idols with him. See on :6,7,21.</p>


text:
<p><em>He took his relatives with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey. He overtook him in the mountain of Gilead</em>-</p><p> See on :22; this continues the parallel with the exodus from Egypt, with Pharaoh (cp. Laban) being informed the Israelites had fled (<em><a href='B:20 14:5'>Exo 14:5</a></em>) and taking his chosen people with him to purse and overtake the fleeing Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:9'>Exo 14:9</a></em>); see on :6,7,21,22. The distance is about 500 km. from Haran to the Gilead mountains. We wonder why it took Laban so long to catch up with Jacob, who was moving slowly because of the huge herds he was driving, some of whom were pregnant (<em><a href='B:10 33:13'>Gen 33:13</a></em>). Surely the delay was providentially overruled so that Jacob had time to cross the Euphrates into the promised land, and the meeting between them with the conclusion that Jacob and family could never return past that point was made once they were firmly in the<em> eretz</em>. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p><em>God came to Laban the Syrian, in a dream of the night, and said to him, Take heed to yourself that you don’t speak to Jacob either good or bad</em>-</p><p> If this is the correct translation, then we reflect that there are times when God leaves us with a kind of neutral situation- in order to elicit our own self-examination and choice of the right path ourselves without it being forced upon us by Him. But the LXX reads: "Take heed to thyself that thou speak not at any time to Jacob evil things", and the literal Hebrew: "From good to bad". This makes better sense of Laban's words in :29; and in :42, Jacob understands this visitation of Laban as a "rebuke". This can only mean that Laban intended to murder Jacob, but was "rebuked" from that plan by God. Jacob would've recalled how Esau had likewise wanted to pursue and murder him, and he had been saved by grace. Again, circumstances repeat within our lives, as a loving Father teaches us the extent of His grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban caught up with Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mountain, and Laban with his relatives encamped in the mountain of Gilead</em>-</p><p> The impression is given of two camps, Jacob's and Laban's. This forms the basis of "Mahanaim", the place of the two camps (<em><a href='B:10 32:2'>Gen 32:2</a></em>). But those two camps then were Angels on one camp and Jacob in the other. And he was saved from the camp of Angels coming in judgment by his pleading with the Angel he wrestled with. We are therefore to conclude that Laban indeed was coming to destroy Jacob, as noted on :24. But Jacob had been saved by the Angel who came and warned Laban not to; the same Angel Jacob wrestled with. The Angel foresaw that Jacob would at a point then future wrestle with him in prayer and prevail; and so the answer to that prayer was granted ahead of time, in saving Jacob from Laban and his camp. Laban in this sense had God behind him, as noted on :29.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said to Jacob, What have you done, that you have deceived me, and carried away my daughters like captives of the sword?</em>-</p><p> Jacob was indeed a deceiver, of Esau and Isaac; but this was a relatively false accusation. And yet through the process of false accusation we often find that our real and actual sins are elicited. Laban perhaps genuinely considered that his daughters were still his; he had lied so often about the conditions upon which Jacob obtained them that he perhaps came to actually believe his own lie, just as the sons of Jacob did regarding the supposed death of Joseph. And this is the problem with lying; unless repented of, the lie becomes our perceived truth.</p>


text:
<p><em>Why did you flee secretly, and deceive me, and didn’t tell me, that I might have sent you away with mirth and with songs, with tambourine and with harp</em>-</p><p> The only other party Laban had arranged for Jacob, when he married Leah, had been riddled with deceit. Laban is presented as clearly being deceitful. </p>


text:
<p><em>And didn’t allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now have you done foolishly</em>-</p><p> The charge of doing foolishly has a moral dimension, as if to say 'You sinned' (<em><a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a></em>). This was a false accusation when taken specifically; and yet Jacob was indeed a sinner. And so we have what I myself have experienced, and likely many others too- a totally false and unreasonable accusation elicits within us an awareness of wherein we have actually sinned; see on :31. Laban's desire to kiss his sons and daughters could refer to his grandchildren; but it could also mean that some of his sons, the brothers of Rachel and Leah, had gone over to Jacob's side (cp. :1), just as some of the Egyptians joined with the Israelites in fleeing Egypt (see on :6,7).</p>


text:
<p><em>It is in the power of my hand to hurt you- </em>"Power" translates <em>el</em>, "God"; Keil translates "there is to God my hand". He felt he had Divine right to hurt Jacob, as noted on :25, but God had also warned him not do. Laban was wrong as to why he thought Jacob could be "hurt"; Jacob had done nothing wrong to him, but we are aware from Jacob's earlier life that he had much in it that deserved Divine judgment.</p><p><em>But the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, ‘Take heed to yourself that you don’t speak to Jacob either good or bad’</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; See on :24. That Jacob worshipped the God of his father rather than his own God was well known. "<em>Your</em> (plural) father" (cp. AV "thee" in the previous and following verses) may suggest that Jacob was confident enough of his father's God to have introduced it to his family, although he himself still had not reached the point where he had made this God completely his own.</p>


text:
<p><em>Now you want to be gone, because you greatly longed for your father’s house, but why have you stolen my gods?</em>-</p><p> The implication is that Jacob was a homesick boy, pining for his mum and dad. Whilst this was provocative, I have repeatedly noted that Jacob was indeed psychologically dominated by his parents to an unhealthy extent. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob answered Laban, Because I was afraid, for I said, ‘Lest you should take your daughters from me by force’</em>-</p><p> "Because I was afraid" is the language of a guilty Adam in Eden. As noted on :28, a false and unreasonable accusation can elicit in us an awareness of wherein we have actually sinned. And this seems to have happened to Jacob. Jacob wisely ignores the provocation noted on :30, and focuses on the essential accusation; a good pattern for our dealing with such difficult situations. The reason Jacob gives here is absolutely true; and total honesty was not his strong point. Just as his sons were led by Joseph's interrogations to total honesty, so Jacob was led here. And we too are led to this point by the Divine hand in human life.</p>


text:
<p><em>Anyone you find your gods with shall not live. Before our relatives, discern what is yours with me, and take it. For Jacob didn’t know that Rachel had stolen them</em>-</p><p> We note the contrast between "your gods" and "the God of your father" (:29). Jacob loved Rachel and obviously assumed she had a higher level of ethics and spirituality than she actually did, imputing righteousness to the one he loved. Jacob would later reflect how the life of his beloved and yet spiritually weak Rachel had been saved at this point by absolute grace. We see again how God uses Jacob's over confident self righteousness and Rachel's human weakness and even sin- for Rachel was surely wrong to have stolen the idols- in order to finally awe us with His grace and bring us to repentance and devotion to Him alone. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban went into Jacob’s tent, into Leah’s tent, and into the tent of the two female servants; but he didn’t find them. He went out of Leah’s tent, and entered into Rachel’s tent</em>-</p><p> The Divine cameraman is zooming in, so we can visualize the movement at close range, as Laban moves from tent to tent, with us knowing that the idols are in the last tent, building up a sense of suspense, realizing that Rachel's life depends upon this... and he doesn't find them. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now Rachel had taken the teraphim, put them in the camel’s saddle, and sat on them. Laban felt about all the tent, but didn’t find them</em>-</p><p> The Mosaic laws about uncleanness from contact with menstruating women were surely known in essence at this time. The holy was not to be mixed with the unclean. For a menstruating woman to squat upon an idol, the supposedly holy, would've been anathema and deeply obnoxious; and the power of the idol would surely be seen as having been compromised. Rachel was driven to do this in desperation to save her own life; and God in His amazing economy worked in this way, so that Rachel had to desecrate her own beloved idols in order to save her life.</p><p>When Laban sets out to attack Jacob, it was clearly in his power to kill him. But the incident of him accusing Jacob of stealing his idols, him publicly searching the whole camp, feeling absolutely everything, and not finding them, probably led to a loss of face which meant he couldn't do what he planned to Jacob. Jacob then bursts out in proud, arrogant denunciation of Laban- not realizing that his beloved, idolatrous Rachel couldn't bear to be without those idols, and had stolen them. Despite Rachel's deceit and idolatry, and Jacob's arrogance, God worked through all this to save them. The way God works with us in our weakness, leading us on, hoping we will later reflect back and marvel at His grace and patience... all this God works oftentimes with man. Not only should we be deeply humbled as a result of our self-examination. We ought to reflect this kind of patience and going along with weakness in the hope of later change in our attitude to our brethren. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>She said to her father, Don’t let my lord be angry that I can’t rise up before you; for I’m having my period. He searched, but didn’t find the teraphim</em>-</p><p> They may well have been under some precedent of the laws about touching menstruating women which were later codified in <em><a href='B:30 15:22'>Lev 15:22</a></em>; and Laban surely assumed that his daughter would not sit upon a holy idol whilst menstruating. The theme of deceit continues; Rachel lies to her father, deceiving him as Jacob had done to his father. The idea is that the chosen family were not more righteous than the surrounding unbelievers; they were chosen and transformed through grace alone.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob was angry, and argued with Laban. Jacob answered Laban, What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have hotly pursued after me?</em>-</p><p> Jacob was indeed innocent and his flight from Laban was not morally wrong. But he was a big time sinner apart from that. The trouble with being falsely accused is that it can make us very self-righteous, failing to accept that we may not have sinned in <em>that</em> matter, but we have indeed failed in others.&nbsp; Jacob would later have realized God's grace to him when he learnt that Rachel had in fact stolen the idols. And he would have repeated back to himself his question: "What is my sin...?". No sin against Laban, indeed; but the question would have elicited self-examination. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now that you have felt around in all my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my relatives and your relatives, that they may judge between us two</em>-</p><p> Laban and his relatives had travelled 500 km. at high speed. This was a real showdown, as their haste and anger would have been fuelled by the thought that Jacob had stolen their teraphim. The situation had been reflected upon by Jacob's son Joseph, when he later sets up his brothers in a similar situation- accusing them of things (stealing the cup, lying to him about their family) of which they were guilty and yet thought they were innocent, in order to elicit in them repentance. Because Joseph would've perceived that this incident had led his father Jacob to repentance; indeed, Jacob may have told his sons as much in reciting the family history to them. </p>


text:
<p><em>These twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and your female goats have not cast their young, and I haven’t eaten the rams of your flocks</em>-</p><p> The chronological problem is well addressed by H.P. Mansfield: </p><p>"Jacob was ninety-seven years of age when he fled from Laban. If he were with his father-in-law only twenty years, the events of his life are compressed in too narrow a compass to be practical, and introduce contradictions.</p><p>Consider the following: At the end of two years' famine (<em><a href='B:10 45:6'>Gen 45:6</a></em>) Joseph would have been between 39-40 (<em><a href='B:10 41:46'>Gen 41:46</a></em>), and Jacob was 130 (<em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>). Joseph was thus born when Jacob was 90-91, and this is dated just prior to the six years that he served Laban for his cattle (<em><a href='B:10 30:25'>Gen 30:25</a></em>). If, to that point of time, he had been only fourteen years with Laban, it would mean that he fled from Esau to seek a wife when he was about 77! Assuming that he first worked seven years for Leah, his first son would not be born before he was 85; and if Joseph were born when he was 90, he had eleven sons and at least one daughter in five years! In that case, also, he had children and grandchildren to the number of sixty-six in the short space of forty-five years. At that rate, Judah, the fourth son could not have been born before he was 88, and would have been about 42 when the events of Genesis 38 took place, or 48, if Jacob married Leah before the completion of the seven years that he worked for Laban to obtain her.</p><p>Esau visited Ishmael and married his daughter after Jacob left for Haran at the age of 77, though Ishmael died when Jacob was 63 (<em><a href='B:10 25:17'>Gen 25:17</a></em>). Isaac married at 40 (<em><a href='B:10 25:20'>Gen 25:20</a></em>). Jacob was born twenty years later (<em><a href='B:10 25:26'>Gen 25:26</a></em>). Ishmael, thirteen years older than Isaac died at 137 (<em><a href='B:10 25:17'>Gen 25:17</a></em>). These problems are solved if we can add a further twenty years to Jacob's sojourn with Laban, making his age 57 when he fled from Esau, though still 97 when he left Laban. This would allow for forty years with Laban, the period of probation or trial. And that forty years seem to be provided for in Jacob's conversation with Laban. He makes reference to two periods of "twenty years" each (cp. vv. 38,41). The first twenty years, he was with Laban as a friend: "I have been with thee." The second twenty years, he was there as a covenant servant: "I have been twenty years in thy house; I served thee..." The first fourteen years he served Laban for his two daughters; the following twenty years, he was with Laban in his capacity as shepherd; the final six years, he served him for his cattle. The first fourteen years, and the last six years, represented twenty years of servitude; the intervening twenty years he was employed as a shepherd, during which Laban's flocks remarkably increased.</p><p>The Hebrew provides some warrant for this interpretation which also disposes of the difficulties mentioned above. The Hebrew <em>zeh</em> (rendered this: v. 38, and thus v. 41) when used in conjunction one with the other is often used by way of distinction as in <em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>, there rendered one and other; <em><a href='B:250 6:5-8'>Ecc 6:5-8</a></em>: "this and that"; <em><a href='B:220 21:23-25'>Job 21:23-25</a></em>: "one and another". And so here. Jacob could have meant "this twenty years have I been with thee" and "that twenty years I have been in thy house." The first twenty years he served Laban as a friend. At some personal loss, but in gratitude to his father-in-law, he cared for his flocks (Vv. 38-40), the other twenty years he profited from his labour: first in the acquisition of his wives; and then from Laban's herds. The Hebrew<em> zeh li esrim</em> signifies "this for myself (<em>li</em>) twenty years..." In other words, during one twenty years he showed a profit; whilst during the other twenty years he showed a loss. In all, he was in Haran forty years: fourteen for his wives; twenty as a friend and son-in-law; six for the cattle. In all, forty years, a period of probation".</p>


text:
<p><em>That which was torn of animals, I didn’t bring to you. I bore its loss. Of my hand you required it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>. Jacob was afflicted with legalism, and struggled all his life to understand and accept grace. Here we see Jacob at his most self congratulatory and meretricious; although his anger and self-justification is understandable, seeing how Laban had abused and manipulated him through legalistic methods. But again, both Laban and Jacob are presented as legalists as well as both being deceivers. The legalistic attitude of Jacob and his family is brought out by the behaviour of his wives as well as himself when they are caught up with by Laban as recorded here in Genesis 31. The society in which they lived had codified legal practices, as has been established by archaeological research into contemporary towns in the area. For example, part of the bride price had to be kept by the wife personally; and thus Rachel and Leah accuse their father of taking away from them that which was rightfully theirs. Likewise, according to the Nuzi documents, daughters and sons-in-law had legal title to part of the father's estate, and this was proven by their possession of the household idols. Hence Jacob and his wives stole those idols. E.A. Speiser quotes par. 266 of the Code of Hammurabi, which states: "If there occurs in the fold an act of god, or a lion takes a life, the shepherd (cp. Jacob) shall clear himself before the deity; the owner of the fold (cp. Laban) must then accept the loss incurred" (E.A. Speiser, <em>Genesis</em> (The Anchor Bible) (New York: Doubleday, 1964) p. 247). It was surely with allusion to this that Jacob complained that he as the shepherd had had to bear the loss of Laban's lost cattle.</p>


text:
<p><em>This was my situation: in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from my eyes</em>-</p><p> Jacob appears to have distanced himself from the domestic nightmare caused by his various relationships; see on <em><a href='B:10 30:18'>Gen 30:18</a></em>. Through those years of insomnia and slave labour, Jacob must have struggled to believe the promises of blessing made at Bethel, and the idea that he the younger would have the elder and more powerful serving him. We too may pass through whole periods of life where the promised blessings seem mythical. But those valleys are needed in order to appreciate the wonder of the blessings, and also to drive us all, as happened with Jacob, to perceive that the essence of "blessing" is not material prosperity in this life, but rather the blessing of forgiveness and fellowship with God (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>These twenty years I have been in your house. I served you fourteen years for your two daughters, and six years for your flock, and you have changed my wages ten times</em>-</p><p> See on :38. Spare a thought for Jacob at this time. During those years he would have gone through all the shame of an intelligent man who is desperately poor, and knows himself to be hopelessly in love (at 77). And when he finally gets the object of his lust, still having to work for her, it really doesn't turn out as he thinks. Bitterness between his wives escalates to the point where he has to have sexual relations with their handmaids; who were, remember, Laban's ex women. He had to go in to the women of a man he must have hated, picking up his throw offs. And then his wages were changed ten times, the conditions of service were ridiculous. To escape from his domestic pain he must have gone out and talked to those sheep, consumed at night by the cold and by the heat in the day time (:40). This was all a far, far cry from the cozy life with mum and dad and granddad, thinking that he'd go off and pick up a lovely wife just as Isaac obtained Rebekah.</p><p>Speaking in the context of Israel's punishment for idolatry (remember, in God's eyes Israel = Jacob), we are told, apparently out of context, that Jacob served for a wife (singular), and for a wife he kept sheep (<em><a href='B:350 12:12'>Hos 12:12</a></em>). Yet this is in the context of <em><a href='B:350 12:2'>Hos 12:2</a></em>, which says that God would punish Israel for their idolatry, according to their ways. And the terrible 14 years of keeping the sheep which their forefather Jacob went through was a type of their punishment for idolatry. As Jacob <em>served</em> for Rachel, so Israel served idols and would have to <em>serve</em> those idolatrous nations as an appropriate punishment. Keeping sheep in Gentile lands is the basis of the prodigal parable; the young man who left home, tricked his father, sidled past his hostile elder brother with what he was sure was his inheritance by rights, squandered it, kept sheep, and came back a new man. Clearly the Lord had his mind on Jacob, although that parable is full of reference to prophetic descriptions of the nation of Israel, too. <em><a href='B:350 12:4-6'>Hos 12:4-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 12:12-13'>Hos 12:12-13</a></em> seem to say that Jacob's humiliation at the hands of Laban is a type of the future suffering of Jacob, before their final homecoming </p>


text:
<p><em>Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham- </em>Again, not <em>my</em> God. And he saw God as the supplier of physical blessing; he understood the promise to Abraham that "I will be with you" as referring to blessing of cattle more than anything more spiritual. See on <em><a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a></em>. Abraham was promised that his seed would have Yahweh as their personal God, and would eternally inherit the land. But Jacob, like us, was slow to perceive this. In a sense, the promises that the seed <em>would </em>inherit the land, and that God <em>would be</em> their God were fulfilled straight after God said them. He became Isaac's God (<em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> refer to this), the God of Abraham's son. Time and again God reminds Israel that He <em>is </em>their God. And that land in a sense <em>was </em>given to the Jewish fathers (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:63'>Deu 28:63</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:60 1:2-9'>Jos 1:2-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:43'>Jos 21:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:20-21'>1Ki 4:20-21</a></em>). </p><p><em>And the fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you would have sent me away empty. God has seen my affliction and the labour of my hands- </em>See on <em><a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a></em>. An element of fear is not wrong in itself. Israel in the wilderness had the pillar of fire to remind them of God's close presence, and to thereby motivate them not to sin: "His fear (will) be before your faces, that ye sin not" (<em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>). Notice how Isaac's guardian angel is described as "the fear" in <em><a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> cp. 48:15,16. But "the fear of Isaac" would've been alluding to how after Jacob deceived Isaac, he trembled greatly at the realization that he had tried to force a stop to the fulfilment of God's promises about Jacob. And this image remained with Jacob, and he now clings on to belief that those promises shall be fulfilled; just as he admits that God "had been with me", alluding to the promises to Jacob at Bethel, that God would be with him.&nbsp; </p><p>God seeing affliction and noticing hard labour alludes to how God saw the similar sufferings of His people in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a></em> s.w.); see on :6,7. But the very same Hebrew phrase "God has seen my affliction" is used by Leah when she gives birth to her first son (<em><a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a></em>). As happens in families, the same turns of phrase were used, especially about God. In the hard servile years, Jacob would have remembered his wife's words and come to believe that God was likewise seeing his affliction at Laban's hands.</p><p><em>And rebuked you last night</em>-</p><p> Laban's intention was to murder Jacob, but by grace, he was restrained. The "rebuke" was therefore to stop him killing Jacob. The same word has just been translated "judge" in :37. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban answered Jacob, The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine: and what can I do this day to these my daughters, or to their children whom they have borne?</em>-</p><p> These accusations were false and so easy to answer. But Laban had travelled 500 km. with his relatives and now had to travel them back home. Jacob was sensitive to the need to save Laban from a&nbsp; loss of face, so that peace might ensue. And we too are unwise to 'take up' every issue of false accusation and unreasonable treatment. We have to allow a saving of face and be pragmatic, with peace for God's true seed as the desired final outcome. The accusation of theft of the teraphim had been dropped; but Jacob isn't recorded as questioning these wider accusations of theft. </p>


text:
<p><em>Now come, let us make a covenant, you and I; and let it be for a witness between me and you</em>-</p><p> This was a way of saving face and Jacob accepted it. Notice the connection between covenant and witness. It is axiomatic that those who are in the new covenant must be witnesses to it; such witness is not therefore optional, but part and parcel of covenant relationship. God witnesses His covenant to us (<em><a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a></em>), and we too witness to the covenant; both in witness to the world, and in witness to Him through the breaking of bread service, in our day. The equivalent of that in Jacob's time was to eat a sacrifice as a meal together.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar</em>-</p><p> This was to recall the pillar he had erected that night at Bethel, where God had promised him that he would be with him and make him return from Paddan Aram to the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to his relatives, Gather stones. They took stones, and made a heap. They ate there by the heap</em>-</p><p> The "relatives" may refer to Laban's relatives who had accompanied him on the pursuit; for they were Jacob's relatives by marriage. The record notes that there was this family connection. Sacrificial meals were understood as confirming a covenant, and this is what the breaking of bread meeting is all about; a confirmation of the new covenant with us.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, but Jacob called it Galeed</em>-</p><p> Despite 40 years living with non-Hebrew speakers, Jacob didn't forget his native tongue. His heart was in the land of promise, the Kingdom, for all his weakness. And Jacob insists that the circular heap of witness stones ("Galeed") be named in Hebrew, perhaps because he wanted his future seed never to return to the land of the east, never to leave the promised land as he had done.</p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said, This heap is witness between me and you this day. Therefore it was named Galeed</em>-</p><p> Inanimate things are often spoken of in the Old Testament as being somehow alive; or non-human things spoken of in human terms, e.g. forests clapping their hands. The Bible doesn't footnote these things; just as the usage of the language of demons isn't specifically explained in the New Testament, and yet it is not to be taken as literally true.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Mizpah, for he said, Yahweh watch between me and you, when we are absent one from another</em>-</p><p> Again we see Laban using the Yahweh Name; as noted on :53, he wrongly mixed pagan and Divine things, although Jacob and his wives did the same. To harp on about 'God sees even when men don't' (:50) was of course hypocritical for Laban; but Jacob had likewise failed to perceive this. </p>


text:
<p><em>If you afflict my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, no man is with us; behold, God is witness between me and you</em>-</p><p> Perhaps Laban did have some reason for thinking that Jacob might harm his daughters; because it does seem that Jacob's relationship with them was strained as I have pointed out throughout these notes. And we recall his great anger with Rachel at <em><a href='B:10 30:2'>Gen 30:2</a></em>. Laban appears to mean what he says here and to believe it; that God sees even when no other witness is present. And the nature of his argument seems to presuppose that just one all-seeing God is in view, which was certainly not what the surrounding culture believed. We dare to hope that through all his weakness, Laban may have turned to the one true God at the end of his life. </p>


text:
<p><em>Laban said to Jacob, See this heap, and see the pillar, which I have set between me and you</em>-</p><p> It was Jacob who set up the pillar, and so we can interpret this as meaning that Laban was setting the significance of these things as being that they marked the boundary between the two families (:52). </p>


text:
<p><em>May this heap be a witness, and the pillar be a witness, that I will not pass over this heap to you, and that you will not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm</em>-</p><p> Laban proposed this condition; but God used it to ensure that Jacob and his family would never be tempted to leave the land of promise back towards the East. For they all promised, including Laban's daughters, never to return. And the heap of stones was near the river Euphrates, the border of the land of promise; see on :21.</p>


text:
<p><em>The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us-</em></p><p> Here we see the classic mixing of true and false worship. The god of Nahor was an idol (<em><a href='B:60 24:2'>Jos 24:2</a></em>); the God of Abraham was Yahweh, whose Name Laban knew. But Laban mixes the two together, and the grammar for "judge between" is plural, as if both 'gods' would judge. Perhaps here Laban means to imply that his god was the god of Nahor, and Jacob's was the God of Abraham. </p><p><em>Then Jacob swore by the fear of his father, Isaac</em>-</p><p> Jacob unashamedly swore "by the fear of his father Isaac"; the picture of his father trembling in fear of God when he realized his superficiality stayed with Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 27:33'>Gen 27:33</a></em>). It seems he spoke publicly of God as the God of his father, for this is the term Laban used to him (<em><a href='B:10 31:29'>Gen 31:29</a></em>). The influence of his father and grandfather lasted a lifetime; even in old age, he feared to go down to Egypt because of the precedents set by the bad experience of Isaac and Abraham there; it seems that he delayed to obey Joseph's invitation to visit Egypt because of this, and was possibly rebuked by Yahweh for this: "Jacob, Jacob (such repetition is often a rebuke), Fear not to go down into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:10 46:3'>Gen 46:3</a></em>).&nbsp;Likewise Christians can&nbsp; live out parental expectation without much personal faith.</p><p>The structure and balance of the statement seems to be emphasizing that Laban swore by his fathers' gods, because he knew no better, and Jacob did likewise. A Baptist is a Baptist because his father is, and at the beginning of spiritual life, a Christian can be one for no better reason than his parents are. Jacob was still at this stage in middle age. And so many of us must pass through that inevitable growth curve of Jacob. That Abraham did finally break with his family is hinted at by the way that Laban speaks of "the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor- may they judge between us (<em><a href='B:10 31:53'>Gen 31:53</a></em> Heb.). Laban recognized that Nahor and Abraham worshipped different gods- whereas we know that initially, they worshipped the same gods.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob offered a sacrifice in the mountain, and called his relatives to eat bread. They ate bread, and stayed all night in the mountain</em>-</p><p> Eating bread was a sign of covenant fellowship. Jacob did this with a self-confessed unbeliever in the true God (see on :53); just as the memorial meal of the new covenant can be used in various ways, and there is no guilt by association through sharing it even with an unbeliever. The calling of "his relatives" may refer to Jacob inviting Laban's family to eat bread as a sign of their agreement to the covenant; they were his relatives by marriage. So the story with Laban ends with a reminder of their unity; see on :55. </p>


text:
<p><em>Early in the morning, Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters, and blessed them. Laban departed and returned to his place</em>-</p><p> This is Laban at his best, and the curtain closes on Laban with us feeling somewhat sorry for him, as he knows he will never see his family again, and we note his fondness for his daughters who were clearly agree with him and saw no point in living further with him (see on :14,15). We note that some of his sons (or grandsons?) were with Jacob now. We get the impression of a humbled Laban returning those 500 km. to Haran, and although he clearly at that time believed in other gods, we are left with the hope that he converted to the one true God with all his heart and repented, or at least regretted, his behaviour with Jacob.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him</em>-</p><p> Jacob had promised the Angel that if he was kept on his way, then Yahweh would be his God. Hence the connection between the Angels and Jacob going on his way. The meeting of Jacob by Angels looked forward to the meeting with Esau; the angels could have rightfully slain Jacob as could have both Laban and Esau, but they did not, because God influenced them by grace not to. These Angels were representative of the forces of Esau who were coming to likewise 'meet' Jacob, and so his reconciliation by grace with the Angels was prophetic of his reconciliation with Esau.</p>


text:
<p><em>When he saw them, Jacob said, This is God’s army. He called the name of that place Mahanaim</em>-</p><p> The idea of "camps" is developed throughout this section. Jacob and Laban had both camped in Mount Gilead, forming two camps. And the Angel had influenced Laban's camp not to harm Jacob, as explained on <em><a href='B:10 31:25'>Gen 31:25</a></em>. But now Jacob perceives that the 'two camps' of Mahanaim had not so much been his and Laban's; but Laban's and this Angelic camp. And he is now to learn that likewise Esau's "camp" had an Angelic "camp" reflecting it in Heaven; and Jacob's camp was hopelessly set against the Angelic camp. See on :7.</p><p>Jacob actually saw the Angels. "This is God's host", he commented, with the implication that this sight further humbled him and led him towards the necessary contrition of mind for deliverance from Esau. If "the sign of the son of man" which appears over Israel and leads the tribes of Israel to mourn in repentance is a literal vision of the Angel-cherubim (<em><a href='B:470 24:30'>Mat 24:30</a></em>), then this has a basis in Jacob seeing the Angelic vision in the time of his distress, the "time of Jacob's trouble".</p><p>Particularly in that watershed night of wrestling, Jacob was our example. The Lord taught that we must all first be reconciled with our brother before we meet with God (<em><a href='B:470 5:24'>Mat 5:24</a></em>)- an obvious allusion to Jacob's reconciliation with Esau in his heart, and then meeting with God. We really must <em>all</em> go through that process, whether in one night or a longer period. The commentary on that night in Hosea 12 makes this point: "In his (spiritual) manhood (RVmg.) he had power with God... he wept, and made supplication unto him: he (God) found him (Jacob) in Bethel, <em>and there He spake with us</em>, even the (same) Lord God of Hosts (armies of Angels)... therefore turn <em>thou</em> to <em>thy</em> God" as Jacob made Yahweh <em>his</em> God and <em>turned</em> to Him (vv. 3-6). Jacob is our example. Jacob only truly turned to God that night of wrestling, at the age of 97, despite having been brought up in the ways of the true Gospel, and after having lived almost a century of half commitment to God. We can so easily slip into the same life of half-commitment and never, even for a century, turn to our God with all our heart. <em><a href='B:230 34:3'>Psa 34:3</a></em> promises that the Angel of the Lord will encamp / Mahanaim around <em>all</em> His servants, just as the Angel did at Mahanaim for Jacob. Jacob’s struggle at (or with) Peniel strikes a chord with each of us. Frank Lake has pointed out that each person struggles to find peace in their relationships with others and also with their God- whether or not they are conscious of those struggles (Frank Lake, <em>Clinical Theology</em> (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966)). Jacob’s experience is clearly set up as representative of our own.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob sent messengers in front of him to Esau, his brother, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom</em>-</p><p> "Messengers" translates the same word <em>malak</em> just used in :1. If the record intended us to make a distinction between human and divine messengers, surely another Hebrew word would have been used at this point; for there were other words which carry the idea of 'messenger' or 'sent ones' which could have been employed. I suggest therefore that Jacob meets the Angels and then sends some of them to Esau. This impression of apparent command over Angels then sets the context for him then wrestling with one of them; and <em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em> comments that Jacob "had power over the angel and prevailed". </p><p>Through the whole incident with the wrestling Angel, Jacob was led to understand something of the meaning of the Genesis 28 vision of a ladder with Angels (<em>mal'akim</em>) ascending <em>from</em> him to Heaven and returning to him. He sends messengers (<em>mal'akim</em>) to Esau (<em><a href='B:10 32:3'>Gen 32:3</a></em>)- and they return to him as it were as a mighty host of an angry army. Hence he named the place Mahanaim, two camps / hosts- for he perceived that Esau's host was indeed the host of God in His Angels. And thus he comments that he saw the face of the Angel / God as if it were the face of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>). And so God can masterfully arrange incidents in our lives too, which are somehow the summation of all our previous encounters and interactions with people... to teach us His way. This is why there is sometimes a sense of <em>deja vu</em> in our lives. </p><p>Jacob evidently forgot or resigned the promise that the elder would serve the younger when he sent messengers to Esau, describing himself as Esau's servant, and Esau as his Lord; yet just a few hours later he was pleading in almost unparalleled intensity to receive the promised blessings of forgiveness. Such oscillating faith and perception of the promises is tragically a characteristic of Israel after the Spirit too.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He commanded them, saying, This is what you shall tell my lord, Esau: ‘This is what your servant, Jacob, says. I have lived as a foreigner with Laban, and stayed until now</em>-</p><p> Describing Esau as his lord and himself as Esau's servant is all a studied rejection of the blessing he had stolen, that he would be lord over his brothers and they would bow down to him (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em>). The way Jacob bows to Esau and asks him to "take away" the blessing in <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em> is all tantamount to saying that he was handing back the blessing of the firstborn, because he had experienced the Abrahamic blessing. Having the blessing of forgiveness and fellowship with God was all he needed.</p>&nbsp;<p>Jacob's desperate humility before Esau is remarkable: "My lord Esau... I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight... peradventure he will accept of me" (<em><a href='B:10 32:4-5'>Gen 32:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 32:20'>Gen 32:20</a></em> AV). This was a far cry from his nonchalance and cold shouldering of Esau at the time of the theft of the birthright. Likewise the present Jewish attitude towards the Arabs will dramatically change. Jacob sending droves of presents to appease Esau will connect with Israel's frequent appeasement of their aggressive Arab neighbours in the last days, on the road to their final repentance in the time of Jacob's trouble.</p><p>Jacob says that he had lived as a foreigner with Laban- for either 20 or 40 years. This is so much the language of the patriarchs, living as passers through and not permanent residents; and that is the spirit of all the true seed. But he says he "stayed until now" with Laban. The Hebrew implies procrastination, as if he had stayed longer than he should have done. Significantly, it is the same word used by Eliezer when he had gone to Laban seeking Rebekah as Isaac's wife; he refused to be 'delayed' by Laban (<em><a href='B:10 24:56'>Gen 24:56</a></em> AV "hinder me not"). Jacob is recognizing that he had remained longer than he should with Laban because initially he had been obsessed with Rachel and had not taken Leah and returned home sooner; and latterly, he had remained longer with Laban as he built up his fantastic wealth with the myth of the rods, which was really Divine blessing. He recognized he had not been as his mother and father in spiritual terms, he had delayed with Laban, whereas Rebekah had followed the Spirit and not allowed Laban to delay her. </p>


text:
<p><em>I have cattle, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in your sight’</em>-</p><p> This isn't Jacob boasting; he was hardly in the mood for that. Rather is he wishing to inform Esau that he has indeed received Divine and human blessing, and wishes to share this with Esau. If indeed the messengers were Angels (see on :3), then Jacob was sending them, relying upon God, in order to find grace before Esau.</p>


text:
<p><em>The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to your brother Esau. Not only that, but he comes to meet you, and four hundred men with him</em>-</p><p> As noted on :4, this is the going and returning of the Angels ("messengers") upon Jacob which he had seen in the staircase vision of Genesis 28. I suggested on :3 that these messengers were in fact Angels, even if they appeared as men. This suggestion is confirmed by the way this verse seems to differentiate between the Angel-messengers 'coming to Esau' and also, separate to that, 'finding out' that he was coming to meet Jacob with 400 men with him. The Angels coming to meet Jacob in :1 were in a sense representative of Esau coming to meet Jacob. Just as Laban was out to kill Jacob but he was saved by Angelic grace, so Esau was out to kill him. Rebekah had been wrong in thinking that Esau would soon forget it all. Having 400 men with him was really evidence enough that he was out for conflict.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed- </em>Jacob has just been "afraid" of Laban (<em><a href='B:10 31:31'>Gen 31:31</a></em>), just as he now was of Esau (:11 s.w.). Yet he had learnt that God's Angels had saved him from what he feared; for the Angel appeared to Laban and warned him not to do evil to Jacob. We pass through one experience or test in order to prepare us for the next one; and we see this so clearly in the parallels between the meeting with Laban and now that with Esau.</p><p><em>He divided the people who were with him, and the flocks, and the herds, and the camels, into two companies</em>-</p><p> Literally, two camps- Mahanaim. These two camps of Jacob are stressed (:8,10,21). </p><p><em>Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed</em>-</p><p> This is the basis of "the time of Jacob's trouble" (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>), the "time of trouble" from which Israel will be Angelically "delivered" (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>) after the pattern of Jacob. Yet this "time of trouble" is picked up by the Lord in <em><a href='B:470 24:21'>Mat 24:21</a></em> and applied to the time of great tribulation "such as was not" which will encompass all God's people, natural <em>and</em> spiritual. What this means is that the Jacob experience must be gone through by all of us, natural and spiritual Israel; and this will entail a desperate praying to God and an earnest repentance, recognizing that we have lived out our parental expectations for too long; and above all, a realization that "this God is <em>our</em> God", a personalizing of God, a grasping of the wondrous reality of those things which we have previously seen as only so much correct theology and logical theory.</p>&nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:10 32:8'>Gen 32:8</a></em> <em>And he said, If Esau comes to the one company, and strikes it, then the company which is left will escape</em>-</p><p> "Company" is "camp"; Jacob should have perceived that there was a camp of Angels with him, that we was not alone, but his camp was but a reflection of the heavenly camp of Angels whom he had just "met" as a foretaste of how he would "meet" Esau's camp / company. </p>


text:
<p><a href='B:10 32:8'>32:8</a> And he said, If Esau comes to the one company, and strikes it, then the company which is left will escape- &quot;Company&quot; is &quot;camp&quot;; Jacob should have perceived that there was a camp of Angels with him, that we was not alone, but his camp was but a reflection of the heavenly camp of Angels whom he had just &quot;met&quot; as a foretaste of how he would &quot;meet&quot; Esau's camp / company.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said, God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, Yahweh, who said to me, ‘Return to your country, and to your relatives, and I will do you good’</em>-</p><p> He came to see that 'God' was Yahweh (cp. notes on <em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>); he saw that there was only one 'God', and that the vague sense of 'God' which he had was in fact 'Yahweh'. But still he speaks of this Yahweh God as someone else's God. And the promise made was that he would be kept, blessed, and brought to his father's house in peace. Yet he admits that he 'fears' this will not be the case, and he and his family will be 'struck' by Esau (:11). He was being led to realize that he couldn't just plead a part of the promise, and doubt that the rest would be fulfilled too, questioning whether in fact it was God's plan to "do (him) good" and not evil. We likewise have this tendency. And Moses' primary audience, Israel in the wilderness, were likewise challenged to believe that indeed it was God's purpose to do them good and not evil in their latter end (<em><a href='B:50 8:16'>Deu 8:16</a></em>). The story of Jacob was to be their encouragement.</p>


text:
<p><em>I am not worthy- </em>This is new language for Jacob, and we see that indeed as <em><a href='B:50 8:16'>Deu 8:16</a></em> teaches, he had to be humbled before being done good and not evil in his latter end. The same word for "worthy" is used by David when likewise faced with God's covenant promises (<em><a href='B:100 7:19'>2Sa 7:19</a></em>). David was humbled when he received the promises, just as we should be by realizing that we really are in covenant relationship with God. “Who am I…?” was his response (<em><a href='B:100 7:18'>2Sa 7:18</a></em>). Like Jacob, he felt himself unworthy of all the “mercy and truth” shown him in the promises. And we too should be humbled by these promises; for we are in the same new covenant. The word is also used of how Jacob was the "younger" son (<em><a href='B:10 27:15'>Gen 27:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:42'>Gen 27:42</a></em>). He surely alludes to that; he had so struggled to rise above being the younger son, but he now finally realizes that he is who he is before God. And once he realized that, the promise could come true- that the elder would serve the younger. And the little one, Jacob the small / not worthy / younger, would become a great multitude finally (<em><a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a></em> s.w.).</p><p><em>Of the least of all- </em>The LXX here is alluded to by Paul when he confesses that he is less than the least of all (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>). Jacob's path is indeed that of us all.</p><p><em>The loving kindnesses, and of all the truth, which You have shown to Your servant; for with just my staff I passed over this Jordan- </em>Strong comments that the word for "staff" here suggests a magical, pagan stick associated with fertility, coming from a root meaning 'to germinate'.&nbsp; Jacob and idolatry go together. The same word occurs when we read that Jacob put the animals before the "rods"; it seems this is an intensive plural for 'the great rod', i.e. his staff. Yet, fascinatingly enough, at the very point when Jacob leaves home to start his wilderness journey with only (in his eyes) his pagan staff to bring him good luck, God as it were takes a snapshot of him, and asks Israel to leave Egypt with a staff in their hands- a strange request, surely, unless it was intended to drive their minds back to Jacob, asking them to emulate his example. Again we see the relevance of the Genesis narrative to its primary audience, Israel in the wilderness.</p><p>Jacob saw material prosperity as an indicator of the fulfillment of the promises to him. Because he <em>was </em>physically blessed in his life, he came to feel that the promises had been fulfilled, and therefore he almost lost sight of the future aspect of our relationship with God. There are powerful lessons for us here. He saw the promises ("mercies... truth") as having been fulfilled to him already, and therefore he needed the night of wrestling to bring him to the realization that the blessing of <em>forgiveness </em>(<em><a href='B:400 7:20'>Mic 7:20</a></em>), with its eternal, future implications, was what the promises are really all about. But now perhaps he was realizing this- that he had indeed been materially blessed, but what he needed far more than that was forgiveness for his sin against his brother Esau, both by Esau and God, and peace thereby with God and man. This dimension of the promises suddenly came into focus for him. We likewise can dwell too much upon the material aspect of the promises- resurrection of the body to receive eternal life in future. What we need even more essentially is the blessing of forgiveness and reconcilliation with God and man which will enable that to be so.</p><p><em>And now I have become two companies</em>-</p><p> Before the wrestling began, Jacob evidently felt that basically, the promises to him had been fulfilled in the material prosperity which he had; for "kindness and truth" is a common idiom for the promises. &nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest he come and strike me, and the mothers with the children</em>-</p><p> Because Jacob saw, for much of his life, that the fulfillment of God's promises depended on his effort, he so often doubted them; because, of course, men can never make enough effort. And as noted on :10, he had seen the promises as too much about material blessing rather than the blessing of forgiveness and reconcilliation with God and man which is the more essential part of them. Thus he asks God to deliver him from Esau, because if Esau killed him, the covenant would not be fulfilled. "I fear him, lest he come and strike <em>me</em> (first!) and the mothers with the children". The AV and Hebrew have "mother" singular- as if he was still fixated upon Rachel and her son, and those born to her maid. Whether he died or not that night would not have nullified God's promise that his seed would become a multitude (:12) and that God would return him to his father's home in peace and blessing (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>). Until now, Jacob had seen the promises as offering him personal, temporal blessing, rather than having a firm faith in their future and spiritual implications. His wrestling with the Angel was a cameo of this whole attitude; he thought that the promised blessing of God could be achieved through <em>his</em> wrestling and struggling. This is why, in the course of that night, he stopped wrestling with the Angel and clung on to him with tears, begging that through pure grace he might receive the spiritual blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:350 12:2-4'>Hos 12:2-4</a></em>). </p><p>There can be no doubt that the wrestling experience of our lives will result in our rejection of materialism, and wholehearted devotion to the more spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Jacob began that night by pleading: "<em>Deliver</em> me from Esau", and he concludes by marveling that his life is "preserved (s.w. "deliver") from <em>God's</em> wrath (<em><a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a></em>). The camp of Esau coming to meet him was the camp of Angels he had met and in a way become superior to as noted on :1,3,4. His&nbsp; concern with immediate physical problems became dwarfed by his awareness of his need for reconciliation with <em>God</em>. In essence, this is Paul's teaching concerning peace in the NT; if we have peace with <em>God, </em>the wonder of this will result in us having peace in any situation. This is easy to write, so easy. And yet it is still true. If we see the seriousness of sin, and the wonder of being in free fellowship with the Father and Son, we will have peace. The wholehearted repentance and clinging on to God of Jacob that night is used in Hosea 12 as an appeal to all Israel to repent as our father Jacob did, and rise to his level of maturity.&nbsp; </p><p>If Jacob's prayer had not been heard, Esau would have smitten " the mother with the children". This will be done by the latter day Esau to those Jews who do not match Jacob's intensity of prayer and repentance (<em><a href='B:450 14:2'>Zec 14:2</a></em>), as it happened at the time of the Babylonian invasion which prefigured the Arab attack of the last days (<em><a href='B:310 5:11'>Lam 5:11</a></em>).</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em>You said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your seed as the sand of the sea, which can’t be numbered because there are so many</em>’- The promise to make Abraham's seed as the sand of the sea, he saw as implying that his children would not be physically harmed; yet the New Testament teaches that this promise fundamentally refers to Messiah, and those of all nations who would become "in him". At the end of his life, it seems that Jacob learnt this. We note that Jacob doesn't plead so much the promises made to him of personal preservation (<em><a href='B:10 28:20'>Gen 28:20</a></em>), but those to Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>). He had spiritually grown to the point that he no longer viewed Abraham's God as somehow different to his God; he now believes that this God is his God, and the promises made to his ancestor are indeed to him personally, and have real implication for him in his personal crises. This growth is to be our pattern, as we move on from Sunday School Christianity, the faith of our fathers or of those who first taught us the Gospel, to the awesome personal reality- that this is all deeply true for little me.</p><p>The latter day “time of Jacob’s trouble” is based upon Jacob’s meeting with Esau at Jabbok. Jacob's reliance on his own strength and subsequent semi-faith in God's word of promise typifies the Jews of today; his time of trouble truly humbled him, and his wrestling in prayer brought out the great faith which he was potentially capable of, as the last days will do for the Jews. Jacob's prayer is peculiarly apt to a repentant Jewry: "O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac (going back to their roots), the Lord which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country (since 1948)... I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shewed unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan (cp. the Atlantic, Mediterranean; the airways of Eastern Europe; through the immigrant ports of Haifa, Tel Aviv...); and now I am become two bands. Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother (cp. the Arabs), from the hand of Esau: for I fear him... and Thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea" (32:9-12 AV). The reference to the Jewish fathers will be the result of listening to the Elijah ministry, which will turn "the heart of the children to their fathers" (<em><a href='B:460 4:6'>Mal 4:6</a></em>). And this message of ‘back to the promises, the Hope of Israel’ is exactly the message we can take to the Jews in our communities today. My dream is that world-wide, we will make this witness.</p>


text:
<p><em>He lodged there that night, and took from that which he had with him, a present for Esau, his brother</em>-</p><p> Jacob is an example of the hurrying man beset with unvoiced inner conflicts trying to buy off his guilt. Struggling with an awful conscience, he sent huge gifts ahead of him to try to appease his offended brother Esau. But he wasn’t thereby freed from his bad conscience. He had to wrestle it out with God, with an Angel who at times appeared in the form of both Jacob’s father and brother, and come to know his own desperation and God’s utter grace and love towards him.</p><p>"Present" translates a word more commonly used for sacrifice or offering; if simply a "present" was in view, a different word would be used. Jacob came to see his meeting with Esau as his meeting with God; he met the Angels as if he met Esau (:1), and he makes the connection specific in <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>. The presents to Esau were therefore his equivalent of a sacrifice to God, by which he sought reconciliation. He would be taught that the sacrifice was in a sense necessary- for it indeed pacified Esau; but essentially it was his clinging to the Angel in tears begging for grace which was the essential thing.</p>


text:
<p><em>Two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams</em>-</p><p> All told, Jacob gave Esau 550 animals. His wealth in terms of herds was therefore immense; and he had acquired this by the relatively sudden Divine blessing upon his herds in the final part of his life with Laban. </p>


text:
<p><em>Thirty milk camels and their colts, forty cows, ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten foals</em>-</p><p> Just one camel was considered very valuable; to give 30 plus their colts was a huge gift or sacrifice. I noted on :13 that "present" is better translated "sacrifice". As we learn from Noah's ark, there was a concept of clean and unclean animals, and yet unclean animals such as camels are here effectively offered as sacrifice; and were accepted, as the impure likewise was. </p>


text:
<p><em>He delivered them into the hands of his servants, every herd by itself, and said to his servants, Pass over before me, and put a space between herd and herd</em>-</p><p> There were five different groups of animals: goats, sheep, camels, cows and donkeys. And then there was Leah and her children, and finally, as the seventh group, Jacob and Rachel. This would connect with Jacob bowing seven times to Esau (<em><a href='B:10 33:3'>Gen 33:3</a></em>). "Before me" is literally 'before my face'; and the idea of faces / presence occurs often here in this incident. Jacob had feared the face of Laban and been preserved (<em><a href='B:10 31:2'>Gen 31:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:5'>Gen 31:5</a></em>). Now he was preparing for his face to come before the face of Esau, and again with Angelically provided Divine grace, he would see his face and be saved. All this leads up to the significance of the wrestling incident, where for an extended period, Jacob looks at close quarters into the face of an Angel as they wrestle, and due to Jacob's desperate tears of repentance he is preserved to see the face of Esau and finally that of God, by grace. So he comes to marvel that he has seen God face to face and was preserved (<em><a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a></em>); and he saw in the Angel's face that of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>He commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau, my brother, meets you, and asks you, saying, ‘Whose are you? Where are you going? Whose are these before you?’</em>-</p><p> The question 'Who are you?' was exactly that which Isaac had asked Jacob, and he had lied (<em><a href='B:10 27:18'>Gen 27:18</a></em> s.w.). It was the question Jacob had asked the shepherds when he first came to Mesopotamia. Now all the wrestlings of his life, against Isaac, Laban and Esau, were coming together. They same questions were being asked, to take him back to previous failures. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then you shall say, ‘They are your servant, Jacob’s. It is a present sent to my lord, Esau. Behold, he also is behind us’</em>-</p><p> Jacob was of course aware that "the elder shall serve the younger". But he wanted to give away the blessing of the firstborn to Esau (see on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>). He felt quite unworthy of the blessing that the elder should serve the younger and is as it were resigning it. Or it could be that he was driven to realize a future dimension to the fulfilment of the promises. In this life just as he was not to literally inherit the <em>eretz</em> for ever, so too, he would not be served by the elder. As Abraham bought land- his own eternal inheritance- in which to bury Sarah, so Jacob may have humbled himself as the younger before the elder, when he knew that in the scheme of eternal realities the opposite would be the case.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>He commanded also the second, and the third, and all that followed the herds, saying, This is how you shall speak to Esau, when you find him</em>-</p><p> I suggested on :16 that there were in fact five droves of animals sent. Jacob had rightly guessed the psychology of his brother. The droves of 'presents' or offerings did indeed appease Esau and turn away his wrath. But as Esau had come to slay him, so had the Angel who was to wrestle with him. And Moses' own account of how an Angel sought to slay him for his unfaithfulness to the covenant is surely based upon this. Moses recognized that the path of all the true seed, including himself, was to be based upon Jacob's. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall say, ‘Not only that, but behold, your servant, Jacob, is behind us’. For, he said, I will appease him with the present that goes before me, and afterward I will see his face. Perhaps he will accept me</em>-</p><p> The appeasing of Esau by sacrifice ("presents") is not to be taken as meaning that God too was somehow appeased by sacrifice. For God is not an angry deity. Rather, God's anger turned away by Jacob's appeal to His grace with tears, and deep repentance. As noted on :16, Jacob's seeing of Esau's face represented how he saw the Angel's face and was preserved. In the end, the plan to appease Esau using presents / sacrifice wasn't used.</p><p>The approach of Esau in angry judgment reflected God's attitude to Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em>). Jacob realized that he must "appease" (Heb. <em>kaphar</em>, normally translated 'to make atonement') Esau with gifts of animals. This is surely a confession of sin on his part. But when he offers them to Esau, Esau kindly responds that he “has all”. But all the same Jacob wants to make the sacrifice, to give up the material things... and in all this, too, we see an accurate reflection of God’s position with Jacob (and indeed all of us).&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>So the present passed over before him, and he himself lodged that night in the camp</em>-</p><p> "The present" uses the Hebrew term usually and many times translated "offering"; and acceptable offerings come up before the face of Yahweh. That is stressed many times; and the offering here comes before the face; "before <em>him</em>" is added by the translators as the phrase as it stands seems strange. But so many times these words offering and "before (the face)" are used together about sacrifice coming acceptably before Yahweh. So there is the hint that this present / sacrifice, although it largely included unclean animals, was acceptable with God. </p>


text:
<p><em>He rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford of the Jabbok</em>-</p><p> There are clear similarities with how Jacob had fled from Laban and passed over a river, being again "two camps", and again being saved by God's grace articulated through Angels. Here again Jacob passes over a river. The primary audience of Genesis were Israel in the wilderness, who likewise "rose up in the night" with all they had, and passed over the Red Sea to salvation and the <em>eretz</em>. Constantly, Moses was seeking to encourage them from the historical precedents found in the story of the Abraham family. We note that the "two wives" are differentiated from the "two handmaids", even though the wives both gave their maids to Jacob 'to be his wife'. The inspired commentary clearly doesn't accept that, and thereby raises questions over the legitimacy and spirituality of what Jacob (and Abraham) did in this regard. </p>


text:
<p><em>He took them, and sent them over the stream, and sent over that which he had</em>-</p><p> The language of taking and sending over is exactly that used of how he had crossed the Euphrates before meeting Laban (<em><a href='B:10 31:21'>Gen 31:21</a></em>). Truly circumstances repeat; one situation is to strengthen us for the next. "That which he had" meant that Jacob was now stripped of everything. He wasn't even with Rachel; he had sent her over the Jabbok, and was totally alone. We wonder whether he was hatching some desperate plan to try to return alone toward Haran, or at least to cross the Euphrates back into the land of the east. He was in a similar situation to when 20 or 40 years previously, he had been left alone at Bethel and saw the staircase with Angels. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob was left alone, and wrestled with a man there until the breaking of the day</em>-</p><p> Through this, Jacob learnt the real import of the promises. Like us and Elijah, he had to come to a point of being totally alone to perceive how they applied to himself personally (the same Hebrew phrase "left alone" is used in <em><a href='B:110 18:22'>1Ki 18:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:10'>1Ki 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 19:14'>1Ki 19:14</a></em>). The tension of ideas is between being "left alone", and yet having "a man" with him- clearly an Angel, representing God's presence when a man is truly stripped of all else, just as Jacob had been earlier at Bethel. Jacob came to realize that all his life, he had been wrestling with God, his Angel, and he now came to beg his God for the blessing of forgiveness, implying he had repented. The Hebrew for "wrestle" can mean both to wrestle and also simply to cling on to. It seems he started wrestling, and ended up clinging on to the Angel, desperately begging for salvation and forgiveness. His great physical strength (remember how he alone moved the huge stone from the well, <em><a href='B:10 29:2'>Gen 29:2</a></em>) was redirected into a spiritual clinging on to the promises of forgiveness and salvation. And this will be our pattern of growth too. It seems Jacob was familiar with the idea of wrestling with God as being related to prayer. Rachel speaks of how "with wrestlings of God have I wrestled... and I have prevailed" in obtaining a child (<em><a href='B:10 30:8'>Gen 30:8</a></em>; AV "great" = Heb. 'elohim'). We know from Hosea 12 that Jacob became aware that he was wrestling with an Angel, not just a man. His wrestling is therefore to be understood as prayer and pleading, although doubtless it started as a physical struggle with an unknown stranger, who he later recognized as an Angel, and then perceived as God Himself. The Angel came to Jacob with the desire to kill him, as Esau (whom the Angel represented) approached him in the same spirit. It was by Jacob's desperate clinging on to God, his pleading, his intense prayer (<em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em>) that he changed God's intention, after the pattern of Moses in later years. The sentence of death we received in Adam perhaps doesn't mean as much to us as it should. Our reversal of it will involve quite some struggle. </p><p>Jacob wrestled / struggled in prayer with the Angel. Consider the Biblical emphasis on the idea of struggle, quite apart from the fact that Jacob's night of wrestling is a cameo of the experience of all who would be counted among the Israel of God. Job felt that his prayers were a striving with God (<em><a href='B:220 33:13'>Job 33:13</a></em>). Christ's prayers in Gethsemane are described as a "striving" (<em><a href='B:650 12:4'>Heb 12:4</a></em>); Paul asks the Romans to <em>strive</em> in prayer, so that he may be <em>delivered from unbelievers</em> (cp. Esau), and <em>return</em> to them with a <em>blessing </em>(<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>). This is all allusion to Jacob. Likewise Epaphras 'strove' for the Colossians in his prayers (<em><a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a></em> AVmg.). Our prayers are to give the Father no "rest" (<em><a href='B:290 62:7'>Isa 62:7</a></em>), no cessation from violent warfare (Strong).</p><p>The spiritual weakness of Jacob at the time of the wrestling incident can be inferred from the way Hosea speaks about Jacob in Hosea 12. Hosea paints Jacob as a hypocrite, one who prays to God and yet serves idols. Hosea is recognizing that the sins of the fathers tend to continue in subsequent generations; and yet those generations are still culpable for their sin (alcoholics who blame 'inherited genes' should bear this in mind). But the point is, Hosea is reasoning upon the basis of the similarities between Jacob and the Israel of his day; and he's urging them not to be like Jacob, not to blame their weakness on the fact Jacob was their genetic ancestor; and perhaps urging them to go and make the conversion to true spirituality which Jacob eventually made. </p>


text:
<p><em>When he saw that he didn’t prevail against him- </em>God had taught Jacob this idea through Rachel saying that she had wrestled with God's wrestling in order to have a child (<em><a href='B:10 30:8'>Gen 30:8</a></em>). Jacob however did not prevail in prayer, and neither did God as it were prevail against or upon him. It was a perfectly equal balance of power (or so it seemed to Jacob). But then the Angel with a touch demonstrated that this apparent balance of power between God and man was (and is) utterly illusory. Jacob was being made to realize that this was how he had perceived things; but God's grace makes all such balance of power theory irrelevant. <em><a href='B:350 12:4-6'>Hos 12:4-6</a></em> presents the wrestling as Jacob begging the Angel for grace, and prevailing over God, as it were, by receiving this. So I suggest that the hours of wrestling to a perfectly balanced stalemate was not the time Hosea 12 refers to. Rather it was once Jacob had got to this point of apparent balance of power with God, that the Angel touches his thigh. And then after that, knowing he was utterly beaten, Jacob begs for grace and mercy and will not let the Angel go, looking right into his face, and it is in this sense that he 'prevails' as Hosea says. </p><p><em>He touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled</em>-</p><p> The sign of circumcision was given as the confirmation that the promise regarding a son would be fulfilled. Abraham had to figuratively cut off part of his vital organ in order to be assured that <em>God</em> would provide a son for him. Accepting God's promises means that we too must give up our human strength and attempts to fulfil them. Likewise when Jacob was given the repeated covenant acceptance, he was wounded in his "thigh" and thereafter walked with a limp. "It is not impossible that the damage to the "thigh" means Jacob was assaulted in his vital organs. Thus, the "limp" refers to the mark left on his very manhood and future".</p>


text:
<p><em>The man said, Let me go, for the day breaks. Jacob said, I won’t let You go, unless You bless me</em>-</p><p> Notice the chronology of events and the explanation give on :25. They wrestle but neither wins. They are apparently at perfect balance between Divine strength and Jacob's. Then the Angel touches Jacob, and after that Jacob knows he is humanly beaten. But he clings on to the Angel begging for mercy and in this way 'had power with God' as Hosea 12 says; he in that sense "had power over the Angel" and prevailed, refusing to let the otherwise victorious Angel go, unless he blesses him with forgiveness. There is a strong link between blessing and forgiveness; we think of Pharaoh asking to be blessed (<em><a href='B:20 12:32'>Exo 12:32</a></em>), and David speaking of the blessedness of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a></em>). <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em> makes explicit that the Abrahamic blessing was essentially of forgiveness.&nbsp; Having been made powerless and beaten, Jacob clung on to the Angel (this is one possible understanding of the Hebrew translated 'wrestle'). And it was this which paradoxically gave Jacob the upper hand.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to him, What is your name? He said, Jacob</em>-</p><p> There is reason to think that the Angel also reminded Jacob of his father Isaac. The way Jacob begs the Angel to bless him recalls how he so earnestly wanted to obtain his father's blessing. Jacob's pleading for blessing with the Angel would have reminded him of Esau's desperate pleading for the blessing from Isaac. All these things were restimulated in Jacob's mind by the wrestling. The Angel asks him what his name is, in exactly the same way as Isaac had asked him 20 or 40 years before. At that time he had lied. But now he truthfully answers the Angel: "Jacob", the deceiver. And then he begs for the blessing of forgiveness. He had struggled with men, with Isaac and Isaac's influence of Jacob's spirituality, with his brother Esau, with Laban, and with himself. And the Angel said that in all these struggles with men, Jacob had ultimately won in that he had confessed he was a deceiver, a sinner. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em>He said, Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed</em>-</p><p> As explained on :25-27, after reaching a stalemate where Jacob did not prevail against God, the Angel touched his thigh and he became powerless. But he desperately clung to the Angel, peering into his face, and begged for the true Abrahamic blessing of forgiveness and fellowship with God. And this was granted. So the paradox was that by not prevailing in his own strength, he did prevail. This is why he was renamed "Israel". "Israel" effectively means something like 'God rules' (<em><a href='B:10 32:22-28'>Gen 32:22-28</a></em>) (James Muilenburg, <em>The Way Of Israel</em> (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962) p. 45); His people of the new Israel are those over whom He rules. We therefore are under His Kingdom now, if we accept Christ as King over our lives. The name was a testament to the fact that in a way, God had prevailed; in another sense, Jacob had prevailed. We see here the endless mutuality between God and man, once we surrender. He wins, and we win. "With God and with men" confirms the idea often presented in this section, that the Angel represented men like Isaac, Laban and Esau with whom Jacob had wrestled. </p><p>The Hebrew idea of a name is connected with the idea of who a person essentially is. In Biblical Hebrew, one would enquire after a person's literal name by asking "Who (<em>mi</em>) are you?"- not, as was asked of Jacob, "What (<em>mah</em>) is your name?" (<em><a href='B:10 32:28'>Gen 32:28</a></em>). This question to Jacob was therefore a request for him to ask himself who he really was. God's Name in this sense is to become part of ours- hence after God's declaration of His Name to Moses, the Israelites started to insert parts of the Yah / Jah name into their own. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob asked him, Please tell me Your name. He said, Why is it that you ask what My name is? He blessed him there</em>-</p><p> Jacob knew the Yahweh Name, he knew the name El Shaddai (<em><a href='B:20 6:3'>Exo 6:3</a></em>); surely he was asking for a deeper exposition of the Name. He realized his need to draw closer to God. But the Angel grants him the blessing of forgiveness, and says that Jacob doesn't need such an exposition, because he now knows the character of God: he has received such grace and forgiveness and future assurance. This is the Name / character of God revealed. Thus Jacob realized that he knew the theory of God, but not the practice. Latter day Jacob, natural and spiritual, are little better. In so many ways, so often, we know but don't believe; and it has been commonly observed that the problem with us is that we are right in doctrine but very weak in practice. This shouldn't surprise us. It was exactly the characteristic of our father Jacob. But the God of Bethel is our God too, and will bring us through to a deeper maturity. That night, Jacob reached "manhood", spiritual maturity (<em><a href='B:350 12:3'>Hos 12:3</a></em> RV).</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for, he said, I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved</em>-</p><p> Jacob's comment at the end of the wrestling experience was that "my life is preserved"; and that Hebrew phrase is so often used by David (<em><a href='B:230 7:2'>Psa 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 22:20'>Psa 22:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 25:20'>Psa 25:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:19'>Psa 33:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 56:13'>Psa 56:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 86:13'>Psa 86:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 97:10'>Psa 97:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 120:2'>Psa 120:2</a></em>). Likewise Jacob commented that the experience had shown him that God had been gracious unto him (<em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>); and <em>that</em> Hebrew phrase too is a catch phrase of David's (<em><a href='B:230 4:1'>Psa 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 6:2'>Psa 6:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 25:16'>Psa 25:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 26:11'>Psa 26:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 27:11'>Psa 27:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 30:8'>Psa 30:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 31:9'>Psa 31:9</a></em> and many others). We too can make Jacob our hero, as David did. The Hebrew for "preserved" is that used in :11, where Jacob prays to be preserved from Esau. The wrestling with the Angel and obtaining blessing and victory through surrender... was understood as prophetic of Jacob's preservation from Esau, and final victory over him.</p>


text:
<p><em>The sun rose on him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped because of his thigh</em>-</p><p> Paul may well allude to Jacob in speaking of how his "thorn in the flesh" humbled him. The same word for "limped" is used of how latter day repentant Israel will also limp, and yet likewise be saved by grace from their neighbouring enemies, whose ancestors were Laban and Esau (<em><a href='B:400 4:6-7'>Mic 4:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:430 3:19'>Zep 3:19</a></em>). Again we have a case of 'Bible television', of the text enabling us to envisage the situation, and focusing in upon an individual; and here the spotlight is upon Jacob limping, silhouetted against the dawn of a new day and worldview for him.</p>


text:
<p><em>Therefore the children of Israel don’t eat the sinew of the hip, which is on the hollow of the thigh, to this day, because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip</em>-</p><p> This refers to the nerve tendon which extends from the thigh down the leg to the ankle. But I suggested above that the wound to the thigh may have been an equivalent to circumcision, and could refer to damage to Jacob's reproductive organ. The Hebrew for "thigh" is used in this way both specifically (<em><a href='B:10 24:2'>Gen 24:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 47:29'>Gen 47:29</a></em>) and more figuratively when it is the same word often translated "loins" in the context of begettal of a child. As with us, it was the touch of Jacob at his most sensitive which humbled him, and made him give up his attempts to justify himself in his own strength. This is why we often fail, or made to realize our weakness, at what we may think of as our strongest point. The careful driver runs a red light, the capable craftsman makes a foolish mistake. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau was coming, and with him four hundred men. He divided the children between Leah, Rachel, and the two handmaids</em>-</p><p> We should read this as reminding us that Jacob had already divided up his family. For he had sent them over the Jabbok whilst he wrestled alone with the Angel. Jacob had already been informed by the "messengers", who I suggested were Angels, that Esau was coming with 400 men. We imagine Jacob counting them and accepting that the Angel messenger had told the truth; although he perhaps hoped they had got it wrong. </p>


text:
<p><em>He put the handmaids and their children in front, Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph at the rear</em>-</p><p> We see here his favouritism; not only of Rachel and Joseph, but his consideration that the sons of the maids were somehow second class children. We again see how his wives' attempt to give him their maids 'as his wife' was mistaken and didn't work out happily in the end. </p>


text:
<p><em>He himself passed over in front of them-</em></p><p> Before wrestling the Angel, he had been behind them, having sent them in front of him; and I suggested his plan had been to try to return alone to Haran. But after his experience of grace with the Angel, he believed that if he had seen God's face, peering right into it close up as he (as it were) wrestled with God, and had been accepted by grace... so it was going to be with Esau. And so he changes plan, and instead of putting himself last, passes in front of them all. This explains the force of "he himself".</p><p><em>And bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother</em>-</p><p> Jacob's new appreciation of the blessing of forgiveness is reflected by the way in which he effectively tells Esau that he is handing back to him the birthright, the physical blessings. The way he bows down seven times to Esau is rejecting the blessing he had obtained by deceit from Isaac: "Be master over your brethren, and let your mother's sons bow down to you" (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em>). His experience of the blessing of God's grace was sufficient for him, and he rejected all else. I noted on <em><a href='B:10 32:16'>Gen 32:16</a></em> that the seven bows were intended to be preceded by the six droves of gifts; but now, apparently, Jacob forgets that plan and himself goes to Esau. "Present" is the word more usually translated sacrifice or offering. So Jacob as it were makes the sacrifice but realizes that grace removes its power, and goes himself to the front. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau ran to meet him, embraced him, fell on his neck, kissed him, and they wept</em>-</p><p> Jacob's meeting with the Angels (<em><a href='B:10 21:1'>Gen 21:1</a></em>) and then with the Angel was all predictive of his meeting with Esau. He feared God's judgment, as he feared Esau. But in a beautiful way, his fears are met. God runs to meet the sinner, meeting us in Christ, by grace; and Esau Jacob's rightful enemy meets him in tears, probably much to the shock of the 400 men with Esau. The primary audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness, who likewise were called to go and meet God and yet feared to do so because of their conscience of their sins and idolatry (<em><a href='B:20 19:17'>Exo 19:17</a></em> s.w.). The same word for "meet" is used of how Edom, which is Esau, came out to "meet" Israel with the sword (<em><a href='B:40 20:18'>Num 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 20:20'>Num 20:20</a></em>), as did other formidable enemies of Israel as they travelled through the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 1:44'>Deu 1:44</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:32'>Deu 2:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:1'>Deu 3:1</a></em>). The encouragement was that what seemed impossible odds would somehow be overcome. </p><p>The Lord Jesus reflected the Father’s positive spirit in the way He framed the parable of the prodigal son to feature the Heavenly Father as running out to meet the returning son, falling on his neck and kissing him…in <em>exactly</em> the language of <em><a href='B:10 33:4'>Gen 33:4</a></em> about Esau doing this to Jacob. The connection can’t be denied; but what was the Lord’s point? Surely He was willing to see something positive in the otherwise fleshly Esau at that time, He as it were took a snapshot of Esau at that moment…and applied it to God Himself, in His extravagant grace towards an unworthy Jacob. This was how positive minded the Lord was in His reading of even the darkest characters. </p><p>At the end of Jacob's life, Joseph also falls on his neck and weeps for him, just as the Father does to the repentant prodigal (<em><a href='B:10 46:29'>Gen 46:29</a></em>). Jacob's neck had once been covered with animal skin in the deceit of his father Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 27:16'>Gen 27:16</a></em>), and Esau too wept on that same neck, the neck which had been used to deceive and rob Esau. And Joseph was to weep upon it too, after Jacob has again sent an ambassage ahead of him to Joseph as he did to Esau (see on <em><a href='B:10 46:28'>Gen 46:28</a></em>). These otherwise strange connections with Jacob's neck would have served to show him that through his acceptance of the spiritual seniority of his great son Joseph, he had indeed been forgiven of all this miserable past. </p>


text:
<p><em>He lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are these with you? He said, The children whom God has graciously given your servant</em>-</p><p> As noted on :3, Jacob's original plan of sending droves of presents in front of him and then appearing last of all... had been changed by the wrestling experience. Knowing God's grace, Jacob had presented himself alone. But as the droves pulled up behind him, Esau naturally enquired about them.</p><p>Jacob called Esau his master by describing himself as Esau's servant, in evident rejection of the Divine promise they both knew: that Esau would serve Jacob (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>). And yet at this very point, Jacob speaks of "the children which God has graciously given your servant"; and this scene is cited in <em><a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a></em> as a type of Christ and his spiritual children of promise. In similar vein, <em><a href='B:290 49:21'>Isa 49:21</a></em> uses this scene as a picture of the faithful remnant among Jacob in the last days. Jacob was reflecting his experience of grace; he realized that his many children were a gift of grace. All the human devices used to produce them- marrying two sisters, sleeping with their maids, mandrakes etc.- he now realized were not the real source of them. This blessing was solely and totally of God's gracious gift. </p>


text:
<p><em>Then the handmaids came near with their children, and they bowed themselves</em>-</p><p> The original plan had been that they would all meet Esau alone, and then Jacob would come. The wives were after all Esau's relatives. But as explained on :3, Jacob's encounter with grace the previous night had led to a radical change of plan. He came to Esau first, and the wives and children afterwards. They too bowed down, as if recognizing that they were inferior to Esau and he was master of all their clan.</p>


text:
<p><em>Leah also and her children came near, and bowed themselves. After them, Joseph came near with Rachel, and they bowed themselves</em>-</p><p> The Hebrew for "came near" is used insistently and multiple times in the record of Jacob's coming near to Isaac and deceiving Esau out of the blessing (<em><a href='B:10 27:21-22'>Gen 27:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 27:25-27'>Gen 27:25-27</a></em>). The whole incident is an undoing of the sin, an attempted repentance. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau said, What do you mean by all this company which I met? Jacob said, To find grace in the sight of my lord</em>-</p><p> "Present" is the Hebrew word usually translated sacrifice or offering. Esau, like God, was saying that such sacrifice was not needed for reconciliation. Grace is found in the face of God and man not by sacrifice, but by a broken and contrite spirit. David had to learn the same.</p>


text:
<p><em>Esau said, I have enough, my brother; let that which you have be yours</em>-</p><p> God likewise is not in need of presents / sacrifice. "Enough" is the same Hebrew word translated "elder" in the controversial promise that the elder would serve the younger (<em><a href='B:10 25:23'>Gen 25:23</a></em>). Esau may be saying that he considers himself hugely blessed, and doesn't therefore need any more confirmation that he was in fact the elder; he felt Isaac's material blessing of the firstborn had come true for him in any case. Esau therefore also learnt something through this incident; he came against Jacob not to get the blessing, as he felt he already had received it; but for revenge. But he now realizes that having God's blessing means that revenge is not something that is necessary. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said, Please no, if I have now found grace in your sight, then receive my present at my hand, because I have seen your face, as one sees the face of God- </em>Jacob recognizes that the second stage of his wrestling with the Angel, when his natural strength had been neutralized and he was close up face to face with God begging for grace, had effectively been seeing the face of Esau. "Present" is the Hebrew usually translated offering or sacrifice. Jacob had at the last minute reversed his plan of sending presents / sacrifice ahead of him to appease Esau; see on :3. He realized that sacrifice of itself would not enable sinful man to meet the face of God nor his offended brother. Only a desperate, face to face appeal for grace could do that. But having learnt that, he all the same wants to give the present / sacrifice. And this should be our motivation too for any offering we bring. Of itself, it cannot reconcile us to God and man. We offer it in gratitude for grace. And this would have been so relevant to the primary audience of Genesis, Israel in the wilderness who were hearing commandments about sacrifice. </p><p><em>And you were pleased with me</em>-</p><p> "Pleased" in Hebrew carries the idea of satisfying debt, and is often used of how God "accepted" sacrifice. So the purposeful paradox of ideas is: 'Because you accepted me without sacrifice, you accepted by broken and contrite heart as sacrifice, then please in any case accept my material sacrifice'. And this was exactly what David was brought to understand when forgiven regarding Bathsheba and Uriah.</p><p>The Angel commented that Jacob had struggled with both God and men, and had prevailed. Which men? Jacob recognized that the face of the Angel represented that of Esau, his brother with whom he had emotionally struggled all his life. The struggle in the womb had been lived out all their lives to this point. Perhaps the Angel's face appeared like that of Esau? Jacob saw the face of the Angel as it were the face of Esau- implying that the Angel he wrestled with was Esau's guardian Angel. He was being more obliquely shown the truth which New Testament passages like <em><a href='B:690 4:12'>1Jn 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:20-21'>1Jn 4:20-21</a></em> state plainly: that our relationship with our brother is our relationship with God. And Jacob was thus repenting of how badly he'd treated his brother. </p><p>The parable of the prodigal contains multiple allusions to the record of Jacob and Esau, their estrangement, and the anger of the older brother (Esau) against the younger brother. K.E. Bailey, <em>Jacob And The Prodigal</em> (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) lists 51 points of contact between the Jacob / Esau record and the prodigal parable. There is a younger and an elder son, who both break their relationships with their father, and have an argument over the inheritance issue. Jacob like the prodigal son insults his father in order to get his inheritance. As Jacob joined himself to Laban in the far country, leaving his older brother Esau living at home, so the prodigal glued himself to a Gentile and worked for him by minding his flocks, whilst his older brother remained at home with the father. The fear of the prodigal as he returned home matches that of Jacob as he finally prepares to meet the angry Esau. Jacob's unexpected meeting with the Angel and clinging to him physically is matched by the prodigal being embraced and hugged by his father. Notice how <em><a href='B:10 33:10'>Gen 33:10</a></em> records how Jacob felt he saw the face of Esau as the face of an Angel. By being given the ring, the prodigal "has in effect now supplanted his older brother" (A.J. Hultgren, <em>The Parables Of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) p. 79); just as Jacob did. As Esau was "in the field" (<em><a href='B:10 27:5'>Gen 27:5</a></em>), so was the older brother. </p><p>What was the Lord Jesus getting at by framing His story in terms of Jacob and Esau? The Jews saw Jacob as an unblemished hero, and Esau / Edom as the epitome of wickedness and all that was anti-Jewish and anti-God. The Book of Jubilees has much to say about all this, as does the Genesis Rabbah (see e.g. Jacob Neusner,<em> Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary To The Book Of Genesis</em> (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) Vol. 3 p. 176). The Lord is radically and bravely re-interpreting all this. Jacob is the younger son, who went seriously wrong during his time with Laban. We have shown elsewhere how weak Jacob was at that time. Jacob was saved by grace, the grace shown in the end by the Angel with whom he wrestled, and yet who finally blessed him. As <em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em> had made clear, Jacob weeping in the Angel's arms and receiving the blessing of gracious forgiveness is all God speaking to us. The older brother who refused to eat with his sinful brother clearly represented, in the context of the parable, the Jewish religious leaders. They were equated with Esau- the very epitome of all that was anti-Jewish. And in any case, according to the parable, the hero of the story is the younger son, Jacob, who is extremely abusive and unspiritual towards his loving father, and is saved by sheer grace alone. This too was a radical challenge to the Jewish perception of their ancestral father Jacob. </p><p>The parable demonstrates that both the sons despised their father and their inheritance in the same way. They both wish him dead, treat him as if he isn't their father, abuse his gracious love, shame him to the world. Both finally come to their father from working in the fields. Jacob, the younger son, told Laban that "All these years I have served you... and you have not treated me justly" (<em><a href='B:10 31:36-42'>Gen 31:36-42</a></em>). But these are exactly the words of the older son in the parable! The confusion is surely to demonstrate that both younger and elder son essentially held the same wrong attitudes. And the Father, clearly representing God, and God as He was manifested in Christ, sought so earnestly to reconcile both the younger and elder sons. The Lord Jesus so wished the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees to fellowship with the repenting sinners that He wept over Jerusalem; He didn't shrug them off as self-righteous bigots, as we tend to do with such people. He wept for them, as the Father so passionately pours out His love to them. And perhaps on another level we see in all this the desperate desire of the Father and Son for Jewish-Arab unity in Christ. For the promises to Ishmael show that although Messiah's line was to come through Isaac, God still has an especial interest in and love for all the children of Abraham- and that includes the Arabs. Only a joint recognition of the Father's grace will bring about Jewish-Arab unity. But in the end, it will happen- for there will be a highway from Assyria to Judah to Egypt in the Kingdom. The anger of the elder brother was because the younger son had been reconciled to the Father without compensating for what he had done wrong. It's the same anger at God's grace which is shown by the workers who objected to those who had worked less receiving the same pay. And it's the same anger which is shown every time a believer storms out of an ecclesia because some sinner has been accepted back... </p>


text:
<p><em>Please take away my blessing that I brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have all things. He urged him, and he took it</em>-</p><p> Jacob now saw God as the one who graciously gave physical blessings, not simply to fulfil Divine predictions for the sake of it, but in order to pour out His grace. And that grace was not so much gifts of material things as the God who gives spiritual grace / mercy to undeserving sinners like himself. Thus a growing appreciation of grace was a facet of Jacob's perception of God and spiritual growth.</p><p>It's a shame that the English translations often conceal Jacob's rejection of the physical blessing here. The Hebrew for "Take" is 51 times translated "take away". The only ultimately important thing is grace and right standing with God; that now for Jacob was having "all things". The Hebrew words translated "take (away)" and "blessing" are exactly the same as in <em><a href='B:10 27:35-36'>Gen 27:35-36</a></em> AV: "(Jacob) came with subtlety, and hath <em>taken away</em> thy <em>blessing</em>... Is not he rightly named Jacob? he <em>took away</em> my birthright, and now he hath <em>taken away</em> my <em>blessing</em>". Yet now Jacob is saying: 'I have experienced the true grace of God, I stand forgiven before Him, I see His face in His representative Angel, I therefore have all things, so I don't want that physical, material, temporal blessing I swindled you out of'. This is why Jacob pointedly calls Esau his “Lord” in the record. He was accepting Esau as the firstborn. And Paul, in his spiritual maturity, came to the same conclusion; he counted all the materialism of this world as dung, that he might win Christ and be found in him, clothed with his gracious righteousness. Because God had dealt graciously with him, he felt that he had “all things”. All he needed was God’s grace, and he had that. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:7'>Rev 21:7</a></em> appears to allude to Jacob by saying that he who overcomes (by wrestling?) shall inherit “all things”. We are all to pass through Jacob’s lesson; that material advantage is nothing, and God’s grace is everything. Truly could Jacob later say, after another gracious salvation, that there God had appeared to Him, had been revealed to him (RV) in the experience of grace (<em><a href='B:10 35:7'>Gen 35:7</a></em>). &nbsp; </p><p>Jacob had made "supplication" to God (<em><a href='B:350 12:4'>Hos 12:4</a></em>) as he wrestled the Angel; and at that very same time, God dealt "graciously" (the same word translated "supplication") with Jacob. At that time, God "recompensed" to Jacob according to his sins in that the Angel like Esau came forth to slay him; and Jacob responded by "turning" (same word translated "recompensed" ) to his God (<em><a href='B:350 12:2'>Hos 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 12:8'>Hos 12:8</a></em>). It's too bad our translations disguise these things. By the end of his life, this spirit of mutuality between him and God had become perfected. And so with us; we too can live our lives thinking that if we do this, that and the other, God will do this and that for us. The idea of a two-way relationship with Him, of His Spirit, with all that implies, dwelling in us, until our will is His will; all this takes time to develop. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before you</em>-</p><p> This may simply be because Esau knew the route better than Jacob. But it may also reflect Esau's acceptance of the blessing that had been given back to him by Jacob; he was a man of this life, and he enjoyed that blessing of the firstborn, and made use of it by going in front of Jacob.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to him, My lord knows that the children are tender, and that the flocks and herds with me have their young, and if they overdrive them one day, all the flocks will die</em>-</p><p> "My lord" reflects Jacob's genuine recognition that Esau in this life was to be as his master; the younger was to serve the elder. But Jacob's faith in the promises was undiminished; he now appreciated as never before their future dimension. This is a feature of our spiritual growth too. But Jacob's deceitfulness returns- he is making excuses here. He simply doesn't want to be with Esau. Esau's character comes out too, however; as a hunter, he had never had to bother with caring for animals and moving at their pace. He wanted to live life in the fast lane, and wouldn't move over to go at Jacob's pace. If the children were indeed "tender" and unable to move quickly, we would have to assume Jacob was with Laban 20 years and not 40 years, as suggested on Genesis 28; otherwise they couldn't have been described in this way.</p>


text:
<p><em>Please let my lord pass over before his servant, and I will lead on gently, according to the pace of the livestock that are before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord to Seir</em>-</p><p> As noted on :13, "Lord" (stated twice) and "servant" reflect Jacob's genuine resignation of his stolen birthright blessings, and his recognition that Esau in this life was to be as his master. Jacob's deceit still had not been completely cured; he gave the impression that he would come to Esau's encampment at Seir, but it seems he never did. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau said, Let me now leave with you some of the folk who are with me. He said, Why? Let me find favour in the sight of my lord</em>-</p><p> He could be saying 'Don't, please, force me to come live with you. If indeed I have found grace in your eyes, then please let me go my own way'. And that is indeed an aspect of grace; to let the beloved go their way and not have to live with us in every way. Jacob, on a human level, compares unfavourably to Esau. He was deceitful of Esau even after this watershed time. When Esau had the chance to take vengeance on Jacob, he wonderfully forgave him. He never lied to Jacob. <em><a href='B:460 1:4'>Mal 1:4</a></em> makes the point that Edom (Esau) was zealous to return and rebuild the ravaged land which God had once given him, whereas Israel wasn’t. And yet despite this, God says He still chose to love Israel (Jacob) and hate Esau. His behaviour in this is an example of how He saves by pure grace and not works. </p>


text:
<p><em>So Esau returned that day on his way to Seir</em>-</p><p> The differing destinations of Esau and Jacob are emphasized; Esau to "Seir", the place of wild goats, whilst Jacob went to the place of booths. The wandering, roaming nature of Esau is compared with the more stable lifestyle of Jacob, and in this sense the predictions of Isaac about the firstborn came strangely true, even though Jacob had handed that blessing back to Esau.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob travelled to Succoth, built himself a house, and made shelters for his livestock. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth</em>-</p><p> See on :16. The faithful seed were characterized by continual dwelling in tents and moving on. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 26:22-23'>Gen 26:22-23</a></em>, whenever they tried to settle down, as Isaac had tried to at Rehoboth, they were moved on by the leading and work of the Spirit. So although Jacob was seeking for the stability of a house and permanent residence, he was to be moved on from that. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan Aram; and encamped before the city</em>-</p><p> As noted on :17, Jacob's attempt to settle permanently in Succoth was not to be. Even if we live in the same suburban house all our days, the way of Abraham's seed is to be moved on all their lives long. Jacob's 'coming in peace' is surely to connect with the promise at Bethel, which Jacob interpreted as meaning that Yahweh would bring him back to his father's house "in peace" (<em><a href='B:10 28:21'>Gen 28:21</a></em>). And Jacob's bargain with God had been that in this case, Yahweh would be his God. "Paddan Aram" is maybe mentioned in order to positively strengthen the similarities with Rebekah coming from there to the land of promise to marry Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 28:2'>Gen 28:2</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>He bought the parcel of ground where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred pieces of money</em>-</p><p> The New Testament emphasizes the paradox: that the patriarchs bought land in the land which was their eternal inheritance. They couldn't bury their dead nor pitch their tent without having to realize that the land wasn't theirs. The same paradox was taught in Jacob having to call Esau his "lord", the younger serving the elder; but in faith that things would not eternally be that way. Joseph's bones were buried here later (<em><a href='B:60 24:32'>Jos 24:32</a></em>), which suggests that Jacob bought it with a view of it becoming a burial place and Israelite sanctuary. Yet <em><a href='B:510 7:16'>Act 7:16</a></em> says that Abraham bought this land as a burial place; perhaps the paradox deepens in that they were deceived out of their "own" land and had to pay for it twice, even though it was eternally theirs. </p>


text:
<p><em>He erected an altar there, and called it El Elohe Israel</em>-</p><p> This seems to have been a flash of spiritual insight, a peak of faith which was not afterwards sustained; not only did Jacob accept the new name God had given him (although he needed reminding of this again in <em><a href='B:10 35:9'>Gen 35:9</a></em>), he saw that 'God' was his God, the God behind the powerful ones (Angels) who looked after Jacob / Israel. He had come "in peace" (:18 cp. <em><a href='B:10 28:21'>Gen 28:21</a></em>) and now wished to keep his bargain, to accept Yahweh as his God. But still he saw God as pre-eminently <em>physically</em> powerful, and manifested in many Angels. And still he had not fulfilled his promise to make <em>Yahweh</em> his God, for he doesn't use the term "Yahweh" here. Jacob hid behind the idea of God manifestation too long. This is not to say that there is no such thing; but we can take it to such a point where we lose sight of the glorious reality of the one true, real God, who is our God, and who is ultimately <em>there</em>, at the back of all the things and ways in which He may be manifested. Jacob saw God manifest in Angels to the point where he failed to see the God who was behind them. Building the altar 'El-elohe-Israel' was his first step towards rectifying this. As time went on, he saw God as one, not as multitudes of Angels, even though he knew from the vision of Bethel that they were all active for him; he saw the El behind the Elohe, and realized that this was Yahweh, his very own God.</p><p>Shechem was the spot where Abraham had built an altar upon entering Canaan, the promised land. Jacob progressively felt a sense of identity with Abraham and Isaac on a spiritual level.</p>


text:
<p><em>Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land</em>-</p><p> She went to see the girls, not the boys; but any movement toward the world exposes to further temptation. And that's just what happened here. The Jacob family by reason of their life path would've been quite insular; being on the move all the time, they had no opportunity to build up friendships or relationships with others outside the group. And so we can understand the desire for a young person to go out to meet the locals. But females in those days never travelled alone, always there was a male relative present. But it seems Dinah almost escaped alone. We can assume she was a naive teenager.</p>


text:
<p><em>Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. He took her, lay with her, and humbled her</em>-</p><p> "Humbled" is the same word translated "afflict"; and yet if he brutally raped her, his genuine love for her in :3 and :12 is hard to understand. So the idea may be that she was humbled by the experience. See on :3.</p>


text:
<p><em>His soul joined to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young lady, and spoke kindly to the young lady</em>-</p><p> The language of 'joining' or (AV) 'cleaving' is that of <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> about cleaving in marriage. His kind words and genuine love for her all suggest his desire to marry her was sincere. What was wrong was that he prematurely slept with her. But the whole incident had a far grosser spin placed upon it by Jacob's sons. Shechem spoke kindly to her, Heb. 'to her heart', with comfort- presumably the comfort that he had not just used her, but would marry her and promised her a wonderful life. This is quite opposite to how her brothers interpreted the situation, falsely claiming Shechem had used her as a prostitute (:31).</p>


text:
<p><em>Shechem spoke to his father, Hamor, saying, Get me this young lady as a wife</em>-</p><p> She was indeed young. If Joseph was only 17 when he was sold into Egypt about 11 years later, Dinah would have been around 16 at this time (cp. <em><a href='B:10 30:21'>Gen 30:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah, his daughter. And his sons were with his livestock in the field. Jacob held his peace until they came</em>-</p><p> Perhaps she had gone with other young folks, who returned to the encampment with the news. "Defiled" is a strictly ceremonial or moral word. The idea is not of rape; see on :2. The response and evil plan of the sons appears to have been done without Jacob's knowledge. He appears very passive; if he had acted more decisively at the time, perhaps events might have turned out differently. The entire story is full of weakness and failure on the part of absolutely all involved; and yet the end result of it was the casting away of idols from Jacob's family, as they threw themselves upon God's grace to preserve them.</p>


text:
<p><em>Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to talk with him</em>-</p><p> We have the impression of Jacob living at the city limits, and the city clearly defined with a gate and houses within the walls. Hence Shechem 'goes out' to Jacob. There may be an intended similarity with how Lot pitched his tent just outside Sodom, and then moved in to the city (<em><a href='B:10 13:12'>Gen 13:12</a></em>). Shechem was also an area of rich pastureland which would've been attractive to Jacob. </p>


text:
<p><em>The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it. The men were grieved, and they were very angry, because he had done folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; a thing which ought not to be done</em>-</p><p> There is reason to think that even at the end, Jacob was still in some ways weak. Thus despite his name having been changed from Jacob to Israel, the two terms are used by God in the record in juxtaposition&nbsp; (here and <em><a href='B:10 35:22'>Gen 35:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:2'>Gen 46:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:5'>Gen 46:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:8'>Gen 46:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 48:2'>Gen 48:2</a></em>) as if to reflect the way the full change of Jacob would only take place in the Kingdom, when each believer will receive his new name (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>). </p><p>The sons of Jacob are presented here as hypocritical; they despised the sign of the covenant, circumcision, and were ruthless and self-willed, murdering and pillaging. So their outrage was hardly because of their own morality. And as noted on :2 and :3, it was they who had decided that Shechem had raped their sister and treated her as a prostitute (:31). "Folly" is an extreme term, used of prostitutes and rapists (<em><a href='B:50 22:21'>Deu 22:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 19:23-24'>Jdg 19:23-24</a></em>). In reality he had not raped her, and she was at least partially responsible. But the problem with the usage of inflammatory language is that it creates images which do not easily subside. This incident stands for all time as a warning to us all; a mistake is made, a sin is committed, as these youngsters Shechem and Dinah did; but others get involved, and for the sake of family pride, they exaggerate what happened into something quite different, and once that image is in their mind, they will kill and pillage for it. This sort of thing goes on in secular and religious life all the time.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Hamor talked with them, saying, The soul of my son, Shechem, longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife</em>-</p><p> Hamor avoids mentioning that Shechem has slept with her already. This was clearly intended to be a love marriage, it was not casual rape nor usage of a girl as a prostitute (:31). The sincerity of Shechem is consistently contrasted with the exaggeration and serious over reaction of Jacob's sons. </p>


text:
<p><em>Make marriages with us, give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves</em>-</p><p> Jacob had other daughters apart from Dinah, mentioned also in <em><a href='B:10 46:7'>Gen 46:7</a></em>. The sons of Jacob would have known the family stories of how Isaac and Jacob had both gone to such trouble not to marry local Canaanite women, and how these had been a grief of mind to Isaac an Rebekah when Esau married them. They ought to have immediately turned away from such a proposal, and simply ensured Dinah's safety and return to their camp. </p>


text:
<p><em>You shall dwell with us, and the land will be before you. Live and trade in it, and get possessions in it</em>-</p><p> The land (<em>eretz</em>) had been promised to the sons of Jacob as an eternal inheritance; the men of Shechem suggested that an agreement with them would make the <em>eretz</em> before them. They speak not for the town of Shechem, but the entire <em>eretz</em>, as if an agreement with them would mean the rest of the Canaanite tribes would be acceptant of them. This reasoning was quite contrary to the Divine promise that by His grace He would give them the <em>eretz; </em>it was because of this that "the land (is) before you" (<em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em> - the identical Hebrew is used). The whole behaviour of Jacob's sons reflects a lack of spiritual perception and appreciation of the promises. "Possessions" is literally 'things taken hold of' and is the same word used of how Jacob took hold of Esau's heel (<em><a href='B:10 25:26'>Gen 25:26</a></em>). He ought to have learnt that he had given up grabbing hold, and would instead take hold of God's grace. </p>


text:
<p><em>Shechem said to her father and to her brothers, Let me find favour in your eyes, and whatever you will tell me I will give</em>-</p><p> This is the language of someone desperately in love. Again we note the emphasis upon Shechem's integrity and that he most definitely did not treat her as a prostitute (:31). Their accusation was therefore their imagination, and their reaction was wrong.</p>


text:
<p><em>Ask me a great amount for a dowry, and I will give whatever you ask of me, but give me the young lady as a wife</em>-</p><p> AV "dowry and gift"; the dowry being to the parents, and the gift to the bride. He was obsessed with Dinah, the language is similar to Samson's about his first Philistine wife; but despite that, he was eager to do things in accordance with norms of societal behaviour, and his relationship with her was clearly not of a casual nature.</p>


text:
<p><em>The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with deceit, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister</em>-</p><p> "Defiled" has a religious, moral connotation. They were justifying their anger and bloodlust by claiming they had to settle some gross religious blasphemy. But Shechem is portrayed as most definitely not having used Dinah, but rather wishing by all means to marry her in a responsible way. And so often we see this; quasi religious / spiritual reasoning is used to justify arrogance, pride and a desire to justify the outpouring of native anger. And so they acted true to the character of their father Jacob and grandfather Laban; they were deceitful. </p>


text:
<p><em>And said to them, We can’t do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised; for that is a reproach to us</em>-</p><p> Again, as noted on :13, they used quasi spiritual reasoning to justify their own wrong behaviour. They made out that uncircumcision was a shameful thing for them, pretending they were men of such high spiritual principle when they were nothing of the sort.</p>


text:
<p><em>Only on this condition will we consent to you. If you will be as we are, that every male of you be circumcised</em>-</p><p> Circumcision was the sign of the covenant; to even be willing to offer it to others shows a deep lack of appreciation of covenant relationship. All the way through, they are presented as being most unspiritual.</p>


text:
<p><em>Then will we give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people</em>-</p><p> As noted on :15, to even talk about being "one people" with those who were not the people of God is reflective of their lack of spirituality and appreciation of their relationship with God. </p>


text:
<p><em>But if you will not listen to us, to be circumcised, then we will take our sister, and we will be gone</em>-</p><p> Jacob had only just purchased land at the city limits. So "we will be gone" was not going to be so easily executed. "We will take our sister" could suggest a threat of force. They do not ask for her to be delivered, but rather say they will take her. </p>


text:
<p><em>Their words pleased Hamor and Shechem, Hamor’s son</em>-</p><p> Not least, because it was an honourable way out of the situation caused by Shechem and Dinah's inappropriate and premature behaviour. </p>


text:
<p><em>The young man didn’t wait to do this thing-</em></p><p> The Hebrew idea of waiting or delaying is nearly always used in a bad sense; not delaying is associated with right behaviour. Again, Shechem is portrayed as honourable. Perhaps the idea is that he was circumcised first, immediately.</p><p><em>Because he had delight in Jacob’s daughter, and he was honoured above all the house of his father</em>-</p><p> This could also mean, as AV, that he was the most honourable. The others wanted to deceive the Israelites for material advantage, but Shechem is presented as being of integrity and sincerity despite his initial sin of passion in sleeping with Dinah. </p>


text:
<p><em>Hamor and Shechem, his son, came to the gate of their city, and talked with the men of their city, saying</em>-</p><p> The emphasis seems to be upon them doing everything in a correct, transparent and appropriate manner- in direct contrast to the devious behaviour of Jacob's sons.</p>


text:
<p><em>These men are peaceful with us. Therefore let them live in the land and trade in it. For behold, the land is large enough for them. Let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters</em>-</p><p> The implication is that Jacob had bought some land on the city limits, but this was recent; they had not yet begun to trade with the locals and were without relevant permissions to do so. Moses alludes to their words by saying that the entire <em>eretz</em> was a "large" land, and because of the largeness of the inheritance, they would possess the land of the Hivites (<em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>). The primary audience of Genesis were intended to make this connection; the Hivites were reasoning as if it were all <em>their </em>land when in fact it was the eternal inheritance of the wayward but chosen-by-grace sons of Jacob. </p>


text:
<p><em>Only on this condition will the men consent to us to live with us, to become one people, if every male among us is circumcised, as they are circumcised</em>-</p><p> Marriage out of the Faith is associated with a chronic lack of appreciation of covenant relationship. If Dinah had married Hamor, this would have been a covenant relationship which would have resulted in the people of God and the surrounding world becoming “one people” (:16,22). How can we marry out of the Faith and claim we are still God’s people, separated from the world and not "of it"? Living together ("live with us") was going to result in the process of time with 'becoming one people', and this is so often how it goes when a believer marries an unbeliever.</p>


text:
<p><em>Won’t their livestock and their possessions and all their animals be ours? Only let us give our consent to them, and they will dwell with us</em>-</p><p> Here we see a less honourable side of Hamor and Shechem; the Jacob family were perceived as wealthy, perhaps more wealthy than the whole of Shechem. However, Shechem is definitely presented as honourable, and as a young man we can assume that the idea of getting Jacob's wealth was perhaps more pushed by his father. Or perhaps they felt they had to offer some attractive side to the bargain, so that their people would agree; when Shechem himself simply wanted to marry the girl he had fallen in love with.</p>


text:
<p><em>All who went out of the gate of his city listened to Hamor, and to Shechem his son; and every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city</em>-</p><p> The reference is not to those who <em>sat</em> in the gate, which would have referred to the leadership. Those who went out of the gate might therefore simply refer to "every male" who was old enough to travel independently, i.e. to leave the city. </p>


text:
<p><em>It happened on the third day, when they were sore, that two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword, came upon the unsuspecting city, and killed all the males</em>-</p><p> This was a classic case of guilt by association. "All the males" were hardly guilty of what one had done. The awfulness of the crime was not simply that they over-reacted in hot blood, but that they planned this massacre over a period of days. Although Simeon and Levi did the killing, it is clear that the other brothers knew the plan; and surely Jacob did, and his silence is significant. The whole incident portrays all involved as weak; and yet out of it arises the mass repentance from idolatry of Genesis 35. </p>


text:
<p><em>They killed Hamor and Shechem, his son, with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went away</em>-</p><p> The poor girl must have been so terribly traumatized and confused to see all this happening at the hands of her brothers. </p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob’s sons came on the dead, and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister</em>-</p><p> The term "Jacob's sons" usually refers to the group; they were clearly complicent in the crime, although the actual murders were committed by Dinah's two brothers. The plundering was perhaps their way of showing that they had seen through the real motivation of these people- it was to take the wealth of the Jacob family (:23). But as with the language of demons in the New Testament, the final clause is written from their perspective- they did this because "they" had defiled their sister. Only Shechem could be accused of defiling Dinah, so they are in the grip of guilt by association thinking; and the language of 'defilement' for pre-marital consensual sex seems rather a quasi-spiritual motivation for doing what was plainly wrong.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>They took their flocks, their herds, their donkeys, that which was in the city, that which was in the field</em>-</p><p> This was showing that they had seen through the real motivation of these people- it was to take the animals wealth of the Jacob family (:23). It must have been a major operation, consciously planned and executed; for they took the animals which they had which were "in the field". </p>


text:
<p><em>And all their wealth. They took captive all their little ones and their wives, and took as plunder everything that was in the hous</em>e- Taking the wives / women rather than killing them suggests that they then married them or slept with them; for this was the idea of taking women as "plunder". They did this on the excuse that one of the men had raped their sister, when in fact the young couple wanted to get married and the sex was consensual. Their evil is presented as being far greater than that done by Shechem, and their sin was of the same order and nature of rape, which they falsely accused Shechem of. Yet they did it on a mass scale. They are presented as very selfish and hypocritical.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, You have troubled me, to make me odious to the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites. I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house</em>-</p><p> So true to our experience, even after the night of wrestling Jacob slipped back at times into the old way of thinking. His pathetic bleating here is a case of this: "<em>I</em> being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against <em>me </em>and slay <em>me</em>; and <em>I</em> shall be destroyed, <em>I</em> and <em>my</em> house". Just note all those personal pronouns. God had promised to go with him and make him a multitude, not "few in number", and the whole tenor of all the promises was that there would come a singular seed from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who would become a great house, or nation. But in the heat of the moment, all this was forgotten. He had only recently feared that he would be 'slain' by Esau and his family destroyed (<em><a href='B:10 32:11'>Gen 32:11</a></em> s.w., "he will come and <em>smite</em> me, and the mother with the children"), and been brought to see that this fear was a lack of faith in the fulfilment of the promises to him. We too can learn something in one crisis, but then need to be re-taught it, or reveal our lack of having learnt, when the essence of the crisis is repeated again in a later similar incident.</p><p>The primary audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness, and as they approached Canaan, they must likewise have felt that they were going to be overcome by the local tribes. Yet such fears of not inheriting the Kingdom are presented as being but the same element of faithless fear which was in Jacob at this time. They feared they would be "destroyed" (s.w.) by the local tribes (<em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>). But somehow God would miraculously preserve them, as He did "Israel" at his first formation as a nation.</p>


text:
<p><em>They said, Should he deal with our sister as with a prostitute?</em>-</p><p> Humanly, the sons of Jacob, unrepentant as they were, should have taken the consequence of their evil at the hand of the vengeful surrounding tribes. But God, in His grace, preserves them by a miracle (<em><a href='B:10 35:5'>Gen 35:5</a></em>). By contrast, the unbelieving Shechemites acted more honourably. The Prince of Shechem didn't rape her, and he didn't just discard her. He could easily have just taken her as his wife with no more discussion with her family. He did the honourable thing in that he honestly wanted to marry her, and would do absolutely anything to enable this (Genesis 34). The brothers acted in greed and hurt pride, but justified it by exaggerating what had happened in their own mind; and they repeated the lie to themselves until they believed it were true.</p><p>As noted on :3, Shechem did not use Dinah as a prostitute, and their comment is tantamount to accusing their sister of being a prostitute. But they were so desperate to justify their sick actions that they cared nothing for the logic of their false accusations. We see that in people today, and their comment has the ring of psychological credibility in the situation.</p>


text:
<em>God said to Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there. Make there an altar to God, who appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother</em>-</p><p> God wished to restimulate in Jacob memories of how God had been with him from others who sought to kill him in the past. And He works in our lives according to the same pattern. God was asking Jacob to perceive that the promise that he would return home in peace had in fact been fulfilled; and Jacob needed to respond. Jacob had promised that "this stone which I have set for a pillar shall be God's house" (<em><a href='B:10 28:22'>Gen 28:22</a></em>). It seems Jacob had somewhat forgotten that wonderful incident (<em><a href='B:10 31:13'>Gen 31:13</a></em> also sounds like a reminder), and his promise of response. This is why God uses the name "Bethel", house of God, rather than Luz, the local name of that place. Jacob didn't need to build a house for God, Bethel; God had already done that in building Jacob a house in the sense of a family, by His grace. David had to learn the same lesson. But what God wanted was grateful sacrifice in response; and this God is our God.


text:
<em>Then Jacob said to his household, and to all who were with him, Put away the foreign gods that are among you- </em>They were "foreign" in that they had taken them with them when fleeing Laban. Just as Israel took the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea. The moment of truth came during Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel. He realized then that in our relationship with God, it's all or nothing. And after that, he firmly rejected the ways of the world in his own life and that if his family; he made them bury all their idols. This connection between the night of wrestling and Jacob's rejection of idols is hinted at in <em><a href='B:110 18:31'>1Ki 18:31</a></em>; here, Israel openly renounce their idolatry and claim to turn to Yahweh with their whole heart. To celebrate this, "Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of <em>Jacob</em> unto whom the word of Yahweh came saying, Israel shall be thy name". The change of name that night, and its repetition here after they throw their idols away, is associated with Israel's rejection of idolatry. And then finally, at the very end, Jacob realizes his earlier idolatry and confesses it, and emphasizes his utter conviction that there is only one God, the God of his fathers, Yahweh, the God of Messiah, his very own God.&nbsp;Jacob resigned the things of this world for the sake of what was implicit in the promises, when he told his family to throw away their idols. These household teraphim would have been the property deeds to Laban’s property, but because of what God had promised him at Bethel all those years ago, Jacob was willing to resign all that hope of worldly advantage.&nbsp;<p><em>Purify yourselves, change your garments</em>-</p><p> The garments were presumably used for pagan rituals. The young Joseph may well have had to do this, and the same words are used of how he did so later when leaving prison and going before Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:10 41:14'>Gen 41:14</a></em>). So much in Joseph's life repeated; and it was as if God was weaving a theme with him concerning his clothes, which are mentioned at several critical points in his life. The connections for Joseph would've continued, as he reflected how he had been saved out of his "anguish" (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>), the same word translated "distress" in :3, just as his father and indeed Joseph and all the family had been at this time.</p>


text:
<em>Let us arise, and go up to Bethel-</em></p><p> The language of arising and going is all careful obedience to the command received in :1, and echoes the call of Abram to leave Ur and go where he was told.<p><em>I will make there an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went-</em></p><p> As noted on :1, Jacob is aware of his promise in <em><a href='B:10 28:22'>Gen 28:22</a></em> and wishes to recognize that God has returned him in peace. But he had to recognize that by faith, because he was at this point fearful that the surrounding tribes would wipe him out in revenge for the murders at Shechem. He reasons that God's past deliverance of him must encourage them that He would continue to do so. The Hebrew word for "distress" is often used about the anguish and distress which befell Israel / Jacob because of their sins; and yet by grace they were delivered from them. All those deliverances are based upon this deliverance of Israel / Jacob and his sons from the consequences of their shameful actions at Shechem. And this looks forward to Israel's latter day deliverance likewise. Jacob shall be saved from his final day of distress at the hands of the peoples of the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>), and <em>yasha</em>, "saved", is a form of Yehoshua, Jesus- for He will be the final source of that great salvation by grace. But it requires a like repentance, of casting away their idols and self reliance.</p><p>The LXX uses the same word as the New Testament does for “tribulation” in several passages pregnant with latter day significance: </p><p>“The day of my (Jacob’s) <em>distress</em>” at the hands of Esau (<em><a href='B:10 35:3'>Gen 35:3</a></em>)</p><p>“The <em>anguish</em> of his (Joseph’s) soul” at the hands of his half brethren and the Ishmaelites (<em><a href='B:10 42:21'>Gen 42:21</a></em>)</p><p>“I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and <em>troubles </em>shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?” (<em><a href='B:50 31:17'>Deu 31:17</a></em>)- a passage in the Song of Moses regarding Israel’s latter day tribulations. </p><p>“Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of <em>trouble</em>, and of rebuke, and blasphemy” (<em><a href='B:120 19:3'>2Ki 19:3</a></em>)”- Sennacherib’s Assyrian invasion at this time was a clear prototype for the latter day invasion described in Ezekiel 38 and elsewhere. </p><p>“The time of Jacob’s <em>trouble</em>” from which he will be delivered (<em><a href='B:300 30:7'>Jer 30:7</a></em>)</p><p>“There shall be a time of <em>trouble</em>, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book” (<em><a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a></em>). This time of trouble is specifically for Israel in the last days. </p>


text:
<em>They gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which were in their hands, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem</em>-</p><p> Ornaments / amulets were worn at the time in order to fend off evil spirits; the way Moses records how at least twice Israel threw them away could be understood as a hint that they needed no defence against demons, because of God's Almightiness (<em><a href='B:10 35:4'>Gen 35:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:24'>Exo 32:24</a></em>). As in the New Testament, the false beliefs concerning demons / gods are not tackled head on, but rather by implication. The Law of Moses required that such things be destroyed, so we wonder quite why Jacob "hid" them under an oak which was doubtless used in pagan worship, part of the "grove" there (<em><a href='B:10 12:7'>Gen 12:7</a></em>). Perhaps this is a hint that the repentance was not total. We think of Achan hiding such things in the earth (<em><a href='B:60 7:21'>Jos 7:21</a></em> s.w.). The idols were typically made of gold or precious stones and would have been the basis for much of the family's material wealth. But they sacrificed it all because they threw themselves now on Yahweh alone. Although we fear that the hiding rather than destruction of them suggests a hope to somehow regain them at some time.


text:
<em>They travelled, and a terror of God was on the cities that were around them, and they didn’t pursue the sons of Jacob</em>-</p><p> "Terror" is literally 'dismay' and this is commonly used to describe the terror / dismay that came upon the Canaanites as Israel approached them. The primary audience of Genesis was Israel in the wilderness; they were being encouraged to ditch the idols they had brought from Egypt, as Jacob's sons did with the idols they brought from Mesopotamia; and to believe that their more powerful enemies would likewise be stunned with dismay, just as the earlier inhabitants of Canaan had been at this time. &nbsp;<p><em><a href='B:10 35:6'>Gen 35:6</a></em> <em>So Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, God specifically spoke of Bethel and not Luz, in order to help Jacob see that his plan to build a "house of God" at the place where he had slept (<em><a href='B:10 28:20-22'>Gen 28:20-22</a></em>) was inappropriate; God had already done that. All Jacob had to do was offer grateful sacrifice. The stress on "in the land of Canaan" is perhaps to show that indeed God had returned Jacob to his father's house in peace; although Jacob was at that point surrounded by his enemies. But he had to believe that with God's abiding help, he was indeed at peace. Or perhaps he now understood "peace" as not meaning peace in this world, in which we must have tribulation, but peace with God.</p>


text:
<p><a href='B:10 35:6'>35:6</a> So Jacob came to Luz (that is, Bethel), which is in the land of Canaan, he and all the people who were with him- As noted on <a href='B:10 35:1'>:1</a>, God specifically spoke of Bethel and not Luz, in order to help Jacob see that his plan to build a &quot;house of God&quot; at the place where he had slept (<a href='B:10 28:20-22'>Gen. 28:20-22</a>) was inappropriate; God had already done that. All Jacob had to do was offer grateful sacrifice. The stress on &quot;in the land of Canaan&quot; is perhaps to show that indeed God had returned Jacob to his father's house in peace; although Jacob was at that point surrounded by his enemies. But he had to believe that with God's abiding help, he was indeed at peace. Or perhaps he now understood &quot;peace&quot; as not meaning peace in this world, in which we must have tribulation, but peace with God.</p>


text:
<em>He built an altar there, and called the place El Beth El; because there God was revealed to him, when he fled from the face of his brother</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 33:11'>Gen 33:11</a></em>. As noted on :1 and :6, Jacob now accepts the new name for Bethel, realizing that it was the grace of God's revelation to him which meant that effectively God had built His own house; and Jacob's response was to recognize that and offer grateful sacrifice. "Revealed" translates a word used often in the Pentateuch to mean 'expose naked', to denude, multiple times used in the phrase "uncover nakedness". This in Hebrew is a shocking, radical idea. That God revealed Himself naked as it were to Jacob, that night he laid down alone when fleeing from Esau. The denuding was in showing what God is really and essentially about- which is pure grace, offering to a man who didn't yet fully believe in Him to preserve him and return him home, and do him good at his latter end.&nbsp;


text:
<em>Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried below Bethel under the oak; and its name was called Allon Bacuth</em>-</p><p> Why the mention of this, and the stress on such great grief for her (Allon Bacuth = "oak of weeping")? Perhaps because she had been the <em>de facto</em> mother figure for Jacob. We note that little is said of Rebekah apart from her stellar commitment to the leading of the Spirit when invited to go and marry Isaac. Her evil plan for Jacob to get the birthright blessings reveals very much that is faithless and unspiritual; and she has no other recorded behaviour in the record. If indeed she was a distant mother to her children, hence the note about Deborah, this might explain some things. Deborah is presented as being buried under an oak just as it was beneath an oak that the idols were buried (:4). Again, one could suspect that this pagan symbol was being somehow taken over by Jacob's family.


text:
<em>God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan Aram, and blessed him</em>-</p><p> This may not be strictly chronological, in which case it is not a description of the name change being repeated a second time. Whether that is the case or not, the idea is that God appeared to Jacob "again" as He had done at Bethel, where God denuded Himself to Jacob (see on :7). The idea would then be that this amazing self revelation of God at Bethel was repeated when Jacob's name was changed. This could refer to the night of wrestling, or to some new appearance when the name change was repeated. The 'denuding' of God was in showing the very barest essence of Himself; which was grace, to call Jacob "Israel", by grace.


text:
<em>God said to him, Your name is Jacob. Your name shall not be Jacob any more, but your name will be Israel. He named him Israel</em>-</p><p> As noted on :9, this may not be a repeat of the name change, but rather a historical reference to the name change on the night of wrestling. If it is a repeat, the suggestion would be that just as Jacob appears to have somewhat forgotten about the significance of God's appearance at Bethel 20 or 40 years previously (see on :1), so he was failing to appreciate the wonder of the name change.&nbsp; <p>Jacob’s name change being repeated may reflect God's perception that Jacob had changed; or it could be that he was being encouraged to accept it still, to accept that it was really true. <em><a href='B:120 17:34'>2Ki 17:34</a></em> criticizes men for worshipping Yahweh but also their own gods; they are rebuked with the comment that God had made a covenant with "the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel". The suggestion is surely that when Jacob became Israel, he quit the life of half-hearted service to God. This was the decision he came to that night when he wrestled with the Angel, and his name was changed. Then he realized that there were only two ways, the way of the flesh and the way of God (cp. <em><a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Mat 7:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:11-12'>Jas 3:11-12</a></em>). It is for this reason that soon after the wrestling incident and change of name, Jacob purges his family of their idols (:2). Once he has done this, God now reminds him the second time that his name has been changed. Like Jacob, we find it very hard to ascertain our spiritual growth; the very construction of our natures makes 100 % accurate self-examination impossible (<em><a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:12'>Pro 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> RSV). It's not only that we fail to perceive all our errors; we also fail to realize when we have made a significant turn for the better in our lives. Yet God perceives this, as He did with Jacob that night when He renamed him. This perhaps the hardest struggle we have; to really grasp the height of God's positive perception of us. It took Jacob, spiritual hero that he was, 50 years; for only in his final speeches does Jacob openly use the term Israel about himself. And a like joy, that almost child-like playing around with that 'new' name he'd received 50 years back, should characterize our spiritual maturity.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<em>God said to him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations will be from you, and kings will come out of your body</em>-</p><p> See on <em><a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a></em>. The command to be fruitful and multiply recalled the command to Adam and to Noah. It was as if Canaan was now a new land for them to populate; as it were, empty of anyone else. This promise was given only once Jacob had openly renounced idolatry in his family. At this point, Jacob already had plenty of sons and probably grandchildren. His sons had been old and strong enough to destroy Shechem. So Jacob is being led to realize that the essential fulfilment of the promises was not in immediate material things. He was being led to realize that the fruitfulness in view was yet future, and the promise of "kings" was only going to be fulfilled in the future. For his sons never became kings but remained as shepherds all their days. It may even be that "kings" was to be read as an intensive plural, hinting at the one great Messianic King who was to come. Likewise it is hard to see any immediate fulfilment of the idea that from one nation would come "a company of nations"; indeed, the idea is apparently contradictory. How could one nation be a company of nations... The fulfilment was and is in the way that peoples from all nations can be baptized into Jacob's great seed, the King, the Lord Jesus, and be counted as part of the one nation of God's people. And who knows how much of this Jacob perceived as he mulled over this strange promise.&nbsp;


text:
<em>The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, and to your seed after you will I give the land</em>-</p><p> Again, upon closer examination, these words were pregnant with future implication. The land was not given to Abraham and Isaac in their lifetimes; they died without possessing it, let alone eternally. It was given to Abraham in the sense that it was 'given by promise' (<em><a href='B:550 3:18'>Gal 3:18</a></em>); the promise of future inheritance was seen as the gift in this life. And as the land had thus been 'given' to his fathers, so it was given to Jacob.&nbsp;


text:
<em>God went up from him in the place where He spoke with him</em>-</p><p> Why is this mentioned? Perhaps to invite us to see the Angel ascending away from Jacob, recalling to his mind the vision of the stairway to heaven&nbsp; in <em><a href='B:10 28:12'>Gen 28:12</a></em>,with Angels ascending and descending upon it, directly from him to heaven. But the same term is used of God going up from Abraham (<em><a href='B:10 17:22'>Gen 17:22</a></em>); clearly Jacob is being assured that he is the seed of Abraham with the very same promises made to him. All Abraham's seed go through the same reassurance.


text:
<em>Jacob set up a pillar in the place where He spoke with him, a pillar of stone. He poured out a drink offering on it, and poured oil on it</em>-</p><p> There are a few hints that the way of thinking associated with a life of idolatry was still in Jacob. Thus he set up pillars to God and also put a pillar over Rachel's grave (:20); something which was later forbidden under the Law because of its evident association with idolatry (same word in <em><a href='B:30 26:1'>Lev 26:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:22'>Deu 16:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 3:2'>2Ki 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 10:27'>2Ki 10:27</a></em>). He had done this previously, in a way his forefathers are not recorded as doing (<em><a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:22'>Gen 28:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:45'>Gen 31:45</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:51'>Gen 31:51</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 31:2'>Gen 31:2</a></em>). However, this was done at this moment in time as a genuine sign of his devotion to God. Instead of building a house to God as he had earlier promised, by turning the pillar he had earlier set up into a temple (<em><a href='B:10 28:22'>Gen 28:22</a></em>), he simply repeated what he had done there 40 years ago- he just set up a piece of rough stone as a makeshift altar, recognizing that this was all he was, rough stone; and that was in fact all God wanted. The anointing of the rock with oil was later understood by Jacob as pointing forward to the Messianic seed, Jesus the good shepherd; for he ends his days with reflecting upon "the shepherd, the stone of Israel / Jacob" who would 'come out of' him (<em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>).


text:
<em>Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him Bethel</em>-</p><p> God had already referred to the place by this name (:1), in allusion to how Jacob had promised to build God a house there, but by grace God had built him a house / family there. Only now does Jacob accept this, and refer to Luz as Bethel. It's rather like his slowness to accept his renaming from Jacob to Israel. It had to be twice repeated to him, and even then, only at the end of his life did he openly use the word about himself.


text:
<em>They travelled from Bethel. There was still some distance to come to Ephrath, and Rachel travailed. She had hard labour</em>-</p><p> The fact Rachel did just before Ephrath or Bethlehem, where Messiah was to be born, may be another hint at her unspirituality. She didn't make it to Christ. We wonder why they were travelling when Rachel was about to give birth. Perhaps they travelled because they were still fearful of the vengeance of the tribes because of their massacre of Shechem. If they had trusted in God's protection, they would have remained in one place at least until Rachel had given birth. Perhaps it was this lack of faith and the stress connected with fearing death at the hands of the surrounding tribes which contributed to Rachel's pregnancy complications and untimely death.


text:
<em>When she was in hard labour, the midwife said to her, Don’t be afraid, for now you will have another son</em>-</p><p> The reference was to Rachel's proud boast when Joseph had been born some years before, that Yahweh would give her "another son" (<em><a href='B:10 30:24'>Gen 30:24</a></em>). She must have struggled in those years as she failed to fall pregnant. God had not promised her another son; she presumed upon that. And getting pregnant now much later in life was not without its risks, and led to her death. The "don't be afraid" may well be a reference to Rachel's fear that her proud boast that Yahweh would add another son would not be fulfilled.


text:
<em>It happened, as her soul was departing (for she died)- </em>The soul of a person is their life, and at times the idea of soul and spirit are interchangeable; the idea is that as she breathed her last, she used her last bitter breaths to name the child Benoni.<p><em>That she named him Benoni, but his father named him Benjamin</em>-</p><p> There is a strange appropriacy in Rachel dying in childbirth; for in great unspirituality she had asked Jacob (who had served 14 years for her, so great was his love for her) to give her children or else she would die (see on <em><a href='B:10 30:1'>Gen 30:1</a></em>). We do tend to get what we really want, with all its consequences. Rachel dies not in joy that Yahweh had given her another son (<em><a href='B:10 30:24'>Gen 30:24</a></em>), but rather in depression, naming the child "son of my sorrow". She passes from the scene a bitter woman, who was ultimately unfulfilled and untouched by the unusual love of Jacob for her, let alone the love of God. Jacob tried to reverse this shameful naming, by calling the son Benjamin, the son of his right hand, almost implying favouritism in the very name. </p>


text:
<em>Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath (the same is Bethlehem)</em>-</p><p> As noted on :16, Rachel didn't quite make it to the birthplace of the Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus. She was buried by the roadside, rather than in the family grave where Leah was buried along with Abraham and Sarah and Isaac and Rebekah (<em><a href='B:10 49:31'>Gen 49:31</a></em>). Jacob sadly recognized that the love of his life for whom he had been obsessed for 14 years and made such huge problems for himself... was not really one of the faithful family, and had no real heart for the things of the promises.


text:
<em>Jacob set up a pillar on her grave. The same is the Pillar of Rachel’s grave to this day</em>-</p><p> Pillars were later forbidden because of their pagan associations, but it's left an open question as to whether there were such associations with Rachel. However the others of the faithful family were buried in a cave (<em><a href='B:10 49:31'>Gen 49:31</a></em>); no mention is made of a pillar. It was Rachel who so loved her father's idols that she felt she couldn't live without them, and therefore stole them. So perhaps the paganic associations of a pillar were appropriate for her.


text:
<em>Israel travelled, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder</em>-</p><p> This is the "tower of the flock" associated with Bethlehem in the Messianic prophecy of <em><a href='B:400 4:8'>Mic 4:8</a></em>. Rachel died before reaching Bethlehem; Jacob went there and beyond. I have suggested this may hint at her lack of Messianic appreciation, and in this case, Jacob would be presented here as having what she lacked in this respect.


text:
<em>It happened, while Israel lived in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve</em>-</p><p>&nbsp; It could be that with Rachel's death, it became clear that Jacob favoured the sons of Rachel and Joseph, although one of the youngest sons, was effectively now the firstborn for Jacob; even though Reuben was the firstborn. He therefore rapes Bilhah as an expression of his anger with his father, and also as an expression of power; we recall how Absalom slept with his father's wives publically in order to demonstrate his power, rather than doing so from lust. I suggest that Reuben's action was likewise not from lust, but rather he used sex as it is still often used in primitive societies- as a demonstration of power. It was for this reason that at the end of his life, Jacob stripped Reuben of the birthright and effectively gave the double portion intended for the firstborn to Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's sons. Sadly, Jacob never fully learnt to forget the whole 'thing' about the blessing of the firstborn that he and his mother had been so wrongly obsessed with gaining. And Reuben too didn't learn the lesson. We too can come to our deathbeds with elements of weakness, no matter how God has sought to help us overcome them. And yet like Jacob, we are still saved by grace.<p>As with the incident concerning Dinah and Shechem, Jacob comes over as being informed of the matter but not doing much. He did however strip Reuben of the birthright, although apparently only at the very end of Jacob's life. </p><p>The Hebrew of this verse has a strange pause in the middle of it, suggesting we need to pause and consider how awful was the thing Reuben had done. Paul may well have the incident in mind when he rebukes the Christian church in Corinth for a brother sleeping with his father's wife, which Paul says is unheard of amongst the Gentiles (<em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em>). But, it was heard of amongst the people of God- Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, had done it. And so the theme develops that the people of God are often more immoral than the unbelieving world around them; but are saved by grace, not their good works. This seems so true of the Abraham family, whose 'faithful' members often contrast poorly with the more decent and ethical unbelievers amongst whom they lived. The point is that the people of God aren't necessarily good people, although they ought to be; they simply throw themselves upon God's grace.</p>


text:
<em>The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacob’s firstborn), Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun</em>-</p><p> The list is of twelve tribes, and this number rather stuck throughout the Biblical record. And this raises the question as to whether Jacob's attempt to incorporate Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his personal sons... was really accepted as legitimate by God. Because in this case, there would have been 14 tribes of Israel.


text:
<em>The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin</em>-</p><p> We wonder why Benjamin is listed amongst the 12 sons born to Jacob in Paddan Aram (:26). I think that the answer is that quite simply, Semitic writing and culture is not so strictly accurate as Western and other cultures today. There are no footnotes pointing out exceptions; numbers and situations are rounded up; "all" is used in a very general sense. This is difficult for literalists to cope with, but it is of such pathetic literalism that has arisen so much of the petty criticism of the Biblical text.


text:
<em>The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s handmaid): Dan and Naphtali</em>-</p><p> The order is: Sons of Leah, sons of Rachel, sons of Rachel's handmaid, sons of Leah's handmaid. Perhaps the order is an attempt to demonstrate that the sons of the handmaids were finally accepted as legitimate sons of Jacob, although the sons of the proper wives are put first as if to reflect that God never fully accepted the handmaids as&nbsp; Jacob's legitimate wives.


text:
<em>The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): Gad and Asher. These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram</em>-</p><p> See on :24. The impression is being given that the people of Israel / Jacob were formed outside the land of promise, and then brought into it. Just as Adam was as it were introduced into Eden, and Abraham likewise brought into the land. It was again so relevant for the wilderness generation, who had been born in Egypt and were being brought into the <em>eretz</em> as they heard Genesis first read to them.


text:
<em>Jacob came to Isaac his father, to Mamre, to Kiriath Arba (which is Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac lived as foreigners</em>-</p><p> This is presented as his first meeting with Isaac after returning from Laban, but quite some years had passed now, around 10-14. The promise that God would return him to his father's house in peace was not therefore fulfilled at this point; it was fulfilled in him coming to his father's house in the sense of his family, Esau, in peace- in peace with God through forgiveness, most importantly. I think that is how Jacob came to understand it, otherwise we would expect to read of him making some symbolic visit to his "father's house" immediately after meeting Esau acceptably.


text:
<em>The days of Isaac were one hundred and eighty years</em>-</p><p> This meant that he would have lived until the time Joseph supposedly died. The record is not in strict chronological sequence, as the story of Joseph is told separately, and this concludes "the generations of Isaac" (<em><a href='B:10 25:19'>Gen 25:19</a></em>).


text:
<em>Isaac gave up the spirit, and died, and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him</em>-</p><p> "Full of days" rather than full of years could mean that his days had been filled with significance, rather than living the same day over and over year after year. The term is clearly not the same as just meaning "old".


text:
<p><em>Now this is the history of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom)</em>-</p><p> Semitic peoples tend to add second names in reflection of an incident experienced or particular theme or characteristic displayed in the person's life. And thus Esau was also called Edom, 'the red one', reflecting his red complexion and being covered in red hair, and perhaps also the incident with the "red, red soup" which led to his selling his birthright.</p>


text:
<p><em>Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan- </em>In contrast to Isaac and Jacob, who went to great efforts not to do so. Time and again in the record of Esau it is emphasized that he married Gentiles. The record mentions this fact no fewer than nine times in Genesis 36 alone! Why such emphasis? Surely to demonstrate how through the millennia of human history, God has remembered Esau's behaviour and held it against him, recording it for our learning.</p><p>However this particular verse could be translated as meaning that he took his wives (and children) from among the Canaanites and sent them elsewhere, out of the promised land- which also reads spiritually negative, see on :6.</p><p><em>Adah the daughter of Elon, the Hittite- </em>Adah is the Bashemath of :34. As noted on :1, Semitic peoples went by more than one name because names were added to them which reflected their experiences and characteristics.</p><p><em>And Oholibamah the daughter of Anah- "</em>Tent of the High Place". The names of Esau's line and wives often suggest idolatry. The description of Israel as Aholibah in <em><a href='B:330 23:4'>Eze 23:4</a></em> recalls Esau’s wife Aholibamah, again associating them with their relatives who had chosen to leave the covenant. Apostate Israel are described in the very language of the adversaries / Satans of God's people. Because they acted like the world around them, from which they had been called out, they were ultimately judged by God as part of that world.</p><p><em>The daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite</em>-</p><p> Called a Horite (:20) because Hor was the area Zibeon lived in, although by ethnicity he was a Hivite.</p>


text:
<p><em>And Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter- </em>The Mahalath of <em><a href='B:10 28:9'>Gen 28:9</a></em><em>. Ishmael had </em>been circumcised into the covenant but chose not to remain in it.</p><p><em>Sister of Nebaioth</em>-</p><p> "High places", another hint at idolatry.</p>


text:
<p><em>Adah bore to Esau Eliphaz- </em>The Eliphaz the Temanite of the book of Job, who it seems eventually came to know God through Job's forgiveness of him and prayer for him. So we see here how relationship with God skipped a generation, as often happens.</p><p><em>Basemath bore Reuel</em>-</p><p> "Friend of God". We wonder if as with Eliphaz, this was another example of a spiritual person emerging from an unspiritual background and genealogy. </p>


text:
<p><em>Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam, and Korah- </em>Again the names are not indicative of spirituality, these three respectively meaning things like "Hasty" (like Esau), "Occult" and "Bald".</p><p><em>These are the sons of Esau, who were born to him in the land of Canaan</em>-</p><p> Esau's family is set up as a fake Israel. Jacob's sons are presented as all born outside Canaan from non-Canaanite women, whereas Esau's sons were all born to him from local Canaanites, and were in that sense Canaanites. </p>


text:
<p><em>Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, with his livestock, all his animals, and all his possessions, which he had gathered in the land of Canaan, and went into a land away from the presence of his brother Jacob- </em>Leaving the land of promise is tantamount to taking oneself out of the things of God's Kingdom. It is never used in a very positive way. Esau went out from the land of Canaan into Edom, maybe slinking away from the face of his brother Jacob, sensing Jacob's righteousness and his own carnality; he didn't want to inherit the Kingdom, he wanted a kingdom for himself in this life. "Went out" is the language of Judas going out (<em><a href='B:500 13:30'>Joh 13:30</a></em>), Cain '"went out" (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>), as did Zedekiah in the judgment of Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:300 39:4'>Jer 39:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 52:7'>Jer 52:7</a></em>). Even in this life, those who leave the ecclesia 'go out' after the pattern of Judas, condemning themselves in advance of the judgment by their attitude to the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:690 2:19'>1Jn 2:19</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:510 15:24'>Act 15:24</a></em>). The unrighteous flee from God now, as they will then (<em><a href='B:350 7:13'>Hos 7:13</a></em>). The ungrateful servant "went out" and condemned his brother- thus condemning himself (<em><a href='B:470 18:28'>Mat 18:28</a></em>). Yet Peter in this life "went out" from the Lord (<em><a href='B:480 14:68'>Mar 14:68</a></em>) and then some minutes later further "went out and wept bitterly" (<em><a href='B:490 22:62'>Luk 22:62</a></em>), living out the very figure of rejection at the judgment-&nbsp; and yet was able to repent and come back. In this life we can be judged, condemned, weep... but still repent of it and thereby change our eternal destiny. But at the final judgment: it will be just too late. That 'judgment' will be a detailed statement of the outcome of the ongoing investigative judgment which is going on right now. </p>


text:
<p><em>For their substance was too great for them to dwell together, and the land of their travels couldn’t bear them because of their livestock</em>-</p><p> Circumstances repeat within the experiences of God's family and of human beings generally, with whom God is working. This is exactly the language of Abraham and Lot separating from each other for the same reason. And Lot went off to a land, Sodom, which was the spiritual death of most of his family.</p>


text:
<p><em>Esau lived in the hill country of Seir. Esau is Edom</em>-</p><p> The primary audience of Genesis was Israel on their wilderness journey; perhaps so much detail is given about Esau's descendants, and the emphasis is upon "Esau is Edom" (:1,8,9,43) because Israel were passing through or near these peoples. Genesis sought to explain to Israel the historical background of those peoples; they were their distant relatives, who had chosen not to be part of the Abrahamic line of promise, although individuals amongst them did so, as I have noted several times in this chapter.</p>


text:
<p><em>This is the history of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir</em>-</p><p> See on :8. The Israelites who first heard "Genesis" were "many days" in this hill country (<em><a href='B:50 2:1'>Deu 2:1</a></em>), and were told that God had given this area to Esau as a possession (<em><a href='B:50 2:5'>Deu 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:4'>Jos 24:4</a></em>). Esau as the direct grandson of Abraham could have had the promises of inheritance of the <em>eretz</em> relevant to him; but he chose to go out of that land. Mount Seir was just outside the promised land (<em><a href='B:60 15:10'>Jos 15:10</a></em>). And so God accepted that and gave him an inheritance in Seir, although without the promises of eternal inheritance and of the saviour seed. He wanted a possession immediately in this life, and God gave Esau what he really wanted.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the names of Esau’s sons: Eliphaz, the son of Adah, the wife of Esau; and Reuel, the son of Basemath, the wife of Esau</em>-</p><p> Reuel, friend of God, may have been a believer, despite having a father and mother and maternal grandmother who didn't want the things of the Kingdom promises. The new creation in Christ means that we are free of such background influences if we truly respond to the word of promise. </p>


text:
<p><em>The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz</em>-</p><p> This could be the "Eliphaz the Temanite" of the book of Job, who (unlike most of his relatives) had <em>El</em>, God, in his name, and who thanks to God's grace and Job's prayer for him, is presented as finally being a penitent believer. So not all Esau's line were outside of God's salvation purpose; always, individuals can step out against the wind of their environments, and forge a relationship with God. </p>


text:
<p><em>Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah, Esau’s wife</em>-</p><p> Amalek became a major enemy of Israel; but his father Eliphaz was a believer, if as suggested on :11 he is the Eliphaz of the book of Job. And so we see what is apparent in the records of the kings of Judah; good men have bad sons and bad men have good sons. Spirituality is personal and not inherited; and bad background is not an insurmountable handicap to faith and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. These were the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife</em>-</p><p> Again, the names of the sons are distinctly unspiritual, especially bearing in mind the Semitic way of giving a name to a person which reflects their character. Respectively, these names mean "declining", "sun rising" and "wasting". Their birth names could have been recorded, but instead the names they were known by later are recorded. </p>


text:
<p><em>These were the sons of Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, Esau’s wife: she bore to Esau Jeush, Jalam, and Korah</em>-</p><p> As noted on :5, these three respectively meaning things like "Hasty" (like Esau), "Occult" and "Bald". And as explained on :13, people were born with a name but then were known by another name, which reflected their later character, appearance or experiences. We have a prime example here, in the name "Korah" which means "bald" or strictly 'one who has become bald'; hardly a birth name for a baby boy. The fact the names of the children often reflect paganism or other unspirituality (e.g. "hasty" and "occult") is therefore a reflection of how they actually became known in their lives. And Esau's descendants are full of such spiritual wasters. </p>


text:
<p><em>These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau: chief Teman, chief Omar, chief Zepho, chief Kenaz</em>-</p><p> Some Kenizites (Caleb and Othniel) were adopted into Israel (<em><a href='B:60 14:14'>Jos 14:14</a></em>), confirming the picture we get here- that some individuals could always break free of family environment and associate themselves with God's purpose and promises. As the twelve sons of Jacob were to be princes of Israel, so the sons of Esau were "chiefs" or sheikhs. We have here the idea developed that the children of Esau were an imitation Israel; they too were blessed materially, but without the spiritual dimension which was present in the people of Israel, God's people.</p>


text:
<p><em>Chief Korah- </em>See on :14. It seems Eliphaz had a grandson and also a brother of this name (:5). "Sons of Adah" could easily mean 'grandsons' as well.</p><p><em>Chief Gatam, chief Amalek: these are the chiefs who came of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah</em>-</p><p> This would have been significant information for the Israelites in the wilderness who first heard Genesis, as they fought with Amalek (<em><a href='B:20 17:8-9'>Exo 17:8-9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Reuel, Esau’s son: chief Nahath, chief Zerah, chief Shammah, chief Mizzah: these are the chiefs who came of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Basemath, Esau’s wife</em>-</p><p> Respectively, the names mean 'He who declines', 'dawn' (maybe with pagan reference)and 'he who faints from fear'. Again, bear in mind that these names were not birth names, but reflected how these men became known.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau’s wife: chief Jeush, chief Jalam, chief Korah: these are the chiefs who came of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau’s wife</em>-</p><p> Oholibamah, "tent of the high places", was remembered for her idolatry in her name. And women were only associated with tents on the high places because of their prostitution, as "worship" there was male oriented. Esau married a cultic prostitute, and bore him three children. This is a tacit admission of his own idolatry. As noted on :5, the names of the sons are not indicative of true spirituality, these three respectively meaning things like "Hasty" (like Esau), "Occult" and "Bald".</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Esau (that is, Edom), and these are their chiefs</em>-</p><p> The preceding verses have listed 14 "chiefs" who came from Esau. Jacob had 12 sons and two adopted sons counted as his sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) making 14. Again we see Esau's descendants presented as a mirror of the true people of God, an anti-Israel, a fake imitation of the true. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah</em>-</p><p> The idea is that they were formerly the inhabitants of that land, but were driven out by the Edomites (<em><a href='B:50 2:12'>Deu 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 2:22'>Deu 2:22</a></em>), an encouragement to Israel in the wilderness who first heard Genesis to likewise drive out the tribes from their allotted possession as Edom / Esau had done. The sons of Seir are listed amongst the descendants of Esau perhaps on the basis of the idea that Gentile peoples were counted as his descendants, just as was to be true, in a different sense, of Abraham's true seed. As noted on :19, Esau's nation is portrayed as an imitation of the true people of God. Or it could be argued that the similarities are because God chose to bless Isaac's son in this life, but without the eternal and Messianic dimension which was attached to the line through Jacob.</p>


text:
<p><em>Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. These are the chiefs who came of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom</em>-</p><p> Again the names are hardly suggestive of true spirituality; Dishon and Ezer respectively mean "the trampler", "man of treasure". "Dishan" is another form of "Dishon"; it would be likely that Dishon died prematurely and so was as it were replaced by Dishan. </p>


text:
<p><em>The children of Lotan were Hori and Heman. Lotan’s sister was Timna</em>-</p><p> "Heman" means "raging anger", continuing the uncontrolled passion of the moment which was seen in Esau. The Chronicles genealogy likewise contains the uncommon mention of a woman. Why this special mention of Timna ("restraint") as being the aunty of "Heman", "raging anger"? Perhaps to continue the theme developed here- that out of all this unspirituality and unrestrained human nature, there were various individuals who were different and rose above their surrounding environment. This is of huge encouragement to us today. See on :23,26,43.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Shobal: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam</em>-</p><p> Shobal = 'overflowing'; Alvan = 'haughty'; Manahath = 'rest / peace'; Ebal = 'naked'; Shepho = 'naked'; Onam = 'strong man'. As noted on :22, in the midst of these names with sexual and other very human connotations, Manahath has a much nicer meaning. Perhaps again we have one spiritual person amongst unspiritual siblings. See on :22,26.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah. This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father</em>-</p><p> This continues the similarities between the faithful family and the Edomites; for Isaac was also noted for discovering wells / springs.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Anah: Dishon and Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah</em>-</p><p> Oholibamah means 'tent of the high places' and women were only famed for such places because they were cultic prostitutes there. Women are rarely named in these records unless there is some significance to them; and perhaps the idea of this reference is to show that Esau's family included a woman famed for her cult prostitution. But it is twice emphasized in this verse that this sad woman was the daughter of Anah, 'one who gives heed / pays attention'; and Anah is mentioned nine times in this genealogy, more than anyone else. Although she is described as a "son of...", "son" can simply mean 'child of'. Perhaps she is singled out for her obedience, but the point is clearly made that a spiritual person can have very unspiritual offspring.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran</em>-</p><p> Hemdan = 'desirable wine' (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 27:2'>Isa 27:2</a></em> AV "red wine"); Eshban = 'vigorous growth'; Ithran = 'excess'; Cheran = 'angry'. We have the same idea as noted on :22,23; in the midst of very unspiritual names, we have one which speaks of something positive, of growth. Out of all this unspirituality and unrestrained human nature, there were various individuals who were different and rose above their surrounding environment. This is of huge encouragement to us today.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan</em>-</p><p> Bilhan = 'humble'; Zaavan = 'not at peace'; Akan = 'twister'. As noted on :26, we again have here one spiritual name in the midst of very unspiritual ones, remembering that names were attached to individuals according to what they were known well for. See on :22. </p>


text:
<p><em>These are the children of Dishan: Uz and Aran</em>-</p><p> Job lived "in the land of Uz" (<em><a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a></em>), another reminder that out of all this unspirituality, there were spiritual individuals within the line of Esau who rose above all the bad environment. Aran means 'shouter' and Uz means "fertility man", although Strong suggests otherwise. Fertility and paganism were well connected; out of this bad environment came the "perfect" Job. </p>


text:
<p><em>These are the chiefs who came of the Horites: chief Lotan, chief Shobal, chief Zibeon, chief Anah</em>-</p><p> Anah is mentioned nine times in this genealogy, more than anyone else; see on :25. Although she is described as a "son of...", "son" can simply mean 'child of'. Perhaps she is singled out for her obedience, but the point is clearly made that a spiritual person can have very unspiritual offspring such as Oholibamah. We note that Oholibamah was a woman but also a chief (:41).</p>


text:
<p><em>Chief Dishon, chief Ezer, and chief Dishan: these are the chiefs who came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir</em>-</p><p> See on :21.</p>


text:
<p><em>These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel</em>-</p><p> The hint therefore is that Israel's desire for a king was in order to be like the nations around them, such as Edom. And by so doing they were rejecting God as their king, and becoming like those such as Edom who had left the family of faith.</p><p>However, the reference could be to Moses as "king" of Israel effectively (<em><a href='B:50 33:5'>Deu 33:5</a></em>), and the idea may simply be that this was how things were before the time of Moses. The list of kings we now have could be a chronological list of those who reigned in the area up until the time of Moses and the book of Genesis being completed, which would explain why the last king in the forthcoming list is not recorded as dying, whereas the others are (:39).</p>


text:
<p><em>Bela, the son of Beor, reigned in Edom. The name of his city was Dinhabah</em>-</p><p> "Robbers' den" (Gesenius). As noted on :33, Job overcame this bad background, as we can, to become a truly spiritual person. Balaam is very close to "Bela" and was also "the son of Beor", and if there is a reference to Balaam, then it would be in that he is framed as related to this man and similar to him. Again we get the impression that knowledge of Yahweh was not totally absent amongst all the descendants of Esau.</p>


text:
<p><em>Bela died, and Jobab, the son of Zerah of Bozrah, reigned in his place</em>-</p><p> According to the addition to the book of Job found in the Septuagint, this is Job. Again we see how individuals amongst the otherwise unspiritual line of Esau did turn to the true God and were accepted in covenant relationship; some of the names and localities of his three friends also occur in this list of Esau's descendants and associates. In this case we marvel at the spiritual growth of Job, coming from such an unspiritual background, with the previous king living in a city called "Robbers' den" (see on :32). </p>


text:
<p><em>Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place</em>-</p><p> Teman is apparently near Petra and Mount Paran (<em><a href='B:420 3:3'>Hab 3:3</a></em>), as is Dinhabah (:32). We can therefore assume that Job lived in that area too. </p>


text:
<p><em>Husham died, and Hadad, the son of Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place. The name of his city was Avith</em>-</p><p> Israel in the wilderness were the primary audience of Genesis, and they too smote Midian (<em><a href='B:40 31:8'>Num 31:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 13:21'>Jos 13:21</a></em>). The fact others had "struck Midian" was therefore recorded as encouragement to them; and we too are intended to be inspired by Biblical history, realizing that our experiences are not totally unique, but in essence are repetitions of Biblically recorded situations and past victories. </p>


text:
<p><em>Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place</em>-</p><p> Masrekah means "vineyards" and we assume he was famed for his wine; contributing to the generally negative spiritual tone found in most of these names. "Samlah" likewise means 'mantle', perhaps a referring to the mantles used in religious rituals.</p>


text:
<p><em>Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the river, reigned in his place</em>-</p><p> "The river" is the Euphrates, which formed the boundary of the promised land; again the impression is given that the people of Esau chose to live outside the promised land.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>Shaul died, and Baal Hanan, the son of Achbor reigned in his place</em>-</p><p> Strong offers "possessor of grace" as the meaning of Baal Hanan, which would fit in with the theme of there being occasionally very spiritual people amongst the otherwise unspiritual line of Edom, encouraging us also to rise up against the factors of environment and hereditary; for his father Achbor means 'attacker'. But it could equally mean the Baal or Lord of Canaan, even though they were not in Canaan. </p>


text:
<p><em>Baal Hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place. The name of his city was Pau. His wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab</em>-</p><p> More detail is given about this Hadar, and his death isn't recorded. I suggested on :31 that&nbsp; this list of kings could be a chronological list of those who reigned in the area up until the time of Moses and the book of Genesis being completed, which would explain why this last king in the list is not recorded as dying, whereas the others are. In this case, Hadar would be "the king of Edom" with whom Israel had dealings in <em><a href='B:40 20:14'>Num 20:14</a></em>. </p>


text:
<p><em>These are the names of the chiefs who came from Esau, according to their families, after their places, and by their names: chief Timna, chief Alvah, chief Jetheth</em>-</p><p> There are only 11 recorded here compared to the 14 earlier in this chapter. This could be because some were assimilated into others; or because what we now read is a list of their localities rather than of individuals, and there may have been more than one "chief" within the same single locality. </p>


text:
<p><em>Chief Oholibamah, chief Elah, chief Pinon</em>-</p><p> Oholibamah ('tent of the high places') was a woman, and I suggested on :29 that Anah was also a female chief. Elah = 'oak tree', associated with paganic shrines; Pinon = 'distracted'. All evidence of paganism and unspirituality. </p>


text:
<p><em>Chief Kenaz, chief Teman, chief Mibzar</em>-</p><p> Kenaz = 'hunter'; Teman = 'stronger', Mibzar = 'strong hold'; all the language of human strength and prowess. See on :43.</p>


text:
<p><em>Chief Magdiel, and chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession. This is Esau, the father of the Edomites</em>-</p><p> Iram = 'wisdom of the city'. The names of the other chiefs in :41 and :42 were all very unspiritual and some have definite paganic hints. Therefore Magdiel, 'precious to God', stands out in its meaning. Again as noted on :22, we are being shown that out of an unspiritual lineage, family and environment, individuals can be transformed and overcome all that to be part of God's covenant purpose. This is significant encouragement for we today who can feel swamped by unspiritual environments.</p>


text:
<p><em>Jacob lived in the land of his father’s travels, in the land of Canaan</em>-</p><p> The significance of this statement is that Jacob was intended to live in Canaan and had suffered hugely in order to leave Mesopotamia. The contrast is between the Hebrew term for "lived", which means 'to settle down', and that for "travels", which means to live temporarily. Although Isaac spent more of his life in the<em> eretz</em> than Jacob did, he moved around a lot in the land; whereas Jacob settled down permanently (relatively speaking) in one location. </p>


text:
<p><em>This is the history of the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers. He was a boy with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father</em>-</p><p> The sons of Bilhah (Dan and Naphtali) and Zilpah (Gad and Asher) were perhaps the least connected to the Jacob family and the promises. Perhaps this was what led to their poor behaviour which Joseph reported. "Was feeding the flock" could mean "was the shepherd of the flock"; although very young, he had been pronounced 'chief shepherd' by Jacob, as a way of investing him with the titles and roles of the firstborn after Reuben had lost that role. In this case, we see again how Joseph is set up as a type or representative of the Lord Jesus, the chief shepherd of Israel's flock.</p><p>The patriarchs having more than one wife at a time signals that all was not well morally within the Abraham family. The repeated way in which they lied about their wives also indicates that they didn't take their marital responsibilities as they should have (<em><a href='B:10 12:13'>Gen 12:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:3'>Gen 20:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:7'>Gen 26:7</a></em>). &nbsp;Abraham's apparently casual relationship with Hagar, Judah's use of a harlot (apparently the sort of thing he often did), Esau's many carnal wives, Dinah's love affair, Reuben's incest (<em><a href='B:10 49:4'>Gen 49:4</a></em>)... all this creates a certain impression of weakness in this area. Joseph's evil report regarding his brothers may well have featured news of their playboy escapades while far away from usual family life (note the similarities with <em><a href='B:90 2:23-24'>1Sa 2:23-24</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p><em>Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age- </em>Here the Spirit frames the record in Jacob's favour. We have shown that most of Jacob's children were born within a few years of each other, and in any case, Benjamin was the youngest. It seems that the Spirit is almost making a weak excuse for Jacob's favouritism, or perhaps picking up Jacob's self-justification for his favouritism and treating it as if it is valid. This is imputed righteousness. Jacob should have learnt from all the problems caused by his father's favoritism towards Esau and his mother's towards himself. But he didn't, and just as both Abraham and Isaac lied about their wives, so this weakness of having favourites continued from Isaac to Jacob.</p><p><em>And he made him a coat of many colours- </em>A priestly robe (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 3:21'>Gen 3:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 29:5'>Exo 29:5</a></em>) which likely went with the firstborn's responsibilities. Jacob therefore dressed in Esau's clothes, and he seems to have wanted to use this opportunity to reflect his own experiences to his sons. Maybe Jacob made Joseph the firstborn after Reuben (the firstborn) slept with Bilhah. There seems to have been something unusual about the Lord’s outer garment. The same Greek word <em>chiton</em> used in <em><a href='B:500 19:23-24'>Joh 19:23-24</a></em> is that used in the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:3'>Gen 37:3</a></em> to describe Joseph’s coat of many pieces. Josephus (<em>Antiquities</em> 3:7:4,161) uses the word for the tunic of the High Priest, which was likewise not to be rent (<em><a href='B:30 21:10'>Lev 21:10</a></em>). The Lord in His time of dying is thus set up as High Priest, gaining forgiveness for His people, to ‘come out’ of the grave as on the day of Atonement, pronouncing the forgiveness gained, and bidding His people spread that good news world-wide. </p>


text:
<p><em>His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and couldn’t speak peaceably to him</em>-</p><p> They wouldn't greet him with the standard <em>shalom </em>greeting. This hatred "grieved" Joseph deeply (<em><a href='B:10 49:23'>Gen 49:23</a></em>); Jacob says that it was as if Joseph had archers shooting at him, so we can assume that he had several attempts to harm or kill him before the incident now recorded. This means that Jacob sending Joseph alone to them was done with his full knowledge that harm was going to arise, and his attitude was a window onto the feelings of God as He sent His Son to his brethren. According to that parallel, Jacob sent Joseph to them hoping that without his presence, he would somehow reconcile them to himself. See on :13. It meant also that Joseph's willingness to go to his brothers alone was spiritually motivated; for he would surely have sensed what might happen.</p>


text:
<p><em>Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers, and they hated him all the more</em>-</p><p> This parallels how the Lord spoke forth what He heard from God (<em><a href='B:500 8:38'>Joh 8:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:50'>Joh 12:50</a></em>) and was hated unto death for it. Joseph likely didn't want to speak forth what he had been shown, and he did so with the spirit in which we may nervously share God's word and plan with those whom we know will hate us for saying it. The same word for "hated" is used in the promise that the Messianic seed would triumph over those who hated him (<em><a href='B:10 24:60'>Gen 24:60</a></em>). It was their hatred which was therefore the background of the dreams, which I suggest were extensions of the Abrahamic promise repeated to Joseph; for the dreams stated as much, that Joseph would triumph over those who hated him, i.e. his own brothers.</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to them, Please hear this dream which I have dreamed</em>-</p><p> This is entreaty, as if he is asking them to believe something they don't want to. Perhaps if they had fallen before him then, accepting he was the chosen firstborn and spiritual leader, then the whole sad history of the next chapters need not have happened. The dreams were an invitation to "hear" them and respond to them. In this we see the open ended approach to God to the fulfilment of His will and prophetic plan. And yet perhaps Joseph was repeating the mistake of Jacob, in insisting that in this life he should be accepted as the firstborn. Before birth it had been decreed that Esau should serve Jacob, but that was only to come true in the future. But Jacob wanted it in this life. And Joseph possibly made the same mistake, in wanting the brothers to accept him in this life as the firstborn. The way the dreams feature his mother bowing to him, when she was dead, was surely a hint that the intended fulfilment was not in this life but at the resurrection. And the fulfilment was not essentially in Joseph, but in the future Messianic seed whom he represented and prefigured. Jacob's final comment upon Joseph is that he was representative of the future Messianic seed (<em><a href='B:10 49:22-26'>Gen 49:22-26</a></em>), but if they had all been more Christ-centred then all the personal angst against Joseph would not have happened.</p>


text:
<p><em>For behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright; and behold, your sheaves came around, and bowed down to my sheaf</em>-</p><p> The patriarchs were shepherds and cattle herders- not sedentary crop farmers. The dream transported them into another world or situation other than what they knew then. The dream was God's way of giving the Abrahamic promises to Joseph. He was being given more detail- that his mother Rachel would be resurrected, and along with his brothers, would all bow down to his sheaf, which also would be lifted up (another hint at resurrection?). Jacob in Genesis 49 understands all this correctly, finally- that it spoke not so much of Joseph, but of the Messianic seed whom he typified. This means that the bowing of the brothers to Joseph was but a primary fulfilment of the promise. It wasn't complete, because Rachel was not there. Joseph was likened to a sheaf (37:7)- and Christ was the wave sheaf (<em><a href='B:30 23:11-12'>Lev 23:11-12</a></em>). It was "his sheaf", Messiah, who was to be worshipped by all Israel. The things of the Kingdom / land were revealed in the picture of fruitful grain harvests, and those of the Name of Jesus in the way that Joseph is being set up as a type of the Messianic seed. Perhaps if the brothers had immediately accepted him as such, then the course of history would have not gone as it did. The way the promise had a primary fulfilment as the brothers bowed to Joseph in Egypt fits in with the theme of the promises all having initial fulfilment in this life, but pointing forward to the more significant future fulfilment. </p><p>Jacob had quite wrongly sought to obtain the blessing of the firstborn, which included the wording that his family should bow down to him (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em>). Although he had resigned that stolen blessing to Esau when he repented on the night of wrestling, Jacob still likely disliked the message being repeated here- that he was to bow down to others, in this case, his young son Joseph or the Messianic seed represented by him.</p>


text:
<p><em>His brothers said to him, Will you indeed reign over us? Or will you indeed have dominion over us? They hated him all the more for his dreams and for his words</em>-</p><p> This was the Lord's experience: "We will not have this man to reign over us" (<em><a href='B:490 19:14'>Luk 19:14</a></em>), "We have no king but Caesar" (<em><a href='B:500 19:15'>Joh 19:15</a></em>). But "have dominion" is the Hebrew word used of how Joseph ruled over all Egypt and those who came to buy corn from him such as his brother (<em><a href='B:10 45:8'>Gen 45:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 45:26'>Gen 45:26</a></em>). However, that was but a primary fulfilment; the main fulfilment must be yet future.</p>


text:
<p><em>He dreamed yet another dream- </em>The double dream of <em><a href='B:10 41:32'>Gen 41:32</a></em> was a sign of absolute certainty of fulfilment. When Pharaoh had two dreams, and the prisoners together had two dreams, Joseph would have recalled his double dreams, and would have thereby been encouraged that they would be fulfilled too.</p><p><em>And told it to his brothers, and said, Behold, I have dreamed yet another dream: and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me</em>-</p><p> It must have taken Joseph quite some courage to explain the dreams to his brethren. "He dreamed yet another dream, <em>and</em>&nbsp; told it his brethren" (AV). There was quite likely a certain bucking up of courage in the spirit of the Lord Jesus at age 30, when he 'came down from Heaven' and started preaching the glories of his future Kingdom to a cynical Israel. This is our struggle, to tell forth the things revealed to us. As noted on :36, Potiphar and Pharaoh both mean "sun", and had temporal mastership over Joseph. When Pharaoh ("the sun") pointed out that in the throne, he would be above Joseph... he must have remembered this dream. We have established here the basis for how sun, moon and stars, the figurative heavens, refer to Israel and its leadership, or founding fathers.</p>


text:
<p><em>He told it to his father and to his brothers. His father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Will I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves down to you to the earth?</em>-</p><p> This reveals how Jacob's view of the promises, even at the age of 108, was very much on a surface level. Rachel was dead (<em><a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a></em>), and Jacob mocked the suggestion that she would ever "come" to bow to her son as it implied a resurrection. It has been suggested that Joseph had the dream as a very small child, before the death of Rachel. But the dream spoke of his eleven brothers; so that is not a possibility, unless his dream was also a prophecy that Jacob would have another son.</p><p>Jacob’s anger with Joseph's claim that all his brothers would bow down to him is explicable when we remember that Isaac had promised Jacob that this would be <em>his</em> blessing (<em><a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a></em> cp. 37:10). Yet at the end, he realized that the promised blessings didn't <em>only</em> apply to him on a personal level, and he even conferred such a blessing on Judah (<em><a href='B:10 49:8'>Gen 49:8</a></em>).&nbsp;See on :7.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>His brothers envied him- </em>As Israel envied Moses for spiritual reasons (<em><a href='B:230 106:16'>Psa 106:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>), so they did the Lord(<em><a href='B:470 27:18'>Mat 27:18</a></em>), after the pattern of the brothers' spiritual envy of Joseph. Spiritual envy leading to persecution is quite a common feature in Biblical history (Job, Jeremiah, Paul...). And it isn't absent from the Christian experience either. &nbsp;Envy is a great theme in the Abraham family. The Philistines envied Isaac (<em><a href='B:10 26:14'>Gen 26:14</a></em>); as (we can assume) Laban did Jacob; Rachel envied Leah (<em><a href='B:10 30:1'>Gen 30:1</a></em>); Joseph's brothers envied him (<em><a href='B:510 7:9'>Act 7:9</a></em>). Family friction certainly stalked the generations. Jacob against Esau, Isaac against Jacob, Ishmael against Isaac, Sarah against Hagar, Joseph's brothers amongst themselves (<em><a href='B:10 45:24'>Gen 45:24</a></em>). Envy of Israel by the world and friction within Israel has been a continued characteristic (what similarities with spiritual Israel?). Yet there was also a soft streak there; Esau and Jacob evidently had a certain affection for each other and willingness to truly forgive (Esau more so than Jacob!); Abraham truly cared for lot's fate in Sodom on at least two occasions; and the brothers genuinely cared for Benjamin and the grief of their father. </p><p><em>But his father kept this saying in mind</em>-</p><p> As did Mary , mother of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 2:19'>Luk 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:490 2:51'>Luk 2:51</a></em> it is recorded that Mary “kept these sayings”. It could be that she had pondered from the LXX of <em><a href='B:10 37:11'>Gen 37:11</a></em> how Jacob “observed” (s.w.) the saying of Joseph / Jesus, and therefore felt that she too must meditate on all the words associated with her Son. She speaks in <em><a href='B:490 1:55'>Luk 1:55</a></em> Gk. of “<em>the</em> seed of him”- she understood the seed of Abraham to be Messiah, her son, and makes many references and allusions to the promises to Abraham. She had clearly reflected upon her ‘first principles’.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p><em>His brothers went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem</em>-</p><p> About 60 miles from their base in Hebron.</p>


text:
<p><em>Israel said to Joseph, Aren’t your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them. He said to him, Here I am</em>-</p><p> The fact Jacob sent Joseph with the priestly robe, which wouldn't have been worn apart from in a religious context, suggests he intended Joseph to conduct a religious ceremony with them, which he hoped they would accept. See on :4. He wished the ceremony to give them "peace" (:14).</p><p>Joseph readily responded to his father's desire that he go to his brethren: "Here I am". Isaiah, another type of Christ, uttered similar words before his mission to Israel (<em><a href='B:290 6:8'>Isa 6:8</a></em>), and the Lord's spirit was likewise (<em><a href='B:650 10:7'>Heb 10:7</a></em>). Yet in both Joseph and Isaiah there must have been a sense of apprehension, sensing the persecution that would come. In line with the typology of Joseph and Isaiah, there was a point when the Lord received and responded to His Father's commission. This may have been some time in His teens; perhaps 17, as with Joseph? Or at 30 when he began His ministry and came "into the (Jewish) world"?</p>


text:
<p><em>He said to him, Go now, see whether it is well with your brothers, and well with the flock; and bring me word again. So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem</em>-</p><p> “Go... see whether it is well with your brothers" is the same Hebrew as in <em><a href='B:90 17:18'>1Sa 17:18</a></em>, also typical of the Lord. He was sent to the shepherds and the sheep of Israel. This accounts for the special effort he made to appeal to the Jewish religious leaders, even when it seemed he was wasting time with them. Jacob wanted there to be "peace" for them ("it is well" = <em>shalom</em>, peace), which was the Lord's mission likewise; whom "God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>). We recall that they had not even given Joseph the "peace" greeting, and Jacob thought that the keeping of the ritual would rectify that. Perhaps the conclusion intended is that keeping religious rituals will not of itself bring peace between brethren.</p>


